Hey! It looks like you're new here. You might want to check out the introduction.
>>QuillScratch
That was a very well reasoned set of arguments and I find myself in agreement more often than not.
So many topics, as you said, and it is helping me understand why I got some of the reactions I got. At the very least, I know now that in the future I need to keep my critiques strictly to what I understood from reading the story, not attempt humor, and not state how it will affect my voting. I sense community permission to briefly suggest an edit if it illustrates my point.
I can't reply to everything at once, so this reply is likely not my last. In your first paragraph you state something key:
Sensing that would have negated my argument as the statement being an assertion that required lampshading! I did not get this sense, however—but it may be what the author intended. Reviewing the story in this light, let's pay attention to that the story is in first person and that an intentionally separate paragraph makes this statement emphatic:
This to me feels like third person, especially in casual reading and thus an assertion. However, were it written,
Well! ...that becomes personal and firmly the opinion of the first person narrator and not a global assertion by the author that requires predicate. In my opinion you have uncovered the true fault (accidental change of POV), and I feel I've learned something. I spent decades writing third person and have in the last four years switched to first. I see how I could make this very same error. I know now to check for it. Thank you.
As for lampshading, I may not be using it strictly, but other authors have understood my intent. It is indeed not exactly explaining, but making sure the reader/viewer doesn't get stuck on something in a story by writing a plausible, or at least plausible to the character, reason to believe. In my discussion and rewrite above adding the "I saw that" prefix to the sentence makes me positive that the first person narrator believes what he said but is his opinion alone. Further pinning it in reality then is "followed in time by literacy", demonstrated in the narrative, makes the full statement powerful indeed.
Truly, I meant what I said. In my opinion the story was good, but flawed by six words—or three missing ones. I could and did imagine the story being fixed, but I could not rate based I what I imagined. In the future, I see that stating such could be inflammatory and I won't do that again. Once more, thank you.
That was a very well reasoned set of arguments and I find myself in agreement more often than not.
So many topics, as you said, and it is helping me understand why I got some of the reactions I got. At the very least, I know now that in the future I need to keep my critiques strictly to what I understood from reading the story, not attempt humor, and not state how it will affect my voting. I sense community permission to briefly suggest an edit if it illustrates my point.
I can't reply to everything at once, so this reply is likely not my last. In your first paragraph you state something key:
as perceived by the narrator
Sensing that would have negated my argument as the statement being an assertion that required lampshading! I did not get this sense, however—but it may be what the author intended. Reviewing the story in this light, let's pay attention to that the story is in first person and that an intentionally separate paragraph makes this statement emphatic:
Faith was the first to die...
This to me feels like third person, especially in casual reading and thus an assertion. However, were it written,
I saw that faith was the first to die, followed in time by literacy...
Well! ...that becomes personal and firmly the opinion of the first person narrator and not a global assertion by the author that requires predicate. In my opinion you have uncovered the true fault (accidental change of POV), and I feel I've learned something. I spent decades writing third person and have in the last four years switched to first. I see how I could make this very same error. I know now to check for it. Thank you.
As for lampshading, I may not be using it strictly, but other authors have understood my intent. It is indeed not exactly explaining, but making sure the reader/viewer doesn't get stuck on something in a story by writing a plausible, or at least plausible to the character, reason to believe. In my discussion and rewrite above adding the "I saw that" prefix to the sentence makes me positive that the first person narrator believes what he said but is his opinion alone. Further pinning it in reality then is "followed in time by literacy", demonstrated in the narrative, makes the full statement powerful indeed.
Truly, I meant what I said. In my opinion the story was good, but flawed by six words—or three missing ones. I could and did imagine the story being fixed, but I could not rate based I what I imagined. In the future, I see that stating such could be inflammatory and I won't do that again. Once more, thank you.
Wow. Your post sounds compelling and relevant. I need (and want) to study it and will get back within a day (life is getting in the way right now).
>>QuillScratch
Suspension of disbelief by the reader is usually considered essential. As a writer, I want my readers to feel that the characters and events in my story are real. If I say the sky is purple, I need to explain why. If I don't say it's twilight or it's an alien planet or that I am wearing oddly tinted sunglasses, my readers are going to think something is unreal and then distrust everything I write from then on. In No_Raisin's story, the author states that there was a complete loss of faith. History and current political events around the world demonstrate that adversity makes many people turn toward faith rather than away from it, however illogical that may seem. This is my observation. As a critic, I explained that this assertion contrary to my reality threw me out of an otherwise fine story. It is up to No_Raisin alone to ponder why or to ignore me completely. Though I resist rewriting others' stories, No_Raisin could have written, "The great religions nuked themselves into oblivion and proved to the world there was no god, or at least one anyone wanted to believe in." That would have restored verisimilitude. That is lampshading. It is the secret sauce of great writers.
I am not patronizing your friends. I approach this site as a professional writer and assume everyone else does too. I follow the rules I stated in an earlier reply. I am simply giving my honest opinion of what I found wrong with a story. It is a personal communication between me and No_Raisin, and, frankly, I'm astounded that No_Raisin, considering his or her stated opinion, found it important to even write back! No_Raisin obviously doesn't think my critique is valid. Telling me I'm a fool or stuck up or wrong-thinking doesn't make me want to retract what I stated. It only makes me sad that an obviously talented potentially professional writer has an ego that is filtering out potentially important feedback from a reader.
Last, I do not understand why "friends" have piled on in order to protect their friend here from some imagined slight. Patronizing would have been for me to enter this event but to not have critiqued every other entry. I wrote nine critiques. First of all, their (what feels like) attacks on me may have colored No_Raisin's read of my critique and as a result deprived him or her of a valuable insight! Second, it is never useful to justify. If a reader doesn't get it, he just doesn't get it. Either shrug and move on, or ask yourself why didn't he get it. It's just a practice story. We are all writing tens of thousands of words or more per year. Except for the one truly great publishable story in this round—and that wasn't mine—it's just words and practice. Write it, learn from it, and throw it away.
Suspension of disbelief by the reader is usually considered essential. As a writer, I want my readers to feel that the characters and events in my story are real. If I say the sky is purple, I need to explain why. If I don't say it's twilight or it's an alien planet or that I am wearing oddly tinted sunglasses, my readers are going to think something is unreal and then distrust everything I write from then on. In No_Raisin's story, the author states that there was a complete loss of faith. History and current political events around the world demonstrate that adversity makes many people turn toward faith rather than away from it, however illogical that may seem. This is my observation. As a critic, I explained that this assertion contrary to my reality threw me out of an otherwise fine story. It is up to No_Raisin alone to ponder why or to ignore me completely. Though I resist rewriting others' stories, No_Raisin could have written, "The great religions nuked themselves into oblivion and proved to the world there was no god, or at least one anyone wanted to believe in." That would have restored verisimilitude. That is lampshading. It is the secret sauce of great writers.
I am not patronizing your friends. I approach this site as a professional writer and assume everyone else does too. I follow the rules I stated in an earlier reply. I am simply giving my honest opinion of what I found wrong with a story. It is a personal communication between me and No_Raisin, and, frankly, I'm astounded that No_Raisin, considering his or her stated opinion, found it important to even write back! No_Raisin obviously doesn't think my critique is valid. Telling me I'm a fool or stuck up or wrong-thinking doesn't make me want to retract what I stated. It only makes me sad that an obviously talented potentially professional writer has an ego that is filtering out potentially important feedback from a reader.
Last, I do not understand why "friends" have piled on in order to protect their friend here from some imagined slight. Patronizing would have been for me to enter this event but to not have critiqued every other entry. I wrote nine critiques. First of all, their (what feels like) attacks on me may have colored No_Raisin's read of my critique and as a result deprived him or her of a valuable insight! Second, it is never useful to justify. If a reader doesn't get it, he just doesn't get it. Either shrug and move on, or ask yourself why didn't he get it. It's just a practice story. We are all writing tens of thousands of words or more per year. Except for the one truly great publishable story in this round—and that wasn't mine—it's just words and practice. Write it, learn from it, and throw it away.
>>No_Raisin
Critique, receiving or giving, must be an egoless pursuit. This is my opinion from decades of experience. I still feel awful when I receive unsettling critiques, but I still ask for them.
When you receive a critique it is best to look at what you are given back as one reader's response to reading your work—nothing more. The critic's words are neither right nor wrong. Further, it is up to you to decide if it is even relevant to you. If not, discard it. I like to deduce why my writing caused unexpected reactions or misconceptions. I never attack the critic as being wrong-headed.
Regardless, I've been trained to give and take critiques in the Clarion method and have run a few workshops. I've had newbies break into tears and throw-up, and I do my best to prevent that by going over certain ground rules.
Giving:
1) Never attack the author.
2) Discuss anything that doesn't work.
3) Explain what you think may have fixed it, but don't rewrite the story.
4) Don't copyedit.
Receiving:
1) When you receive a critique, the best response is to only say "Thank you."
2) Only if you don't understand something written, or the critic skipped something you wanted commented upon, ask specifics.
3) Never justify your position as the critic obviously didn't get what you meant from what you wrote.
4) Never attack the critic. You've gotten back your words processed through the critic's brain and that's valuable.
5) Never take it personally.
If you cannot divorce your ego from your writing when asking for a critique, you will lose receiving the perspective of a reader who read, processed your words, and is willing to tell you what he or she thought. Take your work to a friend or relative if you want nice, not to a colleague as you did here.
Last, I will point out that I said:
Note I emphasized "my understanding". That's because... that's my opinion (not yours). If fact, what I shared in my critique and my replies is all my opinion, including the "must, must, must" bit. (It's an MLP reference and was meant to be humorous.) I honestly stand-by my advice about lampshading. You might ask yourself why did he feel this way? You might even ask me. Or you could discard it as irrelevant.
Critique, receiving or giving, must be an egoless pursuit. This is my opinion from decades of experience. I still feel awful when I receive unsettling critiques, but I still ask for them.
When you receive a critique it is best to look at what you are given back as one reader's response to reading your work—nothing more. The critic's words are neither right nor wrong. Further, it is up to you to decide if it is even relevant to you. If not, discard it. I like to deduce why my writing caused unexpected reactions or misconceptions. I never attack the critic as being wrong-headed.
Regardless, I've been trained to give and take critiques in the Clarion method and have run a few workshops. I've had newbies break into tears and throw-up, and I do my best to prevent that by going over certain ground rules.
Giving:
1) Never attack the author.
2) Discuss anything that doesn't work.
3) Explain what you think may have fixed it, but don't rewrite the story.
4) Don't copyedit.
Receiving:
1) When you receive a critique, the best response is to only say "Thank you."
2) Only if you don't understand something written, or the critic skipped something you wanted commented upon, ask specifics.
3) Never justify your position as the critic obviously didn't get what you meant from what you wrote.
4) Never attack the critic. You've gotten back your words processed through the critic's brain and that's valuable.
5) Never take it personally.
If you cannot divorce your ego from your writing when asking for a critique, you will lose receiving the perspective of a reader who read, processed your words, and is willing to tell you what he or she thought. Take your work to a friend or relative if you want nice, not to a colleague as you did here.
Last, I will point out that I said:
Your assertion goes completely against my understanding of human nature—faith will be the first to flourish following catastrophe—so, you must, must, must, show or say why not so I can willing suspend disbelief (pun intended).
Note I emphasized "my understanding". That's because... that's my opinion (not yours). If fact, what I shared in my critique and my replies is all my opinion, including the "must, must, must" bit. (It's an MLP reference and was meant to be humorous.) I honestly stand-by my advice about lampshading. You might ask yourself why did he feel this way? You might even ask me. Or you could discard it as irrelevant.
>>Oblomov
For me, to hold back an opinion in a critique is wrong. It is up to the author alone to assess its validity to his or her work. My point is that an assertion such as cited without explanation or lampshading to one reader's experience gravely hurt the story. It is up to the author to accept or discard my observations; better yet, to try to figure out why one in ten readers thought not substantiating it ruined the story.
For the record,I disagree that being a common trope in games and fiction makes it accepted wisdom. And the why a game designer chose to assert that is important (possibly to simplify narrative) or an author, probably to make a point about the human condition. My guess is re-examining your citations might find a finer grain meaning than the trope itself.
For me, to hold back an opinion in a critique is wrong. It is up to the author alone to assess its validity to his or her work. My point is that an assertion such as cited without explanation or lampshading to one reader's experience gravely hurt the story. It is up to the author to accept or discard my observations; better yet, to try to figure out why one in ten readers thought not substantiating it ruined the story.
For the record,I disagree that being a common trope in games and fiction makes it accepted wisdom. And the why a game designer chose to assert that is important (possibly to simplify narrative) or an author, probably to make a point about the human condition. My guess is re-examining your citations might find a finer grain meaning than the trope itself.
>>Posh
I do not read other's critiques before or after I write my own. My critique is and can only be taken as what one reader understood reading a story without the influences of others. It is a dialog between me and the author alone.
A critique is by definition a different, yes biased, point of view that allows a writer to know the affect his or her words have had on another's mind, to dismiss or use the insight as he or she sees fit. I endeavor never to attack and to state my plain unvarnished thoughts.
And, you misunderstood. I could have speculated on how the author might have substantiated the assertion that kicked me out of the story, but that would be my edit of the author's writing. I rated the story on what I read, not what I thought the writer was capable of doing to fix my objection should he or she have considered my thoughts on the subject even worthy of the effort. To have withheld the one thing that for me ruined a great story would have been a grave disservice. To not have stated my opinion that simple lampshading could have fixed it would have been condescending. Mine was an opinion and my language plainly states that.
I suggest you think long and hard before you next critique another's work. Would you really censor yourself and not share information as I did? Do you think the author is fragile flower incapable of considering me a fool if he or she disagrees, or of wondering "why did he say that?" Certainly you should think about this before you receive your next critique because it is not for the faint of heart.
I do not read other's critiques before or after I write my own. My critique is and can only be taken as what one reader understood reading a story without the influences of others. It is a dialog between me and the author alone.
A critique is by definition a different, yes biased, point of view that allows a writer to know the affect his or her words have had on another's mind, to dismiss or use the insight as he or she sees fit. I endeavor never to attack and to state my plain unvarnished thoughts.
And, you misunderstood. I could have speculated on how the author might have substantiated the assertion that kicked me out of the story, but that would be my edit of the author's writing. I rated the story on what I read, not what I thought the writer was capable of doing to fix my objection should he or she have considered my thoughts on the subject even worthy of the effort. To have withheld the one thing that for me ruined a great story would have been a grave disservice. To not have stated my opinion that simple lampshading could have fixed it would have been condescending. Mine was an opinion and my language plainly states that.
I suggest you think long and hard before you next critique another's work. Would you really censor yourself and not share information as I did? Do you think the author is fragile flower incapable of considering me a fool if he or she disagrees, or of wondering "why did he say that?" Certainly you should think about this before you receive your next critique because it is not for the faint of heart.
Yours is the last story I read so it gets the perspective of critiquing all the rest. Three stories with religious themes this time! Something about unimportant days? Not sure...
What I am sure is that your story did entertain me. I felt the three heads angle was somewhat refreshing, though the names were too difficult to follow and slowed it down. While the plot felt creative, and it was, it also felt vaguely hackneyed. I suppose every writer must do an Adam and Eve story, and the pun at the end did bring a smile to my face. Together with the entertainment value, it kept your story midway in my voting.
So, you've done your Adam and Eve. Good. It's out of your system. Don't do that again.
What I am sure is that your story did entertain me. I felt the three heads angle was somewhat refreshing, though the names were too difficult to follow and slowed it down. While the plot felt creative, and it was, it also felt vaguely hackneyed. I suppose every writer must do an Adam and Eve story, and the pun at the end did bring a smile to my face. Together with the entertainment value, it kept your story midway in my voting.
So, you've done your Adam and Eve. Good. It's out of your system. Don't do that again.
I have to say you wrote about a disagreeable protagonist in a pretty vivid manner, and I give you credit for making me relate to the venue and the situation of the antagonist(?) pretty viscerally. In all that, I am not sure I was made to care about the characters or the message, which I gather is "making a bad first impression is something that will follow you forever, so no day is truly unimportant." Having been accused of writing characters that are initially hard to empathize with, I could see this as the beginning of a story about "the fall" and "the redemption," but, sadly, this fragment can't be that. I make a point of not letting other's critiques color my critiques, but unfortunately my eyes fell on a few sentence fragments of the above commentators, so I am going to abstain from critiquing the characters or points of view. I see strong writing, but I think you need to consider your readers and this is an example of a story that did not win me over.
Yep.
Extra points for creativity.
I liked this. A lot, But I am a SF and fantasy writer, so maybe I'm biased, though that ought to mean I'm jaded. So...
I'm not sure if you're channeling Theodore Sturgeon or Ray Bradbury here, but damn fine work. This is something you should be able to sell. I'm thinking New Yorker or some other mainstream mag that publisbes a little fiction. It might even sell in-genre. It's short and sweet, has great instantly relatable albeit monstrous characters, and pushes a relevant but not preachy message. Oh, yeah, did I mention it's playful and fun?
It's perfect for a super short fic. Don't expand it or over edit.
Very good work.
Extra points for creativity.
I liked this. A lot, But I am a SF and fantasy writer, so maybe I'm biased, though that ought to mean I'm jaded. So...
I'm not sure if you're channeling Theodore Sturgeon or Ray Bradbury here, but damn fine work. This is something you should be able to sell. I'm thinking New Yorker or some other mainstream mag that publisbes a little fiction. It might even sell in-genre. It's short and sweet, has great instantly relatable albeit monstrous characters, and pushes a relevant but not preachy message. Oh, yeah, did I mention it's playful and fun?
It's perfect for a super short fic. Don't expand it or over edit.
Very good work.
Lots of questions. Much ambiguity. It's in-theme and pleasant enough, but in the end I'm unsure of your message or your intention. Knowing there's nothing more, I'm not sure I really want to care. However, were this page one of a larger work...? Much ambiguity. Lots of questions!
Well, I'll give you that it was entertaining. Life is what you make of it and no day is unimportant unless you allow it, which feels inverted as to the theme but I'm not quibbling. It felt somehow autobiographical. It's fitting for the audience of ten authors that submitted this time, but I'm not sure outsiders would get it. Lots of ideas, but none that grab. Yeah. My entry resembles that comment, so I'll say naught more but practice is practice.
Herein was a good idea that was competently executed, but for one major flaw. All assertions in a story must be believable from the point of view of the reader as well as the POV character. I liked where you were going with this, but an assertion like the following must be substantiated or the entire story unravels:
It may have been absolutely true in the context of the story. I am not arguing that. Another writer on this website introduced me to the term lampshading (linked). Your assertion goes completely against my understanding of human nature—faith will be the first to flourish following catastrophe—so, you must, must, must, show or say why not so I can willing suspend disbelief (pun intended). You didn't do that. All verisimilitude was lost. For the lack of a couple dozen words...
Filling in the blank, as I must only do in the context of writing a critique. i.e., assuming that you had substantiated the assertion, everything else about the story felt solid. Needless to say, I can't rank your story based on what you might have written.
Faith was the first to die...
It may have been absolutely true in the context of the story. I am not arguing that. Another writer on this website introduced me to the term lampshading (linked). Your assertion goes completely against my understanding of human nature—faith will be the first to flourish following catastrophe—so, you must, must, must, show or say why not so I can willing suspend disbelief (pun intended). You didn't do that. All verisimilitude was lost. For the lack of a couple dozen words...
Filling in the blank, as I must only do in the context of writing a critique. i.e., assuming that you had substantiated the assertion, everything else about the story felt solid. Needless to say, I can't rank your story based on what you might have written.
Well played, well played indeed. The twisty little words we weave, eh?
The telegraphy in this story was palpable and thematic in exactly the way that my high school lit teacher praised Finnegans Wake, something I didn't understand then but live now. While you shoveled like beach sand your philosophy about valuing the moment, and nailing the theme incidentally, you also created a sense of angst and foreboding while illuminating character and drawing the reader, me, unrelentingly to the end. Locked in my conclusion of what would be, that ending hit me like a sledgehammer and drove your message home. It all seems perfectly planned, the loaded words, the melancholy tone... If it wasn't, study what you did here.
Good job.
The telegraphy in this story was palpable and thematic in exactly the way that my high school lit teacher praised Finnegans Wake, something I didn't understand then but live now. While you shoveled like beach sand your philosophy about valuing the moment, and nailing the theme incidentally, you also created a sense of angst and foreboding while illuminating character and drawing the reader, me, unrelentingly to the end. Locked in my conclusion of what would be, that ending hit me like a sledgehammer and drove your message home. It all seems perfectly planned, the loaded words, the melancholy tone... If it wasn't, study what you did here.
Good job.
This is a very cool story, and I mean that colloquially and temperature-wise. You show people as they are and why that matters differently to them, and thus the theme. The story is also measuredly low-key (there doesn't always have to be big conflict in a story) and it flows nicely in that way from the page to the head. The POV choice was perfect. Hidden in it are little gems of philosophy like:
That was not the only one, but it struck me.
In my opinion, fiction has two duties: Get across a message (the author's philosophy) and second, to make the reader think or to ponder your words long after reading the last one you wrote. I believe that's what you have here, perhaps because Mort de l'Auteur and my context as not exactly young, but there you go. If you don't understand what I've asserted, pick up the story in a month or so and read it with fresh eyes. Then study it. It will bode well for your career.
Regardless, good job.
While we sat around the table and ate, I noticed how old people talk funny. They’re always going on about things they used to do or people they used to see or what they think about things going on right now. I don’t really know what’s going on right now. None of that bothers me.
That was not the only one, but it struck me.
In my opinion, fiction has two duties: Get across a message (the author's philosophy) and second, to make the reader think or to ponder your words long after reading the last one you wrote. I believe that's what you have here, perhaps because Mort de l'Auteur and my context as not exactly young, but there you go. If you don't understand what I've asserted, pick up the story in a month or so and read it with fresh eyes. Then study it. It will bode well for your career.
Regardless, good job.
Very intriguing. There were a few awkward constructions, but over all a very clean manuscript. I like how you kept to the theme and how the parallelism between the characters helped set up a nice ethical thought problem. It's a good idea and mostly well executed. I do have a criticism: Naming Jesus was unnecessary and lessened the story's impact dramatically. If ever there was a place for the ambiguous ending trope, this was it. I'd wager no reader had any doubt as to who the characters were once you threw in the loaded word, disciple. Leaving the identities unstated, ambiguous, strips the story of religiosity (or anti-) and allows the reader to think and ponder unrestrained. In my mind, that is what a writer aims for: getting the reader to think long after putting the story down. Try reading the story without the penultimate sentence. Regardless... good story.
On theme and competently written. I give you credit for setting the scene visually and creating characters that had their own agendas and realistic feelings. Good message. Good work.
I can see what you're doing here, and I think that while it's a good story, I think length constraints do make it hard to achieve. Telegraphy of snippets is a good choice, and it really does set up the situation, but it has its limitations. While the news articles stage the transition to C's cognition and decision, and each communicates an passion of its own, the whole chain (the definition of C's existential crisis) is devoid of emotion. You created a clockwork of logic, but what it lacks—and this is only one reader stating broadly and telegraphically—is pony tears. It's the missing pendulum to make it tick. Totally. Add that and enough verbiage to make us see and feel C's sense of isolation, and the story might be publishable. Except for the burning paper, it's all tell and no show.
I see the intricate weaving of grief and emotion here, but it feels muddled all the same. Mourning often rips the soul like that, so I'm sorta okay with that, but also disappointed. This story would have benefited from revision and polishing.
The story's one fatal flaw was implying the denouement rather than showing it. The emotion of explicitly describing the sun* would have generated the emotional heat that would have burnt away the foggy sense building throughout the entire story.
I usually ask writers not to justify their work after receiving a critique because that'should must be a personal journey for them and I am but one reader whose own context should not be ultimately trusted. Justification just sours your relationship with the critic. Mort de l'Auteur. I'd typically advise you to say "Thank you" to all your crits and just silently ask yourself if anything stated was helpful or enlightening.
But still, I am asking you, why not show?
I'd written off your story and wasn't even going to give a critique, and spent time asking myself why when I figured out what I asserted above to be true about your story. Vague endings are justified when you want the reader to decide their own ending: I wrote a novel where either the main character genuinely interacted with the spirits of the dead, or she was insane but good at managing her insanity. Why? I wanted readers to question their religious beliefs or lack thereof.
So. Author. Why?
*Yes, I am implying Celestia's face is on the sun.
The story's one fatal flaw was implying the denouement rather than showing it. The emotion of explicitly describing the sun* would have generated the emotional heat that would have burnt away the foggy sense building throughout the entire story.
I usually ask writers not to justify their work after receiving a critique because that'
But still, I am asking you, why not show?
I'd written off your story and wasn't even going to give a critique, and spent time asking myself why when I figured out what I asserted above to be true about your story. Vague endings are justified when you want the reader to decide their own ending: I wrote a novel where either the main character genuinely interacted with the spirits of the dead, or she was insane but good at managing her insanity. Why? I wanted readers to question their religious beliefs or lack thereof.
So. Author. Why?
*Yes, I am implying Celestia's face is on the sun.
Stories like this, with lots of potential radiating from the core idea, oft run afoul of the time restraints of an event like this one. You didn't finish or couldn't revise or failed to reread. I am going to assume that happened. If that's the case, don't read any further.
This line is says precisely what I want to say to you as the author. I understand that Gos has a power not unlike Luna's in the Tantabus episode and that she is like some godlike powerplant of the soul. What I don't get is the message you are trying to impart or why I should feel more than detached horror that she basically killed the pony nation. I sense a metaphor, but not its intention.
What caused you the most issues is the totally emotionally-flat writing. Everypony spoke mechanically. Even Gos, in her relief from maintaining the connections should have cried or raged or even moaned. Think of Lord Tirek when he eats alicorn magic. The characters demonstratively didn't care, so I couldn't care. Tell not show.
The choice of no stock characters or MLP situations was fatal. This could have been a mainstream fantasy, though Sturgeon or Bradbury would have found something to kick the reader in the ass.
There was no sense of place to relate to. It wasn't even Equestria based on the 100 year reference in the story. Except for the energy strands and Gos's green eyes, I saw nothing. No houses, trees, grass, ponies... nothing. I didn't even smell horse sweat or the ozone of a spell cast, or have a sour taste when the horror revealed itself. Did he sweat, was it hot or cold when the world ended? Was there a crackle or buzz in the treads? Enough said.
I sense you could do better. Next MLP event, go with a stock or at least background character. Don't make your work so hard.
“That does not explain,” he said coolly, “why you care about bond magic.”
This line is says precisely what I want to say to you as the author. I understand that Gos has a power not unlike Luna's in the Tantabus episode and that she is like some godlike powerplant of the soul. What I don't get is the message you are trying to impart or why I should feel more than detached horror that she basically killed the pony nation. I sense a metaphor, but not its intention.
What caused you the most issues is the totally emotionally-flat writing. Everypony spoke mechanically. Even Gos, in her relief from maintaining the connections should have cried or raged or even moaned. Think of Lord Tirek when he eats alicorn magic. The characters demonstratively didn't care, so I couldn't care. Tell not show.
The choice of no stock characters or MLP situations was fatal. This could have been a mainstream fantasy, though Sturgeon or Bradbury would have found something to kick the reader in the ass.
There was no sense of place to relate to. It wasn't even Equestria based on the 100 year reference in the story. Except for the energy strands and Gos's green eyes, I saw nothing. No houses, trees, grass, ponies... nothing. I didn't even smell horse sweat or the ozone of a spell cast, or have a sour taste when the horror revealed itself. Did he sweat, was it hot or cold when the world ended? Was there a crackle or buzz in the treads? Enough said.
I sense you could do better. Next MLP event, go with a stock or at least background character. Don't make your work so hard.
Intense.
Competently written.
Not sure what the point was of having me read through that or how it fit the prompt. It didn't so much end as it concluded abruptly.
Since it wasn't one of the Cutie Remark time loops or they would have used the parchment and left, or it was and there is no reason that Starlight didn't activate it, or Twilight was proving something by wrecking their chances, or Starlight was proving she was strong and Twilight weak... Can you see that I see there's no determinate story here, just a stream of consciousness I cannot fathom the meaning of?
I'm guessing your entry is an incomplete submission. So, I'll keep with the competently written assessment. One nitpick: If you don't have an em-dash on your keyboard, the manuscript convention is two hyphens (dashes).
Competently written.
Not sure what the point was of having me read through that or how it fit the prompt. It didn't so much end as it concluded abruptly.
Since it wasn't one of the Cutie Remark time loops or they would have used the parchment and left, or it was and there is no reason that Starlight didn't activate it, or Twilight was proving something by wrecking their chances, or Starlight was proving she was strong and Twilight weak... Can you see that I see there's no determinate story here, just a stream of consciousness I cannot fathom the meaning of?
I'm guessing your entry is an incomplete submission. So, I'll keep with the competently written assessment. One nitpick: If you don't have an em-dash on your keyboard, the manuscript convention is two hyphens (dashes).
Good story and a nice take on the prompt with Lyra as the mirror and oh so brightly. Two things stood out as somewhat problematic.
This sentence ends in the conditional. That implies a future situation. I immediately thought this takes place before SD's big reveal. I was confused as I read on, though I figured it out within a dozen paragraphs.
The story ends at that paragraph. I was astonished to scroll up and find more. The rest is fluff, IMHO, especially considering that this isn't the beginning of a much larger story—which, incidentally, I would welcome.
Good exploration of character. Good depiction of emotions. Good work.
Her best friend suddenly revealing she wasn't the pony she seemed to be—that might do the trick!
This sentence ends in the conditional. That implies a future situation. I immediately thought this takes place before SD's big reveal. I was confused as I read on, though I figured it out within a dozen paragraphs.
Sweetie Drops tried to argue, but got a hoof stuffed in her mouth.
The story ends at that paragraph. I was astonished to scroll up and find more. The rest is fluff, IMHO, especially considering that this isn't the beginning of a much larger story—which, incidentally, I would welcome.
Good exploration of character. Good depiction of emotions. Good work.
I don’t quite know how I feel about peaches.
This describes how I feel about this story if you substitute this story for peaches.
It is a list of diary entries presented as blank verse. Yes, the sum total does tell a story, but not via plot, and in a secret way not intended to be read but by its fictional writer, which has its attraction even if you must intuit it. It has no conflict, unless you count recounted problems.
Your story is very meta. Intentionally. I usually can't judge experimental writing, but I think I can give this a go. Take this crit with that grain of salt.
I like the blank verse format, but think an HR tag between diary entries would make it easier to read.
I like the concept as a whole because it is an effective affective exploration of character—through confession, which further nuances it.
It challenges the reader to fill in a story, even if there isn't one.
I can see no reason to have chosen verse formatting when regular paragraphing would have worked perfectly well and made it easier to read.
It entertained me. I'm a lit-nerd.
It forced me to work, meaning I had to figure out what you were doing. After reading, I had to analyze it. I did both because I felt obligated by entering the contest along side you. This means that I got thrown out of the story in the first paragraph. Depending on what venue it was published in, with what type of introduction, that could mean no one would read it in its entirety. (I'm thinking but not limiting it to FimFiction.) Keep that in mind.
This meta story is very meta as to how it fits the prompt. To me, the diary entries are a reflection of AJ in a non-mirror medium. I'll ignore the brightly clause.
I'll say good job because, in its context, it works.
Paging WIP