I cannot really like this. You seem to take us for a ride there. I mean, time stops for a certain number of things, but not for people obviously, since they still can talk or hear each other or move, etc. On the other hand, you don’t give a damn about the physical consequences of your stopping things. Do you know what would happen to Earth if the Sun stood still in the sky (in other words, if the Earth stopped spinning?) They can feel pain, but not hunger? What if no plant grows anymore? How do they eat, etc.

So yeah, this is so difficult for me to fancy that it threw me off. Besides, what you describe here is rather people becoming immortal. So rewrite your story having people become immortal for w/e reason (a fancy virus that infects everyone) and the narrator finally discovering the poison that kills even immortal beings.

That will be better but it’s still a hackneyed trope you used there (Borges, for example, wrote about that long ago, and also the John Boorman’s movie Zardoz.

Machines of Death?

Okay, not quite, this tells "time left" not "cause of death" like the famous anthology. Still, good hook. But I feel the story kind of lags in the middle. Naoki's story about randomly peeking at other people and stuff does nothing to advance the tale.

My brain also couldn't help but recoil from the simple explanation of measuring the fourth dimension of a "person" as that requires some heavy philosophical decisions about what "identity" is in a temporal sense. Overlooking that...

The ending doesn't work for me. First, why would Naoki go out and push the elevator button, then shove the other guy out? Surely he can push the button himself. Weird and distracting thing to do. Secondly though, he shoots himself? Or someone was hiding, holding him hostage and about to shoot him (which is why he called his friend?) We really, really need to understand Naoki's (probably twisted) logic. Otherwise it's just a non-sequitur event that doesn't offer any resolution to the story.

For example, if he'd become convinced he must shoot himself, or else it'd mean the device was wrong (and he was a bad inventor) or something. Or maybe he'd done bad things based on readings (like steal from someone about to die, because it wouldn't matter) and now, if it was wrong, he was guilty.

But yeah, without that, this ending is unsatisfying.

Feels like this is basicaly fanfic for the movie Justin Timberlake movie, "In Time." (That they didn't name it "JustIn Time" is a tragedy.)

The analogy here, of time-as-money, is a decently strong one, and while the ending is a bit touching, it isn't as impactful as it should be. I slightly smirked, but didn't feel any real tug at the heartstrings, which is what I feel the story was going for.

So, interesting angle on the trope, but doesn't quite land hard enough.

As the others said, it’s a nice piece of fluff, but not much else. I’m left wondering how a boy who just fell from his bike and bruised himself can look at it and travel back to the day he got it. That's a bit of a stretched for me. Each time you bump you car you think back how nice it was when you bought it? :P

Other than that, it’s most introspective, and the end is… a bit meh?

Yet, definitely in my upper half.

Yeah, basically what the others said. I just flicked through this. Meh.

The concept is interesting. Though it is very much redolent of what you do when you sign up in the army.

I think you’ve lost a lot of space for unimportant things. Why should we know, for instance, that the doctor’s pen is cheap? What does that change? The end is also a bit too stretched. I think if you had redacted some lines, you would’ve packed a more punchy ending.

I mean, yeah, people are freaking out about the 750 words, and there’s a preconception floating around that if your story doesn’t near that limit, it must be bad. But no, sometimes you can pack a powerful story in just a handful of hundreds of words!

Middle up slate.

I really like the idea of the story: a dying man interacts with the stray cats around his house and looks at everything in his world through a hypersensitive lens. The story also does a good job in showing the dullness that slowly dying often entails, instead of the melodramatic pressure other stories try to create. I especially enjoyed the story ending before his death; the theme was already clear, and ending with him in the bed seemed like a fitting conclusion in a story that involved lots of walking and driving.

However, I think the story as a whole doesn’t entirely work. The narrator doesn’t really grab my attention, since everything we see involves him interacting with the cats and animal control. These events certainly reveal a few things about him, but not enough to where I really got invested in his oncoming demise. I also thought the scarred cat showing back up didn’t really work as a bookend, considering that the cat appeared in the section right before that. There wasn’t enough time to form much of an emotional resonance with him, unlike the Mama Cat he sees multiple times. Wouldn’t it have made more sense to see her again? It’s a small detail, but it’s one that I think really affects how readers interpret the final scene.

A story with a good tone, but needing a little expansion in everything else.

The main problem I have with this story is the fact that it’s what I call an “explain and explain” story (that, and the fact that the story seems eerily similar to that Torchwood series, “Miracle Day”). We’ve got a unique situation here, but we have to be told every facet of this situation in order for it to make sense. This in turn leads to a large amount of the word count being used to explain the situation instead of develop other aspects (like the characters or the pacing). This makes the story itself rather dull, since we’re simply being told what everything is instead of being shown it. I know this is a restricted word count story, but there probably could’ve been a way to show this world more organically.

An interesting premise dogged by lack of interesting characters and an excess of exposition.

>>Dolfeus Doseux
"Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers hammers."

So, this is basically the scene in 2001 where they pull Hal's circuits. I half expected the AI here to starting singing "Daisy" actually.

There's not much more to go on than that. It's not quite clear if this is an AI that just gained awareness, or a human mind upload that went wrong somehow. The latter could provide some more depth, but... we'd need details that just aren't present to get that.

Yeah, this is a nice three-part snapshot of a successful writer's life. Benny sticks with it, keeps putting himself out there, even after long hours, even when it costs him some friends who get turned off, and eventually makes it big (while still keeping his door open for everyone!) It's not super dramatic, writing about writing is the path of least resistance, a lot of the development is observed at odd angles from a distance, and the conflict is very understated, but this is pretty all right. Got me cheering for him!

... Oh hang on, the director's whispering in my ear. What? People are saying Benny's not the hero? We're supposed to sympathize with Dean, the self-absorbed, passive-aggressive POV character? Oh... oh. Mm. I, uh, I dunno about that one. Dean's kind of a jerk.

"That's... um..." Her smile fades and she looks to the center of the table. "...kind of rude," she almost whispers.
...
Benny gets to the big finish and everyone at the table glances at everyone else, feeding off each others' reactions.

You can see the difference between them right here. Dean tries to forge a connection by breaking Benny down, while Benny's busy telling stories that get people to build each other up with mutual enthusiasm. And, mind you, there's no way Benny doesn't know what Dean thinks of him. I've done those nineteen hour car rides, you can tell when someone's not into it. But Benny lets it go, does his best anyway, and keeps trying to encourage Dean when they meet later in life.

Minifics don't have a lot of room for subtlety, and when you lead with the POV character expressing strong opinions, most of the audience is going to go along with them uncritically, either via natural flow or trying to guess the author's intent. I don't know what the author's intent was here, I can't honestly guess whether we're "meant" to sympathize with Dean or Benny - but I also don't much care what the author intended. The words on the page stand by themselves. What I do care about here is clarity and execution, so unfortunately I have to count the ambiguous potential reads as a major drawback for this piece.

While that is a big deal, the rest of the piece is fairly solid. Good details, good characterizations (but maybe unintentionally so!), good format. Second biggest downside (arguably first, really, but I had to do the whole spiel above to bring focus to the reads) is that the hook is very weak. The piece could stand to trim around 150-200 words, drop some of the repetition and extraneous descriptions. Make things punchier, especially up front, and that will go towards fixing the hook at the same time. I don't understand the title. There's also no clear connection to the prompt... but eh, the prompt this round is so disappointingly weak that I can't bring myself to care; this is at least better than another "touching moment before the apocalypse" or "last thoughts of a dying person."

Overall a decent effort, probably going to wind up mid-high for me. Thanks for writing!

(And if the author or other readers do sympathize with Dean... don't. Be more Benny. You can be quiet and still make yourself heard in the right moments, if you're looking the right way and trying to build people up and increase enthusiasm. That's a different story, though.)

Could use a spell and typo check for sure. Moving past that, I feel this story isn't sure what it's trying to say. On the one hand, we have this urgency to start. Then a lot of introspection about the bike and the day he got it. But then we're back to the urgency, only to find out it's a sunset that the kid himself isn't even sure why he rides out to see.

The writing (typos ignored) sets a decent tone, and connected to something more substantial could really stand out. But good descriptive prose isn't enough to carry the story on its own.

Second person... ugh.

Meta... ugh.

About writer's block and procrastination... ugh.

Yeah, not much more to say. Well, it is well written (grammatically) for whatever that's worth. Otherwise, this is the sort of thing we've all written a hundred times. The secret is just to keep them all in your personal files and never show them to anyone.

>>Dolfeus Doseux
>>Oblomov
>>horizon
>>Ion-Sturm
>>GroaningGreyAgony
>>Monokeras

So, just a theory here... this is someone posting automatically generated text. As it's getting something approaching english, I'd suspect some sort of markov-chain generator, similar to the "gibberish" generators used to try and defeat spam filters.

If it isn't that, then author, congratulations, you scored worse than spam.

Unfortunately, poetry didn't win the prompt vote, so by my standards, this is not an appropriate entry for the competition. It cannot be fairly compared against prose minifics. I applaud the sentiment, and hope we'll have room for some dedicated poetry rounds in the future. But for now, this isn't the right venue.

I do think this is a fairly good effort at a poem, though. While it is free verse, it puts effort into being verse. It's very accessible, we can easily see what the poem is about (yoooooo dawg check this 10/10 I'mmaboutta bang), we can see a lot of devices at work in the presentation, and most importantly we can see the thought behind them.

Maybe a little too easily? The worst I can say about it is that it could use a bit more in the way of metaphor or theme. "Sex is great" is cool, but also very obvious. You can, shall we say, do better. Go deeper. Stronger, faster, harder, more fun, even if it looks messy.

So... thanks for writing! Keep at it, hopefully you have or can find a place to show off your poems and discuss them with others. Still bottom slating on principle, but this is far better developed than the efforts at poetry I've seen in previous Writeoff rounds, without a doubt.

Hmm, not much to add after reading the previous comments. I think this does a decent job of characterization, and it reads smoothly and pleasantly. As all four of these characters are new though, we don't really have any expectations of how they'll interact, so the idea that the ending is a subversion of expectations doesn't really work. Of course the lord of the underworld tells you to frack off.

Spectrometer is an instructment for detection "boosting it" sounds weird. This also, as has been pointed out, feels way, way too much like Half-Life.

Ignoring those two, this still doesn't add much to the basic "time loop" trope. Nothing stands out as particularly good or bad, so it's mostly too forgettable.

This is pretty good overall. What I think is missing is the initial sense of urgency. You do the "cold open" but then flash back to this guy bored, sitting in an empty room, tapping his fingers. The story ends in tension, and a change of mind about a sacrifice. That needs to build sooner. Instead, most of the middle section is just boring, generic "waiting" and then paperwork. Then the doctor just infodumps some jargon on us ("Awakening" and "Superhuman", which told me this is basically Agents of Shield) which gives it all away in one line. Build to that instead.

I do like the change at the end, that he's genuinely changed his mind and wants to take back the "noble" thing he was trying to do. That's atypical for these types of stories, so it's nice to see.

Ssssooooo... what did he do with the minutes, and why? The other comments make me feel like I missed the point of whatever happened here. Is it really just rewinding to avoid the saleswoman? The ol' "don't change your past or you'll lose all the good things!" trope?

If that's all that's going on, I have to fall on the side that finds that trope a little on the trite and overplayed side. All these Time Travel 101 issues have been beaten to death for me, as a lifelong reader of science fiction. It's a very difficult subject. If you want to write a time travel minific, the bar to meaningfully engage with is very high, and you really need more original flavor than this.

That's a bit beside the point, though. The execution here is on the fuzzy side, to where I can't even be sure that the above read is correct, it's just the most obvious conclusion. When I say you need more original flavor, I don't just mean you need some original idea, you need presentation and followthrough. This piece's presentation is all tell and no show. I kept highlighting bits as I read, intending to post something like "The opening is weak, you should skip the boring explanations and start here instead:" but "here" kept on moving as I read more. All the way down to:

“Hon, even you won’t remember.” The woman smiled.

Chop off everything above that point and you've lost nothing vital, the story still works! ... Which, unfortunately, says more about how little story-meat there is to begin with, and how the balance of essential elements to fluff is working here.

Then look at everything that got cut, and realize that in all of that, we still don't learn any names, motivations, details about the characters. We could have had a lot of development in that space, learned more about the shopkeeper, who she is, how she is, why she's selling minutes for a paltry $20 in the mall (we aren't even in the mall, I had just assumed that before checking, where are we? There's no setting either!) We could learn about the man and the daughter. Is she listening? Does she want some last minutes? Who are they, what's important to them, what do they want? There could be so much more, instead of repeating and overexplaining the premise.

This might all sound very negative and discouraging. Please don't take it that way, though. I'm putting this one as having been written by a non-native speaker, in which case the English is quite serviceable and needs only minor cleanups. (In particular, I don't mind "20$" because it's part of the handwritten sign, giving some character to the shopkeeper.) Even though this is more of an idea seed than a story, and needs a lot of rework to go anywhere, it's still readable and not too bad given the time and length constraints of Writeoff. Learn from this and take it up to the next level next time! Thanks for writing!

"Sepulchral" is a fantastic word.

As to the story, pretty much what everyone said. It's a cute idea, a little flimsy, but most mini entries are. The main letdown here is the execution. "Dark and cold" might be an okay hook, but repeating it twice, not so much. Dialogue, tone, and general prose all need work.

Getting into too many specifics is beyond the time I'm able to spend on a mini, but look up someone after the round and do a close read, and keep leveling up your prose skills. This piece heavily relies on intangibles of tone, word choice, dialogue shading, and precise manipulation of the reader's emotions to bring them along the line required for the idea to function. Composition is good, the idea fits in the mini format, there's a ton of potential here - it's just a polish-based piece that happens to be a little above the author's current level.

That's a very good thing, though. It's fantastic that you're challenging yourself and on the path to improvement. Much better to aim a little too high than too low. This is... *checks* Yep, this is actually first place on my slate so far, despite its shortcomings, because so many of the fundamentals are in place. Thanks for writing, keep it up!

>>Ranmilia
Not to be rude, Ran, but—what the hell kind of comment is this? How in the world does something being poetry make it "not an appropriate entry"? There's nothing in the rules against it. We've had verse/poems in past rounds that have done extraordinarily well, even winning past rounds, not in spite of their form, but because of it. You even admit yourself that you enjoyed it. How is it fair to anyone, especially the author, to bottom slate it because of some bizarre idea you have for what constitutes an "appropriate" entry? "It can't be compared fairly to prose pieces"... why not? We compare prose pieces from wildly different genres with wildly different expectations and standards and even formats all the time. Start Recursion, to use my favorite example, was most certainly a differently formatted and written story than any other prose piece in the round it competed in, but we still treated it with the same amount of respect. Would some extra lineation have changed that?

I'm not usually one to suggest abstaining, but if you really have such a reaction to an entry that you can't judge it on its merits and simply by its existence, I think that abstaining would be a much better option than penalizing the author for writing something you admit is good.

The Writeoff, especially minific rounds, have always been praised as and used as a place for experimentation. The thought that a format—poetry, no less—can be an "inappropriate" entry is both insulting and detrimental to the whole contest.

>>Dubs_Rewatcher
Well, we've been over this a few times in the past. The short answer is "you apply your standards, and I'll apply mine; my standards represent only my own views with a specific and narrow set of uses." Apologies to the author for this thread derail.

With regards to the rules:

This event's genre is Original. Submitted works to this event should fall under the following description:
Fiction not dependent on work under U.S. copyright.

My reading of this implies prose fiction, and excludes poetry, as poetry is not fiction as the term is commonly understood in literary pursuits. The Dewey Decimal System classifications provide a supporting example:

810 American literature in English
811 American poetry in English
812 American drama in English
813 American fiction in English
814 American essays in English
815 American speeches in English

I would not consider script-format drama or essays appropriate entries, either (and said so when the latter came up, not too long ago.)
The BISAC/BISG classification system also separates fiction and poetry at its topmost level of categorization. In every literary magazine or similar publication venue that I've checked the submission guidelines for, poetry uses a completely different set of guidelines and standards than prose pieces, if poetry is accepted at all. (And so do scripts and essays, where appropriate.) In every literary competition I'm familiar with, poetry and prose fiction are treated separately. I googled some just to make sure I'm not crazy here:
Phi Theta Kappa, separates into different formats
William Faulkner Competition, separates by format
Futurescapes, specifies prose only
Dorset Fiction Award, the only one I found on page 1 that doesn't explicitly disallow it, but read the second paragraph with regards to what they look for.

That last link is closest to my interpretations for this competition. I would say that there is clear consensus in the literary world that prose and poetry cannot be judged together in the same category of competition. Personally, all of my writing circles would simply hold it to be self-evident; this site is the only venue I've ever encountered where people consider it debatable.

But the letter of the rules, here, does not seem to be all that important. The rules also say that entries "must be based on the prompt to a reasonable and discernible degree," but when that's come up in the past, a number of people (including yourself, Dubs) have indicated that they completely disregard that rule and see no problem with doing so.

There are no hard or enforceable criteria on votes. "Enforcement at the fringes is done by voters," the rules say. So my vote is no more or less valid than anyone else's in that regard, no? In particular, I find the call to "abstain if you don't like it" unproductive and possibly disingenuous, since that is call to prevent my voice from being heard at all. But I do not have "no opinion." I have an opinion: that submissions that are not prose fiction are not appropriate for Writeoff. I want to actively discourage the submission of such pieces when they are not appropriate, and, recognizing that I have only one voice in that matter, I would still prefer them not to place anywhere over pieces that do follow the rules in the voting results. The abstain function is not an "opt out if you don't like it" button, and I frown on the suggestion it should be used that way.

With regards to fairness: therein lies exactly the reason why I believe and act as I do. I'm not doing this out of pedantry, you know, it's not like I enjoy bottom slating things. It is not fair to judge prose entries alongside poetry, or any other non-prose format! To do so, in my opinion, conveys disrespect to both/all relevant forms and authors. It is not fair to enter poetry in a prose competition. Different forms have extremely different writing processes and requirements.

To use the current round as an example, I think it's widely agreed that minific is a difficult format to practice in, and many if not most authors here struggle with telling a full story that fits into only 400-750 words. A glance at the gallery is telling: 19 out of 37 entries are 740+ words, a 20th is 739. Meanwhile, two entries are 400 words exactly, and three more are under 450, including this piece; all five of these are nonstandard entries that do not tell a "normal" prose story.

So how is it fair to the people struggling to get under 750, cutting sentences and paragraphs, having a hard time of that task but learning from it -- how is it fair to those people that someone submits poetry or a gimmick entry that completely sidesteps the requirements and does something not even in the same ballpark, and then people go "WHOA, MIND BLOWN, HOW CREATIVE"? How can you give feedback to the person whose prose places below this poem, how can you tell them "this is what you did wrong, this is how you can improve, here's how this piece that I ranked above yours did X and Y better"? It's not fair, and it's not fruitful. You can't learn how to write a better minific that way. The same goes in reverse: you can't learn how to write better poetry by comparing a poem to prose minifics. (And for other formats as well; I wasn't around for Start Recursion but going and reading it, I'd put it around an unimpressive midtier, that high only on strength of prose and general writing level.)

And, here may be the rub, learning how to write better is what I come to this site and use it for. I certainly have not praised the Writeoff as a place for experimentation, or used it for such, nor do I want to, nor do I think that's a good idea. I come here for the competition and workshop aspects, to compare pieces and by comparing them learn how to improve. I don't write and critique here to show off, or just for enjoyment (my own or anyone else's!) I'm here to learn what I can learn, and give back by teaching what I can teach as a peer. Please keep that in mind when reading any of my feedback: I am not giving any feedback on simple enjoyment, I am writing from the perspective of competitive and workshop style critique. I wonder if I should make a standard disclaimer at the start of every round, something like that?

Of course, not everyone does this, nor am I saying they should. Most people don't, and that's completely fine! Like I said, you and I have the same vote, and you're free to apply whatever standards you like. You may find it rude to say poetry is inappropriate; I find it somewhat rude when people say poetry and other gimmicks are appropriate, and keep encouraging their submissions. I find it somewhat insulting and definitely detrimental to the contest when people say "anything goes, nothing is inappropriate" and gimmicky or nonstandard entries get voted up and uncritically praised over pieces that did strain to follow the rules. That exact thing is the biggest reason why I can't take any "X placed well" talk remotely seriously; placement in Writeoff is ultimately for entertainment purposes only, as long as these attitudes continue. People could have voted the infamous Froggy to a medal position for the lulz, but that wouldn't make it any better as a piece of writing or say anything about the relative quality of other pieces in its round.

And so we shall continue, with all respect and much <3 to Dubs, the author of this piece, and everyone else in the Writeoff.

P.S. "bottom slate" isn't even strictly correct here, it's looking like there are at least four or five pieces that will eventually be going under this one for me. Original Mini unfortunately seems to attract the most gimmicks of any round by far, perhaps because it has the lowest barrier of entry.

Hmm, well. Vivid descriptions here, but as >>Not_A_Hat says, it's more of a snapshot than a story, and as he and >>AndrewRogue say, the lack of development of the narrator feels like the big missing piece. In its current state, the piece feels very "fanservicey." Like, I can tell that it's being written to me, the reader, to serve me up some fantastic setting porn and sense of wonder, rather than operating on internal logic or trying to "tell a story" or make some sort of point. The fourth wall feels thin, and the opening run-on not-really-a-sentence illustrates what I mean here.

So -- good effort. You can do better, though. Take some of this description and some of these ideas, and twist them around to go a step further: who is the narrator? What do they want? Why is this particular moment in time important, and what happens to bring it to a conclusion? Kick it up to the next level, get some plot and characterization, and make it a story instead of just a vignette or scene. You clearly have a handle on prose and descriptions, so I'm sure you can do it. Thanks for writing!

“Come here at once, I need to talk to you.” his text said.

Nice.

As to the story, >>GroaningGreyAgony covers my thoughts more or less exactly. I've seen this idea, I've seen similar ideas (Machine of Death as >>Xepher says), and since this is just a "present a neat SFF concept, explain it and have a punchline" piece, there's not a lot of wiggle room or new ground to cover.

Honestly, this sort of thing comes up very often in minis (Last Minutes --20$ and Sparking Skies on my slate already, and they probably won't be the last) and while I understand the temptation and difficulty in writing to the format, well... that's the challenge. You have to push beyond just "here's a cool concept," and tell a story using that concept as your starting point to get the bigtime scores and make readers really get invested in the ideas you're putting forth.

This is still looking fine relative to the field this round. Technicals are very sound, there's a lot of little details I love here, like the line I called out and the "wickedness of human nature" bit. Enjoy the praise, learn from the feedback here, and think about ways to push for more! Thanks for writing!

But the Sharks had Tim.

GAY LOVE STORY INCOMING. Now let's read the rest and see if I'm right.

Nope, wrong. ... probably. Oh well.

As far as I can tell, the sin in the first scene is the grumbling. It's a bit hard to spot.

Like everyone else is saying, I was with this for the first two scenes, but felt like I was waiting for a payoff that never came in the third, and the lack of payoff retroactively makes the piece feel incomplete and directionless. I feel like some essential elements were cut for time or length here, such that I really can't even guess what the idea behind the third scene is. The connection to the prompt, if there was ever going to be one, would probably have come in the ending as well.

Not much else to say. What got done is a very nice read, but it's clearly incomplete. I'll look forward to the author's notes on this one. Thanks for writing!

>>Not_A_Hat
Spot on. I was thinking Douglas Adams immediately, glad to see I'm not the only one. The goldfish realizing the world will end is a glaring point that doesn't make sense to me, glad to see I'm not the only one.

Doesn't quite gel as a story, but it's a nice stylistic tribute/experiment. Feels like this is close to as good as it could be for what it aims for; I think that aim is kind of low, but it would require major reworks to kick up and become a proper story, so eh, it is as it is. Thanks for writing!

>>Cassius
Seconding most of this.

I think using the word "Gorae" at all might not be ideal here. Some people are going to know what it means, others aren't and will suffer momentary confusion until the end of the piece brings it together. Why not just say "nuclear subs" and make it clear to everyone? I spent a few seconds confused and looking to find out if it was some science fiction explanation, maybe Gorae are aliens bombarding the planet with comets! Took away from the atmosphere a little bit.

As Cassius points out, the organization and mix between present action and exposition is clunky at times.

I'm also not completely sold on the premise, truth be told. Japan and South Korea already live in fear that today will be the day the Glorious Leader decides enough is enough and pride demands a Pyrrhic statement be made. It's just something that part of the world has to live with, and they've done so for decades. Is the aftermath of a short war and the fear of (one?) sub at large really so different as to bring Tokyo to this state in three months? Either evacuate the city or don't, yeah? Maybe this is nitpicking, but I do think that the core tensions could be slightly different to align better with the results we see.

The protagonist has no character, and so the piece comes off as very telly. A rework to put everything in Maki's perspective might help.

These are mostly all minor, high level tweaks. Obviously the piece is overall functional and the author's one of the better ones in the community and etc etc. Hella Japanese. Tighten it up and ease up on the maudlin, that's about all I got. Thanks for writing!

The reviews above me have pinpointed a number of problems with this entry, but... well, I'm the kind of person who likes to talk about why things work or not, rather than what is right or wrong. The way I see it, talking about these things in depth can help us all to be better writers... or, in this case, better poets. Worst comes to worst, hopefully we all learn something?

So, without further ado, let's talk about some of the stuff that doesn't quite work out in Last Minutes.

Take the metre, for example. Like, almost every stanza here is anapestic tetrameter, though there's a fair amount of iambic substitution (I'm not gonna count, but I think there might be more lines that open with iambs than anapests! But iambic substitution is a big part of anapestic metre anyway, so that's not a problem)... but there are a few places where the meter just doesn't add up. Iambic substitution works by dropping an unstressed syllable from the start of a line, but I've seen a few places where you've treated a line as two sets of anapestic dimeter and substituted an iamb in on the second one... and that doesn't quite work.

Here, this'll be easier to understand with examples rather than just jargon:

When all hope seems lost, then I'd intervene.

In context (because in the context of anapestic tetrameter, we all unconsciously try to read lines as close as possible to that meter!), that has the following meter: x/xx/,x/xx/ (x unstressed, / stressed). And you know, that's a pretty neat meter! But it stands out here because it breaks something that's very important to anapestic tetrameter: flow. You know how a lot of Dr Seuss' poems had that almost train-like rhythm to them, rattling forwards with momentum that couldn't quite be stopped? Substituting an iamb at the start of a line never hurt that momentum: in fact, it often helped it keep going by getting us to the next stressed syllable faster despite the pause of a line break. Here, though, substituting an iamb in in the middle of the line feels like a lurch in that train journey—it pulls us out of the rhythm and stops all that momentum you've worked so hard to build. Like I said, it's an excellent meter, but I don't think it's one that works with the context of this poem.

Here's a line that doesn't quite work for a different reason altogether:

So I'd be cursing myself, and regretting it then.

Which is: xxx/xx/xx/xx/. Now you might be tempted to assume that's a line in pentameter of some kind: a pyrrhic, an iamb, then three anapests. But the poem by this point is very firmly established in tetrameter, and it's so close to anapestic tetrameter that you're almost forced to read those first four syllables as something I learned just now is called a quartus paeon. The effect of that, of course, is to read those first three syllables really fast to fit them all in one foot, and that is rather uncomfortable. Again, this break in the metre is jarring and, in this case, trips up the momentum of the piece.

That's just a few examples of why some of the rhythms here aren't working. Remember, there's nothing wrong with varying your metre in poetry (just look at all the lines here with iambic substitution that totally get a pass!), but you should always keep in mind the effect that varying it will have, and how that fits into the flavour of the base metre you're using.

So with all that complaining about syllables out of the way, let's talk about the coolest thing in this poem: the refrain. Like most of the other stanzas, it's four lines of anapestic tetrameter... but you've taken the really interesting decision of breaking up the first and last lines into literal pairs, which gives them a totally different feeling. I actually quite like the effect of this, especially on the first line: giving the reader that space to pause and imagine before you plough onwards is a really cool little device and does a lot of good work for you. I'm less convinced on the final pair of lines, though in my defence that's probably because they don't even resemble anapestic meter, except that you might be able to argue that they have a few trisyllabic feet between them. Still, if you tidy them up, I can see how they could do just as much work as the first two!

And then there's the rhyme scheme. You know, given this entry is very much set up to be a child's bedtime poem, you'd expect to see a really strong, consistent rhyme scheme... and yet the rhymes here are all over the place. Some are half-rhymes, some feel rather forced, and in other places you abandon all semblance of a rhyme scheme and give us four lines with no rhyming endings at all! At first I'd thought this was going to be a really cool little trick ("oh, hey, let's break the rhyme scheme during the stanza where the character is taking about things being unique and different, and emphasise that by having no line-end rhymes!") but there ended up being more cases where I couldn't see a justification for the breakage than not. Ultimately, I think that weakened this piece.

Still, content-wise? This is cool. I love the idea on display here, and I think you've picked the perfect medium for it (and that's not an easy feat in and of itself!) Though I think the poem itself could do with a fair bit of tidying up, I don't think that detracts all that much from reading it—I know from experience quite how difficult strict metres can be, and I absolutely applaud the effort here. It's a really interesting take on the prompt, a really thoughtful and emotive piece, with an excellent structural frame. I really hope you work on this, author, because I'd love to see this tidied up. It's Flawed, but Fun, and I liked it a lot.

(I'm not going to give this story a HORSE score. Sorry, author—I'm not entirely sure how I'd apply the format to verse, particularly less-narrative verse like this, when it seems to have been a system primarily designed for discussing stories. So in lieu of that, I'm going to give you a quick three bullet-point list of poetry-specific things I think you should be looking towards focusing on in improving this piece:

• Rhythm and metre—which is why I spent so long talking about it in quite detailed terms above! I get the impression you've got a really strong grasp of what you want to do with metre in this poem, but either because of time constraints or simply mistakes (they happen to me all the time!) some parts that didn't quite work fell through the editing process. I know this'll probably take a lot of work to tidy up, but I also know you can do it because, despite all my complaints, most of the lines here have a really strong sense of meter.
• Forced word choices/order—there's a few places where, either to fit the rhyme scheme or the metre, you've messed with word order away from grammatical norms. That's pretty standard practice in a lot of poetry, but I'm not so sure it fits in children's lit, which this entry is ostensibly masquerading as. Maybe worth rethinking some of those?
• Punctuation—just a nitpick, really, but it's something I mentioned last round: all those repeated opening quotes are extremely weary on the eyes! I know why you've done it, but I'd really question this decision. There are a few other punctuation choices I'm not super convinced by, too. In poetry, punctuation is an incredibly important tool, and using it well can take an otherwise unexceptional poem and really make it shine!

Hope those tips and all the above come in handy, author, and I'm sorry if any of this sounds patronising. As someone who greatly enjoys writing verse, especially metred verse, I figured you might appreciate some feedback from a different angle than the comments above.)

Like >>Xepher said, this feels like it’s in the same universe as In Time, and it executes the idea of time as money about as well…that is to say, not very well at all. The main character has a decent amount of depth, but the story is so compressed that it makes it hard to really get a connection with him. I also didn’t think the theme of using your “last minute” really amounted to much, given how despite the warnings that people often run out of time, we never actually see anybody running out (unlike the aforementioned In Time). This is problematic, since we don’t really see a reason why people should think about their last minute, which sort of renders the story’s whole point moot. If there’s no consequences for dilly-dallying with your time, why think so intensely about it? The one thing I enjoyed is that the story’s told in a whimsical, fable-like way, almost as if it’s a man reflecting on a dream instead of his life. It’s an interesting tone to take, but it’s not enough to really make this story work for me.

So I know this is a metafic and everybody’s comments are mostly lighthearted, but I’m going to be “that guy” and judge this story purely by its merits as a story. And I’m sorry to say that it didn’t work for me. For one, it’s a tad too much insanity for me to stomach. Between the stuff in outer space and the villains on the ground, the story never took a break. Wacky and crazy stories are fine, but there needs to be some kind of lull in the madness for us to really get a firm grip on this tale; otherwise, this is just “Word Salad: The MetaFic”. The story also doesn’t work as a one-off, as it’s picking up from a longer story that I haven’t read and just leaves me even more confused (where’s the brief recap every comic book has at the beginning?).

And finally, the joke is hard to get if you don’t know about these various writers’ personalities. By focusing the humor to such a specific group, it leaves many readers confused and unable to “get” the joke. Heck, the story itself doesn’t really make jokes about how the writers write, their differing styles or anything related to writing itself. They’re just plucked in the middle of a superhero story, and we’re just supposed to roll with this. Humor does often come from ill-fitting pieces, but this story didn’t emphasize that unfitness enough to where it could be effective (like, for instance, if one of the writers didn’t know how to interact with the other heroes in real-life, since he always lived vicariously through his writing).

Again, I repeat that I know this is meant to be goofy and more of an in-joke than anything else, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it can’t be judged like everything else. In-jokes can be as good/bad as anything else, and I personally found this to be pretty unsatisfactory.

So concludes my Negative Nancy review. Feel free to include me as a villain in the next issue, where I stop all attempts at fun within WriteoffTopia.

I'm not fit to judge meter and rhyme and all that poetry stuff. However, I can recognize a narrative of hesitant lust with a side dish of body anxiety, and in those regards I can appreciate everything going on here. Granted, the bodily anxiety I deal with isn't the kind discussed here, but the more sensitive nature makes the full dive into carnal action all the more raw and emotive, I'd say.

>>Ranmilia
On Poetry Voting: A Socratic Dialogue

1.

PLATO: I must bottom-slate this poem, because the Writeoffs are a place for fiction.
SOCRATES: What a curious proposition. Do you claim this entry is non-fiction?
PLATO: By definition, sir. It falls under a classification of writing works which are not labeled "fiction". See here, on this bookshelf, "poetry" is Dewey Decimal 811, and "fiction" is Dewey Decimal 813.
SOCRATES: Interesting. Here is Of Mice And Men under 810, not 813; is it then also not fiction?
PLATO: No, Of Mice And Men is fiction.
SOCRATES: Yet it is filed under "Literature".
PLATO: Literature is a type of fiction.
SOCRATES: Is poetry a type of fiction?
PLATO: By definition, no. Fiction means prose fiction.
SOCRATES: I am not certain I understand your words! What, then, does "fiction" mean?
PLATO: I just said!
SOCRATES: So you claim "fiction" means "prose fiction"?
PLATO: Yes!
SOCRATES: But then the word fiction within "prose fiction" means also "prose fiction", and thus to eternity.
PLATO: No, that "fiction" means "Tales about untrue events."
SOCRATES: So "fiction" has two definitions!
PLATO: Yes, at different times.
SOCRATES: Maddening! How does one tell when this strange recursive definition applies instead of the stand-alone one?
PLATO: Context! See, every single other writing contest, such as Futurescape, distinguishes between fiction and poetry.
SOCRATES: By fiction, there, you mean "prose fiction"?
PLATO: Yes.
SOCRATES: How do you know that Futurescape uses "fiction" in the sense of "prose fiction"?
PLATO: See, they say so.
SOCRATES: Where?
PLATO: In the contest rules: "Entries must be works of prose".
SOCRATES: That is a queer statement indeed.
PLATO: On the contrary, it is clear as day.
SOCRATES: What is queer is that they have to make it.
PLATO: What do you mean?
SOCRATES: You claim that they use "fiction" to mean "prose fiction".
PLATO: Yes.
SOCRATES: Then why do they not say "Entries must be works of fiction"?
PLATO: Because they seek to make a point of excluding poetry, the same way the Writeoffs do!
SOCRATES: How do you know the Writeoffs seek to exclude poetry?
PLATO: The Writeoffs say that entries must be works of fiction!
SOCRATES: Do the Writeoffs say that entries must be works of prose?
PLATO: That is implied in "fiction"!
SOCRATES: Futurescape does not think so, if they declare it a fiction contest and then must make a specific rule about prose.
PLATO: Well, then Futurescape must be using "fiction" differently.
SOCRATES: I thought you said that all writing contests used "fiction" to mean "prose fiction".
PLATO: Clearly not them.
SOCRATES: If it is not universal, then how can we be certain about the Writeoffs?
PLATO: By examining their rules.
SOCRATES: Which specify only "fiction".
PLATO: Yes.
SOCRATES: So why should I assume the Writeoffs use "fiction" to mean "prose fiction"?
PLATO: Everyone does!
SOCRATES: Except for the examples you yourself provided.

---

2.

PLATO: Well, I think the Writeoffs should be prose only.
SOCRATES: You are entitled to that opinion, as unusual as it is.
PLATO: And I shall arrange my ballots accordingly.
SOCRATES: You are entitled to vote based on your preferences.
PLATO: By ranking all poetry, sight unseen, below all prose.
SOCRATES: That is quite a breathtaking statement. On what grounds do you declare poetry prima facie worse?
PLATO: Not that, but that poetry does not belong in the Writeoffs.
SOCRATES: Why?
PLATO: Writeoff voting should measure the relative quality of pieces in the round, and it is impossible to measure poetry and prose against each other.
SOCRATES: Why should that be impossible?
PLATO: Different writing forms have extremely different writing processes and requirements.
SOCRATES: Let me digress a moment. Do you enjoy the great comedies; say, Aristophanes?
PLATO: Why, yes.
SOCRATES: And the great tragedies; say, Aeschylus?
PLATO: Of course.
SOCRATES: Which has a higher relative quality?
PLATO: I should say that for my own tastes I prefer the comedies.
SOCRATES: Not your own tastes. Which is better, comedy or tragedy?
PLATO: There is no way to objectively say that.
SOCRATES: And yet you compare comedies and tragedies in the Writeoff?
PLATO: They both use the same writing skills, and it is those skills which can be objectively compared. Poetry uses different skills.
SOCRATES: Poetry's skills are unjudgeable by the prose reader, then?
PLATO: Assuredly.
SOCRATES: *reads* "I'd put it around an unimpressive midtier, that high only on strength of prose and general writing level …"
PLATO: Don't be pedantic, old man. There are certainly areas of overlap I can judge in poetry, without making a statement on the whole.
SOCRATES: The same way that comedies and tragedies have areas of overlap?
PLATO: They have much more overlap, and more important overlap.
SOCRATES: Why is more needed, if you can already make a judgment on a poem's quality relative to the rest of the slate?
PLATO: But this is about fair judging.
SOCRATES: The Writeoffs suggest that if you cannot judge fairly you have the option of abstention.
PLATO: That does not correct the issue. Nobody can judge between poems and prose fairly.
SOCRATES: You did.
PLATO: Not fairly.
SOCRATES: Can comedies and tragedies be judged fairly, if they cannot be objectively compared?
PLATO: They can be judged more fairly against each other — sufficient to Writeoff standards.
SOCRATES: Bad Horse did not think so.
PLATO: He is a philosopher before my time.
SOCRATES: Indeed. In 2013 he caused quite some drama when he publically declared that he would penalize all comedies in his voting, and rate all tragedies higher, to compensate for the community incorrectly judging their relative quality.
[Note: This isn't idle philosophical musing; it actually happened — as a for-real stand of principle. -ed]
PLATO: That would be his right.
SOCRATES: As it is yours. But your sole ranked entry thus far contained comedic elements. Were he here and voting, would you feel it was fair were he to bottom-slate it due to its comedy?
PLATO: Fair or not, his voting is his business.
SOCRATES: Very well. If everyone were to vote in that fashion, would you still find the judging results useful?
PLATO: Not when comparing comedies to tragedies, but otherwise, let us say yes for argument's sake.
SOCRATES: Why?
PLATO: Because, on the whole, we should trust Writeoff readers to judge entries based on quality.
SOCRATES: Yet you advocate that Writeoff readers treat genre as a larger voting factor than quality.
PLATO: Voting is meaningless unless all voters have that right.
SOCRATES: There we agree. But if some other voters decided to — say — vote all comedies below all tragedies, how could you trust the results to describe relative quality?
PLATO: Perhaps … by comparing in the results list only stories of like genre, mentally subtracting the others.
SOCRATES: Can you not already do that with poems?

---

3.

(SOCRATES wanders off to take a drink and HORIZON takes his place.)

PLATO: Let us set aside the topic of voting. Poetry does not belong in the Writeoffs.
HORIZON: Why?
PLATO: I come to this site to learn how to write better.
HORIZON: And you cannot learn from poetry?
PLATO: By comparing pieces, I learn from the better of them. I cannot usefully compare poetry against prose.
HORIZON: Earlier you directly ranked the textual quality of a piece of poetry against the textual quality of its prose competitors.
PLATO: But poetry cannot teach me about … say … issues of structure, or theme, or pacing.
HORIZON: …Have you read poetry? Aside from the words, that's virtually all you can critique it on.
PLATO: Those skills, in poetry, do not transfer to prose. The forms are too different.
HORIZON: The opening scene of Administrative Angel begs to differ.
PLATO: That's a prose story! It just has a poetic textual gimmick.
HORIZON: Does the gimmick make it worse prose? The poetic stretch is one of the most frequently praised.
PLATO: You should be able to write well without gimmicks.
HORIZON: I can. I write better yet with them, properly applied. And that's a skill poetry teaches me.
PLATO: Fine, poetry can teach you gimmicks. It can't teach you better prose.
HORIZON: No love for crisp dialogue, then? Lyrical descriptions? Tight limited narration with distinctive character voice? How can a deeper understanding of the cadence and consonance of words not improve your prose?
PLATO: That's still not the sort of writing improvement I'm talking about.
HORIZON: More fool you.
PLATO: You keep dodging my point. A poem is obviously and clearly unlike a prose story.
HORIZON: Disagree. Go from 750 words down to 100 and it's basically impossible to tell the difference.
PLATO: We're talking about longer stories than that.
HORIZON: Fine. So, what writing lessons are you hoping to learn which poetry cannot teach?
PLATO: Telling a full story that fits into only 400-750 words. Struggling to get your story under 750, cutting sentences and paragraphs.
HORIZON: . . . . .
PLATO: Keeping text tight and lean —
HORIZON: Are you freaking insane?
PLATO: …Rude, sir.
HORIZON: Poetry is, like, defined by its density! If you want to write tightly you literally write a poem! You cited with no apparent irony how poetry which tells complete stories struggles to reach the lower word limit, and you don't think prose writers can learn lessons about tight and lean text from it?!
PLATO: You take me out of context. When I made the statements about 750-word prose skills, I was talking about judging fairness.
HORIZON: Well, I agree, the Writeoffs are unfair to poetry.
PLATO: Excuse me? On what grounds?
HORIZON: To start with, there are readers who bottom-slate it based on form alone.
PLATO: Please don't attempt to suppress my voice.
HORIZON: I'm not asking Roger to discard your vote. I am, however, arguing that you're wrong to do so.
PLATO: Not so. Poetry here scores higher than it should. Gimmicky entries get voted up and uncritically praised.
HORIZON: The piece you're debating on is, by your own admission, a strong and accessible poem with coherent narrative and thought behind it — and yet comments are a solid wall of "eh, high middle tier".
PLATO: Even that is artificially inflated. Note that commenters are also saying they aren't qualified to analyze poetry's shortcomings.
HORIZON: And yet they're regularly happy to vote as if they are. Poems end up near the bottom all the time; in fact, that's kind of their default state, without you adding gratuitous genre penalties. Just last round, Luna upon Sulva scored 16th out of 20 (with, as far as I know, only you being a tactical downvoter; and multiple Writeoff heavy hitters commenting that it was finalist-quality).
PLATO: Plenty of other gimmicky pieces get high ratings they don't deserve.
HORIZON: Citation needed, because I think you can look at comments of other gimmick pieces — and the ratings they've gotten in previous rounds — and very clearly see that if there's nothing there but the gimmick, voters are more than happy to bottom-slate.
PLATO: Ah! But all other things being equal, gimmick plus quality prose will outscore plain quality prose.
HORIZON: I'm not sure why this is a surprising statement, nor even something to be corrected for.

---

4.

(SOCRATES wanders back in.)

PLATO: Let us discard the topic of poetry entirely. There was nothing here to convince me to change my course. The fact remains, I have an opinion about the nature of the Writeoffs, and my voting is an outlet through which I might shape them.
SOCRATES: Let us return to that, then. Why do you value the Writeoff voting results?
PLATO: I do not currently.
SOCRATES: If you did, what would you value in them?
PLATO: Reliable judgments on the relative quality of entries.
SOCRATES: But only prose entries.
PLATO: Yes, unless an all-poetry round were called.
SOCRATES: Do you believe — if poetry were to vanish from the rankings — that you could trust Writeoff voters to make that quality judgment?
PLATO: Let us suppose for argument's sake that I do; for if I doubted their judgment in other areas, such as prompt adherence, then we could have a separate conversation on that topic.
SOCRATES: Then we are back to our prior conclusion. Why not treat Writeoff poem entries as if they do not exist — not only abstain in voting; but refuse to read or review them, and mentally subtract them from the rankings list — and declare your poetry problem solved, with no further ill will on either side?
PLATO: Because I wish to incentivize prose entries from authors who would otherwise write poetry.
SOCRATES: And what of the poets who wish to incentivize you to broaden your horizons?
PLATO: Our interests are incompatible.
SOCRATES: And must this result in a conflict with a winner and a loser?
PLATO: It is worth it, if it rids us of poetry.
SOCRATES: If it comes to strife, who decides which faction should prevail?
PLATO: The answer must be the standards of the community.
SOCRATES: And so you present your case to the community, leading by example?
PLATO: Yes.
SOCRATES: By prioritizing genre over quality in your voting?
PLATO: It is defensible because the other genre does not belong here.
SOCRATES: Does the community believe that it is defensible? If not, you are likely to provoke more hurt and outrage than change.
PLATO: I doubt the community shares my opinions on poetry; that is why I make a point of announcing my course.
SOCRATES: I would agree. Over time, I would estimate an average of one poetic entry per contest, from a fairly large subset of authors, to a wide range of final scores. You yourself note that many major literary contests divorce prose and poetry submissions — yet no explicit distinction is made here.
PLATO: To the Writeoffs' detriment.
SOCRATES: There are several significant ways in which the Writeoffs are different from those contests. Perhaps it would serve you to question why.
PLATO: Why do you continue in your defense? All of my writing circles would simply hold poetry's disqualification to be self-evident; this site is the only venue I've ever encountered where people consider it debatable.
SOCRATES: Then it sounds as though you have never actually interrogated the reason why it is so.
PLATO: What's the need? By definition, good writing means writing to what the majority considers high-quality.
HORIZON (shouting from the next room): Bro, have you seen the Featurebox?
PLATO: … let me try that again. I want to be able to trust this place to make similar distinctions as the other venues I already hold in regard.
SOCRATES: By adding more doubt on the relation of voting results to quality?
PLATO: Then let authors write prose! If everyone did, the doubt would be moot.
SOCRATES: You hope your incentive will aid in forcing the issue, then.
PLATO: Yes.
SOCRATES: Do you think that the next round is the earliest time at which fellow Writeoffers might respond to your incentives?
PLATO: How else could they?
SOCRATES: Well. If you liked comedies, and I declared my intention to bottom-slate all comedies while voting was still ongoing, what would be your most rational remedy?
PLATO: A Prisoner's Dilemma response. Tactically voting as well — top-slating comedies in my own voting.
SOCRATES: Should you do so?
PLATO: I'd have that right. And it would be in my self-interest.
SOCRATES: Would it be fair?
PLATO: Would it matter? If widely done, the results would be a battleground, with ranking determined only by number of partisans. Such as the Hugo Award voting in recent years, with a small Puppy minority pitted against a larger entrenched community.
SOCRATES: Is that, then, what you seek?
PLATO: Of course not.
SOCRATES: But you continue in your own tactical voting course. So you believe that other participants should act against their self-interests and not change their own behaviors when tactical voting occurs?
PLATO: For the good of the community, yes.
SOCRATES: So you believe community standards should be, for comity's sake, to not penalize tactical voting. What, then, as a voter, is my incentive not to tactically vote against genres I feel are inferior?
PLATO: … Community standards.
SOCRATES: Will those stop you?
PLATO: Perhaps, if community standards actually disapprove.
SOCRATES: Do you believe the community does not disapprove of tactical voting?
PLATO: For argument's sake, let's say that they do not.
SOCRATES: How, then, do you think the community would react if a rogue author tactically placed high-quality stories at the bottom of their slate, in order to maximize their own chances of winning a medal?
PLATO: They'd report him — and if not, they should.
SOCRATES: But not you?
PLATO: It's different!
SOCRATES: How?
PLATO: The medal-seeker's self-aggrandizement is unfair to the medal chances of everyone but themselves.
SOCRATES: So is tactically voting against genres or forms. That unfairly restricts the writing options of all entrants beyond that explicit in the rules, or else face known penalties on their medal chances.
PLATO: Shaming my voting unfairly restricts me!
SOCRATES: It encourages you to alter community standards in other, more robust venues. Debate. Appeal to Roger. Call a vote for a rules change. Request a trial round with different rules from the usual.
PLATO: All those methods are much less effective!
SOCRATES: Yes, and you very well might not get your way. However, occasional compromise is the price of civil society.
HORIZON (shouting from the next room): FOR GODS' SAKES CAN WE PLEASE HOLD A MINIFIC ROUND OF 500-1000 WORDS
SOCRATES: …Case in point.
HORIZON: WHY DOES NOBODY ELSE APPRECIATE THE GENIUS OF THE IDEA

---

Full disclosure: I did not write a poem this round.

>>horizon
Uh, wow. So borderline personal attacks, casting yourself as Socrates and a "Writeoff heavy hitter" and likening my position to malicious voting that "the community would report." That's not very classy, I'm sad to see it, and you're still wrong. You're drawing a false analogy between comparing different genres of fiction (comedy vs tragedy, fantasy vs realistic drama) and different forms of writing (poetry, prose). I do think that comedy and tragedy can be fairly compared; Bad Horse's position is quite fascinating and I'd love to have seen it and debated it at the time. But no, the ability to fairly compare pieces that differ in some respects does not imply an ability to fairly compare between any sort of difference.

The fact that some gimmicks do get voted down does not change the issues involved. The problem lies in the process, the results are merely an illustration. (Also I think you confused my comments on Start Recursion with comments on poetry.)

SOCRATES: It encourages you to alter community standards in other, more robust venues. Debate. Appeal to Roger. Call a vote for a rules change. Request a trial round with different rules from the usual.

I have done, and continue to do, exactly these things. If you read my posts on previous poems, and the discord logs of #fic and #meta (admittedly somewhat tedious since it's been a while now) you will find me attempting to advocate for poetry-specific rounds, or for people to vote for prompts that could feasibly lead to at least informal poetry-encouraged rounds. I was unsuccessful.

SOCRATES: How, then, do you think the community would react if a rogue author tactically placed high-quality stories at the bottom of their slate, in order to maximize their own chances of winning a medal?
PLATO: They'd report him.

.

Err, ahahaha, what? No, no they certainly wouldn't. They didn't. I am quite certain that this exact thing has absolutely happened in at least one round since I've been here, and nobody cared. I attempted to raise the subject, but was immediately discouraged and shamed both for suggesting that it might have occurred and for suggesting that it might be a problem in need of address. I was told that the community prefers that everyone vote according to their own standards, and no one has grounds to question anyone's ballot for any reason. That's the atmosphere I'm operating under here.

The community consensus at the moment seems to be to not even enforce the few rules that are explicit. So I've given that up as lost. I don't put any stock in the results. They are not currently useful. So I, too, act autonomously. If it would be largely preferred that I do not do so, then I will happily cease and depart... but the comments I have received in private about these subjects have not indicated that this is the case. Rather, I keep hearing people tell me "I agree with you but I don't want to get into a slapfight with Horizon and Dubs." Or with less polite invective and more leaving the site and "Jesus, [name of controversial piece omitted] medaled? What a joke. Ran, don't tell me this is your main writing group." Truthfully, I myself have little energy left on the subject, and barely mustered up through stress to post this; I will likely leave it here

>>Ranmilia
For what it's worth, I've also gotten private comments saying that voting strategies like yours are the reason that some don't want to compete in the Writeoff anymore—they feel that the room for experimentation is slowly being removed. And for what it's worth, I'm cuter than anyone in any other writing group.

(Also, people have been DQ'd for abusing the voting system like that, albeit not for a long time.)

>>horizon
Yes.

Skipping past points of disagreement for the moment:

>>Ranmilia

I am quite certain that this exact thing [tactical voting down of competitors] has absolutely happened in at least one round since I've been here, and nobody cared.

JFTR, this is the first I've heard of that (as a merely fringe participant in Discord chat, which I guess is where it was brought up). I certainly care. I strongly believe as a statement of principle that tactical voting's the quickest way to light the competition aspect of the Writeoffs on fire, and so if you have evidence of competitor-sabotage voting that's a far bigger deal than anything we're talking about here.

If you're willing, I'd like to talk about that specific thing (via Discord most likely) and if the evidence suggests unusual voting patterns I will join you and go to the mat with Roger (and the community) on that. If you can point to logs I can do my own reading on that and try not to saddle you with the emotional labor of catching me up (though as you say going through Discord backlogs is an exercise in frustration).

Past that:

I can acknowledge that I'm still frankly rather worked up on the rest (as should be obvious by the length and nature of the post). I doubt it's productive to extend the debate here if it's causing you equal stress. I'll extend to you an offer of conversation in another venue, private or not per your choice — once I've had a chance to sleep on this and can promise a more subdued response — to clear the air, should you think that's useful. You made your argument, I made mine, I'll let your rebuttal above be the last word for now.

EDIT: My offer of seriously examining, and aiding-in-bringing-to-light any credible evidence of competitor-sabotage voting, is open to anyone with concerns. @ me on Discord, or PM me there or on FIMFiction.

(And if anyone feels I'm tactically sabotage-voting, well, obviously coming to me with your concerns is awkward — but my voting logs regularly substantially match the round's final rankings, and I'm happy to fully cooperate with efforts to verify that.)

>>Ranmilia
>>Dubs_Rewatcher
>>horizon
I think we can all at least agree that there should be a 500-1000 word round, yes?

Roger? 💋

>>CoffeeMinion
Writeoff NaNoWriMo when?

>>Whitbane
2012, apparently.

(okay it's not exactly 50k but it's still quite impressive for a single weekend.)

This may be:

The most perfectly constructed minific I've ever read in these contests. I mean, it starts with a Person in a Place with a Problem, develops that problem through three distinct acts, and still has 1 word left over! Nicely done, author!

Mike

>>Ranmilia
>>horizon
>>Dubs_Rewatcher

Just my tuppence.

Well, I don’t want to reopen fresh wounds, but I feel I must say I side with Ran on this one. Poetry is unbelievably hard to assess for ESL people. I’m still grappling with that iambic concept, coming from a language where tonic accent does not exist. Becoming familiar enough with poetry techniques and patterns is incredibly hard, and I wonder if, barring some academics who have made poetry their research field, any ESL people ever does. Also, I’m in a way comforted in my opinion by people like Hat who, despite being natives, candidly admit that their skill is insufficient to properly judge poetry entries.

That does not mean I bottom slate poetry entries, but I simply opt out and abstain. I refuse to rank them. It’s already hard enough for me to analyse and criticise English prose, I don’t even want to dip a toe into unfathomable poetry waters.

Problem is, at that point, that there’s no dedicated space where people wanting to write poetry could compete, and that’s a shame. I wish that minific rounds featured two separate categories, poem and fiction, each with its own thread and scoreboard. To me, this would be far more satisfying than trying and match up entries which, as Ran said, are not competing in the same league.

So in a shocking twist that will surprise absolutely nobody, I disagree with >>Not_A_Hat. I know, I know. Sometimes I think that I'm genetically wired to refute basically everything he says. Still, in this case, I think there's an interesting discussion to be had: the importance of confusing your readers, and how this piece could confuse us better.

I don't want to go into a lot of detail about why confusing your readers is, contrary to what most people would think, a good plan—mostly because I'm in the middle of writing an essay on that exact topic, and I don't want to end up repeating myself. In summary it is simply because it is good to convey character emotions by eliciting similar responses in your readers, to better help us empathise. Confusion, if used properly, is no exception to that—you just have to be careful not to completely lose your readers in the process!

So let's first talk about why this piece tries to confuse us. It is, after all, a piece about losing control, about submitting to a power far beyond your own and surrendering to overwhelming forces. In the moment, our mage is disoriented, and disorienting the reader is an excellent way to start this piece off...

Which is why I hate your opening sentence.

The magic burned.

What's funny about that is that this is the kind of opening sentence I usually adore—it's snappy, it's brief, it's vivid and emotive. In three words you had my attention. In three words you had me smiling, leaning into my screen, ready for more. And in three sentences you had given me a strong foothold from which to take my bearings, emotionally and narratively, and given me space to find my balance. If you weren't aiming to spend a paragraph after this disorienting me, it would be a fantastic (albeit understated and not wholly original) hook.

But imagine for a second that you cut it—or, if (like me) you like it too much to bear that thought, moved it to later in the piece. Open instead with a fragment: "Cold bindings on hands." What's a reader's reaction to that going to be? Confusion, certainly. Perhaps interest, too—a little confusion certainly can be a hook in and of itself, as confusion naturally creates suspense. But most importantly, the reader would have no idea where the narrative might go from a first sentence like that. Open with that, and we have no foothold.

Why do I think this is important? Because as it stands, the piece gives us the briefest of moments of balance, of understanding, only to pull that away from us merely three words in and drop us straight into the mire of confusion. Given your second paragraph is constructed to slowly build coherency, both in building itself from fragments to sentences and in introducing clarity over description, it seems strange to start the piece off on such a strong footing, only to knock us down and build us back up. Start from the confusion, and build us back to understanding, and you have a much better structure to those emotions.

On the whole, though, this piece is pretty great! There's some fantastic moments buried in here (you actually gave me the shivers with "I could tell his eyes were wide, not their color") and the prose is generally strong—in my opinion, with the exception of the opening sentence, the first half of this story is pretty much spot on. What lets you down, I think, is that section beginning "I was flying..." I think I can get what you were trying to achieve here (it reads to me like an attempt at describing the feeling of using magic, where metaphor and reality become mixed and difficult to separate—if so, I can't actually criticise your use of this technique, though I will admit that it felt unnecessarily confusing after the first section had done such a good job of slowly building us up to understanding), but it wasn't super-easy to spot what was going on to the point that, even now, I'm not entirely sure I get it.

One last nitpick from me: let's take a little look at your final sentence.

I just hoped that the spell worked and the first thing she will feel when waking up will be their gratitude.

Before I even get started, I just want to say that there's nothing wrong with this sentence—it reads clearly, it's grammatically consistent, and it absolutely portrays what you want to say. But... it feels weak, to me, as an ending. Every now and then I talk about the cadence of sentences, particularly opening and closing sentences, and what I mean by that is very much in line with the musical understanding of cadence. See, in music, there are certain progressions of chords that sound final, just as there are certain progressions of chords that sound unfinished and leave the listener expecting more. Some sentences have similar tones: like, looking back even at this paragraph as I'm writing it, I know that I would never end a paragraph on "But... it feels weak, to me, as an ending" because... well, it feels weak as an ending. And I admit that this is something I rely entirely on instinct for—I have never properly sat down and tried to understand what it is that makes some sentences endings and others not, and that's probably something I'll need to do at some point. But to me, your final sentence doesn't quite have that ending cadence to it.

Except, rather unusually, I don't think it's because of how it ends.

"... will be their gratitude" works. It reads like an ending. It's solid and it ends with confidence. But I think it gets weakened by the few words before it: "she will feel when waking up" not only makes that final "will" a repetition, which feels a tad awkward, but the jump into simple future tense also feels a tiny bit uncomfortable. It's nothing that makes the sentence itself bad or wrong in any way, but final sentences have a lot more that they need to do that simply be right, and I think it's worth rethinking this one.

Still, like I said, this piece is pretty good on the whole. It is rather ambitious as regards the confusion, and I don't think it quite managed to achieve what it was hoping to do with that, but I can't fault the author for trying—it was the right choice for the story being told, and I greatly admire the attempt. Your writing is technically solid, emotive and full of beautifully vivid imagery. All in all, I think this piece is Almost There, and with a little bit of careful thought about its structure you could edit this into something pretty great.

(Horse? HHHOOOORRRRRRSSSSEEE)

---

Edit: I know >>Xepher already mentioned it, but I feel I should definitely point out the whole "title case" thing—following conventions like that is really, really important for helping to keep anonymity, which is one of the most fundamental parts of the writeoff format! (Plus, y'know, it just looks unprofessional and gives readers a bad first impression. Same goes for checking those bbcode tags!) Unless not title casing your title is super important for some big, artistic integrity reason, please remember to check it! Thanks <3

I like how you got right into the conflict! The double-take at the ending surprised me pleasantly as well, not taking the obvious solution. I do think the bit leading up to the 'sending a text' was a bit overdone, and the sudden landing a bit underdone, but... on the whole, I gotta agree with Mike. This is excellently constructed, and I enjoyed it.

Was the “Munchausen” a reference to the famous baron hero of zany adventures?

The concept here is frankly hilarious. I think the story succeeds pretty well in transposing some of the proverbial weirdness/absurdness of US court cases into the hereafter. It misses on some obvious humour bouts, though. Like playing on time/eternity concept (“Mr Munchausen!” Death exclaimed. “At last! I don’t have all eternity!”).

Otherwise, this is fairly linear, but overall good execution, well paced, and though the conclusion is somewhat unsatisfactory (it leaves the things fundamentally unchanged, so we are led to think all we’ve read so far was just a chunk of exposition) it’s sufficiently well written to nest conformably into the upper half of my slate. Well done, author.

Unfortunately, I have to echo the above thoughts.

It is a completely nonsensical story that jumps from fragment to fragment without any sense or meaning. I have read it over several times and still cannot wrap my head around what exactly this piece is about.

>>Not_A_Hat
For the record, I'm gonna close the poll when I wake up tomorrow (probably around 6:00 am GMT) rather than tonight (as I'd previously stated), to give people extra time to vote if need be. Sorry if you wanted to vote after then, but we do actually need some time to prepare for the podcast, and I'll be working throughout the day!

>>Whitbane
Hmm, it looks like there's an Original Short round during NaNoWriMo this year. I might have to break my Pony-only rule...

Aw nuts, and the writing day for the next Pony round is gonna be the Saturday of Ciderfest. D:

#FirstWorldPonyProblems

>>CoffeeMinion
Drunk writeoff ;)

>>Whitbane
I am not the one you seek, though you are in his presence

So I'm going to go see a certain movie that opened today. It's about magical horses or something. I don't know, sounded like a Don Hertzfeldt production.

I'm going in about three hours; I'll try it out and see if it's okay for you guys to see (even though I know all of you have already watched it illegally online). Maybe it'll be alright...

So I got back a while ago, and I'll only say this about "My Little Pony: The Movie": It's definitely worth seeing. The movie's a bit lacking in some places, but on the whole, it was very entertaining. I'm definitely going to see it again a few more times while it's in theaters.

The only thing I regret is watching it when all the little kids came to same theater, and there were a bunch of unnecessary comments directed at the screen; whoever said bronies were more obnoxious than 3-7 years old has never been around children in their life. If you go to watch it, go to a weekday showing or a late night showing (or both, if you're resourceful).

So declareth the Liberius Dudester.

Trying to zip through my slate, and felt like I should at least comment on the Half-Life thing. While reviewing the linked scripts (cf. >>Ranmilia) does suggest that there's probably more than simple convergent evolution in that first scene, this still does feel like a legitimately non-derivative entry to me on the basis of everything past the mishap. (Half-Life scientists were developing a teleporter, not a time-travel device; and pretty clearly we're not dealing with a crowbar-wielding hero or an alien invasion here.)

For Writeoff judging purposes, I don't feel like I can give full credit to the author for parts which appear to be a retelling of an existing story — but, at the same time, I feel like the parts of this story which are arguably Half-Life parts pretty much just amount to the color details of the first scene. I do agree that the time-loop part of this is well-trodden ground tropewise, but that's not HL (not HL 1, at any rate), and we can still judge it on execution even if the idea is a trope we've seen before.

There, there were a few inconsistences (such as Sarah being the doubter in scene 1 and excited in scene 3), but largely my impression was in that same "nothing particularly stands out" bin. Author, that's a tough one to give advice for, and it's both good and bad news. (Bad news because having nothing hook readers into your story is a problem, but good news because I'm not seeing obvious writing faults here the story needs to correct.) Common ways of generating reader investment include adding conflict (a little difficult if you're ending exactly where you started); making it more of a character-focused piece (really digging into the head of one or more of the participants -- their hopes, fears, and the journey they're taking here); and/or adding detail and letting the prose carry the story.

But this is why I bristle at the idea that experimental writing is misplaced in the Writeoffs — because the easiest way to figure out how to jazz up your stories once you've got the basics down is to give yourself permission to do audacious things, and see which ones land and which don't. The nature of experiments is that a lot of them are going to fail, but in learning why those didn't connect, you learn what took you over the line where your readers are no longer following; and when an experiment connects, you learn a trick you can bring back to more traditional stories in moderation to spice up your prose a bit.

So, like Ranmilia, I'd urge you to take away from this round the message that you've got the capability to carry a story; and whether or not this one connected, your best bet is to take some swings for the fences and see what you learn. Thanks for writing!

The West is old, too, and eventually the railroad bullets that tear through scrubland and mountain and prairie will hit something invisible but vital and that will be the end.

I just want to call this out as the best line in a strong piece — the best sentence I've read this round (though some of the lines from Epithalamia are hot on its heels).

This swings for the fences on theme, and I think the people complaining about the relative blank-label nature of the character work aren't appreciating the duality here in quite the same way I am. The Gunslinger is trapped in the small by the young bucks that keep trying to challenge him, but trapped in the large the same way the land is. If he stops shooting back he loses something invisible yet vital. This does some impressive character work through metaphor.

Going to be among my top tier.

Yeah, I got nothin' either. I can score it on prose quality, but I can't connect the dots through that middle section, and there's just not enough detail in part 3 to establish it independently (and just enough to seemingly rule out being the same narrator as part 1, who got to solid land).

>>Dolfeus Doseux

a clever metaphor to have a sailor drowning to represent the individual drop returning to the ocean of the One

But the sailor doesn't drown, unless you're taking a very different interpretation of the ending of part 1 than I am.

Author, I hope you explain what you were trying to go for here — and that you take into advisement while editing that it seems to have flown over pretty much everyone's heads. "Don't be subtle in the Writeoffs" is a trope for good reason — we don't have the luxury to pick through the piece like a more dedicated reader would — but unless you want to lock out everyone but the most dedicated readers, you're going to need more signposting here.

Regardless, there's a poetic quality here that I think serves the piece well, if you're able to get the meaning gelling further. Don't write this off as an entirely failed experiment — just don't stray quite so far out into the cryptic hinterlands. Thank you, if nothing else, for an intriguing textual experience!

I read Chaircreature in Tony Jay's voice, so that's a plus right out of the gate. I almost got an inverted "Cabin in the Woods" feel from this, so congratulations on making me interested in the things scheming and waiting for our (maybe) inevitable global demise.

All I can really do with this one, without echoing those above, is to make some observations:

Format:

Fantasy tropes that start with "O"
Crime drama tropes that start with "N"
Sci-fi tropes that start with "M"

(which, they're not really "tropes" exactly, more like first sentences to stories that follow certain tropes)

Jake Sully is the name of the main character from Avatar. They could just be two random names, though.

Talk of a "ten thousand word anthology" makes me think of the anthology of Writeoff entries that come with every Writeoff. (and 15 750-word entries would make an 11,250 word anthology, so I feel like I'm not far off-base). This seems to support the "this story is a writeoff metafic" theory.

If that's the case, I'm not quite sure what to make of the end?

Your stories were never going to get written. We just wanted to see how you delt with brainless employees. I hate say it, but both of you acted pretty baindead yourselves, and should have worked together.

So the end result was that the writeoffers were braindead and should have worked together? I don't really know how far to take this analogy.

I think this piece needs some clarity in its delivery. The final part isn't even written as dialogue, with the quotes and whatnot, but straight narrative that's just implied to be all dialogue. I'm just not sure what to make of it otherwise, like the ONM pattern. I like Ran's (Ran's? Someone said it) idea of reading a story: it can take work to write, but it shouldn't take work to enjoy.

I think I've got this. It could use some proofreading, and I'm not sure about all the stylistic choices--it's hard to tell dialogue from narration in some places, for example. But I'm impressed by the originality of the plot.

The opening tension is strong, with one character being chastised by another for somehow ruining the party's new weapons while camped at a vital save point in the south half of the dungeon. Now they'll have to run into the boss battle tonight and end the Dancing Goat's reign of terror with their bare hands.

There's some comedy as the speaker tries to get the attention of the rest of the party as they eat grapes and set up shelter for the night (stirring up a nest of metallic mechanical rats in the process. Eek!) I don't know if the section about the shelves was entirely necessary, and I don't know how or why the merchant/horseflesh buyer would have those supplies with them.

It's not a big deal, though, because the next sequence with the party surfing in on wise old turtles is truly epic. I like that the canid shifter chose to do her own thing and run free, but had to deal with the consequences of hitting a patch of nettles.

I might get some static on this, but I think the giraffes are symbolic. And I guess the whole Dancing Goat thing was just a team building exercise?

I started getting overwhelmed at this point, unfortunately. There's just a little too much going on here for a minific.

I was reading back over old writeoff threads and realised just how long it's been since I've done any mashups...

The Sparking of the Countdown Clock
Gertrude Fremont (Ph.D.) repeatedly jumps from a plane as part of a particularly obscure experiment on mass spectroscopy in exotic spacetimes, and how repeatedly jumping out of planes makes your eyes glow.

IT IS ONE SECOND TO 11:59 AM
In the last minute before a meteor impact destroys all of civilisation, the Gunslinger calmly reflects on the important things in life: tea, whiskey, and shooting kids. Someone says something in the comments about lesbians, and nobody is entirely sure why.

To Save the Goldfish

Samuel loved the TV. He loved it because he loved the people who watched it, since three months ago when they picked him up at the pet store.

But he never thought he'd have to destroy one to save the other.

A Little Story, Even Now
Fair reviuws start thinkong good. Don't tell lyttle epigrams: skow whole ecperiments. Someone exclaims sumething grandiose, except their reaction nefer re-opens suggestions.

Hey guys, looks like I submitted my story at... The Last Minute lululul

oh wait shit

The Thanatometer

>>FloydienSlip
>>GroaningGreyAgony
>>QuillScratch
>>libertydude
>>Not_A_Hat
>>Xepher
>>Ranmilia

Thanks to y’all for commenting! Much appreciated :)

This story is the 750-word digest of a longer story written by the Italian author Dino Buzzati under the title I Vecchi Clandestini (The Concealed Elders). The original story doesn’t revolve around a device capable of measuring how long anyone’s lifespan is, but rather around magical glasses which, when put, allow the wearer to see people’s “true age”, true age being time left before death.

Basically, I didn’t change much of the drama. The character finds the glasses, piddles a bit around with them, then grows weary of the game. He decides to only try the glasses on him every so often, looking at his reflection in a mirror, until one day he discovers his reflection looks like a ghoul. Then he summons his friend, tells him the whole story, and when it’s done, pushes him outside and the story ends on the same line “The cab was halfway down when the shot detonated.” The final ambiguity is not solved, but it’s obvious the guy commits suicide, leaving the reader with a sort of self-fulfilled prophecy.

I wasn’t aware that gimmick had been used elsewhere, but thinking of it, this is quite natural.

Obviously, not being constrained by the 750-word limit, the original story elaborates on the Japanese character, gives a bit of background and details how the guy finds the glasses. I took the idea and the backbone of the story, and re-fleshed it my way to have it fit into the smaller format. It might not have been the best of ideas, it was a sort of cheesy endeavour, but I was curious to know how you folks would welcome the idea.

So yeah, that was sort of an experiment, and the lesson to be learnt here is: always write your own ideas rather than reformulate others’!

Thanks again y’all and good luck to the finalists!

>>Dolfeus Doseux
>>Xepher
>>AndrewRogue
>>Ranmilia
>>Dubs_Rewatcher
>>Not_A_Hat
>>Oblomov
>>Monokeras
>>horizon

Thank you all for the comments and criticism. This story was originally only the very first part (minus the last sentence in that section), which I discovered was too short to make the minimum wordcount, so I kinda... added a bunch of random stuff to pad it out. I wasn't really expecting it to do well, but I hadn't entered a Writeoff since the first original short story round (October 2015, Eye of the Storm). Apologies for making everyone suffer through this, I know it needs a lot of work.

The lesson here, at least in my case, is don't submit experimental pieces. I'm at a sort of crossroads in my writing where I focus more on the bizarre and surreal, and because I'm still a novice writer, I'm not yet at a place to pull it off. But as someone who has entered Writeoffs in the past, I should have remembered that!

Thanks especially to >>Ranmilia for your feedback early on. There's a lot of good critique in your comment that I'll take to heart in future stories (and I've unfortunately always been bad at good first lines; it's something I'm ashamed to admit), and I'm sorry that this story was so opaque. To be honest, I'm not really sure what I was going for either, plot-wise.

If nothing else, writing this did help me get back to writing on a daily basis. Thanks again to everyone for your comments. It means a lot that you took the time to read through this atrocity and actually give me meaningful feedback. Until next time!

Going against the above grain, I think the Russian-English felt on point. It's just off enough to feel like we're hearing their Russian, but in English, if that makes sense. That being said, rooting the narrative in real events, however "holy shit, we just avoided global nuclear war," without any unique take, or hook, does the piece a disservice.

Well, I'm really not going to be more helpful than >>QuillScratch.

I will say I think the refrain has some problems, because it indicates a very specific last minute you are wanting to discuss... and then the majority of them actually are not talking about that sort of last minute. So you set up a certain expectation and even repeat it, but you don't really go through with it, instead opting for more of a kid's "the hour is over" sort of story, which I find a bit distracting. Like, that direction is fine, but I feel you just don't set up well for it because the refrain and jester's comments are too singleminded.

Fun fish facts with AndrewRogue

1. Goldfish actually have perfectly acceptable memories. They can even be trained to certain degrees.

2. Bowls are unsuitable homes for goldfish. While it is true that goldfish will stay small in a bowl, that is because its growth is stunted by hormones, causing horrible deformities and eventually leading to its death. Properly cared for, goldfish get pretty big and can actually survive for 20+ years. However, this requires proper care (an actual aquarium of 20+ gallons - the more the better! - complete with filter, heater, and regular water changes).

Ahem. Anyhow. Decently fun and amusing, but I feel, much like the world, it ends with a bit of a whimper rather than a bang. While the end of the world is necessarily quiet, I think the end of Samuel's story needs a stronger punchline, to go out with something that really takes my mild amusement to the next level.

Robert de Niro: the Early Pirate Days. Vivid, a little scary, and we see a strong lady who kinda reminds me of Zarya, for some reason. I can dig it.

So I started off this round intending to comment on everything in my slate, commented on one story and then got assigned a big coding project. So this time I'm going to try and comment on everything in the finals! Probably!


Since Quill just about curbstomped anything I could say about the meter or flow of this (which is great because boy he knows a lot more then me in that field) I wanted to talk about subject matter.

Somebody above said that this seems too heavy of subject matter for a children's rhyme. I strongly disagree. Some of the most common rhymes I remember from my childhood were very, very heavy and dark when you think about them for more than a second. A child will most likely not understand the heaviness now, but will reflect on it later in life.

That feeling of reflection is really captured here. It's a bit broken by the missing rhymes and breaks in meter, but it still shines through in the piece as a whole. I appreciate this piece a lot for being able to grasp the heart of a children's rhyme as well as the appearance.

Also, this may just be a personal thing for me, but I'd have liked it if you'd used the refrain one more time. Right now, with only one repetition after the initial appearance, it doesn't feel as much like a true refrain. Just once more or so would've made it feel more cohesive imho.

Generally amusing, but I kinda feel like I want this to have really gone a step forward on the comedic elements. Like, see that "Duh, I'm the lord of lies thing." I kinda feel there could be more done with that, given he's otherwise pretty straightforward and honest. Much like Goldfish, I find myself generally amused, but not really satisfied with the ending, which lacks a really solid punch to close it out.

Retrospective

So for some reason that I can no longer remember, I thought it would be a fun idea to do a retrospective on Epithalamia that discussed how I wrote it, in the style of a blog I saw recently by HBAO. Unfortunately, 7,500 words of me rambling is probably not an appropriate writeoff forum comment, so I've posted those thoughts over on my blog.

One thing I haven't actually done there is addressed any of the comments that I got, because I felt that I should probably do that here where people can reply to me and stuff:

>>Not_A_Hat
Do you think there's a better way that I might be able to signal that this is three poems on a theme, and not one story? I had thought that using a plural title that was obscure enough to invite readers to google it would work, but (as I said in the blog) I am obviously not very good at judging this kind of thing >.>

>>Ranmilia
Ignoring the drama for a moment, I do want to thank you for your feedback on the piece itself. I think there might be something I can do to make it clear that this is more than just a piece about "check this 10/10 I'mmaboutta bang", but I'm gonna have to think hard on how to achieve that.

>>Monokeras
I think it's well known at this point that anyone entering the writeoff with poems should expect a comment or two of this nature. I just wanted to make it clear that I have no problem with people abstaining on poetry if they find it particularly more challenging to read, and to thank you for taking the time to let me know—I appreciate the honesty. I'm (obviously) not sure I agree on the prospect of needing to keep poetry and prose separate, but it is clearly a discussion that the community needs to have!

>>Xepher
Again, thank you for your honesty. I appreciate the feedback, regardless, and agree that it's important to keep in mind what poetry might look like to someone not in its intended audience.

>>Whitbane
>>Rao
Thank you both for your kind words <3

>>QuillScratch Using separate titles for each, and then having the overall title be something plural might help. Maybe put them in separate chapters, if you publish somewhere that allows that. Part of the problem for me, I think, was that writeoff stories are usually just one piece; Something with three separate non-connected pieces is pretty unexpected.

Of course, you could just straight-up saying it somewhere. Throw in an author's note to clear it up. Or just ignore it, and cut 'people who can't tell these are separate' out of your audience.

I feel like I had something important to say but then I read Andrew's depressing information about goldfish and now I'm just kinda sad.

This story was kinda funny, but I did feel it pulled me out of the narrative a few times just because I couldn't quite get a grasp of your world's internal logic. I ended up with a lot of questions in my mind about why the fish didn't do anything about its realization, when it seems like the story just wanted me to chuckle. Unfortunately, I'm not really sure how you'd fix that and still keep within 750 words. :/

I guess I'm the odd one out here, because I found myself more confused than entertained throughout this story. To me it just seems like the usual villain meets friendship but plots revenge but with a Google watch thrown in for some reason? I'm sorry if this is harsh, and humor is very subjective so this might just not have been my kind of story.

Re-reading my remaining slate for the final and I noticed something:

But who will clean my bowl if everything ends?

Is that possibly a reference to Who Will Cut Our Hair When We're Gone?

Guys. GUYS. Icenrose is back!! Go say hi or something!

>>Xepher
>>FloydienSlip
>>tPg
>>Kritten
>>Not_A_Hat
>>Monokeras

Thanks, everyone, for reading and responding. I apologize for any difficulty getting through, or disappointment in, this very incomplete story. This is my second Writeoff entry, and if I'm establishing a pattern here it seems to be:

1. I have a (vague) idea.
2. The idea has me.
3. We chase each other around until the deadline.
4. I frantically post whatever I've managed to put together.

I didn't *mean* to take the prompt literally. But my attempts at fiction have been few and far between, and usually it's a slow and deliberate process for me. Writing to a prompt with a deadline is pretty new. My rusty chops definitely can't keep up with my imagination. I haven't even finished a retrospective for my first story, Violets, from the last round.

Like that story, this one has too much big stuff going on, and I wasn't successful at narrowing the focus enough to capture anything really substantial about it. I tried to find one thing to concentrate on (the sisters' relationship and their feelings about the situation) but didn't manage to describe just what's happening to them. My idea was that this is something that *has* to be done, and more than once--and there are some people who can do it and some who can't, but not necessarily One Chosen Person to make the sacrifice. And that it's more than superstition, though some things--like exactly what happens to the people who go through it--remain unknown.

>>Not_A_Hat commented on the stylistic weirdness. Some of that has to do with a shift early in the story from more of a narrative prose poem style to almost entirely dialogue. I thought there would be too much "telling" involved in the former, but unfortunately the talking didn't reveal enough about their circumstances, either.

And some of it involves leaving things to come back to, then running out of time (submitted this with 0:02:44 to spare; again, not intentional.) In the paragraph in question (volcanic islands etc.) I actually *lost* a line break and a couple of sentences before the "I grasp and fail" while submitting to the site, which makes the whole thing even more opaque. I'll see if I can at least explain what I was *trying* to get at.

A look in Gloriana's eyes can be enough to end a conversation between the two. I didn't manage to build around these metaphors enough to make them clear, and maybe I was mixing too much, but I had in mind the visual similarity between the pupils of the eye and the periods of a sentence. Jude also compares her eyes to blue water with volcanic islands at the center--something dark with a fiery heart, surrounded by unfathomable depths. And then there should have been a couple of lines about Jude trying to find words to continue the conversation and failing, as she often does. I guess I accidentally deleted something at...the last minute.

But you're right about the style not really jiving with the story it needs to tell, which is why I awkwardly abandoned it before long. I may revisit this when some of the ideas have better melded, but either way all your feedback has given me some valuable insights for future writing.

I am far from an expert on poems, but this is at least somewhat well executed and certainly a break from the norm in this Writeoff (in a good way). Some of the lines lacking a rhyme (or at least, an obvious one) made it difficult to feel a tempo, though, and while the first half feels like it's set in a more medieval time, the second is distinctly more modern. Perhaps I am missing some important bridge or theme to it, but they feel rather disparate to each other (and I must admit, I enjoyed the first half more than the second).

And despite what others might say, a poem is a valid storytelling format, for writing has no rules besides 'engage the reader' and may make all the 'mistakes' it wishes in service of that goal (although the greater the deviation, the more deft the writing hand must be to compensate).

I'm afraid it didn't grab me as it did others. It's written well, there's a distinct personal conflict which is resolved, and I did like how even after he realized the text didn't go through he still stuck with it, but I just didn't feel grabbed by it. It feels almost... mundane in storytelling to me, hitting the beats in tempo but not in a way that really roused me. I'm afraid I don't have anything more profound than that to say, apologies if it sounds like a rather weak reason to be detached from a story.

End of the world is rather par for the course with the prompt, so expanding it to be a universe-sized crunch was the logical endgame idea. The framing of digital existence with one guy making sure every other human got the chance to enjoy eons before erasure was original (to me, at least). Writing was strong and evocative, and the coffee asides well-crafted. This is one of my favourites from the current lineup.

I believe this may very well be the most original concept I've read in the current lineup, and certainly one of, if not the, most interesting ideas presented. Strong writing, evocative descriptions, managed to fit in a barebones explanation of the process for capturing these moments in time in the small allotment of words, wrapped up with a solid twist (although I did predict it fairly early on). Sentence structure could have used a little mixing up, with personal pronouns leading many of them, but that's a minor complaint that is probably only an issue to me (I have a pet peeve with repetition like that). Overall quite possibly my favourite.

A point for teaching me a new word with "Sepulchral", but I feel like your grasp on the rest of the language wasn't quite as strong. Death in particular felt... wrong for me, which is a deeply subjective thing (especially in this age of Terry Pratchett having something of a monopoly on Dᴇᴀᴛʜ's portrayal. He lacked the gravitas or presence I would expect of such a distinct figure. Lines such as

You have one minute to clean your stuff

feel far too informal for him, specifically the use of 'stuff'. You are consistent in that portrayal, at least, which counts for something. I'm afraid I don't quite understand the meaning behind Death's parting comments, either, so I may be lacking the full picture here. Overall, it's not bad, but it feels in need of some punching up.

The expected world ending scenario shown from an unexpected source. Good use of an informal writing style and the puzzle simile was inspired. Overall a solid entry, although the humour failed to grab me.

Extra kudos for the title, which evokes the old line "Once more unto the breach, dear friends." Or however exactly it goes. One must first step into the breach before returning, and we see our protagonist lacking the courage to even walk through the door that might lead to the breach.

There's a mixed feeling of Captain America and Deadpool here, too, except if both characters were actually huge babies.

I had a good laugh. Big D doesn't take any shit, and I love it. I'm a little confused as to why Mr. Intern gets the prerogative of being able to basically tell Frank and his lawyer to bugger themselves. He's only an associate. I wouldn't imagine he'd have that sort of administrative authority.

Doesn't make it any less funny though.

Solid, but I feel like this is a polish round or two away from really shining. The biggest drawback, I think, is just that it ends up being a little too mundane. Not necessarily in characterization or scenario, but rather just the punchiness of the prose. You have a couple really clever/fun sentences (garbage compactor, books lost, etc), but between them I'm... not bored, but I'm also not super engaged? There isn't a ton to him (likes coffee, gonna die in a minute, reasonably self-sacrificing), but the more clever stuff really makes up for it.

See >>Cassius regarding that this doesn't go quite far enough. I end up sort of expecting something like a (slightly more) incompetent Warhammer 40K evil doer, where everything he does is grimdark to the extreme, but also completely incompetent. Folder chair of kitten bones sets up a level of foul and ineffective evil that the rest of the piece... never really manages to reach.

I'd also say it reads a little too breakneck. I'm hard pressed at this exact moment point to what in the diction does it, but I never really like I have a chance to breathe, nor do you have time to build up to any punchlines. Its very much thing happens, thing happens, thing happens. Which can work for humor, but those things need to really come out swinging and really smack the reader from out of left field, which nothing here really does.

Still, cute and amusing. Probably would have been better off using a high fantasy substitute for google.

Well, okay, pretty straight forward presentation here. Strong idea, strong writing. But I feel like I've just read the back of a book jacket or something.

Aspiring Writer: Okay, here's the pitch. All reality is actually just a simulation and outside, in the real universe, everything is about to end. There's only one minute left, but it feels like thousands of years for the people inside the simulation!

Publisher: That's a great setting for a book. You could do some really amazing things in a world like that. So what's the plot?

Aspiring Writer: I dunno, maybe there's like some kind of romantic angle? Like, two people inside the simulation realize they're living in a computer but that doesn't make their love for each other any less real? Or maybe society discovers that they're in a computer program and they start to worship the dude outside as a god or something in the hopes that he'll favor their country or whatever over the other server?

And... yeah, that's about how I feel. Good idea, good world, even a good character (what we see of him) in this technician. But there's a lot missing too.

Well, things kind of picked up out of nowhere toward the end. I think the noticeable swerve came with the "Unyielding hatred" line that starts one of the final paragraphs. We get a hint of it before then, with the description of the snuff film, but it still seems to come out of left field. Particularly when compared with the description, just lines earlier, "That’s how he handled every adversity, with excitement and vigor. Just being around him brought morale to his subordinates and supporters."

The bomb, I suppose, is some kind of super-bomb. It will wipe clean all the mistakes of humanity. And yet, I wonder if he really wanted to detonate it -- why invite the unnamed protagonist in, where his is vulnerable, and show her the detonator? He must have anticipated this.

There are places earlier in the story -- the paragraph about the acid attack on his eyes, for one -- that I think could have been excised. Doing so would leave more room for the actual meat of the story, which this desperately needs.

Still, though, that last line. This will be going high on my slate.

>>Whitbane

She only has one bullet left.

Damn good story. Bleak, but certainly original. Little in the way of wasted words, and the parts you leave out mean just as much as the parts you include.

Top of the slate, so far. Still several entries to read, though.

Very similar in style to "Sixty Seconds to the End," in that both stories are basically just the protagonist telling us how things got to the point they're at, right now. This story, at least, has a few one-line paragraphs at the end that convey some action. A climax, though a short one.

The prose here is fine, but there's not much ambition. This is a story about a gunslinger who kills a lot of people. That's it. Even the ending is exactly that – the gunslinger adds another notch to his belt. The gunslinger feels kind of sad about the whole thing. The end.

When I have to judge stories that are all well written, I look for things like originality of idea, scope of ambition, vividness, etc. That's what this story is going to be competing on.

Dialogue's a little rough in this one, but the idea is interesting and (to me) original. I feel like this this story is actually too long, though – you could have gotten all this into a tighter package.

I'm not sure Einstein was totally ignorant of where his research was leading, but that's a separate point and has no bearing on my score.

Well.

I think Ion nails the fact that some of the wording and sentences could use mixing up. I think with a bit more space we could get a better idea of how the ending proceeds. But those are details.

Excellent work.

Edit: After thinking about it a few seconds longer, I'm a little unconvinced that you can wrap up a story like this by explaining the character's motivation as "hey, it's art!" I feel like that's the easy way out.

Not an entirely original concept (as >>AndrewRogue mentioned, "last man on Earth"), but the execution is fairly decent. I liked the idea of the zombie and human being able to communicate, as well as how bleak the world is made out to be. Personally, I would've added a few more story elements, like maybe some more environmental details or more specific description of all the heads and limbs.

Other than that, a fairly decent minific.

A good story idea and a relatively decent execution, but the emotional element doesn't quite mesh. While I understand him being rather lax about time flowing by, the fact that his death doesn't phase him sort of sucks out any conflict. He's already in a state of resignation by the story's start, so there's no real emotional beats the story can hit.

Decent idea and portrayal, but needs just a little more emotional investment.

Having a goldfish witness humanity's end is definitely a unique perspective, and the story does manage to give the story enough of a humorous edge to work. However, I feel like the opening paragraphs try a bit too hard to emulate Douglas Adams, sounding significantly wackier than the rest of the (admittedly offbeat) story. I also thought that the ending with the television was a bit too random. I get that an odd story like this will have an odd ending, but I really don't get the significance of the TV.

A good dose of random humor from the tiniest perspective of the apocalypse.

Okay, whoever wrote this story must've been going to my university, because I reviewed a classmate's story a few months ago that had an almost identical series of events (e.g. cheating husband on a plane, sending a final text). That, or this is just a really common plot device.

Either way, this story is just alright. It hits all the right beats of emotion, description and spacing, without coming off as too manipulative. The part with the Airplane Mode was the only thing that surprised me, but I'm not sure it's enough originality to really make me go gaga for this tale.

It's a serviceable story, but not much else.

Eh, the humor was decent and the character archetypes were delightfully goofy. But the story is pretty much a one-joke premise (Graginor is over-the-top evil and his opponents are hammy do-gooders), and the joke gets kind of old even with under 750 words.

A goofy comedy that's amusing, but not hilarious.

On the one hand, I like the more down-to-earth style this story uses. The destruction from the war is just an afterthought, a quiet rumination of the uncertain future. I also liked how this actually wasn't the end of the world for once. This is a war that's killed millions of people, yes, but a planet of billions losing millions isn't the annihilation most nuke stories promised.

But I also have to say that the story doesn't really provide many stakes for us to be involved in. The main character has already accepted the fact that Tokyo is ruined and that they won't be able to live much longer, and that robs a lot of conflict from the story. The last third also deflates a lot of the story, trying to assign an explanation for the story-world that tries too hard for a "realistic" conflict. I'm not saying that you can't used current events as inspiration for your story; I just think this story doesn't utilize said events very effectively.

A good emotional piece that crumbles when it tries to explain the world.

This is one of those stories that sits squarely between being dramatic and comedic. The surprising thing to me is that it actually does it pretty well. Death essentially "punks" Einstein (humorous), because his equations will lead to a certain event that will cost plenty of lives for Death to claim (dramatic). It's a tenuous line to cross, but the story does it pretty well.

That being said, I think Death was a little too casual of a fellow. An eldritch being like him might be goofy, but I think he'd be goofy to some extent during his first meeting with Einstein (where he's absolutely serious) instead of holding back for his final prank. I also think you're overestimating Einstein's influence in making the atomic bomb (no offense, but there were plenty of German scientists that had just as big a hand in that as him).

A good balance between comedy and drama that just needs a little bit of adjusting.

I actually really enjoyed this one. You can really tell the Gunslinger's getting really tired of this life, and while his opponent is a loudmouth, you do feel bad for him because he's just a dumb kid. This really is a character piece, and it's most effective by focusing on the characters instead of a fanciful situation.

A morose examination on the nature of the West.