Paula’s Comments (group member since Oct 28, 2015)

Paula’s comments from the Science Fiction Microstory Contest group.

Good story, Jack. Elegant.

Agree on that, Dorthe. As long as we can critique more than one story on the critiquing thread. . .

I'd like to be Yay on a critique thread if--but only if--the critique is limited to stories not in the (given) current month's contest and: either may be for any story in (e.g.) the preceding month's contest, or is to be for a particular story--but with each month's critique-story selected in a rotating fair manner assuring all participants will get equal numbers of critiques.
Otherwise I'm agin' it/Nay vote.

Okay, look, I'm extremely much against ganging-up on people, and I have kept myself very controlled against a number of provoking commentaries on this (and other) group(s), just as many others here have done. But--Heather--several of us having, independently, negative responses to a provoking, insulting sequence of comments is not "ganging up" or "being mean"; such ganging-up can happen in groups, but obviously it's not, in this case. And C's commentaries were of a sort almost calibrated to stir up negative responses, whether or not so intended; he has no complaint coming and needs no defender.
As others have said, that sort of commentaries also do not make for such discussions as we need here. So I'm thinking perhaps the group should consider some sort of firewall or requirement to protect against a future slamming/flare-up of the sort. For instance, we could put a requirement of 3 or 4 months' participation in the contests before one may make policy/procedure recommendations. Or perhaps, more simply, we could have a simple prohibition against name-calling or insulting other participants.

C., your comments today in this discussion may wish to be those of an innovator among a bunch of stuffies, etc. etc., but they, and your replies to our negative responses to them, seem more and more simply posturing. Now, most of us have learned in groups how to deal with this, and also how to avoid coming on as a poseur--for that is a very different role from being an innovator or a leader.
A critque thread--a new one each month, since Andy G's point re phones probably applies for many here--is a good idea. Beyond that, I agree here with Andy L, Richard, JJ, . . .

Heather, there's actually history behind that rule. We were concerned about the possibility of people popping in to cast votes--e.g., for a friend, or e.g., from boredom or no reason whatsoever--who'd no real interest in science fiction or writing science fiction at all; we were somewhat divided between those feeling anyone looking in LI's sf group and then into the contest should be able to vote, and those feeling the contest should be a learning/growing experience for those in it, and thus voting be a part of that participation rather than open to those not participating in the rest. And so what it means is basically "Why are you voting here? You like science fiction? You like to write? Other reason(s)? Or just give a sense who you are"---with, really, no right or wrong answers, just a willingness to open up that much to the group.

Yes, nice one, Greg!
Cool edits, Andy G.
Andy L., is it November 9, then? But this week is the last good hope for a sane or humane one. I've friends in Philly but not a practical trip this year. . .

Really wondering what sort of critiquing is likely for that thread.

Oh yes, heat and excitement, all right. ;)

Standard format for most critique groups I've been in is: critique the piece, not the author (Dorthe's 3rd-person idea sounds great); use "sandwich method" (at least one positive comment before, one+ after, doing negative comments on a piece).
Now, someone here suggested making doing a critique for the critique thread a requirement for entering one's story in a given month's contest. This would require critiquing only a previous contest's story/ies, since otherwise everyone would have to read any spoiler (and/or potentially judgment-affecting) comments on the critique thread. Probably more sensible would be the other person's suggestion that a person receiving an in-depth critique for his/her story "share the work" by doing the same for someone's story, which seems fair and does not set up contradictions.
If people decide to all critique the same story each month, then I suggest we simply go around (e.g., alphabetically by last names) regarding whose story gets critiqued. Otherwise, we're going to have some folks' stories never get critiqued, some get critiqued too often, etc. We should also have an opt-out for persons who don't really want this group's in-depth critique.

Lloyd, if the critiquers do serious critiquing, holding down any biases (such as "I only like old-fashioned tech-heavy stories" or "Gee, this is too literary" or "Too much dialogue for my taste" or "I hate sf set on the bridge of a spaceship", or whatever), and also judging a tale only in re what it is (so that "I'd like to see a novel from this" could be an add-on but not a main portion of a critique), and if the critiquers have enough knowledge of writing techniques and writings to recognize components well, then sure, long critiques can be helpful.
Still, even in the very best critique groups I've been in, even those including award-winning and/or traditionally-published book authors, usually only 2 out of 8 (or so /approximately) of the critiquers provide commentary thought, by a given author, useful. And which 2 varies with the author cited, making "critiqueing the critiquers," especially as a contest in itself, . . . But again, this should be discussed by those in the proposed critiques thread.

I agree with Heather and JJ that a separate critique thread would be best.
That way, those wishing to participate in that thread can determine how the strories critiqued will be determined and by whom--with the exceptions, of course, mentioned by Heather: (1) the author must agree to his/her piece being critiqued, and (2) the piece must not be in contention in the given month's contest.
As for cliquiques . . .

C. Lloyd--why Jot or a random number generator? What's become fairly clear over the past 3 years or so of this contest is most of us feel strongly ready to give useful feedback only for some, not all, of the stories presented during any given month. True, it would be quite valuable for folks to expand their comfort range in critiquing (and thus of seeing/understanding the workings of) stories here, but it may take considerable time for a useful body of such feedback to evolve. ---Perhaps simply encouraging more critiquing by each of us of, say, between 5 and all of a month's pieces would have sufficient effect.

Oh Justin, sorry!--I misunderstood your use of "fuzzy" then. Liked the critique, in any case.
Yes, there's a grungy old faultline around, but the way you offer suggestions etc. skips nimbly over it, so do not worry!
(I agree, Jusin and Heather, this group could work fine even without a contest. But the contest is fun too.)

Thanks, Justin.
It was a dangerous comment, though, given the techies vs. literaries division sometimes apparent in this group since the beginning. A division that should not divide people, really
To be honest, I took the concept from a 1950s story--by one of that period's "greats," maybe Boucher or Clarke or possibly Asimov, so it's interesting it seems ethereal or mystical.
"Fuzzy," otoh----oh-oh, thanks for the warning, I better fix where there's fuzz, man! Seriously, thanks.
A thoughtful critique, Justin; thanks.

Well, here we go. Definitions/restrictions time again. Let's look at it: what are "true science fiction elements"?
Pethaps tech-speak? a few lines here and there of superficially skimmed science concepts? And which sciences--and math?
I do assume most of us are aware that alternate history and time travel have an honored history in the body of science fiction--absurd to cast doubt on that.
And I assume we all know of Ursula Le Guin's response when asked how the Ausible (sp?) Drive--her faster-than-light space drive--worked. And what is the "science" element in PKD's "Second Variety" or Sheckley's "Watchbird"? Let alone in a "boys on the bridge" galaxy-galloping space-opera tale?
Speaking personally--as I think Jot just did and may be good if we each do--I prefer a well-written story, whatever its style or form, and whether character, plot, concept/s, or setting be most important to it (Karl, those need not be in conflict). I recognize Years of Rice and Salt, The Martian Chronicles, "The Day before the Revolution" and "The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas," The Doomsday Book, The House on the Strand, etc. etc. as science fiction and classic equally to, say, Benford's or Baxter's works or KSR's Mars trilogy.
Generally, the definitions game is a waste of time; we know how the words are used. But I do think we could clarify a lot by recognizing the very wide differences in our individual preferences. ON the other hand, keeping in mind that professional, or indeed any serious, judging of writing includes attempting to control one's individual biases so as to apply a more universal (let's avoid the term "objective") way to judge fairly.
imho.

Posted mine.
It's not the world of science fiction's newest plot, but I think it works.

Bluegirl
Copyright © 2016 by Paula Friedman

Hour by hour, step by step, Filbert moved backward, never deviating from the route implicit to the miles of fluoreo “torchettes” fifteen metres above his head. Day after day—“months” of days, ‘twould be called had we still been “on-surface” (as folks and furries, featheries, everybody once had been)—day after day, Filbert straightlined backward in his dedication. Cruddy, clunky, ordinary Filbert with his muddy overalls, his size-D boots, his dedication was damn beautiful to see. Following Filbert, I carried the paints, dragging those too heavy for what Filbert called “your skinny, lady’s arms,” and night noon morning followed him along.

People would bow, seeing us pass as they wended to work in bubble-pod or hydropharm, would bow, inclining forward in respect. Respect not for us, of course—certainly not for me, young Apprentice Redhair—but for our dedicated work.

That work—Filbert’s, now also mine—being to keep our frail Bluegirl alive. Or try to. Cleaning and replacing, repairing and clarifying, through every hour’s and every day’s recurrence of necessities, inside the long unknown expanse of tunnels and conducting tubes to bring her nourishment, assure her liquids, strain to near-approach her cooling apparati . . . and always, always, “day and night” as we still say, to sing. Sing to her. Sing the simple songs out of our childhood, our youth and hers.

Now, Filbert had a silver harp, I my guitar. Together we would sing, together cry.

“There was a sailor boy, / a little sailor boy”—I don’t know why I felt our dear Bluegirl liked this song. And the other—“You make me happy / when skies are gray/ . . .” Over and over, far down tunnels, our flicklights glinting where no feet had trod in long millennia, we sang between the tuning and repairing, fixing and restoring, assuring—striving to assure—replenishment to save her. Always aware we likely came too late.

Aware too of the eyes. Something like eyes. Something that watched.

We didn’t know what. The farther we walked, Filbert painting the fluoreo, I dragging behind him, away from humans, beasties, everything, the more we felt the “eyes.”

“Not eyes, Reddie,” Filbert said, one sleep-time. We lay on our softies, whispering—more and more, we sensed we must speak quietly—“Not eyes, but something. Somethings. Many as stars above.”

“Stars?” I asked, but felt air stir as Filbert shook his shaggy head. Yet I understood; I’d heard of stars. Stars, from the days before. Before the floods, the heat, the Parching. The time before we humans turned to dig the City and its tunnels—sheltering beneath the ground and dedicating all to save the remnants. Especially the waters and our Bluegirl.

“Like stars above,” Filbert repeated, turning sideways to sleep. I lay awake, staring into blackness, seeking and fearing those eyes. Not eyes.

Then up again at waketime, Filbert grabbing his tools, and I, refreshed, our paints. And onward farther. Sometimes I shivered and my knees went weak. “Girl, bravery!” Filbert would chide; fear would pass, though we no longer sang. Did not dare sing. And once, during one strong temblor, I sank to my knees. “Come come, girl,” Filbert soothed, rough yet gentle, “you grew up in City; temblors for you should be”—his hands gestured—“nothing, nothing.” He helped me rise. “Onward, my friend. Dedication.”

Dedication, our watchword. Ours, and the City’s. I tried. Yet the further we moved, the more the innumerable eyes, temblors, fear.

*
“Red needs a week’s vacation.” Filbert spoke into his Wiff.

*
Blue. Blue. Blue. I’ve never seen so blue as sky. Now I understand the songs. Why we love Bluegirl. Why Bluegirl loves the songs.

I stand on a “peak” on-surface. In a Vacation SilverPod, “reward for your Dedication.” Above is blue. "Sky," now gold, red, clarity I’ve never seen. Black, with stars now—stars like eyes.

Eyes gleaming as the stars. I see them blink. I tremble, but the tremblors shake beneath my feet. The eyes—I sense, don't see—hold tears. The tears spill over. Earth shivers. From the spaces by the eyes like stars their message sings:

“Now finally they try to help her, our Bluegirl.”

“Yes but don’t you see? If our/their planet Bluegirl lives, they too live--to re-emerge and reach to us, infect us too.”

“Yet they, too, are life.”

“Who destroyed fragile Bluegirl. We must—”

“Wait. Wait. First see if they are changed--enough to save her.”

(750 words)

I guess you'd best ask him, not me, Lloyd. :)
Carrie--Dean too-- that is one cool audiobk! Nice!

C./Lloyd, that's how some of us did this (when doing critiques other than by private messages), until the past 2-4 months. BUT we can post our critiques to the list immediately after the vote, directly, you know.