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

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

I messaged Amos on fb today, told him we miss him here.

Whee! J.J., thank you! I'd not seen that (and love getting to see just the last part, skip the meat-n-potatoes course). Super--well done filmically and music and acting too. Thanks again.
And btw, you're one of hte last persons I'd characterize as "provincial."
J.J. wrote: "Sorry Paula, how provincial of me! I just assumed everyone had seen this classic so didn't go into the humdrum details (if you can call forcing a computer to avoid global destruction by beating its..."

Haven't seen/read War Games. (War Game, otoh!) But hey whatever.
C. Lloyd, yes---agreed---very good distinction. Discuss one another's works, critique where author open to a given story being critiqued, but avoid comparisons etc. between a month's stories until most folks have their first-round votes in.
J.J.'s point, btw, is also crucial--if you critique a story, your critique is also being critiqued and/or judged. On this---look at some of the critiques on Goodreads of, say, a couple of your favorite books; you'll see that a few were written with both knowledge of writing/literature and a commitment to look seriously at/into the particular tale; best is to aim for such skillful commitment with each story (insofar as time allows).

Justin, I was not speaking for the entire group, nor would I wish to discourage discussion of the stories. Obviously, as Andy said, giving away endings of stories likely affects the reader's pleasure in them; but of course there are a zillion ways to discuss a tale without the "reveal." But other discussion, and exploration of themes, and indeed critiquing, when done well, is part of the value of any writers group, surely.

Yes, you're right, Richard. Well said. Richard wrote: "It's more than easy to skim the frequent spoilers. Reading them makes a total farce of any vote. But it long ago became apparent that probably a majority here like the clatter. Well, the ones that ..."

No need for all that mechanism, Heather. One can tell at a glance, no necessity for headlines.

Heather, I meant stand-alone stories that also work in sequence.
Btw, Justin, Heather, all, please do note that I, and I'm sure a few others here, skip over comments discussing the particular stories until we've read the stories or, even, until after voting on the month's stories.

Sounds a great idea, Jack. According to what I've read online (never mind where!), novellas made of a sequence of micro/flash/short-short fictions (previously lengths that were unsellable :) ) is the coolest, innest thing.

Nice elegant sentence structure to your friend's little piece, Justin.
C., be careful with that g. surfing!

Nicely, succincly put, J.J.

Enjoy, Jot---a well-deserved trip!

Yay! p.s., oh dear, those parameters are just reminding me of, again, Willis's Passage. . .

Yes, Elana was only involved with the one contest, to the best of my knowledge. But obviously my knowledge has considerable limits, as I'd forgot that Tom had carried on after the discussion mentioned.
No, clearly, if someone sends a truly superb story, definitely finest of the month--as each of these authors did, in point of fact--I will, again, vote for the superb tale before even considering whether it fits someone's "definition" of science fiction . . . unless, perhaps, it has absolutely no fantastical or intellectual deviation whatsoever from some other genre or commercial sort of fiction. The quality seems crucial.

Well, here we go. This would all be very nice, pleasant midsummer chatting such as we've done before, but unfortunately the last time we got into an "Is that REALLY science fiction?" chat, we ended up defining out a wide enough swath that we effectively pushed out Tom Huber--whose wonderful and moving winning story some felt was "not science fiction"--and sf author and scholar Elana Gomel. And so let us remember that this sort of "Your way of writing ain't in, my definition of sf" dissection can turn destructive in the end.
This too---if sf does not include alternative history, we lose some classic examples; ditto if it does not include works based in philosophy, linguistics, or math concepts (such as large proportionas of Le Guin's and some of Benford's works); very much ditto if it does not include tales based in future, other worlds, or the like but that do not include tech of some sort (to use the classic example, Martian Chronicles); ditto if we exclude works "too poetic," "too complex," "too simplistic," "too space-opera," "too trite," or the like.
"I don't like vanilla" (or chocolate, or strawberry, or whatever) is no way to either judge a piece of literature or define a whole literature or genre, after all.

There is also of course The Martians (plural, by KSR)--either the outtakes of RGB Mars or its alternative history/ies.
I'm more caught up, though, still, in Willis's Passage, specifically in the meaning (if any, and I think there is one) of the final appearance/event/epiphany, or more to the point non-epiphany, and why, and seeing this as, most pointedly, the author's comment on telling tales.

Dorthe, your story *does* stand by itself. Tom's and JJ's and Jeremy's as well. And yet, each of these makes me long to know more about its background--whether to deepen my awareness of the story's world, or because it's drawn me in. This is very good work by the story, not a fault even remotely.

I'm a sucker for alternative history; KSR's "Lucky Strike" and of course his Years of Rice and Salt are right up there in my favorites. But, probably since I see science fiction more as conceptual (including philosophical as well as more techie issues of science and math concepts), I've no trouble regarding alternative history as fully science fiction. Time travel, too, of course. And, as one fellow student said many years ago, "Everything follows from a contradiction". . . in which these abound.
Jon, I really really liked your story--no problem whatsoever with its being a variation of a religious tale. It is, as Heather notes here, beautifully written. And, much more than most the other stories this time, it was emotionally moving.
No, Richard, as I said, your comment did not seem sexist; the idea that "men and women think differently," on the other hand ...

Dorthe, I must apologize--my own ignorance of Macedonian history and of parts of Roman history limited my appreciation of your story---a beautifully written one, as ever. Looking forward to your next ones!

lol, Richard, I'm not saying it.
'cause if I did, it'd seem an accusation of sexism, and you definitely do NOT strike me as sexist. :) Besides, yours is not a solitary opinion here. Some things in s.f. apparently don't change.
And of course, J.J.'s, my, and Heather's writing do tend, in varying and differing ways, to a bit of complexity. Some of that may be unnecessary (speaking for myself only), some may be very valuable, but in all cases readers' responses are good to know in detail, and of course, as Dostoevsky once (or multiply) said of psychology, can be a double-edged sword.

Recent events over here, of course, Andy, make one incline to favor voting that is counted correctly--and appreicative of what Jot goes through each month to do that.
Andy and Andy and all, my point re the number of votes is just that, if we each do the same number of choices--whether 3 or 13 or whatever--then we're each weighting the votes equally. Agree entirely that giving lots of votes, lots of credits to people for their fine work, is very helpful to everyone.
In which regard, thank you, Andy G, and others here who voted for my piece this month.
This was one phnomenal, blow-out month, with such incredible tales, I must say!