Science Fiction Microstory Contest discussion
Science Fiction Microstory Contest (July 2016) ** COMMENTS ONLY **
I messaged Amos on fb today, told him we miss him here.
Hello everyone!I just wanted to share this little mini audiobook Dean and I created out of the October Microstory prompt.
(I was going to post this in that comment thread but alas! We converted to GR in November!)
Chapters 5 & 6 are our entries into the Monsters prompt from last October, the other stories spawned from various prompts and ideas.
But since it all came about because of this group I wanted to share!!
Monsters Among Us (Full Episode)
http://directory.libsyn.com/episode/i...
I'm still gnawing this bone...So, how about this idea: what if we emailed our critiques to Jot along with our votes and then he publishes them after the winner is announced?
That way, everyone can critique and gush about favorite stories to their heart's content, but it wouldn't effect the competition with favoritism or criticism since it comes out after the winner is announced. Would that be better?
-C. Lloyd Preville
Lloyd That's usually how I've done it.
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.
So Paula, what changed?Jot used to publish our comments but now...?
Is Jot--Not?
(Lol sorry Jot, I couldn't resist.)
-C. Lloyd Preville
I guess you'd best ask him, not me, Lloyd. :)Carrie--Dean too-- that is one cool audiobk! Nice!
@J.J. Great story - and thanks for the film tip, always (well, not always, but this time) fun to revisit an 80s classis :o) @Carrie - and Dean - what a brilliant little audiobook!
Entry #4 called Tea Time is really. good. It reads like the beginning of a fun series.Good job Tom
So far the story #3 Tempest In A Martini Glass is my favorite. Good job C.John
Thanks for the kind words, John!This is shaping up to be another good month, chock-full of spirited competition!
I'll echo Tom's astute observation that all the stories this month, including yours, are especially rich in visuals and great dialog.
I'll have more comments about particular stories after the voting later this month. I'm trying not to influence anyone's vote.
-C. Lloyd Preville
Carrie wrote: "Hello everyone!I just wanted to share this little mini audiobook Dean and I created out of the October Microstory prompt.
(I was going to post this in that comment thread but alas! We converted to..."
Loved it. Very potent, very moving. Fantastic, haunting imagery.
John wrote: "Entry #4 called Tea Time is really. good. It reads like the beginning of a fun series.Good job Tom"
Thank you, John. I enjoyed "Blivasten" very much; wonderfully imaginative and off-beat job of world building with a subtle yet ominous ending. Well done.
Justin,I think this is a welcome and wise initiative: the concept and practice of posting "bonus stories" which are not for competition. (I think Andrew G also did something similar last month ... and maybe someone else, I can't remember now. And that was a good thing.)
But you, in my opinion, have added a heightened level of creative maturity as well by specifically saying "feel free to dissect and discuss" That has been sorely missing, this sense of the normality of 'free discussion', of the exchange of ideas. That key component of communication (and communication is what authors do!) has become the oppressed sibling of Controlled & Controlling Competitiveness (which control includes 'overly-formalized critiquing,' which is different to a lively informal exchange of ideas and perspectives, the lack of which makes for a very boring forum.)
I'm taking a break for a while from the competition (and voting ... & that includes 'formalized/formula-ized' critiquing.) But it's so nice to see bonus stories that exist purely for creative drive and fun and exchange that I feel drawn to participating in that activity ... maybe starting next month, if this lively initiative continues on.
Posted mine. It's not the world of science fiction's newest plot, but I think it works.
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.
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.)
Justin basically anything you do here is fine as long as you do it with a smile and goodwill - as indeed you do!
Justin said, "I feel a bit like I'm stumbling around in a minefield lately in the group." Don't worry Justin, the group will get back to tip-toeing through the tulips again. It always does! (We've traversed the minefields before ya see!) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcSlc...
(Personally, I am having a little break from the contest itself, due, in part, to feeling a little more than usually hypersensitive and due to my pondering the direction in which I want my own sf writing to go and due to being caught up with other {time-hungry} projects ... but I still like to see what's going on in these discussions.)
Here we go indeed.Personally I could do without all the lurking: (comments, opinions, and threats to leave without any stories being submitted for really long times), and grandstanding: (lots of comments, opinions, and even non-competition story submissions), these particularly annoy me since they are for some reason still posted on the stories board, (the rules say only one story submitted per author), and not the comments board.
It just annoys me to watch all this activity which is, in my way of thinking, at cross purposes with the clearly stated mission and rules of the board.
I'm sure my comments will be perceived as hard-line, hard core, and mean-spirited, but I'm not trying to be the rules police, I'm just offering the opinion of a person with a full schedule of activities, who is a bit more focused on participating consistent with the spirit of the competition and less patient about it than most.
Is this contest a true and pure exercise in writing and improvement? The design is clearly so, and Jot deserves a lot of credit for that. But the lines of demarcation seem to be under constant assault as some people try bending the rules, exploring possible wiggle room, and bringing in other elements into what--in my opinion--should be a simple and pure exercise.
Am I being blunt? Yes I am. Are you all going to like it? No, you won't, even though I am merely offering opinions as others have done.
Admittedly, I find it fun to shake things up a bit. Guilty as charged. But my purpose is not to distract but to help get the contest board more focused on the competition. That's what it's supposed to be about--right?
-C. Lloyd Preville
The forum has my sincere apologies. I've gone back and reread the rules for clarification.I will withhold all comments and critiques until after the voting is complete, nor will I add any extra, non-competitive stories to the competition thread.
My offer to provide copies of my sci-fi novellas to the winner (if he or she is interested) still stands.
Again, I'm sorry for blundering around the forum like a bull in a china shop.
Extra stories deleted from competition thread.
Oh, come on, guys! I've been around here for well over three years and have inflicted 40-some stories on the patient readers in the contests. Justin, there's no sense in your apologizing for anything you did. It seems that when a new-ish group of writers comes onboard here, there begins a set of more-or-less annual kerfuffles about Jot's voting algorithms, what constitutes science-fiction, how strict the rules are meant to be interpreted, and on and on. Some folks like to join in, others don't. Some folks stay on month after month, more or less regularly; others leave after a while, some to return, most not. It's all cool as far as I'm concerned. And to say, Justin, that you've been a bull in a china shop, well, that's just silly. There's indeed a lot of bull around here, and once again, that's fine and fun. The last time I looked, there ain't no fine china here either, just a bunch of us very base metals clanking around from time to time. You didn't break anything, so , young man, un-delete those items of yours, and I mean, right now! And, to all, have a very nice day.
Ok catching up -First off thank you Paula, Dorthe and Tom: thanks for the kind words! I had so much darned fun with it.
C.: You are correct in regards to the rules (And I’m a huge proponent of following the rules); however, I would hate to stifle creativity. The whole point of this contest is to curate stories and to become a better writer. Sometimes the creative bug hits, you write a story and then a second story and what? You just delete it because there’s nowhere to post it? Lame.
Justin: I would suggest you post your secondary story in the comments section. I for one would actually like to read it!
C. & Heather: In regards to the additional comments, to be honest a lot of the non-writing chitchat bores me. But there’s a pretty simply solution SKIP THOSE COMMENTS. I think there’s a lot of value in these threads, I’ve been busy and haven’t been able to keep up as much as I’d like but when I do sit down and read through them I always pick something up.
However - I am in wholehearted agreement that some of the side talk and the repeated challenging of the rules detract from the overall sense of the contest. But I do encourage discussion around the rules for the purpose of better understanding. Especially in regards to new participants. Even to me, the voting calculations are confusing. But quite frankly I don’t care to lose any sleep over it since I don’t have to do the tallying (yay!).
It could just be my own personal perception but I think the comment threads have a completely different feel to them now in comparison to when I first started participating two years ago. But that could just be my own perception.
I don’t know.
Either way, most people who’ve been around since I joined in 2014, know I struggle with writing science fiction which is why I don’t always participate, but I always ALWAYS read the stories and vote!
It is amazing, and somewhat depressing, how one very inisistently chatty member of a group can rock the boat and even make other people feel like bulls in china shops. So don't worry, Justin: there are no minefields here, and you have done nothing to apologise for. Maybe I should apologise for promiscuous use of metaphors? Nope, it's only a new breeding ground for imagery, just what we like.
Anyway, imo, discussions during the writing period - before everybody has posted their own story and had time to read the others - should be general and, if they touch upon anything relevant to any actual story, absolutely non-spoilery. Quoting the final, twisty, line of a story is not cricket.
Extra stories are welcome, so please do post them; I agree with Carrie that they should be in the comments thread, leaving the story thread 'clean' and easier to read through for voting.
As for the voting rules themselves: can we agree to accept them as they are? They do seem to work, though I personally am not sure how. No worries, though.
This is supposed to be fun, guys, not a stressful tiptoeing around other people's perceived sensitivities!
Dorthe - very well said.A quick comment on critiques/feedback. I think a "this line doesn't work for me" or "this dialogue section doesn't make sense" would be more helpful BEFORE the voting so a re-write could be done. I don't see how that would sway the voting.
Me posting "Dorthe, loved your story kudos!" (random example) and nothing else could obviously sway a vote.
But I think actual proofreading type feedback is helpful for writers growth.
I consistently place low in the voting, because I suck at writing sci-fi. I fully embrace/accept it. However, as a writer wanting to learn, someone saying "Carrie, your story doesn't work and here's why" sure would be helpful.
And I know, not everyone is looking for critical feedback (and even get offended by it) which is why many of us don't critique.
Perhaps there's a way to indicate feedback is welcome when we post the story?
Non-competitive bonus story for July (conforms to posted July criteria):SUB TERRA
“Captain Hogarth?”
The comms specialist suddenly materialized at the right arm of the captain’s chair on the cramped and dimly lit bridge.
“What is it Ears?”
“Message came through on the VLF array sir. Your eyes only.”
“Understood. Thank you Charlie. Carry on.”
“Sir.”
The captain looked down at the code indented into the impact paper. It meant nothing until he placed it under the cypher he kept locked in his stateroom safe.
“Silver Bullet!”
Commander Silverstein whipped around from his watch station behind the two helmsmen.
“Yes Hogs?”
“You have the bridge. Eyes only comm,” he waved the flimsy for emphasis.
“Affirmative Skipper, I have the bridge.”
As Commander Silverstein took the center seat, the Chief of the Boat rotated into his.
Captain Hogarth walked briskly down the narrow corridor to his stateroom, ducking under coolant pipes and conduit piping the entire time.
“Make a hole!” he bellowed, then chuckled at the irony. A dozen ratings scurried out of his way and did their best to press themselves against various bulkheads.
Reaching his stateroom, Hogarth pulled a brass key from his pocket and opened the small safe where the cypher book and other classified materials were kept. He eyed the even smaller compartment at the back of the safe. Was this it?
Tossing the cypher book onto his small desk, he slid the flimsy into a red plastic page and turned on the special desk lamp. He read quickly.
*FLASH TRAFFIC – FLASH TRAFFIC – FLASH TRAFFIC*
To: Cptn J. Hogarth / USS Mercury
From: COMSUBLANT
Msg: Soviets penetrated SEWALL. *BREAK*
New Sub-Denver nuked. *BREAK*
Proceed at flank speed to war station OBSIDIAN. *BREAK*
Conduct PERMANENT VACATION protocol on New Sub-Moscow. *BREAK*
All other priorities rescinded. *BREAK*
Godspeed.
*END TRANS*
Hogarth slouched in his chair and braced his eyes with both hands. Jennifer and the kids had just evacuated from Old Sub-Houston to New Sub-Denver three weeks ago. He lifted the growler out of its cradle.
“Bridge.”
“Silverstein get down here on the double.”
“Aye Skipper.”
Hogarth flicked another switch and held the growler to his ear with his shoulder while digging for two shot glasses.
“Engine room. Yes Captain?”
“Gears, can we go to 125 percent on the reactor?”
“I wouldn’t recommend it sir. The portside buckets took some damage after that last crazy Ivan burned us.”
“I’ll take it under advisement. Go to 125 percent immediately.”
“Yes sir.” Hogarth could almost feel the vibrations increase through deck plates.
A sharp rap on the door preceded Commander Silverstein’s entrance into Hogarth’s stateroom.
The Captain handed his Executive Officer a finger of whiskey.
“What’s the occasion Hogs?”
“The Russkies burned New Sub-Denver.”
“Not possible. None of their ships have ever penetrated the Seismic Early Warning and Listening Line.” Hogarth showed him the cypher.
“Jeez Jack, I’m so sorry.”
“We’ll get our payback.”
Silverstein finished reading the cypher and nodded solemnly.
Hogarth hit another button on his desk, sounding a digital boson’s whistle and activating the Mercury’s PA system.
“This the Captain. Set Condition One throughout the ship. I repeat, set Condition One throughout the ship. Our orders are to conduct PERMANENT VACATION protocol on New Sub-Moscow. That is all.”
Outside, Mercury’s massive drill head began to turn even faster as the ship dove for the Asthenosphere.
***
They finally reached war station OBSIDIAN, but had taken heavy damage from two Soviet attack drills. As a result, the reactor core was beginning to overheat. So far it was manageable and Hogarth was determined to launch his missiles.
“Ears this is the bridge, report all contacts.”
“Affirmative Captain. Ground penetrating radar is clear at this time.”
“Excellent. Helm, up 15 degrees on the drill head, then level off after 500 meters. Maintain flank speed.”
“Aye Captain. Helm answering up 15 degrees on the drill head, maintaining flank speed.”
“Commander Silverstein do you have your launch key and do you concur with our orders?”
“Yes Captain. I have my launch key and I concur with our orders.”
“Bridge this is Ears. GPR is detecting something off our starboard side…possibly moving behind us.”
“Understood Ears. Keep us posted. Commander Silverstein insert your launch key and prepare to turn on my command.”
The two men flipped up the clear plastic covers over the two key holes and inserted their keys.
“Bridge! Contact! Contact! Two Javelin class attack drills bearing directly astern. They’ve launched six torpedo screws and are actively pinging!”
Hogarth looked at Silverstein, who simply nodded and smiled grimly.
“Execute, execute, execute.”
(749 words in story) Justin Sewall © 2016
Dorthe and Carrie,My post to Justin re tiptoeing etc was intended as humour AND to endorse his contributions ... not make him feel like a bull in a china shop. (If you go back through comments of years past there has been 'minefields' ... but we move on, at least we always have in the past.) The link I posted in the comment above {message 71} is to a funny clip of, the famous musical impersonator, Tiny Tim, singing (impersonating) that very song, famous from the 1920's, "Tip Toe Through The Tulips." It was meant to lighten the mood not depress it! So no 'ganging up' please. (It's a bit disingenuous and childish to say that "one person is rocking the boat." It's a scapegoating that sounds like something from the school playground. Let's just let everyone be themselves ... and accept that writers don't all see through the same lens!)
p.s. MOST of my posts are indeed about writing and Justin himself has several times thanked me for my insights about his writing. If you see a post by me and simply SKIP THOSE COMMENTS then you can't say that my comments are mostly "non writing chit chat." They may be, if you actually think about them, 'about writing; but from a different perspective than some.' That's what writers do: see life from their own unique - even, Heaven forbid, sensitive, perspective and say it, in writing! I DO read ALL comments and visit all links posted. Its actually a good way to get to know the perspectives and opinions ... and senses of humour/sense of humours ... of others!! (eg, If you read JJ's comments you would know that she did actually suggest a very good idea re signalling that feedback of one's story writing is welcome, or not, as the case may be.)
I agree with Andrew G, that Justin should, as he now has done, re-post the extra curricular stories. I am not a rule-worshipping thinker. Rules are Servants of Creativity, not the other way around, in my opinion.
Heather - ironically my comment was meant to be in support of you not ganging up on you...It was merely a suggestion that you skip the commentary that was bothering you in regards to you stating you were feeling hypersensitive.
That's all.
lol, Carrie,Perhaps we should all just take our first interpretation of someone's comments and then flip it the other way, to get the real meaning! Well yes perhaps I do pepper my writing comments with 'how I feel' ... but we've ALL got our weird ways, not just me. But thanks for the suggestion. Perhaps what I try to convey re 'writing' would be better understood if I left some of my description of my 'thinking process' out! I'll have a think about it. Thanks
This (i.e., the following quote) IS about creativity - eg writing, for example, "Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself." ~ Charlie Chaplin
Now that's an example, to my mind anyway, of the sort of comment that takes my attention and I would love it if more people here DID want to discuss such things that 'surround' writing (creativity generally.)
That which 'surrounds writing' and that which 'IS writing' are inextricably joined. That's what I see even though someone else(s) sees irrelevant chitchat ... and even that fact is endlessly fascinating to me (and the sort of 'research' of the human condition that I, as a writer/an observer of life, love to engage in ... and preferably discuss/exchange viewpoints on.) I don't understand (well p'haps I do) why so many here - not everyone - close down, even get quite angry at the idea of Creatives SHARING 'thought processes.' I find it overly precious and protective ... even overly competitive and ungenerous? ... in its motivation.
Justin, I liked your bonus story, but on a casual read I didn't really get what was happening. I had to reread it more carefully a second time to figure out what was going on. I think you should establish immediately that they're in a craft that drills through the Earth (very cool idea by the way). --------------
I like to discuss/critique the stories. We don't do enough of that. Sometimes I think a month is too long to wait for feedback. And if the only critique we get is we didn't get enough votes to be "good" in the eyes of the group, well, that's not all that helpful. Especially since everyone has different tastes, and the winners aren't always the best from my point of view.
Justin, I agree with Carl. You're a talented writer and I liked the novelty of your 'bonus' story as well. Perhaps you should save it away for a future contest. That's what I do when I am inspired to write multiple stories in a single month, which is often the case.Karl, I absolutely agree with you about the value of critical reviews and critiques from a group of diverse writers like this one. The problem is abuse. If certain stories are complimented or showcased before the vote is completed, the contest is influenced. And how could you critique a story without offering compliments for a job well-done?
Here's an idea: what if Jot were to pick one story, either decisively or randomly, from the prior month to critique in the current month while the contest is underway? This would allow us all to critique the same story with our diverse points of view, and deliver more depth and a wide range of beneficial insights without affecting the competition at all.
How about that? It sounds like it might be fun as well as more constructive than what we're currently doing.
- C. Lloyd Preville
Easy random number generator to select a story from the prior month: https://www.random.org/integers/-C. Lloyd Preville
C. wrote: "Justin, I agree with Carl. You're a talented writer and I liked the novelty of your 'bonus' story as well. Perhaps you should save it away for a future contest. That's what I do when I am inspired ..."C., I can definitely agree with this. I want to give feedback where and when it is agreed upon and only if it is wanted. Good option.
Karl wrote: "Justin, I liked your bonus story, but on a casual read I didn't really get what was happening. I had to reread it more carefully a second time to figure out what was going on. I think you should es..."Thanks Karl! I intentionally wrote it that way. I want to drop you into the story "already in progress" and then make you find some mental handholds to grab. I do understand it can be a bit harder to engage with for those less exposed to or immersed in military techo-jargon and protocols.
I begin leading you along a path that might make you believe they are on a nuclear powered submarine, and in a sense they are, hence the title: Sub Terra. Then as it goes on you learn they are actually burrowing through the earth. I do borrow heavily from the submarine world. Then I worked in my last name as a defense line acronym.
Thanks for the great feedback!
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.
Paula said, "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."I believe the way, to achieve both 'growth in our critiquing range to better understand the working of stories' AND 'a useful body of feedback', that is most likely to succeed is to have a dedicated Critiquing thread. Once that thread is established, with working guidelines*, invite people to use it as they will within the guidelines.
*suggested guidelines for a dedicated critiquing thread:-
1.) only critique a story whose author has indicated (eg via JJ's suggested way of such indication) that they are open to receiving critiques.
2.) don't critique current month stories before vote outcome is finalized.
3.) critique any story you want to (as long as it is not excluded by '1.)' and '2.)' above) that is a contest entry or a bonus story.
4.) consider critiquing outside your comfort range ... but only if you can, the most important thing being a detailed and thoughtful critique rather than just a build up of critiques for the sake of it.
5.) the only posts allowed on the Critiques thread are the critiques themselves and the critiqued authors' responses to their critiquers' critique(s). (All other comments - eg commentary on others' critiquing or requests by authors for someone(s) to please critique their work, etc, to be posted in the general 'Comments' thread. This will keep the Critiqing thread pristine and uncluttered, enabling it to become 'a useful body of feedback.')
I think this approach is far more likely to succeed than an approach that recommends that 'everyone critique a set story' (no matter how that story is chosen.) It has enough mandated guidelines to not fall into an undisciplined mess while at the same time not overly curtailing the genuine creative enthusiasm and involvement needed to get the best critiques possible.
Paula wrote: "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 a..."Hi Paula,
I'll be blunt again. It's a sloppy mess. I think it might be interesting to sharpen things up and polish this venue into a much more productive environment for everyone's personal benefit. Comfort is ok, but I don't believe it's what we're all here for--well, at least most of us.
I'm suggesting we have Jot pick the story since you get two benefits that way: one, you get Jot's wisdom and leadership selecting a story based on a particular aspect or writing style/challenge, which gives him the ability to steer how we as a group focus our attention on better writing skills; and two, you get everyone's opinion on a particular story with the wide array of perspectives and writing skills our group has to offer.
So we go "wide and deep" on one story rather than the current haphazard and what seems to be a very rare review process. Jot could either ask the selected story author permission to have the story critiqued and pick another if permission is denied, or simply leave the rules as-is, where any story submitted to the contest is subject to critique and too bad if you don't like it.
However, if Jot would rather leave the choice of story to chance since this would impose some additional work on his part, then he could either assign the honor to someone else, or the random number generator might come in handy. As the creator of this venue, it's his call.
The separate critique thread Heather suggests would be a good idea in this case, since all the critiques would be grouped together and not scattered among all the other chatter.
It would be a cool thing in my opinion to discuss critiques during the following month, focusing the group's attention and reducing superfluous chatter. And I think it would tend to sharpen everyone's skills at critiquing their own work by critiquing others' as a group on a monthly basis--all good, positive stuff in my view.
-C. Lloyd Preville
A separate thread sounds a really good idea for both critiques and cliquiques.
... with electrified fences and a no-man's land in between? :)
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 . . .
... sounds like we're beginning to be on the way to finding the right 'sweet-dance' moves forward now https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZMHJ...
By the way, C, I think that there would be a problem in the stricter model of how this should be done that you are proposing, in that it doesn't allow enough room for individual idiosyncracies ... and so it seems doomed to fall into something that is too dull to be sustainable in the long run. (It reminds me of a parallel {sort of} situation I've been reading about regarding 'the development of how website coding is done.' One school of thought wanted a very strict form of coding that would eliminate ALL 'sloppy coding' - which is fine in theory - and so the coding 'language' XHTML was developed. But in practice its intolerance of "bad coding" meant it failed to work as well as it should! So a form of writing code that allows for more 'room to move', HTML5, has now become established as the {very workable} norm ... because it does 'make allowances' for imperfection. Indeed in all creativity, mistakes and imperfections - within reason - can, apparently ironically, produce lively and useful results, and its those results we want! ) Just as it is possible to have 'too much' "superfluous chatter", it is also possible to have 'too much' structure and strictness! All we should be aiming for, re a well structured way of critiquing, is ENOUGH structure, not TOO MUCH structure.
Aww geez Heather,Let's you and I retreat from all the cerebral theorizing for a moment and look at this pragmatically. Lets review two very different examples to contrast different approaches.
Example A--how it's usually done today:
"Love the story, Justin ... it has an intriguing, flowing read-feel to it AND contained within that an arrestingly insightful observation; a telling juxtaposition ... very clever story telling!"
In my opinion that's a really nice kiss on the cheek, but not a story critique that offers any real red meat to the author. Best they get is just a feel-good momentary glow. It's like a kiss on the cheek after a mediocre date. Yuck.
Here's my full night on the town and wild sleepover alternative:
Example B (I'll critique Justin's non-competition story this month) Justin, I really liked three elements of your short story titled SUB TERRA. First, I liked the very realistic feel of the military operations of the vehicle, which sounded very much like you have real-world familiarity with submarines. Second, I liked the novelty of the idea of vehicles which apparently maneuver through the earth's mantle as readily as submarines moving through water. Lastly, I really liked the realistic relationship embellishments: clear respect of the captain by the crew, use of realistic nicknames lending more realism to the story, and the final brief, but dramatic command decision.
My suggestions for improvement would be to offer brief but vivid imagery describing the way these vehicles moved in such novel fashion. For instance, in the scene where they commence their mission, you might have used imagery such as: When the reactor went to 125 percent power, the entire ship thrummed as the fusion bands of the screw instantly turned rock into a white-hot thin liquid, and powerful magnetic fields forced the super-heated liquid rock stern-ward. All hands braced as the ship nosed over and plummeted downwards into the depths of the earth as readily as an oyster diver pursues her next treasure.
This was a really cool story. I'd love to see you develop it into a novelette or even perhaps a full length novel. There is plenty of meat on these bones to work with.
-----------------
Now let me ask you Heather; which review delivers a bigger value to the author? Which delivers a more exciting and passionate evening? What if we were all doing this, every month, competing for best reviewer of the month as a side-bar healthy author ego exercise? Would this be a better site, delivering more value to all?
Or would it just be uncomfortably outside the complacency-box?
-C. Lloyd Preville
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.
@C Yes, well, all 'dates' aside ... (and you think I go off on weird tangents!! :) your 'critique' IS better than my 'comment' in the Comments thread, as quoted by you above. (Justin then asked me to elaborate and I did, but you haven't copied and pasted that here.) BREAKING NEWS: I don't think like you!
I wasn't 'favouring' Justin, praising HIM, let alone metaphorically kissing HIM on the cheek. I was just expressing what the story GAVE ME! If a robotic computer had written the exact same story, I would still have expressed the same reaction. I was reacting to the story not the writer! ... (even though I do think that he is a wonderfully lively contributor to this group.) It wasn't a critique! It was a comment in the Comments thread! Justin then asked me to, as I said, make it more understandable, meaningful, helpful to him - as a critique, you could say - and I did (at least try to do that.)
But all that's not the point at all. (I was just pointing out that you selectively copied and pasted a 'comment' of mine in order to compare it unfavourably to your 'critique' - apples and oranges!)
The actual point is NOT that you are WRONG in what you suggested re why 'everyone should critique the one story', (though your illustration of the point was a bit weird) because IN THEORY you are RIGHT! IF everyone was to do their very best critique on the one story, then you would be absolutely correct: your idea would be spot on!
But in the real world, in my opinion, it would be unlikely to work like that. I think what is more likely to happen is that most people simply won't critique a story that doesn't motivate them, or, they might 'dash off a not well thought through critique' in order to try and comply with 'the rule.'
Even if, in time, we do progress to what you have suggested - that everyone be given the one and the same story to critique - let's not jump straight to that. Let's do more along the lines of what Paula suggested - to just set up a general encouragement to critique, and allow it to grow its own way ... eg via my idea of the dedicated Critiquing thread, as a starting point (and by the way, the first two of the 'working guidelines' I suggested are the only ones that need to be set in stone at this stage. Other guidelines, including 'who selects stories' to be critiqued, can evolve.)
C.,Thank you very much for the detailed and thoughtful review of my bonus story. It was great to understand what you liked, hear that I did something well, and I also thought your suggestion would be a perfect addition to a longer story.
Being new, I don't want to come in and suggest a bunch of changes to a group that has, from what I can tell, functioned relatively well for some time now. However, for what it's worth I'll toss my two cents in.
How about three threads: Competition, Comments, and Critiques.
Competition: for competitive story submissions only - this keeps it clean.
Comments: for bonus stories and casual conversation - extra work can be posted here, and comments about writing in general, the weather or whatever.
Critiques: for reviews as in depth or superficial as a person is willing and able to submit.
CLP's detailed review of my bonus work was exactly the kind of feedback I like to receive, even if he had said he hated it (I'm glad he didn't!).
I also know that not everyone has the time, interest or ability to write a detailed critique of each and every piece. So if someone wanted to post just a few sentences about what they liked, or how it made them feel, that's fine. Or an author could specifically ask for a review. But the Critique thread would be there for those reviews, and they could be avoided until after the judging.
Whatever the group ultimately decides, I'm happy to follow the guidelines. I am enjoying the monthly writing challenges posted here and it is helping me learn to really be decisive with my storylines and words.
I would propose that in payment for receiving a critique on one's story, that story's author should offer at least one critique of another author's story.
And btw,..."
Glad you like - it's one of the timeless ones. And thanks for the observation; I try me best, guv... and speaking of, where ever did Amos get to?