Science Fiction Microstory Contest discussion
Science Fiction Microstory Contest (July 2016) ** COMMENTS ONLY **
I don't quite understand the fuss here. This isn't a national constitution we're contemplating here. C, or anyone else for that matter, just start a thread with the rules you would like, and after a month, see what the response is. Then either continue it, make a few mods and try it again, or declare it an interesting experiment and move on.
@CLPI'm not sure, but to understand Richard's 'unexplained outrage' you might need look no further than your comments on:
"... this ponderous, pompous, cantankerous, and pontificating group of literary champions. Apologies? Not this time.
It's about time someone breathed (blew?) some life into this dusty old school room, kicked over some chairs [etc]"
... which all makes for an interesting 'negotiating' style.
The current turn of conversation isn't my cup of tea at all...
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, . . .
Paula, Please don't shoot the messenger.
-C.
My votes are in, what a good batch we have in July.John
Is it, Mr Preville, a part of negotiator's job to systematically insult people? I, for one, do not find 'witty repartee annoying' - what makes you think that?
The annoyance that I let slip into words is all about someone setting themselves up as a lone voice against The Group and claiming to fear retribution or castigation from said entity. Or, as the case may be, proposing to shake up (or break up) an alleged monolith. Alleged, of course, being the operative word.
As you yourself mentioned, we all have very different styles of writing, presumably reflecting - in part at least - different personalities and backgrounds. Thus, critiquing is a challenge and a welcome one at that; I know I deliver all too rarely - mostly because I feel that if I comment on some stories I should comment on them all, and there are only so many hours in the day.
So, a proper framework for critique is, in my opinion, a good thing. A separate thread, so one doesn't stumble on spoilers while looking for chitchat, and a system for determining which stories to work on when.
But, Heather, it's fine for an individual to have a go a) at the whole group ("this ponderous, pompous, cantankerous, and pontificating group of literary champions"), and then
b) at several named individuals (inc JJ and Dorthe) ... ??
And then if people severally respond, that's ganging up?
I just thought it was unfair and inappropriate to characterise the group as a whole in that way, and to target individual members.
Anyway, this kind of thing really is not my cup of tea, as I say, and will be my last comment.
I actually thought he was trying to use humour - to replace frustration. I guess it's all in how we read the context ... and (how we read) human nature
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.
I agree with the general idea, Paula, that some further fine-tunings might help. The critiques thread that hopefully will come into existnece soon is already one bit of fine tuning that should be a great help to us as writers, but also in terms of keeping communication in 'nice tracks' (as far as that is feasible.)
I was just wondering if one or a few more dedicated threads might also be useful. Threads that tease out the INTENTION of the content of each thread more precisely, so that 'humour' and 'grievances' and 'chit-chat' and 'science-based writing ideas and plans that people might like to share' don't get completely mashed up in one bowl ... of course there will always, must always be, some 'cross contamination' but to the extent of it being not a primary diet of bubble and squeak!
The one that I would really like to see is a "Share The Sciences That Inspire Your Writing" thread (the word "Science" could be interpreted as widely as we like; from so called 'hard' science to the 'science' of experimental fields in philosophical thinking, or in meditative states ... or whatever ...)
FOR EXAMPLE: In message 145 above, in 'point 3', what I was really hoping for was some sort of feedback and thoughts on the ideas expressed in the link I posted - on how humans deal with extrapolation BECAUSE the thing that interests me most in writing science fiction is around the whole idea of artificial intelligence (or whatever that field's successor will be known as) ... and I could see some ripe fruit for the picking, re my science fiction writing's future directions, in what that article was about. BUT I think my intention in that post got 'lost' because I gave too much of an introduction to it ... but also because I stupidly added in a 'moral to the tale' as a footnote, whereas in fact my central focus was in hoping to discuss science ideas relevant to science fiction writing - a sharing of ideas!
And so, in that vein of not letting things deteriorate through a general 'mix up' maybe there could be a "Clearing Up Misunderstandings" thread - where things that affect the whole group or several members of it could be respectfully aired. Rules such as "no innuendos allowed" and "must address people by their names, directly to them and politely" (as opposed to a side-ways manner of addressing such as '"some people here'') That way if some one or more than one person has a grievance about someone else's contribution (that affects the whole group or a substantial portion of it, ie beyond what private messaging alone can address.) then polite, including plurally-put, non aggressive points could be made in a 'rule-protected' environment and the person or persons causing the offense (intentionally or unintentionally) could answer, equally calmly and politely. And maybe there could be some moderation so that aggressive or rudely put grievances or answers - including ones with 'humour' that can be misinterpreted - simply get deleted and the poster asked to re-state their concerns properly.
EDIT: actually i just thought we could give such a "Clearing up Misunderstandings" thread a cute name like "Humour-Free Fred" ... so we aren't scared to approach it :)
Gentle people,I am pursuing an honorable goal here.
I have not called anyone a name, nor have I directly insulted anyone. I apparently touched several nerves, and called a few people out, true. And my methods are controversial, also true. But I am not promoting myself, my works, or anyone else's here. I am promoting quality critiques.
If folks want to have a little fun at my expense and pile on, it's OK with me. I am counting on all this heightened awareness and controversy causing the critique program to move forward.
And if I am not figuratively burned at the stake by the several people who have taken literary aim at me, (sticks and stones. . .), I will be invited by some generous soul to continue participating in the contest. One can only hope. . .
-C. Lloyd Preville
Well, for once the voting is the easy part of hanging out around here ... Anyway -
@J.J.: Thanks - the cock soup would be followed by a Spotted Dick, right?
@Andy (both of you, actually): well said.
Mod
I removed some of the posts and made some emails as to how I would like to see things work here.
As for the critiques, I have not posted the last couple months because I didn't really receive any with the votes. One of the main reasons I started this contest was to help myself and others learn how to write better. To that end, I feel instructional critiques are very useful. Certainly we don't want to see any bashing, but constructive criticism can be very helpful if it actually offers positive suggestions.
That said, there is a seconded motion made by Heather to have a third critique thread. This is a very specific and simply out lined motion, and should be voted on before we discuss any conflicting motion.
If this passes, let's give it a few months to see how it works. Then, we can have a discussion about how this might work differently so that someone else can offer a different, but specific motion.
For this month, I will email to each:
Heather made a motion (which was seconded) to have a third critique thread. This should be restricted to at most one single constructive criticism for each story by each writer, with a single rebuttal by the author to thank the critic and/or comment to offer the readers the mind set of the story to account for issues raised by the critique.
Please reply yay or nay.
Mod
Jot do you mean we should wait till we receive an email from you asking for us to respond with a "yay" or "nay" ... or do you want us to just email our reply to you anytime from now on?
Mod
Mod
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.
Thanks Jot, I just found the email and have sent it anyway.
My preference would be for: everyone who wants to join in on the critiquing thread to critique a particular story, selected, as Paula said, according to some fair manner of rotation ... with the added option that each critiquer may also critique one or as many other story(ies) of their choosing as they wish.
EDIT: though in the end, I'd vote for whatever iteration works best to achieve the best outcome, which is what we're after.
Just as long as it's clear what can be critiqued and when. I'm already a bit gun-shy about making even casual comments about submitted stories.
Jot wrote: "Sorry for not keeping up with this discussion as it turned a little to heated. Attribute it to global warming.I removed some of the posts and made some emails as to how I would like to see things..."
Yay
I'm all for a thread critiquing past months' stories on a rotation basis. That leaves open, though, the question of where and how to comment on current stories - if at all. The chat thread (this one) ought, imo, to be free of story-specific comments to not influence voting, and to avoid spoilers for those who do not read stories as they are put up.
Agree on that, Dorthe. As long as we can critique more than one story on the critiquing thread. . .
I agree also, Dorthe,It would also be instructive, if technically possible, to submit hidden critiques during the month and have them all published together. This way, earlier critiques wouldn't affect later ones, and we would all see where there was consensus and where not.
Current story comments should be discouraged, but it's a judgement call as to what is ok or not, and therefore difficult to legislate.
Maybe just flame the offender when he steps over the line. Lol
-C.
Mod
Below is the change to rule 8. We will try this for a month or two to allow time for people to see how this works. After, someone can make a specific motion to change in some way, if needed.
8) For each month, there will be three discussion threads:
a) Stories - For the stories and the contest results only.
b) Comments - For discussions about the stories and contest. Constructive criticism is okay, but please avoid any spoilers about the stories or degrading comments directed towards any individuals. If you want to suggest a change to the contest, feel free to start a discussion about the idea before making a formal motion. If another member seconds the motion, a vote can be held. Jot Russell will abstain from voting, but will require a strong two-thirds majority to override his veto.
c) Critiques - Each member can provide at most one critique per story, with a single rebuttal by the author to thank the critic and/or comment to offer the readers the mind set of the story to account for issues raised by the critique. Critiques should be of a professional and constructive manner. Feel free to describe elements that you do and don't like, as these help us gain a better perspective of our potential readers. Remarks deemed inflammatory or derogatory will be flagged and/or removed by the moderator.
Dorthe wrote: "Well, for once the voting is the easy part of hanging out around here ... True story......
Jot,Does the critique thread include stories submitted for the current month, or only prior month's submissions?
Would you please clarify either way?
Thanks!
Just checked back in after traveling. Sent in my nay vote too late. May check back in after September. Hopefully dust will settle by then.
Mod
Some had expressed concern that corrections can be made to stories that might give those who post early in the month an advantage, but by FAR I started this contest to help people write better. This, I feel, will help provide a more educational forum for writing.
Thanks for the clarification Jot! That's exactly what I wanted to know and understand.Now when I critique current stories in the critique thread, I can be confident I'm following the rules.
Much appreciated!
For me personally, I'm not going to go back and revise a post after I get feedback. I might revise my personal, offline copy, but once I post, it's done (prior title waffling notwithstanding...)
Thanks again!
And to everyone who submitted for July, I found many aspects of each story that I truly enjoyed. I hope to provide more in depth reviews when I get back from being out of town next week.
It's a privilege to be in such great company!
Ok, I know it's after the deadline but I started my story earlier this month and finished it this morning so I figured I'd post it anyway. :)
I hope there is a part two Carrie! I want to know what happens!
Congratulations Jack! You've got a streak going! I'll spare you from a second set of my novellas. LOL!
Justin - actually (because I tend to write backwards) part 2 was my August 2015 entry and part 3 was my March 2016 entry in this contest!I've outlined a whole novel around this character and her discovery of an intergalactic black market "human" trafficking empire. Not sure I'll actually do anything with it but it's amazing how larger projects evolve from these writing prompts.
Oh wow, very cool Carrie. I'll have to dig back through and read them!
Thanks to everyone!@Justin - just finish the last two in the series. I don't want to be left hanging.
@Carrie - you are in good company. I often start with the ending and figure the story out from there (not always, but some). The first sentence John Irving writes for every new novel is the last of the book.
Hey everyone,Lookin' forward to the Aug. story writing contest, and seeing everyone's critiques. I was honored to place in the top three again in July and my thanks go out to everyone who voted for my story "Tempest in a Martini Glass." There were some tough competitive stories this month, that's for sure. Congratulations again to Jack for his two-in-a-row wins, and to Chris for his great story, "The Lab". That was a slick piece of writing.
This critique thing should be fun. Thanks, everyone for supporting and fast-tracking the critique idea, and even though I'm still concerned about doing critiques on stories just before they're voted on in the contest, I'm willing to give it a try and see how things work out.
Sorry to get everyone stirred up earlier this month, but that was calculated to get the critiques rapidly approved. Everyone who would normally debate such an idea to death was so distracted with beating me to a pulp or defending me, (the latter pretty rare but much appreciated), that the idea breezed through "committee" without a hitch or delay.
Other than a few smoking spots on my negotiator suit armor, it's all good; none of the incoming rounds penetrated the fabric. Sorry to rattle your cages, but my goal, as I claimed earlier, was honorable. The title of my July story, as it turns out, was ironic indeed.
I wrote this great 750 word short story yesterday, and I can't wait to see if it might be a fit for next month's contest. It has a visual that could pry the top off a 50 gallon oil drum.
-C.
FYII posted the next month's contest parameters (and comments) here: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Just waiting for Jot to push it to the front of the line.
Your August posts are up, Jack.C., you "placed in the top three again in July"? I don't believe Jot has posted the votes yet (10:15pm EDT).
Paula, C was one of the three finalists for July.
Ah! Of the June contest, of course. Yes. Must've forgot that.
Paula, Jot posted them, I posted my story afterwards.
My story is up, really early this time. This was a fun one, Jack!Where are the August comments? Cannot see that thread yet.
-C.
Thanks, C.Comments are still on page 2 of the discussions. Waiting for Jot to move it all.
It implies a non-lethal or non-'really horrible' sort of fighting, although it can be loud and rowdy, maybe implying its between friends or family. The sort of 'bark-louder-than-its-bite (even 'pointless' arguing, as Richard probably meant it) disagreement that you expect will resolve itself in the end.(Or it can be used sarcastically, as an understatement - say if two guys were 'punching each other's lights out in an all out brawl' someone might say, "bit of a barney going on there" especially if the person saying that doesn't really care that they are half killing themselves.)
I'm not sure what the American English equivalent of "barney" is.