Science Fiction Microstory Contest discussion
AUGUST 2016 MICROSTORY CONTEST - COMMENTS ONLY
Good topic, Jack,I think this might be the first time we've been given 'Aliens' directly as part of the topic. And, to my way of thinking, their ''bones ... discovered where they shouldn't be" gives a nice shiver-up-the-spine feel to it all. Should be fun! ... though I suppose it could be 'serious' too. Lots of room to move for different writers' interpretations!
Story up- I do like being first, certainly before Jack, as that story is always so good it puts me off trying.
Thank you Heather for your additional notes!My response wasn't intended as any sort of criticism of your critique, but rather a sincere heart-felt thank you with a bit of encouragement tacked on. My suggestions about constructive criticism were directed at all of us, myself included, as we formulate how to find the right tone for this new critique process.
However, since you have so much to contribute in my particular case, being an intelligent and articulate writer with a completely different writing--and thinking--style, I selfishly refuse to miss this opportunity. : )
-C.
I believe the critiques, including any extra critiques beyond the one-per-critiquer-per-story, go in the Critiques thread. That's what it's for. If the one-per-one-per-one presents a problem, anyone affected needs to contact Jot, as this would be a very good question.
Jot does that. I sent him a note Friday. He is probably busy for the weekend and will get to it tomorrow.
Andy wrote: "So the assumption is that submitting a story requires that one is open for any and all critiques?"\
Andy,
There doesn't appear to be, yet anyway, any guidance to the contrary in the rules. Do you have a suggestion how this should work? Your comments might best be located here rather than on the critiques only thread.
-C.
C. - I would simply have folks put something like a "(C)" after the title of their story if they welcome critiques. Otherwise, hold off on critiquing that particular story. I would make it be a positive action on the author's part to indicate a desire /willingness for a critique if someone is willing.
My story's up, and open to critiques. (Now, how do you get to the critique thread?)
Tom,https://www.goodreads.com/topic/group... gets you to the page(s) listing all the discussions ... and at present the Critiques thread is on page 2, meaning you have to scroll down to the bottom to click 'page 2' (but hopefully soon Jot will soon put it at the top of page 1, next to the "Stories" and "Comments" threads)
OR
just go via the direct link, here https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Well, if anyone had made it clear that author to author criticism should be in private and not potentially in front of the world, its me. But clearly my views are as penetrating as my stories. I can do within the ******* undergrad. student analysis. I've better things to do.
Suggest we added a "P" for those who don't want critiques instead of a "C" for those who do. That way people will opt out rather than opt in.
Mod
Correct.
I plan on adding to the critiques thread. I've just been out of town for a few days and am trying to get caught up here!I love the challenge topic for this month!
So, Jot,1. Then how do we opt out from the "critiquing", if we wish:
a. for our own stories
b. to avoid being ambushed b2y critiques that have spoilers and/or judgments about current stories during a given month before the voting on them?
2. How do you see the threads as different, if follow-ups to the one-critique ff by one-reply per criquer-author dyad are to go into the "comments" thread rather than the "critiques" thread?
Just askin'.
Heather wrote: "Tom,https://www.goodreads.com/topic/group... gets you to the page(s) listing all the discussions ... and at present the Critiques thread is on page 2, meaning you have..."
Thank you. I plan to use this thread, to the best of my ability.
Richard wrote: "Between you, critics, you're destroying this group. Whenever we get into this bitter/sweet cross fertilization crap we lose writers. It always gets heavy, breaking down into a mixture of arse licki..."Ah, but keep in mind J.J.'s good line.
By the way, Richard, agreed entirely that "the vote is absolutely ruined by having people dissecting each other's work before we vote." But, again, of course the critiquers are judged as well.
Richard, I agree with your concerns but not your lack of patience.
This is a big change and will take some time to sort itself out.
I have suggested we all critique one story selected from the previous months contest, which would address many of the problems you cited.
How this works out is up to the group but i believe we can make the group better not worse.
Hang in there and help.
-C.
I for one have no interest being critiqued in this group. I know I don't contribute every single month, but this group has always been a nice fun exercise in writing a quick story on demand, and just getting my voice heard. If someone said something nice or I was in the running for the win, well that was a bonus.Now that there is critiquing, it's going to make me think twice about everything I do. That kind of sucks all the fun out of it.
I'm not out...just leery.
Mod
I'd be happy to volunteer my last month's story for a group critique but the current rules don't allow for this. One thing i'd like to add to my previous comments to Richard is that I hopes he stays to help craft a workable critique board because he had a lot to contribute.
-C.
Mod
* Should we limit them in size to under 500 words?
* Should we allow a writer to request specific critiques be removed?
* Should we allow writers to request no critiques be provided for their story?
Mod
First round votes:
Richard Bunning => ****Jack, Justin, Kalifer, Dorthe, Chris, Lloyd, Karl
C. Lloyd Preville => ***Chris
Tom Olbert => John, Jack, Chris, Karl
Justin Sewall => ***Chris, Greg, Karl, Lloyd, Jack, Kalifer
Karl Freitag => ****Jack, Jot, Chris
Jack McDaniel => ***Lloyd, Tom, Kalifer
Chris Nance => ****Jack, Jot, Dorthe
J. J. Alleson => Paula, Jot, Andrew, Greg
John Appius Quill => ***Lloyd, Tom, Dorthe, Greg, Jack, Chris, Justin
Paula Friedman => **Greg, Richard, Dorthe, JJ/Jack/Andrew
Jot Russell => ***Lloyd
Andrew Gurcak => Richard, JJ, Dorthe, Paula, Greg
Kalifer Deil => ****Jack, John, Chris
Greg Krumrey =>
Jeremy McLain => **Greg, Chris
D C Mills => JJ, Andrew, Greg, Justin
Heather MacGillivray => ***Chris, Karl, Andrew, Tom, Richard, Jot
First round finalists:
Tempest in a Martini Glass by C. Lloyd Preville
Signs of Life by Jack McDaniel
The Lab by Chris Nance
Second round votes:
Richard Bunning => #***Jack, Justin, Kalifer, Dorthe, Chris, Lloyd, Karl
C. Lloyd Preville => #Chris
Tom Olbert => John, #***Jack, Chris, Karl
Justin Sewall => #Chris, Greg, Karl, Lloyd, Jack, Kalifer
Karl Freitag => #***Jack, Jot, Chris
Jack McDaniel => ***Lloyd, Tom, Kalifer
Chris Nance => #***Jack, Jot, Dorthe
J. J. Alleson => Paula, Jot, Andrew, Greg; #***Jack
John Appius Quill => ***Lloyd, Tom, Dorthe, Greg, Jack, Chris, Justin
Paula Friedman => Greg, Richard, Dorthe, JJ/#***Jack/Andrew
Jot Russell => ***Lloyd
Andrew Gurcak => Richard, JJ, Dorthe, Paula, Greg; #Chris
Kalifer Deil => #***Jack, John, Chris
Greg Krumrey =>
Jeremy McLain => Greg, #Chris
D C Mills => JJ, Andrew, Greg, Justin; #***Jack
Heather MacGillivray => #Chris, Karl, Andrew, Tom, Richard, Jot
Finalists:
Signs of Life by Jack McDaniel
The Lab by Chris Nance
Third round votes:
Richard Bunning => #****Jack, Justin, Kalifer, Dorthe, Chris, Lloyd, Karl
C. Lloyd Preville => #*Chris
Tom Olbert => John, #****Jack, Chris, Karl
Justin Sewall => #*Chris, Greg, Karl, Lloyd, Jack, Kalifer
Karl Freitag => #****Jack, Jot, Chris
Jack McDaniel => Lloyd, Tom, Kalifer; #*Chris
Chris Nance => #****Jack, Jot, Dorthe
J. J. Alleson => Paula, Jot, Andrew, Greg; #****Jack
John Appius Quill => Lloyd, Tom, Dorthe, Greg, #****Jack, Chris, Justin
Paula Friedman => Greg, Richard, Dorthe, JJ/#****Jack/Andrew
Jot Russell => Lloyd
Andrew Gurcak => Richard, JJ, Dorthe, Paula, Greg; #*Chris
Kalifer Deil => #****Jack, John, Chris
Greg Krumrey =>
Jeremy McLain => Greg, #*Chris
D C Mills => JJ, Andrew, Greg, Justin; #****Jack
Heather MacGillivray => #*Chris, Karl, Andrew, Tom, Richard, Jot
Winner:
Signs of Life by Jack McDaniel
Mod
Where do we answer the questions you've asked us to respond to re the critiques, Jot? by email to you? ... or post our responses here on this thread? That is, is it to be by secret ballot, or, is it meant to be a public vote, perhaps including a rationale for each choice?
Mod
Jot wrote: "So, how do people feel about critiques?* Should we limit them in size to under 500 words?
* Should we allow a writer to request specific critiques be removed?
* Should we allow writers to request..."
Hi Jot,
This is all new, and subject to a lot of problems as we find how to best structure a critique process. For instance with critiques on current stories, I expect it is causing concerns and perhaps delays in story publications since people are waiting to see how this works before they toss their stories into the blender.
And some folks have indicated serious concerns or refused to have their stories critiqued. I think we're bound to honor such a request.
So I'm going to reiterate my earlier suggestions with some tweaks:
1. Critique prior month stories only, so we don't effect the current month's competition.
2. Pick one story (you or at random), and check with the author before announcing it to get an ok for the story to be critiqued.
3. All of us critique the same story. So it's not possible for anyone to target a story on their own. This will eliminate any back and forth retributions.
4. 500 word limit is a great idea. Helps to sharpen us up as critiquing authors and eliminates the "stream of consciousness" approach.
5. All our critiques should be hidden until the end of the month after the winner of the current competition is announced. It would be instructive to see where many agreed and many disagreed about a particular story.
I think if we do these things, people will find having their story critiqued to be an empowering and reinforcing experience, rather than the current experience, which is much like being fitted with a blindfold and offered a cigarette while being tied to a pole.
Maybe someone can volunteer to assist with some of the logistics, since I recognize it puts additional administrative load on this site's management. i'd be happy to volunteer my time to do so and I'm sure others would do so as well.
-C.
Mod
Hmm. Interesting problem then. Here's my vote:* Should we limit them in size to under 500 words? YES
* Should we allow a writer to request specific critiques be removed?
NO --Suggest we only allow a writer to take down all critiques or none, not cherry pick.
* Should we allow writers to request no critiques be provided for their story? YES
I concur with CLP.Critique size under 500 words? YES
Permit specific critiques be removed? NO
Allow writers to request no critiques for their story? YES
A simple (Yes critique, or No critique) at the top of a story should suffice.
I do agree with Jot for reviewing the current month's stories and not just picking one story.
My answers to Jot's questions (above) on the CRITIQUES:* Should we limit them in size to under 500 words?
YES, because it will keep the format (more) consistent; thus allowing (the differences in) the actual content of each critique to be the highlight ... and thus more informative and helpful.
* Should we allow a writer to request specific critiques be removed?
NO, as long as a writer can opt out - in advance - of being critiqued, which they should be able to do, in my opinion (see answer to next question below) then 'accepting a critique' for that month is essentially a 'commitment made,' for that month, to a valuable group activity and so shouldn't be reneged on after the event. (And writers have 'the right of rebuttal' ... which is enough to address a critique they don't like.)
* Should we allow writers to request no critiques be provided for their story?
YES. It's clear that the one word "critique" has at least two polar opposite meanings to different group members. To some, myself included, it means (something along the lines of) an opportunity for mutual help among writers about a project outside themselves and therefore outside of their ego or sense of worth, viz., it is a critique of, not them, but rather their Written Art which, once written, has a life of its own outside of the writer. And so, from that viewpoint, 'having one's work critiqued' is a great benefit, potentially, but not prescriptively allowing the writer's subsequent works to be more honed and refined ... before those subsequent works, in turn, also 'go out' to have a life of their own. (And its also a chance to practise the skill of critiquing and to see the critiquing of other stories and other responses/rebuttals, which also is all valuable learning.) The other polar opposite view seems to be that 'having one's work critiqued' equates to an attack on the ego - an humiliation. I feel sorry for writers who adhere to that latter viewpoint ... BUT realistically, they are not going to change and so they should be allowed to opt out IN ADVANCE of what, to them, is traumatizing.
Jot wrote: "So, how do people feel about critiques?* Should we limit them in size to under 500 words? YES (I would vote for less words.)
* Should we allow a writer to request specific critiques be removed? NO (take all critiques, good and bad)
* Should we allow writers to request no critiques be provided for their story? YES (since it's a just for fun contest, I think people should have the option to opt out of critiquing.)
And I vote for current stories, agree with the "out of sight out of mind" mentality.
One quick clarification I'd like (I may have missed it)We can choose to critique one story, all or none correct?
And what if we don't want to rebut a critique? (I'll say thanks, take their advice and incorporate it into the future.) We don't have to explain why we wrote something - correct?
Nice story, Carrie!Are you taking critiques on this? I figure it doesn't hurt to ask.
-C.
She did indicate critiques were welcome at the top of her story.I liked it Carrie!
oh yes, the more brutal the critique the better!!
Off to Ireland. Hoping the critical dust settles by my return. Hope to contribute more in the autumn. :)
Story is up. Please feel free to critique. Constructive criticism welcome!
Carrie,I just critiqued your cool little micro-story. Usually I wouldn't do this many critiques, but we're all feeling our way here and it's interesting to experiment with different critique styles and approaches.
I hope you like it.
-C.
Mod
And Carrie, you can pick and choose which stories you would like to critique.
Paula,Thank you for the ending critique, I really appreciate it!!
If somehow my settings show me as not accepting messages please tell me. It would simply be ignorance on my part on how to set it properly!
Are we allowed to edit our stories afterwards? I couldn't find it in the rules but I'm not sure how fair it would be to take some critique advice and re-post it.So I don't think I will anyway - but I was just wondering.
Carrie,I had my attorney review the language, and as far as he can tell, it's not against any current rules.
(Just kiddin'. . .)
-C.
C. wrote: "Carrie,I had my attorney review the language, and as far as he can tell, it's not against any current rules.
(Just kiddin'. . .)
-C."
LOLOLOL quite trying to get me in trouble!! :P
Mod
Jot wrote: "Editing is okay. The point is to try to create a perfect story. Even with a little help, this is no small feat."Ok, I might try to re-work that ending then (for the 5th time!!!!!)
I've just posted a critique of Carrie's story, "Door Number Three" ... I'm really interested in seeing how different people critique, any given, same story and what the author gets out of the different critiquing perspectives as a whole experience of learning.p.s. My critique is exactly 500 words ... excluding the heading identifying which story is being critiqued and the word count of the critique (same as how the heading etc is not counted in the word count for stories.) Hope that is OK.
Carrie, in reworking it, think of Poe's dictum--everything toward a single emotional effect (this is not how Poe phrased it, though).Justin--no, I was referring only to Carri's settings. I didn't actually check yours; sorry if that misled.
Heather, there are more than two attitudes toward critiquing; some may be quite happy to get critiques from people whose literary knowledge they admire.
To help polish our skills and present a flavour of our art to other members in the group, I am continuing this friendly contest for those who would like to participate. There is no money involved, but there is also no telling what a little recognition and respect might generate. The rules are simple:
1) The story needs to be your own work and should be posted on the Good Reads Discussion board, which is a public group. You maintain responsibility and ownership of your work to do with as you please. You may withdraw your story at any time.
2) The stories must be 750 words or less.
3) The stories have to be science fiction, follow a specific theme and potentially include reference to items as requested by the prior month's contest winner. The theme for this month is posted below.
4) You have until midnight EST on the 22nd day of the month to post your story to the Good Reads Science Fiction Microstory Contest discussion. One story per author per month.
5) After, anyone from the LI Sci-Fi group or the GR Science Fiction Microstory Discussion group has until midnight EST of the 25th day of the month to cast a single private vote to Jot Russell () for a story other than their own. This vote will be made public once voting is closed. Voting is required. If you do not vote, your story will be disqualified from the contest. You don't need a qualifying story to cast a vote, but must offer the reason for your vote if you don’t have an entry.
6) To win, a story needs at least half of the votes, or be the only one left after excluding those with the fewest votes. Runoffs will be run each day until a winner is declared. Stories with vote totals that add up to at least half, discarding those with the fewest votes, will be carried forward to the next runoff election. Prior votes will be carried forward to support runoff stories. If you voted for a story that did not make it into the runoff, you need to vote again before midnight EST of that day. Only people who voted in the initial round may vote in the runoffs.
7) Please have all posts abide by the rules of Good Reads and the LI Sci-Fi group.
8) Professional comments and constructive criticisms are appreciated by any member in either group and should be posted to the separate thread that will be posted at the end of the month and all voting is complete to avoid any influence on the voting. 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.
9) The winner has THREE days after the start of the new month to make a copy of these rules and post a new contest thread using the theme/items of their choosing. Otherwise, the originator of the contest, Jot Russell, will post a new contest thread.
______________________________
*Theme / Requirements for the August 2016 contest:
Must be SciFi
Must Include: Alien bones are discovered where they shouldn't be. Use that however you want.