Question: For challenge three, do we still have to stick exclusively to our world? Because I have a colony world that only has about a hundred years of (human) history on it. I don't suppose I could write about the colonists from Earth as they planned the expedition could I?
And does the history have to focus on sentient life/society? Because like I said, humans haven't been on my world for a couple of centuries, so I don't have many options for anything that far back in the past.
@Jack : Do us all a favour and post the peer review criteria once again please. I see that many of us are marking our reviews out of a maximum of 45, which I believe is not correct. Also I think we only had 4 standards for the peer reviews, right? I'm guessing that Mood & Imagery, Believability & Consistency, Engagement, and SPG are the only grounds that we as peers can judge. Please clarify when you have the time, 'coz I know it can be a bother posting things like these again!!! Cheers
@Gabriel, you're taking the term "world" too literally. (: by "world" i mean the entire setting of your story, such as "the world of Star Wars."
@weirdmagic, the criteria are posted in the first comment in the Information and Announcements thread if you ever need to find them or read their descriptions. in short, your peer reviews will take into account:
Mood and Imagery (15) Believability and Consistency (5) Engagement (5) SPG (5)
for a total of 30 points. panellists have the extra criteria of the Challenge, which they mark for an additional 15 points. you do not need to worry about that criteria, though.
Also, can we get an inventory of who has withdrawn from the competition till today. There was something in our mails about two others leaving out ranks. So, I'm a little boggled by these latest developments. Why are people leaving? Why? (P.S. LOL)
@weirdmagic I dropped out, due to creative differences with one of my peers and the judges.
Mostly in that I was not verbose enough in describing things that did not need to be described.
My world was one entirely build on logical fallacies--and that was the main element that glued the world together.
However, I had issues as I did not spell out everything I was saying and was not spoon feeding my peers and judges.
Then I had one peer who... I have no idea why or how she ended up as my peer. Her views and ideas of what fiction should contain are not in the same idea set as mine. Putting us together was like putting an acid and a base together.
I was slightly less than confident that I could have a peer group I would work in--as well, again, my style of prose is more one that would work fine on BBC--but many of the issues that my audience had... are that that an audience of an American Television station would have: I was too obscure and too subtle. Even though, I consider myself about as subtle as an elephant dancing in a percussion factory/fine bone china shop.
So, I just dropped out...
As well, my world found it more fit, to describe the logical fallacies that are the main under current, rather than describe what was just suppose to be a tasty sandwich.
@verse, i'm considering it. reviews will still be out of 30 (45 for panellists), but i think it makes sense to weight the two longer challenges differently, similar to how i weight the peer versus panel reviews.
I'm not exactly sure what happened between you and Druid, but I can promise you that any critique she offered to you was not offensive or personal in any way. I know some people don't really like critique or advice when it comes to their writing, but you should've known that was coming when you entered the competition. Actually, that's kind of the point of this whole thing. I don't know you, and I haven't read your work, but I'm sure it's not perfect; nobodies is. However, if critique really bothers you that much, it's probably a good thing that you dropped out, although I wish that you would've ignored it and stayed. I say this because Jack has really put a lot into this, and no shows and drop outs are just a major pain. I know from the poetry tournament- You have to reorganize everything. I myself am having a very hard time with this competition, but I'm keen to stay with it until the end because I signed up for it, and that means I'm committed.
I don't really know Druid personally either, but I do know that she's a fabulous writer and knows what she's talking about. So I'm sure if you will just take her tips and suggestions to mind, they will be beneficial to you and your writing skills in the future. Remember, she's only trying to help. That's what protagonize is for.
@verse47 like I tired to indicate: it is not a matter of @DruidX being bad or anything. I am fairly certain she is fairly good by the people that enjoy her works.
Just from what I have seen, we essentially have separate impressions of what we enjoy and what we like in literature.
Enough that putting us in the group is like trying to mix oil and water.
I mean--I am certain, that within her style of literature she is one of the best... I just really do not enjoy most of what she does. From what I have seen, she really does not enjoy much of anything I do.
I am chalking this one up, entirely to personal preference really.
@verse47 and it is not critic that I do not enjoy.
I love critic.
The issue here was more: most of this critic was coming from left field on somebody who does a completely different style, that seemed to completely miss the point.
The critic was from somebody who pretty much did not enjoy anything I did. Coming from somebody that I did not enjoy pretty much anything they did.
I mean--having us together would essentially create a situation akin to an internet discussion were people are arguing that Oranges suck because they are not enough like apples and apples suck because they are not enough like oranges.
Or a vim vs. emacs flame war.
That was the situation I did not like with @DruidX there.
In fact, I flat out stated a few times, that I knew that I was giving her lower marks because what I was reading was not something I would normally read anyways--as it was something I just did not enjoy.
I have no idea why or how @DruidX and I got paired up together.
I would love to know how the Peer System is setup--as I do not think it works well.
Meanwhile @FantasyJunkie I am more or less fine with (though on the last scores, I am worried that my rants may have influenced them).
My main issue was I did not see @DruidX as a peer, and I had no confidence that I would end up with other peers.
look out for challenge three and a new peer review system tomorrow!
Can't wait to see how everyone did in challenge 2!
Temporarily, I have the internet back. I say this without knowing exactly when or if it's going to go again.
And does the history have to focus on sentient life/society? Because like I said, humans haven't been on my world for a couple of centuries, so I don't have many options for anything that far back in the past.
I see that many of us are marking our reviews out of a maximum of 45, which I believe is not correct.
Also I think we only had 4 standards for the peer reviews, right?
I'm guessing that Mood & Imagery, Believability & Consistency, Engagement, and SPG are the only grounds that we as peers can judge.
Please clarify when you have the time, 'coz I know it can be a bother posting things like these again!!!
Cheers
@weirdmagic, the criteria are posted in the first comment in the Information and Announcements thread if you ever need to find them or read their descriptions. in short, your peer reviews will take into account:
Mood and Imagery (15)
Believability and Consistency (5)
Engagement (5)
SPG (5)
for a total of 30 points. panellists have the extra criteria of the Challenge, which they mark for an additional 15 points. you do not need to worry about that criteria, though.
PhoenixSong
Juliia
Harlot
Kinsara
kristanigrad
Amberactuallyritu
Xanth
Can only sympathize with the extra effort that you are putting in while also dealing with such unplanned glitches...*Doffs her hat to Cap'n Jack*
Ah, I getcha. Thanks!
Mostly in that I was not verbose enough in describing things that did not need to be described.
My world was one entirely build on logical fallacies--and that was the main element that glued the world together.
However, I had issues as I did not spell out everything I was saying and was not spoon feeding my peers and judges.
Then I had one peer who... I have no idea why or how she ended up as my peer. Her views and ideas of what fiction should contain are not in the same idea set as mine. Putting us together was like putting an acid and a base together.
I was slightly less than confident that I could have a peer group I would work in--as well, again, my style of prose is more one that would work fine on BBC--but many of the issues that my audience had... are that that an audience of an American Television station would have: I was too obscure and too subtle. Even though, I consider myself about as subtle as an elephant dancing in a percussion factory/fine bone china shop.
So, I just dropped out...
As well, my world found it more fit, to describe the logical fallacies that are the main under current, rather than describe what was just suppose to be a tasty sandwich.
So, yeah....
You said this would be the last 'quick challenge'.. will the bigger/longer ones count more towards our overall score?
I'm not exactly sure what happened between you and Druid, but I can promise you that any critique she offered to you was not offensive or personal in any way. I know some people don't really like critique or advice when it comes to their writing, but you should've known that was coming when you entered the competition. Actually, that's kind of the point of this whole thing. I don't know you, and I haven't read your work, but I'm sure it's not perfect; nobodies is. However, if critique really bothers you that much, it's probably a good thing that you dropped out, although I wish that you would've ignored it and stayed. I say this because Jack has really put a lot into this, and no shows and drop outs are just a major pain. I know from the poetry tournament- You have to reorganize everything. I myself am having a very hard time with this competition, but I'm keen to stay with it until the end because I signed up for it, and that means I'm committed.
I don't really know Druid personally either, but I do know that she's a fabulous writer and knows what she's talking about. So I'm sure if you will just take her tips and suggestions to mind, they will be beneficial to you and your writing skills in the future. Remember, she's only trying to help. That's what protagonize is for.
:)
Just from what I have seen, we essentially have separate impressions of what we enjoy and what we like in literature.
Enough that putting us in the group is like trying to mix oil and water.
I mean--I am certain, that within her style of literature she is one of the best... I just really do not enjoy most of what she does. From what I have seen, she really does not enjoy much of anything I do.
I am chalking this one up, entirely to personal preference really.
I love critic.
The issue here was more: most of this critic was coming from left field on somebody who does a completely different style, that seemed to completely miss the point.
The critic was from somebody who pretty much did not enjoy anything I did. Coming from somebody that I did not enjoy pretty much anything they did.
I mean--having us together would essentially create a situation akin to an internet discussion were people are arguing that Oranges suck because they are not enough like apples and apples suck because they are not enough like oranges.
Or a vim vs. emacs flame war.
That was the situation I did not like with @DruidX there.
In fact, I flat out stated a few times, that I knew that I was giving her lower marks because what I was reading was not something I would normally read anyways--as it was something I just did not enjoy.
I have no idea why or how @DruidX and I got paired up together.
I would love to know how the Peer System is setup--as I do not think it works well.
Meanwhile @FantasyJunkie I am more or less fine with (though on the last scores, I am worried that my rants may have influenced them).
My main issue was I did not see @DruidX as a peer, and I had no confidence that I would end up with other peers.