I can confirm I have indeed studied Physics for too long, though nowadays I live the cash-rich life as a private sector engineer
I do not comment on if I wrote the piece
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I do not comment on if I wrote the piece
First of all, thank you very much to @DensleyBlair for continuing on with this grand tradition! AND keeping it going, which is almost the hardest part. I saw the latest prompt and was not sure at all what to do with it, so excellent work all. A strong foursome, to be sure.
Part the second are my critiques. And I get to do so after some time without knowing who wrote what! That said, I have a fairly decent idea of certain writing styles having run this over the years and I also know some few rules of guessing. One is simply this - those commenting likely wrote one of them. Just a rule of the game. Another is - they will try to fool you in their comments. Finally, the same people tend to write for this time and again so it's a bit easier to whittle down the list. And with all of that said, I know full well that I am likely wrong with any of my guesses. Yet I will try and play along as we get to the meat of the project. The critiques.
Author #1:
This first piece is a fine bit of writing, using humor and snark in certain ways. Always fine. I’m not sure what it gets to outside of the goal at hand, but it does get there. So kudos. Not much character made/created as we’ve no idea who Jen is, nor do we really know who Sam may be. The conceit, as I understand it, as that a star is lost. A lot of jargon is used to confuse the reader in a humorous way. We all know the confusing emails and/or texts we might get at work. But truthfully, it leaves me cold. I do not mean to be harsh, but the piece reads as something written quickly, but with much talent. The word limit may cause some of this (and I applaud you using it DB) and thus the task was brief and so was this.
My guess is @Avernite
Author #2
This piece is exactly 1000 words (I checked, because it seemed more.) Excellent use of time and space allowed to get in the story. Not much of a story, but what can one do in 1000 words? Given the constraints and limit, it uses both humor and theme, to get across the notion of our topic at hand. That said, it very much uses a similar conceit from the first piece. Something has been lost in space (why didn’t anyone else think of that? Hmm.)
I very much like the descending order of reports, especially the rote “night is dark and stormy” motif. This is a writer that wants to move beyond that (and perhaps make fun of it.) Yet with the limited time allowed, there is little one can do other than that. It’s a joke, a bit of humor. A solid piece, to be sure. Solid, but may be improved by moving beyond the joke.
My guess is @Peter Ebbesen
Author #3:
Rule number one: Don’t use the topic title in the work. As in “If that was the case, something was not where it should be.”
That said, I get the idea. It’s used three times and clear that this was the author’s gambit. The first time as simple use, the second as warning and the third as understanding. I liked this piece. It uses the time and space allowed within the framework of the rule to speak to larger things without getting too far off topic. I’d advise some tightening of the prose to allow more for the same, but it does ask questions with fewer words normally allowed.
Yet rule number two: (And no fault of the author) – another space tale? Was nothing not where they should be in 1492? (I admit...that is not a hard and fast rule and how would they know what others would write? )
My guess is @GangsterSynod
Author #4:
Finally! Of the 4 pieces, this is my favorite. It attempted something different and not just the easy “lost in space” theme. It makes my guesses above less likely as I know them all to be great writers, but I really loved the prose here. (Note: please don’t all start to write in poetic form. Surest way not to please me unless you really know how to do it. Yet who gives a what about pleasing me?)
Name drops to Napoleon and Edison, clearly to the 20th century. And while never named, it is clear what did not (or may not) have belonged here. And in truth, what is no longer here (if I have negative critique, it is that – in such short space it is difficult to say WHY they would not be where they should be even though attempted in the prose. Not enough room.)
Plaudits to this excellent poem.
My guess is @HistoryDude
* * *
I should note that I made my guesses prior to reading some of the above critique and now I'm questioning. In fact, I am certain that I am entirely wrong. But I won't change it. Go with the gut, right?
All told, a very solid round even if 3 of the 4 used space themes. Nothing wrong with that but the serendipity of it didn't quite work for me. If that caused my critique to be too harsh or colored by such, I do apologize. All of the writing was done well and I thank all of the participants as that has always been the first hurdle with this project. Now to get more reviews. That is indeed part the second. So critique on. And critique the critiques. And on it goes.
Part the second are my critiques. And I get to do so after some time without knowing who wrote what! That said, I have a fairly decent idea of certain writing styles having run this over the years and I also know some few rules of guessing. One is simply this - those commenting likely wrote one of them. Just a rule of the game. Another is - they will try to fool you in their comments. Finally, the same people tend to write for this time and again so it's a bit easier to whittle down the list. And with all of that said, I know full well that I am likely wrong with any of my guesses. Yet I will try and play along as we get to the meat of the project. The critiques.
The Topic: Something is not where it should be
Author #1:
This first piece is a fine bit of writing, using humor and snark in certain ways. Always fine. I’m not sure what it gets to outside of the goal at hand, but it does get there. So kudos. Not much character made/created as we’ve no idea who Jen is, nor do we really know who Sam may be. The conceit, as I understand it, as that a star is lost. A lot of jargon is used to confuse the reader in a humorous way. We all know the confusing emails and/or texts we might get at work. But truthfully, it leaves me cold. I do not mean to be harsh, but the piece reads as something written quickly, but with much talent. The word limit may cause some of this (and I applaud you using it DB) and thus the task was brief and so was this.
My guess is @Avernite
Author #2
This piece is exactly 1000 words (I checked, because it seemed more.) Excellent use of time and space allowed to get in the story. Not much of a story, but what can one do in 1000 words? Given the constraints and limit, it uses both humor and theme, to get across the notion of our topic at hand. That said, it very much uses a similar conceit from the first piece. Something has been lost in space (why didn’t anyone else think of that? Hmm.)
I very much like the descending order of reports, especially the rote “night is dark and stormy” motif. This is a writer that wants to move beyond that (and perhaps make fun of it.) Yet with the limited time allowed, there is little one can do other than that. It’s a joke, a bit of humor. A solid piece, to be sure. Solid, but may be improved by moving beyond the joke.
My guess is @Peter Ebbesen
Author #3:
Rule number one: Don’t use the topic title in the work. As in “If that was the case, something was not where it should be.”
That said, I get the idea. It’s used three times and clear that this was the author’s gambit. The first time as simple use, the second as warning and the third as understanding. I liked this piece. It uses the time and space allowed within the framework of the rule to speak to larger things without getting too far off topic. I’d advise some tightening of the prose to allow more for the same, but it does ask questions with fewer words normally allowed.
Yet rule number two: (And no fault of the author) – another space tale? Was nothing not where they should be in 1492? (I admit...that is not a hard and fast rule and how would they know what others would write?
)My guess is @GangsterSynod
Author #4:
Finally! Of the 4 pieces, this is my favorite. It attempted something different and not just the easy “lost in space” theme. It makes my guesses above less likely as I know them all to be great writers, but I really loved the prose here. (Note: please don’t all start to write in poetic form. Surest way not to please me unless you really know how to do it. Yet who gives a what about pleasing me?)
Name drops to Napoleon and Edison, clearly to the 20th century. And while never named, it is clear what did not (or may not) have belonged here. And in truth, what is no longer here (if I have negative critique, it is that – in such short space it is difficult to say WHY they would not be where they should be even though attempted in the prose. Not enough room.)
Plaudits to this excellent poem.
My guess is @HistoryDude
* * *
I should note that I made my guesses prior to reading some of the above critique and now I'm questioning. In fact, I am certain that I am entirely wrong. But I won't change it. Go with the gut, right?
All told, a very solid round even if 3 of the 4 used space themes. Nothing wrong with that but the serendipity of it didn't quite work for me. If that caused my critique to be too harsh or colored by such, I do apologize. All of the writing was done well and I thank all of the participants as that has always been the first hurdle with this project. Now to get more reviews. That is indeed part the second. So critique on. And critique the critiques. And on it goes.
So, my commentary on piece 1: Guessing now that it was @coz1 who did it Don't know if he is a scientist, but eh, he's commented so he's obviously written something (right? ).
To be clear: the story works for me. Presupposing anything eats stars, and supposing we'd know - this is how it'd go, in my mind. You see it, noone believes it. Of course if anything was munching stars it'd probably munch on the one right next to it too, making it possible someone would look into it later, but well.
It also read a bit Lovecraftian - in the sense of the disaster log. You can almost hear the author being dragged off to abyssal depths for his (her?) forbidden knowledge.
The random digression on Dr. Champlain, while feeling true to live, does add nothing except atmosphere. But as the piece manages to finish within the word limit, that atmosphere is part of the charm (though I, for one, know no places where the Dr. would be added; I'd talk about 'when Champlain was running things' not 'When Dr. Champlain was running things' - stereotypically that should mean a German wrote this)
If there's a thing to criticize - in the modern era I think noone would put the social greetings into the end. They may think of it way at the end, but in e-mail, you have a cut-and-paste option.
Don't know if he is a scientist, but eh, he's commented so he's obviously written something (right? ).To be clear: the story works for me. Presupposing anything eats stars, and supposing we'd know - this is how it'd go, in my mind. You see it, noone believes it. Of course if anything was munching stars it'd probably munch on the one right next to it too, making it possible someone would look into it later, but well.
It also read a bit Lovecraftian - in the sense of the disaster log. You can almost hear the author being dragged off to abyssal depths for his (her?) forbidden knowledge.
The random digression on Dr. Champlain, while feeling true to live, does add nothing except atmosphere. But as the piece manages to finish within the word limit, that atmosphere is part of the charm (though I, for one, know no places where the Dr. would be added; I'd talk about 'when Champlain was running things' not 'When Dr. Champlain was running things' - stereotypically that should mean a German wrote this)
If there's a thing to criticize - in the modern era I think noone would put the social greetings into the end. They may think of it way at the end, but in e-mail, you have a cut-and-paste option.
Glad to see responses coming in already! Encouraging to see there's plenty to discuss even with the pieces being so brief.
)
I read this one as an email between old friends, in which case 'Best wishes' or similar would be incredibly stilted. 'Much love' seemed perfectly reasonable to me. (Maybe that's me not being up to speed with the modern era.
)
Nono, I meant asking after the courses and congratulating the anniversary, the preceding paragraph before the greetingGlad to see responses coming in already! Encouraging to see there's plenty to discuss even with the pieces being so brief.
I read this one as an email between old friends, in which case 'Best wishes' or similar would be incredibly stilted. 'Much love' seemed perfectly reasonable to me. (Maybe that's me not being up to speed with the modern era.
Ah, I’m with you!Nono, I meant asking after the courses and congratulating the anniversary, the preceding paragraph before the greeting
#1. Avernite.
#2. Peter E2besen
#3. Not sure. I'll go with Coz1's (often but not always correct) theory that participants tend to comment, so pinning it on you GangsterSynod.
#4. Not sure. Pinning it on you Coz1
Analysis of the entries to follow later.
Yes I'm commenting. No I didn't write an entry this time.
#2. Peter E2besen
#3. Not sure. I'll go with Coz1's (often but not always correct) theory that participants tend to comment, so pinning it on you GangsterSynod
.#4. Not sure. Pinning it on you Coz1
Analysis of the entries to follow later.
Yes I'm commenting. No I didn't write an entry this time
.- 1
I would like to point out that I've previously commented on a round where I didn't write anything. Just saying...
Coz is suddenly back writing and commenting again. All very suspicious. And delicious. And malicious. And capricious. And...
Neither did I, and I've said so, loudly, and yet people persist in trying to pin pieces on me. As all know I am an honest man, I really don't know why they bother.#1. Avernite.
#2. Peter E2besen
#3. Not sure. I'll go with Coz1's (often but not always correct) theory that participants tend to comment, so pinning it on you GangsterSynod
#4. Not sure. Pinning it on you Coz1
Analysis of the entries to follow later.
Yes I'm commenting. No I didn't write an entry this time
It's clearly throwing people in a loop that none of the regulars have written a piece this time.
Well I didn't deny anything.
Would be a good joke if the outright deniers all wrote and the ones who don't didn't
Oopps, looking at the last few pages, it appears I never posted my comments to the comments to my poem from last round. So much belated, here they are:
Frankly, I found it hard to believe, and with such a lousy reasoning too. This ISN'T a good poem, or a classy one – it is merely a fun exercise in obfuscation and deliberate misdirection, cloaked in a weak generic poem about the wild hunt based mostly on the version from Welsh folklore.
And yet you got it in one, with your stated reasoning completely ignoring a) every hint I had given as to authors and b) everything else I'd done to confuse the issue, simply on the grounds that it was a poem where you missed the point due to complexity, and I write complex poems.
INCONCEIVABLE!.... to everybody who doesn't know you and how smart you really are. Well done, Jarkko. Very well done indeed.
This latter regularization exercise took place over a few hectic hours after the official deadline, with DensleyBlair kindly accepting updates every few hours until final publication.
But with nobody pointing it out immediately (I'd allowed myself once again to overestimate people's general ability to pattern match) I had to point it out myself and, by golly, how it worked in my favour.
Densley getting into the game of neither confirming nor denying helped me, of course, but even so.
–
I'm still somewhat disappointed that nobody managed to find even one of the well hidden names in the poem (and I'm not referring to the rather dubious extra guesses I wrote in my own review of my entry), so I guess that nobody made an effort to look beyond the obvious or, possibly, that I hid them a bit too well.
But rather than reveal them now, I'll just leave them as an exercise to the reader.
You participate in this guessing game for the very first time because Wyvern and I discuss it elsewhere, you having somehow managed to miss GTA during its two decades run... and you manage to pin this poem on me immediately, without any knowledge of my other GTA entries, but just knowing me rather well in general.
Frankly, I found it hard to believe, and with such a lousy reasoning too. This ISN'T a good poem, or a classy one – it is merely a fun exercise in obfuscation and deliberate misdirection, cloaked in a weak generic poem about the wild hunt based mostly on the version from Welsh folklore.
And yet you got it in one, with your stated reasoning completely ignoring a) every hint I had given as to authors and b) everything else I'd done to confuse the issue, simply on the grounds that it was a poem where you missed the point due to complexity, and I write complex poems.
INCONCEIVABLE!.... to everybody who doesn't know you and how smart you really are. Well done, Jarkko. Very well done indeed.
As I was forced to point out in my own criticism of my poem as it appeared nobody else had clued on to this, it was a deliberate instruction on how the 'c' in convent was two short of the 'e' required for the name hidden partly in convent to make sense (Avernite rather than Avernitc).
It was a bit of a mess stresswise, as it started out as a freeform poem with the primary purpose of matching the different rhyme-schemes and other forms used to hide names, and the more the better, and only once I had completed that did I attempt to regularize it, aiming for 10 syllables per line, ideally 5 and 5, using nordic skjaldic poem tradition rather than Greek derived with a focus on stresses. The result is, I acknowledge, rather a mess, being neither one nor the other.I also suspect, but this may be my own lack of pronunciation skills, that the rhythm of the poem stutters. Take the first bit:
"
Madmen and sinners, the walkers by night;
To this you must pay, your full attention!
Whence your vim essence, regretting nothing?
This truth is final: all else illusion.
"
I would tend to put stress on the bolded parts (the underlined being an alternate reading), which makes for a somewhat weird scheme; first is a dactylic line (stress-low-low), but it breaks at the end of line. Second line is dactylus-trochee (stress-low)-dactylus-trochee. Third seems dactylus-dactylus-trochee-trochee but could be back to snapped dactylic, final line dactylus-dactylus-trochee-trochee but could be dactylus-trochee-dactylus-trochee. My reading can't settle between the options, and so doesn't flow well. Mind, all the lines have by my count same amounts of stressed syllables, so it's not all bad, and the rhyming works. But the poetry won't flow for me.
A reworked version that'd work better for me, adopting 3x 3 dactylus+1 trochee, 1x DT-DT to close a 'verse'.
"
Madmen and sinners, the walkers by nighttime;
To this you must pay now, your full attention!
Whence your vim essence, regretting nothing?
This truth is final: all else illusion.
"
Single word and single syllable added, and suddenly it's 3 lines of flow that breaks at the end, rather than (to me) a stuttering verse. Mind the rhyme got changed by the one syllable, so it's not perfect on that first line... but that's why I didn't write it, only offered an alternate
(and yes, essence got counted as three syllables here and whence as one, but the third line has nice flow to me; poetry is no exact science I suppose).
Mind, if my orginal reading has the wrong stress it's very possible the flow was good to start with.
This latter regularization exercise took place over a few hectic hours after the official deadline, with DensleyBlair kindly accepting updates every few hours until final publication.
VICTORY! Didn't assign #4 it to me!Oh.
Right.
But it's not so straightforward
So first author: ?
Second author: stnylan? This feels off, so apparently I haven't cracked the code...
Third author: Densley
Fourth author: also Densley, as bonus and not counted in the poem
Fifth author: Ebbesen- or Avernite, but it wasn't me.
My arm ached for days from patting my own back after discovering just how well the ”Densle Y'Blair WroTetHis” misdirection worked. I thought this was the weakest part – I expected some suspicion to be thrown his way due to just how many authors were to be found in the poem, who were also on the list of eligible writer, and included this mostly as a fun afterthought and (I thought) much more obvious than some of the other names hidden in the poem.
But with nobody pointing it out immediately (I'd allowed myself once again to overestimate people's general ability to pattern match) I had to point it out myself and, by golly, how it worked in my favour.
Densley getting into the game of neither confirming nor denying helped me, of course, but even so.
Yep, congratulations – you were the first one to find Wyvern in the poem, or at least the first one to mention it in public.What? Paragraph 4 writes from Ebbesen- to Avernite. If that's not an 'other' clue I don't know what is
Edit: for that matter, Wyvern in line 3. I knew vim essence was odd.
There was, of course, no authorial reveal. The poem may have explicitly told the reader to ”find the name”, have provided any number of names, and have hidden what appeared to be an authorial reveal – but why would anybody trust the poem to play this straight? Particularly in a round which had the theme of deception?Author #4: From the comments above and the poem itself, @DensleyBlair wrote this, obviously. I can't say much about the poem itself as a poem other than that some nice, evocative language is used, but the placement of the authorial reveal being in the third stanza of four makes me think it's suggesting that @DensleyBlair also wrote the third piece, but that's obviously misdirection so there's no way I'm falling for that.
I'll do the other three later
VICTORY!
Probably the best analysis of the poem, and I love how you ended up choosing Densley Blair as the writer rather than me due to the poem being insufficiently insane. .
–
I'm still somewhat disappointed that nobody managed to find even one of the well hidden names in the poem (and I'm not referring to the rather dubious extra guesses I wrote in my own review of my entry), so I guess that nobody made an effort to look beyond the obvious or, possibly, that I hid them a bit too well.
But rather than reveal them now, I'll just leave them as an exercise to the reader.
Last edited:
- 1
Cruelty, thy name is Pettr Ebbeszen–
I'm still somewhat disappointed that nobody managed to find even one of the well hidden names in the poem (and I'm not referring to the rather dubious extra guesses I wrote in my own review of my entry), so I guess that nobody made an effort to look beyond the obvious or, possibly, that I hid them a bit too well.
But rather than reveal them now, I'll just leave them as an exercise to the reader.
So my belated commentary on entry #2:
This reads like terraforming meets bad management practices.
It works, at that, though I have my doubt anyone would be THIS repeatedly numb to the real requirements of the job. But who knows? And in any case the story wouldn't work if they 'only' dropped every comet at the exact same spot and broke the planet that way... which would be the kind of mess-up that is slightly believable.
I do, of course, wonder if a couple dozen comets can really destroy a planet. I doubt it. Earth, at least, has 10 orders of magnitude more mass than Halley's comet or Temple 1.
And the use of 'quantum modelling' sounds completely gratuitous. But well.
Overall it works as soft-core sci-fi. I don't believe it could ever really work in a complex organization setting up the terraforming of a whole planet, but as a light-hearted criticism of corporate culture, it does work.
This reads like terraforming meets bad management practices.
It works, at that, though I have my doubt anyone would be THIS repeatedly numb to the real requirements of the job. But who knows? And in any case the story wouldn't work if they 'only' dropped every comet at the exact same spot and broke the planet that way... which would be the kind of mess-up that is slightly believable.
I do, of course, wonder if a couple dozen comets can really destroy a planet. I doubt it. Earth, at least, has 10 orders of magnitude more mass than Halley's comet or Temple 1.
And the use of 'quantum modelling' sounds completely gratuitous. But well.
Overall it works as soft-core sci-fi. I don't believe it could ever really work in a complex organization setting up the terraforming of a whole planet, but as a light-hearted criticism of corporate culture, it does work.
My guesses (don't have time for analysis, so going purely what my guts tell me)
1 coz1
2 Wyvern
3 GangsterSynod
4 Avernite
Also, I quite like all the entries
1 coz1
2 Wyvern
3 GangsterSynod
4 Avernite
Also, I quite like all the entries
I will neither confirm or deny that I wrote any of these, but I am curious as to who wrote what. Also...any more critiques for this round? Gone a bit quiet of late.
It has indeed gone a little quiet, although I must take my share of the responsibility as I’ve been fairly absent of late. Anyone have anything left to say, or shall I reveal our authors ?
As you have been kind enough to set a short word limit, so giving me a chance to actually read the pieces instead of get intimidated and never find the time, I would like to make good on my threats and actually do a quick round of guesses/review before the deadline if that is OK.
I will bash them out tonight.
- 1