At the AARs Reviews: From the Pope's Basement

[Craig Ashley]

At the AARs - A Review of Past and Present AARs

Welcome to the long awaited debut of At the AARs with various reviewers. If you're curious as to how this whole thing got started check out Feedback Glad you're all here. Just sit back, grab some popcorn and enjoy.

Some of you may have a few questions. Allow me to address some of the more common ones.

1. What’s the point? Why review AARs?
   
   Several reasons, actually. Here are three of the biggest:
   
   There are lots of wonderful AARs in the archives, and more being written every day-far more than most people can keep up with. Some readers may appreciate having the additional information a review provides as they decide what to read next. Of course, caveat emptor: a review is no substitute for first-hand examination and forming your own opinion directly!
   
   Most authors would like to attract more readers and more feedback to their AARs. Hopefully, well-written reviews will do more than just redistribute traffic. Ideally, they will encourage people to read more and get them thinking about what they’re reading. If we’re lucky, that will translate to more readers and more detailed, insightful feedback.
   
   Some authors are actively seeking to sharpen their writing skills. For those people, reasoned and thoughtful commentary gives more than a warm-fuzzy, it’s absolutely vital. But oftentimes, people reading an AAR give feedback on the spur of the moment, with a fairly limited range of questions and comments. For authors who are looking for more, the reviews can be a way to begin a deeper and more thorough discussion of the work.
   
2. What kind of reviews are you doing?
   
   At the moment there are three different levels of review, roughly corresponding to the three goals just discussed. In general, most authors will find these range in intensity between a gentle massage and an anal probe in terms of invasiveness. Just kidding.
   
   Basic is a general overview of the AAR. The review provides a brief description and some highlights, but doesn’t go much further.
   
   Average presents a more in-depth look at the AAR. In addition to a description/synopsis, the review would include more analytical feedback, possible comparisons to other works, and suggestions for improvement.
   
   Advanced reviews are for authors who really want to improve their craft and are willing to undergo what may be a fairly thorough analysis/critique of their work. Many review readers may find this level of detail less useful, but they may pick up some ideas or thought-provoking comments that could help them in their own writing efforts.
   
   Note that in all cases, the writer and reviewer will discuss in advance how thorough to make the review. We don’t want to “ambush” anyone!
   
   Also, from time to time we will try more ambitious projects. Examples might include: taking a comprehensive look at an entire body of work by one author; compare and contrast works with a similar style/same nation/same author; reviews of the same AAR by very different reviewers, etc. Because of the much greater amount of time required from all concerned, these projects will be done on a limited basis The primary focus will be on individual reviews of single AARs.
   
3. How do I get my AAR reviewed?
   
   Simple, tell either myself (CraigAshley) or one of the reviewers. Our current reviewers are Morlac, shawng1, Sharur, and Secret Master. From time to time we may approach writers directly to request the opportunity to review their work or even to serve as a reviewer. If you are approached but not interested, no big deal. Just let us know, and the matter will be dropped.
   
4. Does the AAR have to be completed?
   
   No. If the AAR is still in progress, however, it must be of sufficient length that the reviewer has something substantial to go by. A good guideline is that three full pages on your thread will usually be enough unless you’ve been getting lots more feedback or OOC commentary than posts. If you write with a word processor, do a word count-10,000 words is great, but anything under 7,500 is probably not enough.
   
   Also, we would like to split the reviews relatively evenly between completed and in-progress AARs. We will also strive to ensure that finished AARs cover the spectrum of time from the forum’s inception till now.
   
5. Will the author get to respond to the criticism/suggestions?
   
   Yes.
   
   When the review is completed, but not yet posted, the reviewer will send it to the author and to me. While I or someone I designate may edit the review for spelling, grammar, and/or good taste, the reviewer is NOT required to change the review just because the author disagrees or doesn’t like it.
   
   Authors have two response options:
   
   Cancel the whole thing, in which case the review won’t be posted. Doing this may make the author ineligible for further reviews. (It takes a lot of time and effort to review a piece and we don't want to waste the time of the reviewers.)
   The author may (and is encouraged to) submit a response. This is not an opportunity to bash the reviewer, but to discuss your work in the context of the review, explain your thought process, clarify ambiguities or misperceptions, etcetera.
   
   Assuming that the author chooses not to exercise the first option, the reviewer posts his review to the thread when the author has had an opportunity to craft a response. The author then posts his response immediately after the review. When both are posted, everyone else can join in the discussion.
   
6. So if I'm not the author or the reviewer, I can still share my thoughts?
   
   By all means, yes, though only after the author has posted a response (or indicated that one will not be forthcoming). However, the review thread is not intended to take the place of feedback on the actual threads themselves but rather to stimulate the discussion. If possible, post your thoughts on the AAR thread itself. (Use the QUOTE function with copy-and-paste to ‘port over any relevant passages from this thread.)

And now a few common sense ground rules for everyone participating. Remember, our mods are watching (as they always are) and will not/should not hesitate to shut down this project if things get out of hand. Not that I think that things will get out of hand, but better safe than sorry. This forum is remarkable for its polite and civil tone (way to go LD and Warspite!). Let’s all make sure it stays that way.

1. Keep it courteous, civil, and impersonal. This is not a vehicle for the creation or pursuit of personal vendettas. The atmosphere must be one of respect and encouragement. That’s not to say that critical comments are unwelcome, but the Golden Rule applies. If it would hurt your feelings if said to you, find a better way to say it or don’t say it at all.
   
2. Keep it constructive and specific, not destructive or generic. Good criticism helps the person to achieve greater things down the road, it doesn’t belittle or demean, nor should it discourage someone from further efforts.
   
   If you think an AAR is awful, there is nothing wrong with that as your overall opinion. What is wrong is posting "this AAR was awful." Try to find things that you liked or which show some promise, and spend some time discussing them. If and when you move on to discussing the elements you were less thrilled by, do so by answering both of these questions:
   
   Why, specifically, didn’t it work as well as it could have? Too long? Too short? Unrealistic? Vague? Overly detailed?
   How, specifically, could that element be improved?
   
   Remember, just as authors put a lot of time and effort into their AARs, reviewers do the same in their reviews. So posting "this reviewer is a moron" is just as unwelcome!

 

[Morlac]

1st Review: Craig Ashley's "From the Pope's Basement"

Introduction to the Review:

Normally a review will simply fall into one of the three categories—Basic, Average, or Advanced—though of course, there is overlap between them. To better illustrate the distinctions, this review is broken into two parts, labelled “Overview” and “More Details.”

Taken by itself, the Overview could stand on its own as a Basic level review. Both parts together constitute a much more thorough examination of the material, which would probably best be described as (EDIT) Average. Of course, there remains a vast array of helpful and constructive commentary which can still be made about the AAR.

EDIT--Note: Given comments below, I modified this review to bill itself as an "Average" level review rather than an "Advanced" one).


Overview: The Basics
Craig Ashley’s From the Pope's Basement (An Ottoman AAR) could as descriptively be titled The Demon Diaries (An Ottoman AAR) or Mid-level Management Hell: A Diabolical Ottoman AAR.

Craig’s plot hook is that Rafar, a demon from what appears to be the middle ranks of the Abyss, has been sent by his supervisor to “destroy the strongholds of the faithful and convert them to some sort of pagan religion.” With such ambitious project goals, it’s a good thing for Rafar that he’s been posted to the Ottoman Empire rather than, say, Vijayanagar! On the other hand, he’s still saddled with the usual incompetent puppets that plague all would-be Svengalis. On top of that, he must also contend with backstabbing colleagues, unsympathetic supervisors, Turkish politics, and his own burning desires for blood, vengeance, and human flesh.

The tale unfolds primarily in a true diary format. Most diary entries are very short—a few lines at most, and rarely more than a couple of paragraphs. The diary is supplemented by entries from something called the Encyclopedia Britianica [sic]. Encyclopedia entries are a bit longer, often a few paragraphs, but still relatively brief.

The AAR was begun on July 14, 2002, and as of August 11th, the story stands at mid-1434. So far, it encompasses about 10,000 words, or roughly three full standard pages of posts.

From the Pope’s Basement is definitely worth a read. The diary style lets the story flow by smoothly and quickly, and for a Beast of the Pit, Rafar is a surprisingly endearing narrator. To steal a hideous hybrid word from modern TV, the story is best described as a “dramedy”. Craig doesn’t attempt the joke-a-minute style of laugh-centric AARs like The Righteous BastAARds by Ebbesen and Norgesvenn, or Mimir’s Manchu Manchu Man. However, throughout the story he does scatter droll gems such as: “Apparently martyr tastes like chicken.” and “They shall be there till doomsday (which I hope is right around the corner)...”

But despite the leavening action of dry humor, the underlying storyline isn’t played for laughs. Rafar is serious about his mission, just as his opponents are serious about stopping him. The consequences of his failure probably shouldn’t be contemplated for long, either. Though it walks a narrow line, the blend of humor and drama is well-balanced, and works nicely to make what otherwise would be appalling atrocities more palatable.

What are the downsides, if any? Well, it’s a minor consideration, but Craig unsuspectingly runs afoul of one of my pet peeves—misspellings. His AAR is liberally peppered with unfortunate typos. Craig’s command of the language is excellent, but a brief session with a spell checker would really let his prose sing as he’d intended.

A more pressing question is whether or not there’s an overall plan to the storyline—Craig’s comments to the thread indicate that he does. But while he does a great job of tying disparate and sometimes random game events together, at times my impression is that his writing is reacting to events more than it is slowly revealing the story he’d like to tell (and weaving in game events to flavor the tale). Either method may yield a good AAR, of course, and the former, reactive, style is certainly more common. However, the latter, planned, style seems more likely to remain focused and sharp over the centuries of gameplay.

More Detail: The Average Level Review

As stated above, Rafar is a surprisingly endearing narrator, despite being a demon who does utterly reprehensible things. How does Craig make that work? First and foremost, though it may sound silly, he humanizes him. Rafar talks a great game about his supernatural powers and his thirst for blood. But much of the time, he comes across more like Homer Simpson than Lucifer’s imp.

Seemingly every other day, Rafar promises retribution and dire consequences to the incompetent slackers he is forced to work with. But Rafar is either less powerful than he claims or far more lazy, because more often than not it takes him quite awhile to show that his threats and dark pronouncements are more bluster than brimstone. His near-constant stream of complaints about Commander Denizli, for example, go on for two years before Denizli is finally dealt with. The rebel leader Antonias is a constant thorn in Rafar’s side, but Rafar is dependent on his human pawns to capture Antonias militarily. He does not or cannot pursue more subtle machinations, nor does he simply go out himself to capture or dominate the man. With so many warnings and threats issued before the actual punishment arrives, Rafar is like a tired father whose warnings of “Don’t make me come over there!” have lost their terror.

Moreover, Rafar is in a situation most of us can empathize with, trapped in a hell of his own making. His boss Belshazzar, the great Prime Minister of Hades, periodically requests status reports, armchair quarterbacking and micromanaging, then issuing his own dire meditations on the price of failure. His old student Ishbane is now a competitor after Rafar’s job. Worse, Rafar is haunted by the spectre of what must have been a spectacular failure at his previous project in Gaul. If the author were to throw in a shrewish (or long-suffering) wife and a clueless (or smartass) sidekick, we would have all the makings of a classic sitcom!

This easy empathy we feel for Rafar comes at a price, however. Even when things are earnest and serious, we cannot quite take Rafar seriously because he has traded menace for mirth. If and when Craig decides to put Rafar into a more dramatic role, to do so believably he will first have to provide a bridge that leads the readers some distance away from the comedic elements of the character.

The diary format is another two-edged sword for this AAR. As discussed previously, it keeps things short and to the point, and makes for quick reading. The device also feels fresh, because it is not that commonly used, even though it’s a natural way of handling less narrative event-log style AARs.

The diary has, however, been used quite recently in Riboflavin’s A Madman’s History of Novgorod , which Craig acknowledges as one of the inspirations for From the Pope's Basement Riboflavin’s work, however, is a more free-form diary encompassing snippets of dialogue, longer speculations and expositions by the narrator. Craig’s diary narration is handled in a drier, matter-of-fact reporting style, with little or no dialogue or direct interaction. Moreover, Craig seems deliberately to keep each diary entry very brief—a paragraph or two at most.

As a result of those stylistic differences, the only character in Basement whom we have any real insight into is Rafar himself. Even that understanding is constrained both by Rafar’s own rather limited self-knowledge and the brevity of each diary entry, which gives him little time to show us how he thinks or feels about things. That brevity is itself further limiting, as it’s harder to develop a more complex plot when you are limited to small chunks of one or two paragraphs at a time.

Sometimes, as with the subplot involving Ishbane, that doesn’t seem to pose any problem. The subplot unfolds easily, without feeling forced or rushed. Other times, as with the subplot involving the cult of Shamir, the story seems oddly truncated. The Shamir story builds slowly as Rafar insinuates himself into the cult and gradually expands his control over it and its power in the realm. Then, abruptly, Rafar sacrifices most of the cult as a pawn in a larger game which springs up suddenly and, once resolved, vanishes from view. Though the cult appears to be crippled but possibly not wiped out, Rafar makes no further mention of it.

The Encyclopedia entries could be used to compensate in a number of ways. In fact, they have been used in that regard to good effect. So far, though, their main use has been as a slightly lengthier explication of details surrounding events and/or game decisions, rather than as a storytelling tool. Again, this isn’t necessarily “bad,” it’s a design choice. That choice does, however, tend to channel the story in the direction of surface details and less audience involvement.

Similarly, the opening of the AAR introduces Father Tarantella, a modern day Vatican researcher who stumbles across the Diaries of Rafar. The author is currently engaged in a discussion with his readers as to how the Father may best be employed. Since he stands outside the Diary and Rafar’s perspective, he too can be a useful tool for getting around the limitations of the form.

It will be very interesting to see how the author deals with these issues as the AAR progresses. Most game event-driven AARs eventually begin weeding out events more carefully as time passes, selecting only the most important for discussion. Will that happen in From the Pope's Basement , and if so, how will the narration change? Will the pace quicken (at the current rate of about 1,000 words per year-and-a-half of gametime, the AAR will eventually pass 250,000 words—roughly the length of two full novels!) Will the diary style change to accomodate fewer, longer entries? I’m confident that Craig will find ways to keep his readers and himself entertained.

If the author does decide to open the storyline up to more complex themes, his premise and the tale thus far are rich with possibilities for exploration. For example, the organization and structure of Hell which Rafar hints at is wonderfully evocative of modern corporate/government bureaucracy, without drawing any direct parallels. This is a comparison that could easily be explored to great comic, satiric, or tragic effect.

As a further example, the whole nature of Rafar’s mission opens various questions which touch on the nature of faith and salvation, good and evil. Why does Rafar take pleasure in and feel vindicated by the death of God’s faithful—doesn’t the fact that they’ve died in a state of grace represent a “loss” for Rafar’s side? Why is Rafar by and large content to use brute-force means (dominating his puppets, forcible conversion and Inquisition, torture and crucifixion, etc.) rather than the more subtle and fiendish tools he occasionally pays lip service to (corruption through luxury and decadence, for one)? A particularly touchy question (perhaps better left unaddressed) is whether the “pagan gods” Rafar speaks of are real in the same sense as the Christian God (and His opposite), merely irrelevant to his agenda? Or are they false gods? Carefully written and explored, any of these might prove fascinating!

 

[Craig Ashley]

Author's Reply

First off, I want to thank Morlac for taking the time to read and analyze my work. Not only that, but Morlac has been a vital contributor to this entire project. The introduction you all just read was the result of all of the discussion held on the Feedback thread. I penned an introduction that, I must say, I thought was very good. I sent it to Morlac for a bit of feedback, and he went and reformatted the entire thing. It was 10 times clearer than anything I could hope to write.

I also want to address why I decided to go under the microscope first. I did not request that my work be done first out of ego or a desire to shamelessly self-promote. The reason was I wanted to feel first hand what any other author would feel when going through this process. It is my hope this will allow me to do a better job of coordinating this project. This is also an opportunity to do a test run. For us to see how the whole process works and make any adjustments neccessary.

Now on to the author's response.

The reviewer was very insightful. He managed to raise many of the questions I have debated in my own head and even a few more. Let me simply quote the original review and then attempt to clarify my thought process.

What are the downsides, if any? Well, it’s a minor consideration, but Craig unsuspectingly runs afoul of one of my pet peeves-misspellings. His AAR is liberally peppered with unfortunate typos. Craig’s command of the language is excellent, but a brief session with a spell checker would really let his prose sing as he’d intended.

I admit it. I can't spell. To further compound the issue, I don't have a spell checker. I don't have Microsoft Office yet, and I am forced to use wordpad. No excuse, but I just had to come clean.

A more pressing question is whether or not there’s an overall plan to the storyline-Craig’s comments to the thread indicate that he does. But while he does a great job of tying disparate and sometimes random game events together, at times my impression is that his writing is reacting to events more than it is slowly revealing the story he’d like to tell (and weaving in game events to flavor the tale).

I have only a general outline of how this story will progress. What I mean is I have a very specific ending in mind, but the journey to there is largely uncharted. Many of the specifics are decided only when I sit down in front of the keyboard. This isn't to say that everything I write is willy-nilly. I usually (but not always) plan out how major subplots will play out, but again this is only in very general terms. In addition to being because of my own laziness, I find this helps me keep things fresh for me as a writer.

Rafar talks a great game about his supernatural powers and his thirst for blood. But much of the time, he comes across more like Homer Simpson than Lucifer’s imp.

When I originally began toying with this idea, Rafar was a big time demon. He answered directly to Lucifer and was one of hell's best (or worse depending on how you look at it) agents. Then I asked myself, where's the drama in that? If Rafar was so powerful, what or who would be able to stop him? Heavenly forces came to mind, but I'm no Frank Peretti (for those of you who don't know his work, he is a Christian author who has written a pair of entertaining books about the struggle between angelic and demonic forces). I would have to "dial down" Rafar in order to provide any meaningful conflict.

I think of Rafar as being more clever than smart. He is skilled at manipulation and deceit, but little else. Also as the reviewer pointed out, Rafar has his own selfish motivations clouding his judgement. I think (hope) he makes a very different, but classic flawed protaganist.

This easy empathy we feel for Rafar comes at a price, however. Even when things are earnest and serious, we cannot quite take Rafar seriously because he has traded menace for mirth. If and when Craig decides to put Rafar into a more dramatic role, to do so believably he will first have to provide a bridge that leads the readers some distance away from the comedic elements of the character.

I do have plans to lead Rafar to a darker state of being. I felt while Rafar has a certain dry wit at times, it is still very menacing. Afterall, look at what he is joking about. Murder, blasphemy, the occult, and even cannibalism are amusing to him. I'm glad the reviewer finds Rafar's commentary amusing, but it was not my intent to have it overshadow the horror of his acts. I think it is even more horrible that Rafar finds amusement in the atrocities he commits.

The diary has, however, been used quite recently in Riboflavin’s A Madman’s History of Novgorod , which Craig acknowledges as one of the inspirations for From the Pope's Basement

Allow me to name the other inspirations for this work: Frank Peretti's This Present Darkness and Piercing the Darkness, Randy Alcorn's The Ishbane Conspiracy, and the Bible by God.

Craig’s diary narration is handled in a drier, matter-of-fact reporting style, with little or no dialogue or direct interaction. Moreover, Craig seems deliberately to keep each diary entry very brief-a paragraph or two at most.

As a result of those stylistic differences, the only character in Basement whom we have any real insight into is Rafar himself. Even that understanding is constrained both by Rafar’s own rather limited self-knowledge and the brevity of each diary entry, which gives him little time to show us how he thinks or feels about things.

As the reviewer stated, Rafar is rather limited in self-knowledge. This is intentional. Allow me delve into a bit of theology. Demons are fallen angels. They were once God's choosen servants, even Lucifer, himself, was second only to God. Once they fell from grace, they could never return. Imagine the personal hell of knowing the perfection of heaven and being forbidden from ever seeing it again Imagine knowing God's perfect love, only to be forever seperated from Him. Now picture it is all your own damn fault. Add to this that you know deep down inside in the end, your side loses (read Revelations).

Any demon who was truly introspective would be driven completely and utterly insane rather quickly. While Rafar is no where near what we would call sane, he remains functional. This is because he refuses to examine his own actions. Instead he focuses on his consuming hatred of God and His favorite creation, man.

Other times, as with the subplot involving the cult of Shamir, the story seems oddly truncated. The Shamir story builds slowly as Rafar insinuates himself into the cult and gradually expands his control over it and its power in the realm. Then, abruptly, Rafar sacrifices most of the cult as a pawn in a larger game which springs up suddenly and, once resolved, vanishes from view. Though the cult appears to be crippled but possibly not wiped out, Rafar makes no further mention of it.

This is a result of my oversight. The cult is crippled, but not destroyed. My intent was to have it go underground. The only problem is I put it too underground! Rafar did not sacrifice a few key members, but has not taken an active role in the cults affairs since the scandal. The lack of activity is due to the increased attention of of Molla, an overzealous cleric. I should have mentioned at least once or twice Rafar's plans for the cult as they will rise again.

Will the pace quicken (at the current rate of about 1,000 words per year-and-a-half of gametime, the AAR will eventually pass 250,000 words-roughly the length of two full novels!)

I don't think it will end up that large, but we will see.

Why is Rafar by and large content to use brute-force means (dominating his puppets, forcible conversion and Inquisition, torture and crucifixion, etc.) rather than the more subtle and fiendish tools he occasionally pays lip service to (corruption through luxury and decadence, for one)?

Two reasons. One, it's easier. As I said before, Rafar isn't the as smart or powerful as he likes to say he is. Subtlety requires more planning and much more patience than Rafar is capable of possessing. Which brings me to point number two. Rafar, like most demonic beings, simply enjoys cruelty. Sure he wants to destroy Christianity, but wouldn't be more fun to hear the anguished cries of his victims along the way? I think Rafar is dimly aware of the possiblity there are better ways to accomplish his goals, but he is driven as much by his mission as he is by his personal lust for vengence and wanton destruction.

As a further example, the whole nature of Rafar’s mission opens various questions which touch on the nature of faith and salvation, good and evil. Why does Rafar take pleasure in and feel vindicated by the death of God’s faithful-doesn’t the fact that they’ve died in a state of grace represent a “loss” for Rafar’s side?

More theology here. Once man is redeemed by God, he is forever saved from God's wrath. Christians are already lost to Lucifer and his minions. Killing off God's faithful is a simple way to prevent the spread of Christianity. Also by causing them to suffer, he causes God to suffer, and that is the goal of any self respecting demon.

A particularly touchy question (perhaps better left unaddressed) is whether the “pagan gods” Rafar speaks of are real in the same sense as the Christian God (and His opposite), merely irrelevant to his agenda? Or are they false gods?

From a Christian perspective, they are false gods. As Rafar has stated, he doesn't care who man worships as long as it isn't you know who. The reason is any god outside of God is false.

Note: This is the Christian perspective presented in the Bible. I realize that many people throughout the world have a different interpetation, but I do not want to have a theological debate here. If you care to discuss it with me, please use PM or email. This is not the place for it.

I want to thank Morlac again for his hard work and intelligent and well-crafted thoughts. Feel free to share your thoughts on any of this (except the theology). As a writer I must say this review was very helpful in pointing out just exactly where I stand to improve: organization, planning, and character motivation. I also feel I need to attempt to weave into this paticular story some of the "heavier" theological stuff I have been thinking. I have a very clear view of Rafar and his motivations, but I have failed in communicating that with the reader. After having gone through this process, I feel much sharper as a writer (we will see how well that translates to my writing). Things like character motivation and the psychological aspects of it, have been moved from the back of mind to front and center. Many of you have no doubt already made this transition, but I think (hope) that I can now take a major step in improving my craft. Thanks for reading!

 

[unmerged(6777)]

I'd just like to compliment Morlac on an excellent review. It is well thought out and expertly constructed to provide just exactly what the "cover page" of this thread proposes that it do.

The "Overview: The Basics" definitely gives one a good introduction to the AAR (which, incidentally, I have read on an ongoing basis as Craig has written it, but I haven't gone back to read it in its entirely) and meshes with my own impression of the author's work. It also identifies the odd niggling impression that has been worrying away at the back of my mind without my becoming as consciously aware of it.

By contrast, I think that Morlac's "More Detail: The Advanced Level Review" might fall a little more in line with what I would expect from an "average" review than an "advanced" one. In looking at the two criteria...

Average presents a more in-depth look at the AAR. In addition to a description/synopsis, the review would include more analytical feedback, possible comparisons to other works, and suggestions for improvement.

Advanced reviews are for authors who really want to improve their craft and are willing to undergo what may be a fairly thorough analysis/critique of their work. Many review readers may find this level of detail less useful, but they may pick up some ideas or thought-provoking comments that could help them in their own writing efforts.

...or perhaps that's merely my misinterpretation of the stated goals? I had thought of the "Advanced" category to be a little more "workshoppy" than Morlac's analysis which, while it addresses both some of the issues and concerns that I have with Craig's work as well as praises him for some of the more endearing aspects of the AAR, I think fails to take him to task for some of the areas that need the most work and might be of even greater benefit to him as an author - provided the long term goal is to improve his work.

Once again, this may be simply my erroneous interpretation of the review process' scope, or perhaps I should not find it surprising that Morlac has differing views than my own on the underpinnings, mechanics and stylistic offerings in Craig's work. A third possibility occurs: that Morlac has resisted pointing out some of the things that he sees but feels might be taken as unduly harsh by the author - or possibly he seeks to demonstrate to the balance of readers (who are curious as to what one of these things might entail) that the process isn't quite as harsh, microscopically critical, or humbling as had been intimated during the course of the discussions in the "Feedback" thread - and sought to spare Craig from the all-too-common bright lights of the "shredding ground" that a highly critical editorial or literary analysis would entail.

This is not to suggest that Craig's work does not have significant potential, nor that it is without a number of noteworthy merits - it has both, and is something that deserves to be read and will entertain you as you do so.

In the spirit, though, of further providing the author with more of what I would have considered to be the "advanced" review that he sought, I would like to offer a few thoughts that I have about From the Pope's Basement.

Besides the obvious spelling and occasional grammatical errors that can be quickly and easily corrected upon edits (though admittedly this would be better addressed prior to posting – and I know I’m the pot calling the kettle black ) there are several more critical comments that I feel should be aired. Craig, in his response to Morlac's review, perhaps unwittingly opens and points to some of the important "flaws" that I have seen in the work to date.

I have only a general outline of how this story will progress. What I mean is I have a very specific ending in mind, but the journey to there is largely uncharted. Many of the specifics are decided only when I sit down in front of the keyboard. This isn't to say that everything I write is willy-nilly. I usually (but not always) plan out how major subplots will play out, but again this is only in very general terms. In addition to being because of my own laziness, I find this helps me keep things fresh for me as a writer.

The "largely uncharted" aspect of the AAR quite often comes across - as Morlac said - as a sort of aimless meandering through time rather than as a patchwork of journal entries that are gradually assembled to reveal an as-yet-hidden underlying master plan.

As a work of fiction (as opposed to as an after action report on a game that is being played) it seems unfocused and diffuse; with that impression occasionally impeding the reader's process of trying to decipher what few clues are offered as to plot or sub-plot development. Thus, when clues are presented, the reader can sometimes find himself missing them initially by mistakenly presuming that they are more of the miscellaneous asides that are characteristic of the majority of the writing.

To draw an admittedly overstated analogy, it can have the tendency to edge closer to a comic-strip anthology – say for example “The best of Dilbert, 1419 – 1819” than a novel that details “The Trials and Tribulations of Hobbes Throughout Four Centuries”. (Craig: please take that in the spirit that it is intended…see next paragraph.)

I think that the chosen “diary” style contributes to this impression of isolated and independent vignettes that frequently seem to have little to do with one another. That is not to say that the style can’t be effective, but simply that a greater degree of cohesiveness and interconnectedness in the journal entries would greatly benefit the author and bind the work more tightly together.

I also feel that for this style to be successful, the author needs to establish quite early on, and in no uncertain terms, that *this* and *that* are the dominant themes that will be explored, thus priming the reader to pay more attention to them as they are gradually developed over the course of the fiction. It is possible, since I am writing from memory, that I have simply forgotten them; but even if that were the case, they have not be forcefully and or consistently reinforced or advanced as the AAR has progressed. Instead, Rafar’s overall mission and objectives have seemingly become largely subservient to a haphazard melange of brief “mini-plots” and one-time occurrences.

Needless to say, this is hardly surprising seeing as the bulk of the AAR’s content is derived not by forethought, but rather by the unpredictable chain of EU2-manufactured random events. This is a major stumbling block that may, at times, seem insurmountable to an author. As Morlac commented, in longer AARs an author has a tendency to begin by including many (or all) of the random events, but then gradually begin to weed out the less important ones in favour of preserving the overall pace and interest in the work. I believe that the author could, by simply by rearranging or subverting some of those random events, eliminate some of the distractions and better enhance the sense of mission and plot in his story.

I think of Rafar as being more clever than smart. He is skilled at manipulation and deceit, but little else. Also as the reviewer pointed out, Rafar has his own selfish motivations clouding his judgement. I think (hope) he makes a very different, but classic flawed protagonist [sic].

As a protagonist in a piece employing this style, Rafar is given the burden of carrying the entire storyline (with the occasional exception of the Encyclopaedia entry) and must therefore become our eyes and ears on the world that the author wishes to interest us in exploring. An AAR-by-diary-entry, while a relatively uncommon approach, does not generally allow for descriptive narrative; and the decision to further omit most of the demon’s inner thoughts and deliver his experiences in staccato has gone even further to narrow or restrict our view – both of his world, and of his mind. The assertion that Rafar is either clever or smart is almost unverifiable as he seems more of a “doer” than a thinker. Cleverness requires thought, and there is seldom (that I recall) a moment when those thoughts are revealed to the reader. If this is an aspect that the author wishes us to learn about his principal character, then this lack of interior monologue must be addressed for him to succeed with that goal.

As the reviewer stated, Rafar is rather limited in self-knowledge. This is intentional. Allow me delve into a bit of theology. Demons are fallen angels. They were once God's choosen [sic] servants, even Lucifer, himself, was second only to God. Once they fell from grace, they could never return. Imagine the personal hell of knowing the perfection of heaven and being forbidden from ever seeing it again Imagine knowing God's perfect love, only to be forever seperated [sic] from Him. Now picture it is all your own damn fault. Add to this that you know deep down inside in the end, your side loses (read Revelations).

and later…

Two reasons. One, it's easier. As I said before, Rafar isn't the as smart or powerful as he likes to say he is. Subtlety requires more planning and much more patience than Rafar is capable of possessing. Which brings me to point number two. Rafar, like most demonic beings, simply enjoys cruelty. Sure he wants to destroy Christianity, but wouldn't be more fun to hear the anguished cries of his victims along the way? I think Rafar is dimly aware of the possiblity [sic] there are better ways to accomplish his goals, but he is driven as much by his mission as he is by his personal lust for vengence [sic] and wanton destruction.

This is far more in keeping with the way that Rafar comes across: more of a preternatural creature acting on instinct than an introspective being who is inflicting whatever torments and injustices he can think of on the poor, unsuspecting sheep of the human race. As such, “clever” or “smart” really doesn’t enter into it, although he certainly displays higher learning abilities that allow him to plot and execute a course of action – which might, on occasion, border on being contradictory to his nature.

The difficulty with using such a creature as the main protagonist is often apparent in the AAR, and I sometimes have the sense that the author and character are at odds with one another, or that the author is searching for a different means of getting his information across. I think that I would have to go back and do a continuous read through the entire body of the AAR to offer suggestions of how to correct this, but I am aware of it even when I am digesting it in serial form.

I’ll stop now – although I would normally expect an “advanced” critique to go into more detailed specifics.

I hope, Craig, that you don’t find this an unnecessarily harsh attack on your work which, as a reader, I am quite enjoying. I am simply illustrating the tip of the “workshop” iceberg that an author who is seeking to make those great strides towards personal advancement must be prepared to both accept, and respond to. I believe Lord Durham will confirm that in literary circles it gets a great deal worse than this before it gets any better.

I hope you find it of value, and I am perfectly willing - and won’t be offended if you ask me - to pull this post and replace it with a simple congratulatory comment to Morlac for a reviewing job that was very well done.

 

[Morlac]

Mr T

Thank you very much for your comments -- they were fascinating reading and also put into words some of the concepts I was struggling with in my review. (By the way, you might want to edit your vbcode, a few things aren't closed so segments aren't quoted properly...)

I need to address the biggest point you made, and that's the issue of what constitutes an Advanced (as opposed to Average) review. In retrospect, and having read your comments, I agree with you completely that my review did NOT go to the extremes that a writers workshop would embrace. Craig did ask me for as Advanced of a review as I could, or would, write, so in that respect I may have failed him.

Part of my reason for that is caution on my part. Despite my intentions to the contrary, I found myself hesitant to 'take the gloves off' to the extent necessary to say some of the things Mr T has just said.

And part of the reason for it is the desire Mr T speculated on, not to portray the process as quite so harsh or humbling as a real writer's workshop would certainly be.

Finally, I confess, the third reason is that I myself have been a long time away from fiction writing and even longer from the kind of intelligent discourse and criticism that some of you are clearly capable of and engaged in. I think that it's going to take me awhile to get into form. That's not to say that I don't consider myself a decent writer who's capable of making some good suggestions, comments, questions, etc. However, the systematic and microscopic analysis that I know I should be capable of eludes me at the moment.

In that light, then, let me suggest that folks consider my review "Average" level. Let a few more reviewers work their magic, and then I think we will have a better capacity to show by example what the three categories are.

 

[Bismarck]

I don't think anyone will be as cruel and tough as a university creative writing workshop... it just isn't possible.

M

 

[Craig Ashley]

MrT: Thank you for the input.

hope you find it of value, and I am perfectly willing - and won’t be offended if you ask me - to pull this post and replace it with a simple congratulatory comment to Morlac for a reviewing job that was very well done.

One of the purposes of this project is to get the exact sort of feedback you have shared. Please remember I asked for this and I wanted the "anal probe" review. Don't worry about me, you'll find I am not made of glass.

As the coordinator of this project, I would never ask that any intelligent comments be removed from the discussion (only cruel or abusive remarks will suffer my wrath). You are saying exactly what I wanted to hear, constructive criticism. You have captured much of what I have been mulling over since reading the review. I have not come up with a satisfactory plan to improve this paticular work. Please feel free to post your suggestions and/or any further or more detailed comments.

Morlac: You did not in any way fail. The review may not of been as intense as it could of been, but this is a first for all of us. It is part of the reason I wanted to go first. Chalk it up to experience and get ready for the next one! BTW, if you did hold anything back, it's not to late to let me have it.

 

[Craig Ashley]

Context. Let me see if I can hepl you with that.

Where I am as a writer Durring the discusion on the Feedback thread, one point that was brought up was different writers should be held to different standards. Prolific and established geniuses like MrT and LD are held to a much higher standard than a first time author for whom English isn't is native tongue. We expect more from the established veterans with some experience under their belts.

I think of myself as somewhere between the two. In high school and my days at Jr. college, my friends and I spent most of our time doing two things, gaming and writing. The two were usually linked. We wrote out plots to RPGs that were never to be published. Strategic games with a twist of fantasy were also frequently written about. Most of this stuff was completely made up and never finished.

On the rare occasion I would try my hand at something more ambitious, it rarely made it past three or four pages before I ran out of steam. When I left the hollowed halls of Joliet Junior College for the last time, most of my writing efforts were left behind. Over the last four years, here and there I would attempt a piece of fiction. Same old story, get off to a great start (at least I always thought it was great ) and run out steam a few pages later. Have no fear, I will finish what I have started here, but that is where I stand as a writer. Amatuer and rusty.

My intent as an author When I first started out, my goal was only to entertain. However, as time progressed and as I read MrT's ambitious and very well crafted Rivers Run Red, I began to realize my own story was a bit "shallow." With the protaganist I have choosen there is the possibility to explore a wealth of themes. Many of which have already been discussed. This is certianly where I have struggled the most. I am still attempting to find a seemless way to weave these ideas into the existing story.

There you have it, a little bit of context (is that what you're looking for MrT? or did I miss the boat completely?). Keep the discusion up, I personally, as a writer, am enjoying and benefiting from this a lot. As the coordinator of this project, I am glad (and not suprised) to see such intelligent discussion.

 

[unmerged(6777)]

Big edit: OT removed....

When I first started out, my goal was only to entertain. However, as time progressed and as I read MrT's ambitious and very well crafted Rivers Run Red, I began to realize my own story was a bit "shallow." With the protaganist I have choosen there is the possibility to explore a wealth of themes. Many of which have already been discussed. This is certianly where I have struggled the most. I am still attempting to find a seemless way to weave these ideas into the existing story.

I think that’s the problem. Your initial decision involving the AAR you were going to write was to provide a “report” of what happened during the course of your game and to do so in an interesting and different way. If I were to review your work and that basis alone – i.e. in the context of you having converted a history log into something that’s entertaining to read – then I would have no reservation in giving you a big, glowing, “two thumbs up” review. It’s given me a great sense of what’s happened in the game, and it’s had some good moments of humour for me. Tidy up the spelling and, hey presto! Great AAR.

Unfortunately or not, you have decided since then to switch horses mid race and now wish to transform an embellished game report into an engaging piece of fiction that owes its underlying structure to a game. That is an immensely difficult task.

 

[Secret Master]

I will just chime in with my $2.50 worth. (We're doing this in Canadian money, right? )

I think Average is the best calssification for Morlac's review. I also think he did an excellent job with this, and your author response was also professional, Craig. If this is how we do things from here on out, I think we will be fine. Maybe just a little tweaking here and there.

I also have a question (which has likely been answered elsewhere, but I haven't seen it). Will this thread be the only place for the reviews? I ask because if all reviews are in the same thread, it might make it more difficult to search for a review of an AAR. (Yeah, I know, the search function should pick it up, but bear with me on this.) Might I suggest posting the reviews here when they are new, then posting them in seperate, closed threads that are linked via the librAARy?

 

[unmerged(4271)]

Originally posted by Secret Master

I also have a question (which has likely been answered elsewhere, but I haven't seen it). Will this thread be the only place for the reviews? I ask because if all reviews are in the same thread, it might make it more difficult to search for a review of an AAR. (Yeah, I know, the search function should pick it up, but bear with me on this.) Might I suggest posting the reviews here when they are new, then posting them in seperate, closed threads that are linked via the librAARy?

My thoughts are the same as Secret Master's (SCARY!)

In order to keep up with multiple reviews, and just as importantly to let readers in the Forum know at a glance what is being reviewed, I'd suggest one basic thread and then either posting specific reviews in their own threads (linking to them from the original thread) or following SM's suggestion above.

Going back to one of the original problems concerning feedback, I may not scroll through an 8 page thread just to see what's being reviewed, but if there were several threads that had the AAR being reviewed in the title, such as:

At the AARs - A Review of Past and Present AARs (Your guide to AAR Reviews)
At the AARs - Dames of the Deep
At the AARs - Mango Mango Man
At the AARs - Who Spilled Cologne?

I would more readily stop and read the reviews of favorite AARs, or one's that I missed to get a "sneak peak" at them before committing to the whole story.

Just a suggestion - I think you've got a good idea here, Craig, and offer this as a hopefully constructive improvement.

 

[Morlac]

Originally posted by heagarty

Going back to one of the original problems concerning feedback, I may not scroll through an 8 page thread just to see what's being reviewed, but if there were several threads that had the AAR being reviewed in the title, such as:

I would agree wholeheartedly except that someone (I believe it was Lord Durham) had expressed some serious concern about choking the forum with tiny threads which would only be a few posts each.

Perhaps we could combine what heagarty and secret master have said with something Mr T suggested:

After the reviews are posted here, they and the author's response should be reposted in the AAR thread itself, perhaps with a link back to the review thread so that interested readers can follow the subsequent discussion.

I think Mr T had also suggested that if the reviews keep going and are popular enough, he might add a line to the Libraary listing indicating whether a review exists of that AAR. That would also help.

Personally, though, I think a lot depends on how much feedback this thread gets and how often reviews get written. If it keeps to one or two reviews per week, I wouldn't find it too onerous to keep up with as a single thread.

Just my 2 centi-ducats...

 

[Craig Ashley]

Secret Master and Heagarty: I think you are both on to something. I posed this very question back in the Feedback thread. Ironicly, I didn't get much feedback . LD did answer my poll and expressed concerns about cluttering the board with too many unread reviews. I believe he is open to something along the lines of what you have proposed, but he wanted to see how much interest this would generate (feel free to clarify if I have misrepresented your thoughts, LD).

MrT: What exactly do you have in mind? If your idea is to go into detail on specifically how to improve a single piece, the reviews should be sufficent. Also if it was an open thread to all (more like a workshop) you could have the problem of having ten different authors wanting their piece examined at once. This would not allow for anyone to get much out of it.

If you were thinking more along the lines a general discussion, that might work just fine. I don't want to highjack the reviews to discuss this possible new project, so either PM me, email me, post a new thread, or feel free to highjack the Feedback thread, it's already happened once .

 

[Sharur]

Just thought I'd pop in and say yes, I'm here I've been rather busy of late, oddly enough (it's summer!), but I'm keeping up (sort of).

Anyway...

I think that MrT makes a very good point about context; however, I think it should be left to the reviewer to decide on the standards to which the AAR should be held. If the author feels that those standards are off, he/she can say so in his/her response. Ultimately, I don't think it will be at all problematic for an author to get a review holding his/her AAR to higher standards than he/she expects; after all, perhaps the author will decide to step up his/her own expectations, and his/her work will get that much better.

Note: Having just experimented in using the grammatically correct "he/she" & "his/her" instead of "they" & "their" for singular pronouns, I have decided that it's useless. It will be they from here on out

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by Sharur

Note: Having just experimented in using the grammatically correct "he/she" & "his/her" instead of "they" & "their" for singular pronouns, I have decided that it's useless. It will be they from here on out

The gramatically correct is to write he and his when then sex of the person in question is either unknown or irrelevant.

Writing he/she and his/her is an aberration caused by excessive PC'ism and linguistic idiocy. Avaunt!

 

[Morlac]

Re: Reviews, Level of--
I should also say that in my earlier post (wherein I decided to downgrade my review to "Average") I was at first planning to discuss the idea of context that MrT has introduced. I think I was going to call it "proportionality" or something like that.

I held off from doing so because I didn't have access to the information Craig has since provided. I didn't want to publicly make assumptions about his general level of writing craft, or the goals of his AAR. That, I thought, could be insulting and inflammatory. (Indeed, my assumptions were in fact somewhat wrong, as it turns out!)

Perhaps we can agree to modify the definitions somewhat? An advanced review is not different from an average one merely in depth and scope, but in kind and context. That is, one should only request or receive an Advanced review if his AAR goal is to go beyond what Mr T described, basically, as dressing up the game events in an interesting and entertaining way.

That's still quite ambiguous, I know. But, like the US definition of obscenity, I have to trust that I know it when I see it. Broadly put, can the author envision taking the AAR out of the game context and (with major revision, to be sure) handing it to a friend who doesn't play the game?

More specifically, as Mr T put it, is there an interesting plot line? Engaging characters? To which I would suggest adding the query: is it about something other than the game?

For example, if I have been following Mr T's Palatinat Novel correctly, so far I see exploration of a wide range of emotions (duty, honor, jealousy, pride, love, etc) and what happens when some of those motivations collide. The actual gameplay is deeply buried, but in some sense even the war at center stage is really secondary to the effects it has on the characters involved.

That's an extreme example, of course -- Mr T has indicated his authorial ambitions, and RRR is probably destined to transform into a "real" (ie non-game) novel in the not too distant future. But that brings me to:

Reviews, Further Thoughts on Pope's Basement:

Regarding Rafar and his suitability as a narrator, it seems clear now that Craig is ambivalent about him. On the one hand, he is different, provocative, and entertaining. On the other hand, Craig seems personally predisposed towards certain views about what a "demon" must be like that may render Rafar unsuitable for the task ahead.

Specifically, it seems that the demons of this AAR are simple creatures with less dimensionality than any human. Rafar and Ishbane possess, it appears, no positive attributes. They have no interests we know of save the simple carnal pleasures of mayhem and destruction. And their interest in mayhem is uncomplicated by any tortured longing for vengeance against a (to them) unjust God; railing (courageous or cowardly) against their inevitable defeat; or self-loathing at the fate they have wreaked upon themselves (or, given the denial Craig spoke of, displacement of that loathing onto targets less abstract than God). Excepting the momentary pleasure they derive from destruction, they might as well be elemental forces like fire or disease.

Craig said:

I think of Rafar as being more clever than smart. He is skilled at manipulation and deceit, but little else. Also as the reviewer pointed out, Rafar has his own selfish motivations clouding his judgement.

As Mr T observed, the evidence provided thus far by the AAR (all we have to go on) proves neither cleverness nor smartnesss. It is, perhaps unfortunately, a very common trend these days in fiction to "glamorize" evil. Vampires, Lycanthropes, Demons, Cannibals etc all have been given new "spins" and lots of PR (not naming any in particular <cough>). I wouldn't suggest going that far, but the fundamental point is sound: if you are going to write about them, they have to be capable of some trace of humanity. If they are unthinking, unfeeling, one-dimensional killers (even mildly amusing ones) they can't sustain interest for long, and certainly will be difficult protagonists or narrators.

Moreover, I would argue that if the author sees Rafar as skilled at manipulation and deceit then he must by definition be an astute observer of the human psyche, even if his "skill" is innate and intuitive. Excepting the rawest and crassest forms ("give me what I want or I'll kill your family"), manipulation requires an understanding of what the target wants, and how much they will be willing to pay to get it. Deceit works much the same way, requiring a sense of what the target already knows, and what they wish to be true.

Craig says:

When I originally began toying with this idea, Rafar was a big time demon. He answered directly to Lucifer and was one of hell's best (or worse depending on how you look at it) agents. Then I asked myself, where's the drama in that? If Rafar was so powerful, what or who would be able to stop him? Heavenly forces came to mind, but I'm no Frank Peretti (for those of you who don't know his work, he is a Christian author who has written a pair of entertaining books about the struggle between angelic and demonic forces). I would have to "dial down" Rafar in order to provide any meaningful conflict.

I must disagree. Conflict comes from wanting something and not being able to get it, not necessarily from the direct confrontation of two opposed beings. Say that Rafar was "a big time demon". So what? Say that he has the power to bend others to his will, snap a man in half with his fingers, and stop time with a word, or any number of other ridiculous abilities. Just because he has those powers doesn't mean he will use them directly and to their best effect.

• Perhaps each use of power is "tracked" by the home office and he has to account for it (like submitting an expense report). The paperwork and hassle may encourage him to "keep it simple" most of the time.
  
• Maybe he is arrogant and lazy-- he wants to do this with a minimum of personal effort and intervention, thereby showing up his rivals.
  
• Maybe he is enjoined from direct intervention because to do so invites direct intervention by "the other side".
  
• Maybe mortal agents of God have power over him and can hurt him (through exorcism, or other rituals). Given how many of them there are, to reveal himself to often invites a "witch hunt" he might not be able to throw off.
  
• Assuming he can't be everywhere at once, he still must rely on mortals to carry out his orders.

But even that isn't really the point. Rafar doesn't have to be a "big time demon" to be interesting -- but he can't be a one-dimensional figure. What would the story be like if Rafar really was an astute judge of people and a charming liar, relying on cunning manipulation and skillful deceit to fulfill his goals? He would assess his targets, maybe get close to them, discern their weaknesses, and move to put them in his power without being discovered or turned upon. All of which sounds like a good excuse for character development, conflict, and plotting...

 

[Secret Master]

MrT,

I think that the coding works just fine. Since you can link like that directly in the librAARy, then extra threads are not needed.

Sharur,

Ironically, you bring up an interesting question. How many female writers do we have/know about in the AAR forum? Hardly any, I think. So, using the he/his pronoun set would not be out of line.

(If we have a prolific female author on the forum, chances are she is hiding her gender anyway to prevent rampant attempts at hooking up with her, so even in that case, he/his will not generate a complaint....)

 

[Morlac]

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen

The gramatically correct is to write he and his when then sex of the person in question is either unknown or irrelevant.

Writing he/she and his/her is an aberration caused by excessive PC'ism and linguistic idiocy. Avaunt!

This came up a lot in my old job, which included, among other things, writing aimed at kids. While I agree that constantly using the he/she or s(he) forms are repulsively ugly, I do sympathize with the intent (which is not to exclude half the population from consideration).

Generally, therefore, when gender is indeterminate or irrelevant, I will usually make an effort to alternate the two where appropriate. That is, I won't switch in the middle of a paragraph making the former he a she. However, if later on, I am discussing what could be a different indeterminate person, I might use "she" rather than "he". I also might start off by using she in the first place.

Don't mean to start a war! Just my opinion/experience.

And re: Mr T's discussion of a more general writing thread. I'm all for it (having been one of those who suggested it to him -- hmm, has anyone else noticed that I seem to be making a lot of work for people around here? ) However, I would urge him to set the bar a bit lower than "a more scholarly/literary bent". Not necessarily changing the definition, but keeping the description more friendly and appealing (Ack! Marketing!).

Personally, I'd like to see it as "The Salon" -- a place unlike the BAAR-- where writers go to discuss and advise on general issues pertaining to writing and the craft thereof. Specific advice might also be solicited by an author regarding a specific AAR, but this should be rarer and there should be some reason why the author chose not to post it on her own thread (e.g. her thread isn't getting many views, or asking the question reveals spoiler information about the future of the story).

 

[Secret Master]

That is, one should only request or receive an Advanced review if his AAR goal is to go beyond what Mr T described, basically, as dressing up the game events in an interesting and entertaining way.

Well, Morlac, it is interesting you mentioned this, because it leads into something I have mentioned in PM to LD. Since it has come up, I will go ahead and offer my conclusion on this matter, since I have given it some thought. (Also, reading some stuff about Ariel's Something Different AAR seems to have confirmed my theory...)

First, we should try and think outside of definite, rigidly defined categories when talking about whether an AAR is just a dressing up of game events, or prose in it's own right. Instead, we should think in terms of a contium between 2 extremes. On one extreme is the log style AAR, which is the embodiement of sharing an EU gaming experience. At this extreme, we are not trying to do anything involving creative writing at all. Rather, we just want to share "this cool game of EU I played that one time" with other players. On the other side of the contium is the prose that has left game mechanics completely behind. This bit of writing may be inspired by EU, but it has left game mechanics, rules, events, notation, etc., behind.

Between these two extremes fall 99% of AARs. Many are heavily log based, but they may incorporate characters, themes, recurring ideas, etc. that leave the realm of just noting items from game play. Some writers have deliberately moved in the direction of burying gameplay very deep in their writing. (MrT's current Palatinate project is an example of this, but by no means the only one.) In all cases, it will be rare to see an AAR the conforms rigidly to either of our two extremes. We may still say to ourselves that AAR X is closer to log-style, and AAR Y is closer to prose, but neither one would be completely one or the other.

There is that 1% that does not conform to this rule, as I see it. If I don't miss my guess, collaberative efforts (of any type) will automatically defy our scale, simply because they are a completely different animal than a solo AAR. Multiple authorship will likely produce a shotgun-effect on our scale, taking a work up and down the contium as the authors change.

Also, there is the possibilty that as a work is written, it moves along the contium itself. It may start closer to one end, and slowly creep towards the other as time goes on. I do not think we will see this effect very often, as it would require an AAR that has been posted over a significant period of time. In this case, it becomes almost a headache to sit down and say, "Well, AAR Z is a prose AAR, except for the first 10 chapters, which are just dressed up game events, and then the next 5 which are different...."

I do agree, however, that only more prose-like works will allow for in-depth analysis.

 

[Sharur]

You know, I wasn't trying to make any sort of point with that. I just used it once, then kept using it for the sake of consistency, then realized how silly it sounded at the end. In fact, the first time I used it I only did so because I meant to use he, then realized the possibility of a female author (despite evidence to the contrary). Anyway, enough on that subject