Oh dear, two people are fingering me for an entry. I guess I really should knuckle down and read/review the set of entries - I've been dreadfully slacking so far 
-
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.
Just realised we got two big reviews for 2 and not for the others, especially three. Must make sure I write one for it now rather than a few notes.
I've managed to mostly catch up and read the three entries, though I struggled with #3. The humour/caricaturing just didn't work for me, so beyond that I don't feel I can really review that piece fairly.
I've been fingered as the writer of #1 and #2 by different people, so in my best Would I lie to you impression (look it up on youtube if you've never seen the show), I can say I wrote neither. Both were solid enjoyable pieces. #2 I liked the prose style and it came across as someone who's fairly confident in their conversational writing, but the reference to WC was either a very clever way to throw people off as to the nationality of the writer, or this is a none British writer. I'm going to plump for the later and finger @Avernite for this one. I also seem to recall him writing a conversational entry for one of his previous entries.
Entry #2 starts off well, we get a nice dialogue going with little to fault during the first few paragraphs. The first jolt comes with:
.
The next point where it didn't flow as cleanly was when we got to the part where he says they've been working together for 5 years. It just didn't feel like they had based on what came before, so the piece would have been improved if there'd been something to show or indicate that was the case rather than just stating it.
Beyond that I liked it. Read it twice and it all flowed more cleanly on the second reading as I wasn't having to figure out so much of what the Twa-Lev, Pa-Peer etc meant.
Author #2 - A much shorter piece of work, and after reading it again before writing these comments, I can say it also read much better on the re-read. In fact I could find very little to fault, though unless Giles is a hermaphrodite, I think this bit needs either a his or her, instead of their
I'm going to guess @DensleyBlair for Author #1!
For Author #3 I'll guess @TheButterflyComposer simply because he's commented in the thread and I haven't fingered him for one of the other two pieces! I also want to apologise for mostly skipping the third entry.
I've been fingered as the writer of #1 and #2 by different people, so in my best Would I lie to you impression (look it up on youtube if you've never seen the show), I can say I wrote neither
. Both were solid enjoyable pieces. #2 I liked the prose style and it came across as someone who's fairly confident in their conversational writing, but the reference to WC was either a very clever way to throw people off as to the nationality of the writer, or this is a none British writer. I'm going to plump for the later and finger @Avernite for this one. I also seem to recall him writing a conversational entry for one of his previous entries.Entry #2 starts off well, we get a nice dialogue going with little to fault during the first few paragraphs. The first jolt comes with:
Carefully carefully. Pick a different adverb for one of them please
.The next point where it didn't flow as cleanly was when we got to the part where he says they've been working together for 5 years. It just didn't feel like they had based on what came before, so the piece would have been improved if there'd been something to show or indicate that was the case rather than just stating it.
Beyond that I liked it. Read it twice and it all flowed more cleanly on the second reading as I wasn't having to figure out so much of what the Twa-Lev, Pa-Peer etc meant.
Author #2 - A much shorter piece of work, and after reading it again before writing these comments, I can say it also read much better on the re-read. In fact I could find very little to fault, though unless Giles is a hermaphrodite, I think this bit needs either a his or her, instead of their
Ok another quibble:
That just doesn't read well. Would be better written something like:
and the following sentence needs a bit of tightening up, with an "a" that should be an "at" and a missing comma, that I'm sure a bit of proof reading would have caught.
I'm going to guess @DensleyBlair for Author #1!
For Author #3 I'll guess @TheButterflyComposer simply because he's commented in the thread and I haven't fingered him for one of the other two pieces! I also want to apologise for mostly skipping the third entry.
Tit for tat I see…
I think that’s now a majority opinion that I wrote piece number 1. All I will say is… interesting.
What is this?
How to play?
I have read the rules but I still don't get it
Please someone explain in a simple manner
How to play?
I have read the rules but I still don't get it
Please someone explain in a simple manner
The main aim is just to give a critique of the pieces people submit, so in this case the three bits of writing on the previous page. This can be as detailed or as brief as you like.
The secondary aim (and the reason this is called “Guess the Author”) is to, well, guess the author. If you have an idea about how wrote a piece after reviewing it, make a guess! Otherwise, just take a random shot in the dark.
But whom to submit to?The main aim is just to give a critique of the pieces people submit, so in this case the three bits of writing on the previous page. This can be as detailed or as brief as you like.
The secondary aim (and the reason this is called “Guess the Author”) is to, well, guess the author. If you have an idea about how wrote a piece after reviewing it, make a guess! Otherwise, just take a random shot in the dark.
With the change over on the forum, this thread took a bit of a hit. I'd like to see a few more reviews before revealing so let's say end of the week.
Hah, thanks for reminding me. Got two nearly-finished reviews I didn't get around to post. I'll dust them off and finish them during the week.
Between the forum updates and my travails finishing university in lockdown, GTA was unfortunately squeezed out of my immediate priorities for the last month. I’ll see whether I can get anything up by the end of the week, but sadly no promises.
As promised, the first of my two missing reviews. The second one should be up before the end of day.
--
Author #1
A Doctor's Journal in a Time of Quarantine, the title reads, and the entry does it justice, assuming the doctor in question is a mad as a hatter. This is a tale of cabin fever on steroids, and it is not at all clear what's the cause of the quarantine.
Dramatis personae: The Doctor, Giles, Fields, and Jake
I think this deserves a chronological look.
Within the first three hours of isolating themselves in the Doctor's mother's house, they are discussing survival strategies for surviving the end of the world... The end of the world? Just WHAT is the thing they fear, that they are isolating to avoid? I love the way the author teases without revealing here and mostly plays it straight, with the occasional weird statement thrown in. Note the thought about the mother. If she's just out at this time, why the wonder about whether she'll return or not? Are they escaping from something acting really, really, swiftly or is the Doctor thinking in terms of the mother being incapable of traveling due to a lockdown?
Let me in passing note that I simply adore completely unexpected statements such as "We certainly don’t want to be well-set up for surviving the potential end of the world only to be eaten by badgers." It manages to be simultaneously genuinely humorous, something that is close to things that people might think about while awaiting an end of the world scenario (humans vs animals), and completely bonkers at the same time. BUT, I told myself upon first reading it, remember the badgers. Were they chosen at random or do they perhaps hint at something more sinister?
Within the first twelve hours, they've formed sexual relationships, climaxes, and have them broken apart. It appears to be a Giles+Fields and Doctor+Jake pairing from then on, for as long as it lasts, which is to say, not long at all. Apparently that's the sign for boredom to set in.
The "fascinated by cat" episode shows how rapidly they are deteriorating. They've been cooped up in the house for only a day and a half, and they are already starved for signs of life other than themselves.
By two days it is apparently becoming difficult to motivate themselves to rise. Jake is scribbling down records and theories, anything to keep himself going. (Rather than giving up?) The Doctor is contemplating how the nice weather protects somewhat against slothful thinking, but in the same thought thinks of how it will not shine forever. That's a strange thought. Is that because it is the middle of the day and will be night soon or is the Doctor perhaps philosophically contemplating the death of the sun? The Doctor is having a hard time finding motivation to write.
At 51 hours, a dropped pair of glasses inspires worry about inevitable cannibalism. This is another brilliantly written paragraph, starting out with the dropped pair of glasses, something that in an end-of-the-world scenario might not be replaceable anytime soon, moving on to other things that this goes for that are less essential in practice but feel essential to everyday life (light bulbs, toothbrushes, shoelaces), and jumping from there to cannibalism. It demonstrates how the Doctor's mind is losing the ability to think coherently, worrying about light bulbs but not electrical power, worrying about shoe laces but not shoes. Simply brilliant.
At 90 hours.... "From scientist to vegetable in 90 hours" would make a decent alternative title for this entry. There is one important thing to note in this entry: Only static on the radio.
140 hours is return of the cat, and the return of feelings to a house that is otherwise devoid of them... after a mere 6 days of isolation.
The journal ends with the Doctor wondering whether it was all for nothing, whether there was a need to hide or not, whether there's anybody left, because there aren't anybody left in the house or outside, as far as the Doctor knows, and there's no need for doctors in the land of the dead.
I do so love stories that end on a positive spiritually uplifting note, don't you?
Let me look at three possible explanations for the big "WTF is going on in this story?"
All sound equally plausible to me based on the story, and that is part of the story's charm: it teases, it promises, and while it doesn't reward with a reveal, it does reward with wonder, and that's good enough for me. I suspect the author was going for a Crackpot Cabin Fever variant , but if it was one of the others, or if the author deliberately wanted to leave the question unanswered or ambiguous? That's fine as well, as it works.
If I have any criticism of this piece it is that it is a bit on the short side. A few more entries with cryptic statements – not too many – might have shored it up.
E.g. try slotting these into the sequence.
Hour Twenty-Four: Amateur philosophy is overrated.
Hour Forty-Seven: Fields insists that we ration the bacon, but I cannot see the ethical imperative.
Hour Hundred and about Eighty: We have been playing monopoly to keep us grounded. It isn't working. Giles was sent to jail and began weeping about drums. Then Fields brought a drum, and now they are chanting that they can't get out. Jake is discussing moral realism with the top hat and losing. His ontological reasoning is weak. They are losing it.
Hour Hundred and about Eighty-Plus-One: I have eaten the last of the hotels. They never saw it coming.
---Oh, well. Perhaps that is overdoing it. But I do wish it had been fleshed out a bit more.
As to the author? I'll tentatively put this down as being one of @stnylan's ; there are parts of it that stylistically matches what I remember from his humorous AAR writing... which may just indicate that my memory is faulty since it is a long time since I read them, but it is the best I have to go on.
--
Author #1
A Doctor's Journal in a Time of Quarantine, the title reads, and the entry does it justice, assuming the doctor in question is a mad as a hatter. This is a tale of cabin fever on steroids, and it is not at all clear what's the cause of the quarantine.
Dramatis personae: The Doctor, Giles, Fields, and Jake
I think this deserves a chronological look.
Within the first three hours of isolating themselves in the Doctor's mother's house, they are discussing survival strategies for surviving the end of the world... The end of the world? Just WHAT is the thing they fear, that they are isolating to avoid? I love the way the author teases without revealing here and mostly plays it straight, with the occasional weird statement thrown in. Note the thought about the mother. If she's just out at this time, why the wonder about whether she'll return or not? Are they escaping from something acting really, really, swiftly or is the Doctor thinking in terms of the mother being incapable of traveling due to a lockdown?
Let me in passing note that I simply adore completely unexpected statements such as "We certainly don’t want to be well-set up for surviving the potential end of the world only to be eaten by badgers." It manages to be simultaneously genuinely humorous, something that is close to things that people might think about while awaiting an end of the world scenario (humans vs animals), and completely bonkers at the same time. BUT, I told myself upon first reading it, remember the badgers. Were they chosen at random or do they perhaps hint at something more sinister?
Within the first twelve hours, they've formed sexual relationships, climaxes, and have them broken apart. It appears to be a Giles+Fields and Doctor+Jake pairing from then on, for as long as it lasts, which is to say, not long at all. Apparently that's the sign for boredom to set in.
The "fascinated by cat" episode shows how rapidly they are deteriorating. They've been cooped up in the house for only a day and a half, and they are already starved for signs of life other than themselves.
By two days it is apparently becoming difficult to motivate themselves to rise. Jake is scribbling down records and theories, anything to keep himself going. (Rather than giving up?) The Doctor is contemplating how the nice weather protects somewhat against slothful thinking, but in the same thought thinks of how it will not shine forever. That's a strange thought. Is that because it is the middle of the day and will be night soon or is the Doctor perhaps philosophically contemplating the death of the sun? The Doctor is having a hard time finding motivation to write.
At 51 hours, a dropped pair of glasses inspires worry about inevitable cannibalism. This is another brilliantly written paragraph, starting out with the dropped pair of glasses, something that in an end-of-the-world scenario might not be replaceable anytime soon, moving on to other things that this goes for that are less essential in practice but feel essential to everyday life (light bulbs, toothbrushes, shoelaces), and jumping from there to cannibalism. It demonstrates how the Doctor's mind is losing the ability to think coherently, worrying about light bulbs but not electrical power, worrying about shoe laces but not shoes. Simply brilliant.
At 90 hours.... "From scientist to vegetable in 90 hours" would make a decent alternative title for this entry. There is one important thing to note in this entry: Only static on the radio.
140 hours is return of the cat, and the return of feelings to a house that is otherwise devoid of them... after a mere 6 days of isolation.
The journal ends with the Doctor wondering whether it was all for nothing, whether there was a need to hide or not, whether there's anybody left, because there aren't anybody left in the house or outside, as far as the Doctor knows, and there's no need for doctors in the land of the dead.
I do so love stories that end on a positive spiritually uplifting note, don't you?
Let me look at three possible explanations for the big "WTF is going on in this story?"
- Super disease: The gang isolated due to a disease, which wiped everybody out nearby or worldwide. They then managed to descend into cannibalism within two weeks, the Doctor being last person standing in the land of the dead
- Crackpot Cabin Fever: The gang isolated due to exaggerated fears. The mother's house is off the main roads, perhaps a summer cottage, so there's no traffic. Their radio broke down and that's the reason for static. The rest of the world goes on in blissful ignorance of their suffering. At the end of the story the Doctor is the only one left in the house, the others having fled or died.
- The Dying Sun: Disease stalks the world and the sun is dying. What's left to live for? When true night falls, will humanity survive? The badgers probably will, at least until the Sun cools and the Earth freezes over, so you'd better watch out for badgers. Treasure the hours of sunlight left and the days with warmer weather – they won't return
All sound equally plausible to me based on the story, and that is part of the story's charm: it teases, it promises, and while it doesn't reward with a reveal, it does reward with wonder, and that's good enough for me. I suspect the author was going for a Crackpot Cabin Fever variant , but if it was one of the others, or if the author deliberately wanted to leave the question unanswered or ambiguous? That's fine as well, as it works.
If I have any criticism of this piece it is that it is a bit on the short side. A few more entries with cryptic statements – not too many – might have shored it up.
E.g. try slotting these into the sequence.
Hour Twenty-Four: Amateur philosophy is overrated.
Hour Forty-Seven: Fields insists that we ration the bacon, but I cannot see the ethical imperative.
Hour Hundred and about Eighty: We have been playing monopoly to keep us grounded. It isn't working. Giles was sent to jail and began weeping about drums. Then Fields brought a drum, and now they are chanting that they can't get out. Jake is discussing moral realism with the top hat and losing. His ontological reasoning is weak. They are losing it.
Hour Hundred and about Eighty-Plus-One: I have eaten the last of the hotels. They never saw it coming.
---Oh, well. Perhaps that is overdoing it. But I do wish it had been fleshed out a bit more.
As to the author? I'll tentatively put this down as being one of @stnylan's ; there are parts of it that stylistically matches what I remember from his humorous AAR writing... which may just indicate that my memory is faulty since it is a long time since I read them, but it is the best I have to go on.
Last edited:
Someone really likes badgers.
Funny, crazy and more original writing, with some allusions to the authors themsevles going nuts in quarantine! Think this whole challenge segment was worth it for this one review.
Author #3
Using a title like "Cometh the hour" to sneak yet another joke under the radar, connecting the title to the final paragraph when the saying is completed? a) That's sneaky, but hardly uncommon amongst good AAR writers so I can't use that to narrow down the field. And b) cruel and unusual misuse of John 4:23. You should be ashamed.
On the other hand, contrary to some comments, my main problem with this isn't that the story goes too far verging into caricature – it is that it doesn't go far enough. So that's all right.
Taking a grudge against Trump and going all in on tomorrow's US dystopia, throwing in copious nazi references and parodying Cabaret? Fine with me.
That being said, an expansion of either the first part of the story's absurdity at the cost of the second half or vice versa might have made for a better balance of absurdity overall.
Additionally, the story goes into detail in some parts, where it simply doesn't need to, because the reader is perfectly capable of connecting the dots.
It is a lesson I learned from the songs of the great Tom Lehrer: Shock and awe as needed, then insinuate and let the listener (reader) fill in the blanks. Whether the intention is filthy or pristine, the audience is likely to fill the blanks with something to their taste.. or to start wondering just what you intended to go there.
..And I'm not talking about the explicit bedroom gymnastics here. They are part of the absurdist plot and that's fine.
For the "hour of power", my biggest grumble is something that is either a mistake or a typo, and it is a very minor issue, but it is an annoying one. It mentions the US president at the resolute desk. Though famous, the desk isn't particularly resolute. It is just a desk. It gets its name, the "Resolute" desk, because it is made from the wood of the British exploration ship Resolute.
Really, my greatest grumbles are for the romance of the second half. I like the absurdity when it is revealed that both bigots are actors overacting after believing the other to be the real bigoted thing, and I like the overall execution of the flash romance.. but I think it execution could be better. Let me give examples:
Example: The header, Later, in Christina's bedroom
Unnecessarily explicit. It is beating the reader over the head with something he'll realize right away. Given what comes before and what comes after, a simple "Later that night" would do. Or perhaps even Later or for the comedy angle, Soon enough...
Example: The last line, "None. This is 2036; No pain, no gain.".
It feels hamfisted in the context, and for two reasons..
First, the date. The author has given plenty of hints at the timing in the mid-2030s. The eternal president is a nonagenarian and pretty much has to be Donald Trump (so 2036-2046). The reverend Creflo Dollar has been secretary of faith for a decade or more, Sean Hannity, the Corona Czar, had taken over as director of the national institute of allergy and diseases some time previously and is now dead etc. Bart stating the date here a) does not flow naturally from the preceding conversation, and b) feels – and is - superflous.
Second, the "no pain, no gain" statement might be a fitting description for that dystopian decade, and yes, spurs => pain so it does arguably fit, but as the story had veered into romance or the next best thing, it is jarring. I'd delete that line entirely. I want the final line of a romance to be romantic, funny, uplifting, or more generally a positive rather than negative statement, and this one really isn't.
Example: The transition from the studio to the song in the street doesn't do it for me either. It is too abrupt.
Perhaps it is watching too many classic romantic dramas during lockdown that does it, but I really think that the old trick with implying they've spent some time together chatting (on the way from the studio, say) followed by a short scene with the two near-strangers being about to leave and waiting for the other to leave first would improve the transition. Long glances not optional.
Example: The banter between Christina and Bart... It works, but...
The author overlooks a core rule of English romance writing that I just invented because it sounds right: You can't use "my lady" in isolation except in one special case. Read any good English romance and you'll realize that it can be used either as punctuation of a punchline (the special case), as a repeated statement acknowledging authority or steadfast devotion for emphasis, or as a repeated flirt. Having it occur just once and in the middle of conversation feels off. If it is to be used, how about making it a catchphrase just like Christina's "I'll ignore that", which, by the way, could stand to be used more.
Example: Inviting Bart up for coffee and a chat about work. Given her transparent plan, surely suggesting coffee & improv would work better, providing a nicer segue into what she's really aiming for.
Another slight misstep is having Christina being the one to propose coffee and, after Bart accepts it and notes his willingness to study logistic, stating that she has a sudden craving for coffee so they'd better hurry up. It works... but it would work even better if Bart was the one developing a sudden craving for coffee after realizing what was offered.
--
These are all grumbles, I acknowledge and it is always so easy to criticize compared to writing.
So let me show you what I mean just like I did for author #1, where I wrote sentences to slot into the story to flesh it out. There's rather more here as I thought it needed more work, but the principle is the same. I try to stay faithful to the general idea.
Since #3 doesn't have the same easy structure for inserting snippets by date, I'll just write it all out. A few additions, a few revisions, a few changes to language, but substantially the same starting at the end of the reveal following the show.
Christina: It sucks.
Bart: That's life.
In the street
Bart: I guess this is where we part ways.
Christina: I guess so.
Bart: Right.
Christina: Right.
Bart: Ladies first.
(silence)
Christina: I don't feel like leaving.
Bart: Me neither.
Christina: Strangers in the night
Bart: Two lonely people
Christina: We were strangers in the night
Bart: Up to the moment
Christina: When we said our first hello
Bart: Little did we know
Christina: Love was just a glance away
Bart: A warm embracing dance away
(silence)
Christina: Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
Bart: Go for a stroll, hit a bar, get rid of the taste of the nonsense we spoke, and dance, losing ourselves in dreams of better times or of an escape to the promised land in Canada, Mexico, or the world beyond? The news claims otherwise, but I heard that Europe recovered a decade ago and Paris is once again the City of Lights. Dispensing with dreaming, perhaps you were thinking of doing the dirty up against the wall in the subway? I have few illusions left.
Christina: That was not what I was thinking. Either option. I was thinking more along the lines of you following me home and, possibly, coming up for a cup of coffee and a chat. Perhaps do some improv for fun. I don't live that far away, but the night is dark and full of dangers.
Bart: You know, Christina, I like your plan better. I would love to do that. It could be the start of a beautiful friendship.
Christina: Flatterer!
Bart: Always, my lady.
Christina: Who knows, we might even study logistics.
Bart: Contemplating an off Broadway production for two?
Christina: I still say your setup wouldn't work. Don't tell me you fear the experiment.
Bart: I fear the result.
Christina: I'll ignore that. One problem only: No Stetson.
Bart: I rule it non-essential. We are actors! We improvise! One man, one woman! What need have we of props?
Christina: Masterfully said! Let's hurry up.
Bart: Let's. I find myself craving coffee all of a sudden, my lady.
Later that night
Christina: Ready for improv, Bart?
Bart: Ready and willing! Wait.. what's that tinkling sound? Oh, no you didn't...
Christina: Oh, yes I did. I only said I lacked the Stetson.
Bart: Verily the poet says that faint heart never won fair lady. Flanks, now... Why doesn't the poet mention the flanks.
Christina: I'll ignore that. Scene 1, take 1. I'm a poor lonesome cowgirl and a long way from home...
Bart: As you wish, my lady.
---
See what I mean? A bit less explicit, a bit more banter, a few more insinuations, slightly improved scene transitions – to me, at least, it makes for a better romance. It probably cost another 50-60 words, but I'm sure the first section could have been cut to fit.
As for guessing the author of this entry, my gut is to go with an American with an axe to grind where Trump is concerned. OTOH Trump isn't exactly popular in ROTW either either. So perhaps it is better to look at the question of which of the authors of the list can write absurdist humour.
Which they probably all can. It is tempting to finger Avernite for this, as I know he can do it, but as he is one of the authors I've read most due to his frequent participation in GTA, I can safely say that it doesn't really feel like his writing. I'll take a leap of faith and guess that @Specialist290 is responsible.
Using a title like "Cometh the hour" to sneak yet another joke under the radar, connecting the title to the final paragraph when the saying is completed? a) That's sneaky, but hardly uncommon amongst good AAR writers so I can't use that to narrow down the field. And b) cruel and unusual misuse of John 4:23. You should be ashamed.
On the other hand, contrary to some comments, my main problem with this isn't that the story goes too far verging into caricature – it is that it doesn't go far enough. So that's all right.
Taking a grudge against Trump and going all in on tomorrow's US dystopia, throwing in copious nazi references and parodying Cabaret? Fine with me.
That being said, an expansion of either the first part of the story's absurdity at the cost of the second half or vice versa might have made for a better balance of absurdity overall.
Additionally, the story goes into detail in some parts, where it simply doesn't need to, because the reader is perfectly capable of connecting the dots.
It is a lesson I learned from the songs of the great Tom Lehrer: Shock and awe as needed, then insinuate and let the listener (reader) fill in the blanks. Whether the intention is filthy or pristine, the audience is likely to fill the blanks with something to their taste.. or to start wondering just what you intended to go there.
..And I'm not talking about the explicit bedroom gymnastics here. They are part of the absurdist plot and that's fine.
For the "hour of power", my biggest grumble is something that is either a mistake or a typo, and it is a very minor issue, but it is an annoying one. It mentions the US president at the resolute desk. Though famous, the desk isn't particularly resolute. It is just a desk. It gets its name, the "Resolute" desk, because it is made from the wood of the British exploration ship Resolute.
Really, my greatest grumbles are for the romance of the second half. I like the absurdity when it is revealed that both bigots are actors overacting after believing the other to be the real bigoted thing, and I like the overall execution of the flash romance.. but I think it execution could be better. Let me give examples:
Example: The header, Later, in Christina's bedroom
Unnecessarily explicit. It is beating the reader over the head with something he'll realize right away. Given what comes before and what comes after, a simple "Later that night" would do. Or perhaps even Later or for the comedy angle, Soon enough...
Example: The last line, "None. This is 2036; No pain, no gain.".
It feels hamfisted in the context, and for two reasons..
First, the date. The author has given plenty of hints at the timing in the mid-2030s. The eternal president is a nonagenarian and pretty much has to be Donald Trump (so 2036-2046). The reverend Creflo Dollar has been secretary of faith for a decade or more, Sean Hannity, the Corona Czar, had taken over as director of the national institute of allergy and diseases some time previously and is now dead etc. Bart stating the date here a) does not flow naturally from the preceding conversation, and b) feels – and is - superflous.
Second, the "no pain, no gain" statement might be a fitting description for that dystopian decade, and yes, spurs => pain so it does arguably fit, but as the story had veered into romance or the next best thing, it is jarring. I'd delete that line entirely. I want the final line of a romance to be romantic, funny, uplifting, or more generally a positive rather than negative statement, and this one really isn't.
Example: The transition from the studio to the song in the street doesn't do it for me either. It is too abrupt.
Perhaps it is watching too many classic romantic dramas during lockdown that does it, but I really think that the old trick with implying they've spent some time together chatting (on the way from the studio, say) followed by a short scene with the two near-strangers being about to leave and waiting for the other to leave first would improve the transition. Long glances not optional.
Example: The banter between Christina and Bart... It works, but...
The author overlooks a core rule of English romance writing that I just invented because it sounds right: You can't use "my lady" in isolation except in one special case.
Read any good English romance and you'll realize that it can be used either as punctuation of a punchline (the special case), as a repeated statement acknowledging authority or steadfast devotion for emphasis, or as a repeated flirt. Having it occur just once and in the middle of conversation feels off. If it is to be used, how about making it a catchphrase just like Christina's "I'll ignore that", which, by the way, could stand to be used more.Example: Inviting Bart up for coffee and a chat about work. Given her transparent plan, surely suggesting coffee & improv would work better, providing a nicer segue into what she's really aiming for.
Another slight misstep is having Christina being the one to propose coffee and, after Bart accepts it and notes his willingness to study logistic, stating that she has a sudden craving for coffee so they'd better hurry up. It works... but it would work even better if Bart was the one developing a sudden craving for coffee after realizing what was offered.
--
These are all grumbles, I acknowledge and it is always so easy to criticize compared to writing.
So let me show you what I mean just like I did for author #1, where I wrote sentences to slot into the story to flesh it out. There's rather more here as I thought it needed more work, but the principle is the same. I try to stay faithful to the general idea.
Since #3 doesn't have the same easy structure for inserting snippets by date, I'll just write it all out. A few additions, a few revisions, a few changes to language, but substantially the same starting at the end of the reveal following the show.
Christina: It sucks.
Bart: That's life.
In the street
Bart: I guess this is where we part ways.
Christina: I guess so.
Bart: Right.
Christina: Right.
Bart: Ladies first.
(silence)
Christina: I don't feel like leaving.
Bart: Me neither.
Christina: Strangers in the night
Bart: Two lonely people
Christina: We were strangers in the night
Bart: Up to the moment
Christina: When we said our first hello
Bart: Little did we know
Christina: Love was just a glance away
Bart: A warm embracing dance away
(silence)
Christina: Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
Bart: Go for a stroll, hit a bar, get rid of the taste of the nonsense we spoke, and dance, losing ourselves in dreams of better times or of an escape to the promised land in Canada, Mexico, or the world beyond? The news claims otherwise, but I heard that Europe recovered a decade ago and Paris is once again the City of Lights. Dispensing with dreaming, perhaps you were thinking of doing the dirty up against the wall in the subway? I have few illusions left.
Christina: That was not what I was thinking. Either option. I was thinking more along the lines of you following me home and, possibly, coming up for a cup of coffee and a chat. Perhaps do some improv for fun. I don't live that far away, but the night is dark and full of dangers.
Bart: You know, Christina, I like your plan better. I would love to do that. It could be the start of a beautiful friendship.
Christina: Flatterer!
Bart: Always, my lady.
Christina: Who knows, we might even study logistics.
Bart: Contemplating an off Broadway production for two?
Christina: I still say your setup wouldn't work. Don't tell me you fear the experiment.
Bart: I fear the result.
Christina: I'll ignore that. One problem only: No Stetson.
Bart: I rule it non-essential. We are actors! We improvise! One man, one woman! What need have we of props?
Christina: Masterfully said! Let's hurry up.
Bart: Let's. I find myself craving coffee all of a sudden, my lady.
Later that night
Christina: Ready for improv, Bart?
Bart: Ready and willing! Wait.. what's that tinkling sound? Oh, no you didn't...
Christina: Oh, yes I did. I only said I lacked the Stetson.
Bart: Verily the poet says that faint heart never won fair lady. Flanks, now... Why doesn't the poet mention the flanks.
Christina: I'll ignore that. Scene 1, take 1. I'm a poor lonesome cowgirl and a long way from home...
Bart: As you wish, my lady.
---
See what I mean? A bit less explicit, a bit more banter, a few more insinuations, slightly improved scene transitions – to me, at least, it makes for a better romance. It probably cost another 50-60 words, but I'm sure the first section could have been cut to fit.
As for guessing the author of this entry, my gut is to go with an American with an axe to grind where Trump is concerned. OTOH Trump isn't exactly popular in ROTW either either. So perhaps it is better to look at the question of which of the authors of the list can write absurdist humour.
Which they probably all can. It is tempting to finger Avernite for this, as I know he can do it, but as he is one of the authors I've read most due to his frequent participation in GTA, I can safely say that it doesn't really feel like his writing. I'll take a leap of faith and guess that @Specialist290 is responsible.
Last edited:
- 1
The author, presumably.
I mean, I wouldn't even have hit on the "the sun is dying" explanation, which puts the whole story in a different perspective, if there hadn't been that strange line about being eaten by badgers. Why badgers, I asked myself. Why not rats, or dogs, or... why badgers?
So when I read the line about the sun shining forever, the connection I had missed became crystal clear. Badgers, unlike most obvious choices for such a worry, are nocturnal.
Or perhaps I was reading too much into it. It is ever a constant danger in these GTA entries.
For digging the rabbit hole deep, layering multiple meanings, and misdirection in a GTA entry, I believe my own For the Emperor entry is the GTA gold standard, and as a result the critique it got was most interesting to follow... but many GTA writers engage in that sport to one degree or another when they've got the time.
Anyhow, you seem so intrigued by my criticism of #1 that I have this sinking feeling that I guessed wrong with stnylan, and that you are the true author of the story.
Oh right the infamous "Peter posts twice as long critique as the entry he made, just to throw us all off the scent, but failing"The author, presumably.
I mean, I wouldn't even have hit on the "the sun is dying" explanation, which puts the whole story in a different perspective, if there hadn't been that strange line about being eaten by badgers. Why badgers, I asked myself. Why not rats, or dogs, or... why badgers?
So when I read the line about the sun shining forever, the connection I had missed became crystal clear. Badgers, unlike most obvious choices for such a worry, are nocturnal.
Or perhaps I was reading too much into it. It is ever a constant danger in these GTA entries.
For digging the rabbit hole deep, layering multiple meanings, and misdirection in a GTA entry, I believe my own For the Emperor entry is the GTA gold standard, and as a result the critique it got was most interesting to follow... but many GTA writers engage in that sport to one degree or another when they've got the time.
Anyhow, you seem so intrigued by my criticism of #1 that I have this sinking feeling that I guessed wrong with stnylan, and that you are the true author of the story.
If you are referring to For the Emperor, it did too work.Oh right the infamous "Peter posts twice as long critique as the entry he made, just to throw us all off the scent, but failing"
While it didn't convince Wyvern, it did convince DensleyBlair as noted in this wonderful review. Even you, who had at first insisted together with Wyvern that it was definitely me, ended up writing that you wouldn't be surprised to be proven wrong and finding that it was really Wyvern who wrote it.
If you are referring to this entry... Well, it seems you currently have me down as the author of #3, but the only one I posted twice a long a critique of as the entry itself is #1 this time around.
Care to change your guess? And if you are getting second thoughts, you can't look to Wyvern for guidance this time around, as he hasn't fingered me as responsible for any of the entries. Perhaps I really didn't write any of the entries this time around?
Pray tell me, Avernite, how secure are you in your guess now?
None of these feel like Peter's writing to me, so yes, 95% certain he took a break this roundCare to change your guess? And if you are getting second thoughts, you can't look to Wyvern for guidance this time around, as he hasn't fingered me as responsible for any of the entries. Perhaps I really didn't write any of the entries this time around?
Pray tell me, Avernite, how secure are you in your guess now?
.
And if he did (write one of these entries), time for me to be embarrassed!
Last edited:
It nearly convinced me that time. It didn't, in the end. That's the definition of "good try but it didn't work", no?If you are referring to For the Emperor, it did too work.
While it didn't convince Wyvern, it did convince DensleyBlair as noted in this wonderful review. Even you, who had at first insisted together with Wyvern that it was definitely me, ended up writing that you wouldn't be surprised to be proven wrong and finding that it was really Wyvern who wrote it.
If you are referring to this entry... Well, it seems you currently have me down as the author of #3, but the only one I posted twice a long a critique of as the entry itself is #1 this time around.
Care to change your guess? And if you are getting second thoughts, you can't look to Wyvern for guidance this time around, as he hasn't fingered me as responsible for any of the entries. Perhaps I really didn't write any of the entries this time around?
Pray tell me, Avernite, how secure are you in your guess now?