"Guess-the-Author" Analysis and Critiques

[DensleyBlair]

As a general guideline whenever I write an update for my AAR, I tend to aim for at least 2,000 words and definitely no more than 4,000 (I think my record is about 3,600.) This is for a history book style, though, so the verbosity may be less of an issue – especially when one considers that the text will be interspersed with images and in a larger font and so forth.

When I used to write more narrative based work, I would always ensure that I hit at least 1,000. These updates were just that though – updates part of a longer piece of work. I could therefore afford to leave out a lot of detail which I wouldn't were I writing a much shorter piece. Therefore, I'm not sure 1,000 would be that sufficient. (According to the app I used to write it, my "Rain" entry from all those months ago was around 1,800 words in length.)

I'd probably suggest, therefore, that we look to maybe 2,500 as a limit? I think it would be large enough to accommodate a good amount of detail and plot development, while not so long that it would start to drag. Of course, one can make a piece of any length drag, but that's beside the point.

 

[GreatUberGeek]

2500 seems to be a good limit. I struggle writing stories after about 3000 words anyway. :blush: And an idea for the topic...in light of recent anniversaries, World War I?

 

[Gen. Marshall]

I second WW1.

 

[Dr.Livingstone]

2500 seems to be a good limit. I struggle writing stories after about 3000 words anyway. :blush: And an idea for the topic...in light of recent anniversaries, World War I?

Isn't the anniversary of WW2 today? So I would assume that would be an appropriate topic.

 

[GreatUberGeek]

Isn't the anniversary of WW2 today? So I would assume that would be an appropriate topic.

That's September 3rd, I believe.

 

[Dr.Livingstone]

That's September 3rd, I believe.

That's for the declaration of war on Germany by France and the UK. I believe today to be the invasion of Poland.

 

[GreatUberGeek]

That's for the declaration of war on Germany by France and the UK. I believe today to be the invasion of Poland.

True. But it wasn't really a world war until France and Britain got involved.
We'll, we have tiem

 

[volksmarschall]

Typical Eurocentrism to see the date as 1939 instead of 1937 when Japan and China got into war. Alan John Percival Taylor argued for a more comprehensive dating system to include the Sino-Japanese War and the European conflicts as having merged together, thus beginning the date in 1937.

The great book - A World at Total War, which compiles some of the most recent essays and articles from various historians into a book as a whole, argues also for a 1937 date of the war.

You might be surprised that the September 1/3 1939 date is not universally accepted as the start of WWII by many professionals who write in the field. Just another instance of ongoing historiographical debate among historians, which is what we really do -- respond and write in reaction to each other and that often gets presented as being 'objective' history for the readers who bother to buy or read our work. Avoid the 'popular history' books and internet websites that try to present history as something simple and rudimentary, that are often far behind in the modern advances in any historiographical subject one is interested in.

-----

On that note, do you all plan to revive this once again?

 

[Dr.Livingstone]

Typical Eurocentrism to see the date as 1939 instead of 1937 when Japan and China got into war. Alan John Percival Taylor argued for a more comprehensive dating system to include the Sino-Japanese War and the European conflicts as having merged together, thus beginning the date in 1937.

The great book - A World at Total War, which compiles some of the most recent essays and articles from various historians into a book as a whole, argues also for a 1937 date of the war.

You might be surprised that the September 1/3 1939 date is not universally accepted as the start of WWII by many professionals who write in the field. Just another instance of ongoing historiographical debate among historians, which is what we really do -- respond and write in reaction to each other and that often gets presented as being 'objective' history for the readers who bother to buy or read our work. Avoid the 'popular history' books and internet websites that try to present history as something simple and rudimentary, that are often far behind in the modern advances in any historiographical subject one is interested in.

-----

On that note, do you all plan to revive this once again?

Similarly, one could claim the start of the war to be Italy's invasion of Abyssinia, in 1935.

 

[volksmarschall]

Similarly, one could claim the start of the war to be Italy's invasion of Abyssinia, in 1935.

The 1937 date is the most prevalent of the alternative dating systems, in part, because the invasion of Abyssinia is generally seen as a little side adventure compared to the real carnage and total war that occurred in East Asia (not to 'belittle' the carnage of war that was in East Africa with Italy's invasion) that was inevitably tied to the wider conflict and is the beginning of the souring of American-Japanese and Japanese-European relationships. No serious historian I've ever read on WWII historiography has posited Italy's invasion because it lacks the necessary qualifications of total war as seen throughout WWII. For those reasons, few posit 1931 either. 1937 is actually a pretty popular date among historians since the 1960s in reflection of the war, especially those writing about the totality of war since the late 1980s.

Although, the 1939 date is still the 'generally' accepted date because most historians who write of WWII are Europeans and to a lesser extent, Americans (but all the Chinese people I've talked to in my travels to Beijing and Shanghai have very serious reservations about that).

 

[DensleyBlair]

The 1937 date is the most prevalent of the alternative dating systems, in part, because the invasion of Abyssinia is generally seen as a little side adventure compared to the real carnage and total war that occurred in East Asia (not to 'belittle' the carnage of war that was in East Africa with Italy's invasion) that was inevitably tied to the wider conflict and is the beginning of the souring of American-Japanese and Japanese-European relationships. No serious historian I've ever read on WWII historiography has posited Italy's invasion because it lacks the necessary qualifications of total war as seen throughout WWII. For those reasons, few posit 1931 either. 1937 is actually a pretty popular date among historians since the 1960s in reflection of the war, especially those writing about the totality of war since the late 1980s.

Although, the 1939 date is still the 'generally' accepted date because most historians who write of WWII are Europeans and to a lesser extent, Americans (but all the Chinese people I've talked to in my travels to Beijing and Shanghai have very serious reservations about that).

I had a brilliant history teacher who keenly stressed the start date with regards to the Sino-Japanese War. It was the first I'd heard of the idea, but it makes great sense.

 

[volksmarschall]

I had a brilliant history teacher who keenly stressed the start date with regards to the Sino-Japanese War. It was the first I'd heard of the idea, but it makes great sense.

Yeah, I said long ago in my European history class when I was a freshman in university that I believe that the date is really 1937, but WWII isn't my professional field so my opinion doesn't really matter. But many (even if still a minority of scholars) have moved to embrace that position.

But still, do you all plan on reviving the Guess the Author? Not that the authors probably want the input of a historian and philosopher who writes for a living and will inevitably have to write a 500+ page dissertation some day! :glare:

 

[DensleyBlair]

But still, do you all plan on reviving the Guess the Author? Not that the authors probably want the input of a historian and philosopher who writes for a living and will inevitably have to write a 500+ page dissertation some day! :glare:

We plan on keeping it revived, certainly. Coz and all of the other contributors and commenters have been putting in a valiant effort over the last year and a bit to try and keep vitality in the project, so really this is just the latest 'chapter' in its new era, I suppose. That said, neither your profession(s) nor your professional writing duties would make you any less a valued contributor in my eyes, so don't feel obliged not to support GtA actively solely on those bases.

 

[volksmarschall]

We plan on keeping it revived, certainly. Coz and all of the other contributors and commenters have been putting in a valiant effort over the last year and a bit to try and keep vitality in the project, so really this is just the latest 'chapter' in its new era, I suppose. That said, neither your profession(s) nor your professional writing duties would make you any less a valued contributor in my eyes, so don't feel obliged not to support GtA actively solely on those bases.

No, I am not writing for GtA, nor would I frankly want to, for various reasons that I wouldn't want to discuss. I was more inquiring in the 'analysis and critique,' as someone who has, from time to time, read what was posted here but never did anything to comment. Mostly because I'm not that into the 'guessing' of the author as I would be in constructively helping the author as someone who already has gone through the years of training and has decided upon engaging in a profession that is writing based! For, as I can gather, some of the people who actually wrote the articles for past 'editions' probably want to become better writers themselves, and perhaps they might be persuaded to enter a career in the humanities!

After all, all those courses on syntax, prose, and construction and deconstruction are otherwise just rotting in my brain!

 

[DensleyBlair]

No, I am not writing for GtA, nor would I frankly want to, for various reasons that I wouldn't want to discuss. I was more inquiring in the 'analysis and critique,' as someone who has, from time to time, read what was posted here but never did anything to comment. Mostly because I'm not that into the 'guessing' of the author as I would be in constructively helping the author as someone who already has gone through the years of training and has decided upon engaging in a profession that is writing based! For, as I can gather, some of the people who actually wrote the articles for past 'editions' probably want to become better writers themselves, and perhaps they might be persuaded to enter a career in the humanities!

After all, all those courses on syntax, prose, and construction and deconstruction are otherwise just rotting in my brain!

By "contributor" I didn't mean in terms of writing. I had inferred that you were talking about commenting from your earlier comment.

But, as I say, considering the turnout of late, all feedback – regardless of whence, however or from whom it appears – would be greatly appreciated for all involved, so do feel free to stop by and offer your thoughts when things start up again.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

As a frequent participant, let me chime in here.

The longest entry I ever wrote for GTA was 3112 words long, The True Story of the Dreadful Demise in a Doomfilled Duel of Dandy Dan, the Dread For Hire, which was on the topic of an old GTA favourite, "A duel".

While I still to this day consider it exceptionally well written by GTA standards (barring a few errors I really should have caught in editing), it was arguably too long, and I do know that whenever I encounter another writer's GTA entry of more than a thousand words or two, which doesn't immediately grab me, I have a really tough time mustering the patience to read and comment all of it.

The ideal length of a GTA entry is, for me, a short snappish piece of around a thousand words or so, or a short story of some eighteen hundred to two thousand words, where the author actually tells a story rather than rambling on setting the scene for a larger piece.

I am of the strong opinion that challenging writers by imposing a limit on length would be beneficial, not only in preventing overly long pieces, but in helping writers by giving them a certain scope to work towards.

You really can write an awful lot in a few words, if you try.

As an example, here's the Death of the King (Elvish Presley and alien Frank Sinatra version, a 906 word entry that would still have been a decent entry at half the length with the Sinatra part that confused everybody cut) and A Hot Retreat (brat from hell version).

Or check Lord Durham's excellent take on a Royal Marriage here, a thousand words of sheer surprise.


Given how wide AARland has grown since the creation of GTA, I would suggest we try a return to the format where the writing challenge includes a scope and writers who participate in a given round are listed when the pieces are presented, and the challenge for the readers is to criticize and to match a writer to a piece from the list of writers for that round rather than making stabs in the dark.




A few examples:

Topic: A Secret Worth Killing For

Length: no more than 1,000 words

Time frame: One week, submit by $DATE.

Restrictions: For this assignment, you must write from the viewpoint of a person holding such a secret, who is about to kill or planning to kill to protect the secret.


and


Topic: A Night to Remember

Length: no more than 1,000 words

Time frame: One week, submit by $DATE.

Restrictions: For this assignment, you must write about a historical event.


and


Topic: A Foreign Invasion

Length: 1,000-2,000 words

Time frame: Two weeks, submit by $DATE.

Restrictions: None. Freeform.


and

Topic: 'Orrible Murder!

Length: Up to you, cove.

Time frame: Two weeks, submit by $DATE.

Restrictions: The murder must be fictional. And 'orrible! An optional added challenge is to write it as a newspaper article or series of articles.

 

[Director]

My original idea for Guess-the-Author was put forward many, many years ago, when the forum was young, EU I and II were the only games and the pool of authors was quite small; guessing the author meant picking out of a dozen-and-a-half or so likely participants. Secret Master deserves the credit for taking an idle suggestion and turning it into a writing workshop; he's the one who invented Guess-the-Author as we know it and ran it in its first incarnations. It was - always has been - a writing workshop that offers useful, constructive criticism along with the sheer pleasure of participating.

I like Peter Ebbesen's suggestions and agree with them. When composing music (similar to writing fiction in many ways), musicians find it useful to use certain basic templates or forms: sonata form, march form, pop verse-chorus-verse-chorus-chorus and so forth. Good composers use these only as a guideline; great composers violate the forms at will but they know exactly how and why to do so for their desired effect. As Alban Berg once (supposedly) told a student, "I can teach you the rules - but not how to break them." A well-known example is the conclusion of the middle section of Holst's 'Jupiter' from 'The Planets', which fades away just before resolving to the root chord, an effect so powerful that audiences often sing the resolution just to get it done. It is rather like not thinking of elephants... But my point is that, if you can do anything you often end up doing nothing, so a preset form serves to improve creativity by restricting possibilities.

Since GtA has come-and-gone from favor many times over the years, I'd propose a couple of changes. First, do it once or perhaps twice a year - make an event of it. Second, in the requirements you should state that contributing a post obligates the author to also contribute a critique of the selections including his own. The host can post this if secrecy must be maintained. But no participation means the author can't come back at a later date. Third, adopt Peter's suggestions (I'd prefer a size limitation of 1000-3000 words with no hard cap; someone who writes 3005 good words should not be excluded but rather told to tighten it up a bit). I'd endorse the additional limitations too, perhaps by setting up some tables and drawing the restrictions by random lot. Something a little outré is more of a challenge. And Fourth, set up a list of 'possible' participants and tell the audience the writers come from this pool - encourage the guessing. -Of-The-Week awardees can be tapped for this... Or leave this off entirely and just concentrate on the workshop part - that's what Secret Master always intended for it to be.

 

[J. Passepartout]

Looking at my own GtA activity, and combining that with my perception of other's activity, I think Director is probably onto something with the whizbang once-a-year timing - I was much more active with this than I am now, and I always intend to come back for multiple rounds, but usually only come back for one round and then move on. I always took his other point about reviewing the stories if you wrote one for granted and always tried to do so, but that may just be me. Otherwise, I basically agree with him and Peter.

 

[coz1]

I like the word limit idea, and leaning towards up to 2500. I agree that the longer pieces, especially when there are four of them, can be hard to get through just in terms of a time commitment to critique all fairly. I also like the idea of fewer rounds per year. Maybe not one or two, but perhaps three or four. As mentioned, it is likely easier to look forward to something rarely done than something done each month or two that can be skipped for a few rounds. Need to mull good timing for the forum and all that, but I'd think a good time for the next round would be something near the holidays for the next one to take advantage of all that. We'll see.

I really like Peter's suggestion of a tighter scope for a round. Makes it tougher to stay in the guidelines perhaps but easier to know what the task is, to be sure. On that note, I am still readily accepting ideas for such on our next round whenever that comes up.

And while I still think guessing the author a rather far secondary goal for the project, I recognize that may be part of the fun and as such, I will need to think about the best way to do that. I don't want to just list the four (or however many we have) but as suggested, perhaps a group of writers to choose from that may or may not have written the pieces.

Very pleased to see some great ideas put forward! Keep them coming as it is that which will likely help this thing move into the next few years or more, hopefully. And yes, volksmarschall, your contribution simply as commenter is just as important as any of the pieces written. In fact, more important in a way as that is what someone who writes for this looks for when they do so. Please feel free to jump in with your thoughts next time we run a round.

Keep the ideas coming, folks.



[EDIT - one other question to ponder, if we decrease the number of rounds per year, should we increase the number of applicants per round? Too much, too few, or just right?]

 

[GreatUberGeek]

I think that, if we make more of an event out of it, there should definitely be more participants. Perhaps 5 or 6 would be the limit?