I will not repeat my comments from the
earlier post. These are in addition to those rather than replacing them.
Author #1:
First a nitpick – the formatting of this story drives me crazy; manual linebreaks has that effect on me.
Then a second nitpick. The setting. We've got an old man, skilled in the ways of the wilderness, standing on the edge of a forest, watching a young woman climb the nearby cliff pursued by three men in forest garb and taking a route to where he expects she'll end up. Okay, very picturesque. We are informed that he's been hunting a gazelle all morning and that his stomach is now full, implying that he caught and killed it. All this is very neatly described and leaves just one open question –
what on earth was a gazelle, a creature of the deserts, grasslands, and savannas, doing anywhere near the forest? I'm sure there's a perfectly good explanation. Perhaps it got lost. Just saying.
No, seriously, there can be forests near the habitat of gazelles, but it is one of those cases where, unless the animal is important to the story for some reason, you are better sticking with an animal that fits the described setting better. The human mind is drawn to things that stick out, that don't immediately seem to fit into the setting in which they are put, and that's something that an author should always keep in mind when introducing even the smallest object, person, or event – is this something the reader will consider expected or not?
The story is, as I said earlier, in need of editing. It needs tightening up, a liberal application of commas, and it might be better off providing the reader with a bit more information about the setting's wider story – but perhaps not.
As I wrote in my first comments, I know whom the author is. The clues are in the story: there's a place named Reyvadin, which attentive readers will recognize as one of the major cities in the game Mount and Blade, and the young woman is the daughter of the Wolf, a defeated personality. A few other names are also immediately recognizable. That means that the author is Wyvern, author of the excellent M&B AAR: Realm of the Wolf.
Author #2:
The story meanders. It meanders a lot. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but careful editing, especially of the middle parts, could probably cut 20%-30% while leaving a better story. With regards to the setting of the story, I'm torn between thinking that it is the case of an Englishman (Bob) who was once stationed in India (elephant references) pursuing a book concerning the western Roman empire (12 lives, early emperors), possibly in a fictional ahistorical timeline, and thinking that the author is deliberately trying to mislead me. See my comments on the gazelle above – they apply in spades to a man telling about his "wife, children, mistress, dogs,... and an elephant".
I don't know who or what the bibliophile's companion is. The behaviour is reminiscent that of a cat, certainly, but anything from a cat to a larger feline (tiger, even?) to a woman with curious tastes to a, heh, vampire, would fit in.
I find the ending weak. If this obsessed man travels all over the world "interrogating" people, the notion that he'd ignore the foremost collector of books, a fellow bibliophile, for so long just because the man's taste (in books? Other?) doesn't seem to fit the book's contents, seems rather peculiar. I mean, he's running down other people for the slimmest of reasons, and even if the collector didn't have that particular book due to disinterest, as the foremost collector he must surely have good contacts and a vast knowledge. Perhaps I'm nitpicking here, but it just doesn't seem to fit.
Author #3:
As noted earlier, this is probably the boldest and most disturbing work of the three. Stylistically I have little to note about it, save that the somewhat random construction of some sentences suggest a non-native speaker of English. It is decent English overall, but there are so many small inconsistencies. As an example, look at this case: "When the screaming stopped, there might be a few minutes before another was chosen to add their voice to the many of the choir ". It is clear what is meant and it is nearly correct, but when "another" is chosen, it is "his" voice that is added to the choir, not "their".
Overall, this piece paints very graphic images of life and feelings in the dungeon, but I have a hard time seeing the rumour-part, as I indicated earlier. I applaud the author for trying something
very different, but with so many very different things, it can be hard to evaluate how it worked out.
Author #4:
I have nothing to add to my earlier comments. This one is in serious need of a rewrite to emphasize the good bits and do away with or minimize the bits that drag out.
EDIT: Apart from simply doing away with some things, less use of the form
the adjective noun verbed the adjective noun would be a definite improvement. It can be used to good effect to give a description, but in this piece it is somewhat overdone in the first part of the story. It is much less of an issue once the dialogue takes over.
EDIT2: Similes and metaphors (this is a really minor nitpick) - I am really, really, bad at using them myself and as one result of that I know how dangerous they can be to use as one risks inspiring hilarity when it is not at all intended. This piece provides an excellent example of how I'm not the only one with this problem; the general tone of the introduction is one of doom and gloom, and then you get this jewel of a sentence:
"Only the searchlights mounted in the guard towers made any effort to dispel the gloom that clutched at the little camp like a jealous lover".
Now, the way it is intended to be read is (obviously) "Only the searchlights mounted in the guard towers made any effort to dispel the gloom, that clutched at the little camp like a jealous lover [clutches his loved one]". I.e. the little camp is clutched/enfolded in gloom that doesn't want to let go. That's a pretty weird simile to use about the darkness broken by searchlights and threatened by the light of dawn, but, well, it sort of works. But that's not how it was written. It uses the form of an implied basis for comparison rather than an explicit one, and when you do that it is
very important that the reader makes the correct implication. Something as simple as a comma before "that clutched at the little camp like a jealous lover" would help. (EDIT3: I actually agree that using an implicit simile in the situation reads better than the explicit one would do, but those things are so darn dangerous. As the old joke goes: "Oh, Susan, you are like the sea!" - "Because I am so wild, reckless, and romantic?" - "No, Susan, because you may me feel sick".)
Because other interpretations of the text as written is that it is the searchlights' dispelling that's like a jealous lover (somehow - what does a jealous lover dispel?), that the gloom iself (rather than the gloom's cluching) is like a jealous lover (in some way unspecified - perhaps it is a hot and arbitrary gloom?) and... so on and so forth.
Now, it is entirely possible that every other reader read the intended meaning first and never thought of just what was written, but as the analytical person I am I find it hard to overlook, and it
is amusing, when you think of it. Besides, I've read way too many of the entries to the Bulwer-Lytton contest over the years and have gained a healthy respect for deliberately mangled similes from that source.
And yes, this is a
really minor nitpick, but I've always treated GTA as a way to aid and get aid with respect to technique rather than as a mutual back-patting society.