[quote=Euripides]...Herucles threw the giant Diomedes to his own ravenous horses, who supped upon the king's flesh. Their appetites sated the terrible beasts were quelled and became docile; all they had desired was to feast upon their master.[/quote]

[center][b][i][color=black]Those of you who have completed this task - you have now learned that which can never surpass you is less than a shadow and a thought. Only when creation may surmount its creator is true mastery discovered. You are hereby worthy of bearing the title...[/color][/i][/b]
[h3][color=coral][b]Thracian Slayer[/b][/color][/h3][/center]

Congratulations to the winning authors of the following stories:
[b]-Knockity-Knock[/b] by [@jumpadraw].
[b]-Schrödinger[/b] by [@shylarah].
[b]-Dream's End[/b] by [@Cruallassar].
[b]-Happy Endings[/b] by [@Holmishire].

Your stories have been added to The Twelve Labours [url=http://www.roleplayerguild.com/posts/3591696]Victory Archives[/url], to which there will be a permanent link in my signature. In addition, your victory has been announced in both the [url=http://www.roleplayerguild.com/posts/3591698]News[/url] and [url=http://www.roleplayerguild.com/posts/3591699]Roleplaying Discussion[/url] Subforums!

Of note. One of the Challenge Parameters was that each Narrator's defeat had to be [i]honest.[/i] However, the judges had no actual way of proving sincerity of loss in this case - only in instances where there was direct evidence within the entry did we outright fail a story for that reason. However, we can still read between the lines, and as a precaution we momentarily used the following rule when considering whether to award a Challenge Accolade: [i]The story must come across as honest[/i], amongst the other requirements.

Sad to say, but of the entries that won, either the quality was insufficient or else they were deemed...dishonest in spirit. One gets the impression that perhaps not everyone took the challenge seriously.

Nobody was awarded the [b][color=coral]Ineffable Grace[/color][/b] Challenge Accolade. It was to be the most praiseworthy of all the Accolades given out during the first iteration of the Twelve Labours. Rest assured, a number of you will pay dearly for failing to acquire it, in the Final Hazard.

[hider=RomanAria's Reviews][b]Aria’s Disclaimer:[/b] At this point in time I have not read any of anyone else’s reviews lest they subliminally alter my opinions, so I apologize if I harp on things that other people have said. 
[hider=Knockity-Knock]
Paging [@jumpadraw]

You have successfully completed the eighth labour.

Wow, good work. I really, really loved your description. Seriously, fabulous, fabulous work. I loved how you juxtaposed the icy storm with the fire in their eyes. I just. Wow. Words fail me. This painted a vivid, visceral picture in my head and I loved every second of it. 

That said: I feel as though your ending was a little rushed. Your grammar, which had been impeccable up to the last paragraph, took a slight drop, with the opening sentence using “to” instead of “too”, and perhaps a couple of tense issues. Maybe the last sentence should have been its own paragraph, maybe even after a pagebreak. Also, while I appreciate the stylistic device of the paragraph break for the final word, I feel as though it broke the flow of the story up too much.

Wow, okay. I know it looks like I wrote a lot more negative than positive, but I assure you, this was a very, very solidly written entry. Good job. You absolutely deserve your victory.[/hider][hider=Schrodinger]
Paging [@shylarah]

Congratulations, you have completed the eighth labour.

I… wow. I liked your entry. The characterization is a little… different than what I’m accustomed to, but different is good.

I just wish we’d gotten to see more of it. I mean, sure, we get to watch how Schrodinger reacts to situations which I guess shows us the kind of person he is, but at the same time I would have liked to see more. The few scenarios you put him through aren’t enough to let us really get to know him. Which is stylistic, I understand, but at the same time I personally prefer to get more intimately acquainted with the psyche of the characters I read.

I also would have liked to see inside the narrator’s—your—head a little bit more. We see all of the happenings as though it’s a journal entry; this is what I’d imagine to be a blurry, unfocused scene in a movie where the narrator’s talking in voiceover and we’re presumably seeing through their eyes. 

Long story short, since I know I rambled a lot: I love what you did here, I just… want more of it, in the future.
[/hider][hider=The Object of Fate’s Design]
Paging [@Polybius]

You have failed in the eighth labour.

I like your storytelling. You’ve got a very strong start here; good descriptions and reasonably fluid dialogue. “Consider not what it is, but rather what purpose it may serve you.” That line… I loved it. I dunno, but. It put a little seed of something at the back of my head that’s had the wheels turning all day, though I still don’t know what it’s trying to tell me.

Which brings me to my biggest contention with this entry: What is this “object” that Nathan is given? What purpose does it serve? I feel like there’s something massive here that I’m clawing at but not quite grasping, but I just… I don’t know. There’s no clear argument between the narrator and another character, besides Nathan and Richard and even then I hardly call that an argument, certainly not one that Nathan lost. So simply because I did not understand what was happening or what the significance of anything was, I could not in good faith pass your entry.[/hider][hider=The Internal Debate]
Paging [@WiseDragonGirl]

You have failed in the eighth labour.

Darn it, Dragon, here I was thinking you’d make it all the way through. But, I suppose, this was bound to happen eventually.

You did much better in this entry as far as grammar goes. There are only a couple of typos that I noticed this time, and your constructions and the fluidity of your piece was much improved from the last one. Good work. Characterization was absolutely lovely; we managed to see into both your head, and Mitch’s, during this piece.

The reason I failed your entry was because you conceded the argument. You admitted you were wrong and Mitch left you be after you conceded the point. Your defeat was not absolute, because there you remained, at your computer writing. Sure, Mitch had made his point and you were frustrated, but you did not [i]appear[/i] defeated. [/hider][hider=<untitled>]

Paging [@PlatinumSkink]

You have failed in the eighth labour.

So. I really enjoyed your story. Your grammar is, as ever, excellent, as is your sentence structure and variety. I will admit that the telling of this tale was quite confusing, how you would break in the middle of a paragraph and go to a different thought. I lost track of who was talking several times as well, and where The Narrator and The Character’s thoughts started and ended. I understand that it’s for design purposes but at the same time, on my first reading through I was hopelessly confused and even now my grasp of it is shaky. The balance between form and function might need to be reevaluated.

The reason I failed your entry, (though the above was a part of the consideration as well) was one specific line. You outright admit that the scenario is contrived, which goes against the challenge parameters. [i]'It's just you affecting their fates again in order to create a situation where you fight your creation in order to fulfill the requirements.'[/i] You deliberately picked a fight you couldn’t win, or you picked the fight and then did not destroy your character, to allow your character to beat you. I’m sorry, but I cannot allow your entry to pass.[/hider][hider=Pua Tu Tahi]

Paging [@mdk]

You have failed in the eighth labour.

I loved your story. Oh my god, I loved your story so much. The description, the characterization, the everything. The various forms of narrative you use, through the journal entries, through the implied thoughts of the pale man, and the spoken words. Oh my God, seriously. I loved it. If you had succeeded the labour this would have gotten my nomination for accolade, hands down.

Which brings me to the verdict. I could not, in good faith, allow this entry to pass. The conflict was too understated; so understated that when I was reading through (before I noticed the “pleading my case” hider) I was kind of taken aback at where it ended, because I had not seen too much of a conflict between the narrator and some evil. I guess, in hindsight, that the narrator could have been Abrahan and the evil the reef that stands alone. But… I dunno. The conflict was just far too understated. Maybe if you had sent just the log entries, with a paragraph or so of exposition, I would have passed the entry. But then so much quality description would have been lost that what would have even been the point?[/hider][hider=Dream’s End]

Paging [@Cruallassar]

Congratulations. You have passed the eighth labour.

That said, I only passed the entry grudgingly. The whole plotline did not really appeal to me and seemed, perhaps, too juvenile. Like something out of a second-rate comic book designed for 12 to 16 year olds. I just… the plot didn’t really speak to me. That said, having been a judge in I think four or five of the previous labours, I have seen much worse, and passed much worse, and so it would not have been fair of me to fail this entry for “not telling a good story” which I am entitled to do.

I really like the way you wrote this. Even in third-person we can just [i]see[/i] into Cruallassar’s—your—head. And I like that, though ordinarily I would have preferred more formal explanations, I understand that you were trying to capture the essence of Cruallassar’s character, and I feel you did a good job of it. A slick, cocky young man who isn’t afraid to say what he thinks and won’t back down. 

The setting changes were fabulous. I appreciated the way you flipped back and forth between the lab-coat’s view and Cruallassar’s. The changes were sufficiently clear that I didn’t get confused, which is an instant ten points in your favor.

In short: A well-executed entry that may be somewhat lacking in depth and complexity in terms of the plotline. But seriously, the execution was fabulous. I look forward to reading what you come up with in the future.[/hider][hider=Happy Ending]
Paging [@Holmishire]

Congratulations, you have succeeded in the eighth labour.

Good freaking work. I was worried that you weren’t going to get through this one, and, well. My personal verdict was that you were going to fail, just because I myself failed to see how the endings tied in with previous labours. After rereading, I realized what you’d done. You clever bastard. Of course, by reworking all of the old labours so that those entries would have been failed, it was as though Celine had caused [i]you[/i] to fail. Clever, clever bastard. I almost missed it.

Good job, seriously. I’m amazed at how much characterization you managed to cram into this rather short entry. We can see Celine’s character, her desperation to make things right, even by wronging so many others in so many other universes. It’s really quite powerful and just… wow. (I’m not even going to go into word choice and sentence fluency and grammar because that’s really, [i]really[/i] on-point this time around.)

And you are also currently the only contestant undefeated.

I guess this is quite the [i]Happy Ending[/i] for you, isn’t it?[/hider][/hider][hider=Terminal's Reviews][hider=Knockity Knock]While the entry overall is fairly neat, what little dialogue is present in the story has shaky punctuation; the woman seems to like abusing commas and you use the same contractions inconsistently (could've is immediately followed by could have in the next sentence). There are a few mispelled words (burried for example), but not enough to overtly bother me. These seem like basic errors that could have been caught with a bit more prudence.

My biggest problem with the entry is the lack of visual details. You do an excellent job of conveying aspects and tone - the [i]feeling[/i] within the cabin and its fire, along with the howling wind and snow, the woman's sheer anger and rage, the man's dismay - are all perfectly conveyed. That said, I have no idea what the characters look like - they are defined solely by their genders. The depth to the cabin's interior elludes me; is it supposed to be a tiny shack the size of a closet or is it in fact a wood-cabin castle? I do not know. Similarly, the cold storm outside is lacking in detail - which may have been the point to an extent, but I do not know whether it is night or day, what the sky looks like - a bit more descriptive details in the story here could have helped you carry across the underlying meaning of the story.

Another problem, though not as marked, is the absence of engagement. I get that you were trying to be subtle here, but you did your job a bit too well. Your submission is clean, neat, and also vaguely uninteresting. Even after thinking upon the different aspects of the story thoroughly, I was not provided with a reason to care about any of it. I cannot sympthathize with either the man or woman, and the underlying struggle is obfuscated to the point where it is nearly impossible to take interest in it.

You have cleared the Eighth Labour, if only just so.[/hider][hider=Schrödinger]The only serious problem with this entry is the arrangement of dialogue. It looks crammed and jumbled upon reading, and you stick lines between different entities into the same paragraph. Even when everything is gramatically correct, doing so invites ambiguity and in general is simply unneat. In the future, you may want to try giving each individual line of dialogue its own line break. This helps to segregate parcels of relevant information, and should help transitions and narrative flow seem smoother.

There are no other problems severe enough in terms of structure or grammar for me to remark upon in length, and the entry does precisely what the challenge asked you to do - but it comes across as a disengenuous effort. The banter between character and creator comes off as forced and created solely for the sake of drama, the referential methodology used as a facade. Your 'loss' comes across as [i]manufactured[/i]. Upon reading your entry, I cannot escape the feeling that perhaps you were not taking the challenge entirely seriously.

I cannot [i]prove[/i] that of course, which is why you passed. Just know that when I think of this Labour's winning entries, I do not think of yours.[/hider][hider=The Object of Fate Design]I found only a single grammatical error in my first read-through (its does not require an apostrophe to indicate possession), and the story was remarkably clean and free of errors in general. I was also thrilled by the easy and seemingly effortless degree of detail you put into the story. You did not describe the full appearance of the characters or wholly elaborate upon the scenery, but the way you worked small, individual details involving the scenery into every one of Nate's actions and thoughts - in the hotel room and bar particularly - was done so well that I did not mind. Moreover, I found myself engaged with Nate's thoughts. You explain and omit just enough detail when necessary and the story perfectly captures Nate's meandering, melancholy journey while letting the reader fill in some of the blanks on their own.

That said, as explained in your commentary the story does seem to come up short. The eponymous Object seems out of place - I got the impression that it was intended to [i]represent[/i] an object that was supposed to inspire and Motivate Nate - a sort of 'default graphic' for a game where not everything had a model and animations yet but nominally intended to direct Nate towards finding absolution. I think. I was thrown off by Richard producing a second Object, since I cannot determine any reason he should also have one in the context of the story. Possibly as a means of discouraging Nate or otherwise making him doubt and second-guess himself, perhaps? I have no idea. Perhaps if you had more time to carry the story through, things have been different. I found what you did manage to write exquisite.

That said, you have Failed the Eighth Labour. Perhaps if you had the time to finish the story things might have turned out differently.[/hider][hider=The Internal Debate]There were fewer spelling and grammatical errors this time around than in your previous entry, but the few that were present were made repeatedly and so stuck out like sore thumbs. A few of the mistakes are correctly spelled but incorrectly used, meaning an autocorrect filter would not have picked them up. In the future you may want to reread your own story line for line to try and pick out these kinds of minor problems.

What we have here, however, is a rare instance where the content of the story was sufficiently interesting to the point where I stopped caring about the odd-off mispelled word. What you wrote is almost precisely what I was looking for. The argument not only feels natural, but realistically conveys how you as the narrator lost grip of the situation until you were eventually [i]forced[/i] to concede.

The reason you failed the Labour is nearly a case of pure semantics. If the story had perhaps been worded just-so differently, it probably would have passed. I certainly found myself [i]wanting[/i] to pass it at least. At the end of the day however, I decided that the writer had the burden of adhering to the exact specifications of the challenge parameters. If it seems unfair to you that we failed your entry, know that failing it was the only way we could [i]be[/i] fair.[/hider][hider=<untitled>][quote]'Oh, can you drop that ”the Narrator” thing and start referring to yourself as ”I” already? It's grammatically annoying!' The creation laughed, as for some reason that was the one set of rules that he apparently felt like obeying.

That's wrong. This is a third-person story. If I refer to myself as ”I” in descriptive text, then it becomes a first-person story with me as the main character. 

'But you're going to be confusing the readers when they don't keep track of if it's descriptive text or actually just talking.' … That doesn't matter![/quote]

It totally seriously matters.

I will have you know, I read [@mdk]'s review (after the fact) - and they actually brought up a pretty valid point. In terms of meta-context, you never got the opprotunity to polish up your own story since you were busy having your face ripped off. In that sense, your story is a masterpiece. Every minor typo, mispelled word, the awkward sentence structure and the disjointed narrative shifting between third and first person - would all have served to enhance the unerlying 'unfinished' aspect of the story. However, information contrary to that little gem of a theory exists.

[quote=The Narrator]'You know it isn't.' The creation grinned. 'It's just you affecting their fates again in order to create a situation where you fight your creation in order to fulfil the requirements.' … Can we NOT refer to that fact? I'm ashamed enough as it is. For the sake of this story, YOU'RE the one manipulating them, alright?
[/quote]

[quote=Clarification of the Challenge Parameters]Q. Surrender or cession is inadmissible?
A. Almost is never enough. You must take every and any step you feel is necessary to prevent your own defeat - you should not permit your own failure in good conscience, and as such your defeat must be total in that your character achieved victory despite your best efforts.[/quote]

You have admittedly [i]manufactured[/i] your opposition in the form of the Creation, including their powers and their commentary!

Or to put it as simply as possible - your story is not [i]honest[/i]. It is certainly clever. It is definitely, definitely entertaining. But you did not adhere to the spirit of the challenge, and it is for that sole reason that you have failed.

Your grammar, spelling, and the overall structure of your narrative was much cleaner this time around - save for the jumbled and nonsensically arranged shift between first and third person perspective on the part of the narrator, as well as the confusing split between descriptive and verbal text. While I can understand that you did it for stylistic reasons and that the problem is intentional, ultimately the arrangement is more annoying than interesting. If you try experimenting with alternative formatting like this in the future, I would advise you to keep in mind one of the tenants of the challenge clarifications - you were not [i]required[/i] to anthropomorphize yourself. By distancting your physical self from the dissonance in the narration taking place in the story, you might be able to create a more sophisticated effect that does not conflict with the personal perspective of the narrative.[/hider][hider=Pua Tu Tahi]A few more mispelled words. The eldritch being apparently was not appeased. They are earlier on in the story, so I suppose those few mistakes were simply and honestly missed in editing. Otherwise your story is clean.

I am also quite pleased to inform you that I have added your entry to my personal collection of phenomenal Eldrtich stories, to be referred to in order to appropriately guage and capture the proper tone and atmosphere for stories of that nature.

However, your story had the burden of clearly establishing the presence of a conflict between the Narrator and their opposition. You failed to do so here. At no point in the story could a normal reader glean that idea without consulting external information - your plea, for example. As such, your story does not meet the basic criteria of the challenge.

You have failed the Eighth Labour.[/hider][hider=Dream's End]There are two noteworthy problems with this story. 

The first is that while you appropriately and clearly handled transitions between the real and virtual worlds, while telling the story within those two separate realms you have clumped all narration, descriptions, and dialogue into messy bricks. You segregate lines of dialogue between different characters, but because you did not use line breaks it all looks like a huge mess on the surface - and on top of that, you appended lines of dialogue to lengthy descriptive or expository segments. While there is nothing strictly wrong with that, it's not very organized and the arrangement comes across as awkward. In the future, I would recommend giving each line of dialogue its own paragraph and line breaks. Experiment with the layout and formatting a bit to try and find something that works for you and that is arranged more neatly. If you need an alternate way to perform scene transitions, use alternative formatting options - like so.
[hr]
The second problem is the story's relative lack of rigor. The plot is straightforward enough, I had no problem understanding it, but there are a number of extremely large plot holes and unanswered questions. Combined with the [i]informality[/i] most of the characters behave with and the less than spectacular show of wit, the story as a whole lacks a firm foundation for me as a reader to stand upon. I cannot really take any of the story seriously, which detracts from nearly all of the entry's positive aspects.

You clearly have a knack for engaging and showy action scenes. In the future, slow down a little and allow room for some more cerebral storytelling. The whole story does not have to be a thesis in logical rigor, but it should at least be sensible enough that the reader can take every aspect of the story seriously - which would enable for a greater degree of engagement. Your previous story, by way of example, was a lot more engaging than this one because you took the time and effort to build internally consistent reasoning into what the characters were doing.

On a more minor note, I will also say that while your action scenes are fairly interesting in terms of what the characters are [i]doing[/i], they lack descriptive flair. Let me pull up two different parts of the fight scene to illustrate that point.

[quote=Paragraph 12]Riposte, thrust, counter-slash, dodge, parry, phase-slash, switch-to-backhand and slash, sweeping kick, stab, dodge...
Cruallassar and Delnier kept going at it, their blades leaving afterimages in the air...some physical illusions, some magical ones that might hurt...and destructive energy being aimed with pinpoint precision and missing by scant micrometers...or not missing at all, and just phasing through the other as they transferred their essence around the attack. Delnier had revealed his knife collection, which Cruallassar had expected, and had returned with his own knives. Shadows swirled around the room and obscured normal vision, and Cruallassar's eyes glowed red as he used his ethereal sight to see not only his enemy through the fog, but to see behind and to the sides of himself as well, something a monitor just couldn't reproduce. Suddenly, they broke apart with a flash of energy and stood facing each other again. Neither were scratched, and Delnier spoke again.[/quote]
[quote=Paragraph 17]The top of the keep was pretty well destroyed by now. A sextet of missiles launched from Cruallassar's wrists and raced down at Delnier, but a few purple flashes and they all blew up mid-flight. Lances of light shot from Delnier's sword up at Cruallassar as he hovered in midair, but were intercepted by a shield projected from Cruallassar's arm, just before he drew an assault rifle and started peppering the area with plasma bullets. Delnier's sword blocked most of those, moving with in-human speed even from the point of view of Cruallassar's heightened senses. Something seemed off... [/quote]

In the first section, you do a fair job of describing the visual elements of what is happening - the presence of the afterimages, the dark fog obscuring the area, Cruallassar's glowing eyes, etcetera. In the second section there are fewer details - we do not know [i]in what fashion[/i] the keep was destroyed (presumably there was still something for them to stand on, but I have to guess there). We do not know how big or fast these missiles are, or what kind of emissions or payloads they have. I have no idea what the shield is - it could be either an energy barrier or a physical, collapsible shield. The assault rifle could stand to be described, and I honestly have no idea how Delnier could have [i]blocked[/i] plasma simply because I am provided with no description to try and visualize the exchange.

I would advise you to take every excuse you can to insert additional descriptive details into fights like this one. The way you have it now, both combatants are throwing dozens of different attacks and techniques at each other, but they mean less than nothing to me as a reader because I have no idea what sort of weight or consequence they are even supposed to have. Slow down - a little. Take your time to describe not only what each character is doing, but the visual effects of their actions and the impact on the atmosphere, terrain, and opponent. While this will inevitably result in less furiously paced fight scenes (although there are ways around that), it makes every action taken by both combatants seem more meaningful and interesting - and thereby more engaging. Quality over quantity in descriptive narration, in other words.[/hider][hider=Happy Ending]Aside from a couple of incorrect gender pronouns, your entry is typically pristine. My biggest problem with the story itself is why Céline had to go through a proverbial [i]chain of deals[/i] type quest in order to get what she wanted. If she was an illusionist and could just save Eira from the suit's self-destruct, why did she have to bother waking up Émile via Euryale in order to divert Olrich? Why did she even need the bracelets in liquid form? The simplest way she could have done things was just to flat-out snag the bracelets from their original universe while masking her presence via illusions. If I had to guess I would say there were [i]unknown factors[/i] of each setting that would have prevented that, but [i]I have no way of knowing that[/i]!

Also, I am not wholly convinced you did your utmost to actually prevent Céline from going on her little revenge spiral. Your gamekeepers are rather lacking in efficacy, not to mention sloppy. 

Finally, there's the problem that I just did not find Céline particularly interesting. You spend a fair amount of time establishing her desires and motivation, but she is literally nobody to me. I have no reason to be invested in her little scheme here. Perhaps making the story longer and having built up her character a bit more in the first place might have made the story more engaging (given that this is the first time you have used the setting of Mythica).

Also, in a general sense, I was expecting more from you. I understand you were operating under tighter time constraints than is normal? Such poor timing - you knew it was coming a full four labours in advance, too. If there was a Labour to impress me in, this one was it.[/hider][/hider]