[quote=@shylarah][@Terminal], you said that every character in the story must be entirely new, correct?[/quote] Yes.

[quote=@shylarah]Must every single mention of anyone be entirely new too?  What about setting?[/quote] No.

[quote=@shylarah]It sounds to me like using that world and those other characters to detail the story of the new one would disqualify my entry.[/quote]  Characters yes it would. Setting no it would not.

[quote=@shylarah]Actually, I guess the setting could be preexisting because otherwise any fandom work would be automatically disqualified, as would anything where you have to credit someone else (unless they helped with this entry specifically).[/quote] No. According to the original challenge rules, use of preexisting or 'fandom' settings is permitted as long as you credit the original author. This challenge makes no mention whatsoever of any rule precluding the use of preexisting settings.

[quote=@shylarah]Additionally, I have a question about death.  What do you consider death?[/quote] Dying.

[quote=@shylarah]Additionally, I have a question about death.  What do you consider death?  No longer being alive, complete destruction, or no longer being able to have a deliberate impact on the world?  You stated that dying but then skipping permanent removal would be trite, and I can agree with this.  But what about the other way round?  For example, if there is a creature who dies but is reborn -- in this case, a phoenix -- dying isn't so much of an issue.  However, if one were to put her in a state where she is not really alive but not truly dead, and thus unable to burn to ash and respawn, I would consider that a death.  While the body might remain, it would be an empty shell, and given that I've always felt death in the OOC sense to be a matter of consciousness and not form, I believe this qualifies.  For example, someone who dies IC but then lingers on as a ghost is not dead-dead, but someone who is braindead or in a permanent coma is, if Word of God says there will be no recovery.  Though I might make an exception if a literal act of an IC god might bring them back...because that /has/ happened before, but that's not relevant here. 

In fact, I'd feel the phoenix was the precise opposite of a technical death without lasting consequences -- since it's all the lasting consequences and a removal of her as a player in the story, but technically lacks full death.  Given, however, that I don't always see things as others do, and since I've come at things from an entirely opposite perspective from your own in the past, I want to be sure before investing any more effort in her story for the moment.  Even though I now desperately want to tell it, and am definitely going to in the near future even if not for this.[/quote]

[quote=Terminal Eleven Posts Ago]Here I was merely referring to how subverting the death of one's characters is, in and of itself, a trite and thoroughly played-out aspect of fiction that I am not looking forward to seeing in your entries. Subversion of the need for their death, in a general sense, is trite - regardless of how doubtlessly clever the accompanying excuse might be. As indicated in the clarification though, I would merely be unamused, and I did say I would not be as strict as I was in the original First Labour. I would be unlikely to disqualify an entry just because [u][b]you revived the character, or said they were playing dead, or had it so the afterlife was already the focus of the setting anyway, etcetera.[/b][/u][/quote]