Letter grades are provided to give a sense of relative scaling, but are not objectively measured. A poor grade can just as well be caused by poor writing as it can be by a poorly constructed plot. The letter is, essentially, my review. All that follows is my critique.

Try not to let me discourage you—I consider myself a harsh critic, but ultimately I do want all of you to succeed. [color=CCCCCC][i](And it's not like [/i]I[i] don't make any of these mistakes in the Twelve Labours.)[/i][/color] I would've liked to post this before the results were in, because I feel like a bit of a downer. );

Some are in point form simply because I ran out of things to say.

>C+
[hider=Entry #1: But Here It Was]
Dangit, Plat, I don't know if its because your entry drew me into the setting too much or if I've just read so many of your entries by now that I pick up on every little detail, but I just couldn't stop analyzing the hell out of it on a technical level. It wasn't even a bad entry.

The first two paragraphs that follow are what count, here. The rest is details.

[hr]There is a lack of things happening that makes it difficult for the reader to become invested. After the initial 'event', the bulk of the entry follows the crew, none of whom are given any characterization. [i][color=CCCCCC](It seems as though this lack of characterization was intentional, as with the sole exception of the leader, it is impossible to distinguish even if the same crewman spoke twice.)[/color][/i] This makes them simple tools of exposition, much like the rest seem to be. With little more to its plot than the resolution, this entry relies significantly on its description and overall concept to stand out.

The concept itself is good, and despite its limited focus, allows for a great deal of extrapolation to other aspects of the setting.

The description, however, could use some work. Snippets generally worked great, but when brought together as a whole, there were too many repetitions and inconsistencies to ignore.

The first two paragraphs demonstrate the repetition nicely. The first that comes to mind is the [color=999966]sky[/color], which we are told is [color=999966]orange[/color] twice. [i][color=CCCCCC](In relatively close proximity, there is no need to reuse adjectives and adverbs for the same object, unless it is to distinguish it from similar objects. In this case, there is only ever one sky.)[/color][/i] More notably, however, is the repeated use of the same descriptors for different objects: the [color=999966]grey pyramids[/color] and the [color=999966]grey roads[/color]; the "[color=999966]machines [i][...][/i] all empty[/color]" and "[color=999966]the roads were empty[/color]"; the "[color=999966]death of a city[/color]" and "[color=999966]the hills were dead[/color]". It could be said that the first was intentional and that the latter two were imperfect matches. but had the "[color=999966]sun gazed over[/color]" or the "[color=999966]sky gazed down[/color]"? These are only some of the many repetitions in this entry, all close together. And worry not, for they won't be the last to be addressed.

Another issue that arises in the first two paragraphs is one of inconsistency. An explicit contradiction, actually! The very first sentences tells of [color=999966]blowing dust[/color], but the second paragraph notes that "[color=999966]not even wind was present to stir some motion into the dust[/color]".

There is also an inconsistency of narration in the first paragraph—it is conventional that after the first time an object is referred to, it be designated with a [color=888888]the[/color]. Therefore, [color=888888][i]the[/i] pyramid buildings[/color]. [i][color=CCCCCC](The opposite is done later, when "[color=666633]smoke had appeared from [b]the[/b] blast[/color]", which didn't exist until that moment.)[/color][/i]

Moving on, the third paragraph had a jumbled timeline that made it [i]very[/i] confusing to read. the first sentence happened last, the second first, and the third in the middle! Immediately thereafter, the fourth, fifth, and sixth sentences to repeat these events in the correct order, which only adds to the confusion. The easiest remedy would be to remove either the second or the third sentence—alternatively, a well-placed semi-colon could have linked them as one, making it clear that together they formed the explanation for the first.

In the third paragraph is also a thematic inconsistency of minor note, but one that repeats itself throughout the entry. "[color=999966]Could be heard[/color]". "[color=999966]All one could see[/color]". "[color=999966]As far as could be seen[/color]". "[color=999966]A sharp eye would be able to catch[/color]". These all imply that there are observers to the scene. While just a normal narrative tool, this goes directly against the theme of desertion present in the description. That there are, in fact, inhabitants below is supposed to be a shocking reveal, and therefore should not be reflected in the narrative style.

Later, there is another inconsistency, though not an outright contradiction like before. The smoke spreads "[color=999966]instead of eventually fading[/color]", but in the same paragraph is said "[color=999966]then, it started fading[/color]". This means the smoke [i]did[/i] eventually fade, but can be easily rectified by simply saying "[color=888888][i]only[/i] then, it started fading[/color]". [i][color=CCCCCC]([color=666633]Faded into nothingness[/color] is used at the start of the next paragraph. With the same word being repeated so much, the synonym [color=555555]dissipated[/color] is strongly advised at this point.)[/color][/i]

A final note on repetition. Many paragraphs end in a way very similar to the way the paragraph that follows starts. "[color=999966]Then, it started fading[/color]", is followed by "[color=999966]Starting with the origin, the smoke faded[/color]". Similarly, "[color=999966]to give the area life[/color]" is followed by "[color=999966]The area was now [i][...][/i][/color]". While it is good to have paragraphs flow into one another, it is helpful to be more subtle when doing so. [i][color=CCCCCC](Okay, not the final note, here's another. As before, [color=666633]green[/color] is used way too much, and both the [color=666633]road[/color] and the [color=666633]city[/color] are [color=666633]overgrown[/color].)[/color][/i]

At this point, it is safe to move on from the description to the dialogue-based exposition, which suffers from far fewer issues. In fact, there is but one of significance: "[color=999966]This was the case.[/color]" Because these characters exist only to provide exposition, having the narration itself feel the need to corroborate their statements is both jarring and redundant. Everywhere else, the narration accepts their speech as fact implicitly, providing supplementary details for the reader when needed. That's good. [i]This[/i] little bit is not.
[/hider]
>C
[hider=Entry #2: Season Saga]
There is a distinct lack of definition in the goings-on that make it difficult to interpret any of the context. Evidently, the core of this entry is built around the concept of family, but the way the family is presented is too confusing.

The general assumption made is that the father-figures are a homosexual couple. However, this is continuously undermined by other details. To say he is the [color=999966]second father[/color] implies that either the "first" is dead or removed, and therefore he would be the step-father, second in line. Later, it is understood that perhaps the "second" father is called such because he came into the picture later in the kids' life, perhaps after their biological father divorced their mother. This can be assumed by the age gap, and the labelling of the "first" father as their [color=999966]true father[/color]. And yet, while the kids continue to call this man "[color=999966]Dad[/color]", they also ask about [color=999966][i]his[/i][/color] family, not theirs, which again implies a separation.

Other subtle points of confusion like this appear. For example, the [color=999966]kids[/color] are said to be older, one even going so far as to be called a [color=999966]man[/color]; and yet they are described as wanting above all to play in the snow? At the same time, the narration refers to the [color=999966]now older "kids"[/color] [i]after[/i] describing their adventures in the snow, which was beforehand used as the distinguishing factor separating them from their youth, when they merely watched. Either three stages of age are being compared, or the narration is simply contradicting itself. Either way, it is very jumbled in presentation.

On a related but more technical level, there are some sentences that are internally inconsistent due to structural limitations. The most notable such case is "[color=999966]If anything, it made him realize what he had; however, it made him miss what he once kept close to his heart.[/color]" Generally "[color=888888]if anything[/color]" is used to say either that the only possibility other than having [i]no[/i] effect is the listed effect. Following that with a [color=888888]however[/color] to contradict it makes no sense, as it undoes the inherent binary of the previous phrasing. A more logically consistent and widely used version would read as such: "[color=888888]If anything, it [i]should have[/i] made him realize what he had; however, it made him miss what he once kept close to his heart [i]instead[/i].[/color]" If the intention was to have both occur and not be mutually exclusive, an alternative to [color=999966]however[/color] would be required.

Finally, the entry is simply too short and too confusing to foster the emotional connection readers are likely intended to have with the characters. In fact, there isn't even any indication as to why the "first" father need be worried about, save that it is only a cause for concern during winter.
[/hider]
>C
[b]Entry #3: Rising Embers[/b][list][*]Thematic stanzas provide clear and effective structure, though internally unstructured.[*]A few strong verses, such as "[color=999966]Time Is The Child's Lone Guide [b]|[/b] Until The Wolf Grows Restless Yet Again.[/color]"[*]Despite vivid imagery and flowery language, lack poetic subtlety.[/list]
>A-
[hider=Entry #4: Love Isn't Love]
A very strong entry, so much so that it is difficult to find fault in either its composition or its plot. Both of the characters were well developed. Admittedly, the switches in narrative point of view—both limited, but sometimes focusing on Jennifer's and sometimes Jeremy's internal perspective—were a little jarring, but tying it to whichever of the two was speaking in a given paragraph more than made up for it. The description, narration, and sentence structure were great, with details being thrown in unnoticed but sticking nonetheless—such as when [color=999966]warm tears forming in her pale blue eyes[/color] was mentioned, and despite not drawing focus to the description of her eyes, it was still clear that from that point onwards the comparison to the blue-eyed Estonian implied she would be a similar, but more attractive version of Jennifer. Subtle, but effective.

It seems, then, that if there is anything technical to discuss at all, it must then be primarily positive in nature.

As is often the case, the juxtaposition of long and short paragraphs is used effectively to create and maintain tension, but perhaps more so here then in other entries for the short sentences in question are on point. The way that they tie back to the just finished paragraph in so succinct a way is fantastic.

A more odd choice is the regular switching of verb tense throughout the entry. For the most part, the narration maintains a present tense. However—and this usually occurs when Jennifer starts to lose focus—it treads into the past, evoking the typical storytelling tense that matches perfectly with her internal escapades into personal fantasy. Unfortunately, this tendency is used in a few cases that are not so thematically appropriate, and therefore most likely in error. For example, most of the paragraph starting with [color=999966]"I'm here for you[/color]" is in present tense, but it ends with [color=999966]he concluded[/color]. This past tense continues into the next paragraph, but is reverted in the one after that. Not a mistake that is easily noticed, and it is used well more often then not, but something to keep in mind.
[/hider]
>C+
[b]Entry #5: the Winter's Rose and the Wolven Song[/b]
[list][*]Exposition—usually provided by the dialogue—too vague. Does not provide meaningful insight into character motivations or inherent mechanics of the world that drive the plot. [i][color=CCCCCC](Examples include the green orb and the void-sword: next to nothing is known of either.)[/color][/i][*]Reads like the conclusion to an epic, but without the build-up to make the climax hit home.[*]Descriptions typically good, and setting was intriguing.[*]Dialogue was not grounded, which greatly hampered flow; it should be part of a paragraph, not its own, in most cases. If actions taking place in a paragraph preceding or following a snippet of dialogue are the exclusive realm of the speaker, they should be in the same paragraph. Especially egregious examples include [color=999966]“F-f-fight me, beast!”[/color] followed in a separate paragraph by "[color=999966]The man in black managed to call out.[/color]" Grammatically speaking, those are actually one sentence, and should not have been split.[/list]
>B
[b]Entry #6: Leo's Snow Day[/b]
[list][*]Touching and structurally sound.[*]Some of the subtle details really help to sell the story, such as referring to "[color=999966]the first time[/color]" he pulled the leash, a callback to how he'd always held it loose till now.[/list]
>C+
[b]Entry #7: Tomorrow/Today[/b]
[list][*]Subject appears to be procrastination, waking up in the morning, or overcoming chicken pox.[*]Rhyming is always a good thing to have in a poem, even if it's a slant rhyme.[*]Effective repetition, such as of the early verse "[color=999966]One day, soon[/color]".[*]Stanza five noticeably less effective due to saying nearly the same thing in nearly the same words twice. [i][color=CCCCCC](And what even was the point of stanza eight?)[/color][/i][/list]
>B+
[b]Entry #8: I Was Not Always a Frog.[/b]
[list][*]Quirky and great. Not much else to say.[/list]
>B+
[b]Entry #9: Ancient Ruins[/b]
[list][*]Effectively balances light and dark tones through savvy protagonist.[*]Branimir was a nice addition to the cast, as well as set-up for a cliffhanger, but once Smyrna was mentioned the remaining dialogue quickly felt scripted and cliché. [i][color=CCCCCC](Whereas previously the entry was delicately touching upon tongue-in-cheek.)[/color][/i][*]Last paragraph felt out of place. Ending with a description, unless that description happens to reveal the key to a plot twist, reduces tension. Perhaps better had it ended with the two final paragraphs switched—and altered slightly accordingly.[/list]
>A-
[b]Entry #10: The God in the Cave[/b]
[list][*]Great protagonist and supporting cast, with strong character development.[*]Framing at beginning was effective for creating tension where otherwise there would have been none. However, as all that followed amounted essentially to backstory, even a brief glimpse of her fight at the end would have helped to cement the framing device, instead of ending on an immense—if compelling—tangent.[/list]