Holmishire

The Twelve Labours: General Discussion

Getting a little meta with the title there.

@Terminal

I wanted to give @RomanAria an easy title-drop. ;)

I'm surprised neither of you realized, as @PlatinumSkink did, that my intention was for Ariana to avoid the confrontation entirely. Though it does seem none of the other entrants took that route.

Still, seeing as I've failed two labours with Ariana, she might just show up one last time for TTL#12. I make exceptions to my usual rules for failed labours, as her presence in this round can attest to.

Congrats to the winners! Sad to see an entry as captivating as @Habibi359's not make the cut.

(That's quite a trend you've got going, Platinum—I don't whether to hope you pass or fail the next labour!)

The Twelve Labours: General Discussion

Don't expect too much from me, this month. I'm still doing what I can to push through the same lack of inspiration I had last month. (Maybe I should finally try out for RPGC to get my creative juices flowing?)

I'd better make one hell of a comeback for TTL #12.

RPGC #11: Heatwave! -- Voting and Discussion

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. Also, I am something of a technical critic—expect lots of analysis of the text, and not quite so much about the plot.

>C

Entry #1: the Nightcrawler

It is not apparent whether this entry was intended to embrace or critique the tropes inherent to the horror genre. It does not seem to wish to be considered as straight horror, at least, considering its use of a private screening as a framing device. (Given the unidentified speaker's praise, the assumption shall be made that this entry to some degree wishes to embrace horror tropes—and therefore their use shall not be critiqued in and of themselves.)

Unfortunately, it is important to note that this framing device was brought in too late and for too briefly to be of any great import. Other than acting as a potential proof of author awareness, it fails to add meaningful layers to the short story without any time or characters provided to become invested in. It came close to being used as a means of bringing the threat of the Nightcrawler closer to the real real world. (Readers have already grown used to the idea that the tale of the Nightcrawler is the fiction to which the suspension of disbelief is applied—the inclusion of a framing device allows the story to become internally aware of this suspension. Readers are then more likely to associate this frame with their own reality, and can therefore be tricked into considering otherwise far-fetched possibilities as tangible threats.) However, a lack of disconfirmation is not in and of itself confirmation. Some sort of confirmation, however indirect and inconclusive, would have served much better.

Now, to address the bulk of the entry.

The early intro is fairly effective, as it properly presents the setting and the characters. That being said, it does not properly convey the tone that is to be later expected of the piece. Without foreshadowing or mention of the Nightcrawler—or any supernatural threat, for that matter—until the rumours are brought up by the narration of its own accord, it is not clear what genre the story is supposed to belong to. Indeed, even the presentation of the rumours are more in line with the abominable snowman than a deadly monster. This of course leads to a massive tonal shift when the Nightcrawler is actually introduced. Perhaps this was intentionally used for shock value, but such would only be a brief gain compared to the lasting effects granted by a proper build-up of tension.

Similar and even less useful tonal shifts occur later in the entry due to a lack of proper scene transitions. Compare, for example, the difference between the transition from T&A to S&J and the transition from S&J to M&S. In the former, the paragraph immediately following Alexis's death begins with «Sam and Johnathan heard the screams», being a direct reference to the prior events. This is a good transition, as it links the two together while still making it clear that the focus has moved. Mark and Sara, however, have nothing tying them to the previous scene—only actions being continued from much earlier in the story. In this case, while a direct action-reaction transition isn't possible, something as simple as a horizontal rule to split the two could have helped to inform the reader that the shock and horror of the previous paragraph do not carry over. As it stands, the juxtaposition of mortal peril and mild concern tends to weaken immersion.

Improper scene transitions also occur more frequently in a manner that while not impacting immersion so much, can still confuse the reader. For example, when «Mark then ran and grabbed his camera», the reader is suddenly back with Sara in the following paragraph: «“Show me the tracks, please.” He asked Sara as they went walking off». Similarly, near the beginning, Tommy says «“Of course we are! I had all types of great times in the woods out here,”» which would nicely lead into them either leaving for or arriving at the woods. This does happen, but apparently only after what can be assumed to be hours' worth of «walking and adventuring the city.» In a paragraph where both the beginning and the end say the same thing, having the middle disagree is poor form.

There also cases of repetition that tend to be more confusing than redundant, such as «[…] and walked closer and closer. Until he got closer and saw two people were there» and «Tommy said glaring, he said walking closer to wear the rustling was coming from. Tommy walked closer, [...]». If one were to walk closer until they were closer, they would stop immediately after moving. And if someone is already walking, they can't then start to walk anew, as is implied by the latter example. A related issue appears with «the red, newer truck» and «the red country-ish», for which the middle descriptors initially read as aids for distinguishing two red trucks rather than additional detail due to their redundant use of red in such close proximity; or even «The last thing Mark saw before being found crawling away was that it was crawling away», which while misleading, does force a double-take.

Such redundancy also occurs often with the dialogue, where a character will repeat in different words information that had just been revealed by the narration itself: «Mark whistled, it was a nice place to see. "Some nice place." He said» and «Johnathan and Alexis weren't very interested. "This is it? I was hoping for more." She said». It is typical to recommend writes to always 'show' rather than 'tell'—but generally, either one of them is preferable to both. (A slightly less problematic occurs later: «Sam didn't believe it was the urban legend, Nightcrawler. "So, you think it's the Nightcrawler?" Mark asked, Sara nodded. "Yeah I do."» While the question is being asked to Sara, whose opinion is not firmly revealed, given the context of all three being present it would make more sense for him to ask them both the question simultaneously, and for Sam to then answer alongside Sara.) The greater issue with the dialogue, however, lies in its frequent reaction shots. The characters often speak to nobody in particular, receiving no response, and doing so one after the other. In just the first section there is «"Welcome to Oaktree, Alabama,"», «"Why..why are we here?"», «"Some nice place,"», and «"Outta record this for memories, right?"». While these do provide some minor insights into each character's personalities, interactions between them would have been far more effective at doing so and far more compelling to read.

Overall, the entry's writing was not poor, and it did a decent job of approaching the genre. The youths were difficult to relate to due to only Johnathan being given moderate characterization—unfortunate, seeing as Mark was ultimately the survivor, but had little inherent to his nature to root for.

>C+

Entry #2: the Spark

Well written, with little in the way of technical errors. Choosing to forgo conventional approaches to short stories, this entry instead places a level of abstraction between the subject and the narration, translating what is essentially an amalgamation of the processes of evolution into the experience of a single spark.

Though this was not a poor choice in and of itself, it is notable that when a style is founded in a certain abstraction that limits the potential for variety, it becomes difficult to maintain a compelling narrative for long. Throughout the entry, the same base concepts are tread upon time and time again, of colours growing, consuming, merging, and being washed out. Limited in how much it can stray from these, it becomes quickly apparent that the vocabulary accessible to explore these concepts is forced into repetition.

Beyond this ultimately self-imposed limit, it is always a challenge to connect with such stories personally, as the protagonist—in this case, the Spark—is less a character and more an idea. In essence, the main draw of this kind of entry is the uniqueness of its style, which really can only be novel for so long.

Still, there are some nice narrative techniques used, such as the full-circle created by the first/last sentence—«In the darkness, there was nothing»—or the way the narration reacted to its own words, reinforcing the ideological foundation from which this setting operates—«[...] moving without purpose. Purpose. Was that next?»

An ambitious attempt, and an interesting read.

>C

Entry #3: the Ash Grows Cold

Despite the formatting choice, this simply does not read as a poem would. The so-called 'verses' are more often than not full sentences, and their length varies to extreme levels—especially when dialogue is incorporated. Indeed, it could be read quite normally as paragraphs in a narrative text—though the resulting short story would be quite short.

Beyond that, it is difficult to break down. There is effective imagery generated through the metaphors of ash and fire, but overall the text is quite straightforward, without much in the way of interesting rhetorical techniques. Still, it does well at evoking the tone of spoken myths.

>B-

Entry #4: the Tenth Circle

The prose was good—in particular, the first section was very effective at creating a compelling narrative from which to develop Robert as a character. His relationship with his mother was somewhat touching, though it was perhaps a bit too obvious to the reader what he was doing in hell when the protagonist himself was clearly oblivious.

Though this is likely a personal preference, the setting of Hell felt out of place in the story. Synchoron being a human-spider hybrid is given no explanation—though we know Robert to be a somewhat religious man, we aren't given enough details to see the relevance of this creature. Unless there was some missed symbolism, this very odd portrayal clashes with the otherwise exceptionally mundane portrayals of Boston, Redgrass, and the hospital.

(A minor note: the line break halfway through his first awakening in Hell, while useful in that it allows the reader to process the shock of the moment, is a little jarring. No actual time passes, the setting doesn't change, and even the mood is a direct continuation.)

Overall an effective piece, with just a bit of conflicting setting designs that make it a bit hard to maintain the same tone.

>C+

Entry #5: Beating the Heat

It is pretty clear that this entry was not attempting to do much. The writing is good, without being particularly exceptional either. There is simply not much to go off of.

(A very minor note: with a number as small as 2, two is preferred to its numeral form.)

>B+

Entry #6: the Watched Pot

There was a disappointing shortage of French in this entry. Other than that, it was pretty good.

>A-

Entry #7: the Springs Gone By

Just kidding around.

That was perhaps too short of a critique, I apologize. The prose was very well written, good enough that I didn't find myself noticing the techniques used—my focus was instead on the story and the characters, and those too were well constructed.

Ultimately, it's at a level where it becomes difficult for me to critique appropriately, which is why I have broken my air of objectivity to write a review instead.

I very much enjoyed this entry, both for the compelling narrative of Darius's development and because I can personally relate to the kitchen industry, having worked in it for three years. In fact, I'm worried that that might be biasing my opinion of the piece—another reason for a review, not a critique.

I found, however, that the final moments with Luca were left a bit too unceremoniously. When Sacha was burned, it was as if Luca's character had ceased to become relevant. Apparently, it no longer mattered how this shocking event affected Luca himself, only how it bolstered the bond between uncle and nephew. That the man was never heard from again was quite disappointing.

That is all. Good work.

The two main contenders for my vote were the final two entries. There has been precedence of me voting for an entry with the second-highest rating of the bunch; an exceptionally well-made entry does not necessarily resonate exceptionally well.

In the end, my @vote goes to the sixth entry, the Watched Pot!

>A-

Entry #7: the Springs Gone By

The actual crtitique of the Springs Gone By. Hopefully you weren't caught by my earlier trap.

As ever, a great read without significant errors in either the prose or the narrative form. Though the vagueness of the narrators state of being can break the suspension of disbelief when it is addressed by the narrator himself, it occurs rarely enough that it can be pushed aside as an annoying quirk rather than a glaring fault. (It is fine to have a dead narrator, or even for this dead narrator to be unexplained. However, because the text goes out of its way to point out this fact, dismissing it as not relevant, it then becomes relevant and worthy of explanation.)

The protagonist was very well-defined and interesting, and certain quirks of the narrative style really helped to drive home aspects of the culture that affected him. For example, the following: «"What're you looking for?" I asked. I returned the salute. Obviously. I was a pilot of the Imperial Japanese army [...]». Each of those end points held loads of meaning that a simple comma would not. By starting off by simply noting the speaker, and apparently realizing only afterwards that silence on the matter might be misconstrued, the narrator makes it clear that he is part of a culture different from our own, and is making an effort to explain to us what he thinks obvious.

So overall, great work, the strongest aspect being the characterization of the protagonist and the nuance of culture clash.

The two main contenders for my vote were the final two entries. There has been precedence of me voting for an entry with the second-highest rating of the bunch; an exceptionally well-made entry does not necessarily resonate exceptionally well.

In the end, my @vote goes to the sixth entry, the Watched Pot!

The Twelve Labours: General Discussion

Beyond the crushing defeat that I have suffered in this Labour, I'm a little relieved. Had I somehow passed with that entry, I would have seriously begun to worry that I was incapable of failure—a terrible prospect for anyone who seeks to improve themselves. Not getting the Eighth's Accolade was but a warning. It is only now that the challenge has truly shown its teeth to me.

I do not think that I need to reply to the reviews directly. They were spot on.

Also, @RomanAria, your title drop game is strong.

The Twelve Labours: General Discussion

I've submitted… something. Inspiration didn't strike until the last three hours before the deadline. I think it fair to say that should there be a time for my reign of terror to end, it would not come as a surprise for this labour to be the assassin that pulled the trigger.

The Twelve Labours: General Discussion

I completely missed the RPGC voting deadline because I got the dates mixed up, but at least I've not missed the Labour.

I've got a lot of ideas for this one, but I've run into a dilemma; so far, each entey I've submitted has been focused on a different setting. This was something of a personal challenge I gave myself. Very few of the settings I have left would work for this challenge—mostly because they lack the capacity for large political or ideological movements—while a few of the ones I've already used would simply work perfectly.

so if you end up seeing Jack in my next entry, know that even if I do not fail the Labour, I would have failed myself

The Twelve Labours: General Discussion

A little late on the draw, but time to acknowledge all that's passed!

I'm glad it was well received, if still not without fault. To be honest, I was simply uninspired for the first eleven days. The characters, plot, and actual writing all happened on the last day—and it shows in the rushed conclusion. Had the inspiration come sooner, there would have been a lot more exposition throughout the day, as he gets to know all the members of the cast, interspersed with hints at the "twist".

@PlatinumSkink, there was no clarification because I felt it would be more genuine without it. While most of the hints were thrown in at the scene for the reason mentioned above, I do feel they were sufficient to uncover the plot. Still, in case you didn't catch it! Huldr, in his drunken state, was holding a bloodied knife, while walking away from his bloodied brother, Hundi. Huldr made Albiorn think the wolf had struck Hundi—in reality, it was Huldr that had cut him when he had tried to stop his brother. (And yes, I did read 'this'. ;)

Also, I quite enjoyed your entry. It was well-written, original, and with a driven plot. When you get the ball rolling, you can get me—and other readers, it seems—down a weird truly unique path.

@Terminal, I see what you meant with my entry in the fourth labour. Ultimately, that entry was all about mechanics—this was supposed to be a character-driven story, and those aren't really supposed to be compressed. It's a habit of mine, compressing things to the most essential bits—it's what I did for my first four entries, in fact, to varying degrees. Since then, I've been trying to push myself into creating stories that take longer, if only because someday I'd like to be writing something a bit more substantial than short stories. I suspect I've still got a ways to go before I get comfortable with it, though.

Finally, @mdk, I have read your entry and loved it. I agree with Plat, in that the author's commentary was worse than the exposition it was criticizing, but I do believe you said that was something you didn't end up having time to edit out, so I'll not berate you for it—much. I think I'll reread your entry a time or two more, so that I can discuss it in full. Though I must admit, the others have said most that I'd have said anyways, so don't be waiting for any miraculous insights.

On that note, I actually haven't even read my own entry yet! I should really get around to that.

The Twelve Labours: General Discussion

@Terminal, no, I think not. Not, at least, until I've found a suitable heir to take it in my place.

The Twelve Labours: General Discussion

@mdk I usually don't critique TTL entries, but maybe I'll make an exception for you. ;3 (I guess that makes me bad.)

RPGC #9: Rebirth -- voting and discussion

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. (And it's not like I don't make any of these mistakes in the Twelve Labours.) 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+

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.

---

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. (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.) 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 sky, which we are told is orange twice. (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.) More notably, however, is the repeated use of the same descriptors for different objects: the grey pyramids and the grey roads; the "machines [...] all empty" and "the roads were empty"; the "death of a city" and "the hills were dead". It could be said that the first was intentional and that the latter two were imperfect matches. but had the "sun gazed over" or the "sky gazed down"? 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 blowing dust, but the second paragraph notes that "not even wind was present to stir some motion into the dust".

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 the. Therefore, the pyramid buildings. (The opposite is done later, when "smoke had appeared from the blast", which didn't exist until that moment.)

Moving on, the third paragraph had a jumbled timeline that made it very 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. "Could be heard". "All one could see". "As far as could be seen". "A sharp eye would be able to catch". 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 "instead of eventually fading", but in the same paragraph is said "then, it started fading". This means the smoke did eventually fade, but can be easily rectified by simply saying "only then, it started fading". (Faded into nothingness is used at the start of the next paragraph. With the same word being repeated so much, the synonym dissipated is strongly advised at this point.)

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

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: "This was the case." 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. This little bit is not.

>C

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 second father 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 true father. And yet, while the kids continue to call this man "Dad", they also ask about his family, not theirs, which again implies a separation.

Other subtle points of confusion like this appear. For example, the kids are said to be older, one even going so far as to be called a man; and yet they are described as wanting above all to play in the snow? At the same time, the narration refers to the now older "kids" after 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 "If anything, it made him realize what he had; however, it made him miss what he once kept close to his heart." Generally "if anything" is used to say either that the only possibility other than having no effect is the listed effect. Following that with a however 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: "If anything, it should have made him realize what he had; however, it made him miss what he once kept close to his heart instead." If the intention was to have both occur and not be mutually exclusive, an alternative to however 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.

>C
Entry #3: Rising Embers

• Thematic stanzas provide clear and effective structure, though internally unstructured.
• A few strong verses, such as "Time Is The Child's Lone Guide | Until The Wolf Grows Restless Yet Again."
• Despite vivid imagery and flowery language, lack poetic subtlety.

>A-

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 warm tears forming in her pale blue eyes 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 "I'm here for you" is in present tense, but it ends with he concluded. 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.

>C+
Entry #5: the Winter's Rose and the Wolven Song

• 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. (Examples include the green orb and the void-sword: next to nothing is known of either.)
• 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 “F-f-fight me, beast!” followed in a separate paragraph by "The man in black managed to call out." Grammatically speaking, those are actually one sentence, and should not have been split.

>B
Entry #6: Leo's Snow Day

• Touching and structurally sound.
• Some of the subtle details really help to sell the story, such as referring to "the first time" he pulled the leash, a callback to how he'd always held it loose till now.

>C+
Entry #7: Tomorrow/Today

• 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 "One day, soon".
• Stanza five noticeably less effective due to saying nearly the same thing in nearly the same words twice. (And what even was the point of stanza eight?)

>B+
Entry #8: I Was Not Always a Frog.

• Quirky and great. Not much else to say.

>B+
Entry #9: Ancient Ruins

• 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. (Whereas previously the entry was delicately touching upon tongue-in-cheek.)
• 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.

>A-
Entry #10: The God in the Cave

• 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.