KactusPunch
Crown Sage
MarshalSolgriev
SkyeOfStars
princess
Zeroth...and there in the land of Nemea, a Lion, whose golden hide was impenetrable to weapons and invulnerable to injury, stalled the works and glories of men 'til mighty Hercules came and stole away its breath.
Those of you who have completed this task - you have accomplished a great thing indeed, for you have slain a terrible creature, normally considered immune to mortal injury and peril. You are hereby worthy of bearing the title...
Nemean Assassin
Congratulations to the winning authors for the following stories:
-On The Adversity of Death, which won the Bonus Challenge: Criticality Accident
-Death of the Watchman by [@Holmshire]
-The Early Demise of Benjamin Wilkins by @WiseDragonGirl
-The Death of Nicholas Santos
-The Forgotten Death of Peter by @RomanAria, which won the Bonus Challenge: Schrodinger's Horizon
Your stories have been added to The Twelve Labours Victory Archives, to which there will be a permanent link in my signature. In addition, your victory has been announced in both the News and Roleplaying Discussion Subforums! Huzzah!
As far as the previous aforementioned awards vis-a-vi Forum Trophies that were mentioned, I am afraid that the state of the Guild's coding has rather unfortunately been forestalled due to shenanigans. However, be assured that if it all ever gets working, you can expect any trophies related to this event to be handed out retroactively.
Do not be discouraged though. The First Labour is over, but the Land of Lerna beckons...
Below is a list of all Twelve Secret Bonus Challenges. Note that entries only qualify for bonus challenges IF they also clear the actual Labour as well.
The Darwin Award: Your character commited involuntary suicide. Whoops.
Double Whammy: Without reviving your character, you somehow managed to kill them twice. Impressive.
Criticality Accident: Submitted a winning entry that was 12,144 characters or more in length, not counting spaces.
You Have Entered the Twilight Zone: Your character hung around after they died to see how events unfolded.
Art After Death: Your character's body (or parts of it) was put on display in public.
TPK: Every character mentioned in your story was dead by the end of it.
Death and Happenstance: Submitted a winning entry that was three paragraphs or shorter in length.
The Spirit of the Challenge: Death was just a slap on the wrist for your character.
Vacuum Metastability Event: You killed your character using metacontextual means. How did you even DO that?
Schrodinger's Horizon: Your character is dead. Now if only anyone knew that...
Accessory to Murder: A part of your character's body or one of their personal effects was taken by their slayer.
An's Vengeance: Your character was killed via suffocation (death by hanging counts as their neck being broken, sorry).
Double Whammy: Without reviving your character, you somehow managed to kill them twice. Impressive.
Criticality Accident: Submitted a winning entry that was 12,144 characters or more in length, not counting spaces.
You Have Entered the Twilight Zone: Your character hung around after they died to see how events unfolded.
Art After Death: Your character's body (or parts of it) was put on display in public.
TPK: Every character mentioned in your story was dead by the end of it.
Death and Happenstance: Submitted a winning entry that was three paragraphs or shorter in length.
The Spirit of the Challenge: Death was just a slap on the wrist for your character.
Vacuum Metastability Event: You killed your character using metacontextual means. How did you even DO that?
Schrodinger's Horizon: Your character is dead. Now if only anyone knew that...
Accessory to Murder: A part of your character's body or one of their personal effects was taken by their slayer.
An's Vengeance: Your character was killed via suffocation (death by hanging counts as their neck being broken, sorry).
Below are reviews for each of the stories. If you feel your story should have won, but didn't, contact the specific judge for your story to make your case. Please exercise some courtesy, and remember that you may only make the one appeal.
Just so that everyone knows, I will be using the Six Trait Power-Write rubric for my reviews. I use it for English class, and I know it’s elementary at best, but it does help me in organizing my thoughts and in providing a comprehensive review. The rubric I am using is as follows:
Ideas: Themes and the like. Supporting details. Did they paint a picture in my mind?
Organization: Did your story flow well? it's less concrete here than it is in English class, obviously, but, the main question is: Were the ideas enhanced or inhibited by the organization of the story?
Voice: Was the narration of your story consistent? Did it seem realistic, or like a robot talking in monotone?
Word Choice: How did your words enhance the story? Did they help to paint a picture in my head?
Sentence Fluency: Self-explanatory. Did your story or poem flow well?
Conventions: This one is a biggie. I find grammatical errors, when not used for effect, to absolutely irritate me.
Overall Impressions and Score: Self-explanatory.
Points are given on a scale of 1-4. 4 is the best and 1 is the worst, and I will include an explanation of why I gave each specific score.
Organization: Did your story flow well? it's less concrete here than it is in English class, obviously, but, the main question is: Were the ideas enhanced or inhibited by the organization of the story?
Voice: Was the narration of your story consistent? Did it seem realistic, or like a robot talking in monotone?
Word Choice: How did your words enhance the story? Did they help to paint a picture in my head?
Sentence Fluency: Self-explanatory. Did your story or poem flow well?
Conventions: This one is a biggie. I find grammatical errors, when not used for effect, to absolutely irritate me.
Overall Impressions and Score: Self-explanatory.
Points are given on a scale of 1-4. 4 is the best and 1 is the worst, and I will include an explanation of why I gave each specific score.
So, I don’t think that I can allow The Death of Damian to win. He does commit suicide because he feels alone and depressed, but the way he commits suicide, taking out all the undead with those grenades, seems a bit too heroic. I understand that you said he killed himself because all his friends were gone, but his actions made me think that his mind wasn’t really so far gone as you attempted to portray within the writing.
In addition to this, I don’t feel that the quality of writing is really up-to-snuff. It seems kind of rushed, and there are more grammatical errors than I should like to see in a “winning” entry. While this may be an overly harsh assessment, I do not see the “basic quality of good storytelling” that is one of the judging criteria. Taking this and what was stated above into account, I do not feel that I can call the Death of Damian a winner.
In addition to this, I don’t feel that the quality of writing is really up-to-snuff. It seems kind of rushed, and there are more grammatical errors than I should like to see in a “winning” entry. While this may be an overly harsh assessment, I do not see the “basic quality of good storytelling” that is one of the judging criteria. Taking this and what was stated above into account, I do not feel that I can call the Death of Damian a winner.
Ideas: I give a 2 for ideas. The subject matter was very creative and well-thought-out. For that I give you two points. But your supporting details, while I commend your effort, are slightly lacking, and those that you provide don’t really add anything to the story. Like I said above, for all the details that you say, the actions that Damian shows tell a completely different story. So I think that a 2 in this category is fair.
Organization: I give a 4 for the organization. The organization is clearly chronological. I do think it would have been enhanced to have flashbacks of some sort, to show some background as to how the apocalypse happened and as to how all Damian’s friends died. But that’s irrelevant. Well done.
Voice: I give a 2 for voice. While you have good potential here, it’s still kind of lacking. I have a hard time seeing the story unfolding in my head. You try to tell us what Damian is thinking, and I commend you for trying to, but at the same time, it could have been done better, showing us. Personally, I like to write in the character’s thoughts in italics, because it enables the author to explicitly indicate the character’s thought process without outright saying it.
Word Choice: I give a 3 for word choice. You have some excellent words in here, and I commend you for trying to use a large selection of vocabulary (In particular I like the term “Bloody Rampage” right at the beginning, really sets the tone.) However, I feel there could have been more flamboyant language. Don’t be afraid to sound pretentious; pretentious language appeals to pretentious authors.
Sentence Fluency: I give a 3 for sentence fluency. Some of your simple sentences sound choppy and could have been combined into compound or complex sentences. Still, you did very well on this category.
Conventions: As much as I hate to say it, I give a 1 for conventions. Most sentences remain uncapitalized, there is minimal punctuation to denote clauses, and there could have been paragraph breaks to make it more pleasant to the eye. In addition, there is one very obviously misplaced modifier (“now limping, the zombies…”) which totally confuses the reader until he or she recognizes it as such. And finally, there is one improperly used second person pronoun “you” which immediately jumps out as being very, very out-of-place.
Overall Impressions and Score: The total score is 15. Overall, this story was a great concept that was executed poorly, and most of the flaws in the execution could have been solved by proofreading more diligently. My impression was that the entry seemed like it was written in a hurry.
Organization: I give a 4 for the organization. The organization is clearly chronological. I do think it would have been enhanced to have flashbacks of some sort, to show some background as to how the apocalypse happened and as to how all Damian’s friends died. But that’s irrelevant. Well done.
Voice: I give a 2 for voice. While you have good potential here, it’s still kind of lacking. I have a hard time seeing the story unfolding in my head. You try to tell us what Damian is thinking, and I commend you for trying to, but at the same time, it could have been done better, showing us. Personally, I like to write in the character’s thoughts in italics, because it enables the author to explicitly indicate the character’s thought process without outright saying it.
Word Choice: I give a 3 for word choice. You have some excellent words in here, and I commend you for trying to use a large selection of vocabulary (In particular I like the term “Bloody Rampage” right at the beginning, really sets the tone.) However, I feel there could have been more flamboyant language. Don’t be afraid to sound pretentious; pretentious language appeals to pretentious authors.
Sentence Fluency: I give a 3 for sentence fluency. Some of your simple sentences sound choppy and could have been combined into compound or complex sentences. Still, you did very well on this category.
Conventions: As much as I hate to say it, I give a 1 for conventions. Most sentences remain uncapitalized, there is minimal punctuation to denote clauses, and there could have been paragraph breaks to make it more pleasant to the eye. In addition, there is one very obviously misplaced modifier (“now limping, the zombies…”) which totally confuses the reader until he or she recognizes it as such. And finally, there is one improperly used second person pronoun “you” which immediately jumps out as being very, very out-of-place.
Overall Impressions and Score: The total score is 15. Overall, this story was a great concept that was executed poorly, and most of the flaws in the execution could have been solved by proofreading more diligently. My impression was that the entry seemed like it was written in a hurry.
Winner?No
Reason? Not fulfilling “good quality storytelling” and not entirely fulfilling challenge requirements.
Bonus Categories? N/A
Six-Trait Score? 15/24
Reason? Not fulfilling “good quality storytelling” and not entirely fulfilling challenge requirements.
Bonus Categories? N/A
Six-Trait Score? 15/24
I feel that On the Adversity of Death passes with flying colors. The death is obviously of a favorite character, as the delicate romantic writing surrounding the woman shows. And her death is definitely a bad way (not to mention a bad time) to go.
I give this entry the Criticality Accident award, the criteria for which was that the entry had to be 12,144 characters in length (without spaces) or greater. This entry was 12,504.
I give this entry the Criticality Accident award, the criteria for which was that the entry had to be 12,144 characters in length (without spaces) or greater. This entry was 12,504.
Ideas: I give a 4 for the idea. Creatively planned (An expository essay for school? How clever!) and brilliantly accomplished through graceful supporting details.
Organization: I give a 4. Impeccably done, and most creatively. It’s chronological but not occurring as it is being read (I cannot think of how to explain it, sorry), and written as a whole as a character’s self-reflection. You’ve certainly put A LOT, and I mean, A LOT, of thought into how your character would act in this situation.
Voice: I give a 4. Written beautifully, bittersweet and poignant. My god, I started crying when I read it. I don’t know any of the characters, but oh my goodness, there was such a vibrant image in my head, and I could just see everything. If I could give you more than a 4 I would.
Word Choice: Brilliant. I can just see a high-schooler writing this, maybe for 12th grade English. Just… fantastic. Absolutely fabulous.
Sentence Fluency: I give a 4. Although much of it is written in simple, almost choppy sentences, it fits into the idea of being written by the dead woman’s daughter who can’t cope with her grief. Technically you broke the rules, but you broke them to enhance and I see nothing wrong with that.
Conventions: I give a 4. Your conventions are impeccable. I can find legitimately no mistakes.
Overall Impressions and Score: Your total score was a 24. Just let me go retrieve my jaw off of the floor… You know, where it fell when I read through this the first time. You did amazingly on this, and you earned every point at least five times over on this rubric.
Organization: I give a 4. Impeccably done, and most creatively. It’s chronological but not occurring as it is being read (I cannot think of how to explain it, sorry), and written as a whole as a character’s self-reflection. You’ve certainly put A LOT, and I mean, A LOT, of thought into how your character would act in this situation.
Voice: I give a 4. Written beautifully, bittersweet and poignant. My god, I started crying when I read it. I don’t know any of the characters, but oh my goodness, there was such a vibrant image in my head, and I could just see everything. If I could give you more than a 4 I would.
Word Choice: Brilliant. I can just see a high-schooler writing this, maybe for 12th grade English. Just… fantastic. Absolutely fabulous.
Sentence Fluency: I give a 4. Although much of it is written in simple, almost choppy sentences, it fits into the idea of being written by the dead woman’s daughter who can’t cope with her grief. Technically you broke the rules, but you broke them to enhance and I see nothing wrong with that.
Conventions: I give a 4. Your conventions are impeccable. I can find legitimately no mistakes.
Overall Impressions and Score: Your total score was a 24. Just let me go retrieve my jaw off of the floor… You know, where it fell when I read through this the first time. You did amazingly on this, and you earned every point at least five times over on this rubric.
Winner? YES
Reason? Fabulous storytelling, excellent creativity, fulfillment of the prompt.
Bonus Categories? Criticality Accident
Six-Trait Score?24/24
Reason? Fabulous storytelling, excellent creativity, fulfillment of the prompt.
Bonus Categories? Criticality Accident
Six-Trait Score?24/24
I feel that The Death of the Watchman passes the challenge. Though technically the main character was made a martyr, he was made into an example by his mortal enemy, which is still an unpleasant fate for him.
In addition, the storytelling is fabulous. The grammar is very good and it clearly paints a picture in my mind. All-in-all it definitely meets the standard of quality storytelling.
In addition, the storytelling is fabulous. The grammar is very good and it clearly paints a picture in my mind. All-in-all it definitely meets the standard of quality storytelling.
Ideas: I give a 3 in this category. You had some great ideas, don’t get me wrong. I would have loved some more background, however, like some more information on the characters and on the rebellion. That would have required a ton and a half of explaining, I know, but it would have made the story have a greater impact, at least on me. I can’t care about characters if I don’t know their stories.
Organization: I give a 4 in this category. Like most fiction stories your writing is chronological, but there are no random tangents and no flashbacks or mental soliloquies. Very direct, and well-executed at that.
Voice: I give a 4 for voice. Direct and to-the-point, almost…. To quote @PlatinumSkink, rather haphazard, rather like Jack’s execution. Not very elaborate or formal. It’s a very fitting tone. And the ending… Poignant and beautiful. I can just imagine it as the ending of a sad film, the boats melting away into the distance as Galen and the unnamed maiden held each other. Such a sweet ending for a bitter tale.
Word Choice: I give a 3.5 for word choice. Some words seem a little out of place. I know it’s a rather harsh nitpick, but I noticed words like “afore” in “Greg swept his arm afore him…” kind of seemed a little too…medieval, and stuck out a little bit, and the word “pavel”… I looked it up but I couldn’t figure out a definition, and it was really bothering me. Context-clues indicate that it’s some kind of paving stone, maybe a portmanteau of “paver” and “gravel” but… I couldn’t figure it out, and it really disrupted the flow of the story.
These two nitpicks are offset by the otherwise fabulous descriptive phrases. In particular I liked “These were men raised to fight and who lived only to kill, relishing in brutality.” and “His voice boomed forth, carrying across the stone and over to the docks.” The description, in these lines in particular, but really throughout the whole story, is beautiful.
Sentence Fluency: I give a 4. Your sentence fluency is absolutely flawless. It felt like my eyes were dancing down the screen, not actually needing to stop and consider clauses or fragments or anything.
Conventions: I give a 3.5. I’m sorry to nitpick, because your conventions were very good throughout, but just a couple of little things stuck out. “Who knew of whom she thought…” seemed a little peculiarly phrased; shouldn’t it have been “He knew of whom she thought...”?
Overall Impressions and Score:The overall score is 22/24. I really liked this entry; I wish it were longer.
Organization: I give a 4 in this category. Like most fiction stories your writing is chronological, but there are no random tangents and no flashbacks or mental soliloquies. Very direct, and well-executed at that.
Voice: I give a 4 for voice. Direct and to-the-point, almost…. To quote @PlatinumSkink, rather haphazard, rather like Jack’s execution. Not very elaborate or formal. It’s a very fitting tone. And the ending… Poignant and beautiful. I can just imagine it as the ending of a sad film, the boats melting away into the distance as Galen and the unnamed maiden held each other. Such a sweet ending for a bitter tale.
Word Choice: I give a 3.5 for word choice. Some words seem a little out of place. I know it’s a rather harsh nitpick, but I noticed words like “afore” in “Greg swept his arm afore him…” kind of seemed a little too…medieval, and stuck out a little bit, and the word “pavel”… I looked it up but I couldn’t figure out a definition, and it was really bothering me. Context-clues indicate that it’s some kind of paving stone, maybe a portmanteau of “paver” and “gravel” but… I couldn’t figure it out, and it really disrupted the flow of the story.
These two nitpicks are offset by the otherwise fabulous descriptive phrases. In particular I liked “These were men raised to fight and who lived only to kill, relishing in brutality.” and “His voice boomed forth, carrying across the stone and over to the docks.” The description, in these lines in particular, but really throughout the whole story, is beautiful.
Sentence Fluency: I give a 4. Your sentence fluency is absolutely flawless. It felt like my eyes were dancing down the screen, not actually needing to stop and consider clauses or fragments or anything.
Conventions: I give a 3.5. I’m sorry to nitpick, because your conventions were very good throughout, but just a couple of little things stuck out. “Who knew of whom she thought…” seemed a little peculiarly phrased; shouldn’t it have been “He knew of whom she thought...”?
Overall Impressions and Score:The overall score is 22/24. I really liked this entry; I wish it were longer.
Winner? Yes
Reason? Fulfilled assignment, very good quality.
Bonus Categories?N/A
Six-Trait Score?22/24
Reason? Fulfilled assignment, very good quality.
Bonus Categories?N/A
Six-Trait Score?22/24
I originally chose Killing Alex because, as I skimmed the entries, this seemed to stand out – it was short, sweet and it had an interesting world to it. So I took it on and curled up on the couch to read and analyse it.
The concept of Killing Alex was interesting; however, due to the sentence structure and grammatical errors in the writing I was constantly taken out of the world to scowl upon sentences that were too long, or simply just didn’t make sense.
I came across words like “Kinda” and “Must’ve” – and I cringed. I apologise, however, in reading Killing Alex I didn’t see cause to use such casual words. The story was in third person, so it wasn’t being told from her point of view. Personally I believe these kinds of words are only acceptable in instances of dialogue and a first person narration (and only if it’s within their discourse).
I got back into the story and it got rather interesting, but was ripped out once more when the absolute taboo of writing happened and the story crossed over from Past Tense into Present Tense. My apologies, but if there’s anything that gets to me, it’s the structure of the writing.
“Part way down the building, a tear shaped pendant round her neck started flashing out purple pulses of light, a warning, she was heading to overtime and if she didn’t log out, she’d be booted out, leaving her with a massive headache.”
“… she watches as a screen materializes itself above the casing, along with a keyboard. “Come on, come on,” she mutters, reaching the last stretch of the face of the building, waiting for the words she needed on the screen.”
The author’s use of visual details, while they were interesting and very much appreciated, the constant reiteration of “Pixel Dust” did get on my nerves. The readers aren’t as stupid as they seem, they can guess what happens when you’ve described it twice.
There are a couple of lines imbedded in the rest of the story that weren’t necessary and could have been worded in far better ways (Cough* I’m looking at you “A little later, although it wasn’t really that long” *cough), but for now I will go on to the overall story.
The world was interesting, I’d love to read more about the The Hack and the people involved. First glance gave off an almost Matrix feel to it. When I wasn’t glaring at grammar errors, I was genuinely wanting to know more about the world, the setting and Alex herself. It had a nice feel to it and she was a likeable character. The one thing that bugged me was the death and how it played out. Perhaps this was the authors intention, perhaps she wanted to reiterate and point out how easily death can happen – but to me, it felt as if it were written “just cause” and it left me feeling pretty disappointed. It felt rushed and messy.
Taking all aspects of this story into account, I cannot submit this entry as a winner.
I give it 1.5/5 Stars.
The concept of Killing Alex was interesting; however, due to the sentence structure and grammatical errors in the writing I was constantly taken out of the world to scowl upon sentences that were too long, or simply just didn’t make sense.
I came across words like “Kinda” and “Must’ve” – and I cringed. I apologise, however, in reading Killing Alex I didn’t see cause to use such casual words. The story was in third person, so it wasn’t being told from her point of view. Personally I believe these kinds of words are only acceptable in instances of dialogue and a first person narration (and only if it’s within their discourse).
I got back into the story and it got rather interesting, but was ripped out once more when the absolute taboo of writing happened and the story crossed over from Past Tense into Present Tense. My apologies, but if there’s anything that gets to me, it’s the structure of the writing.
“Part way down the building, a tear shaped pendant round her neck started flashing out purple pulses of light, a warning, she was heading to overtime and if she didn’t log out, she’d be booted out, leaving her with a massive headache.”
“… she watches as a screen materializes itself above the casing, along with a keyboard. “Come on, come on,” she mutters, reaching the last stretch of the face of the building, waiting for the words she needed on the screen.”
The author’s use of visual details, while they were interesting and very much appreciated, the constant reiteration of “Pixel Dust” did get on my nerves. The readers aren’t as stupid as they seem, they can guess what happens when you’ve described it twice.
There are a couple of lines imbedded in the rest of the story that weren’t necessary and could have been worded in far better ways (Cough* I’m looking at you “A little later, although it wasn’t really that long” *cough), but for now I will go on to the overall story.
The world was interesting, I’d love to read more about the The Hack and the people involved. First glance gave off an almost Matrix feel to it. When I wasn’t glaring at grammar errors, I was genuinely wanting to know more about the world, the setting and Alex herself. It had a nice feel to it and she was a likeable character. The one thing that bugged me was the death and how it played out. Perhaps this was the authors intention, perhaps she wanted to reiterate and point out how easily death can happen – but to me, it felt as if it were written “just cause” and it left me feeling pretty disappointed. It felt rushed and messy.
Taking all aspects of this story into account, I cannot submit this entry as a winner.
I give it 1.5/5 Stars.
I chose this entry to review simply based on the name, it drew me in and after skimming over it, I wanted to know more. I’m not normally a big fan of slice of life kind of dramas; however, beautifully written and nicely played out, this entry won my heart and I couldn’t help but let out a small yelp of horror when he was so abruptly killed – scaring the hell out of my friend who was beside me.
Aside from one or two typos, this was nicely written and had a particular flow to it. The descriptions of the settings helped me to visualise exactly what was written and I saw the scene play out as if it were a short film. Not too long or too short, this was written with ease and the author clearly had a lot of care for this world and character.
I particularly enjoyed the almost near death experiences he had along the way, keeping me alert and attentive, wondering if this was really it. His background was easily slotted into the piece and didn’t feel like I was quickly jumping back and forth between a Character Sheet and an entry. It had purpose and made us like Ben a little more.
The rehab setting is a touchy subject; many people have seen the inside of one first hand or know someone who has. This piece was written in good taste and used all the correct terminology, it wasn’t insulting in the slightest; it was refreshing to see.
The first thing that made me frown was the back story of Ben’s killer. It stated that she wanted to kill everyone who was involved in her brother’s treatment, and had done so to several members of the staff. Clearly she had done that quietly, and clearly she wasn’t finished – so why such a bold move? Perhaps I misinterpreted, but it seemed like a little bit of a plot hole in an otherwise great entry.
This entry was a great read and I thoroughly enjoyed reading Ben’s final day (in the least morbid way possible). It made me want to read more about the girl’s brother and his treatment – it made me wonder what drove them to make the decision to let him out. It made me think, it stayed with me.
The only thing I didn’t like was the description of the aftermath – the grieving process of his family. To me it just didn’t seem necessary. Shakespeare’s greatest line in the history of all his works is, “He died.”
No fanfare or great metaphor, just the simple words. But… that’s just my opinion.
While this entry did not meet any of the secret bonus challenges, I would happily submit it as a winning entry.
I give this entry 4.5/5 stars.
Aside from one or two typos, this was nicely written and had a particular flow to it. The descriptions of the settings helped me to visualise exactly what was written and I saw the scene play out as if it were a short film. Not too long or too short, this was written with ease and the author clearly had a lot of care for this world and character.
I particularly enjoyed the almost near death experiences he had along the way, keeping me alert and attentive, wondering if this was really it. His background was easily slotted into the piece and didn’t feel like I was quickly jumping back and forth between a Character Sheet and an entry. It had purpose and made us like Ben a little more.
The rehab setting is a touchy subject; many people have seen the inside of one first hand or know someone who has. This piece was written in good taste and used all the correct terminology, it wasn’t insulting in the slightest; it was refreshing to see.
The first thing that made me frown was the back story of Ben’s killer. It stated that she wanted to kill everyone who was involved in her brother’s treatment, and had done so to several members of the staff. Clearly she had done that quietly, and clearly she wasn’t finished – so why such a bold move? Perhaps I misinterpreted, but it seemed like a little bit of a plot hole in an otherwise great entry.
This entry was a great read and I thoroughly enjoyed reading Ben’s final day (in the least morbid way possible). It made me want to read more about the girl’s brother and his treatment – it made me wonder what drove them to make the decision to let him out. It made me think, it stayed with me.
The only thing I didn’t like was the description of the aftermath – the grieving process of his family. To me it just didn’t seem necessary. Shakespeare’s greatest line in the history of all his works is, “He died.”
No fanfare or great metaphor, just the simple words. But… that’s just my opinion.
While this entry did not meet any of the secret bonus challenges, I would happily submit it as a winning entry.
I give this entry 4.5/5 stars.
I chose this entry to review based, once again, on the name. The Deaths of Emia Illervin – plural. It sounded interesting, and the length suggested that it had a great deal of potential. So I grabbed it, and took a read.
The first thing I will say is this: if you’re going to write such a lengthy entry, do it in such a way that it flows nicely and makes the reader want to finish. I printed this story out in order to read easier, and even this provided little help.
A great story, with great potential. I loved the deaths of both Emia and Ayuna – they were great. The world was brilliant, the story was sound – the author created quite the entry. However, between the impractical sentence structure, the confusion between the names and who’s who; and then there was breaking the fourth wall.
“Apologies for confusion in the future about which girl is referenced to. "Ayuna" will refer to the body of Furimio Ayuna, inhabited by Eima Illervin. "Eima" will refer to the body of Eima Illervin, inhabited by Furimio Ayuna.”
This matter wasn’t cleared up until three pages in, and by that stage – I was so confused that I had almost lost interest all together.
I pushed on, and as stated earlier – once you push through the sentence structure, the grammar errors and all of the confusion along with it, you have a story full of action, suspense and drama. However, it is not sound enough to pass all the criteria.
Unfortunately, I cannot submit this piece as a winning entry. It is such a shame – however, it is too busy and confusing for the readers to get a good grasp of the story.
I give this entry 2/5 stars.
The first thing I will say is this: if you’re going to write such a lengthy entry, do it in such a way that it flows nicely and makes the reader want to finish. I printed this story out in order to read easier, and even this provided little help.
A great story, with great potential. I loved the deaths of both Emia and Ayuna – they were great. The world was brilliant, the story was sound – the author created quite the entry. However, between the impractical sentence structure, the confusion between the names and who’s who; and then there was breaking the fourth wall.
“Apologies for confusion in the future about which girl is referenced to. "Ayuna" will refer to the body of Furimio Ayuna, inhabited by Eima Illervin. "Eima" will refer to the body of Eima Illervin, inhabited by Furimio Ayuna.”
This matter wasn’t cleared up until three pages in, and by that stage – I was so confused that I had almost lost interest all together.
I pushed on, and as stated earlier – once you push through the sentence structure, the grammar errors and all of the confusion along with it, you have a story full of action, suspense and drama. However, it is not sound enough to pass all the criteria.
Unfortunately, I cannot submit this piece as a winning entry. It is such a shame – however, it is too busy and confusing for the readers to get a good grasp of the story.
I give this entry 2/5 stars.
I'll get the important bits out of the way first.
Congrats, you're a winner. No bonus prizes though.
What I Disliked: If we're being honest, your sentence structure is awkward, and the manner and words you use to describe everything gives an overall flat impression. More attention to detail and a little bit of extra consideration for word choice and structure would have made the entire piece better. Your use of the third narrative combined with a few incorrect uses of tense is distracting. The fight between Nicholas and the monsters at the beginning was boring and entirely unengaging. The fight between Nicholas and Daishuryou was much more interesting in contrast, despite its brevity and the strange use of verbs, but only because of the descriptive elements. When it came to actually telling the readers what exact action both parties were taking, it felt like you were choosing the most uninteresting combination of words possible in order to do so.
Suggestions: Your use of the third person narrative throughout the piece was employed rather haphazardly. I came away with the impression it was your first time using it, which for all I know is not the case. Just from looking at the recounting of Nicholas' previous deaths, I could tell that if you had used the first person and just told us the exact same story directly from his point of view, there would have been a remarkable overall improvement. You may also want to work on your verb choices and overall sentence structure. A good place to start would be here.
What I Liked: Although I came close to tossing this entry out due to the manner in which it was written, by the end it did exactly what I had asked for. Nicholas Santos is a character who has already experienced and come back from death twice. His attempts to move forward meaningfully not only get him killed for good, but also successfully conveyed that had it not been for his own hubris he may have actually contributed to the battle. Not only did you kill off your character in an unpleasant fashion, but you also killed them off in a manner which enunciated the wasted potential. You brought about the reality that coming back to life twice and having a set of really snazzy glasses did not make him invincible. Nicholas' final wail of anguish right before The Nothing After Death in particular illustrated the exact point I was hoping a few people would get in pursuing this challenge.
Congrats, you're a winner. No bonus prizes though.
What I Disliked: If we're being honest, your sentence structure is awkward, and the manner and words you use to describe everything gives an overall flat impression. More attention to detail and a little bit of extra consideration for word choice and structure would have made the entire piece better. Your use of the third narrative combined with a few incorrect uses of tense is distracting. The fight between Nicholas and the monsters at the beginning was boring and entirely unengaging. The fight between Nicholas and Daishuryou was much more interesting in contrast, despite its brevity and the strange use of verbs, but only because of the descriptive elements. When it came to actually telling the readers what exact action both parties were taking, it felt like you were choosing the most uninteresting combination of words possible in order to do so.
Suggestions: Your use of the third person narrative throughout the piece was employed rather haphazardly. I came away with the impression it was your first time using it, which for all I know is not the case. Just from looking at the recounting of Nicholas' previous deaths, I could tell that if you had used the first person and just told us the exact same story directly from his point of view, there would have been a remarkable overall improvement. You may also want to work on your verb choices and overall sentence structure. A good place to start would be here.
Before he could put the glasses on, however, Daishuryou blasted a bolt of green lightning at the glasses, breaking them.
What I Liked: Although I came close to tossing this entry out due to the manner in which it was written, by the end it did exactly what I had asked for. Nicholas Santos is a character who has already experienced and come back from death twice. His attempts to move forward meaningfully not only get him killed for good, but also successfully conveyed that had it not been for his own hubris he may have actually contributed to the battle. Not only did you kill off your character in an unpleasant fashion, but you also killed them off in a manner which enunciated the wasted potential. You brought about the reality that coming back to life twice and having a set of really snazzy glasses did not make him invincible. Nicholas' final wail of anguish right before The Nothing After Death in particular illustrated the exact point I was hoping a few people would get in pursuing this challenge.
@mdk, I'll give it to you straight: I read every single entry, and yours was second to worst. You have failed the First Labour.
I struggled for a long time deciding whether or not I should count or throw out the entirely out of place and inappropriate expository setup. On one hand, it might have provided important context to an otherwise lacking and dangerously short entry. On the other, the expository segment itself could serve as the in-house example of literally wasted effort - you went to all the trouble to spell that out to us, when you could have spent the same amount of time and effort writing the actual story. You even directly point out in the last line of said segment that it is not actually part of your entry.
Then I came to the realization that your entry failed either way. Either you have a high quality gem that doesn't have any contour, or else you have a roughshod discount bin of pulp with a tiny pearl hidden at the bottom. Neither is acceptable.
And it's a shame, because the actual content you bothered to submit was beautifully descriptive. The only immediate thing I can thing of that would improve on it would be the occasional line break. It is transparently clear that you have an exceptional grasp of grammar, efficacious descriptive tone, and imagery. If you had taken that, and written it out as an extended hospital scene of sorts, it probably would have killed (literally and figuratively). You said in the OOC, that if you had started to write it out even further you wouldn't have been able to stop. Nevermind that I would have taken your whole book as a submission, but you could have simply, easily, written out a single-setting scene in the hospital - perhaps them arriving in a rush - providing basic and elementary context as you went with character observations, thoughts, and commentary. The reason I am painfully forced to stamp it with a fail on its own is, ironically, because you fail to provide any kind of overarching narrative framework or context. Refer to what @PlatinumSkink said in their own review. The piece is well written, but tragically incomplete.
Without the massive eyesore that ruins the piece, the entry does not have enough information to stand on its own. With the massive eyesore that ruins the piece, the overall quality drops off drastically.
I don't care if you almost wrote a book with this material. If you had submitted the book, I would have taken the book, I would have read it, and THAT might have actually cleared the challenge. I said I would take entries of any length, and so I cannot help but feel that perhaps you were not exactly taking the challenge seriously.
When I first read that you would be participating, I was expecting much better than this. I have no doubt you're an excellent writer. It is a shame that we did not get to see you at your best.
I struggled for a long time deciding whether or not I should count or throw out the entirely out of place and inappropriate expository setup. On one hand, it might have provided important context to an otherwise lacking and dangerously short entry. On the other, the expository segment itself could serve as the in-house example of literally wasted effort - you went to all the trouble to spell that out to us, when you could have spent the same amount of time and effort writing the actual story. You even directly point out in the last line of said segment that it is not actually part of your entry.
Then I came to the realization that your entry failed either way. Either you have a high quality gem that doesn't have any contour, or else you have a roughshod discount bin of pulp with a tiny pearl hidden at the bottom. Neither is acceptable.
And it's a shame, because the actual content you bothered to submit was beautifully descriptive. The only immediate thing I can thing of that would improve on it would be the occasional line break. It is transparently clear that you have an exceptional grasp of grammar, efficacious descriptive tone, and imagery. If you had taken that, and written it out as an extended hospital scene of sorts, it probably would have killed (literally and figuratively). You said in the OOC, that if you had started to write it out even further you wouldn't have been able to stop. Nevermind that I would have taken your whole book as a submission, but you could have simply, easily, written out a single-setting scene in the hospital - perhaps them arriving in a rush - providing basic and elementary context as you went with character observations, thoughts, and commentary. The reason I am painfully forced to stamp it with a fail on its own is, ironically, because you fail to provide any kind of overarching narrative framework or context. Refer to what @PlatinumSkink said in their own review. The piece is well written, but tragically incomplete.
Without the massive eyesore that ruins the piece, the entry does not have enough information to stand on its own. With the massive eyesore that ruins the piece, the overall quality drops off drastically.
I don't care if you almost wrote a book with this material. If you had submitted the book, I would have taken the book, I would have read it, and THAT might have actually cleared the challenge. I said I would take entries of any length, and so I cannot help but feel that perhaps you were not exactly taking the challenge seriously.
When I first read that you would be participating, I was expecting much better than this. I have no doubt you're an excellent writer. It is a shame that we did not get to see you at your best.
Congratulations are in order, @RomanAria.
What I Did Not Like: A few more line breaks would not have hurt. The whole thing seems unnecessarily staggered in order to artificially produce and prolong tension, and the way you frame dialogue is sloppy. The section where they kill The Master seems like it could have been cut out entirely without changing anything else, and makes me wonder what the point of it was (perhaps we're missing some context here). There are a few descriptive segments where your grammar breaks down a slightly and your sentences trail on. My biggest complaint is perhaps that you are too good at describing h ow drunk-punch Peter is, and skim on describing the actual nature of his feelings and pain. If you wanted to convey how extremely beat up and numb he was, good job, but that was nearly the only thing that made it through.
Suggestions:While the manner in which you staggered the dialogue and flashbacks, it appears you were going for a deliberate shatterpoint at the end. However, the piece would probably benefit more from finding a way to weave the dialogue smoothly into the rest of the narrative. There's no reason you cannot have characters speaking as a lead-in or out on a longer descriptive or expository paragraph, as long as you do so properly. Failing that: Line breaks. Also, think in more visceral terms for conveying variations of pain and suffering. The extremely disconcerting viewpoint you gave us perfectly conveys how Peter has four concussions and puree for brains, but I feel there are lost opportunities for describing anguish therein.
What I Liked: I rather liked how the story was as much about Peter's coterie dying horribly as much as it was about him dying horribly. You seem to have selectively deemphasized and softened his extinction by emphasizing the relationships he had with all these other people who were brutally slaughtered. I feel as though most people would be able to feel at least a hint of remorse for him, understanding the bond he had with the other coffin stuffers and bullet catchers. The character who gets perhaps the most spotlight, Aery, is the first to die, and that moment serves as an unexpected source of emotional catalyst, both in providing drive to Peter and the others as well as setting him up with an even greater burden then failure and death would normally bring. You got excellent mileage out of the strategic placement and timing of the flashbacks, the order in which the characters died, and Peter's own partially incoherent conscious perspective.
What I Did Not Like: A few more line breaks would not have hurt. The whole thing seems unnecessarily staggered in order to artificially produce and prolong tension, and the way you frame dialogue is sloppy. The section where they kill The Master seems like it could have been cut out entirely without changing anything else, and makes me wonder what the point of it was (perhaps we're missing some context here). There are a few descriptive segments where your grammar breaks down a slightly and your sentences trail on. My biggest complaint is perhaps that you are too good at describing h ow drunk-punch Peter is, and skim on describing the actual nature of his feelings and pain. If you wanted to convey how extremely beat up and numb he was, good job, but that was nearly the only thing that made it through.
Suggestions:While the manner in which you staggered the dialogue and flashbacks, it appears you were going for a deliberate shatterpoint at the end. However, the piece would probably benefit more from finding a way to weave the dialogue smoothly into the rest of the narrative. There's no reason you cannot have characters speaking as a lead-in or out on a longer descriptive or expository paragraph, as long as you do so properly. Failing that: Line breaks. Also, think in more visceral terms for conveying variations of pain and suffering. The extremely disconcerting viewpoint you gave us perfectly conveys how Peter has four concussions and puree for brains, but I feel there are lost opportunities for describing anguish therein.
What I Liked: I rather liked how the story was as much about Peter's coterie dying horribly as much as it was about him dying horribly. You seem to have selectively deemphasized and softened his extinction by emphasizing the relationships he had with all these other people who were brutally slaughtered. I feel as though most people would be able to feel at least a hint of remorse for him, understanding the bond he had with the other coffin stuffers and bullet catchers. The character who gets perhaps the most spotlight, Aery, is the first to die, and that moment serves as an unexpected source of emotional catalyst, both in providing drive to Peter and the others as well as setting him up with an even greater burden then failure and death would normally bring. You got excellent mileage out of the strategic placement and timing of the flashbacks, the order in which the characters died, and Peter's own partially incoherent conscious perspective.