KactusPunch
Crown Sage
MarshalSolgriev
SkyeOfStars
princess
Zeroth...Though the land 'tis poisoned, it did rebuke and promise oblivion to the son of Zeus. Foreseeing his own destruction should he not heed, Hercules did then coax the fiends from that lake and thus rendered their evil out from the land of Stymphalos.
Those of you who have completed this task - to prophesize the inevitable requires naught but vision. To break fate and providence with naught but mortal fortitude is your power. You are hereby worthy of bearing the title...
Stymphalian Questor
Congratulations to the winning authors of the following stories:
-The Alchemist
-Black and White
-Of Monsters and Men by @Holmishire.
-Larry the Postman, which also won the Hallowed Pneuma Challenge Accolade (awarded by @Terminal).
-Shadows of a Kind by @Cruallassar, which also won the Hallowed Pneuma Challenge Accolade (awarded by @RyuHll).
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!
In a first for the Twelve Labours, two different entries submitted in the same contest have won a Challenge Accolade. Somebody is going to pay dearly for this. Probably me in the Final Hazard.
Blink Review
Writing Style: I liked the style very much. You did a good job at painting a picture of the characters as well as the settings and there were minimal to no grammar/writing errors that I could find. It was very well written.
Story Itself: I really liked the plot of the story. It was interesting and the story was told very well. I especially enjoyed the differentiation in the characters and the similarities/differences in their avatars. Of course, gaming styled action makes that easy, but I still liked it particularly. That being said, it did have a few issues. My main concern was not knowing enough about the characters themselves. While Sloth was delved into a lot more deeply, I found that Ana had, more or less, untapped potential as a character.
Fifth Labor Parameters: I questioned whether or not the main character was a paragon of anything since I did not see anything particularly that she stood for. That could be argued, I suppose, but regardless there was one part of the parameters that I know was not met. “Should your chosen character betray their nemesis, reward their fortitude with unfettered destruction. If the nemesis should betray your character, return the victim's mercy by saving both of them.” While your chosen hero stuck through to the end with her nemesis, she was still defeated by her nemesis and did not really get anything out of the alliance itself.
Overall Verdict: While I enjoyed the story, I cannot pass it due to the parameters of the Fifth Labor not being met to its fullest.
The Alchemist
Writing Style: The writing style wasn't terrible. There were a few grammar mistakes along with some typos or mispelled words. There were also a few awkward sentences. Most of these were rather minor, like spelling “diverse” as “divers” in the first paragraph. I'm sure it was just a typo, but it wasn't the only example of that which I saw. However, all in all, the story was well written. It could just serve to re-read your work a bit more closely, possibly reading it outloud to catch more awkward sentences quicker.
Story: The story was very good. I loved the characters introduced and the difference between the two sisters. It was nice to see the diversity and the care you took to introduce so many different cultures, even if their part was brief in the story itself. More importantly than that, though, it hooked me in rather quickly and kept my attention for the duration of the story. That being said, it isn't without its flaws, of course. Most notably that comes to my mind is how rushed the story is. I liked it for what it was, but it definitely seems like a small part of a large story. It would serve the story well to expand on the idea you already have set and I personally would love to see that finished product, if you ever pursued it.
Sixth Labor Parameters: You had a clearly set paragon in the King's Knight that upheld the law along with her nemesis, the thief sister. The betrayal was somewhat expected, but it served the story well with how both were spared. The parameters were met excellently, from my point of view.
Overall Verdict: The story could definitely use some work, but it has cleared the challenge and won the Fifth Labor.
Fool's Dilemma Review
Writing Style: To be honest, I had a little bit of trouble getting through the writing itself. It wasn't terrible, but it could use a lot of polishing. There were spelling and grammar errors, though there weren't an overwhelming amount of them. The biggest issue I had was that part of the writing were awkward and caused me to have to re-read it again. It wasn't unreadable, though.
Story: The story felt very rushed. It would have done much better as a longer story. Along with that, I can't say that I know much about the main characters. There was a little more depth to Roland, but Terran was largely unknown. The story would have benefited from a little more introspection on both of the characters. A lot of this story was telling rather than showing details throughout the plot. That being said, I would not say that I disliked the story. I liked the contrast of the protagonist and his nemesis. I thoroughly enjoyed the ending as well. The story could just use some polish to truly be fleshed out and some extra length to properly tell its story.
Sixth Labor Parameters: The story had its paragon of justice and its nemesis. I can't truly say that I saw him as a paragon since, from what little you revealed of the characters, he seemed more interested in revenge than justice. For the sake of argument, though, I'll not dispute that he simply wished to bring Terran to justice for crimes committed. True to the prompt, the hero met his destruction upon his betrayal and the nemesis escaped. So the parameters were met.
Overall Verdict: The story has cleared the challenge, but I cannot say that it won the Sixth Labor. I would still like to stress that this isn't a bad story, I still enjoyed it a lot. It could just use a lot of work to spruce it up.
Shadows of a Kind
Writing Style: The writing style was fantastic. There were very few spelling and grammar errors to speak of and you did a beautiful job of painting a picture through your writing. I could envision what was happening perfecty throughout your story. I don't really have anything to contribute to this one since I wasn't able to catch any specific errors in the writing style.
Story: The story was fascinating and kept me hooked from start to finish. You had very interesting characters and, despite it being a short story, I felt that I understood the characters well through the exposition you included. The plot itself was interesting as well, the journey showing more of their sharp contrast to each other. Between the interesting characters and the journey the two went on, the story was wonderfully done here.
Sixth Labor Parameters: Assuming that the Shadow Ranger was the paragon in this story, it met the parameters spectacularly, his nemesis betraying him and both surviving to fight another day.
Overall Verdict: This story has cleared the challenge and won the Sixth Labor.
Firstly I will say that this story impressed me with its wonderfully descriptive and sophisticated wording. Every scene was clearly and brilliantly illustrated, and I was easily able to visualize each element of the story (with one exception of note which I shall return to shortly). Your story captured the imagery of an awe-filled enchanted forest filled with esoteric monsters and the struggles of a young girl beautifully.
Which is why it is such a shame that the narrative is atrociously assembled and each passage riddled with awkward structural grammar.
With narrative tone, you switch between perspectives without regard for clarity of identification. Here are a few offending passages for demonstration:
The narrative is unsettled, trying to be Sapphire, Kagami, AND the storyteller - all at the same time, without appropriately transitioning between perspective or giving the reader any kind of warning. The unchanging tone of the narrative across the whole story except for in these instances is extremely jarring. In the future, make sure you use appropriate transitions when shifting perspective.
In regards to grammar, I get the impression that most of the mistakes made are of the sort you either already know of and make infrequently, or else are caught during editing. Most of the errors are only made once in the story - the problem is the number and spread of them. There are errors of ambiguity, mismatched tenses, misused pronouns, etcetera. Most of these are of minor consequence, but they add up over the course of the story and distract from an otherwise entertaining read.
The most persistent problem, and therefore the area I recommend you work on, is your starts and stops. Every once and a while you will break off a sentence early on, only to then elaborate further in the next on the same object - creating a very stilted and wooden effect. Brevity is the soul of wit, but sometimes you simply need to write until as much as you need to. Something that might help is reading each passage aloud in order to determine if it sounds correct, in the way the words flow and the sentences connect to each other. You want to avoid stops that are too frequent, and the audible pause can help catch that where the soundless written medium might not. Similarly, this should help you catch most of the grammatical issues seen in the story.
Finally, use more line breaks and do not be afraid to divide sections into smaller paragraphs. You do not need to squash an entire scene into a whole lump; smaller sections are easier for readers to sort through and analyze. It is not uncommon for some writers to separate each individual line of dialogue between characters with line breaks, treating each verbalization as a paragraph. In addition to simply making the whole story neater, the practice might help to resolve any outstanding grammatical issues that might otherwise have been missed.
Beyond those two main issues, I have also have a bit of a problem with your presentation of information. Take the protagonist for example. When the story started, I had no idea what she looked like or even how old she was. We are not even provided with a description of Sapphire's appearance until we are well into the meat of the story, and are not even told how old she is until the eighth paragraph. When Kagami is introduced you immediately describe her appearance wholesale, which in retrospect would have been nice if it had also been done for the main character.
Additionally, while your scenes are very detailed in terms of imagery they sometimes contain contradictory or else superfluous information, or else omit critical details necessary to understanding the story.
Also, the chain. Just the chain. Where did it come from? Did it appear because of the book being thrown at Kagami? Was it because of the cloak? Why did it vanish at the end? Who knows! Not I!
Having sorted all of that out, we then come to the issue of the challenge parameters. The inexplicable functionality of the chain aside, it is clear that Sapphire needed Kagami in order to locate Lily, and Kagami is forced to accompany Sapphire due to the chain. Fair enough. However, there are three rather contentious points.
I do not think I agree with Sapphire's supposition. Regardless of the fact that Kagami is a malevolent, vampiric monster that hunts Humans of a particular lineage for the hell of it, ANY creature disguised as a Human - malevolent or benign for that matter - would likely act out of self preservation if nothing else in the same situation. Secondly, Kagami was under no obligation NOT to betray Sapphire. It is not like they traded blood oaths to do each other no harm. Kagami was even pretty open about the fact that she was going to try and kill Sapphire the very first chance she got, and the only reason she even traveled with Sapphire at all was because she was forced to via the inexplicable magic chain. Proceeding to act on her words is not betrayal, but is in fact the precise definition of keeping a promise. That Sapphire stood at risk of being killed via explosion due to Kagami lying is incidental.
You KILLED the nemesis off after their betrayal!
You could argue that Sapphire merely thought Kagami had wandered off and was going to die, but you had the burden of clearly illustrating that within the framework of the story without having to come in later and clarify the matter OOC.
Finally, perhaps the most significant issue is that I do not perceive Sapphire to be a Paragon. Innocent, perhaps. Good, in the sense that a child can be well-mannered. She is not demonstrably a virtuous exemplar of goodwill, nor observably righteous however. She could be, but that is a mere hypothetical. You had the burden of clearly illustrating those qualities in the protagonist, but did not.
Sad to say, but this submission does not adhere to the challenge parameters, and has fallen short of the standard of quality expected of good storytelling. Sapphire's Story has failed the Sixth Labour.
Which is why it is such a shame that the narrative is atrociously assembled and each passage riddled with awkward structural grammar.
With narrative tone, you switch between perspectives without regard for clarity of identification. Here are a few offending passages for demonstration:
Now his hair was greying, and after all the years of not working, his hands and the rest of his body became weak. You see, he hadn't worked much since he built the cabin. He didn't like going into the woods...
She wasn't supposed to be telling this to the random girl. Her clan would truly be disappointed in her. She was only a few years younger than the girl (although in her raw form she looked older), and yet she was bowing in submission? Unacceptable. She would have to kill the girl whenever this damned chain came off...
She turned, grumbling, to see a confused Kagami pressed up against an invisible wall, the chain pulling her along but the barrier not letting her through. I sighed. No spirits allowed. I looked around, and saw one of the stones with the fancy symbols. I pocketed it quickly, and Kagami fell forward, her golden eyes twinkling as she saw the house. Sapphire walked up the path, allowing Kagami to follow her.
"Which one of you is human!?" She yelled aggressively as she realized the reality of the situation.
"Me!" They both yelled at the same time. Sapphire stared at Kagami in disbelief. She was betraying her. She gave Sapphire an identical look, and looked over to Lily.
The narrative is unsettled, trying to be Sapphire, Kagami, AND the storyteller - all at the same time, without appropriately transitioning between perspective or giving the reader any kind of warning. The unchanging tone of the narrative across the whole story except for in these instances is extremely jarring. In the future, make sure you use appropriate transitions when shifting perspective.
In regards to grammar, I get the impression that most of the mistakes made are of the sort you either already know of and make infrequently, or else are caught during editing. Most of the errors are only made once in the story - the problem is the number and spread of them. There are errors of ambiguity, mismatched tenses, misused pronouns, etcetera. Most of these are of minor consequence, but they add up over the course of the story and distract from an otherwise entertaining read.
The most persistent problem, and therefore the area I recommend you work on, is your starts and stops. Every once and a while you will break off a sentence early on, only to then elaborate further in the next on the same object - creating a very stilted and wooden effect. Brevity is the soul of wit, but sometimes you simply need to write until as much as you need to. Something that might help is reading each passage aloud in order to determine if it sounds correct, in the way the words flow and the sentences connect to each other. You want to avoid stops that are too frequent, and the audible pause can help catch that where the soundless written medium might not. Similarly, this should help you catch most of the grammatical issues seen in the story.
Finally, use more line breaks and do not be afraid to divide sections into smaller paragraphs. You do not need to squash an entire scene into a whole lump; smaller sections are easier for readers to sort through and analyze. It is not uncommon for some writers to separate each individual line of dialogue between characters with line breaks, treating each verbalization as a paragraph. In addition to simply making the whole story neater, the practice might help to resolve any outstanding grammatical issues that might otherwise have been missed.
Beyond those two main issues, I have also have a bit of a problem with your presentation of information. Take the protagonist for example. When the story started, I had no idea what she looked like or even how old she was. We are not even provided with a description of Sapphire's appearance until we are well into the meat of the story, and are not even told how old she is until the eighth paragraph. When Kagami is introduced you immediately describe her appearance wholesale, which in retrospect would have been nice if it had also been done for the main character.
Additionally, while your scenes are very detailed in terms of imagery they sometimes contain contradictory or else superfluous information, or else omit critical details necessary to understanding the story.
Sapphire breathed deeply as she turned the page. She dropped the book as she read the words...The wolf growled, and Sapphire screamed, leaping up and throwing the book across the clearing as she tripped and fell...(Contradictory)
She had hair as black as the ashes of her fireplace, and eyes to match her name, deep blue like the oceans. (Which Sapphire had never seen before in her sheltered life.)...(Wholly irrelevant to everything)
Also, the chain. Just the chain. Where did it come from? Did it appear because of the book being thrown at Kagami? Was it because of the cloak? Why did it vanish at the end? Who knows! Not I!
Having sorted all of that out, we then come to the issue of the challenge parameters. The inexplicable functionality of the chain aside, it is clear that Sapphire needed Kagami in order to locate Lily, and Kagami is forced to accompany Sapphire due to the chain. Fair enough. However, there are three rather contentious points.
"Which one of you is human!?" She yelled aggressively as she realized the reality of the situation.
"Me!" They both yelled at the same time. Sapphire stared at Kagami in disbelief. She was betraying her. She gave Sapphire an identical look, and looked over to Lily.
I do not think I agree with Sapphire's supposition. Regardless of the fact that Kagami is a malevolent, vampiric monster that hunts Humans of a particular lineage for the hell of it, ANY creature disguised as a Human - malevolent or benign for that matter - would likely act out of self preservation if nothing else in the same situation. Secondly, Kagami was under no obligation NOT to betray Sapphire. It is not like they traded blood oaths to do each other no harm. Kagami was even pretty open about the fact that she was going to try and kill Sapphire the very first chance she got, and the only reason she even traveled with Sapphire at all was because she was forced to via the inexplicable magic chain. Proceeding to act on her words is not betrayal, but is in fact the precise definition of keeping a promise. That Sapphire stood at risk of being killed via explosion due to Kagami lying is incidental.
She looked to where Kagami had been, and saw an empty field. She was gone, blindly wandering the forest until she would eventually perish. It almost made Sapphire want to laugh.
You KILLED the nemesis off after their betrayal!
Q. What happens if the nemesis betrays my character?
A. An entertaining diversion, but both of them doubtlessly have other stories they need to make it to. Ensure that both of them get out of the ordeal alive, and that they remain free - no fates worse than death (this time). Feel free to cripple or maim them as you see fit however.
You could argue that Sapphire merely thought Kagami had wandered off and was going to die, but you had the burden of clearly illustrating that within the framework of the story without having to come in later and clarify the matter OOC.
Finally, perhaps the most significant issue is that I do not perceive Sapphire to be a Paragon. Innocent, perhaps. Good, in the sense that a child can be well-mannered. She is not demonstrably a virtuous exemplar of goodwill, nor observably righteous however. She could be, but that is a mere hypothetical. You had the burden of clearly illustrating those qualities in the protagonist, but did not.
Sad to say, but this submission does not adhere to the challenge parameters, and has fallen short of the standard of quality expected of good storytelling. Sapphire's Story has failed the Sixth Labour.
This story was rather straightforward.
There's nothing wrong with a straightforward story of course. The terms used may be simple, the setup perhaps not wholly original in its premise, the third act only a single paragraph long - but the story is neatly arranged, lacks any wholly criminal grammatical or structural errors (I spotted three or four minor typos), and the message is poignant and fitting given the setting. This submission is not exceptional in crafting, but does everything it needs to elegantly. I have no advice of note for you, because there is almost nothing in this entry that is done wrong. All I will say is that the content, subject material, and message seem to be far beneath your technical ability as a writer - and in that sense alone, I was disappointed.
So it should come as no surprise that the difficulty in judging this entry was due to the contention of whether or not it adhered to the challenge parameters. The conundrum is thus: If Drakon was to be escorted to the Jedi Council for judgment and Alu defied their orders in order to kill him while in-transit, then the story would clear the Labour. Slam dunk, no contest.
However, having carefully read and reread the story a dozen times and scrutinizing each word, there is no actual statement that such is the case - merely an unspoken insinuation. All we have is Drakon surrendering, and then being escorted to a hangar bay to be summarily executed along with the statement that the Jedi Order forbid the execution of prisoners.
That final detail - mentioned offhand by the way, both easy to miss and not count for the purposes of the contest parameters - is the single thread that saved the story. Black and White has passed the Labour, although notably its pants were torn off by the seat and are now flapping in the breeze from where they have been caught in the claws of shameful defeat.
If I were generous this would not even have been an issue. However, I have to adhere to the rules that I set out, and this is not the only submission that I considered failing for the Sixth Labour because the author did not clearly, unambiguously illustrate the situation. You had the burden of clearly stating the conditions of the story. You failed to do so. The only thing that saved you was a single [If X, then Y must be true] statement that had no prior mention and no further elaboration. The story passed not because you clearly laid out how it adhered to the challenge parameters, but merely because the inverse was ruled out as being true. Which would be technically profound and impressive if it were not apparent you did so completely by accident.
There's nothing wrong with a straightforward story of course. The terms used may be simple, the setup perhaps not wholly original in its premise, the third act only a single paragraph long - but the story is neatly arranged, lacks any wholly criminal grammatical or structural errors (I spotted three or four minor typos), and the message is poignant and fitting given the setting. This submission is not exceptional in crafting, but does everything it needs to elegantly. I have no advice of note for you, because there is almost nothing in this entry that is done wrong. All I will say is that the content, subject material, and message seem to be far beneath your technical ability as a writer - and in that sense alone, I was disappointed.
So it should come as no surprise that the difficulty in judging this entry was due to the contention of whether or not it adhered to the challenge parameters. The conundrum is thus: If Drakon was to be escorted to the Jedi Council for judgment and Alu defied their orders in order to kill him while in-transit, then the story would clear the Labour. Slam dunk, no contest.
However, having carefully read and reread the story a dozen times and scrutinizing each word, there is no actual statement that such is the case - merely an unspoken insinuation. All we have is Drakon surrendering, and then being escorted to a hangar bay to be summarily executed along with the statement that the Jedi Order forbid the execution of prisoners.
That final detail - mentioned offhand by the way, both easy to miss and not count for the purposes of the contest parameters - is the single thread that saved the story. Black and White has passed the Labour, although notably its pants were torn off by the seat and are now flapping in the breeze from where they have been caught in the claws of shameful defeat.
If I were generous this would not even have been an issue. However, I have to adhere to the rules that I set out, and this is not the only submission that I considered failing for the Sixth Labour because the author did not clearly, unambiguously illustrate the situation. You had the burden of clearly stating the conditions of the story. You failed to do so. The only thing that saved you was a single [If X, then Y must be true] statement that had no prior mention and no further elaboration. The story passed not because you clearly laid out how it adhered to the challenge parameters, but merely because the inverse was ruled out as being true. Which would be technically profound and impressive if it were not apparent you did so completely by accident.
One wonders what Stheno was up to in the meantime.
Once again, you leave me with little to remark upon in regards to your technical ability. We could probably use your prose to shave the husks from granules of sand.
My biggest criticism is the execution of the very last scene. Specifically the last paragraph. The ending seemed a bit barren - the hanger at the end in particular seemed like a wasted shot. Perhaps you could have shifted to Euryale's perspective for that last moment, given the readers either a better sense of closure or else really hammered home just how messed up the situation was? The experience of reading that line was neither inciting nor infuriating, it was merely perplexing. Expecting to find either a new path to explore or at least a stone wall to break my nose against, I instead find a revolving glass door that spits me out the way I came, leading nowhere.
Beyond that I will say that for as well written and interesting as the story is, it lacked any real sense of urgency. By urgency I do not mean the rush of high drama and the intensity of pitched battle scenes, but more the subtle and pervasive sense of immersion and absorption one experiences when one is caught up in the nature of the viewpoint character's actions and their setting. It may very well just be a subjective issue unique to me though; the moment in the story when I felt the greatest connection was the expository section, the very beginning when Melas is thinking to himself and sizing up his situation (I have nothing against Euryale, and enjoyed your presentation of her character). Perhaps it sort of primed my expectations in the wrong fashion? Perhaps I just like having things explained to me? Maybe that one section just happens to have more content at a higher density and so draws more interest?
That last point may have some merit. Comparing the first section to the others does reveal a higher information/narrative content by density. There's nothing wrong with any of them in any objective sense though, and there may be others who prefer them to the section at the start. Go figure. Clearly you have gotten good enough at winning these things that you do not need to worry quite so much as others - my advice would be to experiment more with general narrative setup/layout in future submissions.
Why, no, of course this is not a subtle attempt by me to undermine your chances of winning the Eighth Labour (which you were already going to fail anyway). Why ask?
Once again, you leave me with little to remark upon in regards to your technical ability. We could probably use your prose to shave the husks from granules of sand.
My biggest criticism is the execution of the very last scene. Specifically the last paragraph. The ending seemed a bit barren - the hanger at the end in particular seemed like a wasted shot. Perhaps you could have shifted to Euryale's perspective for that last moment, given the readers either a better sense of closure or else really hammered home just how messed up the situation was? The experience of reading that line was neither inciting nor infuriating, it was merely perplexing. Expecting to find either a new path to explore or at least a stone wall to break my nose against, I instead find a revolving glass door that spits me out the way I came, leading nowhere.
Beyond that I will say that for as well written and interesting as the story is, it lacked any real sense of urgency. By urgency I do not mean the rush of high drama and the intensity of pitched battle scenes, but more the subtle and pervasive sense of immersion and absorption one experiences when one is caught up in the nature of the viewpoint character's actions and their setting. It may very well just be a subjective issue unique to me though; the moment in the story when I felt the greatest connection was the expository section, the very beginning when Melas is thinking to himself and sizing up his situation (I have nothing against Euryale, and enjoyed your presentation of her character). Perhaps it sort of primed my expectations in the wrong fashion? Perhaps I just like having things explained to me? Maybe that one section just happens to have more content at a higher density and so draws more interest?
That last point may have some merit. Comparing the first section to the others does reveal a higher information/narrative content by density. There's nothing wrong with any of them in any objective sense though, and there may be others who prefer them to the section at the start. Go figure. Clearly you have gotten good enough at winning these things that you do not need to worry quite so much as others - my advice would be to experiment more with general narrative setup/layout in future submissions.
Why, no, of course this is not a subtle attempt by me to undermine your chances of winning the Eighth Labour (which you were already going to fail anyway). Why ask?
You promised me a sci-fi Western you filthy LIAR.
Liar though you may be, but this particular submission marks a first in the history of The Twelve Labours.
I could not find a single Motdamned typo. Or any other form of grammatical, structural, spelling, or formatting error. I am forced to declare with clenched fists and ground teeth that this entry is TECHNICALLY FLAWLESS IN COMPOSITION. You ASS.
Moreso than MERE technical perfection, the arrangement of paragraphs and sections here are also rather well arranged. While it is impossible for anybody to say that any particular configuration of narrative segments is objectively perfect, what you have here is nonetheless rather optimal.
I do have some advice for you, at the bottom of this review, but keep reading through the rest first.
Under normal circumstances this entry would be a SHOO-IN for a Challenge Accolade. Here's a quote that I send to volunteer judges regarding their distribution:
The problem here is that my volunteer judge already awarded an accolade to one of their entries at the time of this writing, and I clutch onto Challenge Accolades like Gluons cling to each other. Awarding more than one for a single Labour would be like saying there are two suns in the sky. In addition to being UNLIKELY it would also probably be a BARE-FACED LIE and if anybody other than myself had told me that I would have laughed in their face before burying an ice pick in it. It IS already bad enough that so many people win each Labour; I set this up expecting much higher rates of abject failure. I refuse to be made a mockery of by having people say that I have gone soft by handing out such a prestigious award TWICE IN the same contest.
So I went out of my way - far above and beyond the call of duty - to find any excuse. Any at all. To not give one to you.
The premise was simple: FAIL to be engaged by the story. It is about a MAILMAN and DOGS, there is a threshold on how engaging the mundane can be, this shall not be a trial.
The first and second times around DID NOT COUNT, obviously, and the third time around I was prepared. From an objective point of view your story MEANS NOTHING, and NOTHING HAPPENED, and also is BORING and STUPID and is also PROOF POSITIVE that the ACME OF SKILLED WRITING IS MAKING ALL OF THAT INTERESTING and clearly I had to try again. So I did. A bunch of times.
The number of Grace is 12. I hate you. You win. Take your stupid Challenge Accolade. Die in a flaming pit filled with spikes.
My advice to you: YOU NO LONGER HAVE ANYTHING TO PROVE. Experimentation with form is clearly BENEATH you now. Next time, write about something interesting. Like that Sci Fi Western you promised everyone.
Liar though you may be, but this particular submission marks a first in the history of The Twelve Labours.
I could not find a single Motdamned typo. Or any other form of grammatical, structural, spelling, or formatting error. I am forced to declare with clenched fists and ground teeth that this entry is TECHNICALLY FLAWLESS IN COMPOSITION. You ASS.
Moreso than MERE technical perfection, the arrangement of paragraphs and sections here are also rather well arranged. While it is impossible for anybody to say that any particular configuration of narrative segments is objectively perfect, what you have here is nonetheless rather optimal.
I do have some advice for you, at the bottom of this review, but keep reading through the rest first.
Under normal circumstances this entry would be a SHOO-IN for a Challenge Accolade. Here's a quote that I send to volunteer judges regarding their distribution:
Finally, the issue of Challenge Accolades. These are not intended to be easy to win. Set your bar to its highest setting when considering whether or not to hand one out. An entry that wins a Challenge Accolades should be close to perfect. A typo or two is fine, but by and large the story should be free of any kind of written error. Additionally, the story must be engaging. It is not enough to have cleared the challenge - when reading an entry, you should become absorbed by it, emotionally invested, intrigued. If the story is exceptionally well-written, but you feel nothing when reading it, then do not award it an accolade. Hypothetically you could award more than one of these, but I will be extremely skeptical if you decide to do so.
The problem here is that my volunteer judge already awarded an accolade to one of their entries at the time of this writing, and I clutch onto Challenge Accolades like Gluons cling to each other. Awarding more than one for a single Labour would be like saying there are two suns in the sky. In addition to being UNLIKELY it would also probably be a BARE-FACED LIE and if anybody other than myself had told me that I would have laughed in their face before burying an ice pick in it. It IS already bad enough that so many people win each Labour; I set this up expecting much higher rates of abject failure. I refuse to be made a mockery of by having people say that I have gone soft by handing out such a prestigious award TWICE IN the same contest.
So I went out of my way - far above and beyond the call of duty - to find any excuse. Any at all. To not give one to you.
The premise was simple: FAIL to be engaged by the story. It is about a MAILMAN and DOGS, there is a threshold on how engaging the mundane can be, this shall not be a trial.
The first and second times around DID NOT COUNT, obviously, and the third time around I was prepared. From an objective point of view your story MEANS NOTHING, and NOTHING HAPPENED, and also is BORING and STUPID and is also PROOF POSITIVE that the ACME OF SKILLED WRITING IS MAKING ALL OF THAT INTERESTING and clearly I had to try again. So I did. A bunch of times.
The number of Grace is 12. I hate you. You win. Take your stupid Challenge Accolade. Die in a flaming pit filled with spikes.
My advice to you: YOU NO LONGER HAVE ANYTHING TO PROVE. Experimentation with form is clearly BENEATH you now. Next time, write about something interesting. Like that Sci Fi Western you promised everyone.
