Fortnightly Writing Competition: THE OTHER SIDE (Results)

[Baron]

Well it looks as if many of our external voters were scared off by the days long slog through the undergrowth.    This is a pity, for both stories had their merits. 

Much has been made of the descriptive language in Sinitrena's work, so I won't dwell on that (although, having spent quite a bit of time in forests, there wouldn't be many branches or undergrowth if it were truly that dark on the forest floor  )  More compelling for me was the attempt at conveying the fruitlessness of conflict from the different perspectives of people who were unwillingly caught up in it.  In the tangled roots and cold rock obstacles I see metaphors for twisted relationships and hard choices that lead good people to bad places, just as the random fury of the weather alludes to the destructive power of war.  For me the premise of the lost kingdom wedged between two warring countries was intriguing, and unlike Tamis I found the politics fascinating (although I would liked to have heard more of Narea's internal factions).  The journeys of the respective main characters were gruellingly symbolic, but I think needlessly long in the format of a short story.  In a longer piece, where we get more invested in the characters, I think it could work, however.  Some proof-reading and editing could definitely have helped this story along.  But I loved the messaging, and the feeling of other-worldliness was palpable.

As for Stupandle's story, I myself couldn't identify the seams at which the monster was stitched together.  There were some pacing issues (although fewer than I would expect from a kitchen with two chefs), including a somewhat random feeling PTSD breakdown (although this made much more sense given Lucy's obvious mental unwellness by the end) and the introduction of a myriad of characters that basically all ended up being the same character.  There were some logistical challenges that I had to get over - where does all the gas come from for the ship after fifty years at sea?  And where did they get all the green orb ammo?  Did they ever think of... sailing elsewhere other than the cliff face in fifty years?  So it must have all just been in Lucy's head: the fact that the monsters only came for Lucy made me think that the alcoholism that felled her uncle was trying to drown her too, which was mostly confirmed by the neroses and paranoia she suffers from back in the real world (except apparently she was a junkie instead of an alcoholic, which I must have missed somewhere along the way).  But then all of this was turned on its head at the end by Ingrid's discovery, which makes it feel more like a Twilight Zone/X-Files episode.  In the end I thought the central message of the story (we drown by our own demons?) was somewhat lost in the horror-as-reality lens, but I really liked the feeling of otherness your through-the-looking-glass tunnel creates.

So, I guess I need to vote to decide a winner.  This is hard.  Both stories have really great premises, messaging, and a feeling of "the other side", but both also suffer from pacing and characterisation flaws that could be remedied in a longer format.  I hate to do this, but with the stories running neck-and-neck like this I think it has to come down to proofreading.  For me, Stupandle's piece was more readable due to their obvious efforts at editing.  I therefor declare that Stupandle is the winner!  May their fused torsos rule over us like some sort of human-arachnid created by doctor Frankenstein himself!

Thanks everyone for participating.  I look forward to seeing everyone out again for the next competition!

[Stupot]

Thanks for your feedback Baron, and thanks for your vote.

Under normal rules, the author of the story with most votes would set the next theme. But an unintended consequence of our project is that both Mandle and I would be ineligible to participate in the next contest, which would be a shame considering there are only a handful of regulars.

One option is for Mandle and myself to flip a coin to decide who gets to pick the theme and who gets to participate.

Another option is to just get ChatGPT or some random word generator to give us a theme so that we can all take part.

To be honest, with so few regulars, I think it's kind of silly not letting the topic setter join in the writing. I suppose there is the potential for some kind of unfair advantage, but I don't think that's really a problem here. In fact with MAGS, we don't bar the theme-setter from making a game, even though they might have had two weeks head start to think about it. I propose we get rid of that rule, if only to increase the number of stories by one. What does everyone think?

[Sinitrena]

To be honest, with so few regulars, I think it's kind of silly not letting the topic setter join in the writing. I suppose there is the potential for some kind of unfair advantage, but I don't think that's really a problem here. In fact with MAGS, we don't bar the theme-setter from making a game, even though they might have had two weeks head start to think about it. I propose we get rid of that rule, if only to increase the number of stories by one. What does everyone think?

I see your point, but a head-start or unfair advantage was never the problem with the theme-setter joining the competition.
The problem lies with the need of a neutral arbitrator. For example in case of a tie. MAGS never needs to ask this question, becasue MAGGS always has a neutral person - you - as the administrator. For MAGS, the role of theme-setter and competition administrator are seperate, so that it doesn't matter if the theme-setter enters.
Therefore, personally, I wouldn't mind if you two chose the theme together, but one of you takes over hosting duties, and only the one hosting doesn't enter.

Anyway, congratulations to Mandle and Stupot. Nice little cooperation.

[Stupot]

To be honest, with so few regulars, I think it's kind of silly not letting the topic setter join in the writing. I suppose there is the potential for some kind of unfair advantage, but I don't think that's really a problem here. In fact with MAGS, we don't bar the theme-setter from making a game, even though they might have had two weeks head start to think about it. I propose we get rid of that rule, if only to increase the number of stories by one. What does everyone think?

I see your point, but a head-start or unfair advantage was never the problem with the theme-setter joining the competition.
The problem lies with the need of a neutral arbitrator. For example in case of a tie. MAGS never needs to ask this question, becasue MAGGS always has a neutral person - you - as the administrator. For MAGS, the role of theme-setter and competition administrator are seperate, so that it doesn't matter if the theme-setter enters.
Therefore, personally, I wouldn't mind if you two chose the theme together, but one of you takes over hosting duties, and only the one hosting doesn't enter.

Anyway, congratulations to Mandle and Stupot. Nice little cooperation.

Yeah, you make a valid point about the difference between FWC and MAGS. There wouldn't be much need for a neutral arbitrator if we were able to settle on a voting system but with so few people there isn't a good solution for that.

We'll sort something out. Keep an eye out for the next theme, coming soon.

[Mandle]

How about we just use an online RNG to determine the winner in the case of ties? That way no need for a neutral arbiter and we can maybe get 4 stories each time which is more fun for reading AND for voting.

I believe there are plenty of 100% transparent RNGs online, or we could use a method that I have used in the past for forum games: Everyone picks a number and whoever gets the closest to the first number drawn in a chosen major lottery wins. The FWC I mean., They don't win the lottery.

[Baron]

While I'm all in favour of random victories, it does take away somewhat from the lustre of winning.  Also, at some point an RNG is going to produce a result favouring a person with a conflict of interest, which has bad optics. 

I propose that with (theoretically) more submission we could have a second round of voting with the field narrowed to two in the event of a tie, kind of like the French presidential system.  Or, just a standing rule that in the event of a tie the person to have administered a writing comp least recently wins automatically, just for the sake of variety and fairness.  This rule would favour new entrants, which might be an incentive to join in. 

Just my two cents.

[Sinitrena]

Even the best RNG generator needs someone to activate it, i.e. a human, i.e. a neutral person.
There are also other reasons why the winner of the last round should not enter the next, to avoid one person dominating the competition completely (that's obviously more theoratical than an actual concern, but still)

Besides, why do you want to change a working system? It does work, mainly. We always know exactly who organizes the next round, sets the theme, takes care of the voting process (no matter how exactly voting is done in any given round), and so on...
The only reason we have this discussion is a very rare exception this time, and there are easy solutions that don't change the whole system: either you two admin together or one does it alone. That's really not complicated.

[Stupot]

No, it isn't complicated. I just thought the unique situation gave me a chance to put forward an opinion I've had for a little while now that the topic setter should be able to join in the writing.

The way I see it, the idea that winning a round means you're not allowed to join in the next round feels more like a penalty than a prize. It's nice to win occasionally and it's a lovely treat to be able to choose the topic and make the thread and grant the obligatory extension request, but wouldn't you like to have the option to join in the writing too?

I see your point about not wanting one person to dominate by keep winning repeatedly but I don't think it's likely to happen very often, and even if somebody were lucky enough to have a good run of wins, should that not be celebrated?

[Baron]

I say we vote on it, using a newfangled voting system.