How do people feel about the complexity of the posts?

[shorestar]

Hm. Maybe I'm crazy, then! And don't worry Sycamore, I will respond to you but I fear that you have taken me rather awry and I don't have time to respond at length atm.

[Opal]

That's correct, one vote per IP address (except for those rare cases of two people sharing a computer, of course, but I know who they are). I can certainly announce it at the beginning of the week, though like I said, sometimes things happen and the dates might have to be changed a little. I try to keep them on schedule as much as possible though.

[Sparrowhawk]

Some just don't go for the "Omniscient First Person View" I think it's called. Whatever it is where it's first person through a third person lens.

would that be third person limited? Because in first person generally the narrator doesn't know the thoughts of other characters or have access to any other information other than what they can experience or know for themselves. And omniscient is when the narrator has the ability to know... well, anything. I think.

[Damask the Minstrel]

Well... it's not quite the same as 3rd limited. In that, it's a third-person narrator that only knows one person's thoughts. In 3rd omniscient you know everyone's thoughts. In 1st, she's the narrator.

Eliza's is a mix of 3rd limited and 1st.

[Sparrowhawk]

Third person and first person can be mixed? Really?

Educate meee I am such a plebe~

SO basically even though a character's interior is exclusively presented in third person limited, they still aren't technically considered the narrator since some, well, "third person" is telling us what they're doing. Am I right so far?

[Damask the Minstrel]

Yes. Which is why it is technically third-person limited. However, what makes hers unique is that her thoughts are inserted to the narrative voice without an offset  (like italics).

[shorestar]

Shorey, forgive me if I misinterpreted what you are trying to get across, but I don't think its fair to dock writers based on their style. Some just don't go for the "Omniscient First Person View" I think it's called. Whatever it is where it's first person through a third person lens. Revel's writing - I'll just say that.

...

Point is, I'm getting the impression that you're telling these kids how to write, and that's silly. You like your authors and you can feel miffed when they're voted off, but I wouldn't poo-poo the others because it's different from what you want to see.

First off, I want to be clear - I am not trying to dictate a specific writing format or a specific style. Third person limited or omniscient makes no difference to me. If people want to interject their character's actual thoughts in first person into the text, or if they'd care to describe the thought process... I consider neither necessary.

What I meant to espouse was simply this, no more and no less:

We, the audience, are judging the contestants in this contest on two things: their writing ability and their character. Contestants who work to develop these both in concert are much stronger contestants than those who treat them as separate and unrelated elements.

I do not feel I am "telling anyone how to write." There are a huge variety of ways you can use your writing to complement your character and vice versa.

Even without explicitly going into what a character is thinking at all, you can bring the audience to identify with them better by careful choice of descriptive words and metaphor. Let's take an example: a scene opens with thunder echoing. If your character is a soldier, it might roll across the landscape like the sound of an onrushing horde. If a musician, it might be described as an ominous percussion. If a baker, it might clatter like pans dropped on a kitchen floor.

Additionally, authors want to think very carefully about how characters would perceive the situation and how they would talk. If a character feels like someone is treating them as one who doesn't know anything, how do they feel like they are being treated? Like a dibbun? A novice? A recruit? A raw beginner? A rank ameteur? An apprentice? Any of these would be valid word choices for different characters, and which is chosen will say much.

If Deadtail, for example, chose the word "dibbun" in that situation, it'd strike a lot of people as quite strange and out of character. Same with "apprentice" or "novice."  And yet I've seen similarly careless word choices from many of the writers.

I could easily go on and on about this topic. But I hope I've made my point?

As far as:

While some of the characters you mentioned might do a fine job in the get-to-know-me-through-my-prose department (I'm not trying to sound condescending), they might not do a very good job at progressing the plot. Not necessarily being unable to get it done, but unable to do it in an effective manner. I don't know if I should give examples, so I won't unless asked.

I think I should simply say that it's evident that you and I have very different conceptions of what constitutes plot, and thus we'll have very different conceptions of who is doing the best job at progressing it. I'm not sure either of us is likely to bring the other around. :)

The one thing I will say is that I think some characters you feel have been "moving the plot forward well" have necessitated a large amount of movement/action from the way they wrote their posts.  A lot of the action so far (for example, describing what took place on board the boat) could have easily been skipped or glossed over. I'm not saying it should have been - it was fine to detail it a bit - but it could have been, easily.

[Rath the Whirlwind]

If a character feels like someone is treating them as one who doesn't know anything, how do they feel like they are being treated? Like a dibbun? A novice? A recruit? A raw beginner? A rank ameteur? An apprentice? Any of these would be valid word choices for different characters, and which is chosen will say much.

I can't help but feel that this is a jab at me, specifically.  Since I...used that, exactly.  I thought it was quite appropriate, and I would not change it.  *shrug*

[shorestar]

I can't help but feel that this is a jab at me, specifically.  Since I...used that, exactly.  I thought it was quite appropriate, and I would not change it.  *shrug*

I wasn't trying to make a "jab" at you. I spent a few minutes trying to think up a situation unrelated to something I noticed in anyone's post, and couldn't do so (it was a bit late). I didn't want to explicitly use you as an example, but, yes, I'm afraid I did so inexplicitly. I probably should have deleted the word "novice" from the choice list there, to make it even less obvious. My apologies.

Since I didn't, however...

Yes, your word choice there did strike me as odd and somewhat unintentional. Rath strikes me as a rough beast and he himself has said that fighting is more or less all he knows. The primary definition of "novice" is an initiate in a religious order such as an abbey or monestary. Can it be used to describe someone who is sort of generally new? Yes, but it can be used that way BECAUSE of its other definition. It's a somewhat "cultured" word, and there are other words to describe someone who is new. I would expect Venril to use the word novice, for example.

Let me be careful here - I'm not trying to chew you out. You know your character and I don't. Perhaps Rath knew an abbeybeast for some reason, and such a term would leap more readily to mind. Perhaps he's not quite as rough and uncultured as he seems, for some other reason.

What's more, the reason I chose to use the example from your post when I was having trouble thinking of one unrelated to anyone's is because I don't consider you the "worst" in this regard.

Everyone will make slightly strange word choices occasionally. I wouldn't even call them individual errors in and of themselves. But they do have a subtle impact on reader perception and either making a lot of strange word choices or making a lot of suitable word choices is the kind of thing that will have an impact as they accumulate.

[Damask the Minstrel]

Well, to nitpick:

"Novice

1. An inexperienced person; a person who is new to the circumstances in which he or she is placed; a beginner, a learner." (The Oxford English Dictionary)

In the context of Redwall, however, you present a good point, that 'novice' has the connotation of a beginner within a religious order, in this case, Redwall Abbey.

However, in the larger sense of things, that is a valid argument: that narrator word choice helps color the character, and can enhance the experience for the reader.

[shorestar]

Okay, fair enough. "Primary" was a poor/somewhat inaccurate word choice on my part. :)

Still, as you implied, I think if you replace "primary" with "major" my point still stands.

[Rath the Whirlwind]

Hrm.  Well, I feel rather sheepish.  Admittedly, I had meant the standard definition as Damask had said, and, personally, I wouldn't have associated it with a religious order until you mentioned it.  That really is no excuse, though, and if I had really done the research on the word before picking it, I might very well have found such an objection and changed it.  Ah well, live and learn I guess.  At least it isn't completely out of line.

[Sycamore]

Shorey, again, let me start off by apologizing about my misinterpretation. It seems I didn't quite understand your intentions through a lost in translation due to text, and leapt to a defense that was unwarranted. However, you raise a few points I wish to discuss further, if that's all right with you. I don't want to beat a dead horse however, so I'll only continued the discussion if there is still interest.

However, I do wish to bring this up:

I think I should simply say that it's evident that you and I have very different conceptions of what constitutes plot, and thus we'll have very different conceptions of who is doing the best job at progressing it. I'm not sure either of us is likely to bring the other around. :)

The one thing I will say is that I think some characters you feel have been "moving the plot forward well" have necessitated a large amount of movement/action from the way they wrote their posts.  A lot of the action so far (for example, describing what took place on board the boat) could have easily been skipped or glossed over. I'm not saying it should have been - it was fine to detail it a bit - but it could have been, easily.

I don't think I quite understand what you mean here. I feel I have an idea, but I'm not confident enough to jump to a conclusion. Could you perhaps provide an example or two?

It's probably right what you say about your idea of plot and mine. I think this was said elsewhere, but as an avid video game player, plot progression when it comes to a video game is what I'm used to (and probably expect), but I understand that a lot of plot can occur in the span of a few seconds within a thousand or so words, when the focus is solely on character development.

[shorestar]

Apology accepted. ^_^

The one thing I will say is that I think some characters you feel have been "moving the plot forward well" have necessitated a large amount of movement/action from the way they wrote their posts.  A lot of the action so far (for example, describing what took place on board the boat) could have easily been skipped or glossed over. I'm not saying it should have been - it was fine to detail it a bit - but it could have been, easily.

Alright, here is what I mean... If a character, in their post, got everyone out of the town and onto the ship, I feel that you would likely credit them for "moving the plot forward well." I feel you would similarly credit them for posts about the boat journey progressing, the boat crashing, a post about Bellona/Damask/Deadtail's group traveling in that direction, etc.

However, the fact remains that the authors (either as individuals or as a whole) decided to make those posts needful.  I know there was a lot of concern from some of the authors about a week's worth of flashbacks, but it's not like there haven't been a few flashbacks anyway. And it's not like flashbacks are the only way to share background information.

For example, let's set up a different hypothetical first post...

Eliza posts first, hideously seasick. Her relatives booked passage for her on this terrible boat, which is dropping off some nasty military types (not at all like the gallant sort she's used to hobnobbing with) on some hideous mission for a local Baron before continuing on to a southern city. She's on her way to see the doctor in this southern city, because she thinks he may be able to keep her injuries from leaving permanent scars. At the end of her post, we get the shipwreck.

Who needs flashbacks?
Not Venril - he's been set up. Not Rath, Revel, or Keane... a simple sentence or two would suffice. Since their apps had set them up as leaving everything they knew, the idea that they signed on with this boat is not unbelievable in the slightest, especially as Keane could be another passenger heading for this southern city, thinking it might be a good place to set up temporary shop for a while. Deadtail could stretch a little and claim to have snuck away from the horde where he'd been certain his death was imminent to join up on the boat, thinking it'd be easy. His post could open with him struggling to avoid drowning, cursing his idiocy... That could have been funny. :) Suellyn, Bellona, and Damask would have to find a different way of getting down there, but that's certainly possible.

And there're many other ways they could have done this. I suggested one just to illustrate that it was possible.

Now, I'm not saying "Look at me, I'm so smart, this is what the authors SHOULD have done!" What I'm saying is that the authors did not have to start themselves so far away from the setting of the story. Doing so was a viable choice, certainly, and you can definitely have a good story either way.

What I AM saying is that since I don't feel this additional action wasn't in any way necessary to the story, I'm not going to award bonus points to the authors that were the movers and shakers in it. If their writing is good, great! I will give them kudos and not try to kill them. But If their prose and imagery is lackluster, greater participation in this superfluous scurrying-about will not win me to their side.

Does that make sense?

[Cairn Destop]

Remaining on Week One is now a moot point.  We all know who died and we all have our opinions regarding the story in general and the specific authors.  To quote, we are beating a dead horse.

Now it is Week Two and the readers are wondering who is guiding the story and who is tagging along?  Which character revealed more about themselves and which remain a mystery to the readers?  And most important, which strategy worked best?