about how many will take part in this year's short story competition with no particular theme?
Replies
Hi, John!
I have no desire for you to be excluded from W&As competitions. And I wish you all the best in this one. I didn't take part in the Firewords one because I didn't have time. Also because nothing completely original was suggested to me by the prompt painting. Obviously the isolation of the lone figure in the vastness of... what?
The first runner-up saw a whale in those curving blue lines, and a child in the human figure. She wrote a story in which isolation played no role. Let me forestall your next reply: of course she wasn't obliged to see exactly what I saw. It was - in fact - an exercise in seeing different stories in the same abstract image.
.
No, my objection to her high placement was that she was praised for writing with the voice of a child when I felt that she'd botched the job.
If imagination and "thinking outside the box" were specifically asked for, should a story be ignored for TOO MUCH imagination and thinking WAY outside the box? Surely not... even if that story seems to be poking fun at the competition organisers or the prompt painting.
It's impossible to be 100% unbiased. But I'm going to TRY to set aside my affection for 2 of the competitors. I think that I can honestly say that Emilie's and Jimmy's stories each gave me more reading pleasure than the 3 winners combined. And as for thinking outside the box, I'd give them 100% and 80-90% respectively. And both have been highly praised by others here on shared works.
It is my HONEST opinion that neither was even CONSIDERED for shortlisting for fear of POSSIBLY offending the prompt painting's artist.
Just my opinion. But if works of art are to be ignored because they possibly offend those in power, we can throw Swift, Orwell, Picasso, and Beethoven out the window.
As a colleague of Wilhelmina, working together with her and Jummy [sic] on a compilation anthology, may I point out - as she did on that other Q&A linked to in her comment - that she would be perfectly happy to have NO prior conditions set on W&As competitions. Read her comment here again:
"EITHER make them open to all comers, whether registered users of the site or not OR restrict participation to those who have reached at least level 1 on this site: by being of SOME use to the rest of us."
I'm sure that she wouldn't object to the addition: or members who have been registered for at least a year prior to this competition.
Seeing that at least 20% of the shortlisted authors (including the first runner-up) went to the trouble of asking for their membership to be annulled within 3 weeks of the announcement of the winners, it is obvious that some people joined W&As ONLY in order to submit their stories. They had absolutely NO interest in any other aspects of the site.
Fine and good: It's a free world. (Cynical snort.)
If W&As wishes to include submissions from such writers, again: Fine and good. They have a perfect right to set whatever conditions they wish. The question remains: Why set a condition which serves no purpose? Why not simply declare an open competition? They'd save themselves some bureaucratic work. If 20% of the shortlisted authors resigned, how many others did so who didn't make the shortlist? Dealing with these on/off memberships must rob Admin of valuable time and energy... which might have been better employed in introducing improvements to the site that many of us have been calling for (for years now), and which Admin has repeatedly replied that they'll get around to WHEN they have time.
La Gr@not@ is only a shoestring publisher: less than 2 years old and with a part-time staff of 3. Yet we try to organise anthologies open to ALL comers. Since the profits from these anthologies go 100% to worthy causes, we neither offer juicy prizes nor take a salary for the time that we spend on them. We can therefore dedicate our time to editing, compiling, and layout. No memberships to approve or annul.
Hi, John!
I have no desire for you to be excluded from W&As competitions. And I wish you all the best in this one. I didn't take part in the Firewords one because I didn't have time. Also because nothing completely original was suggested to me by the prompt painting. Obviously the isolation of the lone figure in the vastness of... what?
The first runner-up saw a whale in those curving blue lines, and a child in the human figure. She wrote a story in which isolation played no role. Let me forestall your next reply: of course she wasn't obliged to see exactly what I saw. It was - in fact - an exercise in seeing different stories in the same abstract image.
.
No, my objection to her high placement was that she was praised for writing with the voice of a child when I felt that she'd botched the job.
If imagination and "thinking outside the box" were specifically asked for, should a story be ignored for TOO MUCH imagination and thinking WAY outside the box? Surely not... even if that story seems to be poking fun at the competition organisers or the prompt painting.
It's impossible to be 100% unbiased. But I'm going to TRY to set aside my affection for 2 of the competitors. I think that I can honestly say that Emilie's and Jimmy's stories each gave me more reading pleasure than the 3 winners combined. And as for thinking outside the box, I'd give them 100% and 80-90% respectively. And both have been highly praised by others here on shared works.
It is my HONEST opinion that neither was even CONSIDERED for shortlisting for fear of POSSIBLY offending the prompt painting's artist.
Just my opinion. But if works of art are to be ignored because they possibly offend those in power, we can throw Swift, Orwell, Picasso, and Beethoven out the window.
As a colleague of Wilhelmina, working together with her and Jummy [sic] on a compilation anthology, may I point out - as she did on that other Q&A linked to in her comment - that she would be perfectly happy to have NO prior conditions set on W&As competitions. Read her comment here again:
"EITHER make them open to all comers, whether registered users of the site or not OR restrict participation to those who have reached at least level 1 on this site: by being of SOME use to the rest of us."
I'm sure that she wouldn't object to the addition: or members who have been registered for at least a year prior to this competition.
Seeing that at least 20% of the shortlisted authors (including the first runner-up) went to the trouble of asking for their membership to be annulled within 3 weeks of the announcement of the winners, it is obvious that some people joined W&As ONLY in order to submit their stories. They had absolutely NO interest in any other aspects of the site.
Fine and good: It's a free world. (Cynical snort.)
If W&As wishes to include submissions from such writers, again: Fine and good. They have a perfect right to set whatever conditions they wish. The question remains: Why set a condition which serves no purpose? Why not simply declare an open competition? They'd save themselves some bureaucratic work. If 20% of the shortlisted authors resigned, how many others did so who didn't make the shortlist? Dealing with these on/off memberships must rob Admin of valuable time and energy... which might have been better employed in introducing improvements to the site that many of us have been calling for (for years now), and which Admin has repeatedly replied that they'll get around to WHEN they have time.
La Gr@not@ is only a shoestring publisher: less than 2 years old and with a part-time staff of 3. Yet we try to organise anthologies open to ALL comers. Since the profits from these anthologies go 100% to worthy causes, we neither offer juicy prizes nor take a salary for the time that we spend on them. We can therefore dedicate our time to editing, compiling, and layout. No memberships to approve or annul.
Please accept my apologies for 'red flagging ' the message below. It was a total mistake and I am truly sorry!!!!