I should say, though, that I've had plenty of months when I've absolutely no votes at all and precious few mentions (that "time" month was one of them) so why you're worrying about two stories which gave you a vote apiece and a handful of mentions I really don't know!
It's less me worrying, and more trying to identify the hoops I need to jump through to at least challenge for a top spot, if not win outright!
---
So far it seems that my original fears are unfounded - I usually end up posting and worrying that there's not enough story to my entries. Instead, if I'm interpreting correctly, it's that there is almost
too much story, with little to no explanation.
Diagnosing myself from the comments so far, I'd say that my writing process lends itself too well to the obscure - I'm a sucker for phrases that twist the language in what I think are clever ways, and it's from these that I tend to draw my inspiration (for example, all the ways people refer to time as an object that can be acted upon - "need more time", "killing time", "selling time", "give some time", "time is catching up").
I'm wondering, then, should I not change my ways, if using the title as a descriptor for the story would help? Whilst I can't help but feel proud about the title
Monotony Affects Even the Strong (I've just realised what I did - "monotony" is a word used in describing time, and in the story, Lady Time is sick of the monotony of her life... bu-dum tsch!)**, maybe calling it
Lady Time's Trials (but even then, I can't resist... it's a sickness! I'm turning into Ursa) would give enough of a hint to help unlock the story - the character is identified straight away, and she's described to be suffering.
I guess it should not come as a surprise to me, therefore, that my best received entry (two votes to four mentions. 50%!
) was a (sort of) literal story about trick and treating - costumed children asking a magician for a trick and seeing one of their number turned into chocolate. Even then, I'm expecting the reader to make the leap from children playing tricks on people who don't give them chocolate, to people playing tricks on the children who just want a treat.
---
It's interesting that there are almost two distinct responses - on the one hand (the smaller hand), if you're one of the precious few on my wavelength the story is completely clear. On the other hand (a far bigger hand!), because I rely on references that aren't immediately obvious, and may still not be obvious after a period of thought, people are put off.
So, to improve my entries to maximise comprehension, I need to make the basis for the story obvious - cats can use the Internet, Lady Time is sick of eternity. Any subtleties on top are a bonus, but the story shouldn't be sacrificed by making it entirely dependent on the subtleties. I could also use a title that describes the story, without feeling like I'm forcing comprehension.
---
I should have posted in here before I wrote February's entry...
Ah well! We'll see what March brings.
Thank you Victoria, hope, Parson, springs, Judge, and Kylara for the comments!
**I'm starting to understand the problems I've written myself into it. It's bad when you have to peel away the layers of your own writing to gain insight...
EDIT: I should probably say, with embarrassment, that there are often times when I don't pick up on anything that other writers intend with their entries. I know for a fact that I've read some of Parson's entries with glazed eyes (there was one that I thought was about a lobster... which it wasn't), and I'm pretty sure I've done the same with at least one from everyone who has given me feedback.
So yeah... sorry, folks!