Improving our 75 Word Stories -- READ FIRST POST

[The Big Peat]

I've read in a few cases where the reader (in comments and reviews) has interjected bits into the story that were clearly not there.

This is only accurate if you believe that others share exactly your view of what was clear in the story and what was not. I personally think that is a very flawed starting point.

 

[Joshua Jones]

I'll chime in on the writer/reader interpretation issue for a bit. There is a field of study called hermeneutics which deals especially with this issue and other issues related to textual interpretation, which to my knowledge is essentially limited to religious and legal scholars. There is actually a third view which says that meaning exists specifically in the text itself; after it is written, it leaves the authority of the author and its proper interpretation rests in itself. It is a minority position, but I wouldn't be accurately representing the debate if I didn't at least mention it.

My position is that meaning is found in the dynamic relationship between the author and the reader, in which the text serves as the medium. The author sets the bounds of legitimate interpretation in what is written, and the reader may select any meaning within this range. The catch is, the author may may not realize what bounds he or she has put in place. In the case of my story, I inadvertently placed within the bounds of proper interpretation the possibility that the girl killed her parents. By my unintentional ambiguity, that became a potential interpretation. So, part of the skill of writing, in my mind, is the author's ability to set bounds intentionally, whether they are wide or narrow. The skill of reading is in noticing the details and drawing from them interpretations within the bounds set by the author. So, in my mind, improper interpretations by the reader are possible, but the reader coming out with a different interpretation than the author intended may be a product of the author's deficiency or the reader's not noticing a detail. That is the position I hold to, anyway.

Anyway, @Luiglin, I liked your story, and it definitely felt like others you have written with your sense of dsrk humor. But, I honestly just didn't connect with it for some reason, though I honestly couldn't say why. Sorry; I wish I could be more helpful.

 

[Joshua Jones]

@Luiglin, on a little reflection, I think the reason I didn't resonate with it is that I tend to like stories which are satirical or have layers which only become obvious upon reflection, or deeply complex and layered characters. Your writing is typically very on the nose, but this story lacks the satirical element found in the Dark Lord stories. I think that is why it didn't really connect with me; it simply isn't the sort of story I typically look for, even though there is nothing really wrong with it.

 

[Ursa major]

I couldn't disagree more K2!

Perhaps you might consider only partly disagreeing with K2.

It is, of course, the right of every reader to read into what someone has written whatever they want to ... particularly, perhaps, if the story connects with them in a very personal way.

But K2 also mentioned reviews... which are, in effect, other readers saying what they saw in a story... which is not the same thing at all. It is, in effect, creating another story, one with parts added by that "first" reader.

When that "first" reader has read so much into a story that their version perhaps bears no resemblance at all to what is written -- and it can and does happen on occasion, because readers are no less fallible than writers and can sometime make mistakes when reading -- what is someone to make of a story having seen both story and review?

At that point, the obvious answer is that the reader should set aside the opinion of that "first" reader and take what they themselves can out of the story (with or without their own embellishments). But can we always do that? Is it not possible for the "inspiration" that one person has found in a story to "inspire" another person's take on it, i.e. has not the whole experience -- i.e. reading the story and reading another's take on that story -- now got two authors?

 

[Joshua Jones]

Perhaps you might consider only partly disagreeing with K2.

It is, of course, the right of every reader to read into what someone has written whatever they want to ... particularly, perhaps, if the story connects with them in a very personal way.

But K2 also mentioned reviews... which are, in effect, other readers saying what they saw in a story... which is not the same thing at all. It is, in effect, creating another story, one with parts added by that "first" reader.

When that "first" reader has read so much into a story that their version perhaps bears no resemblance at all to what is written -- and it can and does happen on occasion, because readers are no less fallible than writers and can sometime make mistakes when reading -- what is someone to make of a story having seen both story and review?

At that point, the obvious answer is that the reader should set aside the opinion of that "first" reader and take what they themselves can out of the story (with or without their own embellishments). But can we always do that? Is it not possible for the "inspiration" that one person has found in a story to "inspire" another person's take on it, i.e. has not the whole experience -- i.e. reading the story and reading another's take on that story -- now got two authors?

That actually fits into the interpretive model I spoke of above. Part of how a reader interprets a text is their presuppositions regarding the text, which includes what others have said regarding the text. So, I interpret that data not so much as a second author, but as information which helps form one's presuppositions.

 

[Ursa major]

information

It might not always be information; it might be misinformation.

(Have you never seen a short review of your work that not only misses the point but invents a completely new one out of thin air, including a complete change of genre? I have.)

 

[Joshua Jones]

It might not always be information; it might be misinformation.

(Have you never seen a short review of your work that not only misses the point but invents a completely new one out of thin air, including a complete change of genre? I have.)

Oh, absolutely. The reviewers of our challenges here (myself when I am doing reviews on the 100 word anonymous challenges exempted) tend to do a pretty good job overall, but there are reviewers who completely miss the point. That is why I put it in with the background information that informs the reader; it may be right, partially right, flat wrong or maliciously wrong, but it still informs the reader. Along these lines, the readers belief systems, perceptions of identity, cultural background and a host of other aspects will influence how the reader interprets the text.

That is why I like the model of the author, intentionally or unintentionally, creating a range of interpretation which may be narrow or wide, and the reader interprets to varying degrees of skill, based on these factors.

 

[Phyrebrat]

Hi @Parson -I'm glad you posted here because I didn't understand the story in your story, however, after catching up on Chrons business, I'm now clued in. I understood what the terms meant, though, so I wasn't at sea

@Joshua Jones I understood yours completely, and had the genre been something along the lines of twisted fairy tales/fariy tales/fractured fairy tales etc as we've had in the past, I'd've definitely considered it for a vote, but I have a rather brutal criterion for voting; If any story references or relies on understanding of an existing story or franchise to 'get' I automatically discount it, so as the Cinderella story is one well known, I couldn't vote for it and keep to my internal logic.

Most months I have to discount stories because of this. It might seem unfair - and certainly people have moaned at me in the past - but we all draw our lines in the sand - and I feel that the challenge is to create a world in 75 words or fewer. To then rely on an existing story gives an unfair advantage IMO. This would be true for anyone who references their own work or previous stories. I'm the same with typos and so on, and I often wonder why members post stories within the first day or two of the theme going up without doing their due diligence. Would we submit to agents or publishers something that was not our best, original work?

Given, some people only enter these stories for a bit of fun, but I find them an indispensible barometer of my learning and improvement/failures

I think this, (again, for me ) is why I have stopped reading the reviews that Victoria and others do. I appreciate the effort that is taken to write them, but feel it is a dangerous path when they can be taken as the empirical meaning of our submissions. I've read reviews of mine over the years and been bemused as to what or how the reviewer saw what he/she saw. Certainly I think a reviewer should not make comments on the quality of the stories until after voting has passed; Parson, you frequently post in a different colour under certain stories that you have enjoyed in your review post, and I think that's unfair to those in that post who have not had a comment from you. I think it fairer to do it all-or-nothing.

With the best will in the world, we can say 'they're neutral' and 'just what the reviewer sees', but the people who read those reviews are - erm - human and will take from the review according to their own filter and experiences. This may be, 'Oh, now I get it', 'What?!' and even, 'Well, it's a review so that must be what the story means,'

I say this all in the sense of expaining how I feel about reviews and how inadvertantly influential I feel they can be. Without singling anything out, I have twice been rather put out by impolitic or inexact word choice when my story has been reviewed - not in what they saw, but how they said it.

But we all see what we see - I had to check with people this month if it was clear that my story was comparing arthritis or "The Twist" to a man whose family legacy makes them turn into trees that then line the estate. Some people thought it simply a tale about an MC getting arthritis.

pH

 

[TheDustyZebra]

I had to check with people this month if it was clear that my story was comparing arthritis or "The Twist" to a man whose family legacy makes them turn into trees that then line the estate. Some people thought it simply a tale about an MC getting arthritis.

Oops.

Well, I knew there must be something I was missing, from what people were saying.

 

[Ursa major]

maliciously wrong

I'm confident that no-one here would doing such a thing maliciously.

 

[Joshua Jones]

I'm confident that no-one here would doing such a thing maliciously.

Me too. In other forums, though...

 

[Luiglin]

@Luiglin ; I could envision what you presented without any confusion. More so, I could also read into it an untold portion of the story before (that they had been doing this for some time) and what was to follow (that they would continue to do so, be it as a sadistic psychopathic contest or game of no matter).

So your brief 75-word story to me, told a much longer one. Well done!

K2

Cheers @K2

@Luiglin I'm still sore that I didn't come up with the cinders idea.

I really enjoyed your story, by the by. I don't think I'd change a word of it. I see it a a couple of retired old torturers, back for one last Guinness of glory. But the flesh (and bones, and sinews) was weak.

Cheers @Stable. I must admit to having had that done to me me in the past. I coin it a Homer "Doh!" Simpson moment.

@Luiglin, on a little reflection, I think the reason I didn't resonate with it is that I tend to like stories which are satirical or have layers which only become obvious upon reflection, or deeply complex and layered characters. Your writing is typically very on the nose, but this story lacks the satirical element found in the Dark Lord stories. I think that is why it didn't really connect with me; it simply isn't the sort of story I typically look for, even though there is nothing really wrong with it.

Cheers @Joshua Jones. It did start out more like that but I had to rewrite it in order to get the twist part of the torture correctly worded. After that I didn't have much room left to force anymore into it. It could have been done better as a 300 word entry to be honest.

 

[Joshua Jones]

Hi @Parson -
@Joshua Jones I understood yours completely, and had the genre been something along the lines of twisted fairy tales/fariy tales/fractured fairy tales etc as we've had in the past, I'd've definitely considered it for a vote, but I have a rather brutal criterion for voting; If any story references or relies on understanding of an existing story or franchise to 'get' I automatically discount it, so as the Cinderella story is one well known, I couldn't vote for it and keep to my internal logic.

Most months I have to discount stories because of this. It might seem unfair - and certainly people have moaned at me in the past - but we all draw our lines in the sand - and I feel that the challenge is to create a world in 75 words or fewer. To then rely on an existing story gives an unfair advantage IMO. This would be true for anyone who references their own work or previous stories. I'm the same with typos and so on, and I often wonder why members post stories within the first day or two of the theme going up without doing their due diligence. Would we submit to agents or publishers something that was not our best, original work?
pH

That is a fair criticism. Personally, I never fault people based on how they vote; everyone has their own preferences, and faulting those is something like being angry at someone for liking chocolate ice cream over vanella.

Thanks for the bit of insight into how you vote!

 

[Joshua Jones]

Cheers @K2



Cheers @Stable. I must admit to having had that done to me me in the past. I coin it a Homer "Doh!" Simpson moment.



Cheers @Joshua Jones. It did start out more like that but I had to rewrite it in order to get the twist part of the torture correctly worded. After that I didn't have much room left to force anymore into it. It could have been done better as a 300 word entry to be honest.

I still think it was good as it was; it just wasn't my thing. I have a big enough worldview to realize that other people like things that I don't, and they aren't wrong. So, I have learned to recognize that which is well done but not my preference.

 

[Parson]

That would be one way to put it... Beyond that however, nothing hinted as to why the driver was speeding, or what might happen after. It was not executed or delivered below par, it simply did not get me to think beyond it. Nevertheless, it was still well done.

Unimportant, but the reason was that she was a good time singing with her girls and the more she enjoyed herself the faster she went.

and when the cop has to avoid her and he "flies" past, it's literal, and he actually goes right over the bridge to his death. I thought it was unusual for you to condone murder!

Yipes! No, I was thinking of a viaduct over a railroad track. And where I live a viaduct is essentially a man made hill to make for less congestion and less danger at the intersection. When she crested the hill she made the 180 and met the policeman going the opposite direction. --- I see my story was not as clear as I thought it was. It relied too heavily on local knowledge.

I think this, (again, for me ) is why I have stopped reading the reviews that Victoria and others do. I appreciate the effort that is taken to write them, but feel it is a dangerous path when they can be taken as the empirical meaning of our submissions. I've read reviews of mine over the years and been bemused as to what or how the reviewer saw what he/she saw. Certainly I think a reviewer should not make comments on the quality of the stories until after voting has passed; Parson, you frequently post in a different colour under certain stories that you have enjoyed in your review post, and I think that's unfair to those in that post who have not had a comment from you. I think it fairer to do it all-or-nothing.

@Phyrebrat .... thanks for your honesty and insight. I had never considered what my comment in the context of my review might mean to the voting. I had, before I started reviewing, sometimes given some positive feedback on a story. I always use a different color to indicate that I have finished reviewing and am now speaking about something I really liked. Positive feedback has been encouraged by the Mods and others. I believe that those kinds of comments really enrich the discussion. Would it be different if I said something positive in an other post? Should I refrain from making a positive comment if I am reviewing the stories? I'd love to hear what others feel about this. And I'd love to hear more about this from you as well.

 

[Stable]

Perhaps you might consider only partly disagreeing with K2.

It is, of course, the right of every reader to read into what someone has written whatever they want to ... particularly, perhaps, if the story connects with them in a very personal way.

But K2 also mentioned reviews... which are, in effect, other readers saying what they saw in a story... which is not the same thing at all. It is, in effect, creating another story, one with parts added by that "first" reader.

When that "first" reader has read so much into a story that their version perhaps bears no resemblance at all to what is written -- and it can and does happen on occasion, because readers are no less fallible than writers and can sometime make mistakes when reading -- what is someone to make of a story having seen both story and review?

At that point, the obvious answer is that the reader should set aside the opinion of that "first" reader and take what they themselves can out of the story (with or without their own embellishments). But can we always do that? Is it not possible for the "inspiration" that one person has found in a story to "inspire" another person's take on it, i.e. has not the whole experience -- i.e. reading the story and reading another's take on that story -- now got two authors?

Well, I was being a little bombastic (or at least such is my interpretation, hohoho). I would say that the review, if you read it first, of course coloured your interpretation of the story, and that it would do so whether the review was spot-on according to the author or way off. Everything that becomes a part of us colours how we see the world, and something so strong and so recent would inevitably change how we see a story.

On one level, if you're worried about that maybe you should avoid the reviews until after voting. On another maybe you saw a tree that grew like it had a face this morning, and that changed how you viewed @Phyrebrat 's story. I remember a story where shipwrecked sailors turn into big lumps of moss (that I read 25 years ago), that may have affected how I saw it. At some point it doesn't seem worth worrying about.

Which is just a long winded way of saying that I don't think that changes the number of authors.

 

[Phyrebrat]

Unimportant, but the reason was that she was a good time singing with her girls and the more she enjoyed herself the faster she went.



Yipes! No, I was thinking of a viaduct over a railroad track. And where I live a viaduct is essentially a man made hill to make for less congestion and less danger at the intersection. When she crested the hill she made the 180 and met the policeman going the opposite direction. --- I see my story was not as clear as I thought it was. It relied too heavily on local knowledge.



@Phyrebrat .... thanks for your honesty and insight. I had never considered what my comment in the context of my review might mean to the voting. I had, before I started reviewing, sometimes given some positive feedback on a story. I always use a different color to indicate that I have finished reviewing and am now speaking about something I really liked. Positive feedback has been encouraged by the Mods and others. I believe that those kinds of comments really enrich the discussion. Would it be different if I said something positive in an other post? Should I refrain from making a positive comment if I am reviewing the stories? I'd love to hear what others feel about this. And I'd love to hear more about this from you as well.

I’m not sure that there is a solution needed (for want if a better word); I was more trying to highlight how whilst there are rules for writing our entries, there aren’t really rules for voting (kind of) and that we all focus on different things.

As far as comments + reviews go; again, I don’t know but just that when you’ve done a mass review of 4+ stories and single one out for a special comment it reads a tad unbalanced. ‘I really enjoyed your story,’ innocuous and innocent as it is, takes on a gravity when it is typed amongst other entries you’ve reviewed in the same post but made no comment on. I don’t know, as I said, we all draw our lines in the sand so it might mean nothing to others.

Without wanting to be a buzzkill or come across mopey, when it comes to the discussion thread, I’ve found myself only really visiting it at the end after voting over the last year. Now and again there are interesting chats, but these days it’s all about the reviews; people thanking for them. Or the ‘well, I’m in’ posts, and later, the rash of ‘thanks for the shortlisting’ posts.

I rarely see some discussion other than that and so I’m careful not to post in it - or if I do, to unwatch the thread - and avoid all those unneeded notifications every time someone posts their thank yous.

 

[scarpelius]

I hope there are no intentions to add rules to the voting other than existing ones. The more you legiferate something, the more people goes away from it.
As for reviews, @Phyrebrat gives us some credit, we are not mindless TV consumers, that need help form an opinion.
To stay on topic, I would like to say Parson story felt like an inside automotive "joke", I've made efforts to understand it, JJ mixed horror with innocence, Stable and Luiglin also wrote horror stories, a genre that is last in my list. Although they are well written, I will always favor something else.

 

[Phyrebrat]

As for reviews, @Phyrebrat gives us some credit, we are not mindless TV consumers, that need help form an opinion.

I don’t believe I have compared anyone to that.

pH

 

[scarpelius]

Oh sorry, wasn't my intention. Just wanted to say you should have more faith in the rest of the world. Comments are a necessity for me, in some occasions they shed light on hidden meanings.