Improving our 75 Word Stories -- READ FIRST POST

[paranoid marvin]

One other smaller (or perhaps more significant for some) point is the title. In a 75 word challenge, this can be just as important as it can set the scene for what we are about to witness. 'For The Love Of Evil' I don't think sums up your story as well as an alternative title might have done, and may put people on the wrong footing as to what your story is about or is aiming to achieve.

 

[Elckerlyc]

Unlike above comments, I appreciated your story enough to grace it with a mention.
Though it can be improved somewhat, I wouldn't advise changing the narrative or plot. It is all a matter of personal preference. And as you can never please all the voters, just stick to the story that you intended to tell. I liked the duplicity of the father's feelings, his love for his daughter and the hate he felt for what she had become and the oppositional end where the evil daughter could do what the father couldn't.To me the end was what made me almost vote for it.
I did stumble a bit over the line "holding her close, tight, loving," but as it wasn't made clear at this point that the sorceress was his daughter I did not take that as something concerning incest, only that the relation it eluded to remained vague.
"He wove through the crowded ballroom..." I liked that 'wove' , but you weave through a crowd, not a crowded ballroom.

 

[BT Jones]

Well, this is my first foray into the 'Improving our...' arena. I've always felt a little uncomfortable with the prospect of asking others to join me in dissecting one of my challenge entries. Nonetheless, I think, in this case, I would be interested to know what people thought of the original proposal.

My entry version was:

Sergeant Mike ‘Spacehead’ Seston climbed the Aurora Bridge railing.

Near legendary twenty-five-year veteran of four conflicts, he’d seen destruction aplenty, but nothing like the alien invasion of Seattle.
The city was unrecognisable… but it would recover, once the invaders' HQ on the riverbank beneath him was destroyed.

Bomb armed, he leapt from the bridge with a smirk for all those UFO naysayers.

The was no explosion, but Sergeant Mike Seston died a hero.

My original version was going to be:

Sergeant Mike ‘Spacehead’ Seston climbed the Aurora Bridge railing.

Twenty-five-year veteran of four conflicts, he’d seen destruction aplenty, but nothing like the alien invasion of Seattle.
The city was unrecognisable… but it would recover, once the invaders' HQ on the riverbank beneath him was destroyed.

Bomb armed, he leapt from the bridge with a smirk for all those UFO naysayers.

The next morning, The Times solemnly reported the two-hundredth veteran suicide of the year.

Obviously, the implication was that it was all in his mind, and that the character (as could be inferred from his service record) had been traumatized by all the conflicts he'd witnessed. His lack of familiarity with the city (fueled by immigration and a general lack of connection with the city and the people after so many years away at war), coupled with an interest in UFOs, lead him to fantasize that aliens had invaded, and he was doing his sworn duty to the end by trying to save his country when. The fact it was a famous suicide bridge led to the presumption that it was a straight forward suicide, when, if anything, it was a misguided act of heroism.

So, all that being said, I would be curious to know:

1. If anyone got the (intended) meaning of the version of the story I entered. I think the point has been made that, with so many entries, people don't have the time to necessarily even reread something they don't get first time. I admit to doing as much myself, so there is certainly no criticism intended.
2. If the original version would have been received better
3. Conversely, if the original version was too explicitly revealing, thus deadening the impact (better than no impact at all, though).
4. If there was some middle ground I could have taken that was more implicit without spelling it out in neon.
5. Or if, overall, it was just too delicate and sensitive a story to possibly do justice to in 75 words.

Thanks in advance for any feedback.

 

[DanielOwen]

@BT Jones

I can honestly say I didn't get it. There wasn't anything in there that told me it wasn't real - in fact, the mention of an invader HQ and the reshaping of the city implied to me that it was entirely real, and I had a vision of a bombed-out, wrecked Seattle, still half skeletal and rebuilding from an actual alien invasion. Given that the genre was Speculative Fiction, that seemed entirely possible. I'm not sure I'd even have got it from your more explicit version.

The idea of alienation and trauma is a complex one and very ambitious to address in 75 words, for sure. Your central character is good, in that sense, but I feel like you're missing a sense of conflicting realities. You can probably save a few words here and there (being a veteran of four campaigns implies intrinsically that Sgt Mike has seen some destruction, for example) and maybe put something in that throws doubt on Sgt Mike's state of mind? I'm not sure what, but something to imply that Sgt Mike's take on the world might not be accurate, or at least not the same as most peoples.

For me, at least, it's not natural to instantly distrust the narrator. I need a sign that their perspective is off or unreliable, something to get me thinking that maybe they don't see the world as it is. I'm not familiar with the Aurora Bridge, so I didn't know it's a famous suicide spot. Besides, Sgt Mike seems to have other reasons for choosing it - an alien HQ that doesn't exist at all?

Both versions missed me, though I admit to not having had time for more than a quick read through most of the entries, so subtext was probably always going to be a struggle. It makes sense when you lay out your thought process, but without the explainer I don't think I'd get to those conclusions.

I think you have a great idea here, and I fell into exactly this issue in last month's challenge of too much implying and not enough explaining. It's always easy to see what you mean yourself, but as an audience sometimes we need a bit more direction.

 

[DanielOwen]

Here's my own entry for the August 75 word challenge; any and all comments, critiques and feedback gratefully received.

Dragonslayer

I watch myself battle a dragon; this will break legendary on my socials. The skydive's fake too, but nobody checks. Nobody cares. When I see my pinwheeling .gif self fall and fall into infinity, my stomach lurches.

There are legal limits on visual algorithms but around too many, thinking gets swimmy. The memeographer's shop is a virtual rainbow haze of them.

On screen the beast roars, I duck. I remember the heft of my sword.

 

[Mon0Zer0]

Well, this is my first foray into the 'Improving our...' arena. I've always felt a little uncomfortable with the prospect of asking others to join me in dissecting one of my challenge entries. Nonetheless, I think, in this case, I would be interested to know what people thought of the original proposal.

My entry version was:

Sergeant Mike ‘Spacehead’ Seston climbed the Aurora Bridge railing.

Near legendary twenty-five-year veteran of four conflicts, he’d seen destruction aplenty, but nothing like the alien invasion of Seattle.
The city was unrecognisable… but it would recover, once the invaders' HQ on the riverbank beneath him was destroyed.

Bomb armed, he leapt from the bridge with a smirk for all those UFO naysayers.

The was no explosion, but Sergeant Mike Seston died a hero.

My original version was going to be:

Sergeant Mike ‘Spacehead’ Seston climbed the Aurora Bridge railing.

Twenty-five-year veteran of four conflicts, he’d seen destruction aplenty, but nothing like the alien invasion of Seattle.
The city was unrecognisable… but it would recover, once the invaders' HQ on the riverbank beneath him was destroyed.

Bomb armed, he leapt from the bridge with a smirk for all those UFO naysayers.

The next morning, The Times solemnly reported the two-hundredth veteran suicide of the year.

Obviously, the implication was that it was all in his mind, and that the character (as could be inferred from his service record) had been traumatized by all the conflicts he'd witnessed. His lack of familiarity with the city (fueled by immigration and a general lack of connection with the city and the people after so many years away at war), coupled with an interest in UFOs, lead him to fantasize that aliens had invaded, and he was doing his sworn duty to the end by trying to save his country when. The fact it was a famous suicide bridge led to the presumption that it was a straight forward suicide, when, if anything, it was a misguided act of heroism.

So, all that being said, I would be curious to know:

1. If anyone got the (intended) meaning of the version of the story I entered. I think the point has been made that, with so many entries, people don't have the time to necessarily even reread something they don't get first time. I admit to doing as much myself, so there is certainly no criticism intended.
2. If the original version would have been received better
3. Conversely, if the original version was too explicitly revealing, thus deadening the impact (better than no impact at all, though).
4. If there was some middle ground I could have taken that was more implicit without spelling it out in neon.
5. Or if, overall, it was just too delicate and sensitive a story to possibly do justice to in 75 words.

Thanks in advance for any feedback.

I didn't get the intended meaning, thinking the invasion was a literal one. The last line in the original was easier to understand than the submitted version, though. I think you needed to make the fact it was in his head a bit more explicit or give us more clues.

 

[Mon0Zer0]

Dragonslayer

I watch myself battle a dragon; this will break legendary on my socials. The skydive's fake too, but nobody checks. Nobody cares. When I see my pinwheeling .gif self fall and fall into infinity, my stomach lurches.

There are legal limits on visual algorithms but around too many, thinking gets swimmy. The memeographer's shop is a virtual rainbow haze of them.

On screen the beast roars, I duck. I remember the heft of my sword.

The idea of a battling a dragon breaking legendary on socials was intriguing. I'd like to have seen this developed a bit more.

I must admit, I couldn't quite follow what was going on for the remainder of the story. Was this a video game? Was he faking something for clicks? What did he stand to gain from doing so? It's not clear. What did you mean by "I watch myself".

This paragraph in particular was difficult to understand:

"There are legal limits on visual algorithms but around too many, thinking gets swimmy. The memeographer's shop is a virtual rainbow haze of them."

Overall, you've got a great kernel of an idea - but the story element - setup, conflict, resolution - is missing. If the conflict is battling the dragon - how does it turn out? If it's the conflict to fake a performance for internet clout - how does the audience react?

 

[Hugh]

Well, this is my first foray into the 'Improving our...' arena. I've always felt a little uncomfortable with the prospect of asking others to join me in dissecting one of my challenge entries. Nonetheless, I think, in this case, I would be interested to know what people thought of the original proposal.

My entry version was:

Sergeant Mike ‘Spacehead’ Seston climbed the Aurora Bridge railing.

Near legendary twenty-five-year veteran of four conflicts, he’d seen destruction aplenty, but nothing like the alien invasion of Seattle.
The city was unrecognisable… but it would recover, once the invaders' HQ on the riverbank beneath him was destroyed.

Bomb armed, he leapt from the bridge with a smirk for all those UFO naysayers.

The was no explosion, but Sergeant Mike Seston died a hero.

My original version was going to be:

Sergeant Mike ‘Spacehead’ Seston climbed the Aurora Bridge railing.

Twenty-five-year veteran of four conflicts, he’d seen destruction aplenty, but nothing like the alien invasion of Seattle.
The city was unrecognisable… but it would recover, once the invaders' HQ on the riverbank beneath him was destroyed.

Bomb armed, he leapt from the bridge with a smirk for all those UFO naysayers.

The next morning, The Times solemnly reported the two-hundredth veteran suicide of the year.

Obviously, the implication was that it was all in his mind, and that the character (as could be inferred from his service record) had been traumatized by all the conflicts he'd witnessed. His lack of familiarity with the city (fueled by immigration and a general lack of connection with the city and the people after so many years away at war), coupled with an interest in UFOs, lead him to fantasize that aliens had invaded, and he was doing his sworn duty to the end by trying to save his country when. The fact it was a famous suicide bridge led to the presumption that it was a straight forward suicide, when, if anything, it was a misguided act of heroism.

So, all that being said, I would be curious to know:

1. If anyone got the (intended) meaning of the version of the story I entered. I think the point has been made that, with so many entries, people don't have the time to necessarily even reread something they don't get first time. I admit to doing as much myself, so there is certainly no criticism intended.
2. If the original version would have been received better
3. Conversely, if the original version was too explicitly revealing, thus deadening the impact (better than no impact at all, though).
4. If there was some middle ground I could have taken that was more implicit without spelling it out in neon.
5. Or if, overall, it was just too delicate and sensitive a story to possibly do justice to in 75 words.

Thanks in advance for any feedback.

(1) I didn't get it at all and I read it several times over different days. I took it at face value and was bemused by the last sentence.
(2) I might have got the original version ending, but I'm not sure. It is more explicit though.

Your explanation is really interesting: I just wish I could have understood that in my reading.

 

[Hugh]

Here's my own entry for the August 75 word challenge; any and all comments, critiques and feedback gratefully received.

I thought this was interesting but I'm very limited in my understanding of anything much beyond how to send an email, so gave up, assuming it was beyond me.

 

[Astro Pen]

@BT Jones. I'll just say yours was one of several stories where I could see streams of steam escaping from the same pressure cooker.
I voted for one such.
For what it is worth I think your original punched harder, than the one you entered but I understand the decision.

 

[paranoid marvin]

A good point about what DanielOwen says about not trusting the narrator. I too took it literally as trying to liberate a captured city, but couldn't understand the last line. Even with the explanation it doesn't really make sense, as he wasn't trying to commit suicide , (in his own mind) he was attacking an alien base.

I think the only way to make the story more understandable is to make it more explicit, but this does then take something from your story. For this though you need to improve word count. for example

A decorated veteran

could replace

Near legendary twenty-five-year veteran of four conflicts,

And to make the story more explicit an example

A decorated veteran, he'd witnessed destruction aplenty; perhaps too much. For his fevered (or perhaps troubled?) mind saw not a bustling metropolis below him, but a city devastated after an alien invasion. Seattle was unrecognisable....

could replace

Twenty-five-year veteran of four conflicts, he’d seen destruction aplenty, but nothing like the alien invasion of Seattle.
The city was unrecognisable…

It does require an extra 10 words to be trimmed from elsewhere, but it does (for me) make the story more understandable, especially with the alternative last line.

 

[DanielOwen]

The idea of a battling a dragon breaking legendary on socials was intriguing. I'd like to have seen this developed a bit more.

I must admit, I couldn't quite follow what was going on for the remainder of the story. Was this a video game? Was he faking something for clicks? What did he stand to gain from doing so? It's not clear. What did you mean by "I watch myself".

This paragraph in particular was difficult to understand:


Overall, you've got a great kernel of an idea - but the story element - setup, conflict, resolution - is missing. If the conflict is battling the dragon - how does it turn out? If it's the conflict to fake a performance for internet clout - how does the audience react?

Thanks so much for taking the time to feed back; much appreciated. To explain:

The setup is that the character is faking stuff on their social media for attention; the speculative element is that there are visual algorithms (created and sold by 'memeographers') involved that can trick the brain into believing what it is seeing, embedded into video clips. Some of these clips are obviously fake (fighting a dragon); others are less so (like a skydive).

The character is watching their own fake clips and being drawn in by the algorithms towards remembering something that never happened - they start to remember being there and fighting the dragon, just as watching the skydive gif gives them vertigo.

The conflict is supposed to be with reality - what happens when you push fakery too far - the resolution is supposed to be that the character falls into believing their own lies.

Looks like I tried to do way too much and was (again) not clear with the idea. One day I'll learn. Thanks again for weighing in; your insights are really useful.

 

[DanielOwen]

I thought this was interesting but I'm very limited in my understanding of anything much beyond how to send an email, so gave up, assuming it was beyond me.

Ah, fair enough. I do tend to overstretch things a bit, especially when pressed for word count. To know I made something that switches people off so quickly is useful; thanks for the insight.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Hi DanielOwen, my understanding was that he was bragging about his exploits playing a computer game.

The lines that lost me though were:

There are legal limits on visual algorithms but around too many, thinking gets swimmy. The memeographer's shop is a virtual rainbow haze of them.

I think the punctuation in your first line should include a semicolon to make it more understandable, so

There are legal limits on visual algorithms; but around too many, thinking gets swimmy.

But still, why are there legal limits, and what is a memographer?

Your explanation in the above post helps to explain this, but the story needs to be understandable without it.

Some good ideas in there though, and further entries to the Challenge will only help to improve your techniques.

 

[Parson]

Lot's of good comments about both stories. I think that both stories were too ambitious for 75 words. I know they both lost me completely. Sorry.

In fairness I'm not the most tuned in person for nuance. I'm more of a "what you see is what you get." and when what you see is symbolic there have to be very good clues for me to catch on.

 

[BT Jones]

@BT Jones. I'll just say yours was one of several stories where I could see streams of steam escaping from the same pressure cooker.
I voted for one such.
For what it is worth I think your original punched harder, than the one you entered but I understand the decision.

Thanks @DanielOwen, @Mon0Zer0, @Hugh, @Astro Pen, and @Parson for your comments - and thanks especially @paranoid marvin for the suggestion. I like to think I've become a pretty good self-editor, but suggested alterations have me kicking myself.

I'm content that the consensus reflects an over ambitious story that simply wasn't realised as effectively as it could have been - which is also probably a reflection on how hastily I both conceived and posted the story. Thanks again one and all.

 

[Wayne Mack]

1. If anyone got the (intended) meaning of the version of the story I entered. I think the point has been made that, with so many entries, people don't have the time to necessarily even reread something they don't get first time. I admit to doing as much myself, so there is certainly no criticism intended.

Unfortunately, I missed the intended meaning in both versions. Even on rereading, I don't find it obvious enough for me.

1. If the original version would have been received better

The explicit suicide reference in the original, for me at least, would be worse. As a reader, I expected a space opera type story from the opening, so ending on a somber note left me disheartened.

1. Conversely, if the original version was too explicitly revealing, thus deadening the impact (better than no impact at all, though).

I did not find the original to be any more revealing than the entered one. Both left me confused.

1. If there was some middle ground I could have taken that was more implicit without spelling it out in neon.

I have found in writing, it is often best to be explicit. The reader does not have the context in my head, so I usually need to spell it out.

1. Or if, overall, it was just too delicate and sensitive a story to possibly do justice to in 75 words.

I think this could be edited to fit in 75 words. The primary area for reduction would be the second paragraph, but there are other places where a word or two could be dropped. This might leave room for a more explicit resolution, such as, 'Investigators found no reason for the Sergeant's plunge. The demons in his head, though, were finally slain.' (Awkward POV)

 

[Wayne Mack]

Here's my own entry for the August 75 word challenge; any and all comments, critiques and feedback gratefully received.

For me, the first two lines provided the set up -- generating fake videos. If I understand the explanation that followed, then, unfortunately, the remaining sentences did not lead me to understand that the protagonist started to believe his virtual work was real. I think this leaves quite a bit of word count to express the twist for the ending a little more explicitly.

 

[DanielOwen]

@paranoid marvin
Oh, interesting. I actually can't believe that reading of it never even occurred to me. Seems obvious when you say it. I agree about the semicolon; I wrestled with one in there for ages before taking it out to try to improve the flow, in hindsight an error.

You're right about it being a bit incomprehensible. I think I need to go for simpler ideas with these short challenges. Thanks for taking the time to let me know what you thought.


@Parson
Fair enough, thanks for the feedback. I don't think you were the only one I lost; I'm definitely getting that I need to do more explaining and perhaps use simpler ideas. But then I said that last month too...


@Wayne Mack
Right on, it's really useful to know at what point that it stopped making sense to you. I can definitely see how it gets way less clear after the first couple of sentences. Thanks!


From all the feedback, I feel like I need to be clearer, lean less on implication and express the idea more directly. It's frustrating because this is exactly what I fell down on last month, but I'll get the hang of it. Thanks again to everyone for weighing in and providing their perspective, it's all very helpful. I think I'll make my aim for next month's 75 to write something in which the story is out front and obvious, see how that goes.

 

[gracefully.falling]

Hi all! This is my entry for the August 75 word challenge. I'm fairly new to flash fiction (which might show), so I respectfully ask anyone with the time to brutally tear it to pieces.

Monsters and Men

“I’m not mad, I tell you!” The old man screamed, spittle flying from his mouth. “It won’t be happy about this!”

The crowd laughed, burning him with tongues of fire and poking him with the claws of pitchforks. “He speaks of an ancient monster! Where is your monster now?”

“You fools, it's upon us!”

A darkness overtook them. Within it, they saw only reflections of self. To one, a man. To the others, a monster.


The meaning of my story is that the mob lost themselves to hate, ignorance, and violence, which made them into monsters. The one who stayed true to what he believed in (the monster), also remained true to himself (a man), even though it cost him his sanity. I do think this story can be interpreted in many different ways than the original message, however. The main purpose of the story was to invoke thought.

Here are my own critiques, which I would love to know if anyone agrees with.

1. It's too vague in some parts and too specific in others. The comparison of the crowd to a beast, as well as the line "Within it, they saw only reflections of self," were blunt and obvious. On the other hand, the concept of the monster and the darkness that overcame them are extremely vague. I'm not sure how I could have made the monster more specific while staying within the word limit and staying true to the story.

2. I think the story might have been more effective if I hadn't made the man seem crazy in the eyes of the reader. The crowd has to perceive him as mad for the story to work, but the reader might have been more impacted if he had seemed sane.

3. The man seemed to agree the entity was a monster, despite it only showing him a reflection of self. It might have made more sense for the line "You fools, it's upon us!" to be replaced with "You fools, it's no monster!" or something similar.

Thanks to anyone who took the time to read this and doubly thanks to anyone who responds!