Round 2: Legendary Sword

Quote:

"The legendary sword glowed with a glorious light" This is your topic sentance, You can use it in your story, but it's not necessary. However, there is one catch. The character that uses said sword must be a Username of GFF

WHEEEEE. LAST STORIES!

AUthor A:

Author A: I'm surprised we haven't had an entry like this before, one that's self-referential as a piece of Gamingforce fiction, one that incorporates staff names and memes. I recognize that it's a logical approach given the restrictive prompt, of course, but I have to wonder. Knowing one's audience is an important part of the writing process, perhaps the most important part, but the piece goes well beyond that.

I have to admit that the title gave me pause; that's a terrible thing to let influence one's judgement, but at the same time unavoidable. I laughed at some of the jokes, but as I did so, I wondered if a GFF user would understand this a year from now, or whether someone who posted in only a select number of forums would understand the references. In the end, the story knows its audience very well, but it's a small audience--long-time GFF users who frequent certain subforums and find community memes funny. And in the end, I'm not entirely a part of that audience.

Author B: Interestingly, this piece is also written for a very particular audience--people who are frequent computer users (writers?) and have (or perhaps haven't) read Danielewski's House of Leaves. I'm writing on the computer right now, of course, and House of Leaves is on my bedside table, so I immidiately get all the allusions (at least I hope they're allusions, and that this isn't being passed off as original).

So, as a clear member of the target audience, how does the tale appeal to me? It succeeds in being confusing and fragmented, with plenty to look at, to be sure, but suffers in comparison. By adpoting the tone and format of House of Leaves, the author immidiately sets up an unflattering comparison that will not please fans of the book and probably confuse those that are not.

The story desperately wants to be a hip piece of metafiction, fiction about fiction, but in the end neither the protagonist nor the ideas behind the tale are able to produce this. It sounds harsh, I know, but I think that the author would be better off dropping Danielewski's style and trying to get their point across in another way.

A very odd pairing, this; I hope my comments were not percieved as unduly harsh. It's a tough choice, and one that I may have to reflect on for a bit.

EDIT: I've decided to vote for A.

And profoundly confused am I! As NOT a member of the target audience of Author B, nor am I party to some of the in-jokes written by Author A.

I'm pretty sure there's a method to the madness of spelling it as "ThoughT" instead of plain ol' "thought". But it passed over my head. Author B is also woefully above the given limit of 1,500 words, yet... nothing happened.

At least Author A dropped his TRAQ but didn't leave forever. As such, I am voting for A.

Originally Posted by Zergrinch

I'm pretty sure there's a method to the madness of spelling it as "ThoughT" instead of plain ol' "thought". But it passed over my head.

In Danielewski's House of Leaves, the word "house" was always written in blue. My guess is that the uppercase "T" in "thought" is intended to replicate this effect.