Post by rorschalk on Nov 22, 2021 17:35:53 GMT
Dear Mr. VC,
CandH did not make it off the floor. A critique of sorts can be found in wk29 on the floor and will be posted [here, see below] for your and the investor's perusal. Again, thank you for the submission and I look fwd to doing business with you in the future.
***
*****
rockefeller Avatar
Posts: 145
Nov 19, 2021 at 10:17am QuoteEditlikePost OptionsPost by rockefeller on Nov 19, 2021 at 10:17am
In most venues, including this one, the higher the word count, the better the story has to be. Because this Cards and Humanity cap weighs in at just over TQR's suggested upper word count of 12000, I set the expectations bar pretty high. To be honest, because I am lazy, I was hoping for something riddled with grammatical errors and having a weak voice that would allow me to rationalize stopping reading after a paragraph or two. But such was not the case. Livakovik can write, and seems to have something to say. Therefore I was well into page seven (of forty) when I decided to throw in the towel. So it is entirely possible I missed out on some fine, possibly even redeeming, ideas and text. I'm sure Livakovik will feel that I did, just as I would were our roles reversed.
The problem for me was a preponderance of dialog and what seemed to be an objective point of view. I have never liked this fly-on-the wall POV that is neither omniscient nor character focused. The philosophical musings exchanged in the context of table talk among the narrative's seven poker players are not totally uninteresting. I especially like Sidney, who always folds, whose ante is only the price of comradery. But the chit chat, however clever at times perhaps, is not enough. There needs to be some hook, some promise, some overarching conflict or question, to entice the reader into and then guide her through this long-ish tunnel of words. Also, seven characters with no clear MC or POV makes it even harder to get involved, to wit, to care. But then I've never enjoyed parties. Also, not being a poker player probably didn't help. I guess I'd say it was tactically okay, not super voicey or anything, but failed strategically, at least so far as I got. A tractor-pull springs to mind as a metaphor.
Sometimes, to appease my guilt for not loving something enough, for perhaps not having given it the fairest of shots, I skip to the final sentence in order to rationalize closure: "I mean, seriously, it’s just fucking poker." Even though I suspect the statement is ironic, I whisper to myself, Exactly!
Dep, are you able to help me drag this tome to the Porthole? I helped my youngest move the other week and am still feeling it in my intercostal muscles. Will you also say some kind words for the departed? I suspect you are a very fine eulogist. I am told I have a knack for this genre of public speaking where there is never any applause.
CandH did not make it off the floor. A critique of sorts can be found in wk29 on the floor and will be posted [here, see below] for your and the investor's perusal. Again, thank you for the submission and I look fwd to doing business with you in the future.
***
*****
rockefeller Avatar
Posts: 145
Nov 19, 2021 at 10:17am QuoteEditlikePost OptionsPost by rockefeller on Nov 19, 2021 at 10:17am
In most venues, including this one, the higher the word count, the better the story has to be. Because this Cards and Humanity cap weighs in at just over TQR's suggested upper word count of 12000, I set the expectations bar pretty high. To be honest, because I am lazy, I was hoping for something riddled with grammatical errors and having a weak voice that would allow me to rationalize stopping reading after a paragraph or two. But such was not the case. Livakovik can write, and seems to have something to say. Therefore I was well into page seven (of forty) when I decided to throw in the towel. So it is entirely possible I missed out on some fine, possibly even redeeming, ideas and text. I'm sure Livakovik will feel that I did, just as I would were our roles reversed.
The problem for me was a preponderance of dialog and what seemed to be an objective point of view. I have never liked this fly-on-the wall POV that is neither omniscient nor character focused. The philosophical musings exchanged in the context of table talk among the narrative's seven poker players are not totally uninteresting. I especially like Sidney, who always folds, whose ante is only the price of comradery. But the chit chat, however clever at times perhaps, is not enough. There needs to be some hook, some promise, some overarching conflict or question, to entice the reader into and then guide her through this long-ish tunnel of words. Also, seven characters with no clear MC or POV makes it even harder to get involved, to wit, to care. But then I've never enjoyed parties. Also, not being a poker player probably didn't help. I guess I'd say it was tactically okay, not super voicey or anything, but failed strategically, at least so far as I got. A tractor-pull springs to mind as a metaphor.
Sometimes, to appease my guilt for not loving something enough, for perhaps not having given it the fairest of shots, I skip to the final sentence in order to rationalize closure: "I mean, seriously, it’s just fucking poker." Even though I suspect the statement is ironic, I whisper to myself, Exactly!
Dep, are you able to help me drag this tome to the Porthole? I helped my youngest move the other week and am still feeling it in my intercostal muscles. Will you also say some kind words for the departed? I suspect you are a very fine eulogist. I am told I have a knack for this genre of public speaking where there is never any applause.