Kathy - I assume my story was given to the judges with my name removed and therefore I was anonymous. There was a number at the top of my scorecard, so I'm guessing that's how I was known.
As for feedback, I found the questions asked on the scorecard to be very promising for providing some extensive feedback. I did receive a nice mix of positive as well as negative commentary, but nothing that I feel would help me write a better story, per se, in that it lacked specificity. Some of what the judges said makes very good sense since I did feel that the brevity of the story left some areas vague (such as at the end with the money or when Lois "almost" kissed Clark). This stuff I plan to fix before sending to archive by adding back some of the stuff I cut to make word-count.
Here are my comments (since I've already bared my soul) verbatim. Since my e-mail added breaks that might not be accurate, I might have broken the remarks in wrong places but I don't think it construes the meaning at all:
What did you especially like or dislike about the hero/heroine or both?
“I did not care for Lois’ characterization at all. She was too bitchy and uptight. Clark came across as wimpy and uptight.”
"Lois is TOO pushy and Clark is TOO wimpy. Their normal character has been exaggerated."
"This is very good characterization of both Lois and Clark. I particularly like the way the author shows that Lois is pushy instead of telling the reader so."
What are two areas you felt were well done?
“The plot was well laid out and the setting immediately established. There was no confusion about what was going on and where it was all taking place."
"Great dialogue!"
"This is a great original idea. A small slice of the day told with a lot of humor that proves a great story can be free of villains or excessive cuddling. The author could have spared a short sentence to show the kid’s reactions so the reader is not wondering about this all through the story. Is the unspoken question at the end intentional? (Did Lois give the kid the $20 or the $1?)"
"The very active descriptions of Lois’ driving and of the water fight are successful at setting the scene without boring exposé of what the surrounding environment looks like. The author demonstrates a very good use of voice for “showing” the setting instead of “telling“ the setting."
What are two areas you felt needed work? Tell why and make suggestions.
“Characterization was the only problem I had with this vignette."
"The whole piece just doesn’t make sense and was not appealing at all to me. My favorite fanfic genre is the vignette, but this was too vague."
"The author very effectively shows the action with the senses instead of telling the story. The constant use of active voice keeps the story crisp and fun to read."
"While sentence fragments are fine in dialogue to mimic speech patterns, there are fragments in the introspection that need to be fixed. The author also has a strange punctuation error (period used instead of a comma in the middle of a sentence) that shows up several times and is very distracting – Punctuation:"
{Sidebar here - I think this last remark was in reference to the conversion of my elipses into periods which *would* look very strange in the middle of a sentence.}
What, if anything, seemed clichéd to you? (Plot,characterization, dialogue, etc.)
"Nothing."
“Overall I liked the setting and plot of this vignette."
"I did not care for the characterization but everything else was superior."
Anything else?
"There is great dialogue to show the byplay between Lois and Clark. The fragmented sentences are acceptable since this accurately depicts speech pattern. Lois’ dismissive style is clearly confirmed by her choice of words. The author effectively manages the use (or absence) of quote tags."
"Remember to keep your characters likeable."
"The writer’s dialogue and pacing are great."
"This was a fun vignette to read."
What I liked best about this entry.
"Great opening hook."
***
Okay, you know what? After reading through this commentary very carefully, I'm wondering if I haven't made some sort of misinterpretation error as to the way things are scored. Because the feedback offers some very nice comments that are not reflected at all in the scores as they are presented (example: word "superior" being used but not reflected in any way by more than one highest ranking score). If that is the case, perhaps some clarification by the M-Comm will help me understand the scoring system better.
I was both pleased and disappointed by the comments in that I wish the negative ones had been a bit more specific.
Lynn
