Quote:
Well put. |
Originally Posted by FredrikSvanberg
If so, we performed a great evil for a lesser good, but it was still self-defense. And under very few circumstances can anyone be blamed for acting in self-defense.
|
I think it's really a matter of taste and perspective than anything else. I've played many of the arcs that were submitted for the contest and all of them were flawed in one way or another, (as far as meeting the objective of the contest was concerned), including my own. Every audience member will either feel the ends of arc a wasn't enought to warrant the hero sacrificing his ethics for, or that the act committed of arc b wasn't evil enough to properly be considered 'evil,' or that a choice was offered or a choice wasn't offered.
On that level, every person has his or her own criteria. But the bottom line was the judge of the contest and felt that this particular arc met his own personal set of criteria the best.
I do find it unusual that he selected an arc that was mechanically broken at the time of the contest's judging for the winner. I personally started it four separate times the day after it won and was never able to successfully complete it because the necessary character never spawned for me. The author indicates that the problem is sporadic. Dr. Aeon apparently hit one of those lucky occasions where it worked properly.
Personally I never rated the arc and never finished it because after four times, I was very tired of it and felt the story would get an extremely, and probably unfairly, harsh rating from me after experiencing so many problems with it.
Quote:
I hear what you're saying, but not everything is a matter of taste.|
Originally Posted by Sister_Twelve
I think it's really a matter of taste and perspective than anything else. I've played many of the arcs that were submitted for the contest and all of them were flawed in one way or another, (as far as meeting the objective of the contest was concerned), including my own. Every audience member will either feel the ends of arc a wasn't enought to warrant the hero sacrificing his ethics for, or that the act committed of arc b wasn't evil enough to properly be considered 'evil,' or that a choice was offered or a choice wasn't offered.
|
Judging from this winning entry, and assuming the judging remains consistent, I'd have to say ignoring the actual purpose of the contest and instead putting a bunch of cute distractions, clues, and descriptions in your arc is the best way to win.
Quote:
I don't know if you can come to that conclusion, mainly because we really don't know what criteria Dr. Aeon used to pick the winner. Looking at a fairly narrow range of criteria that could fit:|
Originally Posted by konshu
I hear what you're saying, but not everything is a matter of taste.
Judging from this winning entry, and assuming the judging remains consistent, I'd have to say ignoring the actual purpose of the contest and instead putting a bunch of cute distractions, clues, and descriptions in your arc is the best way to win. |
a.) The story that best fit the task at hand, regardless of the story's relative merit in comparison to the other entries.
b.) The best story that fit the definition of committing evil for the sake of the greater good, regardless of how well it met that definition or not.
c.) The arc that played the best while fitting the criteria, regardless of how well the story was written.
We just have no idea why this particular arc this particular contest because we don't know what was going on in the mind of the judge at the time he judged it. This will always be the case when entering a competition that is essentially subjective in nature. I debated for years. I also entered speech and drama competition for years. So I have a history with subjective judging and the deal is that no matter what, as a competitor, you will always feel, when the judging is subjective, that you really won. Heck, in this case, I look at my own story and, to be honest, probably like almost all of the competitors who entered and didn't win, I feel I entered the best story.
If I didn't think it was the best story, I wouldn't have wrote it. And though it sounds egotistical to say it like this, if you are going to enter and compete, you always have to feel confident in your entry. You always have to feel it was good enough to win.
I don't begrudge Minimalist his victory and he has my congratulations, but the way he wrote his story won't affect the way I write my next entry in the next competition. That's the only thing any of us can do as writers.
Just write the best stories we can write and if our confidence isn't misplaced, eventually we'll get whatever accolades are coming to us.
So no, I do not agree with that definition. Definitions of good and evil are not that black and white in reality.
I think I pretty clearly spelled out that what the scientist was doing was evil, except possibly for his last act, which Venture didn't spell out and I had to guess at.
As I see it, we have intentions that are good or evil, but not people who are good or evil. Sure, we can characterize by saying "good scientist" or "evil scientist," but it's the individual instances that are measured.
You could, for instance, have a very sincere and thoughtful man help you when your car gets stranded in the desert, never knowing that 20 years ago he used to be a notorious thug in a biker gang.
I think most people have had a mix of "good" and "evil" intentions. I tend to see the selfish or "evil" ones being mainly a sign of immaturity.