[color=black][font=Arial][size=2]

[/font][color=#1C2837][font=Arial][size=1]
It was intended to build on "I'm still trying to figure out what'sscandalous to do and say around here, since it's completely different fromwhere I grew up. You may want to be cautious yourself". Currently she is"being cautious herself" and recommending the player do the same; sheis pressured to be not completely herself by hiding any scandalous thoughts andbehaviors from Sir. Millcraft and his household and guests. For example,perhaps she was not raised in the religion that almost everyone in town belongsto. If the town thought heresy was very bad they might exile her or even burnher at the stake.[/font][color=black][font=Arial][size=2] [/quote][/font]

[color=black][font=Arial][size=2] [/font]

[color=black][font=Arial][size=2]I was along the same mind set as Wai around this.I had though that Cara and Jareth had some preexisting relationship and thatthis was intend to be the penny drops dialog. In which Cara realize forthe first time that the guy she likes likes her as well. I find Itinteresting though that you mention that when you were planning the situationyou looked at from the point of view that Cara and Jareth and had never metbefore, because that seems like a very odd place to try and start a romanticside quest change from. Also wouldn't in that case Cara's first reactionto being told that Jareth likes her, be wanting to know more about him?[/font]

[color=black][font=Arial][size=2] [/font]

[color=black][font=Arial][size=2]If the case was they had never met I’d expectsomething more along the lines of:[/font]

[color=black][font=Arial][size=2] [/font][font=Arial]“Jareth really? I’ve seen him around town. Heworks at the herbalist shop doesn’t he? Hehad a nice smile as I recall. But no itcould work; Sir Millcraft would never allow it. Well maybe if I was careful… Whatexactly did he say about me?”[/font]

[color=black][font=Arial][size=2] [/font]

[color=black][font=Arial][size=2]

[/font]

[color=#1C2837][font=Arial][size=1]Whetherhe give his assistance or has it taken by her, he may afterwards decide heeither regrets this or wants to meddle further in the situation. So the heroinedecides what he doesn't know won't hurt him. She dons her disguise, kidnaps himwithout harming him at all, takes his assistance by deceit and withoutexplaining what she is taking or why, then disappears so he can't investigate.She's quite worried about the ethicality of her actions and careful to causethe minimum amount of distress to him. She also does him an anonymous favor,and considers that to have karmically made up for kidnapping him. She screwedup at an earlier step though, leaving behind a clue that allows him to trackher down and demand an explanation. Does she still seem sociopathic orotherwise crazy or unethical?[/font][color=black][font=Arial][size=2][/font]

[color=black][font=Arial][size=2][/quote][/font]

The fact that the character goes back and does an anonymous favourto me makes them seem even crazy and dispassionate. On one hand they are ruthless and unfeelingenough to kidnap and extort an innocent person to achieve their goals with nowregards for the persons well being. Thenlater on they figure doing some small anonymous favour some how makes up that.



The critique and commentary have been really useful sofar. I wouldn't mind seeing some more comments from sunandshadow and joecooper though. \to see their thoughts on thedifferent pieces. Also if anyone cares to post a rewrite of their pieces I’d behappy to give it another read.

I'll try to find some time for all that, but possibly as late as Monday. (Wife's starting college this weekend so I've got the baby for that time and any time for this depends on when the little one wants to nap.)

I am working on some sort of rewrite, but I won't shoot for the "modularity" that the original assignment prompted. The reason is that I have so little time left for writing, if I spend time on it I better write something that directly benefit myself instead of something for a hypothetical situation. The issue I have now, is that I forget my own character enough that I can't write consistently. I want to write something that I would read every time before I write about the same character, so that in my random effort to populate the plot, the plot is consistent. The issue is that I forget. I am trying to manage my own forgetfulness.

In doing this, I know that there is a risk of carrying over bits and pieces that aren't well-considered. If I forget who the character was and write it from scratch again, there is a chance that the result is inconsistent but better than what I had before. If I read the 'definition' every time before I write and try to be consistent, it could result in no improvement on the writing.

So how do I get the benefit of both? Being able to reincarnate the writing, and being able to be consistent with the rest?

Perhaps the mindset to be consistent wasn't correct. I shouldn't try to be consistent. I should actually try to beat what I wrote. I think a good course of action is like this:

1. I write what I want to write now, without first checking what I wrote before.
2. I compare with what I wrote before, if what I write now is worse, then I rewrite.
3. If what I write now is better, than I discard the old and "dirty" all the episodes that are no longer consistent with the current design.

The overall set of writings is not going to be consistent. But I shouldn't care. I should only care that I am working on the best depiction and not get hindered by what I wrote in the past. Being able to forgot isn't an issue, it is some sort of strength. It is okay to forget, as long as I can still compare with what I wrote after writing the current one.

The "conniving and manipulative" character was read as sociopathic by the readers of that synopsis too. Not anything to do with helplessness because she's being quite active in that story - sneaking around in disguise, dosing people with potions, and carrying out a kidnapping. There isn't a guy who wants to civilize her, she's perfectly civilized. Her manipulations _are_ her actions as the heroine, much as a hero's actions often involve physical violence. Her internal problem is again a type of fear - she needs a particular person's assistance but is afraid that 1. he will refuse, 2. once he refuses he will take precautions preventing her from just taking his assistance, 3. Whether he give his assistance or has it taken by her, he may afterwards decide he either regrets this or wants to meddle further in the situation. So the heroine decides what he doesn't know won't hurt him. She dons her disguise, kidnaps him without harming him at all, takes his assistance by deceit and without explaining what she is taking or why, then disappears so he can't investigate. She's quite worried about the ethicality of her actions and careful to cause the minimum amount of distress to him. She also does him an anonymous favor, and considers that to have karmically made up for kidnapping him. She screwed up at an earlier step though, leaving behind a clue that allows him to track her down and demand an explanation. Does she still seem sociopathic or otherwise crazy or unethical?[/quote]

I don't know what the mentioned synopsis is, but it does sound unethical. This was similar to one of the reasons why I didn't feel comfortable entering this contest. Before the contest, you wrote about interested in writing dialogs, and now the contest includes the dialogs and the three types of names. I guess the dialog is somehow fitting, but the three types of names have little reason to be part of the contest. I feel that a contest like this is your way of collecting ideas for yourself without directly making a thread to ask specifically for it. That sort of fit the accusation about being manipulative.

If you had specified more clearly that the characters are meant to be some sort of templates, I don't think I would bother to enter, because the situation would appear too self-serving. This prompted me not to post anything new, but later I found that I didn't want to create a new character anyway. I don't know what the issue is, but there is definitely something that keeps people from posting their ideas. This isn't just about you or the contest, but the fact that people create this kind of things for a living and they are some sort of competitors. I am not in that circle, so I personally don't care as much.

I want to clarify that I think that your design was the best in terms of the constrain of this contest (the assumption that you don't design the overall game), but I don't think the other entries are bad if I were to judge them according to their designs outside this context. But it gets to the realm of the problem: "If the writer keeps explaining the unknown, every character will look like the best fit for that particular design." So unless things are laid out you can't give that kind of design critique.


Speaking of details,

Who is the sixth voter?

I count the four contestants plus Bigdeadbug. But who is the sixth voter? Was there one?

*facepalm* I never did write up my comments on this, did I? Ok here we go.

Tessa - I didn't have any strong objections to this character, so the following criticisms are mild personal things instead of objective flaws. I was a bit put off by the fact that she is a demon hunter/ghost hunter because the way she is depressed and thought of as crazy put me strongly in mind of a novel I had read about a similar character and I didn't like that novel. Why didn't I like that novel? Aside from the fact that I tolerate paranormal instead of actually liking it, that novel was one of those where unpleasant crap keeps happening to the main character for no good reason (does not result in character growth or move the overall problem toward being solved) and the main character doesn't have a positive goal they are hopeful and passionate about achieving, and apparently it's just their fate to fight paranormal things without reward until one day they lose the fight, if humanity doesn't turn on them first. I did however see the part about Tessa collecting tarot cards and hunting "the darkness" (which is apparently creating pod people/stepford wives), and the fact that the player helps her with this. I might like the overall concept more if I know that within the game Tessa would get all her cards, defeat the darkness, and thereafter live more or less happily. As a player I really prefer to have NPCs have problems I can solve, to their satisfaction and mine.

That's not to say I don't like depressed characters. I've actually read some great stories with depressed characters. For example one where the depressed person was playing secret admirer with no intent ever to reveal themself. For another example, two depressed people were stuck in a room together and told each was responsible for keeping the other healthy because the administration of their group had no other time or resources to spend on them, it was the most the administration could do at that time to provide them both with food and shelter and not require them to work for their keep. The two people ended up becoming first friends and later lovers, and basically healed each other. An angsty person in need of help is also a good type of NPC for a player to provide help to. As a reader I just want some kind of assurance that the problem will get solved without me or the already suffering character needing to wade through too much depressing stuff.


Molly - I sort of already commented on Molly. Basically I thought she was a lot of fun, I could easily picture her in a game as a female goblin, gnome, dwarf, orc, or troll. I pictured her sitting on her porch in a rustic rocking chair with a big pipe full of "pipeweed". But she is not someone I could take seriously or empathize strongly with. So, she succeeds at the level of being entertaining, not so much at the level of presenting a theme the way Tessa and Skyle do. This is short so if you have any specific questions please ask. That goes for everyone actually.

Skyle - I liked the idea of going into someone's mind to get it unstuck. This made me think of a novel and a cartoon episode, both of which I liked. This would be more interesting for a playable character than an NPC, but it's still interesting for an NPC and that was the contest requirement. I sympathized with the urge to go around searching for a kindred soul, and I was interested by the moral that all the costumes had something to do with violence. I liked the dialogue choices in this entry because they created a lot of interactivity, something I enjoy as a player. The only thing that failed to catch my interest was the childlike nature of the minds of both Skyle and the I character. She seems to be about 8 years old? At least, 8 was the age at which I though with this sort of style. Childlike characters can be appealing, but I can accept them better if there is a character with an adult mind in the same story, and I either am shown the child through the eyes of the adult, or I am shown the world alternately through the eyes of a child, which presents it in an interesting simple yet unfamiliar way, then through the eyes of the adult, which explains and analyzes it in a more familiar way that adds information because it is more complex.

Sixth voter was Viscis.

I am working on some sort of rewrite, but I won't shoot for the "modularity" that the original assignment prompted. The reason is that I have so little time left for writing, if I spend time on it I better write something that directly benefit myself instead of something for a hypothetical situation. The issue I have now, is that I forget my own character enough that I can't write consistently. I want to write something that I would read every time before I write about the same character, so that in my random effort to populate the plot, the plot is consistent. The issue is that I forget. I am trying to manage my own forgetfulness.

In doing this, I know that there is a risk of carrying over bits and pieces that aren't well-considered. If I forget who the character was and write it from scratch again, there is a chance that the result is inconsistent but better than what I had before. If I read the 'definition' every time before I write and try to be consistent, it could result in no improvement on the writing.

So how do I get the benefit of both? Being able to reincarnate the writing, and being able to be consistent with the rest?

Perhaps the mindset to be consistent wasn't correct. I shouldn't try to be consistent. I should actually try to beat what I wrote. I think a good course of action is like this:

1. I write what I want to write now, without first checking what I wrote before.
2. I compare with what I wrote before, if what I write now is worse, then I rewrite.
3. If what I write now is better, than I discard the old and "dirty" all the episodes that are no longer consistent with the current design.

The overall set of writings is not going to be consistent. But I shouldn't care. I should only care that I am working on the best depiction and not get hindered by what I wrote in the past. Being able to forgot isn't an issue, it is some sort of strength. It is okay to forget, as long as I can still compare with what I wrote after writing the current one.

I have felt this way for a long time, I want to do writing exercises which will contribute toward some goal or project I am working on, not just for the sake of doing exercises. I would very much like to have another contest or group activity which everyone would find useful to their own projects. I just don't have an idea for what sort of exercise would accomplish this.

As for consistency vs. improvement, personally I try to do both. I try to be consistent, yet be aware of any urge I have to change something to be inconsistent. If I want to change something I try to evaluate whether it is an improvement. If I decide it is, I change it and make a not to also change it in parts which have already been written. If I am not sure it is an improvement I do not change it yet but make a not to consider it more later and make a decision then. But I agree that it is not a problem for a first draft to be 100% consistent, editing can always fix that, except in a few unfortunate cases where something shifted to make the plot progression or character progression inconsistent. That can require a fairly big rewrite, which can be annoying.

The "conniving and manipulative" character was read as sociopathic by the readers of that synopsis too. Not anything to do with helplessness because she's being quite active in that story - sneaking around in disguise, dosing people with potions, and carrying out a kidnapping. There isn't a guy who wants to civilize her, she's perfectly civilized. Her manipulations _are_ her actions as the heroine, much as a hero's actions often involve physical violence. Her internal problem is again a type of fear - she needs a particular person's assistance but is afraid that 1. he will refuse, 2. once he refuses he will take precautions preventing her from just taking his assistance, 3. Whether he give his assistance or has it taken by her, he may afterwards decide he either regrets this or wants to meddle further in the situation. So the heroine decides what he doesn't know won't hurt him. She dons her disguise, kidnaps him without harming him at all, takes his assistance by deceit and without explaining what she is taking or why, then disappears so he can't investigate. She's quite worried about the ethicality of her actions and careful to cause the minimum amount of distress to him. She also does him an anonymous favor, and considers that to have karmically made up for kidnapping him. She screwed up at an earlier step though, leaving behind a clue that allows him to track her down and demand an explanation. Does she still seem sociopathic or otherwise crazy or unethical?

I don't know what the mentioned synopsis is, but it does sound unethical. This was similar to one of the reasons why I didn't feel comfortable entering this contest. Before the contest, you wrote about interested in writing dialogs, and now the contest includes the dialogs and the three types of names. I guess the dialog is somehow fitting, but the three types of names have little reason to be part of the contest. I feel that a contest like this is your way of collecting ideas for yourself without directly making a thread to ask specifically for it. That sort of fit the accusation about being manipulative.

If you had specified more clearly that the characters are meant to be some sort of templates, I don't think I would bother to enter, because the situation would appear too self-serving. This prompted me not to post anything new, but later I found that I didn't want to create a new character anyway. I don't know what the issue is, but there is definitely something that keeps people from posting their ideas. This isn't just about you or the contest, but the fact that people create this kind of things for a living and they are some sort of competitors. I am not in that circle, so I personally don't care as much.

I want to clarify that I think that your design was the best in terms of the constrain of this contest (the assumption that you don't design the overall game), but I don't think the other entries are bad if I were to judge them according to their designs outside this context. But it gets to the realm of the problem: "If the writer keeps explaining the unknown, every character will look like the best fit for that particular design." So unless things are laid out you can't give that kind of design critique.[/quote]
I included the naming because many character design worksheets have name as the very first blank for the writer to fill in, and naming is an issue commonly discussed on forums about writing. I specified the three most common types of names; I feel that any writer joining a project where some characters have already been named should be comfortable with naming new characters in whatever style the existing ones are named, for consistency within the story world. I've also been in involved in more than one team creative project (Xenallure was an example) where a naming convention was not decided until after several characters had been created. So I was thinking everyone could use 5 minutes of practice with the idea that characters can be renamed in a different style while still capturing the essence of the character in each name. I don't have any personal desire to collect names or characters or something like that. Everyone who runs a contest has some motive for doing so which shapes how they run the contest.

My main motive was to test whether this forum still has anything to contribute in terms of training people to be game writers. My opinion is that the contest showed the forum membership is more experienced than that sort of training is appropriate for and not headed toward a position in the game industry, so a different focus encouraging others to share their own projects would be more appropriate for future contests. My secondary motive was that I always enjoy hearing how others evaluate the entries. The psychology of how people evaluate the esthetics of fiction and games is highly interesting to me and has been for a long time. As far as my personal evaluation goes, I tried to evaluate each entry in terms of whether the entry accomplished what it seems to be trying to accomplish, not whether it strictly conformed to the assignment or my ideas in creating the assignment. I consider judging any piece of writing on its own terms to be the most objective way to evaluate writing. Had there been a clear difference in effectiveness I would have ranked the entries according to this. But because the three seemed about equally good I turned to my personal preferences as a tie-breaker. Given that the contest has no prize, I see no reason to worry overly-much about judging. The point of the contest as I see it is to get people to write and discuss each other's writing.

Now, if you want to say I am somewhat manipulative, I'll agree with that. It's my personal opinion that "manipulative" is a neutral word, not a negative one. I think that all human beings are, and ought to be, somewhat manipulative because it's only sensible for us to try to influence the world to be a better place, and others to behave better, and content we want to consume to be created, etc. I think all teachers are manipulative in a healthy way because they try to influence students to want to learn and feel proud of learning. I think all entertainment including fiction and games is inherently manipulative because it is all about causing the audience to think and feel what the creator wants them to think and feel. Audiences know that, they choose to consume entertainment because they want to have their emotions manipulated, the same reason people choose to ride rollercoasters.

The synopsis is a different issue. Clearly kidnapping is not ethical. But what I wanted to explore with that story was an ethical person taking questionable actions because she had the goal of the happiest outcome for everyone. I wrote my summary trying to emphasize that the woman is concerned about hurting others and tries to minimize the upset she causes and also compensate for that upset by doing a favor which results in great happiness. Personally I see this character as completely sane, unusually kind, and big hearted. Clearly that's not how she's being received from your comments and from TechnoGoth saying

The fact that the character goes back and does an anonymous favour to me makes them seem even crazy and dispassionate. On one hand they are ruthless and unfeeling enough to kidnap and extort an innocent person to achieve their goals with no regards for the persons well being. Then later on they figure doing some small anonymous favour some how makes up that.

Is the problem that I consistently fail to describe the character's emotions, making her seem unfeeling? Is the problem that the theme of a person driven by an important goal to compromise between efficacy and ethics makes this person seem inherently ruthless? Is the problem that my idea of ethics is considered bizarre by the audience? I really don't know. This point is one of the most confusing I have encountered in the past several years that is related to my writing. That's why I brought it up, I am still confused by it.

Alright, I think I'm going to take a swing at this, but I have two disclaimers. The first is that I'm going to try to put in everything I can say and leave it to you; I don't have the spirit to really back & forth so I'll do my best in one shot. The second is that I'll need to use some analogies. I realize that analogies always sound like fighting words, but it's the best tool for the job so I'll just mention here I don't aim to be malicious.

You have the following key problem; when you share a synopsis with non-fans there is little or no resonance.

I assert there's a few reasons, which I've touched on before but will expand upon them with examples and explanations.

1. Tools of writing.

You assert that a synopsis should have resonance. The problem is that even someone who might feel for and bond with a character or idea will likely not from a synopsis because it's incomplete, and because tools of engagement are often necessary to actually "get into it" unless the observer has an imagination that does the work for you.

One of my favorite writers is David Portner, a songwriter for Animal Collective. We have this piece here:

Mold of the fawn, I have been frozen here for days with headlights reflected in my face. I must be cold on your lawn. But inside I'm OK. I can live without your "time", where snowmen never melt; instead they always shine.

If you don't believe in fantasy, than don't believe in fantasy but do you not believe in fantasy because it gets you down? If you don't believe it's raining, I won't tell you that it's raining but do you not believe it's raining just because it gets you down? And if you don't believe in happiness, than don't believe in happiness but if you don't believe in happiness, than man you must be down. If you don't believe you're dying, I won't tell you that you're dying, but do you not believe you're dying just because it gets you down?

Our homes are all white and we go dancing on the lake, and sleds will carry us tonight, and snowflakes will blow us on our way. Our drifts rise to the sky and rainbow hats fly downhill. Our tears are frozen diamonds, so we smile while we're crying.[/quote]

We could, for instance, shorten it to this:

Dude, like, ethereal beauty and stuff.[/quote]

It's literally the same core idea but it won't work the same. It could be a seed, however, and we could expand it like so:

Winter would be a good objective correlative for ethereal beauty, and I guess we could have several snowmen themed sentences.[/quote]

And to a lot of people who might, hypothetically, like the song, it will still sound very bland, maybe even timid or prissy. Detailing what the synthesized organ might sound like and even writing down a chord progression isn't going to help. It has to be finished. It has to have that line, "our tears are frozen diamonds so we smile while we're crying" with the image of a snowman with a candy smile & a face of frozen water, doomed to melt.

And if it does work as-is, than your work is done. There's nothing to add, in fact you're better off looking for what you can delete.

Two of what I consider the most basic tools of engagement are avoidance of flat assertions and parsimony. Your piece requires both flat assertions and details, many of which are wholly superfluous to most effects other than "get other writers on the same page to produce the actual art". Your piece does exactly what it says on the tin and you should neither feel bad about nor expect anyone to find it particularly resonating.

2. Resonance is Personal


We have this piece here. It's a US army commercial and I'll quote from it here:

What drives you? Fame? Fortune? Following the crowd? Howabout dignity, respect, being part of something much bigger than yourself? ... Learn about the more than 120 careers to choose from ... gain the skills and confidence ... help paying for college ... while pursuing your civilian career ...[/quote]

Some will hear that, get maybe a warm and fuzzy feeling, or just plain think it's an appropriate thing to do or a good idea. Someone is a fit for this, and might be so inclined to "pick up the phone". That's the person the commercial wants to connect with. Someone else is likely wanting to call his TV station and complain, but if they blunted the advert to appeal that person, it would likely resonate with nobody in the end.

I showed Molly to multiple other people. Some found it funny and at least one person found it deeply resonant. Some did not like it at all and it even pushed the wrong buttons. For whatever reason women were more likely to like it than men. Whichever; the important thing is that somebody loves it.

You normally write in a very different context than this, and have taken what you produce naturally and is resonant with yourself and shown it to three or four strangers. There's a non-zero chance that at least one will find it resonant. There's also a good chance none will, and I would say pure and simple that it really doesn't mean anything.

3) Well why not?


I could write an essay on my own personal rationalizations for why not and how I'd do things different and discuss how it reminds me of Jonas Quinn from Stargate and why that character didn't work.

But if in your normal context and when writing completed works you don't have any problem, than there is no problem.

Like the army commercial, it may even be the case that if you were to fix it such that we don't find it too displeasing, than nobody will love it anymore because it blunted whatever resonance it had with someone else in a hopeless effort to not be disliked by folks who don't matter.

4) But really why not?


For completeness. And first, a reminder that resonance is personal.

Her fear fails to generate serious tension because it doesn't go against anything. It seems to hint that she wishes she was respected, but I do not see an effort to earn it. Trapping the guy and all that doesn't help for me because it's still only a component of complete submission and while her fear results in a certain path, I don't see any real tension or challenge, and as seen it's somewhat difficult to infer her personality from that sub story in clear way. Fear, it seems, is something she has taken on as part of her identity and wholly owned.

She needs some kind of drive or something or - really, anything - for there to be some kind of clash or tension or something worth reading. She seems to just be like whatever. It says she doesn't like not being respected and being thought of as a child, but she is like a child and I do not respect her. I do not see any drive to change that; only a complaint.

I do not see any particular drive to get this particular guy Jareth. What I see is "I guess this is my lot in life, maybe I'll see what that guy's like, who knows". This is an act of submission to Millcraft rather than much of an aspiration.

I cannot respect her. This is a big deal for me at this point in my life. I'll not talk about why.

It may be the case that there is a lot of tension, clash, challenge and what I call "hard problems" in an actual work, but it is cut from this synopsis. And I'd reiterate a thousand times that it doesn't matter what I think of her and why, and finally that I might actually enjoy a final & complete story with no changes to the core idea whatsoever. She might work excellent in a game as part of a larger whole.

This in itself is just not enough for me.

Final note, I didn't vote it below Wai's cause I thought it was bad; I just really really liked Wai's. I think the thing is perfect. I am primarily concerned that your expected reaction is wrong and that it's inappropriate to judge & discuss it like this. We are, in effect, looking at a video of sausage being made, and not a sausage. I stand by that.

When I say someone is being 'manipulative', I mean that they somehow use people as emotionless tools for personal gain. Since normally people won't voluntarily subject themselves to that treatment, to 'manipulate' someone requires deception. A teacher can teach without 'manipulation' because the teacher can be honest about what he is trying to do. I think in this case you should change your concept of the word because I don't think anyone else uses 'manipulate' as a neutral word when they talk about people.

When someone say, "I feel manipulated." it means that they feel used, taken advantage of, or betrayed. It is not neutral because people aren't objects.

The only thing that failed to catch my interest was the childlike nature of the minds of both Skyle and the I character. She seems to be about 8 years old? At least, 8 was the age at which I though with this sort of style.[/quote]
Could you pin point a sentence where she sounds like 8 years old and show what you would write instead?

When I say someone is being 'manipulative', I mean that they somehow use people as emotionless tools for personal gain. Since normally people won't voluntarily subject themselves to that treatment, to 'manipulate' someone requires deception. A teacher can teach without 'manipulation' because the teacher can be honest about what he is trying to do. I think in this case you should change your concept of the word because I don't think anyone else uses 'manipulate' as a neutral word when they talk about people.

When someone say, "I feel manipulated." it means that they feel used, taken advantage of, or betrayed. It is not neutral because people aren't objects.

The only thing that failed to catch my interest was the childlike nature of the minds of both Skyle and the I character. She seems to be about 8 years old? At least, 8 was the age at which I though with this sort of style.

Could you pin point a sentence where she sounds like 8 years old and show what you would write instead?
[/quote]
Well, I truly hope you don't feel you were manipulated by this contest. The only things I personally gained from the contest are a census of active forum members and this ongoing discussion of the results. So at least no entry will be used in any literal sense. I can only assume that everyone who chose to enter did so because they found some benefit in doing so, whether the challenge and practice or the discussion afterward or anything.

I would be happy to find some sentences where she gives me the impression of being 8. But when you say "what I would write instead", how old do you want her to sound? I would not personally choose to change her into someone who thinks like I do; "what I would write" would be adding a second character to interact with her. If you want me to I can try to reimagine her as a sophisticated adult but it would be a huge change, she wouldn't be the same character any more.