A comprehensive quiz + bonus fan faction about the the underrated cult classic show "Kelly Unicornstrider and Friends" (1982-1985). Questions range from really easy to really difficult.

I think putting this on "publish" makes it so only we can see this. It's just for us, sweetie. I made it to celebrate our anniversary and remember some special intimate moments together over the years in an interesting way as a present for you.

I hope you love it, Natalie, as much as I love you!

(Of course if there's any admin looking at this, or if I messed up, don't read this, because it's got private things in it.)

This is my required report to the full faculty in accordance with the rules noted in the Faculty Handbook (version 15.1, as of October 2017)

"Personally I can only read 16 words in one go before words stop working," wrote Mizal.

This game has sixteen words per path.  Not counting "The End."  So you can play quickly.

When reviewing, please use precisely sixteen words.   That should be plenty for your suggestions and observations.

Note this challenge connected with this game:  Write the Last Page!

Definitely "B."--tight story structure, snappy prose, and with an end that made me blink at it a few times.  Which is really not too bad a knock on "A."  I could totally imagine A winning in another matchup, specifically ones we had recently.  But this one is "B."

I don't give Avery the answers she wants even when I know what she wants, just to be difficult?

A dollar to the guy on the corner who smells like gin and pickle brine

An extension on the final essay

Reviews on CYS storygames to anyone unless Mizal shames me into it

Up

"Dostoyevsky is not a great writer, but a rather mediocre one - with flashes of excellent humor, but, alas, with wastelands of literary platitudes in between," wrote Nabokov.   But go ahead and read it and see what you think. 

I would start with a shorter Tolstoy piece.  Read "The Death of Ivan Ilyich" if you want some Tolstoy.  It's superb and short.  

I think you should leave it on your bookshelf.  I don't particularly care for it, and I think you'll have much more fun reading Tolstoy, or if you want something shorter but still Russian, Dead Souls (if you want funny) or Fathers and Sons (if you want not funny). 

I like these votes for "A" when the contest is between "C" and "D."

I read "C" and said, well, it doesn't matter what "D" is like, it's going to be "D" as the winner, because I didn't really like the writing of "C" at all.  But then I read "D."

So the winner for me is "C," but there is little honor in it.

I've got to go with "B" for this one.  There was more command of prose style, more natural writing, and a stronger ability to create imagery.  "B" was interesting right from the start; "A"s opening paragraphs felt a bit clunkier.

I don't think anyone who has read the texts would disagree with your major points, but what I'm lifting an eyebrow at is the difference between "evil is actually beneficial" and "evil ends up leading to good things in the end through grace."  The first of those claims is something Saruman would argue from the top of Orthanc. 

You mention that "evil exists and is permitted by Eru Illuvatar because attempted acts of rebellion against good actually improve the world."   Evil cannot create, only destroy and distort, in Tolkien's works.  Evil cannot be beneficial in and of itself.  It's a small difference that I'm pointing to, but I think it's particularly important here. 

Evil inevitably consumes itself, Ungoliant-style, and wonderfully, good comes in to fill the hole evil leaves and reveals divinity's beautiful pattern.  The beauty and joy and divine light of the Silmaril on Eärendil's ship in the night sky doesn't make The Oath of Fëanor not have been a terrible evil in the first place.  So all I'm really noting is that a bad thing can be productive (through grace) of good, but not good to have been.  It's an interesting and subtle distinction, and it's not super relevant to the analogy you were using anyhow, but I think what I'm trying to say is that The Silmarillion is really good, you guys.

I know this is really the most important point, but you are fundamentally misreading that bit from The Silmarillion.  Tolkien would have wholly disagreed with your contention that if evil inevitably ends up bending to create good that therefore, there's no reason to fight for good, or or that therefore it wasn't evil in the first place.  That would be like arguing that there was no reason to fight Morgoth, because without Morgoth, we don't have the beautiful narrative of Beren and Lúthien.  

Whether this has anything to do with being nice in an online context, I haven't the faintest idea. 

Do the same subject, if you like.  But try to write it without the acrostic.  Let's see what you can do with a verse line without it.