Howdy, y'all.

So I just finished up voting on all of the brackets in Round 3, and I got a fun idea. I thought it would be interesting to see which story everyone thinks was the best among all fifteen of them. There were quite a lot of great ones this time 'round, and I know I had a tough time voting on just about every bracket. It'll make for a pretty hard decision, but I think it could be a good discussion.

So, let's discuss! As far as my opinion goes, I still need a bit more time to digest all the stories and think it through. I'm leaning in a few different directions—I'm torn between Lilligold's author and Evergreen's author, mostly—but I wanted to get some other opinions before making a choice.

What do y'all think?

Coolest descriptions and most thought-out: Luster Lock
Best romance: Wispy/Lilligold (whichever one you prefer)
Funniest: Evergreen
Prettiest: Haystacks
Best dialogue: Ace Artisan
Craziest: Tidy Till

Overall best: Evergreen, maybe Haystacks (even though I didn't vote for him) or Ace Artisan. Definitely not Lilligold, but that's a discussion for another thread.

Nah.

Ace Artisan (just wow!)

Special mention: Evergreen, for the yucks!

Ace Artisan's author's entry for me as well. I'm not sure another pure conversation fic will work again next round, but that one was just incredibly handled.

4523571

Definitely not Lilligold

But Audrey though.

Yeah, I may have been biased towards Lilligold because of the Little Shop reference. It reminded me that that movie exists, and that it was great. Upon contemplation, though, I think I agree that Ace Artisan really nailed it.

4523775
Okay.

4523790 4523926
I honestly kinda forgot about Ace, but he did do really well. The story just didn't stick in my mind as well as some of the others, I guess.

4524083 Yeah, one overplayed reference does not a good entry make.

...Maybe you want to change your vote?

4524181
It was hardly "overplayed", mang. It wasn't a straight lift and it was worked naturally into the story. Practically an homage.

4524335 Any reference blown up to become a story element is overplayed in my book. I appreciated it a lot the first time she showed up and again a little less when she showed up again bigger in the shop, but keeping her around to the end didn't add anything of value. It cheapens the original reference when it's later watered down to be a serious part of the story it's in. Less of a Little Shop reference when the plant is a friendly, mute shoulder-to-cry-on that's shown to eat flies.

If the appearances had stopped after the first or second time or the friendliness and loyalty had been toned down and there had been a little humorous side story about Audrey actually being sinister, it would've been a great reference. As it is, it started out as a great reference that also happened to be a developing story element independent of the original reference that was the whole reason for it to exist in the first place. It didn't have to be Audrey that encouraged her with the poem or bristled in her defense at the end. It could have been a friend, or it could have been an inanimate plant, or it could have been no one.

Sorry to go off like that. I didn't mean to. I'm just incredibly bored because I've been home alone all day with nothing to do but this stuff.

4524181
Nah, not gonna change my vote. Even barring Audrey altogether, I still think Lilligold's author told the better story and got the characters pegged better than Wispy's author.

4524672 Darn. Worth a try. I still don't understand you people.

4524526

and there had been a little humorous side story about Audrey actually being sinister

I don't follow. Why would that make it a better reference (or even better for the story)?

4524526

As it is, it started out as a great reference that also happened to be a developing story element independent of the original reference that was the whole reason for it to exist in the first place.

How is that not a good thing?

4524718 It might not have been better for the story, but it would've stayed an actual reference and given its longevity the justification it doesn't quite have. When I saw that Audrey was sticking around and had grown up to Little Shop size, I kind of hoped the rest of her had stuck to that idea, instead of doing something completely different. It wouldn't have helped the mood of the story at all, but that's really the only point of carrying what was a simple reference out that far. Jeez, I'm entrenching myself much deeper into this debate than I ever intended.
4524726 Because it became independent of its reason to exist. It lost that connection and stopped being a reference. Why is the plant still around if it's not really the Audrey II from Little Shop? I don't know, it's not really a bad thing what the author did with Audrey, but it's not a good thing at all, either. References don't make good foundations for story elements; it makes the story feel like it's relying on them and lightens the whole thing up. It can definitely be done right (Avenue Q had Gary Coleman as a major side character), but not in a story meant to be taken seriously in itself, like this romance.

Why am I always the one turning everything into these debates?

4524818

References don't make good foundations for story elements; it makes the story feel like it's relying on them and lightens the whole thing up.

It feels like you're contradicting yourself. It doesn't rely on the reference anymore because, as you say, it became independent:

Because it became independent of its reason to exist. It lost that connection and stopped being a reference.

By being ingrained in the story, it was given a new reason to exist. You said earlier,

It didn't have to be Audrey that encouraged her with the poem or bristled in her defense at the end. It could have been a friend, or it could have been an inanimate plant, or it could have been no one.

Why have those things happen with the actor as not-Audrey when Audrey exists and fills the roles perfectly?

Ask yourself: would you not be bothered anymore if the plant had been named anything other than Audrey? If you wouldn't have been bothered with the simple change of it not being an explicit reference to begin with, then I don't understand your perspective on references; if you would have, then I don't get your inherent problem with the role it filled.

4524883
Coming in late, but I've got to side with 4524818 on this one. A passing reference is one thing; a reference where the referenced character becomes a significant plot element . . . that's a crossover fic.

I see your side of the argument, and this is one of those things where the amount of familiarity with the source may influence a reader's opinion. To me, that's what it comes down to: should the author bundle that baggage with the character?

If I write a story with a very smart and slightly neurotic unicorn as a background character, it's very much going to change the nature of the story if I say it's Twilight Sparkle. If I write a story where the main character has a bright red Plymouth Fury, you're probably not going to think much of it; if he names it Christine, you're going to be waiting for the car to kill someone, or wondering if it did off-screen.

Same principle here. I think it potentially biases a reader for no real gain in the story. Describing the plant to be like Audrey, but not Audrey would have had a different effect.

4524818 4524883 4540352
I'm not going to try to defend or rationalize the reference I put in, but I would like to give you all some food for thought that no one seems to have commented on.

The name of the plant in Little Shop of Horrors isn't Audrey. Of course I'm not saying that Lilligold's plant isn't partially a reference to it, but the distinction between Audrey and Audrey II is an important one, and not just because naming Lilligold's plant Audrey II would've been really odd.

4523477
Thank you for even considering my story among the best this round! I'm pretty happy with it myself. ♥

4540704
4540352

Aw shit that's true. I agree with Lili, then--that's not annoyingly inserting Audrey Seymour, that's giving a referencey name to something that's logical for LIiligold (whether it's a heavy handed reference is up for debate).

I mean, it's in a pretty solid tradition of heavy-handed reference names.

Jake Armitage?
Chikkita vas Paus?
Issac Clarke?

4541031

Y'know, there have been a bunch of references in the stories. People getting cute.

I'm the worst one, honestly--I snuck a Dune reference in round 3, I slipped a youtube link to a Red Alert 3 song in round 2 (nobody found it--I guess I should have made it blatant) and I also made a reference to REAL SOVIET DAMAGE which I guess is too obscure.

Then you have Lili's Little Shop of Horrors, and you have Mango Leaf's Forrest Gump... I'm sure there's some that I'm forgetting.

4541038

I'm the worst one, honestly

False. Worst remains to be Quick Study, round one.

4540704
I actually was gonna bring that up in my reply to Burraku, but thought I'd come off as overly snarky. I just assumed that you'd dropped the II off Audrey's name because that would have been really odd in the story.

I nominate Haystacks' story!

4541038 Yeah, and my whole inspiration for my portrayal of Bibidi Boo came from Medina of "Where in Time is Carmen Sandiego" fame. The game show not the PC game.

4524335
4540352
4540704 Might as well share my own dealings with references in this contest if we're all on this topic. I already revealed that the dragon in my round 1 entry is based on a Yu-Gi-Oh! card (from the very first pack, even), but it seems no one's realized that the ghost in my second entry is actually from Sweet Home, which should be a familiar name to anyone well-versed in the history of Resident Evil.

4547855
This is the best thing I've ever read. ;_;

4551411 Knowing that, go back to my Round 1 entry and take another look at Tidy's internal pep talk right before the scene transition.

When you see it...