[SUBMITTED] The Lion's Share

[Trotterdam]

Possibly, but I don't want to mess with the David/Goliath/Slingshot reference too much - cramming two references into one name would make it more difficult to get either reference.

Is it overly pedantic to be pointing out that a slingshot and a sling are two completely different weapons that have basically nothing in common except their name? The former is a children's toy. The latter is a deadly, respected military weapon that was popular from prehistory through to classical antiquity.

[Baggieland]

I was referring to the current title. Which is fine.

[SherpDaWerp]

Possibly, but I don't want to mess with the David/Goliath/Slingshot reference too much - cramming two references into one name would make it more difficult to get either reference.

Is it overly pedantic to be pointing out that a slingshot and a sling are two completely different weapons that have basically nothing in common except their name? The former is a children's toy. The latter is a deadly, respected military weapon that was popular from prehistory through to classical antiquity.

I did think of that, yes. But @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ 'Sling' @@RANDOMLASTNAME@@ has a bit less of a ring to it than @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ 'Slingshot' @@RANDOMLASTNAME@@, so I ended up going with the latter. The former might work too, if it's deemed 100% necessary to name the weapon correctly, but I think it's fine for now.

I was referring to the current title. Which is fine.

My concern is if someone's animal is the "Fish" then the title will be "The Fish's Share", which doesn't necessarily hold the meaning of the idiom. But then again, most people's @@ANIMAL@@s are a bit more majestic and reasonable than "Fish".

[Baggieland]

But then again, most people's @@ANIMAL@@s are a bit more majestic and reasonable than "Fish".

One of my puppets has the blobfish.

[SherpDaWerp]

But then again, most people's @@ANIMAL@@s are a bit more majestic and reasonable than "Fish".

One of my puppets has the blobfish.

most people... Point being, I have to consider the title from the aspect that "The Blobfish's Share" isn't terribly recognisable as the idiom it references.

[Australian rePublic]

One of my puppets has the blobfish.

most people... Point being, I have to consider the title from the aspect that "The Blobfish's Share" isn't terribly recognisable as the idiom it references.

One of my puppets has the turtle. Either way, I'd just keep it as lions. Lions are likely to be known about everywhere, even if not the national animals

[Trotterdam]

I was referring to the current title. Which is fine.

My concern is if someone's animal is the "Fish" then the title will be "The Fish's Share", which doesn't necessarily hold the meaning of the idiom. But then again, most people's @@ANIMAL@@s are a bit more majestic and reasonable than "Fish".

My national animal was chosen based on cuteness rather than majesty.

[SherpDaWerp]

One of my puppets has the turtle. Either way, I'd just keep it as lions. Lions are likely to be known about everywhere, even if not the national animals

Yeah, makes sense. But, there's not much way to keep it as the Lion (and change the movie title away from "the Monarchy of the Lions", per Baggie's suggestion) without having a somewhat boring title like "The Lion Prince". I've put it in, let me know what you think - it can always be changed.

[SherpDaWerp]

bumping this back from halfway down Page 2 with a slight tweak to the effect lines on Option 1 and 2. Thoughts?

[SherpDaWerp]

Guess I'll just alternate bumping this and my other draft once every few weeks. That said, I'm a lot more inclined to submit this one because it hasn't been rejected already, lol.

I've completely re-written Option 4, to make it more naturally-flowing, (funnily, it sounds more like the Option 4 from the last thread, lol) and moved to Draft 3.

I've also thought about the potential for a Socialist doppelganger of the entire issue, where the state broadcaster is found to have infringed the copyright of a cartoonist from overseas, who can't compete with a national service. Don't think that one's been done, but I could be wrong.

[Australian rePublic]

How do you know when issues are rejected? Do you have some kind of secret knowledge? Some kind of secret deal with the editors whereby they tell you? Or do you just wait years before redrafting?

Either way-
I'm good for submission

[Candensia]

...couldn't hold up against Idney's billion-@@CURRENCY@@ budget

I'd replace "billion-@@CURRENCY@@" with "huge"

Typically, sums of money are represented by adjectives, rather than exact values, so the reader can assign numerical values based upon their own perception.

[Australian rePublic]

...couldn't hold up against Idney's billion-@@CURRENCY@@ budget

I'd replace "billion-@@CURRENCY@@" with "huge"

Typically, sums of money are represented by adjectives, rather than exact values, so the reader can assign numerical values based upon their own perception.

I don't know. "Huge" seems a bit vague

[SherpDaWerp]

How do you know when issues are rejected? Do you have some kind of secret knowledge? Some kind of secret deal with the editors whereby they tell you? Or do you just wait years before redrafting?

Lol I wish I had sekrit powers... Sedge told me in the Writers' Block that it got rejected, so I'm fishing to find out what actually went wrong.

...couldn't hold up against Idney's billion-@@CURRENCY@@ budget

I'd replace "billion-@@CURRENCY@@" with "huge"

Typically, sums of money are represented by adjectives, rather than exact values, so the reader can assign numerical values based upon their own perception.

Classic... got caught up by specifying numbers. Changed to "massive", and added in that it's their massive legal budget, both because I felt the need to specify that they keep massive amounts on hand for legal ordeals, and because it feels better with an extra adjective.

I'm good for submission

I'll bump it to Last Call for a little bit and see if there are any last comments.

[SherpDaWerp]

Due to the contest, this isn't likely to receive much more feedback - it went from page 1 to page 3 in 2 days...

I've submitted this (not in the contest, given it was a shared effort). Some minor word tweaks at submission, again:

• "has claimed" in the description became "made widespread claims"
• "with sponsorships" in option 4 became "full of sponsorships"

[Australian rePublic]

Due to the contest, this isn't likely to receive much more feedback - it went from page 1 to page 3 in 2 days...

I've submitted this (not in the contest, given it was a shared effort). Some minor word tweaks at submission, again:

• "has claimed" in the description became "made widespread claims"
• "with sponsorships" in option 4 became "full of sponsorships"

So it's submitted? Change thread title.

Thanks for your controbution

[SherpDaWerp]

So it's submitted? Change thread title.

Oops, I always forget that part. Done!

Thanks for your controbution