The Title Writing Prompt Challenge has evolved.

Meaning, like WordPress, I changed the rules on the fly.

I originally described in THIS post that we’d have readers suggest ten titles, then have a three-day voting period, and then we’ll each write a story with our interpretation of the title that receives the most votes. Then, I changed the rules by removing the reader’s inputs and going with randomly-generated titles (HERE).

Then, I changed the rules again. Because only a few titles get votes, and because I hate wasting titles, I reduced the number of available titles to five (5) plus a bonus title from the previous round.

The good news is that — hopefully — they’re higher quality titles, curated by yours truly.

But wait! . . . there’s more.

Assuming everyone has read the three stories titled Of Broken Things, this is where you get to vote for your favorite. If you’ve not read the stories, links are provided below.

For them not familiar with the challenge, you can read about it HERE and HERE. For them interested, the Round 3 Title voting results are found HERE.

As a quick summary, we solicited titles, readers voted for their favorite title, and we each wrote a story using the winning title. The winning title for Round 3 was Of Broken Things.

As a reminder, the writing challenge has no restrictions and the stories span a wide gamut of genres. The majority of the stories fall in the G and PG rating range with a few perhaps pushing into the soft R-rating. Those ratings are guidelines but they are subjective. If you find a story disturbing because of the topics, language, and/or plot points, stop reading and move on to the next one. It may seem like obvious advice, but these days many people go out of their way to experience outrage (and then complain about it).

This is the third round of the Title Writing Prompt Challenge. For them not familiar with the challenge, you can read about it HERE and HERE. For them interested, the Round 3 Title voting results are found HERE.

As a quick summary, we solicited titles, readers voted for their favorite title, and we each wrote a story using the winning title.

The winning title for Round 3 was Of Broken Things.

The writing challenge has no restrictions and the stories span a wide gamut of genres. The majority of the stories fall in the G and PG rating range with a few perhaps pushing into the soft R-rating. Those ratings are guidelines but they are subjective. If you find a story disturbing because of the topics, language, and/or plot points, stop reading and move on to the next one. It may seem like obvious advice, but these days many people go out of their way to experience outrage (and then complain about it).

This, then, is Perry’s submission.

Oh, before we begin, I solicited blurbs from each writer. Here’s Perry’s:

Undoubtedly, Gill Beazley is a colossal jerk. Any man that would fake dementia to cheat on his wife deserves a harsh comeuppance. But does he deserve to be brutally murdered? And who gets their hands bloody? His wife? His lover? His lovers? Then, there are the babies. How will they be used to kill Gill? Crime is no longer the exclusive domain of the young. Seniors, insane or sinister, can be quite entertaining. This one is a ripping good murder story. Enjoy.

This is the third round of the Title Writing Prompt Challenge. For them not familiar with the challenge, you can read about it HERE and HERE. For them interested, the Round 3 Title voting results are found HERE.

As a quick summary, we solicited titles, readers voted for their favorite title, and we each wrote a story using the winning title.

The winning title for Round 3 was Of Broken Things.

The writing challenge has no restrictions and the stories span a wide gamut of genres. The majority of the stories fall in the G and PG rating range with a few perhaps pushing into the soft R-rating. Those ratings are guidelines but they are subjective. If you find a story disturbing because of the topics, language, and/or plot points, stop reading and move on to the next one. It may seem like obvious advice, but these days many people go out of their way to experience outrage (and then complain about it).

This, then, is Gary’s submission.

Oh, before we begin, I solicited blurbs from each writer. Here’s Gary’s:

At first, this tale might seem like a simple parable, a story designed to make you consider the human condition. But as you peel this onion, you will find that it parallels a much more familiar trilogy tale. Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to dive a little deeper and pick up on as many similarities between this father, son, and hermit crab story and the lessons you were taught in Sunday school. Good luck!

This is the third round of the Title Writing Prompt Challenge. For them not familiar with the challenge, you can read about it HERE and HERE. For them interested, the Round 3 Title voting results are found HERE.

As a quick summary, we solicited titles, readers voted for their favorite title, and we each wrote a story using the winning title.

The winning title for Round 3 was Of Broken Things.

The writing challenge has no restrictions and the stories span a wide gamut of genres. The majority of the stories fall in the G and PG rating range with a few perhaps pushing into the soft R-rating. Those ratings are guidelines but they are subjective. If you find a story disturbing because of the topics, language, and/or plot points, stop reading and move on to the next one. It may seem like obvious advice, but these days many people go out of their way to experience outrage (and then complain about it).

This, then, is my submission. I’ll be the first to acknowledge the Twin’s offerings are much better (juicier?) than this uninspired tale, but I have to post something under my byline.

Oh, before we begin, I solicited blurbs from each writer. Here’s mine:

Feeling as if things are falling apart? Well, you’re not imagining things. Still, it comes down to attitude and perseverance . . . and maybe a River.

The Title Writing Prompt Challenge is evolving.

Meaning, I’m again taking a page from WordPress and changing the rules on the fly.

I originally described in THIS post that we’d have readers suggest ten titles, then have a three-day voting period, and then we’ll each write a story with our interpretation of the title that receives the most votes. Then, I changed the rules by removing the reader’s inputs and going with randomly-generated titles (HERE).

And now, I’m changing the rules again. Because only a few titles get votes, and because I hate wasting titles, I’m reducing the number of available titles to five (5).

The good news is that they will be higher quality titles, curated by yours truly.

But wait! . . . there’s more.

Assuming everyone has read the three stories titled Something Gained, this is where you get to vote for your favorite. If you’ve not read the stories, links are provided below.

For them not familiar with the challenge, you can read about it HERE and HERE. For them interested, the title voting results for Round 2 are found HERE.

As a quick summary, we solicited titles, readers voted on a favorite title, we each wrote a story using that title. Again, for Round 2, the winning title was Something Gained.

As a reminder, the writing challenge has no restrictions and the stories span a wide gamut of genres. The majority of the stories fall in the G and PG rating range with a few perhaps pushing into the soft R-rating. Those ratings are guidelines but they are subjective. If you find a story disturbing because of the topics, language, and/or plot points, stop reading and move on to the next one. It may seem like obvious advice, but these days many people go out of their way to experience outrage (and then complain about it).

This is the second round of the Title Writing Prompt Challenge. For them not familiar with the challenge, you can read about it HERE and HERE. For them interested, the title voting results are found HERE.

As a quick summary, we solicited titles, readers voted on a favorite, we each wrote a story using that title.

The winning title was Something gained.

The writing challenge has no restrictions and the stories span a wide gamut of genres. The majority of the stories fall in the G and PG rating range with a few perhaps pushing into the soft R-rating. Those ratings are guidelines but they are subjective. If you find a story disturbing because of the topics, language, and/or plot points, stop reading and move on to the next one. It may seem like obvious advice, but these days many people go out of their way to experience outrage (and then complain about it).

This, then, is Perry’s submission.

Oh, before we begin, I solicited blurbs from each writer. Here’s Perry’s:

In the 24th century, superstition and religion have been replaced by science and robots . . . at least, that’s what two unsuspecting college students thought. At their Teach-Bot’s invitation, they participate in a robot ritual that, to their shock and horror, re-resurrects Jesus. 
Jee-Bot is back. And boy is He angry!

This is the second round of the Title Writing Prompt Challenge. For them not familiar with the challenge, you can read about it HERE and HERE. For them interested, the title voting results are found HERE.

As a quick summary, we solicited titles, readers voted on a favorite, we each wrote a story using that title.

The winning title was Something Gained.

The writing challenge has no restrictions and the stories span a wide gamut of genres. The majority of the stories fall in the G and PG rating range with a few perhaps pushing into the soft R-rating. Those ratings are guidelines but they are subjective. If you find a story disturbing because of the topics, language, and/or plot points, stop reading and move on to the next one. It may seem like obvious advice, but these days many people go out of their way to experience outrage (and then complain about it).

This, then, is Gary’s submission.

Oh, before we begin, I solicited blurbs from each writer. Here’s Gary’s:

Most of us love to hate politicians. Meet Senator Paul Debage (pronounced with a French accent), and you will find that he has no redeeming factors—save one. He is a runner. As a runner myself, I feel that makes him almost human. I invite you to run along with the ambitious Senator Debage as he attempts to finagle votes and solve a nagging mystery. Meet the vengeful Rush Spiegel and make up your mind for yourself. Saint or sinner? Sane or crazy? Justified or Just nuts?