You are not signed in (Login or Join Free)   |   Help
Sploofus Trivia
Trivia GamesCommunityLeaderboardsTournaments
NOTICE: Sploofus is closing May 31st.    Click here for more details

You are here:  Home  >>  Chat Forums  >>  The Salty Dog  >>  View Chat Message

View Chat Message

Pages:  1    

Bbear  (Level: 168.0 - Posts: 2291)
Fri, 22nd Aug '08 12:37 PM


My husband wrote a series of kerblunks about operas. The first two, which were something like "Mozart's _______ juliet" were kicked back and he had to swap the name of the composer with the name of the opera and then they were launched.

However, he got one rejected yesterday because the editor said he couldn't use a formal name. Hubbie flopped the composer and opera again but it was totally rejected.

Hubbie got really mad and trashed the three that he had written. You have to have the composer name due to redundancy in the titles. He worked really hard on these and created some interesting answers that opera folks would have really enjoyed.

What's up with this? Why were the first two accepted and the third shot down?

Any thoughts?

Berylm  (Level: 163.8 - Posts: 478)
Fri, 22nd Aug '08 1:30 PM

Sounds strange, Bbear - whenever I've had a quiz rejected it's always been with a full explanation of what was wrong and what needed to be done to correct it - didn't your hubby get information like that in the rejection note? Then he would have known what to do to make it acceptable?

Sploofus Editor
Fri, 22nd Aug '08 1:40 PM

As I hope I explained in my response when I returned your Kerblunks, a Kerblunk is a well known title, phrase, short quote, saying,etc, with a word removed. No information can be added to that phrase, title, quote, etc. I also referred you (or your husband) to Hotwire, where the rules for Kerblunks are posted.

So, using an operatic example, a correctly worded Kerblunk would be:

The ______ for Three Oranges.

An incorrectly worded Kerblunk would have the composer's name. The following is not correct

The _____ for Three Oranges by Sergei Prokofiev

This would also be incorrect:
Sergei Prokofiev's The ____ for Three Oranges

It doesn't matter where the composer's name appears - it is still something being added to the title or phrase. Added material doesn't belong in a Kerblunk.

As to why previous Kerblunks were accepted and this one was not, I have no answer except to say that our interpretation of the Kerblunk rules has been evolving. It surely was unnecessary to scrap the Kerblunks that were written; all that was needed was to remove the composers' names.

I hope this clarifies the question.

Francesann  (Level: 55.5 - Posts: 124)
Fri, 22nd Aug '08 2:24 PM

I also had a Kerblunk rejected for a similar reason - too wordy. I kept it though and transferred it to a Trivia Quiz, so it wasn't wasted at all.

Bbear  (Level: 168.0 - Posts: 2291)
Fri, 22nd Aug '08 5:35 PM

Thanks, Sploofinder, for the explanation. Hubbie says they have to be scratched because of redundancies in the names of operas and because if he was to put on operas without redundant names they would be so obscure that no one would know them.
I'll try to talk him into morphing them into quizzes; he might enjoy that better anyway.

Thank you agin for the clarification.

Kaelin  (Level: 49.2 - Posts: 1685)
Fri, 22nd Aug '08 5:45 PM

I did that with one of mine - and still have a rejected one in my bin sitting there waiting for me to make a decision on what to do - it'll probably sit there awhile as school is starting again - band season - daughter's senior year - so hiatus on WP's, Kerblunks, Quizzes - etc - taking WP's & TQOTD will be my Sploofus food for the next few months

Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Fri, 22nd Aug '08 6:08 PM

I wouldn't try to write a Kerblunk even if the rules about their construction made sense. Some titles -- song and book -- are relatively common so it only makes sense to specify who's work. Despite the declaration on Sploofus 1.0 that the Kerblunks were a substitute for Fill In the Blanks, they are, in fact, something quite different.

Pages:  1    

Copyright © 2003-2017 Sploofus Holdings LLC.  All rights reserved.
Legal Notice & Privacy Statement  |  Link to Sploofus