I like it Sionnain, it hasn't quite grabbed me, but I don't know that it wouldn't grab someone who hadn't read anything by you before. I feel like it's missing a little of your usual flair, like a soup that is still delicious but not quite like it usually is because the chef didn't add a bayleaf or something like that. I don't know, it might just be me, but that's the feeling I get.
I feel like the rhythm gets disrupted a little bit here:
because this time the story had to have a happy ending, and this time eight people were going to have to save that world instead.
Is the little girl spoken of at the end of the italics the writer? And is it she that is the reason that the story has to end differently this time? This is the impression I got (which should help you figure out whether it is a right or wrong one :P ) If this is so, maybe change 'had to' and 'have to' in the quote above to 'would'? To me this would strengthen the idea of a sentient mind making a decision to change the ending of the story.
I thought that the change in the dates was deliberate, but I did some (extremely) rough calculations, and the day of the week should be back to Tuesday after that many years, leap years considered. 280 divided by 4 yields 70 and both of these numbers are multiples of seven. If you make it the gap between the years three years shorter or four longer it should fix things. I think leap years are only skipped at the millennia, but it might be the century, in which case my maths would be wrong.
Edit: Something else that might be worth trying would be to have fewer 'who's in your description of the eight, and maybe not have a pause after you give there name?
Eg;
The Princess who wore no crown and had no country;
The Warrior destined to lose every battle but always deny it;
et cetera et cetera
It just changes the rhythm a little so that it's more (active/forward/demanding?). I think that would just help to grab me a little better. As it is it seems a little passive.
