We're currently discussing "Dead of Winter" entries. This year we have three judges instead of 2 so there's more opinion to consider in terms of what we want to declare a "placed" story.
Jam, Erin & I all agree on our winner and our second place story (I think). The winner is #5. The second place is #10. When it comes to third place, I like #3, Jam likes #2 and Erin was a "maybe" on stories 11 & 15. I don't remember #15 but my notes are "Not legendy*; just groess. Somewhat creepy but was creepy at the expense of clarity."
*moment*
I've been trying to remember the story all day and it just hit me what happened it it. In thinking back on it, I would still agree with what I said: it wasn't an urban legend. It was someone's personal fear or psychosis at work but not an urban legend. The fear brought about by the set-up action of the story was internal. This story couldn't happen to anyone; it had to happen to this MC for it to have this effect. I think if it fit the "urban legend" theme, it could have happened to anyone but it would have been more compelling with this MC. Like many DOW stories, it was a good idea that I would liked to have seen executed differently.
#11 was okay. There were technical problems, some continuity problems, etc. The unfortunate thing for this writer is that someone else did the same urban legend (but not as well). So naturally there are comparisons. This is one reason I think #2 & #3 worked: they were original urban legends. After both, I spent time searching online for what legend they were based on. They seemed authentic enough that I bought into them (#5 & #10 didn't require any searches, as you'll see when they're published).
What put #3 ahead for me was that I liked the POV and narrative voice. I liked the urban legend and the mystery around it. I admit I wasn't 100% clear on what was happening but I think it was b/c I was distracted by "I should know this modern myth." I think #3 could have used another pass through the edit machine but in general was technically good.
For #2 I though there was some messy word choice but that it was otherwise fresh. Again there were some technical issues that were more pet peevish than technical issues in #3. I wrote in my notes that I liked the "bizarre morbidity" of the story but I was concerned that it was shock for the sake of shock instead of flowing naturally from the story. I though there were good details, that the narrator was good at getting in close. When it came down to it, the story was almost all flashback (which didn't help w/ immediacy, which I felt #3 had) and there was no character interaction. Granted the story couldn't have had any b/c of its nature (and its insular quality was necessary to the tone) but I can't help the fact that I just like a story with dialogue (so much so that it's 15% of a story's score for me). We had more than one dialogue-free story so it's more my issue than a rule about writing.
So that's where we stand. We're having some fantastic back and forth about what we liked (or didn't) and why and this is what I love about being an editor. I could yet be swayed to chose #2 over #3 provided the right argument came along but when it comes down to it, I really only have one foot on that fence. Someone would need to convince me to sit on it before I would go over it ;)
FYI: when I judge a contest, I use a point rating system that has worked well for me for years. If you want one editor/judge's opinion on what makes a great story, this is it:
Held interest: 5
Opening: 5
Ending: 5
Technical: 10
Theme: 10
Dialogue: 15
Language/voice: 15
Originality: 15
Plot: 20
I'm sure other people would weight things differently. Some might not even consider the opening and ending but we've gotten so many stories that the ending fizzles out that I felt I needed to put weight on that element of the story. Usually my top picks are far and above the other choices so it's not a matter of a couple of points making the difference. I really do start in the middle and award or deduct points based on what I read. I'm a very harsh judge. That's why shows like "Dancing With the Stars" bother me. The judge will talk about the many wrong things a contestant did and then give him/her an 8 out of 10. When they just said they were mediocre. That would be a 5 in my math.
In other aspects of life, I'm very easy to please. But not when it comes to writing (especially not for TC).
