QuickTidal, on 21 January 2016 - 04:43 PM, said:
I didn't. Not sure what place I would even have come in within all the entries (would have been nice if I'd known if I was on track or not).
Anyways, not the point. This year before submitting or even penning a piece to submit, I decided to read the entries that won the top three prizes in the previous 5 years.
In doing this I discovered 2 things that are GLARINGLY obvious.
1. MOST of the stories are by authors who have a history/capacity of writing and being already published in some way (screenwriters, people with writing degrees ect.). This makes me think that there is probably NO WAY that I (as yet unpublished in the fiction category) am ever going to rate when thrown up against heavy hitters who do this for a living. Not to say that's unfair (they have as much right to submit as I do), but it's hard to not feel like it's a waste of time submitting.
2. Not ONE of the 15 stories I read are really that good to me. They are alright, but I think most of them hit up either weird value or shock value coupled with weird turns of phrase. It's literally like the most obtuse story ideas, written in that elite literary way that makes it almost obscured behind the text. If that makes sense? Like I'm convinced that if Stephen King or Neil Gaiman wrote a short story for this contest, they'd lose to some nouveau-literature snob who thinks they just shat out gold and it's really just a bunch of pretentious nonsense.
It messes with my groove, because every year I feel like I want to enter, and now after seeing what they usually choose to win...it just makes me wonder who exactly gets enjoyment out of these chosen stories? It also makes me wonder if what I've written just isn't quirky or prose-dense enough to even get close. Makes me feel dejected.
Shenanigans!

Help




















