Masked and Anonymous

It's hard to value someone's opinion when they're anonymous. How do you evaluate their credentials, their substance, their authority? Or is that the benefit of using an anonymous source? To hide?

I have received the judge's feedback from the short story contest that I've been ranting about lately, and it's maddening. The judging was done by a single individual, who had the following to say:

- "Starts out very strong but fizzles out at the end."
- "The story needs a bit more depth."

I agree that my story seems unpolished; this is the nature of forced writing in a competition. It was written while I was on vacation, when I had little free time to begin with. However, when compared to the first-place story that began with no strength and fizzled throughout, the first bit of feedback is unsubstantiated. As to my story's depth, I suppose that's a fair point. Its depth was hinted at, something that I could have done better by far, but the other story wasn't much better. It hinted at a possibility of purpose, but the hints were in a dry and uninteresting context. It had zero emotion, zero character, and zero redeeming quality.

I'm not upset that I did not win, nor am I upset at the opposing author; I am insulted by which writing was considered superior. Also keep in mind that there were 20 people in my heat, and my story didn't even rank in the top five. NYC Midnight should be ashamed to consider itself a literary establishment when it consistently puts such anonymous judges of questionable ability on its panel. Absolutely absurd.

First Place: The Protector by Joe Osgood
No Place: A Pale Undress by Michael Lagace