Okay, so I'm at a writing retreat right now ---and I'm trying to remember that every word I write on my blog is a word I'm NOT writing in my novel, so I want to keep it short and sweet.
NPR / Michael Cunningham selected their three-minute fiction winner [obviously, it was not me], but I confess, I really did like the different approach that the winner, "Roost" took. I really liked the imagery, the concept, and particularly the peacock. I'm not sure if the ending worked, or if I just didn't quite get it, but still, it's hard to spin a well-written yarn in three-minutes, and I really did like the fresh approach this piece offered, so kudos. Cool imagery and congrats.
In another matter, please note:
Also, I'm not one of those writers to suck on sour grapes or heavily criticize other stories, unless it's done as a part of a critique group, and even then I think it should be done tactfully. So I really make a point to not talk about writers here unless I LIKE what they do.
I know of writers from all walks of life, professors, genre writers, reporters, etc. who like to crack on authors who are popular that they feel are not deserved. Well, whatevs. Are there writers out there less talented that get published? Sure. But the door swings both ways---as published writers we must also recognize that there are also MORE talented writers than ourselves who have NOT gotten published.
I don't know---I'm always up for a good critique to help me learn and grow as an artist, but I think so many times these critiques end up being a kind of "sheep and goats" separation, where we try to confer some as "hacks" and some as "literary geniuses" and at best, these titles are subjective, and at worst, hurtful.
...or maybe I'm just writing this while my blood sugar is a bit low...