alcyone said:
These days, I judge stories based on how interesting they are to me. A lot of well-written stories frankly bore me and I can't get past the first sections.
I wonder if one person's 'interesting' isn't someone else's 'well-written'? I'd say that in a lot of cases a boring story is one that isn't well-written.
Not always though - a story about Clark's college football practices would have to be extraordinarily written to make it anything less than mind numbingly boring. Although I bet others might really like the premise and be totally involved after the first mention of 'pigskin'.
And conversely, if a story has an interesting premise but is ploddingly (although grammatically correctly) written, I'll snooze off at the end of page one.
In general, a story that gets my attention is one which makes me think and gives insight into the characters.
I'd say that's a well-written story.
btw, I'm not suggesting that how well written the story is should determine whether a story gets a nomination, only that it is one criterion, and that when I can't decide between a couple of stories, both of which I really liked, the quality of writing becomes a more important factor.
For other readers it could be a different filter - the more dialogue the better, the more angst the better, the more humour the better, etc.
Of course the ultimate filter:
Is Bill Henderson in the story?
c.
