I'm not convinced that it is possible to say that one story is
objectively better than another, at least once you come down to Kerth-nominated stories (though even nominating itself is a very subjective process). How can anyone possibly tell whether one story is 'better' than another? On what criteria? And would even two people be able to agree on what criteria should be used to determine the quality of a story, let alone how different stories should be graded according to these criteria?
(Sorry, it's the academic in me coming out here
)
For me, it really is all about which stories appealed to me most in terms of the category heading. It's not about which revelation is technically better done (how could I really tell?) but which had the greatest effect on me.
So I don't get hung up on technical brilliance, or even spelling and grammar (I have nominated stories with lots of grammatical errors for Kerths, because even with the errors the story touched me in some way); I look at whether I liked - or even loved - the story more than any other in its category. That's subjective, but so is any other human judgement!
Wendy
