On the quality of writing

What is the quality of writing?

I'm in the middle of helping to judge a short story writing contest. The focus is science fiction/fantasy, horror, or any variety of that high-imagination genre. All contestants must be previously unpublished.

Because the contest is a collaborative effort between my library system and the local science fiction crowd, it is the librarian-types familiar with the genre who make the first read-through of entries. Top selections go on for final judging to a panel of professional writers in the genre. This year that's Dennis McKiernan, John Vornholt, Will Shetterly, Emma Bull, Robert Vardeman, Yvonne Navarro, and Weston Ochse.

Because I helped put this effort together, I get to see the scores (0-100) and comments made by other library-judges. (I only looked at the comments after I had read and evaluated my assigned stories, each of which is read by three people.)

And it's fascinating.

Many stories have scores that cluster closely -- everyone agrees on how good or bad the story is. Last year and this, some emphatically do not.

Twice now, I've loved a story that someone else hated. Really hated, as in a score of (let's say) 20 or 30 to my 90-100. I've seen it happen with other readers and other stories too. What's going on here? Is quality that slippery, that ephemeral?

Librarians aren't professional editors, for the most part. (I was, for seven years, but that was a lifetime ago.) Neither are the professional writers, for that matter -- and interestingly enough, I saw the same phenomenon happen when the authors' evaluations come back: one author rated last what others rated first, and vice versa. Fortunately, they agreed for the most part, and last year's placement of winners was straightforward.

What writers and librarians are is well-read, generally speaking. If we don't simply disdain the genre, then we've all consumed an enormous quantity of science fictional text over the years. Writers all say they read a bit differently, more critically, once they get into writing professionally, and I know many librarians who write professionally on the side or endeavor to. We have a lot more to work with than the assertion that plagues visual artists -- "well, I know what I like." That scoring system I referred to above has targetted assessment points: dialog, resolution, characterization, etc. along with 10 points to give or withhold for purely personal reasons. It's not just "uh, I like/dislike this story."

So what is one to make of all this? Does someone who rates a story a 20 just not "get it?" Did my rating of 98 arise because the story struck so close to home it resonated beyond all reason? As I said above: is quality really that slippery? I think so.

One thing I take away from this experience is affirmation of the advice to be found in every book on getting published, as well as on the lips of every writer I've ever known: if you believe in your work, keep submitting it around to the professional markets. One editor might not "get it." But for someone else? It may strike close to home and resonate beyond all reason.