Ok, so this was a tough decision. I spent the better part of an hour rereading the stories and debating which to choose over which, and I kept coming back to the same point: one story’s shortcomings (if they could be called that), were more than made up for by other aspects, and since both stories had different things going for them, I kept on having to compare essentially incompatible parameters.

Iconoclast has a lot more experience in crafting stories, and his entry moved smoothly from one section to the next. He’s able to refer to the maiden-mother-crone triad, and creates a historical setting by referring to horse-worshipping (Indo-European? no: too early. Scythyan? Celtic? Perhaps) tribes and Christianised Romans. The story reminded me to some extent of midiaeval stories involving the Celtic Otherworld, and even Arthurian romances.

Iconoclast penned a modern fairytale-like story that did not shift gears or style or genre at any point, one that went seemlessly from description to dialogue to internal monologue and back, and that involved myth and religion in a relatively convincing way — especially considering the space available. There were four separate characters in there, too, and each of them had been given a voice distinnct from the others — the Goddess perhaps a bit too smugly omniscient (“Oh really? I’ll let you have it your way so that you can see that you’re wrong & that you’ll learn something”). But such is tradition.

The beginning (Gairdh arriving at the island) did read a bit rushed, though, and the moral lesson at the end seemed at first only acceptable because the tale template required it (cf. the smug goddes). Also: some more attention spent on, say, the people around Gairdh’s family would be nice — just to bring some additional colour to the real-life section, as opposed to the isolated Gairdh-Goddess discussions. But those were my main points of criticism, none of them a major issue; and since Iconoclast actually tries to breathe some new life in the lesson (“living an imperfect life might not be so bad if others don’t focus on all the imperfections”), that technique wasn’t all that much of a dissonant. I particularly liked how Iconoclast introduced the required animals through the fairy tale theme of the Goddess spying on Gairdh. On the whole: this entry was well thought out, well-structured, and carried through to its logical end. A unity combining psychological development with a focus on the idea that different perspectives on life exist that aren’t necessarily ordered in layers of increasing acceptability.

BethanyM’s story has a lot of charm going for it, and it definitely reminded me of H.P. Lovecraft, C.A. Smith, and especially of M.R. James’ ghost stories: the sheltered, safe and undisturbed world that suddenly gets confronted with a supernatural curse from beyond the grave. Not only that, it’s well-written, too, and it builds steadily towards its climax, focusing on the process of maintaining wilful ignorance. This story, too, felt a bit rushed at times, a bit more jarringly so than Iconoclast’s story. This entry sometimes moved the story along the different stages a tad too quickly, even when taking into account that that was the desired effect of Margaret’s deliberate neglect of the world around her. Whether or not the lack of other characters besides the main couple and Margaret’s mother was intended I don’t know, but it added to the atmosphere. At first I thought the Joseph character had been glossed over too easily; but then I realised that he’s the one who’s going to die, and really his only function is to act as a filler for a fiancé-role required by the curse. That means that his specific character can actually be dispensed with, and leaving him a vagueish outline of a character actually brings home this point quite neatly. BethanyM has also brought in the three required animals very naturally and unobtrusively in descriptions (except perhaps for the cat). As for structure, I really enjoyed the shortish chunks of time passing alternating with deliberately shallow conversations, which ties in with Margaret’s deliberate attempts to pretend nothing’s the matter. I particularly liked the flash-backs / interjections in italics: they definitely added a lot to the tension and the dread of the main character.

The points I felt lessened the quality somewhat were that some passages were too rushed — particularly the ending, where I think there is too much explanation in too little space. At times the perspective is off (“The next morning the whole ship was woken by a horrifying, heart-breaking scream.” — which is, I feel, incompatible with a first-person POV). But those are details, really, and can most likely be attributed to inexperience.

In brief, both had written a carefully crafted tale that met the requirements and ran with them. Both had picked a well-established genre and made it fit like a glove. There wasn’t really anything wrong with either story; and the things that did were more than offset by other qualities. Iconoclast’s story is basically an idea given the shape of a fairytale with believable characters, while BethanyM’s story is more purely psychologically-oriented and less complex idea-wise.

So in the end, since both stories did exactly what they had been intended to do, it was due to one decision: should I take into account age and experience? Whichever way I would tip that balance, that would be unfair to either contestant or perhaps even smack of favouritism. Then again: not considering that factor would be equally unfair. Which was more important? Was winning even important? I could analyse this to death, and still be forced to make an artificial choice between essentially distinct parameters: pretty damn good + fairytale + smoothness + idea with some psychology on the one hand vs. pretty damn good + horror + deliberate chunkiness + psychology without many ideas on the other. And then there is experience.

I therefore declare a tie. These were two good stories, but judging one in terms of the other wouldn’t really be doing justice to either.