It has been about a month since The Lit Crit Contest closed and I hope you hadn't given up on receiving the results, because they're finally here.

After a few weeks of running the contest, I was apprehensive. I hadn't received as many entries as I thought I would. But after a little nudging from some wonderful people and a deadline extension, I got an amazing 40 entries. Not only that, the quality was pretty high. The judges were very impressed.

That brings me to *diamondie and `SparrowSong, who were simply fantastic judges. Thank you for helping me out.

Both judges developed their own judging criteria. I have posted this in a journal: What makes critique good. I recommend reading it, not simply because it will tell you where your critique may have been lacking, but because it will show you where you can improve your critique in future. It's a great resource and I'm making the most of it. I hope you will too.

That said, let me get to the prizes. Note that the judges comments point out strong and weak points of the critiques. A kind of useful critique of a critique. (And don't let the numbers confuse you; I gave each critique a number when I sent them to the judges.)

First Place: *tightwhitepants for his critique of Sunken Treasure

`SparrowSong: "We received a lot of great critique on prose, but what made #35 stand out was that it focused on characterization as well as grammar and word choice. I felt #35 had a through understanding of the piece, which gave the critique depth."

*diamondie: "This critique made an impression with its analytic, in-depth analysis of the characters and the atmosphere of the piece, which felt more thorough than in any of the other prose critiques. Despite this focus it is a balanced and fairly conclusive critique. It also gives numerous good suggestions for restructuring and rewording, but the usefulness beyond this particular piece seems limited."

*tightwhitepants wins a one year dA subscription from *Audley, a 4-month subscription to the poetry journal, Mimesis from *Adeimantus and an 8X11 inkwork commission from ~thepurplemonster. He also has first choice of either a mini-comic feature or a recording of a piece of his choice by *apocathary. *apocathary, *Amberlouie, *Audley, *poprocksandcharlotte, ~ProSI, =Squarix and =WineWriter have promised journal features.

Second Place: =Negated for her critique of Averted

*diamondie: "A thorough and polished critique which sounds like it could have come from a professional writing tutor. It is written in a matter-of-fact way, but does not read at all harsh or bossy. There is quite a bit of good advice, which is not particularly detailed, but still very easy to understand and implement. A lot of it can be used not just for this text but the author's future writing too."

=Negated wins a one year dA subscription from *tightwhitepants, a year's subscription to a literary magazine of her choice or a wishlist item worth about $25 from *wordworks, and a mini-comic feature or a recording of a piece of her choice from *apocathary, depending on what *tightwhitepants wants for himself. *apocathary, *Amberlouie, *Audley, *poprocksandcharlotte, ~ProSI, =Squarix and =WineWriter have promised journal features.

Third Place: ~LiKNa for his critique of Averted

*diamondie: "This critique came off as enthusiastic and encouraging. It was comprehensive and easy to understand, and full of useful, concrete advice. He had plenty of good suggestions and thoughtful remarks and I liked the way he had structured the critique. While he does not come off as academic as some of the other contestants, he definitely seemed to understand the genre of fantasy."

~LiKNa wins a 6-month dA subscription from `Beccalicious and a one month dA subscription from *poprocksandcharlotte. He also receiveds a mug from `PinkyMcCoversong's gallery or any lit mug of his choice from `PinkyMcCoversong, and an in-depth critique from =WineWriter. *apocathary, *Amberlouie, *Audley, *poprocksandcharlotte, ~ProSI, =Squarix and =WineWriter have promised journal features.

Honourable Mentions

`Beccalicious for her critique of Sunken Treasure

*diamondie: "An analytic, thoughtful and well-rounded critique with some very helpful remarks. It goes through all the important areas of the text and gives plenty of attention to detail withour seeming too pedantic, though I feel it could have been a little more specific and concrete at times. Nonetheless its advice came off as something that could benefit many writers, not just the author."

*ordie for his critique of Where do you lead?

`SparrowSong: "#16 is a good critique for many of the same reasons, but [...] it may be somewhat strong given the level of the writer. However, I do think it raises questions that are necessary to the growth of the poet, and the critique is solid overall."

`Beccalicious receives a 3-month dA subscription from =MSJames and gets the same from *salshep (or in reverse, it does not matter). Whoever gets back to me first gets the first choice of a recording of a poem of their choice or 3 in-depth critiques from *salshep, but as they are fantastic prizes, I don't think it matters who gets what, right? *apocathary, *Amberlouie, *Audley, *poprocksandcharlotte, ~ProSI, =Squarix and =WineWriter have promised journal features.

Now, if you remember, the prize pool was fabulously huge, and I'm happy to say that I was able to have special prizes. The judges and I were constantly looking for people who deserved something special. And so we have

The Best Short Critique Prize

This goes to ~sackermanmo for his critique of Bad Poetry. Most entries we received were long, and for good reason, too. However, to dismiss a critique simply because it is comparatively short is ridiculous. ~sackermanmo's critique is short and to-the-point; it also discovered what was, perhaps, the major flaw in the piece. Well done!

~sackermanmo receives 6-month dA subscription from `Beccalicious and the workshopping of one poem or flash-fiction piece to publication standard (if requested) by *salshep. *apocathary, *Amberlouie, *Audley, *poprocksandcharlotte, ~ProSI, =Squarix and =WineWriter have promised journal features.

The Williams Prize

This goes to *fllnthblnk and ^GeneratingHype. As you can imagine, this prize was named after the judges commented on how both the Williams sent in excellent critiques.

`SparrowSong: "Fllnthblnk was the most diligent, with five quality critiques, and it would be nice to see him receive something for that." (His five quality critiques can be read here, here, here, here and here.)

*diamondie: "This [^GeneratingHype's entry] was the only entry I gave a "10" for expertise and authority. It comes off as written by an experienced writer and critic. It is very sensible and thoroughly explained, and some remarks were real gems, but still I felt like it did not go through all areas of the text and did not appear very encouraging. It also seems a bit too much like an edit instead of a critique."

*fllnthblnk and ^GeneratingHype each receive an Amazon gift card worth $30 from yours truly. *apocathary, *Amberlouie, *Audley, *poprocksandcharlotte, ~ProSI, =Squarix and =WineWriter have promised journal features.

_{As ^GeneratingHype was not a GD during the contest and much of the judging process, he is eligible to receive this prize.}

Congratulations, everyone! Look out for a note from me about your prizes, but if I take longer than a week, you have every right to hound me.

Keeping Crit Alive: A Mini Contest

Several of you have asked that the crit contest be made a more regular project. I just discovered that I have another prize in the pool, thanks to ^GeneratingHype: a print worth $25. So here's what I propose:

You keep looking out for good critics. They can be old or new, famous or unknown. I only ask that they be currently active in the crit field on deviantART.
Once you find someone who you think deserves the prize, send me a note with a link to one or more of their critiques on deviantART. Please make sure that these critiques have been posted in the year 2008 and not before that. Also, put "CRITIC" in the subject line of your note. (Also, this is restricted to the literature gallery; I am unable to judge critiques for other art forms, even though I'd like to be able to.)
There is no deadline for this. I will keep updating the list of people suggested in my journal. When I find my winner, I will send them a note, and we will start the mini contest over. Sound good?

_{Thank you to everyone who has participated and supported, in whatever way.}