One or two of the entries went slightly off this, but there are so many definitions of ‘corruption’ that individuals interpret it differently. My own definition reads as follows: the abuse by an individual or group of a position of authority or trust for personal or corporate financial gain. So, a police officer who makes a case docket of an accused disappear for financial gain, as the winning “Land of Hope” portrays, fits well into my definition.
In “Caption America’s Economy Con”, the author weaves an imaginative tale of a boss from hell who abuses his staff, only to later reap what he has sewn. At first glance, I didn’t see much corruption (as I defined it), but when I broadened my definition to include other forms of corruption, such as moral corruption, the story fitted.
I used some other criteria to judge the work so that I wasn’t biased towards choosing a story specifically because it had a catchy name or an engaging opening paragraph (some of the stories had me at ‘hello’). A good title is important because it catches the reader’s attention; a good opening paragraph is important because it draws the reader in. Then, plot, characterization, language and style are important to me. The final criterion is the ‘readability appeal’: Am I satisfied and intrigued, or indifferent or bored by the end of the story?
Using these criteria in a type of self-designed matrix, I found most of the stories did well on language and style. Many of the plots were well-composed, although in crime fiction I always expect a surprise ending – a twist or a final revelation that gives the reader a sense of satisfaction.
A definition of literature is ‘writings whose value lies in beauty of form or emotion effect,’ so we expect both form and emotional effect even in these short pieces. To me, emotional effect is sometimes more important than form.
