Why "Masterpiece" if I've Done Better? · 5:45am Oct 10th, 2019
Someone asked me why I call "More About Time" my "masterpiece" when I've even said that I think other stories I wrote are better. I suppose the confusion is my fault, as I'm not using the typical definition of masterpiece. I'm alluding to the original meaning of the term.
In the days of guilds and apprenticeship, a masterpiece was something that an apprentice submitted to the guild to demonstrate that they had mastered their craft. It was not the last, greatest, most masterful thing that they made. It was the thing that, in making it, made someone a master.
For this reason, I consider "More About Time" to be my masterpiece. I submitted it to FiMFiction and it was found worthy of being featured several times, received a nearly 30:1 likes-to-dislikes ratio, and its comments hold some of the highest praise I've ever received here.
I'd say that the guild accepted my masterpiece.
Yes, it has flaws. Sure, I could do better today. But I don't want to reject it. The story is an important moment in the history of my writing. So I call it my masterpiece to this day, not because it is perfect or the best thing I've done, but because it was the first great thing I wrote.
