EVANESCENCE

February 21, 2024 

ATOM ARAULLO 
Manila, National Capital Region, 
Philippines 1116 

Dear Mr. Atom: 

We have reviewed your literary journalism piece entitled, “Letter From Tawi-Tawi.” Upon perusing your essay, we have noted that although you have done an excellent job in transcribing your immersion of the struggles of illiteracy in Barangay Buan in Tawi-Tawi, we are saddened to inform you that the aforementioned piece does not merit the 1st Prize for the Essay in the Carlos Palanca Memorial Literary Awards. 

This verdict did not come easy as creative nonfiction manifests in an array of ways, so we inclined this judgment based on Lee Gutkind’s guidelines of the Private and the Public. We observed in your essay that the narrative flows through point-of-view shifts from time to time which disoriented the board of judges. We found that although you have asserted an “I” persona on page 2, we did not see much of the narrator’s psyche and stance in the matter. The mention of the “I” seemed offsetting and superficial as it did not contribute anything to the narrative, which we believe should as you are an important public figure with a platform. It appeared as if you still have to work through taking in a more consistent and intentional rewriting of your point of view. The choice that you make would likely transpire the privateness or the publicness eye in your essay. 

It also seemed as though your fidelity to that certain detachment from the subject, your objectivity, had intervened with your own experience and reflection to come through in the narrative. You tried to write your subject, place, and personality into action by including excerpts from the children's lives and Teacher Sidang's circumstances as a teacher. However, there are still many instances in which you talked extensively about facts that made the article seem like a journalistic piece. It is clear that Araullo attempted to strike a balance between creativity and factual discussion at the same time, but he frequently fell short of doing so, for example, in the lengthy paragraphs on page 3.

We found that the structure of your narrative in weaving together intimate scenes to widely known facts came prematurely and could still be improved. The heartfelt scenes followed by the cold retelling of factual information somehow desensitize us as readers at a loss. You focused on a more outsider perspective, touching only the surface by looking at things through the eyes of someone who wasn’t a part of it. You used a far-fetched eye in diving into the broader aspects of the effects that the literacy problem caused. It was a good point to ponder on the national level—how it affected the results of the elections—but it was a problem that this became the route when you could’ve thought of diving more into the intimate and hidden emotions and sentiments of the locals themselves. The text seemed to have become stereotypical in addressing the issue to be a one-size-fits-all kind of situation. 

As the board of judges, we could not help but ask, “Since you had already dug into the narratives of the people from Tawi-Tawi, why were you not able to sink your teeth into it?” By the end, you veered into the more public and detached ending which felt like abandonment to what was supposed to be a “letter” from the people you are writing about. 

The dialogue also felt artificial and paradoxical to the subject of illiteracy because the students and parents could barely articulate in Filipino, but how were they so fluent in answering your questions on dialogue in your essay? Based on Gutkind’s guidelines, it is critical to fully immerse yourself in the environment and with the locals to understand how they naturally and frequently communicate with one another. Instead of just having them respond to questions from the reporters, it enables the writer to find out what these people say on the spot. In contrast, the majority of the dialogues in your essay address his inquiries. 

Undoubtedly, your work is enlightening, thought-provoking, and moving. You did one of the most crucial things in writing creative nonfiction: immersing yourself in the lives of those you were writing about. Furthermore, you conducted thorough research. You were able to provide facts while also telling the story creatively. Nevertheless, there are still obvious wrinkles that need to be ironed out when it is thoroughly examined using Gutkind's literary journalism standard. Even though there is no such thing as perfect work, points for improvement show themselves to answer the need that your work’s subject demands although these do not stand in stark contrast to the positive things you accomplished. Thus, we, as the board of judges conclude in alignment with Lee Gutkind’s guidelines, deem your work, “Letter From Tawi-Tawi” undeserving of the Carlos Palanca title that it currently holds. 

Sincerely, 

The Board of Judges 
Carlos Palanca Awards