Hey! It looks like you're new here. You might want to check out the introduction.
Show rules for this event
This is a straightforward emotion-driven piece, somewhat to a fault. It comes on too strong, or perhaps to be more precise, tries to invoke emotion more strongly than it has really earned with the substance it presents.
Part of this is down to terseness. The story is only one scene. We see the conversation, but not the inciting event(s) leading to that conversation. We don't know for ourselves why the emotional distress is warranted; we're just told that it is. On the plus side, it's a natural conveyance of information one character legit doesn't know, and not in the form of a contrived "As you know, Bob..." exchange of dialogue, but even when done right it still makes for a conflict based on telling and not showing. Those kinds of constructs are almost inevitably weak as main conflicts that are supposed to be the source of what this story pretty clearly intends as its purpose, indulging in pathos for a character.
Another part of the issue here is point-of-view. Is this in third person omniscient? Technically yes. Should it be? I'm not sure, not in a story like this. And in some ways, for lack of a better way to describe how it comes across to me, it feels like it doesn't want to be. It wants Applebloom's emotions to be the driver of a vicarious or sympathetic emotional experience for the reader, but the focus doesn't stick to a more third person limited perspective on Applebloom. It wants to be there, but then pinballs back and forth over to Applejack, making the experience fragmented and a bit whiplashed instead of emotionally cohesive and carrying readers more naturally in a transition from pain to soothing to resolution.
So to summarize, two mains steps to strengthen this story:
1. Show, don't tell, by writing at least one more scene in which we see what happened to Applebloom.
2. Tighten the focus to be on Applebloom.
Bonus points for cutting affirmational statements like "The Apple Family truly was cut from strong cloth" as well. Those should be perspectives coming from the Apples, not narrative dictates coming from the third person. Don't just... tell me how to see the Apples, apropos of nothing. Show me how they see things and how they feel, and why they've earned it.
Part of this is down to terseness. The story is only one scene. We see the conversation, but not the inciting event(s) leading to that conversation. We don't know for ourselves why the emotional distress is warranted; we're just told that it is. On the plus side, it's a natural conveyance of information one character legit doesn't know, and not in the form of a contrived "As you know, Bob..." exchange of dialogue, but even when done right it still makes for a conflict based on telling and not showing. Those kinds of constructs are almost inevitably weak as main conflicts that are supposed to be the source of what this story pretty clearly intends as its purpose, indulging in pathos for a character.
Another part of the issue here is point-of-view. Is this in third person omniscient? Technically yes. Should it be? I'm not sure, not in a story like this. And in some ways, for lack of a better way to describe how it comes across to me, it feels like it doesn't want to be. It wants Applebloom's emotions to be the driver of a vicarious or sympathetic emotional experience for the reader, but the focus doesn't stick to a more third person limited perspective on Applebloom. It wants to be there, but then pinballs back and forth over to Applejack, making the experience fragmented and a bit whiplashed instead of emotionally cohesive and carrying readers more naturally in a transition from pain to soothing to resolution.
So to summarize, two mains steps to strengthen this story:
1. Show, don't tell, by writing at least one more scene in which we see what happened to Applebloom.
2. Tighten the focus to be on Applebloom.
Bonus points for cutting affirmational statements like "The Apple Family truly was cut from strong cloth" as well. Those should be perspectives coming from the Apples, not narrative dictates coming from the third person. Don't just... tell me how to see the Apples, apropos of nothing. Show me how they see things and how they feel, and why they've earned it.