replying to Yami~
Well, I figure I may as well post my reply to her here, so at least someone gets something out of it. The only thing that's different between this and what I'm intending to post in the thread is an explanation for why it's so late.
And hell, if anyone has any feedback, send it this way. God knows I'm not lacking for time to tweak the damn thing.
I have to admit, I’m disappointed. Among other things.
My review is long. I admit that. However, before I started I didn’t say ‘I want to write this amount of pages so it will be tl;dr’. I wrote to address everything I felt needed to be addressed, and I didn’t beat around the bush about it. The fact that the review is so long should be taken as an indication of how much was wrong with the part of the story that I reviewed, not how much I like to talk. I have better things to do with my time than write out a review that long for no reason.
You’re a reviewer yourself. I’ve seen you get angry when people ignore you or apparently don’t take your advice, and yet you haven’t extended me the same courtesy you demand from others. You’re a reviewer, and yet instead of appreciating the time I spent on this, you laugh in my face and dismiss what I’ve said.
You’ve read only part of it (which is understandable in itself), but of the part you did read you ignored several points I had to make (such as the mysteriousness being in the character, not the narration; the mishandling of the weather; the part on descriptive pacing; some points about the unrealism of your handling of Arceus compared to the human considering their respective positions and powers). Perhaps you did read those and are considering them, but how am I meant to know that if you’re only answering selected quotable pieces? And when you say you’ll look at it ‘later’, you sounded supremely dismissive and indicate that you will not look it over because it is tl;dr and not worth your time.
And then, despite the fact that you haven’t read all of it, despite the fact that you have, apparently, ignored several of my points, you say that everything I have to say is no longer valid, because your reasons are enough.
More than half of that review addresses your language use and grammar, or lack thereof. You cannot tell me ‘everything’ has been taken care of. I also find it insulting that, apparently, you will take Zephyr Flare’s advice, but mine is apparently worthless. In fact, it seems that you have the time to finish writing a chapter you said would take a month to do, but you don’t have time to read the rest of a review which could have helped you with the very same issues you admit you need help on. If you’d even glanced over it, you would have seen this.
At least you’re taking advice from someone.
What truly discredited you, however, was that, despite that fact that its sheer length in itself indicates depth of thought, you call it ‘whining’. It would be rude and hypocritical of you to have said the same thing about anyone who had put in the time and energy I did. But I actually am a professional editor. I know what I’m talking about. I’ve studied for my degree. And you say that I’m ‘whining’.
Why, I wonder? Because of its length? No one who ‘whines’ would bother writing so much for the sake of whining. Because you don’t agree with it? Because it criticises you? Does that then mean that anything anyone says that you don’t agree with or that criticises you is ‘whining’?
There’s no way you could have known my qualifications. That’s not the point. The point is that, no matter who reviews, why, or what they say, you shouldn’t treat them the way you treated me.
I’m not perfect. I’m not right all the time. If you have real justifications for what you’ve written I’ll accept it. But you’ve been rude, dismissive, and still haven’t convinced me I don’t have valid points.
I am still going to reply to your ‘reasons’. I am not, however, going to reply to anything you post afterwards. If you can’t accept criticism, you can’t expect people to take you seriously as a reviewer. And, frankly, if you’re really as hypocritical as you’ve just shown yourself to be, you’re not worth my time.
Because it's a prologue and I want the reader in confusion over if Arceus is mad, annoyed, spiteful, saddened or just sees the human as a pathetic piece of trite. That and I really didn't focus much on the human; I really leave it in the air for both at the moment, to interpet how they feel.
You can still show that he’s feeling emotions while hiding what those emotions are; similar to how you can hide the antagonist’s gender while still managing to describe their clothes or the way their surroundings are affecting them. The point isn’t that you’re not showing us what he’s feeling; the point is that you’re not showing us that he’s feeling anything.
We get more of the human’s motives and emotions than Arceus, because you describe him/her as being excited or dominating through his/her words and actions.
Arceus controlling the storm is a good start, but it wasn’t at all clear; in fact, much of the time I found myself forgetting this and thinking it was the human causing the storm because of the power he/she was wielding, and that the storm was a kind of side-effect. When I did believe Arceus was the cause of the storm, it was more like it was a side-effect of his power, not his mood.
Well outside of a flub of forgetting the person isn't supposed to be gender specific'd [so the he/she flubs do not count people],
I have no idea what you’re saying here, especially the part in brackets. If you’re saying that I’ve forgotten that the person’s gender is supposed to be hidden, tell me how I forgot it, because in actual fact I strove to keep that in mind. I don’t believe I once said to describe the person to the point of revealing their gender; in fact, I distinctly recall saying you could describe them in basic terms while still keeping their identity hidden.
the outfit is really again up in the air, I was just personally seeing darkened clothing, a cape and a mask or a hooded shirt; the disguise again wasn't the most important thing to deal with in my eyes.
Then you should be showing us that. You can’t simply write a story and then later say ‘well, I imagined this’ when someone calls you out on something; if you know what the clothes look like then show it. You don’t need to interrupt the story in order to describe clothing, especially when their surrounding environment affects the people so directly. You can describe their black clothes flapping in the wind, or them attempting to hold their cloak closed against the storm, or the rain which makes it sodden and heavy (if it does).
Considering that you’re attempting to add mystery to the character, it is important, because clothes do a lot to create an air of mystery. Even so, a story is made fullest when the author thinks of the little details. Sure, you can try and skate by-and it might work. But it will still be missing something.
Dotting it's face isn't really what I wanted to describe; and to an extent I kind of do mean that. Ah wait now I know; Primal. .. maybe. I'm still not sure how exactly to describe the pattern but it's not dots and it's not a simple pattern.
‘Primal’ isn’t a bad word for it; better than ‘tribal’, I think.
All I have to say is. Flute of Arceus. Bwahaha. What you think I'm gonna let more, than plot point sneak out?
I have no idea what the Flute of Arceus is or can do. If it’s a plot point, then you should probably foreshadow it. In any case, even if it lets Arceus hear the human, your excuse still doesn’t address my point that you’re making it sound as though anyone could be there and hear the same things under those conditions.
If your excuse is that any random person could be there and hear it because the flute is just that powerful, then I don’t buy it for much the same reasons I don’t buy the power of the chains. It’s just too much, too easy.
It still wouldn’t address the point. Because it’s not the fact that someone could be there and hear it; it’s the fact it’s written as though someone is there and able to hear it.
Edit, also I never said he/she was in the storm persay, the storm was around them. It's not a tornado, and while not exactly a hurricane, the eye of the storm is usually the calmest place; untill the eyewall hits you again.
But you never said that the storm was around them, either, just that there was a storm. Considering you never even hinted that it was anything like a tornado, the assumption that it doesn’t have an eye is a fair one.
In any case, that doesn’t change things; the storm is still there and present, and unless the eye is gigantically wide it will have an effect on the proceedings (that said, having something of that width is in itself over the top).
However, it’s contradictory also. If Arceus is controlling the storm, why is he keeping it centred perfectly on the human instead of using it to wipe them from the face of the earth?
I know you’re going to say ‘it’s the chains’, and I still don’t buy it.
It’s lame, clichéd, and overpowered, not to mention boring as hell. Even with regards to ‘magical’ items, there’s a limit to how powerful you can make them before it’s ridiculous. Right now, you’ve got a trio of chains which apparently makes the human impervious to the weather (including displacing said storm so that they’re in the eye; keeping them from being hit by rain, lightning or hail; keeps their vision clear; stops them from having to struggle to keep their place in the wind; and, apparently, works on anything they’re holding or ‘own’ at any time), makes them magically able to avoid attacks without moving an inch, and gives them an instant-hit success rate while apparently making the target unable to move or dodge.
There’s a limit to how far even fantasy realism can be stretched.
And hell, if anyone has any feedback, send it this way. God knows I'm not lacking for time to tweak the damn thing.
I have to admit, I’m disappointed. Among other things.
My review is long. I admit that. However, before I started I didn’t say ‘I want to write this amount of pages so it will be tl;dr’. I wrote to address everything I felt needed to be addressed, and I didn’t beat around the bush about it. The fact that the review is so long should be taken as an indication of how much was wrong with the part of the story that I reviewed, not how much I like to talk. I have better things to do with my time than write out a review that long for no reason.
You’re a reviewer yourself. I’ve seen you get angry when people ignore you or apparently don’t take your advice, and yet you haven’t extended me the same courtesy you demand from others. You’re a reviewer, and yet instead of appreciating the time I spent on this, you laugh in my face and dismiss what I’ve said.
You’ve read only part of it (which is understandable in itself), but of the part you did read you ignored several points I had to make (such as the mysteriousness being in the character, not the narration; the mishandling of the weather; the part on descriptive pacing; some points about the unrealism of your handling of Arceus compared to the human considering their respective positions and powers). Perhaps you did read those and are considering them, but how am I meant to know that if you’re only answering selected quotable pieces? And when you say you’ll look at it ‘later’, you sounded supremely dismissive and indicate that you will not look it over because it is tl;dr and not worth your time.
And then, despite the fact that you haven’t read all of it, despite the fact that you have, apparently, ignored several of my points, you say that everything I have to say is no longer valid, because your reasons are enough.
More than half of that review addresses your language use and grammar, or lack thereof. You cannot tell me ‘everything’ has been taken care of. I also find it insulting that, apparently, you will take Zephyr Flare’s advice, but mine is apparently worthless. In fact, it seems that you have the time to finish writing a chapter you said would take a month to do, but you don’t have time to read the rest of a review which could have helped you with the very same issues you admit you need help on. If you’d even glanced over it, you would have seen this.
At least you’re taking advice from someone.
What truly discredited you, however, was that, despite that fact that its sheer length in itself indicates depth of thought, you call it ‘whining’. It would be rude and hypocritical of you to have said the same thing about anyone who had put in the time and energy I did. But I actually am a professional editor. I know what I’m talking about. I’ve studied for my degree. And you say that I’m ‘whining’.
Why, I wonder? Because of its length? No one who ‘whines’ would bother writing so much for the sake of whining. Because you don’t agree with it? Because it criticises you? Does that then mean that anything anyone says that you don’t agree with or that criticises you is ‘whining’?
There’s no way you could have known my qualifications. That’s not the point. The point is that, no matter who reviews, why, or what they say, you shouldn’t treat them the way you treated me.
I’m not perfect. I’m not right all the time. If you have real justifications for what you’ve written I’ll accept it. But you’ve been rude, dismissive, and still haven’t convinced me I don’t have valid points.
I am still going to reply to your ‘reasons’. I am not, however, going to reply to anything you post afterwards. If you can’t accept criticism, you can’t expect people to take you seriously as a reviewer. And, frankly, if you’re really as hypocritical as you’ve just shown yourself to be, you’re not worth my time.
Because it's a prologue and I want the reader in confusion over if Arceus is mad, annoyed, spiteful, saddened or just sees the human as a pathetic piece of trite. That and I really didn't focus much on the human; I really leave it in the air for both at the moment, to interpet how they feel.
You can still show that he’s feeling emotions while hiding what those emotions are; similar to how you can hide the antagonist’s gender while still managing to describe their clothes or the way their surroundings are affecting them. The point isn’t that you’re not showing us what he’s feeling; the point is that you’re not showing us that he’s feeling anything.
We get more of the human’s motives and emotions than Arceus, because you describe him/her as being excited or dominating through his/her words and actions.
Arceus controlling the storm is a good start, but it wasn’t at all clear; in fact, much of the time I found myself forgetting this and thinking it was the human causing the storm because of the power he/she was wielding, and that the storm was a kind of side-effect. When I did believe Arceus was the cause of the storm, it was more like it was a side-effect of his power, not his mood.
Well outside of a flub of forgetting the person isn't supposed to be gender specific'd [so the he/she flubs do not count people],
I have no idea what you’re saying here, especially the part in brackets. If you’re saying that I’ve forgotten that the person’s gender is supposed to be hidden, tell me how I forgot it, because in actual fact I strove to keep that in mind. I don’t believe I once said to describe the person to the point of revealing their gender; in fact, I distinctly recall saying you could describe them in basic terms while still keeping their identity hidden.
the outfit is really again up in the air, I was just personally seeing darkened clothing, a cape and a mask or a hooded shirt; the disguise again wasn't the most important thing to deal with in my eyes.
Then you should be showing us that. You can’t simply write a story and then later say ‘well, I imagined this’ when someone calls you out on something; if you know what the clothes look like then show it. You don’t need to interrupt the story in order to describe clothing, especially when their surrounding environment affects the people so directly. You can describe their black clothes flapping in the wind, or them attempting to hold their cloak closed against the storm, or the rain which makes it sodden and heavy (if it does).
Considering that you’re attempting to add mystery to the character, it is important, because clothes do a lot to create an air of mystery. Even so, a story is made fullest when the author thinks of the little details. Sure, you can try and skate by-and it might work. But it will still be missing something.
Dotting it's face isn't really what I wanted to describe; and to an extent I kind of do mean that. Ah wait now I know; Primal. .. maybe. I'm still not sure how exactly to describe the pattern but it's not dots and it's not a simple pattern.
‘Primal’ isn’t a bad word for it; better than ‘tribal’, I think.
All I have to say is. Flute of Arceus. Bwahaha. What you think I'm gonna let more, than plot point sneak out?
I have no idea what the Flute of Arceus is or can do. If it’s a plot point, then you should probably foreshadow it. In any case, even if it lets Arceus hear the human, your excuse still doesn’t address my point that you’re making it sound as though anyone could be there and hear the same things under those conditions.
If your excuse is that any random person could be there and hear it because the flute is just that powerful, then I don’t buy it for much the same reasons I don’t buy the power of the chains. It’s just too much, too easy.
It still wouldn’t address the point. Because it’s not the fact that someone could be there and hear it; it’s the fact it’s written as though someone is there and able to hear it.
Edit, also I never said he/she was in the storm persay, the storm was around them. It's not a tornado, and while not exactly a hurricane, the eye of the storm is usually the calmest place; untill the eyewall hits you again.
But you never said that the storm was around them, either, just that there was a storm. Considering you never even hinted that it was anything like a tornado, the assumption that it doesn’t have an eye is a fair one.
In any case, that doesn’t change things; the storm is still there and present, and unless the eye is gigantically wide it will have an effect on the proceedings (that said, having something of that width is in itself over the top).
However, it’s contradictory also. If Arceus is controlling the storm, why is he keeping it centred perfectly on the human instead of using it to wipe them from the face of the earth?
I know you’re going to say ‘it’s the chains’, and I still don’t buy it.
It’s lame, clichéd, and overpowered, not to mention boring as hell. Even with regards to ‘magical’ items, there’s a limit to how powerful you can make them before it’s ridiculous. Right now, you’ve got a trio of chains which apparently makes the human impervious to the weather (including displacing said storm so that they’re in the eye; keeping them from being hit by rain, lightning or hail; keeps their vision clear; stops them from having to struggle to keep their place in the wind; and, apparently, works on anything they’re holding or ‘own’ at any time), makes them magically able to avoid attacks without moving an inch, and gives them an instant-hit success rate while apparently making the target unable to move or dodge.
There’s a limit to how far even fantasy realism can be stretched.