What the fuck do you know about writing? Fuck all is the answer. So who do you think you are?
I got this as an anonymous review today on this particular one-shot.
I get the fact someone is likely mad at a review I left, but if there was something wrong with the actual review, why not counter it? If I am wrong, and don’t know what I’m talking about, then prove it rather than just saying I don’t.
On an added note, I’ve revisited a few stories I’ve reviewed in the past, and one of the reviews left in response to a review I left said they agreed with the review, except for the fact the “theory” wasn’t “presented as a theory” by the writer, so I couldn’t argue whether the theory was valid or not. However, the problem with this argument comes down to the fact said “theory” isn’t canon fact, but also, what does presenting something as a theory mean? Is it really true that one has to say they are presenting a theory in their author’s note for someone to be presenting a theory?
As a theoretical writer, the answer is no. As a writer, you’re either presenting your work as canon fact or theoretical. There is no in-between. In other words, this is an attempt to try and deflect a legit criticism. It attempts to ignore what they’re working with isn’t fact, but also tries to skirt the concept willing suspense of disbelief. If something isn’t fact, it is the job of the writer to make it believable. In fact, if you are choosing to write an AU, you are creating a theoretical piece, and AUs aren’t something one can do whatever one wants without critical thought.As for the theory, it can’t be considered an AU, for while the “theory” they were working with is now canon fact, there were parts which contradicted canon simply because the writer couldn’t care to to think about what they were doing critically. Should a writer want to explore things that contradict canon, they NEED to note the contradictions, and why they are choosing to explore it.