You can get your own story written or push a current story for more updates at his Patreon!
So here's a review: https://www.fimfiction.net/group/202157/blunt-reviews-group/thread/326536/blunt-reviewcelestia-lays-an-egg
What do you think?
Page generated in 0.037 seconds
Total duration
1,037 users online
1,787,063 hits today, 2,107,360 yesterday
My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic Fanfiction
Designed and coded by knighty & Xaquseg - © 2011-2024
Support us
SubStar
Chat!
Discord
Follow us
Twitter
MLP: Friendship is Magic® - © 2024 Hasbro Inc.®
Fimfiction is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Hasbro Inc.®
While it's not as outright negative as some of the reviews you have received, it still tilts towards unfairly ascerbic.
More to come once the work day is over and I can devote more tume to focus on this properly.
The review and the score seem a bit disconnected. I think the review text is pretty fair. The biggest flaw seems to be "wish it had been longer and had explored more details." From that to a 5/10 seems a pretty big leap. Maybe at Frank Reviews they grade on a really harsh curve?
Write what you want to write let the fans decide. Listening to critics like this is not very healthy or a good idea. He does not write to critique your work but use your work to entertain.
Regardless of the number assigned, some of the comments sound familiar. Perhaps you could try your hand at outlining and see if it helps you get your flow tighter?
4605844
If I had, this story would not exist. It literally formed from my story getting away from me.
4605844
Oh! Did you read Lost Pony? Last one shot I just did. I planned that one out from start to end and wrote it out afterwards. It was an experiment of sorts.
4605883
Sorry, I haven't read anything in months. I've been pretty busy.
4605883
Oh, it's a choose your own adventure. I don't think that counts for any inferences we could make about patterns in your traditionally formatted stories.
Insofar as reviews go, this one was, if I were to be generous, adequate. It manages to do what a review is supposed to, but does so rather sloppily, and its critiques only loosely seem to connect to the assigned score. There's just barely enough merit here that it doesn't deserve to be written off completely, but this is far from the cream of the crop where reviewing is concerned.
The good aspect is that this reviewer does seem to have some concept of the difference between a review and an editorial. The former is an analysis of the work itself (which I think is best done by asking three questions: "What goals does the work set for itself? Does it meet them? If so, how artfully, or if not, then why not?"), whereas the latter talks about how the writer feels about a particular work. Unfortunately, most reviews don't know the difference between the two and tend to mix them up, and we do see that here, but not to the egregious degree often found in most of the lay reviews that you find around the Internet.
Rather, the problem here is that the reviewer seems to grant the central premises of the story, and yet doesn't seem to count that for very much at all. For one thing, the central premise of the story - that it elicited an emotional reaction - was granted by the reviewer. That's a major victory right there. Moreover, the critique of "this is too short" comes across as what I can only call a "backhanded complaint," in that it's just as much of a compliment as a critique. Yes, a story's brevity can be a legitimate failing where necessary aspects weren't given sufficient development, but while the reviewer does seem to be trying to couch that as a negative, they let it slip that they wanted more of what's already here. If you're left wanting more, that's a strength, not a weakness.
To be fair, the author does recognize the story's strengths, but seems bound and determined to present them, not on their own, but as aspects of things that should have been expanded on; which is to say, it acknowledges the strengths only to present them as being part of the failures. It smacks of the "reviewing is pointing out what's wrong" school of thought that you see so often among new reviewers, which this one self-admittedly is. Overall, this person is describing the story as being worth a 7 or a 6 out of 10, but frames everything in a way that they're undercutting their own presentation. In that regard, it's not surprising that they gave it a 5/10, even though that doesn't match with what's actually being acknowledged.
Overall, I don't think very much of this review.
Apparently this is a first review ever by this guy, and it shows. If we didn't see the score at the bottom, we would have expected him to call it a seven or so, but maybe his scale for a one would be "many grammar errors but didn't outright suck on its own merits".
Who knows? We're not a reviewer.