6582871
Most of these points were really valid, and I hope to learn from this review - but there are some things I have questions on.

Why is the movement from outside the character to inside the character (purple to whatever) a bad thing? It's kinda rushed; that I'll admit, but the movement itself to focus in on the thoughts of the character - as if through a camera or approaching magnifying glass - doesn't feel like a bad strategy.

My second question is if you saw that the sequel is to be multi-chaptered. This story was meant more so to introduce that one.
And just feels like a leap in logic, and even the tiniest bit offensive, to just assume it won't get rewritten because it has a sequel.

Other than that, what you said was true enough. I need to work on pacing; I need to work on details; I need to know what should be a oneshot and what should not.

6583207
6583235

Why is the movement from outside the character to inside the character (purple to whatever) a bad thing?

"Once upon a time in the land of Equestria there rested a dragon, perched atop the mountains. The dragon, a vigilant sentinel, hadn't moved from his nest in over a century; such was his self-induced punishment.

He missed the glow of his hoard; he cherished the memories of the warmth of the Dragonlands; he dreamed of flying again, to feel the rush of the wind over his scales. Alas, he could not."

Noting the above example, I divine it's an issue of inconsistency in what Curify calls the "narrator voice". The top paragraph introduces the setting in a grand, observant manner that implies being able to see everything, but not knowing what is going on in the mind of the dragon, while the latter paragraph makes a leap to an intimate, narrowed perspective focusing on the thoughts of the dragon, which is jarring. In short, it jumps from third person omniscient to third person limited, which, technically, is poor writing on a mechanical level.

And just feels like a leap in logic, and even the tiniest bit offensive, to just assume it won't get rewritten because it has a sequel.

The reviewer never "assumed" anything of the sort. In his own words, he said, "I’m left to wonder if this will get re-written, or if it’ll stay the same, since the story already has a sequel to it." It was very respectfully and logically put forward and thus there is no need to take offense.

6583235
ops?

And thanks. Appreciate the review, really.

6583252
That writing looks fine and like something I'd enjoy reading.
Also the implication he made was clear. It's resolved anyway.