The Counsel by SunTwi06 is a story that I actually wanted to read prior since I was interested to read some of this new author’s pieces. And I see it in the general folder…hmm…why not kill two birds with one stone? I am particularly interested to see how the author will tackle with the aspect of being “normal” in this realm and the author’s respective corroborated thoughts about the matter, perhaps even extending to the real world. Let’s begin…

Summary

Derpy arrived to meet Doctor Whooves to discuss whether she was actually considered normal, especially with her cross-eyed condition. Doctor Whooves discusses the concept of normalcy in society through the regaling of a tale, one that discusses a chain of events that clearly influenced Derpy’s idea of normality; to see herself in a different light.

Content/Plot Analysis + Flow/Communication

Let me begin by saying that this review will be of a different format compared to the other reviews that I have done. I have merged the aspects of content analysis and the flow of the story into one section, to help order my thoughts in a smoother manner.

Alright, let’s jump into the content in chronological order! Firstly, let’s begin by discussing the first part of this story, in which Derpy discusses her insecurities to Doctor Whooves. Her emotions and feelings of the matter at hoof seemed to be absolutely genuine in my eyes, as the author describes the rationale of this explicitly. The desperation that must be felt in the eyes of Derpy surely convinced her to meet her friend who she knew she could trust to get past her insecurities of what other ponies thought of her. Her disbelief at her friend’s words of affirmation is also justified in my view since she must have felt that her friend was merely trying to encourage her and make her feel better, simply put. These characteristics of emotions were developed well, and were suited to Derpy’s position. The reactions were relatable and authentic in this aspect and hence, I would like to comment that this part was developed well.

Next, I would like to discuss on Doctor’s Whooves’ philosophy, beginning with –

“Have you ever stopped to consider this?” Doctor Whooves replied, turning to his worktable. “Maybe the matter is not so much your ‘eyes’ being special. But rather it’s ‘you’ who are special, perhaps in more ways than you can probably imagine.”

Derpy is special, or at least different from most of the other ponies due to her eyes, yes, and the above shows that her friend was bringing out an interesting insight that attempts to look past her condition. It chose instead to look at a broader picture, to what, as a whole, would result in the uniqueness of Derpy’s personality compared to the others.

“Well, yes and no,” Doctor Whooves replied, with a small chuckle. “The subject on normal truly depends on the pony in general. True, normal does reflect to the standard be it usual, typical, or expected, they are all relatively the same. But even members of our own society aren’t like you or me.”

Another point brought up above that concerns the perception of society on the concept of normality is certainly not without merit. Indeed, different individuals in society must be different in some way or another, but yet, there is a perception that there is a group that is considered to be “normal” based on what society believe it to be normal. This falls into the category of social norms.

Next, the story talks about how various ponies capitalise on others, by taking advantage of others without any concern for them whatsoever. It continues with how ponies could fight it out to determine that their concept of normality is one that society should adopt, rejecting other notions of normality by others, as quoted below –

“Some ponies, not all, can be selfish, corrupt, and have no care for any pony but themselves. True, they maintain the normal, standard appearance of the very next pony be it Earth, Unicorn, and/or Pegasus, but those ponies I mention only care from what they can take from some pony else. Ponies can easily lead against one another and believe their form of ‘normality’ is so superior, they fail to acknowledge what others consider ‘normal’.”

The points brought up in this paragraph is somewhat linked to the elaboration described in the previous paragraph. I attribute this to the phrasing of the explanations conveyed by Doctor Whooves, since he did not clearly portray how the concept of normality could be exploited by others who are up to taking advantage of others for their own gain. I opine that there should be stronger links between the point of how members in society are different, yet social norms persist within that society, discussed in the previous paragraph, how some members in society take advantage of others for their own benefit and on the idea that ponies would easily contest to show that their concept of what is normal should be the case for society in general, and to ignore the other chains of logic. This would help the reader digest the information in a more logical manner.

One way I would recommend to go about it would be to show how these social norms persist in society as a result of machinations of these specific members of society for their own benefit. This is because some ponies take advantage of others without regard of their emotions, feelings or thoughts. However, I must add that the author may not agree with this, as the author may have a different view of this piece of writing when piecing it together.

Thereafter, Doctor Whooves describes a story to help explain his beliefs. I have several comments on the story’s content and logical connections that I will discuss below in the order in which they are regaled.

“A long time ago, there was a stallion and a very close friend,” Whooves began. “The stallion, due to some unforeseen circumstance, happened by chance to meet another pony. A pony, I might add, who eventually became his friend. They grew up together, practically did everything, and not a day goes by when they were apart…”

My first concern is the difficulty I had in deciphering which character or, specifically, which friend Doctor Whooves was referring to in each sentence of the story. The characters in the story are the stallion, his friend and a very close friend, as depicted at the start of the story as quoted above. I was having difficulty deciphering which of the two friends was the author trying to refer to in each sentence as the descriptions of the two friends were similar in nature. I would recommend referencing them in a clearer fashion to help the reader understand the story better. While I do understand that including names into the story would not suit the narrative of the story as a whole, since Doctor Whooves intended to keep the identities of the ponies in the story anonymous, I think the best way would be to vary the way the author describes the friends in question. One way is to include further unique characteristics of the stallion’s friends to differentiate them in the story with physical features, for instance.

Before I carry on with the second point I would like to put forth, allow me to depict the scene in question –

After his friend’s recovery at the hospital, the stallion and his friend went back to working on their creation to benefit the world. In the process of experimentation, his friend wanted to apply dark magic to their creation to enhance it. The stallion wanted to keep the status quo, so he agreed, such that things “could still go on as normal.” Despite this, the stallion discussed his concerns with his dearly beloved friend to explain the situation and the happenings of his other friend. The two friends met up to talk at the stallion’s workplace, which resulted in his dearly beloved friend’s death, while the other friend had managed to escape.

With that out of the way, I will now discuss my second point. At the start of the story, Derpy wanted to ask Doctor Whooves whether she was actually normal in the society they live in. This is due to the fact that many ponies must have judged her to be different from them because of her eyes. Hence, other ponies would have deemed her not to be normal based on her appearance as she had a unique characteristic that, to the perspective of the others, was not normal. I would say that the term “normal” is defined to be in accordance with the norms of society.

However, in Doctor Whooves’ tale, the concept of the term “normal” is different from the start of the story. In his tale, the term “normal” was used to show how the stallion would like the situation that he and his friend were involved in to remain the same, or to keep things a constant. While the idea of normality is somewhat similar, the context in which the term is used is different. There is hence a logical disconnect between these ideas of the story due to this inconsistency.

Thereafter, the stallion’s work associate was “sharing words [at the stallion’s workplace] with his dearly beloved” that ended in death due to the horrors of their creation. I felt that it was convenient that the creation warped into something lethal or broke out of its containment cage during the visit of the stallion’s dearest friend, for I could not see how the conversation between the two friends of the stallion would result in the sudden death of his dearest friend. I wished that the story could provide some level of explanation here, so that the transition to the death of the stallion’s dearest friend would be more logical. However, I understand that, from the perspective of the stallion, he must not have known the events that transpired during that instance. Perhaps, the author could include some degree of foreshadowing to help provide some clues to the demise of his friend, depending on how the author wants the story to proceed.

Next, the story mentions how the stallion was accused of murdering his dearly beloved friend in a trial. He was acquitted, but the stallion’s other friend spread rumours to riot against the decision so that he will be brought to “justice [by]…their own hooves.” This forced the stallion to flee, resulting in this remark by Doctor Whooves –

“But that very train he knew was taking him far away from that town, to a safe place away from all the ponies who did what they believe was ‘normal’… Including his own best friend.”

The meaning of the term “normal” in this context deviates slightly from the previous paragraphs, due to the context in which it is used. In the above quoted excerpt, the word “normal” seems to be used to show that the ponies in the town believed that their actions against the stallion were justified in their opinion. I guess this is somewhat linked to the first definition proffered by the story since the ponies in the town were of the same opinion that their actions against the stallion was fair, therefore their actions were correct according to their society.

Proceeding with the tale, the stallion went on a mission to take revenge on his friend to fix the societal norms that his friend created as described below:

“Once more, something the stallion built was a weapon of destruction, a number of ponies were hurt, and his friend, when he found the body laying there…”

The style of writing here confuses me due to the unclear references to each individual character. For instance, I am uncertain whether “the body lying there” refers to the stallion or his friend. This is because this could be interpreted in two ways. One, his friend is the subject of the sentence, hence “he” refers to the stallion’s friend and so the body must belong to the stallion. Two, Doctor Whooves was trying to show that the stallion’s actions implicated both his former friend and other ponies and hence wanted to show the emotion that the stallion felt when he saw his old friend’s body lying there.

I initially thought that, due to the style of the writing of the excerpt, the meaning that it would like to convey to me would be closer to the first interpretation than the second. I attribute this to how the comma after “hurt” demarcated the ideas in the sentence. The pause that was introduced by this comma caused the stallion’s friend to be the subject of the next portion of the sentence, prompting the reader to interpret the sentence as such. In addition, the conjunction “and” prompted me to consider that another idea was being introduced, though in actuality, the motive of the author to use the word “and” was to show the inclusion of the stallion’s friend into the group of ponies that were implicated by the stallion’s actions. Of course, the previous paragraph did show that the stallion did triumph over his friend in the end at a devastating cost, which implies that the second interpretation is of greater validity than the first. I recommend that the conjunction “and” should be replaced with “including.” Furthermore, should the author want to show the emotion when the stallion saw his friend’s body simply lying there, the idea should be more clearly split by starting another sentence to depict this scene, for instance. This would help the reader discern the picture of the scene painted by the narrator of this story, Doctor Whooves.

Now, carrying on –

“It was all because the ponies would not stand for themselves… that the stallion felt he was the only pony who cares. But his friend ‘did’ care, even willing to actually say… ‘I’m sorry’. Those were the last words the stallion had to carry with him, the few words he ever heard his friend say… And then he was gone.”

In this section, I felt that the link between how the bolded point brought up by Doctor Whooves and the rest of the story was slightly blurry. If ponies did not stand up for themselves, they would not be willing to uphold or defend their own, individual, unique beliefs. I believe that the author wanted to link this with how ponies blindly follow societal norms that were artificially fabricated, but I wished that this could have been mentioned more distinctly, especially at the point of the story during which the stallion’s friend was up to spreading rumours of the stallion’s guilt, to show how easily the members of society were swayed into this belief.

As Doctor Whooves’ tale draws to an end, he started to explain his points to Derpy. The overall moral of the story is that the idea of social normality is shaped by the members in that society and the concept of normality varies from individual to individual based on their own respective perspectives. This revelation caused Derpy to change her mindset and view herself not to be abnormal in society, but extraordinary.

Before I close off this section, I would like to say that this story explores the concept of normality from many different perspectives and viewpoints, especially at the end, such as –

All Derpy knew was that this ‘Stallion’, whomever he was, was a colt who live with so much regret for the remainder of his days… For him, that ‘was’ his normal of which he had to live with for always.

The concept of “normal” discussed above talks about how the regret that the stallion had would forever be with him throughout the remainder of his life, to show how this would linger around with the rest of his life. This would become the new constant in his life, hence normal.

Another example would be the following:

“…A pony who cares for others before herself, a pony always joyful no matter what life hurdles at her. Those qualities… Those are what make you normal, the standard.”

…

“But never forget, Ms. Hooves, ‘standard’ is all normal is. At the same time, ‘normal’ itself is overrated, no pony is ever normal…”

I am not certain that the qualities or characteristic traits an individual possess would determine whether or not an individual would be normal in his/her own right and I wished that the story would help me understand this perspective with greater explanation of this point. In addition, more work could have gone into developing the concept of how “standard is all [what] normal is.” Similarly, more content and logical connections could have been made here to develop the aspect of this story to convince the reader to understand this perspective.

Overall, I felt that this story could have explained each individual facet of these perspectives in a more detailed and comprehensive manner, perhaps in greater development of each point in the story recalled by Doctor Whooves, or in the elaboration of the point brought forth at the start and even at the end of the story by his narration. Furthermore, the story regaled by Doctor Whooves could be better linked and extrapolated to the points that he would like to convey to Derpy Hooves.

This would significantly help the reader to digest the contents of the story more easily and capture the essence of the moral the story would like to portray to its readers.

I understand the concepts of normality are difficult to cover in such a fashion, but the inclusion of these ideas in the story mean that they need to be built upon and reinforced for better communication with the reader; to allow the reader to connect with the story and emphasise with the emotions experienced by Derpy at the start and even the stallion and his friends in the tale regaled by Doctor Whooves.

Language

Alright, let’s examine some of the errors that I have discovered throughout the story, categorised into each individual section, most notably:

Note: The spoilers are the corrected versions of the quoted text.

Spelling

“Once more, something the stallion built was a weapon of destruction, a number of ponies were hurt, and his friend, when he found the body laying there…”

“Once more, something the stallion built was a weapon of destruction, a number of ponies were hurt, and his friend, when he found the body lying there…”

Syntax

There was a moment of silence as Doctor Whooves took a deep breath, while Derpy adjust herself so she can feel more comfortable.

There was a moment of silence as Doctor Whooves took a deep breath, while Derpy adjusted herself so she could feel more comfortable.

“They grew up together, practically did everything, and not a day goes by when they were apart…”

“They grew up together, practically did everything, and not a day went by with them being apart…”

“It was tragic under the sense that the friend lost their sight…”

“It was tragic in the sense that the friend lost their sight…”

Punctuation

“What is normal?: He asked, smiling sadly.

“What is normal?” He asked, smiling sadly.

Stance

I can feel that this story is filled with wonderful insights in the concept of normality in our society. I really wished that the story was developed with more clarity to bring out the insights that it contains to the reader and spark reflective thoughts to trickle into their minds.

Content/Plot: 3.8/10
Flow/Communication: 2/10
Language/Readability: 5.8/10
Overall: 3.9/10

To improve, the author should strongly consider the building the points in the story more comprehensively and explicitly. The author should also demarcate ideas in a more cohesive manner to help bridge ideas and link them together so that the content of the story, including its valuable insights, could be communicated effectively with the reader.

Before I end my review, please do not be disheartened. I am certain that, with greater effort, this story would be a great piece to read as I believe that this story has much potential. And as usual, I am more than happy to talk about your story and help you improve.

7255653
Great and crisp review, Stinium.

Something I've observed in a lot of authors is a queasy attempt at subverting or dissecting social philosophies. It's something I did when I first started out, and admittedly some of that approach still remains in current work.

It's hard to write such a thing well, though, due to a lot of factors being involved. A writer who engages with such an approach must contend not just with the complications of storytelling in general (plot, character, etc.), but also the pervasive difficulty of validating the argument, I.e., making whatever conclusion the author has with whatever philosophy they are dissecting persuasive to the reader.

In this way, stories of this nature take on a necessarily argumentative tone, much like an essay. But it's easy for a writer to become enamored with the "genius" of their point, and they may make the characters act in ways to confirm this point, rather than explore it in full. This is prevalent perhaps the most in satirical works where society is the subject of ridicule, but whereas that's the point of satirical writing, it should not become the focal point of a regular story.

Philosophy is already a monster to sprinkle into stories in digestible tidbits. Writers always risk preaching rather than exploring their idea, or coming off as high-handed with it, thereby sacrificing the actual relevance and veracity of the story placing with those ideas. I don't know if this story is necessarily preachy, but because it deals with a complex issues, it seems to have the weight of it working against its premise.

To argue over what is and isn't normal is a complicated problem, and I think that by attempting to solve it, the author may have forgotten to make the story a story and not an interactive argument. It's an easy trap for many, and I've gone there myself many times.

To date, I think the only author I've read who's managed to do this without negatively effecting the story has Leo Tolstoy, even if he is preachy at times. But somehow he's able to weave his views on life and philosophy into amazing stories like "The Death of Ivan Ilych", such that it's possible to enjoy the plot and the point simultaneously.

Thank you for the review. I take the words you said to heart and I will do my best to fix these issues on a later date. I do want toapologize for presenting a poor story. I do hope this doesn't discourage you from my other content

7255653
7255668
Awesome review, Stinium! This one rivals the length of my longest reviews, and it's great

The point here reminded me of a quote from Robert McKee's Story. I went and found it for y'all

Master storytellers never explain. They do the hard, and painfully creative thing -- they dramatize. Audiences are rarely entertained, and certainly never convinced, when forced to listen to the discussion of ideas. [...] A great story authenticates its ideas solely within the dynamics of its events; failure to express a view of life through the pure, honest consequences of human actions and choices is a creative defeat no amount of clever language can salvage.

Quite a long quote but I think it's relevant

...also I'm reminded of another piece of writing advice while reading through this. This one's simpler -- "never allude to a more interesting story". I'm not exactly sure where I heard it, but hey, reading about these two friends and their superweapons seems pretty dang interesting to me. :P