Today I got a review of "Guardian" that, while it makes me uncomfortable in certain ways (anyone who tells you they're completely happy about receiving criticism is lying -- I like the ability to fix stuff, but it's painful to admit that anything more serious than typos needs fixing), is polite, well written, and well thought out. However, the reviewer and I seem to be working from different assumptions, and since those assumptions are fairly basic to what I'm trying to do with "Guardian," I thought I'd talk about some of them.
Here's the review:
( The quality of your writing is still good... )
--------------------------------------
( My thoughts on the issues )
--------------------------------------
Anyway, it was a good review. It made me think, and it's good to articulate both what I'm trying to write and why I'm trying to write it.
Here's the review:
( The quality of your writing is still good... )
--------------------------------------
( My thoughts on the issues )
--------------------------------------
Anyway, it was a good review. It made me think, and it's good to articulate both what I'm trying to write and why I'm trying to write it.