Oh, reviewers!

[deralte]

I tend to get a variety of reviews, many of them quite odd, and of course, the most frustrating thing about them is that the ones you want to reply to have no way of replying to them. This is a roundabout way of saying please forgive me for ranting at a reviewer for a sec.

Dear Samwise O'Keefe,

Uric the Oddball and the Wild Hunt is set in 1680. I repeat, 1680. Not the 12th century, I promise. They had paper and potatoes and violins. They didn't have faucets, but I believe that wizards did have them or at least the equivalent. The same for sinks. Don't believe me? Blame Rowling for putting the Chamber of Secrets behind a sink.

I don't mind that you've obviously misread the date of the story (even if it is written very clearly in the summary!), but dear God, stop telling me in every review that I'm wrong. I'm an archaeologist. I do my fucking research when I'm writing historical stuff. Could you be any more patronizing?

Aaarrghhh,
Ariana Deralte

We now resume your regular programming.

Comments

[persephone-kore.livejournal.com]

I saw it earlier this week, and not from someone I consider an idiot.

I apologize if the suggestion offended you.

[deralte.livejournal.com]

Not offended. I just don't see the point. When you review a story on ff.net, there is no need to actually view the other reviews. Occasionally I do since I'm curious what other reviewers are saying, but I don't believe that other reviewers regularly read the reviews for the stories they are reading. Hence, responding to a review with a review is a bit like pinning up a notice on a message board in a supermarket you know very few people shop at. They could potentially shop there, but they probably won't.