Macbeth said:
Sorry that my story went so contrary to your feelings.
Oh, no, Macbeth, PLEASE don't think that. Sorry, I got off on a tangent about post-modern critical theory that had NOTHING to do with your story. My deepest apologies.
Honestly, the fact that you wrote a mystery isn't a big deal. I brought it up in my critique because I felt it pointed up the primary weakness of the story and might hopefully give you something to think about in future work.
Please understand that NOTHING in the post you quoted has ANYTHING to do with your story.
Believe me, if I thought you'd been writing post-modernist claptrap, you'd've heard about it long ago.
I'm very sorry you thought that, and I really really really want to emphasize that I wasn't talking about your story at all. At all. What I meant to say in my review was that it was a good story that fell short of real emotional involvement, and I think primarily because the story depends on the revelation of a mystery rather than the development of tension. Anything beyond that in my later posts is in no way shape or form reflective of or inspired by your story.
My apologies once again. I'm trying really hard in my critiques to make them USEFUL. To give writers feedback that they can make use of constructively in their following work, to give them things to think about and either discard because I'm obviously a moron, or try to put into practice next time. If I'm coming across as just picking on stuff because I don't like it, I don't feel like I'm doing my job. Please let me know if that's the case.
My basic criteria is, "If I were editor of Amazing Stories, and I had decided NOT to publish this, what would be my reasoning?" I try to zero in on what I think are the key problems in each story, and provide clear descriptions of each.
Berandor: that looks fine to me.