It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Posted By: Jason MorningstarFor what it is worth* I struggled with the text too. It felt like it was written for somebody who already knew how to play. I'm glad there are people in my crew for whom the writing worked better, because it is an excellent game at the table.
Posted By: Todd LAs for citing specific tidbits in the first 14 pages of AW-- I should really take a pass on that. Let my first impression stand FWIW and no more. Trying to 'prove' I'm right with 'evidence' seems like a bad idea at the moment.
Posted By: Paul BTroy, I felt very much the same way when I posted my thoughts about AW a few weeks back. There was a pretty similar reaction:stop reading, it's not for me. Felt like a copout then; feels like a copout now.I'm not sure what it will/would take to create a healthier environment for vigorous criticism, particularly of the most sacred cows.
Posted By: Lulavalley girl playbook
Posted By: Paul BI gotta say, it's just not that much fun to have to hitch up your knickers just to chat conversationally (and critically) in what is, allegedly, a Zen-enforcement zone. Hence my comment about creating a healthy environment for vigorous critique. I know I learned my lesson.
Posted By: LulaCommentAuthorLula
Posted By: JuddThe vigorous critique needs to be vigorous and it also needs to be a critique.
Posted By: droogI don't know AW, at least at this moment. But it seems to me that you're being kind of unfair.If somebody tries a novel I recommend and subsequently returns it saying "I just couldn't handle the writing style"*, what is my best reaction? Is it to try and persuade him by some means that he is wrong? Or is it to say "Guess it's not for you"?
Posted By: GrahamWell, for a start, the fucking sandwich fucking critic decided to post on the fucking Internet about his fucking sandwich instead of just shutting the fuck up and ordering a different fucking sandwich next fucking time. That is a little bit of a flaw.
Posted By: Grahaminstead of just shutting the fuck up
Posted By: Grahamvalley girl playbook
__get all the shoes. All of them.
Posted By: John HarperIn the words of Omar: Critics gonna get criticized.
Posted By: GrahamI'm not sure why we're dignifying Todd's post by calling it a critique.
Posted By: John HarperIf you just want to vent (and that's fine, who doesn't?), post on your blog. A forum is a poor venue for venting.
Posted By: Todd LGraham isn't wrong to characterize me a 'venting', but he's wrong to characterize me as ONLY venting.I am looking in the mirror and scrutinizing what I see.
Posted By: Will HindmarchEdit:Honestly, though, I'm not crazy about the implication that people who aren't completely on board with AW need to be analyzed. If only we could find out what's wrong with me, we could get me liking everything about AW? Further Edit:Yeah, I rhetorically exaggerated what you're doing, Judd, to make a point about how it feels to be on the outside of AW. No hard feelings. I won't re-revise my argument, though, because that seems disingenuous.
Posted By: JuddEvery time you mentioned your discomfort with AW's MC advice being codified I have wanted to link to the tweet and say, "Of course this makes you uncomfortable, the book is attacking something that you strongly identify with."
Posted By: Todd Lwanting to stop short ofcrossing a line from valid areas of discussion: to criticizing Vincent as person.