Scribble Hub Forum

Her assessment is harsh but fair. Even if you gave it one star, I wouldn't be disappointed.

Pawsitivity~!

I don't like it either when the author starts at the conclusion, establishes the outcome, and then looks back to start a flashback.

Oh, btw, I don't think such a structure merits any demotion in quality perception whatsoever. It can be done really well. I just don't like it as much as a fresh start story.

Nor should it kill the suspense. It feels like a hollow assesement This can be argued with any story where the main character has plot armor. The reader is not wondering 'if' the mc will overcome the situation, but how.

Let me explain it simply as an outside observer... a story is suspenseful because it maintains a layer of mystery. If the reader doesn't know... MC's fate when he is involved in a conflict, whether MC is sick, injured, or even dies, then the reader can continue to feel suspenseful.

The problem with autobiographical stories, MC writes from a 'future' perspective where he is 'safe' to tell his story to the readers. Even if the MC faces an apocalypse-level disaster in his autobiography, the readers will still feel safe, because they already know MC has overcome that danger. Otherwise, he wouldn't have written an autobiography.

That's what the reviewer criticized. The autobiographical format kills the suspense of the story itself.

Devils advocate from a out of spectrum writer who thinks the very concept of a main character is over depended on: don't readers assume the MC is going to have plot armor and be safe somehow anyway, because it is in the writer's best interest to keep the MC alive and continue the story. Plus these day with labeling f-ing everything, the reader pretty much knows what kind of ending to expect.

[This taking for granted that I have a strong aversion to stories written in first person]

Well, plot armor has long been a point of criticism among literary critics. This trope makes the story predictable and the world seems to serve (revolve around) MC. But of course, that's beyond the scope of the review above.