An unexpected 'story' we have here. Something between a textbook and a guidebook. Someone found out the source from where this entry is based, and now, the mixed feelings I had are even stronger.

I mean, I had a hard tim finishing my reading, because I didn't have something strong to keeping me hooked. But now that I saw the source, there are several sentences that are just copy pasted, changing just one or two words (I didn't check the whole entry, just the beginning so it maybe only happenning in the first paragraphs). I can't help but feels it's lazy. Last time we had copy pasted sentences, it felt heavily connected to the prompt so I thought it was a smart trick (link to the story). Because of this, I fear that I may have missed this connection so I won't accuse the author to be lazy.

That being said, there isn't much to get from the story. That kined of narration is a tough trick to pull. Usually, the story lies in small details or references made throughout the text. Here, I didn't get many and it seems there isn't a story hiding underneath.

I'm sorry to say that but it won't score well for me. However, I still encourage you to work harder on these kind of things. In the end, what you'll have definitely won't appeal to a large audience, but I think it's still worth the work. Being able to tell a story through fragments hidden in guidebook is a really beutiful thing, something that you can be proud of.

While doing a few first impressions before any serious reviewing: hah! I appreciate the implied Thaumcraft crossover. (I wonder what Twilight's infusion altar would look like, for instance…)

When reviewing a story which is clearly based on a manual for fire investigators, it is helpful for the reviewer to keep these factors in mind:

—Is the piece original, or a transcription?

In the case of esoteric industry manuals, finding the source may require more effort than is feasible. Due diligence may be defined as the process of sampling the work via text selection of sentences which seem more mundane than the others, and using these as search terms. Failing any result,the critic’s literary sense must be called to the fore. To what degree did the author put real creative effort into the work? Was it a basic transcription of the original, merely substituting “thaumaturgical” for “chemical?” The former requires departing from the scope of the original manual and forming original and interesting connections, perhaps even progressing to world-building. The latter is a much less interpretive form of parody that can be performed by pretty much anyone with a thesaurus, and is much less compelling to critique or read.

In this case, using the title of the work as a search term yielded a document likely to be one of the sources used. My conclusion from a double reading and further searching is that, between the insurance investigation manuals and the Thaumcraft references, there is not a very large amount of original synthesis, and not a very strong connection to Pony fiction, or indeed the prompt (save in the case of the fire theme.)

—Is the combination something worth reading?

We do not expect the author of a technical paper to be an expert on English composition, but only to know at least enough to impart meaning clearly, if sometimes ungrammatically or in jargon. In this case, the grammar is often worse that the source document I was able to locate. Perhaps the one I could not find was worse, or perhaps (as there are some grammatical improvements from the source I found) the author combined documents, made replacements of technical terms, and ran out of time when doing a grammatical revision. An author may, of course, intentionally portray technical errors in writing in order to represent a larger range of human experience (most people are not experts in their native language!), but the purported errors here do not seem to be to be intentional. They follow no particular scheme I can detect.

With all of the above said, it should be recorded by the present reviewer that the assemblage, despite its technical shortcomings, at least inspired some amusement, and indeed the composition of a long-winded review in the style of the work reviewed, a sign that the author at least succeeded in engaging with part of the audience at some level. For this, thanks should be extended to the author of the piece in question.

The reviewed story should, after all relevant factors are considered, be placed at its apparent relative ranking in the investigative slate, which in the present instance shall be characterized as mid-tier. All precautions should be taken to prevent cross-memetic contamination, unless evidence-chain corrupting amounts of Meta are desired.

I feel like there's a joke or reference I'm missing, and it's a vital piece in understanding what's happening here. The manual is detailed enough, and seems like solid advice from what I recall in Chemistry safety class, but as a narrative construct I'm kind of at a loss.

Maybe my eyes are tired, or I'm just not looking closely enough. I'll happily take the blame if this is the case and I'm just too dense to see the clever thing hiding in front of me.

>>Rao
This.

I mean, ultimately, this is not a story. There is no plot here. It's a guidebook to made up magic, which could be fun if either
A. The magic system is interesting enough to make the guidebook fascinating
B. The guidebook is humorous in nature and the stylistic choice is part of the planned humor.

Unfortunately, I felt neither here, so this fell totally flat for me and came across more as pure gimmick.

Genre: I AM THE GOD OF HELLFIRE, AND I BRING YOU...

Thoughts: I was drawn here by the ALL-CAPS and the funny title. I find the early execution to be enjoyable based on absurdism alone, though the humor drops off a bit toward the end. Ultimately though, I think >>GroaningGreyAgony gives an elegant summary of this story's strengths and weaknesses. I'll just add that the attempt to parody this kind of guidebook is cool and ambitious by itself, but this version seems to at once both lift a bit too much from the presumed source material, while also losing a bit of its connection to pony as it goes along.

Tier: Needs Work

I love world-building. Especially when it comes to magic systems. It comes from being a diehard Brandon Sanderson fan. That being said, the appendix at the end of his novels regarding the properties of his magical systems aren't stories. They're supplements to the stories. It's still fiction, but it's not a narrative.

It's the same thing with this document. While I get the faintest hint of there being a story involved, it's only at the very edge of visibility. I'm afraid to say that this simply doesn't work for me. It feels like someone just messing around and doesn't really fit with my admittedly limited knowledge of WriteOff stories.

If this is part of a greater tale, more power to you, but I'm having trouble seeing past the fact that I'm reading an instruction booklet and not a story.

I'm gonna be blunt here. I was technical writer once. I hated the shit I wrote because I found it boring. Only job I've been fired from.

I couldn't bring myself to complete this one. As near as I can tell, it is pretty straight-faced. There are some attempts at humor here and there, but it really isn't enough for me to plow through (admittedly tuned well to be in universe) technical writing.

>>AndrewRogue Deep Posh lore: During the year I was out of teaching, I looked at technical writing as a career.

It never worked out for me because no one ever hired me I thought I'd be bored.

I was wondering what people were on about with all the talk about "not a story" entries this round. Turns out the vote form just gave them all to me at the very end. Well then. Uh. Yeah. Not a story, and my critique method would not be of much help here. I see some effort at making jokes, but not enough to draw me into wanting to read the whole thing, especially upon learning the basic structure is a crib. Thank you for writing, anyhow!

As with others, review-as-reaction to start with during my read through...

Tech manual format... okay author, it's your funeral.

Pretty dry stuff so far. No humor here, nor idea where the "story" is going.

Pictures that aren't actually pictures, but just ascii column images. Why?

Okay, was this a dare? As in, I dare you to write something that will be the driest thing possible to force every judge in the write-off to read it? Like that 23 hour long film of paint drying they made just to protest the RIAA censorship board by forcing them to watch and rate it?


This feels like cruelty to judges. I'm sorry, but at best, this is an exercise in writing jargon. As a prop lying on a desk in a video game or something, that'd be fine. As a "story" entry, it merely frustrates and annoys me to have to slog through this. Sorry author, but you're burning my goodwill by entering this as a story to start with. The hint at the end of "If you know where this is from, it's intentional" and a smiley face implying there's some bigger joke feels like straight up taunting and/or bragging about your own cleverness.

I agree with >>Rao, >>Morning Sun and >>AndrewRogue

There is no story. It's really hard to keep reading because there is no plot and no hook. It could have been more interesting with more humour and more world/magic-building.

I'm not going to search for the source. I shouldn't have to look for the source to find this submission interesting, it should be interesting by itself. I believe references should be used like easter eggs hidden in games/movies/whatever: if you get them it's fun, otherwise you can still enjoy the main content.