Talk:Daddy's Little Princess/@comment-11345660-20160111033818/@comment-11345660-20160111190052

Oh, well, I apologize, I didn't know I couldn't do that. I have taken note. No more of my stories. I also apologize for completely missing the private detective bit in the first sentence. Don't know what I was thinking.

And thirdly,  I apologize if I have missed some of this, but I really do feel like these "hints" you gave us can be better conveyed. And don't think for a moment you have failed if I came away with a rather cold look. Everyone takes something away from stories a little differently and for me, flowery language and themes have never really swayed me in the ways you were maybe hoping. However, just like I apparently misinterpreted your story, I think you misinterpreted my criticism. I said I forgave the seemingly rushed turn because the process was implied as gradual--which to me, means organic growth and better storytelling--and the process is well handled. The search for transcendence, the question of what art is, those are not the problem. The main focus is on the turn itself.

I didn't know this was a sequel, and if the dad had anymore time to develop in the story prior to this one, and if so, I could look past it, but as it stands, I think his turn could be handled a little better. The subtle hints, rather than being a masterstroke of cleverness, just left me a little lost. I'm not questioning your themes or the symbolism,   I just thought the first turn--with its natural progression--made the second one (Frank's) look weird on paper.

Or maybe I would just be a terrible father.

That's pretty much it besides the nitpicks, but their nitpicks--A personal preference. Judging from the other comments, people seem to really like it, so don't change your ways on my account but I think it's just something to consider for next time.