User blog comment:Dorkpool/Are Some Stories Above Crtiticism?/@comment-25941663-20150406140816/@comment-25148755-20150406162525

Not really a very good comparison. Most of the "classic" creepy pastas that get a bunch of negative criticism tends to be because they have a bunch of plot holes, are poorly written, have no character development, etc. These are not things that they were being innovative about or creating in any way; these are basic story telling requirements. Turing was doing something that no one had ever done before, his work was unprecedented.

To take it another step further, you can acknowledge a story for the good/meritorious things it does and still negatively criticize it for being a literary piece of shit. I'll use JtK for an example here, because it pretty much sums it all up. I despise JtK as a work of fiction, something you will know if you've read any of my previous comments regarding it. It's juvenile, nonsensical, and its writing occasionally achieves at best a level of glaring mediocrity. It is not a good story.

Despite all that, I will fully admit that it has become hugely popular and that it and other "classic" stories like it are very much responsible for the growing fanbase and community that is creepypasta. So, yes, it's a founding father and should receive its due for that, but that doesn't preclude me from saying the story itself is a glorified dog turd.