Monseigneur Don Ron ! As usual, you only react to the part and not the (w)hole. Not that you have to. There's no caveat on what a critic (as opposed to a literary critic, i.e., one used to or trained in reacting through his reading of chefs-d'oeuvres and aesthetics ) ought or ought not to express through the prism of his appreciation of a work of art produced by an author or poet who like-as-not may well be versed in the norms of the structure and composition of a given genre. This is not a complaint nor a rejection of what you may have to say from your own point of view or stance - depending on your own particular nurture in the given field upon which you focus your attention. In a way, what one might "object" to in your comments (if one did not take exception to your recurrent habit of being motivated by your own personal history) is the restrictions (contritions?) you impose on your own intellect. I'd rather see you use your intelligence in sizing up what you read than be regaled to your unmotivated/unmotivatable literary prescriptions. (See my reaction to your comments on my last story.) No offence meant, of course. Always a pleasure to have you come around and knock on my door!

We are all square pegs with only round holes to try to fit into. No wonder we don't succeed. the Security Council counsels no one. No security there.

Ron