Talk:Day 171-180/@comment-4784862-20150625043245/@comment-173.29.209.190-20150626121331

''You must be suffering quite a lot, then, since it's more of less this author's speciality. He's also the KING of anticlimatic heroic actions. I don't know how many times he wrote something like : "So I faced the Ultimate Badass Big Boss. Well, I killed him, of course." I think he's allergic to suspence. ''

LOL  Yeah. But let me give you an example of a similar line to what I'm talking about.

Moving on....

(Annoying, ain't it, when you are led to expect something, and then it doesn't come? ;))

At least the MC isn't a door mat. That'll get me to drop a series faster than anything else.

Caudyr:

How do you make those square bullet marks? I don't see a handy tool in the comment edit bar, and I couldn't get my cursor to select them for copying.

Thanks for the explanation on the brackets. In that case, I won't bother with it, again. (Saves me time, too.) :)

A God's Divine Blessing is still referencing a single blessing. ;) The indefinite article is singular, however, we're dealing with two God's Divine Blessings. Plural. The singular indefinite article doesn't go with a plural noun. That's just basic. (A books? An ovens?) Fixing it would probably require changing the article to a pronoun (something like "our God's Divine Blessings" or, since it's not bracketed, "the Divine Blessings of our Gods"). Not that it matters, oh stubborn one. :p (And yes, I'm well aware of my status as the Pot, Mr. Kettle. ;) Just teasing. No ill will intended.)

"Because of this weakness, it only took some time before they were all destroyed because there were a large number of them." Thanks for clarifying this. With that in mind, can I suggest a (hopefully slight) rewording? -> "Because of this weakness, the only reason it took some time...was because...." Not entirely satisfied with it, but I get that it shouldn't stray much from what the author wrote, so that's as far as I'll go.

'' Also, "There was more than thirty centimeters...." -> "There were...." - That change feels so wrong to me, so I refuse to do it. =p ''

Okay, but just because you feel that way doesn't mean you're right. ;) (I can explain it, but I don't know how to do so without taking up a bit of space, so I won't waste our time unless you're interested. In any case, on the scale of grammatical horrors, it's a minor thing, and the author isn't being grammatically correct in everything anyway, so.... Yeah. :))

I don't remember suggesting changing/removing the word "approximately." Rereading my comment, the only place I see where I mentioned that word, I also kept it in my suggested change. So, not really sure why you think I wanted that word changed or removed. An approximate number can still reference either separate or combined sources. I wanted to clarify that it was the combination of sources (in this case, the two types of ghosts) that provided the approximate number. That's all.

The "flash flood of ghosts" IS a comparison. Properly, a metaphor. The question is how strong to make the comparison. It's all in the type of image the author is trying to evoke. I personally like the metaphor since it gives a strong feeling of the ghosts flooding the castle, but if you--the TL--think a simile is more appropriate to the author's intent, then obviously I have no complaints. :)

'' I added a clarifier to the "Because of that, quite a few things happened" so that it indicates what "that" is...though I can't say with 100% certainty that it's right, it does seem to be the most likely candidate. ^^ ''

I think the "that" is referring to the entire ghost attack event, but I don't think your clarification is wrong, either. Because the actions don't have a simple name to work from (like Operation Scare Tactics or some such), it's hard to refer to it briefly without coming off as kinda nebulous. In any case, my beef was with the "quite a few things happened" portion, which the author just threw out there and then blithely went on his way as if he hadn't written it at all.

Even at 2,000 ghosts per wave, that's still 18,000 ghosts (including his initial 4000). Nothing to sneeze at.

Verb tense regarding the march:

I'm definitely positive that "looks" is wrong. As a general rule, the indicative verbs (the ones that begin the predicate in each independent clause) in a sentence need to have the same tense. I don't see any reason this sentence should be considered an exception. The sentence is also part of a paragraph, and it's generally bad form to switch tenses in the middle of a paragraph. All the indicatives in this paragraph except "looks" are past tense. So "looks" -> "looked." (Reading-wise, this makes even more sense when we recognize that the subjunctive "will be" at the end of the sentence would be better if "will" was switched out for its modal "would," because the Strong Grandson could surprise us by finding a way to overcome the problem. "...it looked like the enemy's march in a day or two would be fairly harsh." Even so, grammatically, that particular change isn't necessary, so I'll end this pedantic aside, here.)

'' "On my end, I took a break until each group of ghosts had been completely destroyed in order to generate and refill my magic, and then summoned them again." '' That is so much better! And simple. Thank you! =)