Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts on Sage, Smoke & Fire. I appreciate getting feedback, whether positive or negative, it always helps every author grow. It’s very much worth mentioning that the story unfolds over a series of three books, and many of the elements introduced in the first book—particularly the lore, magic, and character motivations—find resolution and deeper context as the series progresses.
Regarding your comments, several points seem to arise from differing expectations about genre and style rather than objective flaws in execution. Sage, Smoke & Fire isn't a high fantasy or YA novel; it’s an alchemical, spiritual narrative rooted in actual craft, mysticism, and transformation. Its world-building doesn’t follow the rigid “rule-based” systems typical of epic or YA fantasy—its magic is experiential and symbolic by design. I'm not a very traditional person, and I don't follow traditional, comfortable styles.
You mentioned both “hand-holding” of the reader and “lacking lore,” which are contradictory critiques—can one both over-explain and under-explain at once? The story unfolds gradually across the trilogy, where each layer of lore, motivation, and spiritual symbolism becomes clearer over time. Similarly, the claim of “poorly executed characters and motivations” isn’t supported by examples. If a story takes place over three books, and someone expects immediate, spoon-fed clarity, that’s a mismatch of expectations, not a failure of execution.
As for “inconsistent gravity” in the plot—such a description could apply to any story that doesn’t follow a conventional structure. This is a matter of taste, not craft. The book draws on archetypal and mythic patterns, which can be mistaken for cliché by readers unfamiliar with symbolic storytelling.
Lastly, comparing the book to The Room feels like a comment meant to entertain and insult rather than offer insight. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but thoughtful critique generally involves analysis, not ridicule.
While I recognize that not every book is a perfect fit for every reader—and art is inherently subjective—I’d like to note the broader impact that one-star reviews can have on independent creators. Indie authors invest significant effort, time, and money in writing, creating, marketing, designing, and distributing their books without the support of a commercial publisher. They lack the resources available to authors with commercial backing, making reviews particularly impactful.
I hope you continue exploring works by independent authors and find those that align more closely with your preferences. I hope you continue exploring works by independent authors and find those that speak more clearly to you. After all, the exchange between those who create and those who critique is part of the alchemy of art itself—it's what makes art important.
Regarding your comments, several points seem to arise from differing expectations about genre and style rather than objective flaws in execution. Sage, Smoke & Fire isn't a high fantasy or YA novel; it’s an alchemical, spiritual narrative rooted in actual craft, mysticism, and transformation. Its world-building doesn’t follow the rigid “rule-based” systems typical of epic or YA fantasy—its magic is experiential and symbolic by design. I'm not a very traditional person, and I don't follow traditional, comfortable styles.
You mentioned both “hand-holding” of the reader and “lacking lore,” which are contradictory critiques—can one both over-explain and under-explain at once? The story unfolds gradually across the trilogy, where each layer of lore, motivation, and spiritual symbolism becomes clearer over time. Similarly, the claim of “poorly executed characters and motivations” isn’t supported by examples. If a story takes place over three books, and someone expects immediate, spoon-fed clarity, that’s a mismatch of expectations, not a failure of execution.
As for “inconsistent gravity” in the plot—such a description could apply to any story that doesn’t follow a conventional structure. This is a matter of taste, not craft. The book draws on archetypal and mythic patterns, which can be mistaken for cliché by readers unfamiliar with symbolic storytelling.
Lastly, comparing the book to The Room feels like a comment meant to entertain and insult rather than offer insight. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but thoughtful critique generally involves analysis, not ridicule.
While I recognize that not every book is a perfect fit for every reader—and art is inherently subjective—I’d like to note the broader impact that one-star reviews can have on independent creators. Indie authors invest significant effort, time, and money in writing, creating, marketing, designing, and distributing their books without the support of a commercial publisher. They lack the resources available to authors with commercial backing, making reviews particularly impactful.
I hope you continue exploring works by independent authors and find those that align more closely with your preferences. I hope you continue exploring works by independent authors and find those that speak more clearly to you. After all, the exchange between those who create and those who critique is part of the alchemy of art itself—it's what makes art important.