Dear Castle Writers, Asylum isn't granted in exchange for testifying. If you qualify, it is granted period. And in this case, the trafficking happened in the US, which means asylum wouldn't be the right thing anyway. It would be a T-visa, which does require helping the prosecution.
I've been rewatching Private Practice, and it has made me realize how many issues this show and Grey's have with children and people who don't want them. Lets see...
Arizona doesn't want kids, she changes her mind, she and Callie stay together (at least until later) Christina doesn't want kids, suddenly Owen needs kids even though it never came up before, they broke up Violet doesn't want kids (and during the conversation someone says that it makes her less of a woman), she changes her mind when she has her own, she and Pete stay together Sam doesn't want kids, he and Addison break up Charlotte doesn't want kids, she changes her mind, she and Coop stay together
And also there are a lot of issues with gender in terms of parenting and how mother always equals doing most of the child care and fathers are just babysitters (Callie and Arizona with Mark, Meredith with Derek). And if a couple with a child breaks up, the child always stays with the mother (Violet/Pete, Meredith/Derek).
It really seems like Shonda both buys into gender norms about children and believes that everyone wants a child and if they don't their partner does and will break up with them over it.
A few facts you might have found it useful to look up before setting a book in Blackpool, Lancashire :-
1. Blackpool is not now, and has never been a city. I realise the rules are different in the US, but in the UK, city status is conferred by the monarch. It has never been so conferred upon Blackpool, so your frequent referring to it as a city is a tad jarring.
2. You are not likely to ever hear an English person refer to “Lancashire County”. They may talk about “Lancashire County Council”, but the county itself is simply “Lancashire”.
3. We Brits may be notoriously fond of scones, but it’s not customary for us to eat them for breakfast and anyone doing so would be regarded as at least a bit odd.
I am sick and tired of episodes telling viewers that Brennan is only the way she is because of her childhood and that she needs to change. Booth was abused as was Sweets, but you never tell us that they are only who they are because of that and need to change. The earlier seasons were awesome. I loved Brennan as a character. But the last few seasons have been all about her changing without Booth changing as well. 90% of the time he's right and she's wrong, and even when he's wrong he's still fine the way he is (for example the episode where she's pregnant and he's overprotective).
I like your Aunt Dimity books, but I'd like them a lot more if you'd make your English characters actually speak British English.
Your narrator and several of the characters are Americans, so of course it's fine for them to use terms like "airplane", "front walk", "cookies", "drapes" and "cell phone". But when you put those terms in the mouths of Cotswold villagers it sounds jarring and wrong.
ETA - Apparently this may be less the fault of the author and more something the US editors do, because apparently they have no respect for their customers' intelligence and think a few British English phrases are too much for them to cope with. Bah.
Dear David Gemmell, when the first book repeatedly mentions a specific character's eyes as grey - steel grey, storm grey, etc. - then the second book should not include the line "familiar ice-blue eyes". At least not when referring to that character.
Also, why is the priest who in the last book admired/resented the hero and became sort-of friends with him now describing him as terrifying and inhuman?
Finally - this may be a personal thing (I don't know if anyone else feels the same), but shoving the demons and magic out of your story's world to make it soft-science-fiction cheapens it, because you are intentionally lessening the world it is set in.
Dear Elizabeth Moon, please keep your characters consistent between books. Each single book has wonderfully consistent characterisation - which is completely undermined by the fact that the characters change completely from one book to the next. Your crotchety, arrogant lady from the first book, who spends it developing a grudging respect and friendship with the heroine, suddenly becomes much more competent at reading situations, firm friends with the heroine, and goes from arrogant to realistic - between the end of the first book and the beginning of the second. They're two different people with the same name.
Is it really asking too much to expect authors to look over their books before they write a sequel? Just to make sure they're still writing the same character, or the same genre?
And maybe I'm wrong, but in the Frozen Heart sequence, immediately after the shot of a saw from below the ice, we see five men. Five. We can see all three on the left, and two on the right, and from that camera angle, we should be able to see all of them. But when we see them from above, there are suddenly six, and the sixth is in a position where he should have been visible.
There are right reasons to describe something as "exactly the color of dried blood":
1. If precise color description is a consistent part of your narrative and prose style (and not simply a flagging device for the characters you wish to squee over or shudder at.)
2. If you are seeking to insinuate that the item in question is, in fact, made of or stained with dried blood (as in Charles Dickens's short story "Captain Murderer".)
One wrong reason? Using such a comparison as a scare chord, as an automatic tag that the character possessing the deep red attribute is EEEVILLLL. That's not only lazy writing but an implicit insult to any number of perfectly nice people who happen to like Chanel's "Vamp" nail polish.
(The Kushiel Saga had the heroine wearing a cloak of a specific blackish-red termed sangoire, reserved for those of her rare and cherished neurotype--a Special Snowflake Symptom, perhaps, but it averts the above cliche.)
(A tip of the red cap to kosaginolegion's grumbles about Mercedes Lackey and Lois Lowry.)
First, you clearly have no idea how sleep deprivation works, since your protagonist is quickly approaching the world record for most consecutive hours without sleep at the start of the game, and not only is she completely lucid, this is treated as minor bothersome thing that her teacher finds a little concerning, but lets her brush off.
Secondly, your bully apologism is showing, and it makes me see red every time. If your dialogue makes me flip the bird at the game window three or more times because it's either that or break the monitor, you are doing something wrong.
Third, your maps, especially the town area, are far, FAR too big for how sparse actual content is, how slowly your protagonist is able to navigate it, and how little direction the player is given.
Fourth, your puzzles are way unintuitive. This was a problem in Mermaid Swamp (another game by the same writer/developer), too, but it's way worse in The Sandman. For example, [Stupid puzzle solutions you'd probably have to consult the walkthrough for anyway] I'm apparently supposed to realise that the funny-coloured log is special and I need to examine the end with a hole in it, while almost all the other weird things in this area I can get a message from trying to interact with 1) don't care what angle I examine them from and 2) are completely useless. I'm also supposed to figure out which invisible wall identical to all the other invisible walls in a certain room is the one I'm supposed to examine and use a stick to break, even though I'm given neither indication that I need to break a wall in that room or that I'm supposed to use the stick to break something, as opposed to any number of more conventional uses for a stick in a puzzle game.
And all this adds up to me ragequitting probably 3/4 of the way through the game and ranting about it on LJ the next morning.