I like to think I can identify good writing. I've read a hell of a lot of good books. I've also read a lot of tripe, and this, sir, is no tripe.

That said, maybe it is very much about audience. Writing for, say, a studio exec- I suspect the standard isn't "higher," per se. After all (and you can correct me if I'm wrong), aren't those guys concerned more with profitability than straight up good ideas? There's often a wide margin between what's good and what sells, right? I mean, not always, but there's a reason why so many really good novels were cannibalised in the transition to the silver screen. Now if you're concerned about making a living, yeah, a few good reviews on Hubski aren't gonna buy you any meals. But conversely, if you're looking for sturdy, dependable praise, maybe an exec focused on the bottom line isn't the best eyeballs for it.

Then again, most likely Hubski still isn't the place to look either, which is why you're feeling so unfulfilled by the praise you get here. I mean, from my experience, the readership here is on the whole a lot more mature and concise than other online arenas. But we're still just laypeople for all that. Also, people are just more decent here, and that might factor into responses. On top of that, at least in my case, I respond positively to stuff like this because, as I said, it's not tripe. And there's so much really bad self-submitted writing all over the internet. After so long reading that kind of stuff, a story like this comes as a breath of fresh air.

Hope that doesn't come off as damning with faint praise. As somebody who reads voraciously, I do think this is actually good stuff.

EDIT On the other hand, who cares? I'm of the mind that in a world of almost constant consumption, cultural output is one of the most important things to strive toward. Quality, in a certain sense, is secondary to the very fact of creation.