And the question that has been in turn poised (unanswered) has been, "Would it still have had that emotional impact if there had been a thriller tag or more obvious foreshadowing?", or "How could it have been alluded to better without giving it away?". Liking it or not, is purely a matter of opinion. It doesn't mean that it is or isn't written well, if your opinion is negative towards the writing mechanics used. Things aren't black and white, and most subjects are a purely grey area. They only become divisive when you label them as good or bad.
Here's the thing. You're arguing that "emotional impact" card as if it's the be-all and end-all of story writing. As if this is THE big payoff and that everything else, from characterization, to narrative cohesion, can be sacrificed as long as "You made the audience cry at the end."
I suppose you're right that it's a subjective question, but yeah, I'd say it's not the best way to tell a story. There's only so much mileage you can get out of "shock value" and to rely on it for your "heavy lifting" is, in my opinion, rather cheap writing.
And that, I suppose is the crux of it. "In my opinion." Because clearly I'm not allowed to make
objective statements about how something is poorly telegraphed, or how such sudden, drastic tonal shifts are jarring and make a work more difficult to process, because in the end, it all boils down to "This guy likes it, that guy doesn't."
I don't know. Like, I genuinely don't mean to insult with this, but there's a reason why those who rely a lot on those kinds of "twists" tend to be one-trick ponies. It's not the most sustainable method of writing. And everything, from my own experiences writing stuff, to yes, those ridiculous formal classes everyone's taken for a semester in school, says that you don't put all your eggs in that basket. If people like it, they like it, I'm not arguing that people can't
like stuff. What I am saying and have been saying is that regardless of "emotional impact" or whatever, it's a flawed technique. When I offer critique, it is an attempt at saying "This is done well, this is done poorly," based on what I understand to be generally accepted technique versus flawed technique.
Liking (or not) what I'm reading is kind of not exactly relevant to the issue.
