6-Star Reviews Part 9: Today, Tomorrow, and Forever

To read the story, click the image or follow this link

In case Bubbles and Memorial weren't enough, today's review features yet another tearjerker about Derpy.  Can't this poor mare ever catch a break?

Speaking of breaks, look below for the full review of Today, Tomorrow, and Forever, by Chopper's Top Hat.


Impressions before reading:  This is one of the better-known pony fanfics out there, and I suspect most people who are reading this review already know what the twist is.  Still, I'm going to stick with my "no-spoiler" policy, in case anyone reading this isn't familiar with the plot.  Also, I see that there's an alternate ending/continuation.  Since it's by a different author (and so presumably not "official"), I won't be including it in the review, but feel free to check it out on your own, if you're into that sort of thing.

Zero-ish spoiler summary:  When Dinky comes home from school one day, she discovers that her mother is acting even stranger than usual.  At first it seems fun, but Dinky can tell something isn't right...

Thoughts after reading:  I really don't understand the impetus for most of the plot here.  The big reveal hinges on the reader knowing that Derpy has a "unique mental situation," yet there's nothing in this story that implies that she's not of sound mind.  She talks oddly (and by oddly, I mean that most of her dialogue is a random mish-mash of gibberish and video game shoutouts), but she otherwise is behaves completely normally, and she demonstrates that the problem goes no farther than her voice when she's shown to be able to write coherently.  If Derpy is a normal mare with a speech impediment, then the central conflict of this story becomes nonsensical.  There's no reason for the parties involved to act the way they do if Derpy isn't mentally retarded.

I suppose it's possible that the reader is supposed to view the party responsible for the central conflict (how's that for a spoiler-less description?) as being unreasonable and cruel, or even downright evil, but if so then this is presented poorly.  The party's real-life equivalent simply wouldn't act this way.  I've been peripherally involved with them concerning several cases, and they invariably err on the side of inaction.  To return to the story, I simply can't imagine that the party in question, if it's anything like its IRL counterpart, would do anything at all unless Derpy were severely, demonstrably retarded.  Even then, they'd probably refuse to act without some sort of evidence that she was a danger to herself and others.  And again, since Derpy doesn't appear to be any of these things, the actions which drive the conflict become inexplicable.

On a more positive note, the opening scene involving Twilight and Spike was well-done.  The conversation between the two is not forced, nor is it laden with unseemly exposition, yet it perfectly sets the stage for Derpy and Dinky's introduction.

The writing throughout was adequate, but not always ideal.  When I say that, I'm talking about sentences like this: "Not far away, Ponyville's post office, which doubled as Derpy's home, bustled with activity."  From a technical standpoint, there's nothing wrong with this sentence as written.  However, it doesn't flow well; the three commas in close succession make the line feel choppy and disjointed, where a little rewording could have conveyed the same information more elegantly.  Again, there were only a few actual mistakes in this story, grammar-wise, but the particular sentence structures used were not always those most conducive to immersive reading.

Returning to plot issues, there were a couple more that didn't make sense at the end, but I'm going to need to put them behind a spoiler tag.  Sorry, but I just can't think how to word these without giving away the ending:

So Dinky's with a foster family now.  Why did her name change?  And why is Derpy sending those postcards all the time?  Why doesn't she just, you know, visit?  I assumed the reason she quit her job was so that she could move to Coltsburg and keep spending time with Dinky despite losing her status as legal guardian, but if my reading comprehension hasn't failed me it appears that those postcards are Derpy's only form of contact with her daughter.

Unless there's a restraining order in place (and I can't imagine there would be one unless Dinky testified that her mother had threatened her with bodily harm or something), then there's no reason that Derpy and Dinky can't see each other.  It's true that the foster parents, as Dinky's legal guardians, are free to put limits on that time together.  However, in real life (I'm thinking of situations where a child was put in foster care but the parents weren't considered abusive or a threat to the child) this mostly means that one of the foster parents has to be present when the birth parent and child are together.

And why is Dinky taking her foster family's name?  That's highly unusual, and kind of creepy.  It's true that adoptive parents often give the child their family names, but even then parents who adopt children that are more than a few years old (that is, who are old enough to identify with their "old" name, and to remember their birth parents) will usually encourage them to keep their birth name.  I have only heard of a couple of cases of foster parents forcing their children to change names, and most people (and all the foster parents I know) agree that that's an unnecessarily cruel and emotionally damaging thing to do to a child.

I'm going to guess that Chopper's Top Hat hasn't got much or any experience with Child Protective Services and foster parents. At least I hope he hasn't, because the way they're presented is a stark and uninviting contrast to the reality.  CPS often doesn't take action until and unless a child comes to school covered in bruises and welts, and most foster parents do what they can to encourage contact between a child and their (non-physically or -sexually abusive) birth parents.

Maybe all this stuff won't bother folks who aren't familiar with the system.  But as someone who knows a thing or two about how the foster care network works in the real world, his presentation of a vaguely sinister organization waiting to swoop down and nab foals from their parents if they show the slightest abnormality, never to see each other again, comes across as ill-informed and frankly a bit offensive to the people who work these thankless jobs, and who's efforts is vital to child welfare in America.

Alright, I'm getting down from my soapbox now.

So, there's that.  Maybe I'm being to closed-minded--after all, most of my complaints are about how a fictional set of people/ponies aren't behaving like their real-life equivalents--but the fact is that in fiction, readers will assume that things work the same way as in real life unless the author states otherwise.  And there was no explanation for these actions that I could easily see.

Star Rating:  ★☆☆☆☆ (what does this mean?)

This is the first time I've one-starred a story in these reviews, and honestly I feel a little guilty about it.  I mean, the story isn't bad...exactly...it's just that large parts of it don't make sense.  I can't in good conscience say I enjoyed it, or even that I got a good cry out of it.  Instead, I spent most of my time scratching my head and asking myself, "Why on earth did she do that?  What possible set of circumstances could lead to this happening?"

Sorry Chopper.  Nothing personal, but this story left me confused and a little annoyed.

Recommendation:  Obviously lots of folks like it, or it wouldn't have gotten 6-starred in the first place.  If you don't know anything about child welfare laws (or if your familiarity with them starts and ends with Oliver Twist, I suppose), then maybe the plot holes won't be as visible.  But to be honest, I can't think of any particular group to whom I'd recommend this one.

Next time: The Circle of Friends, by Kiyyik