>>106633284Thanks for the storytime OP.
>>106633755It wasn't that bad, it wasn't great either, but it really wasn't something I would have paid to read, or even read without the comments of /co/ here to make it more palatable, that's the magic of reading things here, even the worst works have some enjoyment to be had when read with a bunch of anons.
I wouldn't have given it so much as a chance otherwise.
I give it a 6/10, it isn't great, but it isn't storytime of pain material either, it's pretty much okay.
Also,
>complaining about storytimes on /co/for shame.