"Because you read so much, your writing skill is pretty decent. It's just that your story tends to be boring at times."
"Try focusing on the dynamics of your story. Whether the story is moving continuously or the climax persists throughout the entire story, it's going to be boring either way."
So, a story's setting and characters have potential, potential for things to happen, relationships to change, et cetera. Dynamics are the forces that drive the story through interaction with the whole setting, and change what happens in the story.
The teacher tells the student to focus on dynamics, to make the story more entertaining. That makes sense. But "Whether the story is moving continuously or the climax persists throughout the entire story, it's going to be boring either way"? What on earth does that mean? This was the worst example, but there was one other piece of advice that made me chuckle, something along the lines of "your descriptions were too long, don't get lost in your emotions".
After listening to everyone, Mr. Moon added, "The winner gets a fried chicken from me."
The "from me" is unnecessary. Instead of ending the sentence on a powerful note, fried chicken, the translator/editor put two stupid useless little words behind it. And think about it, if said these words, you'd never end with "from me".
This example was probably translation, not the author. Though you never know. However...
Unaware of the students' heart, James spoke without hesitation. Of course, in English.
"Oh, my! There's a centipede here. I have an idea of what the situation is. This is a rather threatening presence for the adorable first years. But we must not forget the fact that we're all part of nature. A slipper is not a tool for murder. It's an object that protects your feet. Now, let your slipper serve its purpose."
What in the seven hells is this dialogue? Is that how a grown-up teacher talks? This isn't an anime; you're trying to write a presumably serious webnovel.
For example, take chapter 26 to like 28. He meets a writer for coffee, who notes down his likes and dislikes. Our protagonist is suddenly reminded of the saying "know yourself" widely associated with Socrates (but not coined by him), and asks, "Are you into Socrates", to which the writer coolly answers "I don't dislike him". What purpose does this piece of text serve? Does it contain information useful to the scene, to the characters or story? No, nobody reads Plato's texts (Socrates didn't write) for literary purposes. Socrates is pulled in solely to impress the reader, to make our protagonist and the writer look intellectual. Because Old Greek philosophers were smart and cool. It cheapens Socrates: Socrates was much more than "know yourself". Not to mention, "I don't dislike him" is such a stupid answer. Imagine you don't know anything about Socrates, and someone asks you the same answer. Wouldn't "I don't dislike him" or "Eh, somewhat" be convenient answers to pretend to know something about Socrates?
Later in the scene, Hemingway is discussed. Most of us have at most heard of Hemingway, me included, so he has to first copy half of the Wikipedia page into the novel so we can at least follow the very superficial references to the writer's personal life. It's like making a joke and subsequently explaining it, very unnecessary.
Two lauded writers meet, one of them says "I had never been so disappointed, even when I read Across the River and into the Trees [by Hemingway]". Right after it's explained that it's one of the worst critically received Hemingway books. Instead of telling us why the character thought it was disappointing, the novel backs out and just says it's universally badly received. It's of course put there to make the guy look like a sophisticated, cultured writer. But putting in an actually interesting critique is not something the author could do?
To be fair, at the beginning of the scene the characters do talk about what they think makes Hemmingway great. But I still wasn't content. The commentary they're giving is way too superficial: personal life, some plot details, some very general characteristics of his writing. Wikipedia would be enough, and that's not a good sign.
I never read any Hemmingway, but I took five minutes to read two articles just now. I'd make my characters say things like: "Hemmingway influenced my writing a great deal. His frequent use of short sentences or phrases makes his writing pack a serious punch. Yet, every single one of those sentences contains a clear message, every paragraph a clear idea. He only sparingly uses adverbs, preferring vigorous adjectives for his descriptions. It was powerful unlike any text I'd seen before. Before, I always thought I had to write beautiful, flowery prose. Hemmingway made me see writing in a different light. I still had a long way to go back then!". See, I can write a more in-depth paragraph on Hemmingway's writing than the author of the webnovel, and I didn't know anything about Hemmingway ten minutes ago!
Also, maybe a character could've quoted his personal favorite Hemmingway paragraph, a paragraph that tells something about the character. That would've been interesting. Imagine the author quoting a relevant paragraph from different renowned writers every few chapters. I'd love it.
Juho instinctively reached for a pen.
'Why does a person live?" he quietly asked himself. 'What was the meaning of living life?'
Before digging any deeper, he thought about whether he really existed. If people could no longer see or hear the person named Juho, he might be no different from being dead.
The protagonist puts out one book, that's hailed and praised by everyone. He meets up with another writer, that writer being very impressed by the protagonist. He impresses his language teacher/Literature Club teacher. In the Literature club, there was one guy who wasn't there to read and write. He's not interested. But he opens up the protagonist's book and suddenly, he's engrossed in it. Can you see the trend? See, you don't need face slapping if you use another trope: the secretly powerful protagonist. He wants to stay under the radar and live a quiet (yet successful) life, but can't help but show his genius now and then, to regularly impress the reader.
It's also very unfortunate that we don't know what specifically made the protagonist's book so great. There must be something more to it than the plot. Is it the way the protagonist structured the book? Is it the growth of the main character? Is it the character interactions? Colorful, evocative word choices? Nothing mentioned except the main plot point, we just have to believe that everyone, young and old alike, adore this book of his.
The language crutch is disappointing. Very early in he's able to write very "mature" works of literature, and knows like five languages by now. Sure. But what's he going to improve upon? You're belittling your own character's progress by giving him a crutch.
The attempts of the author to show character progression are clumsy. First example: there's this girl pretending to be the author of the protagonist's book. How did this not *immediately* get out to the public? To teachers? Impossible, it's the mystery author, everyone wants to know who he is! Funnily enough, that's one of the arguments the protagonist confronts the girl with later on. As if she's stupid and couldn't think of it herself. Now because he's secretive, he lets her off at first. When he finds evidence however, he confronts her. This previously stupid girl subsequently recognizes her wrongs and comes clean right after. Look, author, don't write your plot so ham-fisted. It's not a children's novel.
Second example. he main character lives through a tragic first life after releasing the bestseller novel. Homeless, he finds himself falling into a river and wakes up as his younger self. He reflects deeply on his past twenty-five years, his slow yet consistent fall from grace: he writes it down and it takes half an hour. Voilà, that's the end of the reflection. Wait, what?!?
Third example. He meets a woman singing (just "lalalala") and playing guitar in an awful fashion in public. She does it, she says, because she wants to convey a message, yet she fails to actually sing the message. Still, she persists. Meeting that woman, about a paragraph, suddenly provides the protagonist with enlightenment. Namely, he realizes he first needs a subject to write on. It could be anything, but he had to start from a subject. What crap character development.
As so often in these sorts of rebirth novels, he wakes up is like, "JACKPOT!". Really? Then a small scene shows the protagonist's (modest) emotion, where after he writes that reflection for half an hour. That's it. Yes, that's it. It's such a disappointment that authors don't focus more on this transformation. Being reborn should be such an impactful experience. You could write multiple chapter chock full of emotion about it. About how he thinks, how his mindset gradually transforms from being so down in the gutter, to optimistically gripping the new chance with both hands.