In response to the retort, it's clear that the original essay was well thought out and accurately reflects its contents. Firstly, Nikhil's intention was to create a book that expresses his thoughts and experiences, which were largely formed during the pandemic quarantine. While fact-checking may be necessary to create an accurate and reliable book, the purpose of this one is to capture Nikhil's personal journey—therefore, the accuracy of its contents are not so pertinent. Furthermore, Nikhil was well aware of the experience of seasoned comedians when he wrote his essay. The comparison Nikhil made between stand-up comedy and self-harm was not to downplay the skill of comedians, but rather to express how much personal effort he put into pursuing his hobby. Lastly, Nikhil acknowledges in his original essay that an introduction should have been written prior to publishing. However, despite this minor oversight, the premise of his book—capturing the personal thoughts and experiences from a given period—remains intact. All in all, the points raised in the retort carried some validity, but at the end of the day Nikhil's original essay contains a lot of truth and UrRong if you think otherwise! After all, nobody can deny that Nikhil put immense effort into writing this book and deserves all the credit for it—now, if only the stand-up comedy part had some success too!