peer-review taking over 1 year

[Myword]

I responded to their comments  point by point when I sent in the revision and I doubt they read them. I say this because the ego trip reviewer restated the very complaints that I had addressed and changed. Then he insults my work. Nit picking because he probably did not want to review it in the first place. He was like the journals fourth choice. My guess is that his first R&R was a ploy and he did not intend to pass it after setting up 15 issues of contention. . Got no personal comment from the Editor. I chose this journal because they published another article long ago with nice reviewers. This reviewer should be banned. He objects to the entire writing style. Interestingly, my major position and argument were never really questioned.
Thanks for your comments. Sorry that I ever sent it to them!

[saramago]

Update:
            So I  received an answer to my heavily revised article, after waiting 17 months! One reviewer was satisfied and the other reviewer gave it a sharp NO, and raised even more criticisms than he did the first time. I am mad. I rewrote the whole paper and made all the changes asked of me except that it turned out pages longer, and he expected me to hugely shorten it. Obviously, I could not strengthen the arguments by shortening it. More commentary is more work, not less. This was a no win situation. He hated the style and content and picked on everything, even the spacing on the page. Besides, the other reviewer also wanted me to add to it. Footnotes could be used more often, but I do not fill them important stuff like authors do. ( footnotes should not be more interesting than the paper.) I wonder how many journals would publish this narrow subject.
     .
  Beware of nosy or nasty reviewers, guys. Why do write, at all?  I don't need to like you do.
    I am venting. I would never submit anything to them  again. Its not as if it is top in the field.

I am sorry to hear of this result. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon. I would advise you to take a day or two to calm down, reread the reports, and figure out if there is anything useful in them, and decide if you should change your m.s. Then think about whether the last version you sent in or the penultimate version was better, and spend some time getting a version you like into shape. After something like this, my next version is usually some hybrid between what I originally sent in, and what I sent in after R&R.

Then send it to another journal, perhaps one that is in the top of the field. The fact that you got one reviewer who liked it shows that it is not without merit and it is not unheard of that a rejected article will get published in an even better journal.

One observation. You write: " Obviously, I could not strengthen the arguments by shortening it." Actually, I think that most arguments could be strengthened by significant shortening. Sometimes a reviewer's comments do not require massive adding to the texting, but a shifting of focus, and perhaps even shortening. Of course I do not know if the reviewer's comments had merit or what field you are in, so take it for what it is worth.

I usually find reviewers' comments, even stupid comments, as useful, because they give a window what somebody reading the piece might take away from it. Sometimes stupid or confused comments point to areas that should be clarified--not necessarily along the direction suggested by the reviewer, but in a way that makes it clear what you are trying to say.

This is GREAT advice.