Some time ago, I submitted my paper to a reputable journal (but far from being one of the best in my field) and have recently received two reviews. One review was positive overall and the reviewer recommened to accept my paper. On the other hand, the second reviewer was very critical of my work. The reviewer explained, in great details, why everything was wrong with my paper (even including the notation I use) and why such research is absolutely pointless and irrelevant. Moreover, the reviewer also criticized my other publications, implied that my research is way below the international level, and recommened to reject the paper. Despite such a bad review, the editor did not reject my paper and asked me to provide a revision without any additional comments.
To be entirely honest, I would've preferred my paper to be rejected after such a review, because I think that no revision can change the second reviewer's opinion about it. In addition, I do not really know how to revise my paper. I can change the notation and rewrite some parts of it in response to some of the comments, but I cannot change the topic of my research to make it relevant in the eyes of the second reviewer.
What would you do in my situation? I'm thinking about writing an e-mail to the editor in order to ask their opinion about the situation and what they would consider as a proper revision of my paper.