I think there are a couple of disconnects here. One is chaos theory. How is this chaos theory? To me, chaos theory suggests the understanding of systems of related differential equations, which exhibit sensitive dependence on initial conditions. I don't see that here.
The narrator is speaking to his projection of God. But his agenda with respect to that speech is poorly defined. What is he trying to convince God/himself of? What is he selling here?
The logic meanders. The Internet stuff appears late. There's not much by way of "aha, now it all clicks" in the piece. It feels like it is making itself up as it goes along.
The issues of ownership (of intellectual property), commercialism, and nihilism are, even after all this, still far apart. The piece needs to connect them more tightly, within a clear, driving agenda of the narrator's.
The idea of bringing the Internet down with a virus is hardly new. The narrator should not be so deluded as to think it is -- particularly given his long tirade to the effect that there are no new ideas.
I am not at the end convinced at all of his ability to do what he claims he can. I am not really sure how to fix that.
Otherwise, and I do mean this, I like this piece and the voice. I think it has good potential. It's a popular, cyberpunk kind of thing, with a bit of religious irreverence thrown in. You could really take this somewhere.
I'm not sure whether I really wanted the reader to be convinced about this guy - he's not really a character who I wanted people to like all that much, or to 'trust'. I should have put more emphasis on that, I think.
I'm glad you like it as a piece, many thanks for the tips on improvement.
I think there are a couple of disconnects here. One is chaos theory. How is this chaos theory? To me, chaos theory suggests the understanding of systems of related differential equations, which exhibit sensitive dependence on initial conditions. I don't see that here.
The narrator is speaking to his projection of God. But his agenda with respect to that speech is poorly defined. What is he trying to convince God/himself of? What is he selling here?
The logic meanders. The Internet stuff appears late. There's not much by way of "aha, now it all clicks" in the piece. It feels like it is making itself up as it goes along.
The issues of ownership (of intellectual property), commercialism, and nihilism are, even after all this, still far apart. The piece needs to connect them more tightly, within a clear, driving agenda of the narrator's.
The idea of bringing the Internet down with a virus is hardly new. The narrator should not be so deluded as to think it is -- particularly given his long tirade to the effect that there are no new ideas.
I am not at the end convinced at all of his ability to do what he claims he can. I am not really sure how to fix that.
Otherwise, and I do mean this, I like this piece and the voice. I think it has good potential. It's a popular, cyberpunk kind of thing, with a bit of religious irreverence thrown in. You could really take this somewhere.
Reply
I'm not sure whether I really wanted the reader to be convinced about this guy - he's not really a character who I wanted people to like all that much, or to 'trust'. I should have put more emphasis on that, I think.
I'm glad you like it as a piece, many thanks for the tips on improvement.
Reply
Leave a comment