funkless_eck , 7 months ago

it’s not about that at all.

my criticisms in brief:

• creating a post-post-modern work but centering the drama around the pre-modern harmartia in a character
• the absolute break neck speed of narrative in an incredibly long work, without intermission is very draining and not enjoyable
• the absence of charisma from the lead character coupled with the inexplicable attraction and support of everyone around him to him
• "who’s story was it?" there were so many conflicting POVs, and about half a dozen endings
• the surrealism wasn’t earned or justified
• the entire thing is about the possible human cost of such decisions but the only victim we see is imaginary
• most of the dialog is essentially exposition of scientific or legal terms
• although what happens - post hoc - was interesting. the actual experience of watching it unfold was just watching a bunch of people bicker about their jobs