If I had any complaints, it's that the description specifies a lack of antagonistic figure, yet each detailed example includes such a figure. I understand that just because something is reoccurring, doesn't mean it's a hard rule, but to not have a single example illustrating this I feel really undermines the conceit as it was established.
Similarly the absence of any clear fault on part of each protagonist ("role is filled by the protagonist…immoral and deserving of detraction"/"An introspective, self-loathing protagonist or central figure") is massively distracting. It's a theme explored exhaustively throughout the latter portion, but it's odd that the thread is seemingly dropped here. It doesn't serve as an indictment for the "protagonists", as they're victims of various forces and are so absolved of any personal wrongdoing.
Regardless, I still enjoyed reading that part, as I feel it's a strong critique of our interactions here, but those contradictions stood out. The latter portions, while, yes, very self-indulgent, were still entertaining enough to keep me engaged with the work without a single eye-roll, which is a pretty damn big feat for something so openly meta.
I think it could have been more powerful to leave the in-your-face second half out of this, to allow readers to come to their own conclusions regarding the system we take part in, but I guess nothing's perfect, huh?
(account deleted) 09 Jul 2020 01:31
