I like the Sarkic element but I disagree with the execution of it. It's quite long, and perhaps unnecessarily so. Given its length, there's very little pushing the reader forward. I found myself stopping and getting bored after the third and fifth paragraphs of the main description. I had a similar issue with the log. (I also dislike that the log does not portray the ambiguous, awkward wording, or translator's notes as would be common in a translated text). It is because of these constant stoppings of boredom that I downvoted; the idea and the twist itself is strong and is a highlight of this article.
In order to improve this article, I would shorten it immensely- we only need to know the Void, the human sacrifice, the human-tissue walls, the playing, the document. The minutae about the exact nature of these can generally be handwaved so long as the strongest details- the gist of the concept, makes it into the reader's mind. Similarly, the document can be condensed and brightened. It spends a lot of time on opinions that can be reflected through the description of the events, and its most vivid moments (such as the gazing into the void, and the final sacrifice) does not have the strong lead-up and voice necessary.
What I mean by this is that although the most crucial moments in the document occur, they use pretty much the same tone and intensity as the beginning of the work. Readers naturally expect a tonal shift to match the change in the plot, and when it does not occur, the document as a whole feels one-note and the stakes here do not really feel like stakes.
I would like to emphasize: Your idea is excellent. Your execution is failing you. The execution can be worked on as you continue on your journey as a fiction writer. You have good taste. Please continue creating.(And let me read your drafts!)
Hit me up on IRC if you have any questions or concerns regarding this review.
(account deleted)
