Noire_Nova

I assume it’s because of the similarities in their attitudes. They are both self-interested and their capability come from their determination to control everything and everyone around them. Depriving her of that determination would weaken her, more than anything else.

Wait...’faster than light’? How? No amount of force or power should theoretically be able to overcome that barrier. I don’t care what type of supernatural ‘godly’ bodies these beings have. Travelling at a fifth of the speed of light can’t be withstood by any sort of biological organism, much less to exceed it. Matter and reality as a whole would likely cease to function at such a high speed, much less perception and cognition. Going so fast would deprive any cognitive creature of all their senses at the very least, assuming they don’t instantly disintegrate. At such a speed, by the time they decide to stop and their neurons process the command, they would be a smoking cloud of atoms on the surface of some mountain. Putting aside the sheer impossibility of the matter, how large is the world for it to take up to ten seconds to travel at, if not exceeding the speed of light? That is between 8 - 76 full revolutions around the planet at the speed of light - which remember - was apparently exceeded. The world is *way* too big to ever be able to exist in that case, given that the working rules of the various worlds haven’t been clearly established. Putting even that aside, is the stated time objective or relative? Because if the timeframe is relative (as it usually is in the real world,) that opens up a whole other can of worms called relativity. Seriously, if you’re going to make such bold claims, at least satisfactorily justify them. People may not know anything about true cultivation or superhuman martial arts, but you can’t just go around flaunting your defiance of basic physics without a reasonable narrative explanation. It totally shatters any immersion.

A shame, though hardly anyone cares about chronology on the internet. Whether it’s content from 2011 or posted three hours ago, people tend to throw their thoughts at your face regardless.

How would one ‘pale deeply’? It makes a modicum of sense if you stretch your reasoning and squint, but then that brings to question why that phrase was used in the first place. Why was the adverb even needed? The verb would be supplemented by the context anyway. What’s the point?

God no. Not Super Gene. Even the halfway decent design of its profile frame is wasted on it. In regards to your former statement, while LoM and RI are definitely the most prominent of successful, intricate works on the platform, I wouldn’t say they’re the only ones. I secede from that argument solely due to not being in the proper headspace to scour through my reading list to provide sufficient examples. That aside though, while it certainly helps, one doesn’t *need* an established following to write something new and risky. Sure it may not guarantee success, but I’d think it’d be a nice way to broaden horizons either way.

Fair enough I suppose, though it was part of my observations that it was typically the books more closely resembling ‘traditional novels’ in detail, prose and editing which achieved widespread acclaim on the platform. Then again, far be it from me to dictate your artistic vision.

Efficient? In what? Inefficiency? Given the choice between a steam engine and a combustion engine to power something, the most efficient choice would be combustion engine due to the lower space requirements, higher output and general convenience of use (given consistent scale for comparison). In that scenario, who would use both, when one would suffice? Moreover, why go for the less efficient option to begin with? Why go through all the extra trouble? Suffice it to say that I simply don’t understand that justification.

But then that raises the question of ‘why you were aiming for a demographic young enough to not understand simple implications to begin with?’ This would be especially pertintent considering some of the themes you included in later chapters and some of the other implications you left unsaid regarding the state of the world and society. If you were aiming for younger readers, why not simplify those heavier subject matters instead of a character impression? If you were aiming for an audience *that* young, why go with these character and setting to begin with? There’s a reason not many children’s books delve into socio-politics, capitalism and the moral quandries of consumerism and population segregation.

Did you forget to change accounts? Or that this is allegedly your own work?