Skip to main content

Self-destructive reality, again

Part 1:
    An infinite being died. It floated through nothing. The corpse slowly rotting. Its blood was time. Its flesh was space. Universes bubbled from skin. New life arose inside. The universes had power. Some more than others. The life evolved. The life ventured continents. The life ventured planets. The life ventured stars. The life ventures universes. Then It became selfish. It life sought power. Grand empires were built. Empires spanning the multiverse. Empires controlled by warlords. Their power was godlike. Their greed was insatiable. Their mutual hatred, fiery. One warlord was Ygadle. Ygadle built a machine. The machine could rejuvenate. It was big. It was powerful. It was feared. Ygadle would conquer everything. Other warlords teamed up. A great siege happened. Ygadle fell. The warlords still fought. They wanted the machine. The war waged on. Epoch after epoch passed. Warlord after warlord fell. Finally, only one remained. Glthmir was his name. Glthmir now ruled everything. All reality was his. The people worshiped him. He activated the machine. Everyone was in suspense. The machine rejuvenated. Glthmir gained unimaginable power! The machine kept rejuvenating. The rotted god stirred. The people became panicked. Glthmir sat, horrified. Universes un-bubbled into skin. Time flowed into veins. Reality folded into life. The god revived. The corpse sustained life. The rot catalyzed existence. Without it, all perished. All history was lost. All culture was lost. Everything that had been. It was gone. The god wasn't aware. The god carried on.

Part 2:
    If I were to metagame this question, giving the answer I think my teacher would want instead of my own opinion, I would say that neither is more important. Though, to bare my soul for a second, I honestly prefer shorter sentences. Not four-words short, that was a nightmare, but short enough that I can still understand what's going on. The more add-ons and tangents added to a sentence, the more I forget what's going on or what the subject is. It feels like a bridge, with the periods as supports. If they're too far apart, the whole thing will collapse under its own weight. 
    However, despite personal taste, I recognize that both are required to have sufficiently varied writing. From reading the notes, they seem to be best used to contrast eachother.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Another blog about the virus-book

1: "I'm a man of my word," Jeevan said. At that point in his directionless life he wasn't sure if this was true or not, but it was nice to think that it might be.  And ...and then one night Jeevan opened his eyes at two a.m. and the news-room was empty. Everyone had left. He stared at the empty room on the screen for a long time. I chose the former because it's a somewhat comforting line, the idea that we're better than we maybe are. It doesn't come across as egotistic/self-serving in my eyes, but more hopeful. Hopeful that you can be a better person. I chose the latter because I can just imagine it so vividly, a slowly dwindling news-source eventually reduced to nothing. It's pathetically miserable, how it just gradually peters out instead of being violently destroyed in its prime via. a meteor or something. Powerless to stop as the momentum carrying civilization is gone. 2: I'm writing the utopia part, so I plan on writing about good infrastructu...
Post a Comment
Read more

Forget this book, let's talk about Early Modern English!

-It's nice that they have a traveling acting troupe in the post-apocalypse. -I hope Jeeves died. Not because I dislike him, but because it would be narratively interesting. We get to learn about a person: their past, their hopes and dreams, their struggles... only for their story to be cut-short by the virus. -The farther we get from Shakespeare's time the more incomprehensible plays of that time become. "The safer sense will ne'er accommodate his master thus"?? What does "thus" mean in this context? In modern English it's used like "[cause] thus [effect]," you don't just end a sentence with it! And even if thus wasn't there to muck-up the whole line, what does it mean for a safer sense to not accommodate something? My best guess on what "safer sense" means is caution. Like, "Oh I would go play on the highway but I have a safer sense for that." or something. Does this mean that the person doesn't think cautio...
Post a Comment
Read more

Utopia? I hardly KNOW 'eh!

Okay so my answer to this question depends on how realistic I'm allowed to be. On one end of the spectrum I could just say "everyone is happy and healthy all the time and there's no conflict because I say so." and on the other end I would say "I don't have a deep enough grasp of infrastructure/socioeconomics to describe a society that would for-certain be better." Assuming I'm constrained to modern day tech, but at the same time I don't have to take every single detail into consideration, here's what my Utopia would be: The Great Commune of Shlorpth (named because I like the sound "shlorpth" makes.) There would be UBI (universal basic income) for everyone at/over 18, tax-subsidized necessities (food, water, shelter, education, healthcare.) A reliance on nuclear energy over fossil fuels. Corporations would have elected managerial positions (discouraging the exploitation of workers, because then the person probably wouldn't be re-...
Post a Comment
Read more