aeromancer

As I go: Aside from using a painfully common expletive to induce first-sentence-shock, it’s a good start. When you mention aged hands in the second paragraph, along with a ‘wizard’ title, my first thoughts go to palmistry and divination, not age. Also, when you mention the ‘mere days’ line, it does little to bookmark the time T and L have spent together, which is implied (later) to be at least a few years. That aside, the character structuring is good. I’m given a picture of T grappling with getting old age. L’s backstory and motivations are no doubt more complex, as hinted to in the scars (which was a nice touch), but there is a consistent sense of her acting in character, a former slave turned companion-esque character. Overall: I can’t shake the feeling that the set-up and ending is slightly incongruous. The ending is a sweet and heartwarming sacrifice, very O’ Henry-Gift-of-the-Magi, as it were. The set-up doesn’t match that, it’s a master-slave relationship which is hinted at to be a bit more husband-wife. It’s a good set-up, but I feel a clean ending isn’t a good cap, as it were. I think L might benefit from being a bit more ambiguous at the end, or he relationship established positive at the very beginning.

mumble, mumble they are two very separate things, it'd be nice to discuss this further, actually. I mean, we are a writing group, so separating what meaning context gives a word and connotation gives a word would be useful. Got that out of my system, let's discuss AI. That is a possibility. Definitely the other study you mention has a result which is based off of selection bias, but I'm not quite sure about this one. I've seen some very convincing arguments for physiognomy, but at the same time, as writers, we know you 'can't judge a book by it's cover'. Now, the study doesn't go in-depth as to the how they selected the criminals (they mention a confidentiality agreement) and the list of crimes they mention definitely leave cases which can be open for bias. They also (unfortunately) don't list the web-spider tool they used to gather the non-criminal photos, as I would have liked to know the margin of error for the non-criminal pictures, but alas. I'm not sure I like the thought of hundreds of people being charged as criminals solely based on a judge's bias. Even if you wanted to assume, say 10% of the criminal set as being innocent, but wrongly profiled, the discovery still stands. In particular, I'm very interested in the fact that attention was drawn to the greater facial variance in the criminal set than the non criminal set, I think that a wealth of information can be gleaned from repeat testing in that area. I'll have to keep an eye out for this, and hopefully the research continues. Thanks for showing me this, it's not every day I come across these articles. I'll take the flak for this, it's not simple. I said this statement as a response to a worry about corrupted algorithms. Corrupted algorithms are easy to fix. The root cause, a bit trickier. What I mean when I said simple is that, relative to a human, computers don't have a intrinsic bias, or what humans call a bias. Given a corrupted data set, computers will learn the wrong algorithms, but it only takes a few keystrokes (usually) to reset a learning algorithm back to its default state, or (better yet) just delete the algorithms and start over fresh. The clean data set is where the challenge lies, but that's a human problem to create it, not a computer problem. Moving onto more recent discussion: (I really need to spend more time on the Internet. Or much less.) @Ernei For what it's worth, I agree with most of what you say, especially your point on perceiving individuals as a whole, rather then the individuals they should be perceived as. A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. It's one of the cornerstones of the American criminal justice system. And I cannot believe I'm defending Richard Spencer, but I am going to do it. Let me make this clear: In America, we the people do not use physical violence against people we disagree politically with. Even if the people you are calling Nazis (presumably the alt-right) were Nazis (and they are not), they are protected by the American government to spread their ideals. The way you counter the spread of ideas is by fighting on the intellectual level. You should never punch a Nazi. "Violence is the last refuge of cowards." - Isaac Asmiov

Yes I do. And this is why. To quote from your response 'there is no such thing as language without connotation and context'. Connotation and context. They are not one and the same, they are two different properties of words, as you yourself say. Connotation refers extra meanings a word can invoke on its own, context is the meaning of the word using the language around it, this is something you likely know better than I. The reason I am 'defensive', as you put it, is because I thought you may have reached the wrong conclusion. The article you quote is discussing 'word context', only 'context'. You classify 'connotation' and 'context' differently. Yet, when discussing the article's results, you consistently use the word 'connotation', despite the word 'connotation' never being used by the article in question and the fact that the words connotation and context are not interchangeable. You leaped to the assumption that the article was proving that the connotations of language had a bias because you had a confirmation bias. It is also for the same reason you assume by age, once again, because of a confirmation bias. You wish me to be a child who doesn't understand what is being discussed (which I am not), so you look for confirmation to the case, and ignore evidence that rejects your theory.

Definitely interesting article, but it's not about biases intrinsic to language usage at all, it's about the context words are commonly used in. Whether the English language is inherently biased is another issue, all these programs do is measure the ways words are used by the current human population, and that's not an intrinsic issue within the language. Also, quoting from the article: "AI has the potential to reinforce existing biases because, unlike humans, algorithms are unequipped to consciously counteract learned biases, researchers warn." Well, yes, algorithms can't consciously counteract anything (because they don't have a conscious), but it's quite simple to override a 'learned bias' in a computer program by systematically deleting all archived data and reevaluating everything from scratch. There's not going to be a problem. Really? Only one downvote so far?

Ow. I personally love the Inheritance Trilogy Cycle, though I can see the flaws with it. Do you think that kind of behavior would be cathartic? Because, if so, I have a mound of Ohmsfords to kill. I suppose, though my way of clearing plot holes is 'hack away everything that doesn't make sense.' In the end, I get left with a better novel, but I have a character that's gotten completely cut three times. It's kind of painful, because I've got all that backstory and notes, and it's just sitting there on a doc in my desktop, untouched and unloved.

Yeah, I know. There was that time Inigo Montoya won (2015, I think?). I actually have read the Feed series. I had a friend get the series recommended to him (and he hated it), but he assumed that I might like it, so I ended up with his copy, which sat on my desk for a while until I was sufficiently bored to read another zombie novel - and it's good. Not exceptional, but it's a zombie book which actually has a human society in it which hasn't collapsed to decay. Take notes, people. There's not really a good fix, but maybe require an account to vote, so only people who are actually dedicated can vote. As opposed to, say, getting a group of friends to take thirty seconds to vote for your favorite. And I don't believe in fanfic. I mean, well written fanfiction which stays true to the source material and intentions of the author, or an imaginative re-creation isn't bad and I wouldn't mind reading it, but that almost never happens. This contest, unfortunately, is no exception to bad fanfic, and I'm looking at you, Patrick Rothfuss, when I say that. Name of the Wind and Wise Man's Fear were both excellent books. The Slow Regard of Silent Things is a hidden gem. The short story you wrote for the Tom Bombadil / Davi match-up? No. That was horrible. I know Davi was horribly outmatched, but that still doesn't justify massacring Goldenberry's character to what you what it to be.

Have fun. That's easily my least favorite part when it comes to writing. On an unrelated note, this: http://www.unboundworlds.com/cage-match-2017/. I think I'm a few days late on the final results, but this years whole tournament was just very weird. I didn't recognize half the characters (which is good, I suppose, more books for me to read). There were several victories that clearly should not have happened (Georgia Mason making it to the quarterfinals, despite the fact that mock-ups never had her using her gun, Harry Dresden somehow losing to Davi, and (like usual) the championship match being nothing but a glorified fan war). Yes. I'm sore about the fact that character I like lost because of fandom sizes. I like the concept, just please change the format so it's not a popularity contest. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

Alright. Let’s get cracking. Chapter 14: You might have picked up from my earlier comments that I’m a die-hard sci-fi. This chapter is not that. I will, however, shut up about it because this isn’t a hard sci-fi book, and this chapter works decent as a set-up to the opera part of ‘space opera’. It just seems a bit too plot convenient. Maybe throw in a random malfunction to lower the suspension of disbelief level. Chapter 15: As always, the Q / Moth banter is pretty good, though I wouldn’t describe Moth as ‘Machiavellian’. My understanding off Machiavelli is second-hand, unfortunately, so all I can do here is raise the point. I definitely like the Moon imagery. Chapter 16: The receptionist dialogue seemed a little stilted to me. Kudos to Moth for a backstory drop, and presumably some insight into her motivation, but it seems to me she’s lying and is just swearing out of habit. The dialogue between Q and Mary feels a bit rushed and forced. I get the joke Q makes when he says ‘Call me Q’, but that’s only because it’s a joke I’d use and nothing from context. A reader might just assume that it was a misprint of some sort. And we end off with Q cursing in an unimaginative fashion. I don't mind the cliffhanger as much as tone of normality it leaves me off on.

I will quote 'Art of War' given any decent opportunity, yes. It's kind of frustrating that Sun Tzu doesn't really have anything to say about guerrilla warfare, and there's a lot that can be disregarded within 'Art of War' (the chapter on fire, for example) but it's still a must read for everything else. I especially love the chapter on spies. I've read Go Rin No Sho for writing single combat, but that was a while ago. Single combat, as you say, is left to chance a lot more often, though (speaking of Go RIn No Sho) the duel between Miyamoto Musashi and Sasaki Kojiro is an example of when the fight was won long before it started. I'd also recommend reading the first chapter of Malcolm Gladwell's David and Goliath for similar situations. Funny you should use chess as an example, though. I played a game yesterday were I won in essentially eight moves. Not actually eight moves, but after eight moves I was in a winning position and the rest of the game was just execution. (I was white playing Queen's Gambit Accepted, in case you were wondering.) In chess, it is impossible to predict the winner from just the players, but a Grandmaster-level player (which I am nowhere near) can usually predict the winner from after a few moves in.

This is true for basically all Jedi, barring Obi-Wan Kenobi. Obi-Wan Kenobi, as established over the expanded universe, hates blasters. There's actually a hilarious clip from Clone Wars Season 7 (which was never released, but the test footage for six episodes were, somehow) which has Anakin dual-wielding blasters and fighting through a droid ship while Obi-Wan just watches and makes comments. Obi-Wan does use starship guns, but he hates flying so he tries avoiding it as much as possible. And yes, he does use a blaster to kill Grevious. His words. "So uncivilized." Obi-Wan Kenobi is also probably the greatest Jedi to ever live. I have no bias on the subject whatsoever. Not greatest Force-wielder, mind you, that's up for grabs between a lot of people, i.e., Jacen Solo, Revan, Luke Skywalker, Cade Skywalker, etc. Yes. Card-carrying villains must be able to be taken out by a protagonist with a lucky one-shot. They also must be painfully obvious that they're evil and have five-minute monologue ready at ten seconds' notice. Realistic fight scenes, unfortunately, make for terrible drama and suspense. A true fight is over before the fight starts.

"Your father’s lightsaber. This is the weapon of a Jedi Knight. Not as clumsy or random as a blaster; an elegant weapon for a more civilized age." -Obi-Wan Kenobi The true weapon of a Jedi is not, of course, his saber but the force. The lightsaber is a means to focus the force, especially since making a lightsaber is a delicate process which usually requires a force trance. The Jedi is a guardian of the peace. The saber is not a weapon of war, but of peace and a symbol of that peace. A Jedi with a blaster is a threat, a Jedi with a lightsaber hilt is a guardian of the peace. So, why don't Sith use blasters, then? There's not really a good reason, aside from hubris.

The names 'Lightsaber' and 'podracer' are both Star-Wars specific. Also, most people won't use speeder, they'll use something like hoverbike but there's nothing inheritly wrong with speeder. The concepts are general, though. Feel free to use an energy-based sword, just don't put it out as a plot device or something. It's kind of like hobbits. Legally, JRR Tolkien owns the name 'hobbits', so they're usually called Halflings if other fantasy authors want to use them. Also, just want to point out that a lightsaber is not, in fact, a light saber (i.e. lightweight cavalry blade). It's a plasma estoc. Sabers, by definition, have a curved blade, something that light waves cannot do. Star Wars has a habit of using horribly named sci-fi concepts.

Well, at first glance, I find an alchemist who knows nothing about magic to be strange. But I also know you're building S to be a chemist rather than an alchemist, meaning that S would specialize in very specific fields. That kind of fits the 'maven' archetype from Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point, if you're familiar with that. It makes sense from S's point of view to know little of magic, as I assume S knows little outside her few specific fields, but I'm not sure it'd make sense from a readers point of view, as most fantasy readers will dot-connect 'magic' and 'alchemy', there are several books where 'alchemy' is a sub-field within the larger field of magic as a whole. You might want to nail down a line between magic and alchemy really early on. This is actually something I've debated elsewhere. The general consensus of the discussion were two general rules for this situation. 1) You should have a pretty clear idea of what the limits to magic are, if only to stop you from writing plot holes into later books (cough Time Turners cough). 2) The main character should not have magic but it's fine for supporting characters (i.e. Gandalf, Allanon) who can't be relied upon to consistently help the protagonist.

Notes: I see you’ve elected to once again start a chapter with bones. I have no objection to such a start, but, ah, this is the second time within six chapters. Also, “alchemist would be around to use my bones to make oil, because otherwise that was a terribly wasteful way to go.” – This is a very odd thought. I suppose it’s to let you know that S wants to be useful as a corpse, or something. Even if S’s bones aren’t make to bone oil, the body will still decompose and serve to fertilize the soil.. -S’s ‘I an Alchemist’ line on page 5 sets up the character very well. I also note that you’re going out of your way to highlight S’s lack of self-confidence. -Out of idle, and slightly morbid curiosity, how intense are these guild wars? -First taste of real magic is a sending. There’s not a lot to go on, at all, so I’m going to save all comments. I could make a few stabs at it, but I'd rather not. Kind of odd how S has no knowledge of magic, though.

Yes, please.

Excellent, looks like I get a chance to talk about weapon forging after all. Quench (you may have looked this up, I'm going to assume you haven't) is when you plunge a freshly-forged sword into hot oil or water, depending on the weapon. Oil is the standard. The quench does harden the blade, but what I'm referring to when I say 'imperfection' is a tilt or bend in the straight blade that can occur when you plunge heated metal in a liquid cooler than it. The blade fully hardens about ten seconds afterwards, so a blacksmith has that time to quickly correct that. The title is 'Quenched in Flames', because, while you can't literally quench a sword in fire, it often shoots up a flare of some kind, hence it's being quenched in flames. Also, there was going to be a scene where Rune and De fight each other through the flame-torn city, but I misjudged the amount of time I had to work on the story, and that never ended up happening. That's the deeper reason behind it, anyway. Though, if I have to explain it, it means it should've been included in the story. Yeah, I know. I was going through it, marking it for edits from the comments, and noticed how bad it was. I was really tired, and didn't spell-check as well as I thought I did. That's my only excuse, and it's a bad one. I'll see if I can get a friend to do a quick run-through of these so we don't see a repeat of that. Good advice. I'll probably switch the opening scene to this, then, and save the description of the city for later. So, in addition do 'small street urchin' on the fantasy checklist, I was also going for universal Chaos vs Order forces. The Orders are Order, and the Shadows represent Chaos. Rune and De represents avatars of each, and they're fighting each on the human plane. The thing is, as Rune mentions, she isn't a normal host of Shadow, she's a bit different, which makes the fight unfair. Shadows are immune to Order, but Order can command humans to destroy Shadow hosts, which balances the factions. Rune was forge to change the rules, and can't be destroyed by humans. Yes, I though this all could be deduced from the story by capitalizing the word 'Order' and error-riddled dialogue. I am glad to see you enjoyed this short more than my last one. As the endless amounts of explanations may tell you, QiF is part of an expanded universe and Rune shows up every now and then, so it was great to be able to write a short starring her, and good to see that she's well developed. Thanks.

I seem to keep running into that problem. I also know what's causing it to. I tend to write short stories in patches, and piece them together, which can work for someone more skilled than I, I suppose. Need to stop doing that. Fair point. Other people have pointed out that there's a lot of information, which is kind of the struggle I ran with. This backstory is exploring a complex character of a literary world that I've created spanning (currently) multiple books, which may mean that a short story isn't the best way to run this. Thank you, it's what I was trying to do. Guilty as charged, I'm afraid. Yes, I do know all the answers, but it'd take far longer than a short story to develop both Rachel and De's respective characters and motivations. Okay, okay, I get it. I wasn't attempting to be subtle about it, but I suppose there's something in between Random Name Generator and brick-to-forehead-foreshadowing. De's name will be changed to something else. Well, glad to see I'm consistent. I think I have a problem with heavy exposition just because I like it. I don't mind sitting through a couple text walls to find out plot elements or story, so I suppose it just doesn't register when I do it. Yes, we are in the world of Corromast, although this story takes place roughly 750 years before Gears & Sigils. Rachel should be familiar to you as a character, though she goes by a different name in G&S. Still has the same ax, though. Your point on my inability to kill people is valid. Thinking about it, Destiny couldn't easily used his power to make him elsewhere in the town. So, I killed him for no reason. I seem to do this often, don't I? I was actually going for that. The reason why Destiny thinks Rune is killing him is because of absolute power, the reason Rune is killing him is closer to 'action with no consequence'. That needs to be more spelled out. Also, I actually use 'Riddle me this' as part of my normal lexicon, though whenever I think Riddler, I think either Zero Year or Hush. I have a riddle/puzzle obsession. Stump me if you can. I usually mean to make those references, but that was completely accidental. Thanks everyone for the feedback. I was getting slightly worried, but it was worth the wait. I've got what to think about and (more importantly) what to fix.

I have two thoughts about the trailer. First, what's with all the action sequences? That will eat up precious time that can be used for inner monologues. Second, where are the potato chips? I'm going to have to echo chamber @Quiver here, and say that a movie isn't a good medium for conveying the full story or impact of Death Note. If I had to stake a guess, I'd say that they aren't using Light as the protagonist, as really nothing in the trailer remotely reminded me of Light. Especially if they make the protagonist an American (which seems to be the case), which means the glorious irony of his name would be completely lost.

I second this. The only way I've gotten more than fifty pages into any given work is having people who were giving me weekly critiques, and the fact I needed to have weekly updates to send to them.

Well, yes. But the way Rune's power set works is such as seeing the world in gray except for traces of other powers, so I felt justified in it's usage. Probably just worth swapping to 'gray', I suppose. This is my fault. I meant to have Rune introduce herself, but I kept swapping what name she was using, so I suppose I forgot to put that in. (laughs) Yeah, it's Latin for Destiny. I have an unhealthy obsession with using names that secretly mean things if you're good with ancient languages, word puzzles, or both. Rune's character is part of a larger universe, and Rune, in it, has a reputation for using her hair as a weapon. This is because her hair has limited movement on it's own, and a couple unique properties. The hair wasn't strictly necessary, but it's in line with her character. The first soldier was elbowed, second was stabbed, I believe. No, De wasn't bad, there's nothing going on geyond what you read. Rachel isn't dead, she's just a disguise that Rune wears (Rune has limited shapeshifting abilities). Rune isn't a human host to an otherwordly spirit for two reasons. One, her original species wasn't human. Two, she was never alive in the first place, so when she received the 'otherwordly' spirit (it's a bit more complex than that, but for now that shall suffice), so there was no host to overwrite. Well, this gets interesting, as Rune as an a pretty complex backstory and simplistic motives. Her job is to kill Order hosts. She's tasked with this by her father/creator, the reason being that Orders are too dangerous to allow in the mortal realm. The reason isn't because absolute power corrupts absolutely, Rune kills them because she's born to do that. Her job is killing Orders who have the ability to use their powers to their full extent. The reason she was created for that isn't because the Shadows were afraid Orders would turn dark. Shadows couldn't care less. That being said, 'magic is forbidden' is kind of an oversimplification. There are powerful forces in the world overall which don't appreciate magic, but the rule of thumb in the world is that everyone in it has access to 'magic', of sorts. The species determine which one you have access to, but everyone has some form of it, so isn't any government which forbids it. Though, having a 'Children of the Light'-esque group isn't a bad idea. You've given me food for thought.

Hmm. I don't know the background you have with the Three Laws, so I'm going to explain my problem from ground up, forgive me if I repeat information you already know. The Zeroth Law in Asimov's robots crashes them. Literally crashes them. The only robot that could handle the law was R. Daneel Olivaw. The reason for this is established fairly early on in Asimovian literature, showing up in the short story Liar! (appears in the I, Robot short story collection). The robot in LIar!, RB-34, can read minds, and realizes in can emotionally damage humans, which violates the First Law, so it is forced to routinely lie to the staff of US Robots and Mechanical Men, until Dr. Susan Calvin traps it in a zugzwang, and RB-34 crashes. This is because the First Law operates on a essentially binary basis, either it is harm or not. Asimov does mention a series of experimental models (JG models) in another short story that can grade potential harms, ... That Thou Art Mindful of Him, but those have severe problems as well. Anyway, the problem with the Zeroth Law is that if a robot does a behavior that may lead to the harm of humanity, it will crash, brick, become unresponsive, break, etc., and since so given robot can know whether or not any behavior leads to the betterment of humanity, a robot who knows the Zeroth Law has no choice but to shut down. Alright. I'll try to be as general as possible and know that everything I say is only true to the extent of my knowledge. It's a bit roundabout, so bear with me.. Artificial Intelligence can be broken down into two general types, Specific and General. We (current technology) have mastered Specific. There are two approaches to achieving Artificial General Intelligence (this isn't abbreviated to AGI, and I don't know why): ground up, and simulation. For the purpose of this discussion, an Artificial General Intelligence is a computer that can pass a Turing Test, meaning that it's pure intelligence is equivalent to that of a human. [Side note: An AI with greater intelligence is know as 'the Singularity', and is logically impossible.] Ground up isn't so important, it's building an Artificial General Intelligence from the framework of Specific. Simulation is what you should be interested in, as it's a computer program which simulates a human mind. Now, we don't have a working simulation of human minds, but we do working simulations of parts of smaller mammal's brain, so it is conceivable that a mechanical brain capable of the same thought-patterns of a human is. This isn't the Asimov 'positronic brain', that unfortunately is more fiction than science, but that is probably what you'd be looking at for storing a human conscious in a robot body, complete with biological capabilities like hormones (all simulated). I have no idea how you'd get a human thought-pattern from an organic brain into that mechanical brain, I'd imagine it'd be highly invasive, and possibly destroy the organic brain, but it'd be theoretically possible. The real problem is moving the human conscious, which is independent of the human mind. The literature of this is recent, so I don't have as good of a grasp of this as possible. It appears from my reading that the human conscious is non-Turing compatible, which means that it is non-computable with any form of a mechanical mind. Meaning, it'd be possible to store the personality, mind, thoughts, knowledge, etc., of a human, but not their soul, to was a bit poetic. I suppose the difference is I wouldn't consider killing a android with a downloaded human brain as bad as killing an organic human, but I really shouldn't be saying those things out loud, being someone might misinterpret it. Killing a android-human is bad. Killing a cyborg is bad. Killing a human is bad. Given the choice between saving an organic or a android-human, I'll pick the human, though. I've feel like I've rambled on long enough. If you want me to clarify something, just ask here, or over at my AMA thread because that could use posts.

Sweet little piece. I enjoyed it. Here’s some critiques. Right off the start, we get a page worth of expositions purely through dialogue. I do this a lot, so I don’t mind it. The only problem is when you have characters discussing something they both know (i.e. relativistic speed effects) instead of something they don’t know (i.e. certain parts of towns). That aside… Protagonist: At the end, I got a sense that he was a bit broken and jarred, possibly from the unnamed event which is why his parents don’t exist. It’s be nice to see just a bit of foreshadowing to that at the beginning. Also, you may want to make it clear that the protagonist isn’t the quoted astronaut. Probably obvious, but I just assumed he was. The time dilation plot device you used is one an author named William Sleator uses, the best example is a children’s book he wrote called Marco’s Million, so if you want to explore the concept, I’d recommend reading that. That being the case, eight years is a lot for personal relationships and people to change, but it’s not that much for societies to change. You’d need something big, like a technological revolution and a hundred years of so. Overall, I very much enjoyed it.

Notes: The android humor is funny. Really funny. Reminds me of WolframAlpha. I would definitely like to see more of it, and I’d like to see the words ‘Turing Test’ show up. Also glad to see someone else writing about a non-living being faking the need to eat this week. Robot sidekicks are tricky to deal with, because AI should behave slightly different from humans, but still be compatible, and I think you did a good job. Two further points. First, kudos for using Asimov’s Laws. Second. Really? The robot knows the Zeroth Law and can function without crashing? I find that implausible. Q is the same, which is good, I suppose. I will call you out for using ‘relaxation first dan’. For starters, it should be ‘relaxation, first dan’ (first dan is an adjective) and, first dan is in reference to an extreme mastery level of martial arts that can’t necessarily be reached by practice alone (from my understanding). Moth is, well, a spoiled brat, but I suppose that’s because we’re getting Q’s viewpoint. Side note. So, I’ve been looking into the field of artificial intelligence and human conscious. It’d take a while to go through, but I might be able to give you a brief overview (based solely on my understanding) of the possibility of storing the human conscious? I can’t claim credentials other than many, many hours of research into the subject, though.

Here's a brief one-shot. I'd like feedback on the atmosphere, principally. Also, seeing as there's a brief tangent on the nature of good and evil, comments on that would also be appreciated. (Wouldn't mind getting sidetracked into a weapon-forging discussion either, but if wishes were fishes no one would go hungry except people who really don't like fish.) Violence isn't beyond what I normally send, the reason I put slight 'L' is because (while the language is tame compared to what other people use), it's beyond what I normally do. Also, yes, the protagonist is a villain. Just in case you were wondering.