Had to laugh at Tao's rebuttal, but as to your piece, Zeus:
Unlike Tao - who can be a cheeky ragamuffin some of the time, but damned amusing all the same - I'm not going to concern myself with the veracity of the information; I'm looking at your piece as a literary exercise, so to speak.
In the second paragraph, you refer to "his" ... it's not abundantly clear who "he" is, at least to me. I keep thinking it may be God, but without the capitalized H, it throws me, just for me, it reads like that in context. If it refers to modern man (the last entity you mention) the language doesn't seem right about talking such a mere insignificant race! Haha :)
In the first paragraph, it's "its", not "it's". "its" is the proper possessive for an object. "it's" only refers to the contraction of "it is". Common mistake. :)
Spelling error, at least from my Queen's English viewpoint, "consequence".
Otherwise, an interesting lil essay and the language flows well.
As a final point to Tao, you do have a point about toilet paper, but see the movie "Demolition Man" based loosely on Aldus Huxley's "Brave New World" (including the female lead having the same name of "Lenina" with the telling surname in the movie "Huxley") where they do indeed do away with said paper.
"He doesn't know how to use the three seashells!"
Nuff said.
Cailean.
|