SB:Confusion and Transcendence

I read both part's to this rp and I must say that this is a masterpiece. Your vision between reality and imaginary is just perfect and I think you pulled it off damn near perfect.


I could picture your doctor as the one from Terminator and your character as Sarah Connor. I also liked how both forces for Rev and Shadow will combine. Great stuff.


Now I know Kyzer will pull one off just like this, so wonderful job and good luck to you at Superbrawl.

The Reverend had been lost and confused to great extent in the last few rps. Basically means hes not goin to find the answers that he wants and he musn't look to much into the ones that he wants. He must just be lost and then he will find himself throught God.

You monster. You have easily became the most improved RPer of 2006. I total hate the format, out of jealousy and out of the formatting. But this RP was a briallant illustration of how the mind can play tricks on even the most intellectual human beings. I liked both, I really do. This match is one of the many I look forward to, just a great main event. Along with the 3-way.

Well... As for Part 1...

Your format is clever and interesting. I'm traditionally entirely against unrealistic occurances like dreams and fake realities, but within the context of the RolePlay it makes sense and was well established. Your problems, however, continue to show through. You use many characters in your RolePlays but none of them have any actual character or intrigue. The doctor literally could be Basil Exposition, the father was more or less the Reverend but in dream form, Shadow was cliche and under-written, and Reverend flipped his wig for no reason back and forth. One minute he's sure, one minute he's afraid, then he's confused. You don't seem to bring forth a singular motive or point. Also, the entire thing comes off kind of under-written. You write in a slightly old-english style and that could be interesting but then you have characters saying "that guy does this" or "well he does this b/c of that". I mean, frankly, this is supposed to be an articulate individual, not an IM conversationalist.

Most importantly, you really don't convey a particular point. Even moreso, you don't really comment on Kyzer until the sermon in the end which is way too short and, once again, presents no outcome. Your major flaw is you don't seem to be able to delve into the complexities and minor elements of a character and break it down and see where you fit into that. True analyses requires the ability to break down every element of a character and utilize those for your points.

Overall it wasn't bad and I admire your effort but in all honesty it's mostly a case of quantity over quality.


And as for Part 2...

Once again, very clever format but still under-written, in this case too short and unrealistic, and still no real point about Kyzer. You've been developing this angle for quite some time now to do, what? I mean there's no resolution, no conclusion. It's just all kind of ham-handed.