Loading reply snippet...

I wasn't much a fan of the prose either but it's difficult to take your criticisms in good faith because of that last part which is just intellectually lazy "everything I didn't like must've been by a co-writer, everything I liked must've been by Hussie." That's just not how group writing projects work...

Also, I don't think Psycholonials was ever meant to be a deconstruction of fandom politics in the way you're implying? Abby literally points out Z's plans are nonsensical and out of touch with the reality of politics and that she hasn't read a lick of theory wrt revolutions and stateship. Similarly, Jane is said to not even be aware of the history of the US and cannot accurately replicate its constitution even as much as her ideas of government are from her version of the US's propaganda. Things amounting to "the general vibes of angry people bitching online that things kind of suck without bothering to articulate why or what they would do differently" is the point. These are people who became gods when they were teenagers, but are no means prepared to run a society, and the only person who seems to have actually read up on anything is Dave, but I don't think any of that amounts to a cohesive political action plan for the situation.

I think there is a way to criticize how as much as that's the point it could've been a more enjoyable reading experience, like I liked Act 6 of Homestuck as much as it was deliberately lacking action and focused on the dysfunction of isolated teenagers, and I didn't as much enjoy reading the Epilogues. I also liked better Psycholonials' portrait of a politically inept person touched by some divine insight and right to rule or whatever, but I don't know how much that's an unfair comparison because it didn't have as many main characters to juggle. Anyway, I don't think you effectively accomplished that criticism, but it is something I'd be interested in someone articulating.