| = Flavius|
|First of all, I really appreciated the quality of the translation.|
The idea of the text is a very intense resource for creating, the spaces that voices conquer, or would like to, the limits and limitations of this mental virtual reality - indeed there is so much that has to be written about all this.
I also liked how far you wanted to go with this concept - when you said that the voice has its own voice(s), it sounded like a fractal.
You said somewhere smth very interesting- for me, it's the most powerful statement of the text: "for every shade there is an angle." that is a great thing to say.
However, my impression is that the 2 characters' speeches have several significant flaws.
- much too long
- they have the same rhythm, the same way of approaching things, from the beginning till the end. It's as if the characters did not change / exchange anything at all. In every normal dialogue, the attitude oscillates in conformity with what is told and how it is told. Here, on the contrary, it's like 2 loose voices. They do not communicate at all - but i hope you're not trying to inject the godot vaccine in them, because the theatre of the absurd was already explored in this direction.
Apart from the absence of a communication bond, together with an eruption of information/facts that sometimes are not necessary there, the 2 characters seem to be so concentrated on squeezing out everything that is to be squeezed in that space. It is tiresome for them and for the reader too.
Maybe they should have had some kind of emotional feedback.
And the dialogue should have been not like a flood, but like a stream which can in the reader.s mind more exactly be transformed into a river.