like taffy by Sats1.
Couple things here:
1. Footnotes sit outside punctuation. This is a consistent issue throughout the piece.
2. I'm personally not a fan of lore dumping through footnotes in a piece like this, it feels out of place. If it were something like a report or some more official document, it'd make sense, but not in a casual, first-person recollection imo. (And this goes for every footnote.) More of a personal opinion though, so take it as you will.
armored digitalis flex
I'm assuming you mean digits, like fingers?
brought is massive war-hammer
"is" —> "his"
Even through the EPR I feel the slight twinge of cold prickling my skin.
A retrospective one, but Jason later states that he hasn't felt pain in a long time, so how does he feel this twinge of cold? My assumption is there his nerves are deadened, or something along those lines. If it's psychological, something done to him by the company, then that might be worth hinting at, vaguely if you wish, when he mentions not feeling pain.
I ask him where the "tri-D" is. Short for doomsday device.
I'd make this one sentence, replace the period with a comma.
"Not alone… another… a boy and a… woman, both. Armed…
"Armed" should be in the sentence with armed, right after it. Doesn't make sense to separate. If you aren't referencing them both being armed, then I'm wholly confused about what you could possibly mean with "both."
just a electromag
Two things:
1. "a" —> "an"
2. While I'm still against the footnotes, if you insist on keeping them then you need to move the electromag footnote here instead of later. The first time a concept shows up is when you should put an explanatory footnote.
my gun is out in my right hand
More of a personal irk here, up to you. "… my gun is out in my right hand" doesn't quite read right in my head, it's the "out" that gets me. Something along the lines of "my gun is in my right hand" or "I've drawn my gun with my right hand" / "my right hand has drawn my gun" would sound better imo. Again, mostly me, there isn't anything grammatically incorrect with the statement. Ignore at will.
waddles over the whole
"whole" —> "hole"
We finished up by sweeping the rest of the place for traps
If they've got Pollux, dismantled the doomsday device, have subdued the other two, and aren't looking for anything else, why sweep for traps? It's an unnecessary risk and a waste of time, they can just leave.
we haul the bodies outside. Az sends the Lifeboat around to pick us up. The shuttle lands top of the biodome and extends its emergency lift down, smacking through the glass.
The "haul the bodies outside" part seems needless if the AI is just gonna throw the lift through the glass of the dome. You then go on to say that they take the prisoners into the hold quickly to protect them from the cold, yet they took them outside when they could have stayed inside.
examine the two visitor's shuttle.
Since you're referencing both of them, it should be either "visitors'" or "visitors's". (I'm an endless advocate for s', but both are correct so it's up to you.)
All are surfaces are either covered in stickers, or obscured
Nix the first "are" and the comma.
or obscured — but probably still covered in stickers — behind potted plants.
Having the interjection right there reads janky to me. I'd suggest moving to after "potted plants" and replacing "behind" with "by".
It seems to be connected to the feed of a camera…
While I'm no expert on graphing calculators, being able to show a camera feed feels a bit too outside of the capabilities of the calculator's screen.
consists of KT, Miro and I
I am, and will forever be, the Oxford Comma's strongest warrior. You don't have to use it, but I will be standing off to the side, shaking my head disapprovingly.
do not do our fair share of work. Three can only do so much.
This feels like it should be one statement, separated with a comma and a "but" instead of a period.
I realize he can't be over fourteen years old… by Jove, he's merely a child.
Was this not already assumed from his appearance?
The two blazing orbs diminish in intensity for a moment.
AO3 PTSD…
I need to sleep.
Bro just slept for eight hours. God's sleepiest soldier.
Answering your specific questions:
1. There's a weird dissonance between the narration and dialogue to me. Jason in narration has a sophistication to his speech, rarely uses contractions and loves his big words. In dialogue he doesn't seem like the same person that's been narrating. I dunno if this is intentional or not.
2. Tense was consistent.
3. Kinda? The whole hostage situation gets over and done with real quickly with little complication and the doomsday device is dismantled with little effort or complications.
4. If the theme you're going for is a sense of dissonance between what once was, what is, and what will be, then I think it's there. At least, that's what I saw.
5. Felt solid to me, no holes that I fell through aside from nitpicks that I mentioned in before.
6. I don't think it has the capability to stand on its own, but not because it relies on Theseus or Ultimatum too much, but because so much of Jason is thrown out and never elaborated on. This feel like a part of a greater whole in that sense, like I'm reading a section in a greater work rather than an independent piece that happens to connect to others. Others may disagree, I'd consult before taking what I say to heart (if you should even do that at all, it's debatable if this is sound).
Again, I'm not paragon of artistry. I'm a person with opinions and a different brain than yours. Take what you want, throw away what you want. No skin off my back.
Keep up the good work, good luck!
