Review Detail of Davros92 in College Construction: My Principal System

bro chill its a webnovel its not supposed to be realistic

Literature is a weapon. In an illiterate society rhetoric is the greatest weapon. In literate societies, literature is a weapon. The author used individuals from textbooks as crutches to the narrative: "- I don't need to explain how my creation became intelligent because these mythological figures explain everything". This is laziness. A lazy author at the beginning will not strive for a good work he will keep the level low. This is being human. If the effort made at the beginning was enough, why should I improve? It is anti-science, books like that are accompanied by worse and even lazier copies. It's called a formula, in mathematics understand how the formula was created is science, decorating the formula is memorization, cell phones are able to memorize better than humans, so what is the use of a human who only knows how to memorize? Did you notice how it is enough for a mediocre book if innovate a minimum that appear dozens of inferior copies? If the author creates homunculus capable of learning, he would have to explain where they learned from, how didactics arise in these non-human beings, what is the relationship of students with these homunculi. In the future there would be readers wanting to know what these homunculi are, where they came from, the reason for obeying the MC. Are they angels? Villains? Aliens? Clones? Incarnate God? This takes a lot of work, the risk of not having readers and wasting time and money is great, but if readers are demanding and pay for it, companies always go after it.

bro. your comment can be used for an essay. imma save this one.

In Brazil, my home country, there is a division of curriculum between prospective teachers and researchers in certain areas of science. I'm a geographer. What I opined is basically a Greek discussion we learned in the semesters about introductory science for prospective teachers. The Greeks developed rhetoric to the democratic limit, this was criticized by the Greeks themselves in classical works. The literate dispute part arises after the industrial revolution when we discuss Marx at a later point in the discussion. I just adapted my conclusions from both discussions. :)

gggggghhhhbbbbjjjjjjjj

Fantasy novels don't have to be completely realistic or it would not be fantasy also how would you know if they could be great teachers, when did you meet them? Who cares as long is it is enjoyable to read, that is the purpose of these novels. If you can't handle a fantasy novel including some fantasy then why are you reading it?

I will try to summarize: The figures he described left their scientific methodology in writing, that is, they left an objective record of their knowledge for posterity, relying on the scientific method of reading, critique and universal reproduction. What the author described would be static antiscience knowledge (or contrary to the scientific method). It's logically confusing. Basically the author claims that science is correct but his method is antiscience, a logical incongruity. This goes beyond the question of reality and fantasy, doesn't it affect your experience of an incongruous work? It's like using the legitimate ideological divine power of monarchy to try justify the existence of democracy or claiming that you like books without criticizing their quality. totally illogical.

Fantasy is the unreal that becomes real. Trying to use logic of what science actually is won't work here.

In this book, the author was lazy in constructing the story, the characters are poorly developed and the narrative is illogical. The author needed to produce to receive, and he produced something easy, bad and with little effort. If you had fun with this work it doesn't change the set that is bad. You just didn't like part of my arguments, bad luck for you.