The readers are not Neal. They may, as is their choice be far more concerned with the Primer's potential than with any narrative Neal was looking to convey.
The readers are not Neal. They may, as is their choice be far more concerned with the Primer's potential than with any narrative Neal was looking to convey.
I'm pointing out that this conversation needs to be started by the ones creating the "primer", not us. "We made a thing from a book, the author thinks it wouldn't work but here's why we do" is a reasonable place to start. "We're reproducing a canonically failed fictional project without further consideration" is unserious at best. Torment nexus-y at worst. https://twitter.com/AlexBlechman/status/1457842724128833538
You don't need to dispute anything anymore than the wright brothers needed to dispute Icarus.
Neal was trying to tell a story, not trying to be right.
I remember someone noting a similar idea in Snow Crash -- that idea of biomass, in which that which lives becomes the extension of the machine, rather than the other way around.