Talk:Venomous/@comment-Mikemacdee-20160715073440/@comment-TheLegion97-20160715144844

Firstly I must point out the fact that the murderer is not a contract killer.

Secondly, I don't find the character to be a Mary sue in any way. A Mary sue, by definition, is a 'seemingly perfect fictional character, a young or low ranked person who saves the day through unrealistic abilities'. I think that Jeff the Killer is a Mary Sue, but definitely not the killer in Venomous. The killer is obviously very skilled, and has honed his craft to perfection. So, yes, he is seemingly perfect at killing, but that is in no way unrealistic as the killer has a reason for being perfect: knowledge and practice. Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer were seemingly perfect killers too, are you implying that they are Mary Sue characters? In many interviews, serial killers do brag about their skills, so I dont find this inner monologue to be too unrealistic. I'm sure we all think a bit highly of ourselves sometimes, even you. If anything I find the characters voice to be realistic.

Thirdly, as an Australian who has dealt with Taipans in the wild before, and somebody who watches alot of documentaries, I don't find the fact that the taipan was invoked to attack Tyson unrealistic at all. Taipans are aggressive even when in a docile mood, so I know for a fact that this snake, being physically handled by a human and stuffed into a bag, would not think twice about attacking the next human to cross it. This was actually explained in the story itself, which you would have seen if you weren't too focused on finding flaws in the story.

I can partly agree that the kills involved a certain degree of chance, but I didn't find it unbelievable at all. I just explained why the snake kill was very possible, perhaps even certain, but the spider kill was a little dependent on luck. Many psychopaths are heavily bound in routine. The routine of the boys was also discussed in the story. The fact that Jack pissed on a log every time he finished the race was not unbelievable at all. He didn't pee because he had to, he peed because it part of his routine, and he was obliged to.

Personally, I found the killer to be a metaphor for mother nature. His kills were a way for mother nature to 'bite back'. I am fairly certain that this was a deliberate literary choice made by the author, and if that's true it kind of renders your argument obsolete.

Sorry to combat your seemingly harsh comment with comments of my own, but I did find your argument to be a little unwarranted. I understand the need for harsh criticism, but that criticism should also be constructive, and I didn't find your comments to be remotely constructive.

But hey, that's just my opinion. Much like your comment is nothing but an opinion, and in the future it might be wise to state that, otherwise it might be interpreted as rude.