Board Thread:Writer's Workshop/@comment-26537256-20160716142055/@comment-26537256-20160717124541

Here's an explanation I already wrote.

The reason I don't give insight into the patients overall character or motivations is because he is insane; I'm trying to paint a picture of his own insanity. The first section (the patients mind) is purposefully vague and slightly nonsensical because I'm trying to present to the reader an interesting way in which his affliction (schizophrenia or similar disorder) functions. The entire court is him ("Any discussion of this tradition" - the patient feels murder is a tradition, "the loss of life, the possible mass hysteria, the victims," - the patient considers what might result, "The murder of this man is now legalised." - the patient comes to a conclusion), so I tried to make it slightly irrational and confused.

Capturing how an insane person thinks isn't always easy, so I attempted to do it in a different way. With the court section, tht is the patient's thought process, done in a millisecond. After the "****", the story then changes to real life, showing the result of the patient's insanity. It's not written in great detail to demonstrate his perception of the world: outside matters, interactions, e.g. don't matter to him because he is consumed by his mind. Even though I wrote it in third person, the story is from the patient's point of view the whole time.

I completely understand your gripes with my piece, but it's entirely about the protagonists insanity. It defines who he is, his actions, and what he will do. I guess I didn't imply that enough, so maybe that's where the problem lies.

That was my thought process when writing, and should explain about everything.

In regards to the apology, I feel as though EmpyrealInvective misinterpreted my statements, even after I clarified them, so I'm just noting that.

I'll try and incorporate your suggestions, soon.