Well there's very little mystery to me as to whom the Lawrence character is based on: it's SS.

I enjoyed reading it. It reminded me of my disaster of a novel: dialogue, with almost every action having to do with ingesting one drug or the other. And that is probably it's biggest flaw. That, or the dialogue doesn't go far enough. I mean, I've had this conversation, so it's not exactly like I'm sitting on the edge of my seat waiting to find out where it's going next. More, I'm waiting to see which of SS's mannerisms you'll describe next. Which means that I'm already outside of the story because I know who the lead character (you) is conversing with (SS).

So, basically, I think you should either: make the conversation more interesting; or make myself more inexperienced in regards conversations.

Then it would be a better story.

Although I still did enjoy it. After I was done I felt full of nicotine, alcohol, and grackle-icious voyeurism.

It wasn't much of a test, but I thank *god* that you of a people recognized the Lawrence model. It would have been one hell of a failure if you hadn't.

Mind you, if you're only interest was in find out what mannerism came next, that's a failure as well.

SCK suggested the biggest flaw was the lack of conflict/plot, which (maybe, kinda) parses with what you said. I think he may be right. Which would make the piece less true to my fictional impulse, but many a better piece of fiction.

It's good to know you enjoyed reading it, though, even if it left you feeling polluted.And better to be reassured you're still talking to me,after theo other night's unpleasantness.

It reminded me, like I said, very much of my novel (ie: attempt at a modern platonic dialogue, except without the pre-ordained ancient solution), and it's failures.

As they say: actions speak louder than words. Any moron can sit around speculating (hockey on monday).It's only when one has to act (not there on monday) that truth gets out the megaphone and broadcasts the true state of affairs.

I think the same maxim holds true in fiction. Characters who don't act don't really hold us rapt unless they're saying something really new. Your characters weren't saying anything I hadn't thought for myself, so, like I said, I wasn't on the edge of my seat waiting to see where the conversation was going to turn.

However, it may have been mind-blowing to someone else - I don't know. In 2500, you'll be the Plato of pedopheliacs everywhere.

Ah, the joy of a cheapshot.

Consciously at least, it was intended more as an ironoic than a platonic dialogue.

Actually, that's not true. It sparked by one of those images that (too rarely) come when sitting on a patio, and developed into what I hoped would be an amusing, if possibly disturbing, portrait of an aspect of the male psyche.

You say it isn't engaging enough intellectually, and Steve said it doesn't have enough of a plot, or at least narrative conflict. I suspect you're both right.

It doesn't have any plot. It's you masturbating philosophically across a table to yourself who is masturbating back at you from the other side of a slightly warped looking glass then resolving it without actually resolving anything. It's an essay disguised as a story through the constant reappearance of a waitress to fill beer mugs faster than anyone can drink them to provide the illusion of setting and time progression. Plato would have at least drawn a moral conclusion.