The Szecsei Manifesto

The current system of democracy in place will never work out.

The United States and the rest of the free world have these ideals of a perfect utopian society, but ideals never work out. Look at Communism. It started out as an idealistic system, and then degenerated. A society is only as good as the people who form it. One rotten apple can spoil the barrel. And whenever you give a society to the people, you're bound to get rotten apples; it's like a law of human nature. Someone has to be the devil's advocate. And, more often than not, the devil wins. It happened to Russia, and is currently happening even to the United States. And when that falls, the whole free world falls. The United States wants choice. That will lead to their destruction, and when they go, there won't be any order, and then who knows what savagery will spring up.

But the Dictatorial Party takes that into consideration. That's why I will need people to kill the revolutionaries. If they revolt, all confirmed order will cease to exist. But if we destroy the revolutionaries, we'll have locked in security and stability. Nothing will bring down the Dictatorial Party and their country. Nothing. With all the power vested in one supremely scrupulous, powerful, and, if I do say so myself, incredibly intelligent, human being, the Dictatorial Party will have stability. No revolutions will weaken us. We will root out the bad apples, and then we will truly have a
utopian society. That is the only way.

But in order for us to achieve our goals, we must plan ahead. There must be a country ready to welcome us, a country so scarred by internal turmoil that it will recognize the peace we will bring to it. We must take this country, rename it, and then place me at its head. And when I am dead, there must be another extremely scrupulous person waiting to take my place. So whenever a new ruler comes into power, he or she must choose the one to come after. When medical evidence shows that the ruler is not sane in mind, the ruler will be removed. All would-be assassins will be dealt with in a forceful public display as decided by the ruler. No assassins or mercenaries will be hired in the country for obvious reasons. Guns are outlawed. There will only be blades that are relatively easy to spot in the hands of someone who should not have them.

All fradulence will be dealt with in the same manner. Government agents discovered to have been dealing in fraudulent activities will be executed in a public display to educate the masses on the punishments and to dissuade them from attempting anything similar. Together, the Dictatorial Party will prove to be the salvation of all races and species currently in existence.

The economic system that will be used is Socialism. This provides a good balance between idealistic system of Communism and the idealistic (but on the other end of the spectrum) one of Capitalism. Let the Dictatorial Party unite to battle the certain end of order created by democracy! Down With Democracy!

While essay in form, this honestly sounds like a piece of fiction, but that's for the moderators to decide.

Anyways, I really started to get into this piece (despite the bothersome poetry format), but what started out as witty-sounding writing style quickly crumbled away and became more of a rant. Your sentences are simple and lack variety, and you need to use correct grammar (such as "an" not "a" when specifying a noun or adjective that starts with a vowel) and to capitalize your "I"'s when you use them as a proper noun (this is a huge pet peeve of mine and was what really jolted me out of the piece). Going back to the aforementioned sentence problems, you do have a whole slew of sentence fragments, and while this can create quite a nice rhythm when used in the right way, your fragments detract from the word rhythm instead of making me go "Wow, that person has quite a unique tone".

Finally, your last paragraph makes no sense to me, which is why I'm not quite sure this is right for fiction. Who is this person you are telling the reader to kill (Jaylor)? Who or what are Candy Guardians and Health Lords?

When creating a piece of non-fiction work, all facts that are not common knowledge need to be explained right up front with your thesis (which was very clear and concise, by the way).

Keep writing!

I really liked the first paragraph; you had a nice mood going that was interesting and kept me reading. But after I finished I thought to myself: "Wait... what is this?
I think for the second paragraph you need something that makes more sense. The first paragraph works great because even though we don't know what you are talking about entirely, we can kind of get it from the examples you give and the feeling you create with your words, (speaking of this, nice job.)
Second paragraph: slow down. Explain a little more what is going on. And really, you don't need all-capitalized words. Your writing is strong enough that we get the idea without them.

The only other thing I find a little awkward it how you speak to the reader as if they were a character in the story. ex:

That's why i needed you to kill Jaylor.

and,

THAT, my apprentice, is the only way.

In a way, I want to like it because its original, but I'm not quite sure if it works.
And yes, do please capitalize 'I'.
Aside from being a bit unclear this really was quite good. I would edit the second paragraph (this will also make it slightly longer which is good.) and continue, because I would very much like to read more, that is, if there is more to come.

I like Utopias. By nature they are dystopian. I suggest reading "Utopia," by Thomas Moore, "Dinotopia," and "Those Who Walk Away from Omelas," a short story by Ursula Le Guin. They give an excellent way of formulizing your thoughts. I have a Utopia called "Paradiso" myself, which while not as good as those great writers, might give you some ideas. The dystopia is a sprawling genre worth exploring. However, this piece falls drastically short. It is hugely prosaic but delineated as prose. It makes references to narratives which seem to want to be both humorous and serious, and fail at being taken well as either. There is a seed here, a potent little germ I think worth coaxing, but don't regard this as the final product. Think about the plot, perhaps, behind the Candy Lords and the Health Lords and this Jaylor person. Perhaps engage in a narrative. Or, if you want to go for the monologue, as you seem to at the end, read some Robert Browning. His "My Last Duchess" does this very well, where the character is speaking to make his own points but ends up revealing things he doesn't intend. That would be awesome from the perspective of someone from a Utopian society. But I really recommend trying to build this and enrich it in imagery and more tangible, explained allusions. Keep it up!

Erm... is there a point to this?

A lot of the thoughts here are kind of disjointed. You talk about one thing, introducing some sort of archetype or symbol, and then you completely ignore it and start yammering about something else.

One example that really stuck out to me:

One rotten apple can spoil the barrel. When you
give a society to the people, you're bound to get bad results.

Where did the apple go? Apples are a great archetype; you probably know that and tried to introduce it here. But you just kind of let it die, instead of continuing that thread.

I really have no clue what this is about, either. I mean, you mention Candy Guardians, then communism, then Russia, then the US, then the Health Lords. There's not really enough here to get an idea of what you're trying to convey.

And like Scribe said, you do fall pretty short of exploring utopian society. A story would be nice? Hah, not to sound mean, but there's really not a story here. It's more like what I would expect in an interdepartmental memo or a presidential speech. Where's the rising action? The climax? The falling action? The exposition? The resolution? This, in essence, is lacking all the elements of a story.

On the positive side, I think I speak for several people when I say utopian societies are a fascinating concept. And concept, while not everything, is definitely key. You've got a concept here, and probably a good one -- but it's just not done justice.

So let's give this a story line, okay?

If you have any questions, feel free to send me a PM!

-Saint Razorblade
The Official YWS Pirate

P.S. Welcome to YWS! You can call me Saint.

Erm... is there a point to this?

Stole the words from beneath my fingertips.

Also, I agree that this comes across more as fiction than essay. Consider switching forums.

I agree with the others; this is a little confusing and unclear. There are also a few grammatical and rhythmical problems that I have fixed (and underlined) in the version below. I also fixed some things so that (hopefully) they make a little more sense.

aszecsei wrote:The Candy Guardians have these ideals of a perfect Utopian society, but ideals never work out. Look at Communism; it started out as an idealistic system, but it soon degenerated. A society is only as good as the people who form it. One rotten apple can spoil the barrel. When you give a society to the people, you're bound to get bad results. It's like a law of human nature--someone has to be the devil's advocate. And, more often than not, the devil wins. It happened to Russia, is happening to the United States, and when that falls, the free world falls. The Candy Guardians want choice, but that will lead to their destruction. When they go, there won't be any order, and then a fate will fall too terrible for me to discuss.

But the Health Lords take that into consideration. That's why I
needed you to kill Jaylor. He was going to revolt. We've locked him in
security and stability. Nothing will bring down the Health Lords.
Nothing. With all the power vested in one supremely scrupulous,
powerful, and--if I do say so myself--incredibly intelligent, human being, the Health Lords have stability. No revolutions will weaken us. We will root out the bad apples, and then we will truly have a Utopian society. That, my apprentice, is the only way.

I like the style and voice, but I have to admit that I am quite lost. More background would definitely go a long way in this piece. Who is Jaylor? Who or what are the Candy Guardians? If you didn't mention The US and Russia, I would think you were talking about another world completely. I think the first paragraph is fine as is, because it pulls the readers in and mystifies them, but you should elaborate and dedicate a few more paragraphs to explaining the whole situation.

I am really interested in this, but befuddled at the same time... am I supposed to know what you're talking about?

Let me know when you edit this!

~Azila~ (The Reviewing Queen )

I'm back, as per request! *bows*

I'm delighted to say that this piece makes a lot more sense now that you've edited it. It shouldn't be in Non-Fiction, (I recommend having it moved to Other Fiction) but it does make a lot more sense. In fact, it kind of gave me the chills as I was reading it because idealism never works out--as you said yourself.

And whenever you give a society to the people, you're bound to get rotten apples. It's like a law of human nature.

That period there should be a semi-colon.

With all the power vested in one supremely scrupulous, powerful, and, if i do say so myself, incredibly intelligent, human
being, the Dictatorial Party will have stability.

Hehe, that makes me laugh no that I understand that you're talking about yourself. You should capitalize your "I" though. >.>

Guns are outlawed. There can only be blades that are relatively easy to spot in the hands of someone who should not have them.

Shouldn't this be "Guns will be outlawed. There will only be blades that are relatively easy to spot in the hands of someone who should not have them."

This provides a good balance between idealistic system of Communism and the cruel one of Capitalism.

Is it just me, or should you say something positive about each party? Because you're combining them to make your party, so people wouldn't want to hear that you're using a cruel party as a basis for your new party... right?

Overall, this is much better this time. I actually know what you're talking about! *happy dance*

Cheers!
~Azila~

First of all, Al, you need not refer to the US as "they". You are one of us. Second of all, Socialism won't work, we need a different balance of communism and capitalism. A "good" balance is not enough for anything to work, what we need is a PERFECT balance. Also, taking over one country will not suffice, we need to overthrow ALL major nations and unite them under one rule so as to eliminate the possibility of intervention.

First of all, Jay, the point was to make an "evil" speech to convince people and freak them out - as Azila pointed out. Second of all, I know all that - and said so in the speech.

I only went through the first two paragraphs. My additions, comments, and any other miscellaneous jots and scribbles are enclosed with braces ({}). You may notice that words have been . . . omitted; it is intentional. Omission of those words seemed to make the essay flow more smoothly. I have edited this as a spoken essay, not as a written essay:


The current system of democracy will never work out.

The United States and the rest of the free world have these ideals {about} {} {"}perfect utopian society,{"} but ideals never work {}. Look at Communism. It started out as an idealistic system, and then degenerated. A society is only as good as the people who form it. One rotten apple can spoil the barrel. And whenever you give a society to the people, you're bound to get rotten apples; it's like a law of human nature. Someone has to be the devil's advocate. And, more often than not, the devil wins. It happened {in} Russia{; it's} happening to the United States. {. . .} When {they} fall, the free world falls. The United States wants choice{, and it} will lead to their destruction{. Savagery will spring up in place of civilization.}

{Fortunately, we of} the Dictatorial Party take that into consideration. That's why I will need people{--like you--} to {silence} the revolutionaries. If they revolt, all order will cease. If we destroy the revolutionaries, security and stability {will be maintained}. Nothing will bring down the Dictatorial Party. Nothing. With all the power vested in one supreme being, the Dictatorial Party will have stability. No revolution will weaken us. {"Bad apples" removed,} we will truly {maintain a anti-ideal society.}


OK, now for the chit-chat portion. The first paragraph was basically good, only with a few words or phrases that quite didn't flow properly. The second paragraph . . . well, it needs some work. You go through this ideology thing in the first paragraph. It sounds as if you are going to continue with the general subject, but instead, you switch to this "we"-personal thing. It goes from a seemingly thought-out, professionally style speech to a rambling from a power-hungry quack. Obviously you were trying to do this; it's funny but weird. It didn't flow properly. No one starts out thoughtfully and then goes totally into an emotional rant. If you took the "thought out" portion, eased it into a "thought out with fanaticism on the side" portion, and then threw it totally into fanaticism, that would be great! As it is, something doesn't feel right. It was almost as if you skipped a paragraph.