Book Jacket

 

rank 651
word count 18284
date submitted 26.04.2010
date updated 26.03.2013
genres: Science Fiction, Fantasy, Comedy
classification: adult
incomplete

No Compatibility.

Daniel Thomas Mann

When the existentialists arrived, freewill was truly mastered, the consequences reverberated, shockingly and unwittingly into the most poignant time in history,
the Big Bang.

 

No Compatibility is a philosophical inquiry
into the human condition using the metaphor of
the vertical upright and horizontal crossbar.It contrasts
the linear, episodic and time locked view most of us have
i.e. a beginning and end, overeating or face starvation,
procreation of the species and sleeping and waking.

Males and females, live and die, eat and starve, sleep and
wake up, complementing the paradoxical interlock,
on all four sides of the building. The theme of the story
concentrates on four individuals within a community.
Existentialism becomes the dominant force, they have
freewill, choosing not to conform to the conflicting
styles, and the all powerful building that controls
them.

 
rate the book

to rate this book please Register or Login

 

tags

absorbing, contemporary, philosophical

on 54 watchlists

456 comments

 

To leave comments on this or any book please Register or Login

subscribe to comments for this book
zan wrote 1424 days ago

No Compatibility.
Daniel Thomas Mann

Thought-provoking, extraordinary, formidable, engrossing, provocative, baffling, unconventional. What comes to mind? Salvador Dali using multiple brushes, tints of a myriad colour, depositing paint on his canvas to create images from his conscious or subconscious mind to shape art with or without the ability of others to logically comprehend his intententions, or productions - but who cares? He has created some of the best pieces the world has ever seen. How can a gloss be put over existentialism? Is it easy to comprehend a meaning in the time-portal of existentialism before the forty-eight seconds lapsed and the interlock exploded? Good grief (!) - as a lay person, I think your philosophical theories and imaginations reflected here are interesting and written in an authoritative manner. "Thought" processes, "thought" issues are of course crucial to man and it is reassuring to see that some among us are at least still "thinking". Dominic Clover seems an interseting character, trying to balance the past and present with the future. A lot of food for thought in this piece - alas, as a lay person with little or no training in philosophy, there is little I can say by way of constructive criticism. Some stimulation of the grey matter is alwys of course welcome - nice way to start my day so thanks and good luck with this. NO problem backing it.
Zan

Darius Stransky wrote 20 days ago

Your writing is like a glass mountain.

Hard to climb but by God we know it's there

Darius
The King's Jew

Sheena Macleod wrote 161 days ago

Daniel, I found this a very heavy read. I can see the thought and structure within what you write as you explore the philosophical constructs pertinent to us all. Free will versus determinism. What it means to exist. Your writing is very different from the norm, not a bad thing, but it will not be to every ones taste.
I think you should reduce some ly words - in some sections there are to many to make the read fluent. I would also suggest reducing some of your paragraph sizes for ease of reading.
I think this is a mighty work, that will appeal to those wishing a deep and meaningful read. To the thinkers amongst us, you open original lines of thought.
Good luck with this,

Sheena
Carnival of Lies

Maevesleibhin wrote 212 days ago

No Compatibility

Daniel,
I read all that you have posted. I kept reading because I could not believe you were going to go through with it. I have never seen anything quite like it, and I studied philosophy at University.
I'm trying to figure out how to comment. I don't believe that this is successful as a work of fiction. But it could've been. The way you were intermingling the violent scene in chapter 1 with philosophical ramblings was very interesting, and promised a gripping read. However, you shied away from that, focusing instead in the ramblings themselves, which have an awful lot of repetition, and in the conversation of the two existential characters.
My question is, are you serious? At times I laughed with the avdurdity of what you were doing. At times, I regarded this as one of those ultramodern exhibits, where the artist is controversial for the sake of being controversial. Your repetitions, particularly in the last chapter, made me question whether you were just trying to pull the reader's leg.
It is very hard to critique this. There is no plot. Character development is limited to the first two characters, which are actually fascinating. There is no real ambiance or description, except, again, in the beginning, where the tower block is an analogy for the universe. The book, as a work of fiction, is essentially barren.
I have a hard time taking it seriously as a work of philosophy, and I don't think you were intending it as such. It almost looks like an absurdist philosophy, or the philosophy of a fictional culture. It made me think a lot of Borges (to be perfectly honest, sometimes about the Library of Babylon and the fact that this book has to necessarily exist there, along with the one where the typo in chapter 1 ( "but a single paradox having a crisis of identify." Should be "identity") has been corrected.) It has a similar absurdity as some of his stories, like the map of the earth made to scale. The section about the number of sides a planet has, for instance, was almost certainly meant in jest, wasn't it?
Assuming, again, that this is a work of fiction, I think that you had a very exciting thing going with Clover and I would suggest you consider not dropping it as you do. I was very much hoping to read on about this sadist opportunist as seen through the philosophical ramblings. Lines like these are fascinating:
"All Clover could see in the corridor were repressed feelings of disharmony, rather than a timelock lockout. The corridor was like a looking glass it was so transparent and completely out of sequence. "
I would have wanted you go proceed with the story of his violent actions adorned, again, with the considerations, sometimes absurdist, of Good and Evil (seeing no evil is hearing no evil, I think you said). I found these sections fascinating
"Pride and prejudice caused the oversight, she was too proud to admit she was wrong, and too prejudiced to admit Cover was right. A tower block couldn’t exemplify a blade of grass, and she couldn’t exemplify Clover, so she simulated the necessary delusions of grandeur for herself to get on top. But she had underestimated Clover’s commitment and the absence of foundations for her tower block, because the continued expansion of stipulations that followed the grandeur were based on trial and error. Clover was committed to keep the timelock lockout sequence running and he didn’t have time to stand around."
Whatever that really means (the grandeur is unexplained in the small passage, and it is unclear what the time lock lockout sequence is and what it means for Clover to keep it from running) I found it fun to read. This could have gone sci-fi fantasy, and I would have followed it along (if the time lock lockout sequence were something real). It could have gone high brow literary fiction, and I would have followed it along (if the time lock lockout sequence is a philosophical concept about the essence of time within the moral context. But what I was not prepared to find was that it led into more philosophical ramblings.
Again, I think this could be very compelling if you stayed with Clover. You do bring him back in chapter 4, but only to analyse him, not to tell more of his story. Even if the plot progression is to follow him through his acts of wanton mayhem and destruction, bracketed by the observations, it would be engaging. If you built a plot with moral qualms, it would be even more so.
Then again, this could simply be over my head, and maybe you should just ignore me.
Best of luck with it,
Maeve

Felicia Porter wrote 244 days ago

Returning the read!

These are just my suggestions and criticisms as well as praise. Feel free to toss it all out the window J

* I would break up the first sentence; the tower block flanked the northern edge of the common. Situated in a neatly…yeah. Like that. Right now it’s a bit difficult to swallow, and I had to read it twice to understand, which isn’t a good thing for the opening sentence of a novel.
* You use aforementioned twice in the third paragraph.
* Alright, I’ll be honest with you: I’m four chapters in and you’re still describing the tower and it’s cross-sectioning and all that I’m sure the tower has great importance but the way you’re choosing to word things and the words themselves…it’s a bit much. You’re writing style seems to detract from the overall story.

OVERALL THOUGHTS:
* You have an interesting piece here. I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t well-written as far as grammar goes. It feels like you’re trying to show off your extensive vocabulary more than tell a story. I understand what you’re seeking to accomplish, but diluting the abundance of million dollar words, if you will, might make it more accessible to people. Right now I think you could convey the same messages to people without trying so hard to sound intelligent. Because to me, that’s how it read. I don’t know if that was your intention or not. Anyway, I think the premise of the story is interesting, but again, the superfluous writing style kept me from connecting with the story or the character of Clover.

I’m sorry if this sounds harsh; bear in mind only you as the author know what you’re trying to achieve, and I know there are people who will enjoy this.

BeeJoy wrote 320 days ago

Ok. I am lost on this one. Lol. I will commend you for an excellent writing. Your vocabulary is spectacular. This was hard to understand at times but. ..I like that you had me thinking. I was using my brain while reading this and I like that. Great job. Keep it up.

BeeJoy wrote 333 days ago

Wow. Just started this and really interesting. You were daring and intriguing. I do not think I will be of much help since these are not my type of books but....I will say that it is well written. I will continue to read more.

Alice Barron wrote 405 days ago

Hello Daniel. Here are my thoughts on No Compatibility.

When I got over the first number of paragraphs I found there was a good story unfolding. The description of the building is very complex. It is an intricate structure and if it is going to be central to your story then yes, indeed the reader needs to visualise and be drawn towards the building. At times, I felt as if the building was being described by an over qualified architect and I did wonder if the passer by on the street looking at the building is ever going to see the detail that is being explained.

i was a little concerned about the repetitive use of descriptive words. They tend to jar the reading of the sentences. Aforementioned disparity is used quite a lot.

Further down the page in chapter one it is stated....The tower block was situated in a neatly trimmed lawn......We know this already because it is mentioned in the very first sentence. This is another example of repetition. I know. Who am I to talk as my book is full of it.

At times you have a very clever use of words as in......but that was Clover's foreshadow, which preceeded him up the stairwell as though he was shadow boxing.......easy to imagine and well done.

You have "the" entered twice in your long pitch....it contrasts the the linear, episodoc and time locked view....drop one of the "the".

I'm glad I came across this book and will read on when time allows. Lots of stars for now, though.

Alice.

maretha wrote 433 days ago

No Compatibility/Daniel Thomas Mann
I had another look at the second chapter and based on what you have explained to me about the writing style and so forth, I wanted to upgrade your rating - which I've now done. I hope your book will continue to find a following here on authonomy as well as on a publisher's desk - although as I've mentioned to you before, your book will not be everyone's cup of tea, but if read, if will play on the reader's mind for a long time to come :-)
Maretha
African Adventures of Flame, Family, Furry and Feathered Friends

Seringapatam wrote 458 days ago

I have to agree. I normally just look at what I see, but I cant help think what other readers will read. I loved it and wish you luck. Big score from me.
Sean Connolly. British Army on the Rampage. (B.A.O.R) please consider me for a read or watch list. Happy New Year. Sean

maretha wrote 459 days ago

No Compatibility/Daniel Thomas Mann
I was rather hooked by your short pitch as far as philosophical existentialism is concerned. People have free will, but of course one can argue whether such choices always lead to the best possible outcomes? As is the case of Clover. He seems to be a character set on violence and his chosen violent behaviour affects an innocent tenant in your incredible building, which I would like say (and this is just an opinion) does not have to be described in such detail at this stage. Paragraphs one and two are perfect to introduce your very complicated plot. The next four paragraphs can be summed up by simply saying that the whole building seems to float in the air, as if supported by very little - verticle upright columns supporting horizontal floors of concrete which are encased with large expanses of windows. During most of the day the building seems to reflect sunlight giving the illusion that the whole structure floats in space. Perhaps you can refer to its run-down, neglected condition and ruggedness, the graffitti etc as part of Clover's thought-processes where they will in my opinion have more effect. What I'm therefore suggesting is to spread out the descriptions of this structure which is pivotal to your plot over the action and integrate them where they would serve a more useful purpose. Readers are after all interested in the story, i.e. the plot and its characters. If you make the introduction too long, they may lose interest and miss out on a very good story.
Looking at the second character, the lady whose door is kicked in by Clover. My argument would of course be that at this stage, she had no choice. Whatever she said upset Clover and here towards the end of this chapter, I'm finally getting the hook. She and her now dead husband chose to live there, but other more powerful existentialists, like Clover who prefers to ignore law and order(being a true free spirit) would influence the first choices she's made and is now forced to live by after her husband's death. I have a question though. How does it aid the plot for her to be scantilly dressed? Is this written to highlight her vulnerability, because at this stage I don't have a vivid picture of her person or looks. But I must certainly say, that this book will be remembered by me and if I have more time, I would most certainly come back to see how the individuals in this incredible building fair. For what I've read up to now I must give you very high stars and hope that you would be able to condense the descriptions and clarify the plot as you edit your story. :-) All the best in the days ahead on authonomy.
Maretha
http://www.authonomy.com/books/43500/african-adventures-of-flame-family-furry-and-feathered-friends/

maretha wrote 459 days ago

No Compatibility/Daniel Thomas Mann
I was rather hooked by your short pitch as far as philosophical existentialism is concerned. People have free will, but of course one can argue whether such choices always lead to the best possible outcomes? As is the case of Clover. He seems to be a character set on violence and his chosen violent behaviour affects an innocent tenant in your incredible building, which I would like say (and this is just an opinion) does not have to be described in such detail at this stage. Paragraphs one and two are perfect to introduce your very complicated plot. The next four paragraphs can be summed up by simply saying that the whole building seems to float in the air, as if supported by very little - verticle upright columns supporting horizontal floors of concrete which are encased with large expanses of windows. During most of the day the building seems to reflect sunlight giving the illusion that the whole structure floats in space. Perhaps you can refer to its run-down, neglected condition and ruggedness, the graffitti etc as part of Clover's thought-processes where they will in my opinion have more effect. What I'm therefore suggesting is to spread out the descriptions of this structure which is pivotal to your plot over the action and integrate them where they would serve a more useful purpose. Readers are after all interested in the story, i.e. the plot and its characters. If you make the introduction too long, they may lose interest and miss out on a very good story.
Looking at the second character, the lady whose door is kicked in by Clover. My argument would of course be that at this stage, she had no choice. Whatever she said upset Clover and here towards the end of this chapter, I'm finally getting the hook. She and her now dead husband chose to live there, but other more powerful existentialists, like Clover who prefers to ignore law and order(being a true free spirit) would influence the first choices she's made and is now forced to live by after her husband's death. I have a question though. How does it aid the plot for her to be scantilly dressed? Is this written to highlight her vulnerability, because at this stage I don't have a vivid picture of her person or looks. But I must certainly say, that this book will be remembered by me and if I have more time, I would most certainly come back to see how the individuals in this incredible building fair. For what I've read up to now I must give you very high stars and hope that you would be able to condense the descriptions and clarify the plot as you edit your story. :-) All the best in the days ahead on authonomy.
Maretha
http://www.authonomy.com/books/43500/african-adventures-of-flame-family-furry-and-feathered-friends/

TobyC wrote 476 days ago

No Compatibility. By Daniel Thomas Mann

The pitch promises a complex novel about the human condition.

The structure sounds multifaceted, too. It must be magnificent. Unfortunately, I can’t get a clear image of what it looks like other than intersecting lines that are mismatched at some points of convergence, but not others. Is this much detail truly relevant to the overall plot, scene, or hooks?

Ah, the structure will be unsound if there’s a tornado or hurricane. Relevant information if a weather catastrophe does, indeed, occur in this novel. You’re having a lot of fun with us, aren’t you?

It’s acceptable to use pronouns in place of Clover’s name.

So this is an urban setting, or at least a building in decay. Correct? So, Clover looks like a thug, but he’s investigating something. No, he’s a thug. So, because goodness exists, Clover is evil.

Now, we are talking about people that want to be ecologically minded, a.k.a. evergreen? How long did it take you to write this?

A friend offered the best piece of advice when she recommended Noah Lukeman's, The First Five Pages. He's a literary agent with years of experience in the business and he offers advice on what agents look for in a manuscript.

Clover leans on the banister for support. Apartments are in chronological order. Got it. Yet there’s only one occupied flat. Thuggery (a word?) and violence are like a virus that just won’t let go. Am I on track here?
Timelock lockout? Okay! When the past, present, and future collide, Clover can be destructive. How did he kick into touch world peace?

Softly softly approach?

Now, Clover is a rapist? Why is the woman semi-nude? How did he catch her? ‘At’ and ‘self’ are underscored for no apparent reason.

I’m not buying that a half-dressed woman is going to say that stealing is wrong after she’s been pushed around by Clover.

Delusions of grandeur – where does this come from?

After reading for more than thirty minutes, I’m completely confused. It’s time I go and do some brain exercises to begin to comprehend the depth and girth of this literary piece, if a literary piece can be surrounded, of course.

Best of luck with your writing. Do you have any other short stories or books on Authonomy? I'll be back to continue this comment.

Andrea Taylor wrote 502 days ago

I'm not sure if this is brilliant or complete tosh! (It is still clever, very clever). I have an I.Q of 148 (which I know isn't the highest there is, not by a long way) but I couldn't make head nor tail of it.
How are ordinary guys and gals in the street supposed to?
I am sure you enjoyed baffling everyone and are grinning to yourself!
Andrea

Kate LaRue wrote 505 days ago

Daniel,
Well, I have to commend you on your extensive vocabulary. However, your readers may not possess an equal grasp of the English language. In all honesty, the only thing I gleaned from this opening chapter is that Clover is a thug who has matured beyond graffiti. As for the tower block, I couldn't tell you what it looks like if I tried. This reads as if it was written with heavy use of a thesaurus, and there seems to be an overabundance of cause/effect sentences–this is true because of this.

I hope this is not too harsh, and I wish you the best.
Kate

Shelby Z. wrote 555 days ago

No Compatibility by Daniel Thomas Mann
The plot idea is very different and in some ways interesting.
The way you describe the building construction is well researched and well portrayed.
To be honest I really couldn't get into the story. However you have a smooth style of writing.
Your pitch and title are unique.
Good job.

Shelby Z./Driving Winds

P.S.Please read my pirate adventure Driving Winds.

Abby Vandiver wrote 579 days ago

I don't understand one word of this.
Abby

patio wrote 696 days ago

No Compatibility is the most complex piece of manuscript I have ever read. However, I salute you. I like a challenge. This story is also fascinating. Your attention to detail is immaculate. Your descriptions are beyond expectation. Its packed with poetic punches. Its intriguing. I thought you were describing the twin tower of 9/11 at one point. Then I realised you weren't. Well, I think you were in Clover's world of complexity and crisis of identity.
I respect your style and presentation but I must point out a bit of grammatical contamination in chapter one. I read thus far. Half way down you started a paragraph with a common letter or lower case. "If numerical order was a resemblance of order, then the...." You broke there then start a new paragraph that should be part of the mentioned with "corridor".
Anyway, a delightful read. I'll be back for chapter two.
highly starred

Adeel wrote 728 days ago

An amusing, descriptive and well written book. Your writing style is very impressive, dialogue are entertaining with vivid charachters and narrative is at great pace. Highly rated.

Tarzan For Real wrote 728 days ago

I went back to chapter one Daniel and you have cleaned it up a bit. That hard-edged story is still in there but the dialogue is rockin man! This world you have created with it's inconguence and orchestrated chaos is again to be commended. I hear echoes of "A Brief History Of Time" by Stephen Hawking in here or the elusive unified theory. I'll read on but I'll get you to my watchlist shortly. Tremendous job and great concept again!--JL "The Devil Of Black Bayou."

Tarzan For Real wrote 730 days ago

Daniel your eye for the technical aspects of geometric shapes and attempt to bring string theory into a linear progression should be commended. You do need to edit this though. You have a great concept here. Build your character Dominic Clover and give him flesh and frailty to bring a little humanistic empathy to the reader. You start strong almost with "A Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy" writing style then shift around especially at the introduction of a women in a dilapidated structure. Incorporate better descriptions of your characters and edit a bit and you'll have one Hell of a novel.--JL "The Devil Of Black Bayou"

billy.mcbride wrote 744 days ago

Dear Daniel,

Other than mine own, this is my favorite book here on Authonomy of the hundreds I've read and commented on. It is just the kind of book which I would like to reread over again, and so I will. I think that, on a different book you may write, not this one, you would thrive by blending the voices of hundreds of characters, so your style can adapt to. I think No Compatibility is a book which many readers will like to spend time meditating over. Thanks for sharing it with me.

Billy McBride ("Spaceflight")

Lacydeane wrote 764 days ago

Wow. My first thought is that you probably have a very high IQ. Your writing is brilliant; very scientific. I had to purposely pay attention because I am anything but science minded, but it did all make perfect sense and was again, quite brilliant. You have perfect word choice and flow. It was a big read but still flowed. I am very impressed. This is different than any other book I've read here. I liked it's uniqueness. I see what you mean by show and tell; your book did a lot of telling, but it needed to. Good job. 6 stars. Lacy

Unholy Trinity wrote 775 days ago

Go fOrth with this book, Daniel and I Sense you Will Achieve The Credentials tHat you need In your life. Never Give Years tO a ventUre that only takes days.

Edwin P. Magezi wrote 775 days ago

Dude, what is going on in there? I honestly have no idea, and I'm not stupid. Perhaps lazy but definitely not stupid and yet this makes me feel very dense.
I had to scroll down to a few other comments just to make sure I wasn't the only one.
I'm sorry man, but this did not read like a novel. Advanced physics made more sense to me. Perhaps I'm just not smart enough
I thought the long pitch was a little confusing, you can imagine how I feel about the actual content.
Wow ... I have to say, it's definitely something new, but it's just not for me. It reads like a textbook and I honestly hated school.
Though-provoking? Yes, a little too much.

Fred Le Grand wrote 830 days ago

Clearly you are an NHS manager.

jestersjibberish wrote 855 days ago

If this is an exercise in redundancy, then you succeeded violently. I didn't think a person could say the same thing thing ten times, like the reader was to dumb to get it, and think to get away with it. And it seems to go from the architectural designer's POV to Clover's, or does Dominic know all of that about the structure. I'll have to finish it later, it takes time getting through the same used words, over and over again-- how about a thesaurus.

Ariom Dahl wrote 961 days ago

I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what this is all about.

Juliusb wrote 1032 days ago

Dear Daniel,

Reading through your pitch, I can see that you have deeped your thoughts into critical thinking. Bravo. It is thanks to such critical thinking that we have supersonic man's advancement. Unfortunately, critical thinking is not everyone's - that is why few people have been enlisted here and line is still not long and includes the all-times people like Isaac Newton as well as the currently living Steven Hawkings. Bravo.

Jannypeacock wrote 1034 days ago

I like the premise for this. This is not a genre I venture into often and I think that is why I found it hard to get a grasp on the story. The narrative is heavy. However, if I had the time to read more slowly, and offer the work my full concentration, I may find I get a lot out of it. I found the initial repetition a little off putting yet it helped me lock into the story that I was otherwise having slight trouble with. Because I know so little about this genre I don’t feel it is my place to comment further. I imagine for those who enjoy and intellectually challenging read this could prove very enjoyable.

aurorawatcher wrote 1036 days ago

This is an interesting book, Daniel. Unfortunately, completely beyond me at the moment. I might come back to take a look at it in the winter, when I have time to read slowly and carefully. I love a good philosophical read, but Alaskan summers are too frenetic to really do them justice and I do want to do this amazing book justice.

Lauri (Lela Markham - The Willow Branch)

Intriguing Trails wrote 1037 days ago

No Compatability,
Fiction, Sci-fi 3rd person

Premise: Interesting, a philisophical examination of good vs. evil in a 4 dimensional analysis.

Plot: After reading the whole of Ch 1, I found nothing to suggest a plot. Of course, this is all my opinion and I probably don't know anything and most likely know less than the author of this piece.

POV. 3rd person. The MC is the narrator.

Pacing: IMO, this would read much more smoothly if there was less repetition. The interruptions and restating an idea is confusing. Instead, I'd recommend stating the idea, then supporting it through the example without re-using the same wording. The sequence of Clover (interesting name, btw) breaking into the flat reads fluidly and has a dynamic pace.

Prose: There is a ton of thought-provoking prose. IMO, it would be better presented to use more showing vs. telling.

Mechanics: Aside from the repetition, the mechanics were clean and strong.

Overall: While this is an exceptionally thought provoking piece, if it is intended for a readership, I think it would benefit with some judicial editing. Repetition can be like machine-gun fire and sometimes it takes repetition to get an idea across. But, if nobody will read it because of the hammering effect, how successful is the story at getting the idea into the reader's mind? Not at all. How many of the readers here-in really grasp what is being said or even read beyond the first few paragraphs? When the story comes off like a falling building, most readers are going to duck and run.

I like the parallels and the metaphors. But the heavy handed style is a little over-whelming. The writing is getting in the way of the message. The narrative voice is so strong, it overwhelms the reader as a lecture, rather than a novel. If it isn't fiction, that is okay. But the intent of fiction is to entertain.

I hope this helps. I'm rather in awe of the philisophical attributes used and the intellect required to write this. I'd like to see it sharpened up as I think it has a tremendous message.

Raechel
Echo

Matt Snelson wrote 1043 days ago

This book flys like Zenoxs Arrow. Each point of it's flight divided and subdivided until the elements it measures conspire against its end.

I enjoyed the stark logic, and I am sure that Wittgenstein and Russel would be pleased to see what they inspire. The Quantum elements of this literary work allude to the idea of a super projected non-reality echoed from the Big Bang questioning neatly whether a end and a beginning can co-exist as separate entities or compromise to allow each other to simply be "there"...or is that "here"?

The use of a physical structure to hang the hat of these questions on is clever. It allows the author the opportunity to play with more than just the characters. It gives the elements around them a life/non-life of their own.

I found the book to be more of a study, and a slightly self indulgent demonstration of the authors philosophical ability. It exposes the tiger under every table, however it left me slightly disappointed and a little patronised.

I hope that the angst generated will not be wasted on a desire to demonstrate how clever the author is. It is clear from the construction and thought that has gone into this work there is formidable intellect behind it. However a reader wants a book of this type to be of some practical use. It is a shame that jargon should exclude so many from this work. Albert Camus and Sartre created an access route into this mode of thought, rather than continuing this I fear this book closes the door/portal with a sneer undermining the authors no doubt genuine intentions to provoke thought.

I will continue to back this book as it is an excellent exploration of philosophy. I hope that others will take the time to unlock the jargon and enter the door.

dreamofwriting wrote 1043 days ago

I have to say that this is like nothing else I've ever read. It isn't really something I would pick up on my own, but still an engrossing read. I must admit that you had me scratching my head at points. The only problem I think you may have is that everything is very repetitive. You go over and over everything, the smallest detail is bored into our brains. I just hope that the average reader who gets bored with repetition will read on to see how entertaining this is. Very intelligent piece of work.

Jennifer Beth
Toxic Blood

Concettah wrote 1044 days ago

Daniel,
Amazing – I WL and starred. Just a few technical things – spelling (Clover realized should be realized; retract should be refract), commas missing, but all in all I got into the rhythm of your words. I liked the cadence and how you weave the sentences.
At first it felt like the first time I visited Warwick Castle or the Tower of London – amazed by the shear size and magnitude of the towers built by hand. And other more ancient places in Italy I visited which were in ruins, vandalized and I couldn’t believe the state of them. Then I got the sense that this was a space where time and the physical felt almost designed by a cross of M.C. Escher, Fibonacci, and Einstein – where opposites coexist in spiraling gradients – what an interesting mobius you painted – I was excited to keep going – as a student of metaphysics (and an engineer), you had me hooked. I took my time and enjoyed every sentence. It stretched my brain, getting my mind around all the concepts – but it was well worth it! I’m so excited that you asked me to read this.
Connie

Achilles Heart Series
Moonstone Beach

Stark Silvercoin wrote 1051 days ago

No Compatibility is probably one of the most interesting tomes I’ve read in a while. I say tome because even though only four chapters are posted, I feel like I’ve read volumes. This is not a bad thing. Author Daniel Thomas Mann’s work is thought-provoking and at times head-scratching. Yet, it moves ahead much the way a good Dr. Who episode does. I’m not going to pretend to be on the level of the author in terms of scientific awareness, but I think what is being done here is using science fiction to prove a point, to help readers expand their mind towards new possibilities. In a sense, all good science fiction literature does this, but the message of No Compatibility seems more in the forefront here, with less effort to camouflage it.

The writing and descriptions are strong and the dialog is good. The one thing I might suggest is to mix the two up a bit. For example, we have so much expository writing telling us the situation that we long for some dialog to give our minds a break. Then when we get it, the talking goes on for most of a chapter, to the point that we get a bit tired of that. Both are good, but if they could be mixed, a short conversation here, some more explanation there, then I think the high concepts of No Compatibility would be easier for those of us with smaller brains to digest and enjoy.

John Breeden II
Old Number Seven

homewriter wrote 1053 days ago

Dear Daniel, I commented on your unique book 288 days ago. I stick to what I said then. It is impossible for me to understand why these people don't like it. You are up there with the Bolanos and Javier Mariases. The Spanish speakers are making true breakthroughs in the construction and content of the modern novel. I shall return to read more later. I'll back you asap. Best wishes, Gordon

writerwithacause wrote 1054 days ago

This a different and interesting premise for a story. I believe that you do a lot of telling. I would like to see more showing. Backed. Lisa

Kenneth Edward Lim wrote 1055 days ago

Daniel,
"No Compatibility" is like Rubik's Cube. It confronts you. It does not invite you in. There is no nicety involved in a thrown gauntlet. You venture past the inscrutable facade because you are challenged. The more things are unraveled the farther you go in your exploration because you get a release of endorpohins with each discovery, thus making the whole exercise compulsive/addicitve. What a clever piece of work. Thanks for daring to be different.

Kenneth Edward Lim
The North Korean

PCreturned wrote 1068 days ago

Hi again Daniel,

I'm revisiting books I've read before for a 2nd look. I remember No Compatibility from the very 1st paragraph. It's such a distinctive work. Your writing is so clear and precise. Almost scientific in construction. And Clover's a really great character, much better than the cardboard cutouts that fill the pages of so many books. ;)

This newfangled starring system didn't exist when I was last here. So I'm giving you 6 stars right now. :)

I'd love this to get published. I think it's a remarkable read. :)

Pete

Dedalus wrote 1102 days ago

I tried to like this, but I just couldn't get myself to. You have, for my preferences, too many contradictions in your flow of thoughts, e.g. "sustained the unsustainbale", which made it dificult reading for me. There was a lot of repetition of the same word in places, particularly "Clover". I think it was overly complex in the way you presented these ideas - of which, due to the complexity in their description, I couldn't quite grasp.

You probably have the wrong person reading as the only philosophy I can read comfortably is Plato and Sartre, pretty much everyone else, particularly Hume, almost all goes over my head.

I owed you the read anyway, and judging by your profile I figured you'd want honesty over flattery.

Regards,
Joe

K A Smith wrote 1109 days ago

My response to this can be summed up in one word:

Why?

If you choose to hide whatever your 'meaning' may be in this sort of mish-mash then I can only assume that what you want to say is not worth saying.

afesmith wrote 1115 days ago

Wow. There’s a lot going on here. Too much for my poor bewildered brain, in fact. You clearly love playing with language, but for me that makes for something that’s pretty hard to read. I’ve been a philosophy student in my time, so I’m not a stranger to the basic concepts you’re building on here. I’m just struggling to get to grips with what kind of a beast this is. Because it isn’t exactly fiction, is it? Or at least, if I came to it expecting what I normally expect from fiction I’d soon be pretty confused.

The first few paragraphs are dense to the point of being abstract. I can’t even make sense of some of the sentences (‘Simulated self-imposed delusions of grandeur in the intended cluster signified the continued expansion of stipulations further afield’ being a case in point). If your intention is to create the tower as a metaphorical image then I’m not sure it’s working, at least not for me, because I can’t visualise it. It’s like a metaphor that’s being described wholly in terms of the thing you’re trying to compare rather than the thing you’re comparing it to. For me, that results in neither one thing nor the other – clarity neither in the underlying philosophical argument nor in the image you’re building on top of it. But maybe that’s just me.

After a while I skipped on a bit further down, to where Clover entered the scene and there seemed to be more to get a handle on. But I still couldn’t fathom it out. The characters are unpleasant, while the action continues to be broken up with philosophical musings that I find hard to follow – so I have no desire to read on either to find out what happens to the people or to find out where your argument is leading.

Overall I’m sure what you’ve got here is very clever, but I can only be honest and say that I didn’t enjoy reading it, not even as an intellectual exercise. I just struggled with it too much. I’m honestly sorry – but I have no doubt your work has its own audience. That audience just isn’t me :-)

There hardly seems much point in me trying to suggest amends/point out typos, because I get the impression that everything you’ve done here is done for a reason, even if at first glance it would seem incorrect. But for what it’s worth, the minor changes I’d suggest to the first few paragraphs are below.

– ‘The tower block flanked the northern edge of the common[;] situated in a neatly trimmed lawn, it soared majestically’
– miss-match –> mismatch
– ‘outwardly facing exteriors’ – surely an exterior is by definition outward-facing?
– full point missing from end of para 3
– first sentence of para 5 – I’d make your existing comma into a semicolon and bracket-comma ‘for example’
– last sentence of that para – ‘The symmetry [was] exposed bilaterally’?
– ‘as solid as a two-dimensional object’ – not sure what you’re getting at here, since trees and blades of grass are three-dimensional, unless perhaps you’re taking the dimensions to be space and time (which I’m hazarding could be the horizontal/vertical here, but I may have got that completely wrong)
– ‘situated in a neatly trimmed lawn’ –you said that in para 1.

Roger Keen wrote 1117 days ago

As soon as I started reading I could tell this was something very different, so I went carefully so as not to miss anything. My first thought was that the style used in the descriptions of the building reminded of later Beckett, particularly ‘Imagine Dead Imagine’. That distinctive kind of narration, with phrases repeated, like recurring patterns in an abstract painting, had a pleasing effect and the hard work you’ve obviously put in evolving the style is a job well done.

It’s hard to take in the full intent of the work at a single reading; this is a many layered piece, heavyweight intellectual stuff, and I can’t pretend to have understood it all. But my overall impressions were most favourable. Lacing a narrative with maths, physics and metaphysics in that way is an ambitious high wire act, and you pull it off superbly. Happy to lend my support.

Sergeant Gummie Dragon wrote 1118 days ago

Wow, very cleverly written and thought provoking stuff. It's a little over my head as i am a simple being, i have put this on my WL as i am going to have to read it again. It feels like a puzzle that needs unlocking and that will take me time.
Well done and good luck with this.
Lindsey
Vortex

Karen Eisenbrey wrote 1129 days ago

Daniel,

After months of having No Compatibility on my watch list, I finally dipped into it. You managed to impress and puzzle me in about equal measures. You have mastered philosophical-academic language in the service of sci-fi to the point of impenetrability. (This may just mean that I have lost the ability to read philosophical treatises -- if I ever had it). That said, you've really got something here. It doesn't quite act like a novel, which may have been your intent. Rather than being about a thing, it is that thing.

If you're revising, you might think about front-loading the promised comedy or some plot to keep the reader hopeful that there will be a payoff to all the effort of reading the densely reasoned philosophical bits.

No obvious nitpicks, but I did have a couple of questions in chapter 1:

The tower block is described as being "solid as a two-dimensional object." Were you being facetious, or did you mean three-dimensional?

. . . light that retracted off the windows . . . Did you mean refracted? Reflected? Retracted doesn't really make sense.

I'm backing this just on use of language, which needs to be encouraged! Good luck with this project.

Karen Eisenbrey
CRANE'S WAY
TIME SQUARED

villette wrote 1145 days ago

No Compatibility is a masterpiece. The story is clear once the secrets are unearthed, and the thrill is cracking the transcript. I call it a transcript rather than a manuscript, because I feel I'm directly involved in its evolution. The story comes alive paraphrasing the past and present, but also future events. Telling a story that has't happened yet, but will happen, as sure as the sun will rise. Only the paradox could have that sort of knowledge. I say transcript, because the secrets are in the abstraction. Unlock the interlock destiny and fate are exposed. Its all great fun and i back to story completly.

Rivka Davidovna Tam wrote 1149 days ago

Fantastic story with encryptions like world created Earth; Adam and Eve expelled from
Paradise. Exact specifications used upright crossbar existentialism. The story is a terrific read, truly mammoth, with great structuring. I see from other comments there is a slight confusion with regard the plot but I understand it completely once I could be bothered to crack the hidden words. No Compatibility is so enjoyable, such a great use of words. Why labour with fifty-thousand words and twelve chapters when a story can be told in less the half the number of words. The encryptions are great, a lovely idea and if I'd paid good hard-earned money for the effort, what value I would have got. I hope to God the work is published!
PUBLISHERS LOOK OUT FOR THIS MARVELLOUS ORIGINAL BRILLIANT FANTASTIC WORK
AGENTS TAKE NOTICE OF THIS BOOK IT MUST BE SUPPORTED

S.Vinay kumar wrote 1152 days ago

Hi,
Very first thing I noticed when I looked at the pitch is, 'it is intresting'. When I started reading it, I noticed that you really excelled in writing. Really very impressive work.
All the best.

S.Vinay kumar,
10 roses for love

Jon Bon wrote 1153 days ago

Daniel

You certainly have a way with words, but I'm afraid it just doesn't flow, and as such, someone like me (no concentration whatsoever) will struggle to keep on going. I just find it a little stagnant, but i have the feeling you want it that way. Plus, i think it's too descriptive, and it slows the entire pace down to a stand still.

It's a shame, because the synopsis is really intriguing and i enjoy a good philosophical debate

I feel you have a real niche project here, but it is very good for the right person.

I am intrigued by it all, and i hope to be back for more. I fear, however, that i will never be able to fully grasp this particular book

JB

Billie Storm wrote 1154 days ago

Forgive an old philosopher, but we should all have time off for thinking. Or time off, to think. It is hard to cross the roads safely when cogitating and the general wayward ponder I'll have to watch my step after a few chaps of this. Rated it. Thank you.