It is difficult for me to give this story anything resembling a fair
appraisal because I fundamentally disagree with the central concept of the
story, that humanity needs human evil to thrive and advance.  This is not
a philosophical discussion list, however, so I will refrain from arguing
this point, as all we would likely do is bite each other's heads off and
not convince each other.  If the author or anyone else wants to argue this
point in private with me, I'd be happy to, but...

One minor point:  In the canon, the purification takes place AFTER the
Earth has been frozen over and previous civilizations destroyed.  

I'd suggest changing all the 'Why do you fight Serenity' scenes into
larger scale flashbacks to actually show why they fight Serenity, instead
of a series of repetitive 'question/responce' dialogues.  They also need
to make more of a sense of individuality come through; too many of the
people don't give much of a sense of being different from each other,
although I recognize that in a short story, it's hard to put a lot of
difference between the characters if you have a lot.  

As the old adage puts it, 'Show, don't tell'.  

The real problem with this story is that it is too preachy, and the
Black Moon Forces are too noble.  Let's face it, a large percentage of any
force which is going to fight for the right of evil to exist should
consist of evil bastards who are fighting Serenity because they know
she'll toast them.  People who write these 'humanity loses by losing its
dark nature' rarely actually GIVE a dark nature to the defenders of the
right to be evil.  Where's all the corporate leaders who got to the top on
a figurative trail of bodies and don't give a damn who suffers, but can't 
stand the thought of Serenity forcing them to act humanely? Where's
the people who joined the army or police because they can legally shoot
people?  What about the racists who won't support Serenity because she's
Japanese?  The religious bigots who say she's cursed by God because she
isn't Christian or Islamic or whatever?  Where's the evil whose right to
exist the Black Moon is fighting for?  Nowhere.  And that's one of the big
reasons why, in my opinion, this story is a well intentioned failure.

The Black Moon Resistance are noble and self-sacrificing too much, and the
philosophy of the Black Moon as shown in the anime bears no resemblence to
it.  Their philosophy was basically, 'The Strong Survive, the Weak are
crushed, you kicked us off the Earth, now you're all going to die'.  It's
clear in the canon that the Black Moon family didn't reject Serenity's
rule because of any philosophical guff about the right of people to be
evil; they were evil, though also human, and thus redeemable (a major
theme of Sailor Moon).  

The cynic in me also observes that these rebels are all military men, men
who will lose their jobs and their reasons for existing if Serenity
triumphs, and that one of their fundamental motives is likely their desire
to prevent the loss of their jobs and their purpose in life; what use does
a peaceful land have for soldiers?  Their cant about 'the freedom and need
for dissent' thus becomes simply the self-interested plea of a group
afraid of losing its social role and employment, just as luddism was a
response by work-at-home weavers to the rise of the factory.  And just as
futile in the end.

Which is another problem with this story.  Ultimately, Sailor Moon isn't a
very good universe in which to tell this story, because the protagonists
lose.  Oh, they may keep their dignity, but Crystal Tokyo in the canon
gets along just fine without them.  While the author may choose to argue
they are stagnant, there is no proof of that in the manga or anime.  Of
course, there's little proof of the opposite opinion either, I must admit
:)

The story fails to demonstrate that Crystal Tokyo is actually worse off
for the world losing these people.  Oh, they talk about how the dark side
of human behavior has furthered the advancement and prosperity of
humanity, but no concrete examples are provided.  

Serenity's argument with Dumond is also flawed.  Why doesn't Serenity cite
things like:
The Inquisition
The Holocaust
Various other examples of Genocide
The destruction of the environment 
Wife-beating and Child Abuse

and other forms of evil and ask Dumond why he is willing to defend such
events, since a defense of such things is inherent in his argument?  He 
is, in essence, saying that such things should not be prevented in the
future because they push humanity to greater achievements, that it is
better to let the Nazis kill the European Jews, then stop them than it
is to prevent there being a killing in the first place.  Of course,
it's easy for him to ask other people to suffer.

Why doesn't she explain the case of the Senshi in more detail than just
the vague, fuzzy statement she gives him?  I think Serenity's argument is
not made as strongly as it could be.  They need to have a real debate, not
just, 'Serenity makes her opening statement', 'he refutes', 'she ceases to
really try to argue with him'.

In fact, I think the story would be stronger if all the earlier scenes of
them talking about why they fight, which really boil down to 'look at us,
the noble defenders of freedom to be evil' were cut, or at least some
people were added who DON'T have such noble motives, and the main
presentation of each side's case reserved for the later Serenity/Dumond
scene.  

As it stands, this story reads like 'Know your Enemy: Japan' to me (a WWII
propaganda film by Frank Capra), rather than a story.

The characters need to struggle.  None of your characters have any real
doubts except for Dumond in his scene with Serenity.  Shouldn't some of
them wonder if by their victory they'll simply doom humanity to
destruction?  Shouldn't some of them be scared shitless?  They talk about
the incredible odds, but they all seem way too resigned to it.  

The only thing in this story which actually rang true to me in this story
was when Dumond was overwhelmed at first simply by Serenity's graciousness
before he recovered his resolve.  While your presentation of Serenity's
position was too weak, IMO, your presentation of her effect on people was
quite well done.


Anyway, there's my opinion.  Some of my philosophical objections crept
back in, but I hope that even though you clearly don't agree with me on
various philosophical issues, that you can use this advice to improve your
tale anyway.  

John Walter Biles :  MA-History, Ph.D Wannabe at U. Kansas         
ranma@falcon.cc.ukans.edu       
rhea@tass.org              http://www.tass.org/~rhea/falcon.html
rhea@maison-otaku.net      http://www.maison-otaku.net/~rhea/

"The candy beneath you is disgraceful."
--Don't ask.