I wouldn’t worry all that much about character inconsistencies. Characters are expected to change over the course of a story (granted, it’s only been about a day-and-a-half so far here, but all the same), and it is likewise understood that authors’ conceptions of them also change, especially from the very early days, when they weren’t all that used to writing them. In any case, Muffineater’s behavior is more or less explained by the later suggestion that biv is deliberately attempting (without a great deal of success) to be more assertive. You can even make this point more explicit during the later conversation with Hat in order to further smooth things over. What’s more, biv only really attempts to do such when faced with an empty door or the decidedly unintimidating Pog; when Kumquat comes out to play, biv fairly quickly falls to pieces.

I see that the implication that all of the housefronts on that side of the street (and a good bit of territory behind and under it) belong to Kumquat’s Kompound is strengthened now. I assume this was the intention from the beginning (the existence of a “door 12″ implies the existence of eleven more at the very minimum), but it’s good to have this small hint implanted early on, especially as it helps make the later incident where Muffineater approaches what is clearly a different house and still finds Kumquat seem less confusing, even if the full scope of this is not explored until much later.

Finally, while you are in the process of correcting inconsistencies, perhaps you might want to change the two instances of Kumquat saying “If I was” to “If I were”? A minor point, to be certain, but I should imagine that anyone who says “these data” would most definitely preserve the subjunctive form.

Pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-oom-mow-mow, pa-pa-oom-mow-mow, pa-pa-pa-oom-mo-mow, p-p-Pringles now!

Once-you-pop…the-fun-don’t-stop! Greasy not fun; uh-uh, uh-uh, uh-uh!

Pa-pa-oom-mow-mow, pa-pa-oom-mow-mow &c.

Mr. Pekles:
I plan to add an overhead view of the area before this matter is concluded. I did all along, I just forgot to back in the old days.

All of these characters reflect aspects of myself in some way. One which is unavoidable is my inadequate education. I can never, on my own, figure out “was” from “were” in that context because “were” seems to imply a plurality of people. I only knew “these data” because somebody explained it in my presence once, and I tend to remember nitpickety things like that, much like some The Onion articloid I read years ago back when I read it, making fun of some guy for ordering “whoppers junior” at burger king. In any event, if I ever get that far, we might pretend that Kumquat knows better than I do about these matters.

I not astounded at the number of youtube clips of the various ports of Alf the Red Chicken nor the amount of people leaving comments to the effect that the game is in any way adequate. They have successfully lowered my expectations of humanity and are surely proud of themselves for it. Thankfully, Donk The Samurai Duck never succeeded in leaving the Amiga, though some psycho circa 2007 has posted information on every possible website insisting that he she or it is porting it to the Sega Dreamcast. The only logical thing to do with a sixteen year old game for a system nobody has anymore is to develop a version for a an eleven year old system that slightly more people still have.

Doovalyay: Considering that you’re named after the crooked former presidents of Haiti, it is no surprise that the recent monstrous earthquake has revitalized your timeless wickedness. And yet all the same I was taken surprise by your ambush and in no position to defend myself. Drat you, Molfarm! Drat you to heck!

If all the characters reflect some aspect of you, does that mean you secretly imagine yourself to have a splendid bow tie?

The was/were distinction is really sort of a linguistic artifact. In most other cases, the subjunctive verb forms in English have merged with the preterite (simple past) forms, thus it is understandable that most people, in ordinary speech, have extended this rule to “to be” as well. Alas, “to be” has always been a particularly tenacious and highly irregular verb, and tends to preserve old rules long after they have vanished elsewhere, as well as doing other curious things such as using the nominative form for what appears at a glance as the object of the sentence (”It is I” vs. “It is me”)

In any case, the distinction is roughly as follows: “was” is used for events in the past that did indeed take place, whereas “were” is used for unreal or hypothetical situations. For example: “If the bow tie fool were to stop bragging about its bow tie, it would be slightly less insufferable.” As the bow tie fool has not ceased bragging about its bow tie, this is an imagined situation, and thus calls for “were”. The same is true with Kumquat’s two statements above, as biv was raising a hypothetical scenario in which biv was attempting to kill Elpse, whereas in reality biv had other plans.

Incidentally, “should”, “would” and “might” are really the subjunctive forms of “shall”, “will” and “may”, respectively, though they are often thought of as separate words due to the general disappearance of this form elsewhere.

People often draw attention to my Donk-like qualities.

spooky root producer:
I might have meant that the fools are incapable of having thoughts that I myself could not have. Which is true of anybody who creates a thing, but plenty of people are in denial about their writing abilities. I admit that I’m not good at presenting things I don’t understand, such as those who choose to wear bow ties. I don’t understand most neck adornments.

It is easier for me to understand shall v. should, because those are in the future. Was and were are in the past. Even though only one is actually in the past, and the other is imagined to be there. It didn’t really happen! Also, ‘was’ refers to a single person, but ‘were’ seems to imply more than that. They were is allowed but not they was unless you’re an actor in a home security system ad. They was asleep, they didn’t even know we was in the house.

donk-like-individual:
people these days have no courtesy. Comparing you to an Amiga game is rude enough, but involving ducks is inexcusable.