
"You,” I pointed at him, “me,” I tapped my chest with my pointer finger,” that crazy dude with the shit in his beard who talks to himself on the corner,” I waved my hand as if referring to something way off in the distance, “we’re all related.”
the action breaks up the dialogue too much. and sometimes you have to think too much about what's happening. like this one:
He put his palms together and intertwined his fingers.
why not just say he folded his hands or steepled his fingers or something? you get caught up in the dialogue and then suddenly you're trying to make a mental picture of what the priest is doing with his hands. i mean, for the most part, it moves the thing along, but there are instances when it disrupts the flow, you know?
sorry... you probably weren't looking for criticism. i enjoyed the passage. and the opportunity to read some of what you've written.
Because I did it in that odd order, it's hard for me to tell how the passage flows, especially in conjunction with the rest of that chapter. So I'm glad to get your insight.
Also, the reason I wrote "He put his palms together and intertwined his fingers" is because I figured everyone writes "he steepled his fingers" and I wanted to portray that image with different language to be more unique.
I asked with a sarcastic tone. --> My tone was sarcastic.
if you're going to say "I continued," the next sentence shouldn't start with "But." "but" is a word that already insinuates continuation.
"in a fake sign of surrender." we know that he's being sarcastic, and the whole conversation is slightly blasphemous. i don't think you need "fake" in there.
"He said it again for emphasis." everyone who knows how to read social cues knows that you repeat something for emphasis (or neglectfulness, but especially in literature, for emphasis).
on the other hand, things i really like: "the french fry crunched under the weight of my teeth." "i grimaced as the french fry spiraled down my throat."
something else to think about: i know from experience that people chained to religion like pastors and priests (and who have to work daily with religious assholes like those who most enjoy going to church) often get discouraged and wind up in heresy. i'm sure the old priest has several friends who think even more blasphemously than himself. and besides, saying that the bible isn't the literal word of god is something that many many many people have believed for many many many years. especially american catholicism doesn't adhere to this pov.
and (just to rip this thing to shreds), as for the copying part... i guess when the bible was still oral tradition, that could be true. but as soon as it was written down, i have very deep faith that the hebrew testament two and a half thousand years ago is very similar to the hebrew testament we have now (given that you're reading in hebrew). why? because if someone copying the sacred texts missed a single stroke of a letter, the whole scroll had to be tossed. the early christian church was much the same. they would chain scribes to tables for the copying and they had to toss pages where they got anything wrong. if you're talking oral tradition, you should specify that the changes occured before the bible was transcribed, or in the mass copying of the pauline epistles that took place soon after the letters reached their respective destinations, so that religious nuts and editorial jerks like me can't whine about holes in the plot.
and yeah, people are always wondering how adam and eve's kids had non-mutant kids.
okay, i'm leaving. i feel like an ass. but i'm still your biggest fan!
I was raised Jewish, and to the best of my recollection, there are still some prayers said essentially in the original Aramaic in which they were written, as opposed to the Biblical Hebrew. Later translations--into Hebrew, Latin, and later, vernacular languages--probably do misinterpret some words. Debate on that topic will be endless.
This is exactly why I used this conversation as my first excerpt, because, like I said, I went back to it after the book was finished and added in all those actions, so it is the least edited part of my entire novel. I want criticisms like this, because I've read the thing so many times my eyes automatically scan and I miss important issues.
So, thank you very much for your criticisms, and I assure you that the rest of the book is much more polished than this passage.
Well, I am going to take you up on your offer here, and I'm going to give you honest criticism. Though you may not like what I am going to say, I hope you will appreciate the fact that I took the time to say it to you.
You have an engaging dialog going. I enjoy your writing style, and your characters interact pretty well.
The problem is that it is filled with junk science and misinformation. If you are telling me that you are floating the religious ideas that are coming from the apostate priest, Father Mitchell, I would have to inform you that it has all been said before.
Summary: Good writing, but weak and faulty premise.
You may not realize it, but most people expect religion-bashing in novels. It's so common it is passe'. It flows easily from your pen, but it has been done to the point that it is like a broken toe that has been stamped on over and over again. We see it on television, hear it on the radio, read it in the papers, books and on the internet. It's common "knowledge" that people don't want to believe the bible. So where is the news?
I challenge you to truly study Christian theology from the standpoint of a believer; anyone can take the antithesis point of view and try to float that, but truly great writers get into the skin of the person they are writing about and learn what makes them tick. If you do take the high road and study as I have suggested, and you still come out with the same ideas and opinions, then that would surprise me, but I would have far more respect for the basis and research of your writing.
Sincerely,
Rev. Cathian
My story is not about that. A common theme is the logical way that people explore the possibility that God doesn't exist, but that is not the point of the story. The main character is an athiest who, by dying and going to Hell, finds his faith. I have conversations that explore the good things and bad things that organized religion can do, but by harping on some of the negative aspects, the characters eventually discover the positives. They, like any good story requires, experience a change.
That being said, I would like to challenge you as you have challenged me. You write, "I would have far more respect for the basis and research of your writing." You have no idea what the basis and research of my writing is, so you can't make a statement like that. You don't know my beliefs, or how much time I spend at a church or synogogue or mosque. You don't know what classes I have taken on religion, or what books I have studied in the library.
But I don't want to come off angry or defensive. I appreciate the kind words you have to say about my writing as well as the criticism. Just please know that the point of my book is not to bash religion, and that I cover both sides of the equation within the context of the entire story.
However, I based my opinion on what you wrote, and my challenge was based on the dialog between your characters. To be sure, you may be a very religious person; I was speaking of the Bible-bashing, which relates to either Christian or Jew. With only the sparse information within the context of your dialog, there was nowhere else for me to go at that time; in a sense, you might say that you communicated your character's dilemma effectively, because it generated a reaction within me.
I am interested in your character who dies and goes to Hell and finds his faith. I hope you mean he came back to life again?
Thank you for your response. I enjoy talking with you, and hope that you will not be offended by my responses, either.
Sincerely,
Rev. Cathian
Yes, the character finds a way to escape from Hell and come back to life. He believes that his soul was innocent, and some mix-up has occurred, so he spends the majority of the novel trying to prove the innocence of his soul.
Lets look at the great debate and pit science v.s God. We all know the simple law of energy in that energy can be converted from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. Considering we are all made of energy where did this energy come from? Where was the start? Think it back, any thoery including the big bang has this energy there. If Big bang is right, what caused it? if aliens created us, well then who created them? Everything goes back to one thing and one thing only, so what was that one thing?
Faith my friend, is named just that, Faith. Faith is beliving in something or somebody even when you have no solid reason too. Just as I have faith that someday you will write an awsome best seller. But I also believe that what you write about, will be bigger then you can even imagine right now. It's not always about the writing, it's about what people take away from it that is most important.
A man once wrote "We know what we are, but know not what we may be" do you know who wrote this? I think you should.
-SW
Your comments here are exactly the kinds of questions I want my book to stir up. The one excerpt posted here doesn't accomplish that, but I hope that the book as a whole does.
Jew-lite, huh? Sure. I guess Guiness would be Orthadox Jews. Budweiser would be the typical Jew. And the lite beer would be Jews who don't really go to temple as often as they should or don't fast during passover or whatever.
As for what I am: I'm not a big fan of organized religion. I'm not a big fan of men telling me what God wants me to do, as if they have any idea. I don't like Bible songs like, "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so." How small-minded can you be?
That being said, I understand the purpose of organized religion. I understand what it can do for people. Especially after witnissing the death you mention. I see how it can bring people comfort. There are just so many things about it that bother me.
I also dislike the real strong religious believers who can't put their faith in anything but God. "No, dinosaurs and humans lived together, becuase the Bible says the Earth is only 6,000 years old." Okay, but if God can create those things than God created our ability to study things scientifically, and gave us the ability to discover reasons why the Earth might be older than that. And since the Bible was translated from its original language, isn't it possible that some of the text got changed in the process? Maybe the Bible really said that the earth is 600 million years old, but a few of the zeros got lost in the translation.
I would like to believe that a God exists. You are absolutely right that if the Big Bang occured, who caused it? If matter can not be created or destroyed, where did we come from? I have also read studies where people from all over the world had near-death experiences and they were able to explain the exact same sights, so that makes me think that some sort of after-life exists.
So I would say that I am spiritual, but not religious. I think we must have come from somewhere, and that when we die we go somewhere, but I don't think that attending Church has any say on which somehwere I go to.
You watch BDTSP, huh? Yeah, I haven't seen it yet. I don't think I want to, I hate watching myself, but thanks for the compliment. It means a lot.
There's no audio? Well that's not good. I better go tell the producer this instant.
It's difficult to tell from this small excerpt, but what is your version of "Hell?" Offering a new concept of the afterlife (if one exists) is what will make your book interesting. Albert Brooks' film Defending Your Life was brilliant. Dante's Inferno, also brilliant. (It seems I will spend eternity on the level of Lust.)
As for Hell, I took concepts from Dante's Inferno and a number of other pieces of literature and created my own version of Hell with its own form of torture and my own interpretation of demons. I then, in the most intricate part of my novel, explain how it is possible for a soul to escape from Hell.
I love your intention to discover the truth but you need to be careful. This is what I like in your passage "I want some mathematician to determine whether it is scientifically possible for six billion people to exist if the entire population started with just Noah and his wife in 2400 B.C.”
I just believe Prophet Noah pbuh was a massager of God for his people only and the flood is also for his people too. Please correct me if I'm wrong with evidence, logic or verses from Bible and Quran.
One of the funniest things I have read this week.
I've written quite a few blog entries mocking the co-existence of hominids and dinosaurs. I don't feel any need to repeat the stories.
"Proof" of how life existed on earth 10,000, 25,0000 years ago exists. Several thousand years ago, people perhaps did not understand the significance of some things they found. Now, we can.
Why is Noah's flood story any more believeable then the Greek equivalent?
god