Quote:Your opinion is valid, but as a matter of politeness, etiquette, and common decency, why don't you offer the man some explanation. Maybe some constructive criticism instead of a cold remark that offers nothing. You just came off as purposefully rude.
Actually, I refrained from a more detailed criticism so I wouldn't appear deliberately rude, but OK.
My main issue with the piece is that it is replete with logical problems:
- The action takes place before the gates of Eden in Israel. Why is Eden in Israel?
-Why is Satan wearing a suit? We are told this is a form of mockery, but the mockery isn't explained. What is Satan mocking and why?
-Why are they all armed with swords? What is Satan doing with a tomahawk?
-A pillar of flame shoots towards Satan, but the flame is described as 'omnidirectional'.
-How is that an angel can be slain by a sword, bleed to death, or have a mother?
There are other issues - not so much logical errors as problems with the crafting of the story. Anton Chekhov once remarked that a writer of fiction needs to tell the reader everything necessary to understand the conflict the story is about, and that simply wasn't done here. I think this short-short could be MUCH better if re-crafted as a short story or a novella. There's simply too much left out to make it work as written.
Boru
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson
