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
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
