Sept 21st - Chaos - Something Completely Different

[Chaos]

If you're confused by the end of the first (and only) page, maybe I did a good job.

[ryos]

This almost sounds set in the Fateless universe. Is this that book you were contemplating setting therein? I sure hope so!

Do you intend to have God tell the entire story in the first person? That...might work, but I'm skeptical. Hmm.

You know what? It was too long. (I bet you didn't expect that one, did you? ) The tone of the language was more befitting a wizened scholar than God Himself. It was a bit too wordy, too full of explanation and persuasion. God does not persuade. God does not hedge nor apologize, for God is never wrong. Instead, God declares. God commands.

I don't know what your goals are for this piece, nor the nature of the God character you're writing; I'm just suggesting that it would be quite powerful as a bit of in-world scripture, and to get that effect it needs to have the right tone.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

Hypocrite, you say? Perhaps those who curse me are correct. I cannot expect you to understand, though, I can show you story.

Here God doubts himself and, in the process, acknowledges the criticisms of mere mortals. He also displays a bit of scorn for mankind. None of these are things I would expect the God of the universe to do. Cut those bits out and it becomes much shorter.

Again,

Know that in the end, I am sorry.

Sorry for what? There is a difference between feeling sorrow and being sorry. Being sorry implies regret. A God who sees the present and future, and who has directed and planned all things from the beginning, is not sorry for what he does. He may feel pain and sorrow and weep for the sacrifices he must make, but he does not apologize. All is as it must be. No regrets.

Anyway, I'm just drawing this out. It's almost as though I'm reacting against the length of the submission, feeling the need to stretch the wordcount of my critique. I'm not God, so I can say: sorry about that.

[Chaos]

Very astute of you, my friend.

I'll say this: God no, he won't tell you it in first person. The book would transition into third-person. God shows, not tells. Well, except when he decides to rant here, apparently.

I shall keep all this in mind. This book won't be written for a good decade, I'm sure, but I had this cool idea for the prologue and so, instead of forgetting about it, I decided to write it down!

[Recovering_Cynic]

I thought the prologue was interesting, very interesting in fact, and an original beginning to a story if I've ever read one.  I guess my final assessment is this: I would read a book that began with a prologue like this.

As for critiques, well, I like a god with personality and a god with a personality can be sorry, he can even doubt himself. Who are we to say or understand what a god is?  They are beyond our comprehension, so anything goes.

To the ants crawling the earth, we are gods.  Immortal.  Implacable.  Omniscient.  Gods.  And I, for one, have a personality (can't say I'll vouch for everyone on the forums though ).  Write the prologue as you choose.  Well done.

[westwriter]

well, i read it... twice
I don't know what to think.  Is that what you were going for?  lol
This seems like one of the seriously flawed gods from greek mythology.  The kind that allowed man to steal fire and undo their plans.
It was an easy read comprehension-wise, i was just having trouble grounding myself in this universe, maybe?
I would keep reading, though.

[Frog]

To the ants crawling the earth, we are gods.  Immortal.  Implacable.  Omniscient.  Gods.  And I, for one, have a personality (can't say I'll vouch for everyone on the forums though ). 

I object to your analogy! You may have the ability to destroy a ton of ants or watch them crawl around in their various ant escapades but you are not their god and they have never acknowledged you as such (I've been bitten loads of times conducting such experiments). You live longer and let's hope you're a tad bit more intelligent, but you did not create them, you can't know them on a personal level and you have no say in the state of their immortal soul... assuming they have one.  Not saying that a god can't have a personality, but you're conclusion is based on a flawed premise and it is my great pleasure to point it out and laugh.

On to the critique.

Thoughts While Reading:

It would be an exercise in futility to show you everything, but this is as good a beginning as any.

This took me out of the narration and reminded me I was reading a book with an author (you).

Overall Impression:
Well you start out saying "God" with a capital G, implying to me a being like the Judeo-Christian God that is unlimited and the only one around, but I too felt by the end that you were working with a mythological greek god that has some very defined limits. This is probably a safer bet when writing fictitiously and I, as evidence in my work, quite enjoy that kind of stuff, but the problem I had is besides being a decent writing exercise, this really didn't tell me all that much except that we got a flawed god thinking he's supreme and justifying some sort of mistake that I didn't understand. Not enough to know if I would read the book. It would depend on what you do with it in the first chapter I suppose....

[Recovering_Cynic]

I object to your analogy! You may have the ability to destroy a ton of ants or watch them crawl around in their various ant escapades but you are not their god and they have never acknowledged you as such (I've been bitten loads of times conducting such experiments). You live longer and let's hope you're a tad bit more intelligent, but you did not create them, you can't know them on a personal level and you have no say in the state of their immortal soul... assuming they have one.  Not saying that a god can't have a personality, but you're conclusion is based on a flawed premise and it is my great pleasure to point it out and laugh.

That really depends on how you define a god, now doesn't it?  If you use the narrow, Christian/Judeo concept of what is God, then yes, you are correct.  Laugh all you like, if you are being that uncreative.  I never said that men were their gods, only gods in their world.  I'm sure ants have much more interesting things to worship, like pinapples, or possibly leaves.

If you are going to look at it from the ant's perspective, it becomes clearer.  Omnipotent, able to wipe out their entire civilization in a way they can neither understand nor combat, we. are. gods.  We have powers they cannot comprehend and know things that they will never and can never know.  We live roughly four hundred times longer than your average ant and are able to create things far beyond their comprehension, things that, to an ant, would be considered alive.   

Do you have to worship something for it to be a god?  I would say no.  I take it that you, frog, worship in some manner (I assume this from the manner of your response).  You believe in a god of some sort.  Does someone/something not believing in your god make him any less real?  If the ants don't believe in him, but he still affects their world, does that make him not a god if he still has a god's power? 

As to your premise that a god must have a say in the fate of one's soul, well, look at Greek mythos.  Most of the gods had nothing to do with souls--that was Hades' department.  They were still gods, however, far beyond what the mortals could ever aspire to.  Even if the Greeks didn't beleive in their gods or aknowledge them, well, that never stopped the gods when they had smiting on their minds.

A summation:  If you are defining a god narrowly, then yes, you are right and I am an idiot.  Gosh darn it, I still haven't worked out how to put the little ant parts together and make them move, give them life.  I am not their god.  On the other hand, if you define a god as an omnipotent (compared to you), omnicient (compared to you), and immortal (compared to you) being that can create things you cannot even possibly understand, well then, yeah, the ants see you and most any other human who hasn't fallen down dead as gods.  After we fall, then we are food, but until then, we rule their world unquestionably.

[Frog]

Oh, I was just poking fun at your analogy, as I have heard it before to discredit/mock the Judeo-Christian god, but if you really want to have a discussion, why not? I have a minute or two to kill.

In terms of greek gods and multitudes of other ideologies, yes you are correct in saying that this discussion cannot happen without at least a general understanding of what a god is, so let's use your definition just to be fair. You defined a god as Immortal, Implacable, Omniscient. Immortal implies that there is no end, not that the ant would not be able to see the end whenever it came. You either are immortal or you're not. And you are not.  Omniscient implies that you know everything about your creation and everything else there is to know. You may have studied ants, but you can't know them on a personal or societal level. You don't know what they worship (be it leaves, sticks or spark plugs) or if they consider our creations alive or anything else. You can't speak to them, let alone know their hearts and you do not know everything there is to know about the world/universe they live in, so you are not omniscient. You may have me on the Implacable bit, but I would say being able to wipe something out does not make you a God, it make you a very good predator or a mass murderer depending on how much you value ant lives. But still, you would never be able to get all of them because of adaption and their ability to hide since yeah, as we've established, you are not Omniscent. It was only in your later post that you put the disclaimer of "compared to you" so I guess I can accept your correction and leave it at that.

Though, I really don't see the way I chose to define a god in my original post as narrow or uncreative.  After all, if you define a god only as being able to effect someone else's world or existence and it really is all a matter of definitions, than what is to say that it can't be the other way around? Why can't the ants be gods? They have effected my life a time or two.... Heck, for all I know they could be of higher intelligence but they simply choose not to let us in to the deviousness and long reaching effect of all their plans. Hmmm... there is a story in there somewhere.

Again, this was all in fun and I hope you took it as such. I have learned my lesson and am not about to discuss my actual religion in this setting. Thanks for chatting with me though.

[Chaos]

Well, now I know what to show students if I ever become a philosophy professor.

[Frog]

Well, now I know what to show students if I ever become a philosophy professor.

That's great. But I can't say if you will always have such a good response. I like to pretend to be a philosopher most any chance I get. Doesn't really matter what the subject is. It's probably all useless, but the plus side of being freakishly easy to entertain is that you never get bored.

[RavenstarRHJF]

Hrm.  I'm not sure what to think here.  It's an interesting idea for a prologue- get the creator's own thoughts behind his creation, but I agree that he comes across as a little wishy-washy.  I think it's fine for him to regret the losses and casualties of the battle, but I don't think he should feel guilt for them.  I also think he should be a little more confident in this plan of his...

[Chaos]

Well, now I know what to show students if I ever become a philosophy professor.

That's great. But I can't say if you will always have such a good response. I like to pretend to be a philosopher most any chance I get. Doesn't really matter what the subject is. It's probably all useless, but the plus side of being freakishly easy to entertain is that you never get bored.

So do I, Frog, so do I. We should IM sometime

Thanks everyone for the feedback! I guess the trick to getting quick returns on submissions is to make them only one page long!

[ryos]

Reading back over my critique, I realize I sound like a Chuck Norris poster.

[Recovering_Cynic]

Hrm.  I'm not sure what to think here.  It's an interesting idea for a prologue- get the creator's own thoughts behind his creation, but I agree that he comes across as a little wishy-washy.  I think it's fine for him to regret the losses and casualties of the battle, but I don't think he should feel guilt for them.  I also think he should be a little more confident in this plan of his...

You see, I got the impression that he was going up against another god.  In such an instance, a lack fo confidence and a certain amount of doubt would be appropriate.

[Silk]

Love the first line. That's a first line worthy of Scalzi, man.

Well... Okay, don't quote me on that one. Still. Well done.

The line "demigods and immortals shadow me in comparison" doesn’t work. If you’re using shadow as a verb, it generally means “to follow” or something similar. What you want to say here is that demigods and immortals are but shadows of you in comparison. or something like that.

The tone you've adopted is working well for this piece. The line-by-line writing, I'm afraid, is not. At least, not entirely. There are places in the second paragraph where I'm not sure what you're actually saying, particularly the sentence about the Worldslayer.

And I think Ryos was right (I almost said "write", a clear sign that my brain is approaching "goo" status); it's a little bit too wordy. I'm not too sure that God doesn't persuade, though, especially if this is a Fateless god. Especially if it's, oh, I don't know, Veresh.

So I thought I had more to say than I did, because I was critiquing this as a flash piece until I scrolled up and saw the word 'Prologue'. Nevermind then. Carry on. The end.

Wait. "The book won't be written for a good decade"? Good God, man, what are you planning on doing in the next ten years?