A Prayer In Three Parts

[Hellz-Yeah]

PART one

GOD, CAN YOU HEAR ME?

speak child. i can hear you.

I DONâEUTMT UNDERSTAND WHY MOMMY DIED.

i needed her in heaven to do my work for me.

BUT I LOVE MOMMY AND I WANT HER HERE. I MISS HER HUGS AND HER FOOD. DADDYâEUTMS BAD AT COOKING. HIS FOOD IS GROSS.

listen to me child. she has very important work here in heaven.

WHY HER? I NEED MOMMY.

donâEUTMt be selfish.

PART two

GOD, WHAT KIND OF WORK DOES MOMMY DO IN HEAVEN?

angel work, child.

WHAT IS ANGEL WORK?

work an angel does.

PART three

GOD CAN I VISIT MOMMY?

no.

[Hellz-Yeah]

There are some problems with the way the text appeared in the post, but I have it posted on my tumblr, so please take a look there: http://perceived-visions.tumblr.com/

Thanks.

[FlosephKony]

At 6/28/12 04:42 PM, Hellz-Yeah wrote: A short story without an ending.

This is interesting, but it really really cries for development. I can think of three possible ways you could flesh this out.

ONE- DEPTH OF CHARACTER/ DIALOGUE.

The characters seem very two dimensional. They just represent arguments and very simple predictable ones. We lack an understanding of their personalities and so find it difficult to sympathise with them. The little girl with a dead mother is just a little girl with a dead mother, she has no name no identity. Similarly, her famimly are two dimensional too, her dad just cooks and her mother's just dead. We can't sympathise.

TWO- DEVELOPMENT OF MEDIUM

The form you have right now of purely reported speech comes across as blunt, rusty and it really lacks subtlety to be honest. Even if it were written in diary entries, or just through the girl's reporting of god's speech the immersiveness of the story would treble. The current medium gives no sense of place or time, and as a result the reader is not transported, is not suddenly feeling the girl's pain.

THREE- DEPTH OF STORY LINE

Right now we just have a blunt, essentially unresolved discussion. There is no action, there is no resolution, we do not feel that the two speakers change views or really learn anything from each other. Nothing really changes, and things should otherwise they quickly get dull. This could be changed by sluing sum paigonz blud bang bang bang.

[TidalH2]

I really can't find any critiques that floseph didn't already cover. I like that you were trying to be concise and to the point with it (seems appropriate) but just take a look over what he said and adjust accordingly

[mhzinski]

At 6/28/12 04:42 PM, Hellz-Yeah wrote: PART one

GOD, CAN YOU HEAR ME?

speak child. i can hear you.

I DONâEUTMT UNDERSTAND WHY MOMMY DIED.

i needed her in heaven to do my work for me.

BUT I LOVE MOMMY AND I WANT HER HERE. I MISS HER HUGS AND HER FOOD. DADDYâEUTMS BAD AT COOKING. HIS FOOD IS GROSS.

listen to me child. she has very important work here in heaven.

WHY HER? I NEED MOMMY.

donâEUTMt be selfish.

PART two

GOD, WHAT KIND OF WORK DOES MOMMY DO IN HEAVEN?

angel work, child.

WHAT IS ANGEL WORK?

work an angel does.

PART three

GOD CAN I VISIT MOMMY?

no.

I don't get this, I don't understand if it's supposed to be funny or gravely serious or ironic. That's very concerning. The entirety of what I understand from reading it is that you seem anti-religion (portraying God as an unfair villain), and how that ties into abandonment in childhood, but I can't even say that with conviction or understand what it means.

1/10 writing. Just a mess, there is no deeper understanding or realization to be found.

[EKublai]

At 7/1/12 01:41 PM, mhzinski wrote:

At 6/28/12 04:42 PM, Hellz-Yeah wrote: PART one

GOD, CAN YOU HEAR ME?

speak child. i can hear you.

I DONÃf¢EUTMT UNDERSTAND WHY MOMMY DIED.

i needed her in heaven to do my work for me.

BUT I LOVE MOMMY AND I WANT HER HERE. I MISS HER HUGS AND HER FOOD. DADDYÃf¢EUTMS BAD AT COOKING. HIS FOOD IS GROSS.

listen to me child. she has very important work here in heaven.

WHY HER? I NEED MOMMY.

donÃf¢EUTMt be selfish.

PART two

GOD, WHAT KIND OF WORK DOES MOMMY DO IN HEAVEN?

angel work, child.

WHAT IS ANGEL WORK?

work an angel does.

PART three

GOD CAN I VISIT MOMMY?

no.

I don't get this, I don't understand if it's supposed to be funny or gravely serious or ironic. That's very concerning. The entirety of what I understand from reading it is that you seem anti-religion (portraying God as an unfair villain), and how that ties into abandonment in childhood, but I can't even say that with conviction or understand what it means.

1/10 writing. Just a mess, there is no deeper understanding or realization to be found.

I disagree. I found this inspirational in the sense that I felt like this could be developed into a good coming of age story. The world of a child is confusing as hell (no pun intended). So many questions, so few answers.

[DeftAndEvil]

At 6/28/12 04:42 PM, Hellz-Yeah wrote: ...

Aside from the weird formatting, the only problem I see is that it is too crass. It's a very short monologue. There's no point in development or description; the only thing that matters is the exchange between the child and God (it seems pretty didactic as well, but the theme or message is what I am looking for). At first seems to be a treatment on loss, or maybe faith. But, it turns out to be a very lame (up to part three is where I thought it was all right). The only thing you can do is put more emotion into it, and maybe strengthen the tone and themes (if the themes were the point; I'm not so sure). There's really no amount of development you can add to make this better, without drastically changing what it is.

[Hellz-Yeah]

At 6/29/12 06:47 PM, FlosephKony wrote:

At 6/28/12 04:42 PM, Hellz-Yeah wrote: A short story without an ending.

This is interesting, but it really really cries for development. I can think of three possible ways you could flesh this out.

ONE- DEPTH OF CHARACTER/ DIALOGUE.

The characters seem very two dimensional. They just represent arguments and very simple predictable ones. We lack an understanding of their personalities and so find it difficult to sympathise with them. The little girl with a dead mother is just a little girl with a dead mother, she has no name no identity. Similarly, her famimly are two dimensional too, her dad just cooks and her mother's just dead. We can't sympathise.

TWO- DEVELOPMENT OF MEDIUM

The form you have right now of purely reported speech comes across as blunt, rusty and it really lacks subtlety to be honest. Even if it were written in diary entries, or just through the girl's reporting of god's speech the immersiveness of the story would treble. The current medium gives no sense of place or time, and as a result the reader is not transported, is not suddenly feeling the girl's pain.

THREE- DEPTH OF STORY LINE

Right now we just have a blunt, essentially unresolved discussion. There is no action, there is no resolution, we do not feel that the two speakers change views or really learn anything from each other. Nothing really changes, and things should otherwise they quickly get dull. This could be changed by sluing sum paigonz blud bang bang bang.

If I were to "flesh it out," then I would have to change it entirely. It wouldn't even slightly resemble what I currently have. I kept it simple because the purpose was not to tell a story, but to make a point. To weigh it down with unnecessary details would prevent the message from having a direct impact. You said it lacks subtlety, and you hit the nail on the head there. I wasn't trying to be subtle. And I wasn't trying to transport the reader either. There is a resolution however. The girl asks if she can visit her mom in heaven, god says no. Your critique are of "flaws" that I placed intentionally and it seems that you did not understand the piece.

Thanks for your critique.

[Hellz-Yeah]

At 7/2/12 01:46 AM, DeftAndEvil wrote:
Aside from the weird formatting, the only problem I see is that it is too crass. It's a very short monologue. There's no point in development or description; the only thing that matters is the exchange between the child and God (it seems pretty didactic as well, but the theme or message is what I am looking for). At first seems to be a treatment on loss, or maybe faith. But, it turns out to be a very lame (up to part three is where I thought it was all right). The only thing you can do is put more emotion into it, and maybe strengthen the tone and themes (if the themes were the point; I'm not so sure). There's really no amount of development you can add to make this better, without drastically changing what it is.

The formatting has it's purpose. The capitalization is not reversed for the sake of being reversed, there is a reason for it. You also wrote that it "turns out to be a very lame" something, but it seems that you mistakenly left out a word, so I can't address that point properly because I'm not sure what the "lame thing" is. The themes were the point, but I left it ambiguous in the end to leave it in that state of emotion rather than directly say the purpose of my piece. Because, in all honesty, it's not that much fun to have everything spoon-fed. I think it's a good point that the emotion should be played up a little, and it will be something I experiment with in this piece.

Thanks for your critique.

[mhzinski]

So you want your message to have a "direct impact" but not "directly say the purpose of [your] piece".

You're allowed to defend all of the other things you do (which I've already more eloquently stated suck) by saying they are artistic decisions designed to enhance the piece.

However I will hold you accountable to defend how you wish to present a short story and have it be direct and resonant with an audience without giving the audience a frame of reference or a focal point by which to understand your meaning. I am certain the point of writing this piece is not to have your readers question what you meant by writing it. If it was, you're wrong or incompetent at achieving your direct impact. If it wasn't, you directly led the readers to the wrong conclusion. If you as you say "weren't trying to be subtle" your message would be easily discernable from an average reader. A very basic definition of the word subtle is "difficult to perceive or understand".

If you weren't being subtle people would understand what message you are trying to get across. Directness is not the thing as having such a small quantity of context.

[DeftAndEvil]

At 7/4/12 08:44 PM, mhzinski wrote: ...

Yeah, I agree with this. Humility is part of the process of becoming a good writer. The dialogue was simple and that's it. There's nothing more to it and you can't act like there is. There's no grand ulterior meaning, dude. If you think there is, you are being esoteric.

[Hellz-Yeah]

At 7/4/12 08:44 PM, mhzinski wrote: So you want your message to have a "direct impact" but not "directly say the purpose of [your] piece".

You're allowed to defend all of the other things you do (which I've already more eloquently stated suck) by saying they are artistic decisions designed to enhance the piece.

However I will hold you accountable to defend how you wish to present a short story and have it be direct and resonant with an audience without giving the audience a frame of reference or a focal point by which to understand your meaning.

If you weren't being subtle people would understand what message you are trying to get across. Directness is not the thing as having such a small quantity of context.

I apologize, I must have explained myself incorrectly. Either way, the direct impact I intended for is in the way the dialogue is presented and stated by the characters, not necessarily the message of the dialogue. Also, it's fairly rude to simply say my decisions suck or that I am an incompetent as a writer. I wanted to leave it simple. Details of the scene or characters would take away from that and were unnecessary in the piece.

[mhzinski]

At 7/5/12 05:51 PM, Hellz-Yeah wrote: I apologize, I must have explained myself incorrectly. Either way, the direct impact I intended for is in the way the dialogue is presented and stated by the characters, not necessarily the message of the dialogue. Also, it's fairly rude to simply say my decisions suck or that I am an incompetent as a writer. I wanted to leave it simple. Details of the scene or characters would take away from that and were unnecessary in the piece.

Then I don't think you know what direct impact means. An immediate effect. Which is obviously created because the dialogue is read at that moment. Of course the impact of reading the dialogue is direct. It would be even if the dialogue were incomprehensible. The literary impact of it is not direct because it is not expressed to the readers, it is left open to interpretation.

This is an example of indirect dialogue.

He started talking about his past.

This is an example of direct dialogue.

"I want to talk about my past," he said.

I didn't say anything about you personally, just that this writing is really bad. You made poor decisions that make better discussion by being analyzed for lack of quality than actually being read. As a writer you are responsible for making readers understand what you mean, how you feel, who your characters are, how they feel. You did not do that in this work. Saying you made good decisions that make your writing clear, powerful, and effective is just denial. You didn't do it. It's not there. It's not rude. Your piece is bad. Write something better instead of trying to overturn my criticism, because the problem isn't me not understanding your story, it's the quality of your story.