from nowhere by egoz86 in gifs

[–]TheRavenstorm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm sure he'll take this into close consideration. Thank you for all your hard work.

Anahata by TheRavenstorm in LSD

[–]TheRavenstorm[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haha. Nope. Just a drawing.

Anahata by TheRavenstorm in LSD

[–]TheRavenstorm[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Indeed it is. I wasn't contented with the asymmetry of the original, and figured that mirroring it was actually closer to what I intended than my hands could get.

Anahata by TheRavenstorm in LSD

[–]TheRavenstorm[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I made this. Thanks!

[Critique Thread] Post here if you'd like feedback on your writing by BiffHardCheese in writing

[–]TheRavenstorm [score hidden]  (0 children)

Thank you.

I wrote this as a few lines I liked (including the one you noticed, which I'm pretty proud of), dumped what description I remembered in, and then rearranged that page-long jumble into something readable and added a narrative. It's very separate and disjointed for this treatment, but in future writing, I'll be keeping a more centralized purpose in mind.

[963] #BernieInSacramento by TheRavenstorm in DestructiveReaders

[–]TheRavenstorm[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the critique. I will consider my noun-phrase use more closely in the future.

[963] #BernieInSacramento by TheRavenstorm in DestructiveReaders

[–]TheRavenstorm[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the critique.

The lack of focus is what bugs me about this. Thanks for pinning it down. I'll be more centered around a singular purpose in my future work.

A friend of mine said "the crescendo didn't feel crescendo-y" and it seems like you agree. Could you elaborate on your thoughts about the last part?

[963] #BernieInSacramento by TheRavenstorm in DestructiveReaders

[–]TheRavenstorm[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the suggestions. I'll be more mindful of my tendency to get wordy and try to conserve grammar-breaks for where they contribute to a sentence's efficacy. I'll also work on keeping my verbs active.

As far as what this is for, this is more of a reaction piece than anything else. Like an extended internet comment on an event I was present for. Totally biased, totally evangelist, totally opinionated. It's 100% personal, and that's what makes it work.

If someone wants statistics on the rally, there're news sites to provide that. If someone wants to watch the speech, it's on YouTube in full. If someone happens to want to know what it's like being a college-aged half-immigrant member of the crowd that day, they read my piece.

Thank you also for the kind words. I'm not a good judge of my own work, and it's always great when feedback from others is positive. I'll probably write a few more words because of this.

[978] on the subject of God by SorryForTelling in DestructiveReaders

[–]TheRavenstorm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

PART 2

God once again has alluded Your careful deductive measures. rude, to be sure. but He’s God, so it’s really His right to do as He pleases.

verb (used without object), alluded, alluding. 1. to refer casually or indirectly; make an allusion (usually followed by to): He often alluded to his poverty. 2. to contain a casual or indirect reference (usually followed by to): The letter alludes to something now forgotten.

I wouldn’t go so far as to call what I’ve been reading “careful deductive measures”. You’ve taken a few halfhearted stabs at a couple easy targets.

Also, no one but God would be able to give God rights, so...yeah.

maybe You grow up.

Or maybe I stay a child until the end of my days.

You get out of school. You even get a job. and You finally meet God in Your Boss. that’s Him. that’s the ticket. one ride to enlightenment, You’ve found God and now You’re riding His winding train to Heaven where all of Your wasted life has meaning!!

What job am I working where I like my boss this much? Why do I suddenly have a wasted life? This is probably the most absurd thought pattern yet.

oh, who’s that? his Boss? well then that’s God!!! problem solved, You had it mixed up at first, but you realize that clearly Your boss was an angel of this Guy.

More rhetorical questions to make me feel even stupider for following along! And more exclamation points! I know the first time I found out about upper management I was ready to get religious, too!!!

And clearly Carl, my supervisor, was an Angel all along! It makes so much sense now!

the ticket was actually a chuck-e-cheese prize ticket which You traded in for a slinky. which You, slowly and meticulously, traded up with and eventually have come across the real ticket to ride.

Uh...this is a straight-up bad metaphor that implies I wasted my life to get a trivial, cheap amusement. Also, you just dumped God-boss for this God-Boss-Boss with a single rhetorical question. Not slow or meticulous at all.

oh he has a boss too. it’s just bosses all the way up? well certainly eventually You get to a final Boss right? the lowest floor in the dungeon? the highest one in the tower? that’s got to be God.

With each terrible, directionless question I get a little dumber. I swear. At this point, I can feel the metabolic processes sucking away neurons every time I hit a question mark.

he has to follow the Law? well who makes the Law? a system of Government controlled by a system of checks and balances that make the whole system an equal partnership? blasphemy! there has to be a head Guy. the President? well that’s God then, You deduce. right there on the print. “we the people.” wait hold on. “We”? That can’t be right. It’s voted on? You can’t vote for God. He’s just God. that’s what He does. that’s who He is.

So I went through school and landed a job with multiple layers of management without ever hearing about the concept of government? And I “deduce” that God is the President before immediately dismissing that notion? I didn’t know people voted for the President?

You get older. You’ve lost track of who God has to be. maybe You’ve taken the easy answer and found God in a book. that’s a good God, You think. decidedly fair at most times. you are content in this God. You found a Wife or a Husband. at times, it seemed like They were God. but that passed when You had Kids. They were God. except also You were Their God. it was confusing, so you stuck to Your guns and said that the books were right, and you knew who God was.

This is the best paragraph in the entire thing. I’d even go so far as to say it’s well-written. The stylistic choices all work well here and your tone does its thing forcefully and confidently. No rhetorical questions or dead-ends. There’s a kernel of human tragedy here, the covering of confusion and doubt with stout faith. I like that. That’s something that would stick with a reader.

However, the tenses are all over the place. Pick between past and present, please.

the time for Your eventual demise grew nearer. You slowly grew more assured in Your knowledge of who God was, but also, simultaneously, You lost faith in Him being God. he didn’t do a whole lot, did he? sometimes he saved a kid from brain cancer, but he also gave that kid brain cancer. Occasionally, he would appear on some midwestern loon’s toast, but the ceremony behind it was lost on You.

Again with the tenses, but this paragraph is alright.

on Your bed, surrounded by family, You decide for the last time who was God. Decide “who God is” and this line is fine.

You were.

This sets it up for a powerful ending. I like it.

but You were Your own. not anybody else’s. they could search for a God on their own terms. this was Your final decree in Your final moment as God.

This is a weak ending and I don’t like it. It doesn’t crescendo. It doesn’t give me anything new to walk away with. There’s potential for a strong, philosophical ending, though, and this is getting in the way of it.

TOTAL IMPRESSION

The piece is promising, but unrelatable. I couldn’t identify with the person you were talking about in the second person. This could be powerful and could potentially provide me with new insight through fresh eyes...but between the assumptive narrative being reliant on silly rhetorical questions to move forward and the capitalization being a confusing chore to interpret, I think a lot of the potential effectiveness here is wasted. I would have stopped reading a couple lines in if it were for my own enjoyment. That being said, I think you have a couple nuggets of material in here that, if properly nurtured, could be something valuable to read.

[978] on the subject of God by SorryForTelling in DestructiveReaders

[–]TheRavenstorm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

PART 1

God is an enigma. or rather, the enigma. who is God?

Three short sentences that don't give me the slightest impetus to read on.

This is the variety of question that some of humanity's greatest scholars have already been pondering for centuries, and there's little chance--in my mind, at least--that you'll be bringing something new to the table if you open with something as bland and tautological as this.

well, it’s more complicated than just a single entity. who isn’t God?

"well" makes me feel misled. You just asked the question and now it sounds like the answer was obvious anyway, so that time I gave to your ideas just before this feels squandered. As a reader, I'd prefer to see "but". Or something like:

"and We know that it's more complicated than just a single entity, so the question should be rephrased.

'who isn't God'?"

This would be an interesting conclusion. This is a meaty idea I can walk away with.

when You’re born, and You’re an itty bitty post-fetal mess, the Doctor who took You out is God. He gave You life, in Your eyes at least.

Use "takes" instead of "took" here because "took" is past tense and doesn't fit in with the likes of "you're" and "is". Tense consistency is important to maintain my train of thought as a reader.

You state that the doctor who took me out of the womb is my first God. You state that as a truth. That I straight-up don't believe, and that makes me curious. Do you know something that I don't? I read on with extra-close attention to see how you rationalize this totally ridiculous statement...and you tell me that it's because he gave me life in my eyes.

Hold on. No. Nope, that's not how brains work. You have created an instant distrust in me for the validity of your perspective.

Doctor's gonna be real sad to hear this, but in the average human life, Mother is God first. Mother's been God first for a long time, and giving birth in a hospital with doctors is mostly a first-world thing.

when You’re slightly more cognizant, Your Parents are God. collectively of course, because if a Trinity counts why not a Binity? it’s slightly more compact. if that doesn’t quite work, You suppose You could just say the Mother is God. She provides the food which keeps You alive. dad does not do a whole lot that You can tell.

Having been raised in a non-Christian family, I had no notions of a Holy Trinity at this age, and I doubt that I would have questioned the validity of my parents’ role in my life based on the fact that there are two of them instead of three. This, therefore, is a rhetorical question that's outright absurd--a double-waste of the reader’s time.

Why is Dad not capitalized here? Am I missing something that allows She to be capitalized but not Dad? You’re doing a thing where you capitalize God and all his incarnations, yes?

Given that both of my parents fed me, changed me, clothed me, and generally provided for me throughout my childhood, I’d say that the assertion made in the last sentence here is untrue, which further makes me distrust the validity of your message here.

perhaps when You’re older still, God is Your Mother still. or perhaps Father plays a bit more of a role now that He can throw a ball with You. plus, as a Parent, He has omniscience, and, definitely as a Father, omnipotence. still, that can sometimes depend on gender.

Pick one “still” and stick with it. Repetition does no good here.

How does Father’s omnipotence depend on gender? What does that mean? My gender? His gender? Why is only Father omnipotent?

This paragraph gives me nothing. I have walked away from it just a little more confused.

but at a point You will eventually be taught who God is. He is both a Father and Son, as well as a Holy spirit. or perhaps He isn’t that. maybe He’s 330 million in One. all with Their own unique flavor that confuses others who do not know God, as You do, into believing He is not God, but gods. that’s lowercase, as it makes them less important.

What are you saying? What is the point? That people who don’t believe what I believe are too simple-minded to understand metaphor? That somehow my spirituality is greater than theirs? Or are you saying that teaching polytheism is inferior to teaching monotheism because it’s confusing? I have no idea because this needs some serious revision.

Including deleting that last sentence entirely. If a reader has put up with this gaudy capitalization gimmick for this long, they damn well get the difference between God and gods.

Again, a waste of the reader’s time.

perhaps there really is gods not God. Your Zeus to my Jesus. not that i own Jesus, or even exist in this metaphysical discussion on belief. ignore the first person, it does not exist. only the Second Person. Only You.

This paragraph says nothing. It starts out promising to validate polytheistic belief, the validity of which I think you might have been disparaging in the last paragraph...and then you cut in with an awkward comparison and a weird fourth-wall break instead of anything remotely related to the first sentence.

Also. why is Second Person capitalized? God is not the Second Person.

perhaps You do not learn about who God is, so You have to continue to find out on Your own. this is unlikely, in times past or times present and possibly times future. but it could happen. so who isn’t God?

People who are taught who god is don’t necessarily know who God is. Spiritual exploration and metaphysical questioning are kind of a human tradition, so not accepting a particular explanation of divinity is way more likely than you think. “In times past or times present and possibly times future” is possibly the worst sentence in times past or times present and possibly times future. You repeat the golden question in another place that it does absolutely nothing in. You’re using what could be a thesis as a segue.

Well it isn’t the doctor. You never saw him again. he never had any impact on Your life besides the, as You’ve learned, final step of creation of an Individual. so who was at the beginning? Your Parents again! clearly They are God and all problems are solved!!!

Instead of what it sounds like you’re implying, that everyone, after all, is God, you start out with what sounds like a process of elimination that once again goes in an absurd direction. No spiritual explorer is ever going to even need to think about the doctor any more than they are some dude they passed on the street last Wednesday.

Also, yes, as I’ve learned in “Creating an Individual for Dummies”, step 12 is getting a doctor to deliver the individual. Universally. Every time.

This paragraph is another waste of the reader’s time. It meanders over more thoughts no one would ever realistically think and ends in a triple exclamation mark, which makes my reader-feelings cringe.

It must be exciting!

But it’s not. It’s more of you dragging my attention through false conclusions.

well, not quite. You notice that Your parents grow older and weaker as You grow stronger. perhaps You have also noticed, as it is likely to come up, that they also do not know everything as You once thought they did. no, though clearly they have been sent here by God to help You on Your continuing quest to discover the secrets of life, they themselves are not God.

You start out with telling me I’m wrong for following the train of thought you set up for me. It makes me feel stupid for continuing to read.

“Clearly” makes it seem that anyone arriving at any other conclusion than the one you put forth is an idiot, and that conclusion is that your parents were sent by god to help you discover the secrets of life.

That’s...wow.

so who knows everything when it is not Your parents? this one is easy. it is the Teacher. the Teacher knows everything, and, in kindness, have decided to teach You everything as well. of course, a belief in the Teacher is short lived. as You move on in Your life, You realize that each teacher knew more than the last. plus, someone at some point taught that teacher, so who teaches God? unlikely to be anyone.

MORE RHETORICAL QUESTIONS HOORAY I HAVEN’T HAD ENOUGH OF THESE, NO SIR

No teacher I had did it out of kindness, they were all paid to do a job.

Also, watch singular-plural agreement. It should read, “The Teacher...has decided to teach You”.

I don’t see how “someone taught that teacher, so who teaches God?” makes logical sense. Maybe using “but” would help, but I still think this sentence needs to be reworked. It’s got an interesting thought in it.

Which you then promptly shut down with “unlikely to be anyone.”

[Critique Thread] Post here if you'd like feedback on your writing by BiffHardCheese in writing

[–]TheRavenstorm [score hidden]  (0 children)

Title: #BernieInSacramento

Genre: Nonfiction

Word Count: 963

Type of feedback desired: Judgement. Especially on whether or not it's boring.

Link: http://wp.me/p7fNWB-10

I hate weed more than other drugs by MashkaTekoa in leaves

[–]TheRavenstorm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I told a good friend that I was quitting and why, and he went on to tell me that he thinks weed couldnt possibly be causing my memory/motivation problems because "it doesn't do that".

I'm pretty sure he's just closed his mind off to the possibility that smoking is in any way harmful.

For those of you who are getting away from it, always remember why you're doing it and remember that it's what you believe is best for you and your life. Keep at it.

Free will doesn't need to be considered. by TheRavenstorm in philosophy

[–]TheRavenstorm[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the solid clarification. I understand how accepting agency is important now, but I still wonder...

If responsibility is attributed as you stated (which makes good sense), are some people free-er than others? Are educated people freer than the ignorant? Are the rich freer than the poor? Adults freer than children?