We were bored and he was flipping through channels as quickly as he could. Flick! A picture of two people about to kiss. Flick! A car commercial. Flick! Judge Judy!
He only stopped at a Christian channel. Two people at a desk were talking and then there was a visual of a snake slithering around an apple tree.
“Change the channel, this is boring,” I said, tossing a popcorn kernel at the screen.
“You would say something like that. I bet you would like to see a car crash with thousands of explosions instead.”
I grinned. “Something like that.”
He looked at the screen thoughtfully, where two obviously unhappy actors were hiding behind bushes. “I actually think God was the snake.”
“Really?” When he said nothing to this, I stuck my tongue out at him. “That’s because you’re an idiot.” He turned a different shade of pink.
“No, I’m serious!” he said. “God was the snake.”
“You must have fallen asleep during catechism then. God was clearly the voice who told them not to eat the apples. Remember?” Then, with a booming voice that was almost vaguely male, I said, “Horatio, do not eat the apple. It has a worm in it.”
This seemed to annoy him. “I do know the story, you know,” he said. “But it doesn’t make sense that the snake is Satan. It just doesn’t. God had to be. And I have evidence.”
“Oh? Evidence?” I sat back, an amused smile on my face. “Do tell.”
“Okay.” He leaned forward to me, looking around carefully, as if he was afraid that someone else was listening and then spoke clearly, a strange glint sparkling in his eyes. “Think about it! If God were all about truth and light and everything special like that, then why would he have a problem with knowledge? That is,” he said, waving his arms around for further emphasis, “if God is the centerpiece for everything, then why would he condemn Adam and Eve for touching God in this way?”
“You mean to say that they touched him inappropriately? That’s got to be awkward.”
“No, no! You’re not listening to me! Listen to me. Why would God punish Adam and Eve for trying to seek out knowledge?”
“Because they disobeyed him, of course.”
“No, that still doesn’t make sense. If He loved them without question, then he wouldn’t have ever punished them. How many times have your parents forgiven you?” When I didn’t say anything to this, he added, “Jesus said forgiveness was key. With forgiveness comes understanding and with understanding comes wisdom. Why would God ever condemn a reach for knowledge? For wisdom?”
I snickered. “You make it sound like God killed them.”
“Same difference. He threw them out and made them feel pain. And then he let them die alone, without His interference. Only until Jesus Christ came around were people actually promised a second chance. Do you honestly think that God, if he were truly merciful, would allow so much time to pass before he made amends?”
I shrugged. “I don’t think God really has a sense of time.”
“Maybe not, but why would he punish them for reaching out for wisdom when wisdom is essential for forgiveness?”
“But that was after they left the Garden of Eden,” I said. “Before, they were already perfect and didn’t even have to have forgiveness.”
“Bullshit. Everyone needs to know how to forgive.”
“Even God?”
He was about to say something, but a quick look at my face disarmed him. He gave a weak smile and relaxed, flicking through the channels again. “I don’t understand,” he admitted, passing through a Gilligan’s Island rerun. “It just doesn’t make sense, no matter how I try to think of it. Or maybe I’m thinking too hard?”
“I don’t know.” For a moment it was quiet and the only sound was TV. For some reason, the program had switched to a political debate between two stuffy candidates with tight collars. I threw some more popcorn at the screen. “Maybe he didn’t want us to grasp for artificial knowledge,” I finally said. “Maybe he didn’t think we could just eat something and gain it. Maybe he wanted us to know the only knowledge we could get was not through a tree, but through him.”
A commercial started; it was selling some sexual enhancement drug. He joined me in throwing popcorn.
“I still think God was the snake,” he muttered.
I only laughed.
Points:
Time spent:
Canary word: Present
Possible AI signals:
Original Text:
Are you sure you want to delete this comment? This cannot be undone.
Mark this comment as a review? Points will be awarded to the poster.
Your comment was posted, but it wasn’t long enough to count as a review. Reviews need about four complete sentences (at least 250 characters). Try writing another review that explains your thoughts in more detail — the author will appreciate it, and you’ll earn points for it.
125,021 Literary Works • 672,740 Reviews
Why, hello there, Snoinkus!
That means, if a stereotypical 'surfer dude' is discussing religion, you don't want him turning into a Harvard graduate faster than you can say 'Jesus'.
I commend you on being able to narrative daytime television without a single Oprah joke. You're a living example of a person with 'major skills'.
A COUPLA MONKEYS:
Since you posted this on the internet with the intention of being read, I have reason to think you're not just writing for yourself. Bad news...when you have an audience, you've got to bend to the will of the masses just a teensy-weensy little bit. Otherwise, we'll attack you with garden rakes.
I liken 'the masses' reading your story to a fuzzy caterpillar sitting in a remedial math class. You can dumb it down and making it heart-stoppingly exciting, but there's really nothing there to keep the caterpillar enthused. You need to keep your audience enthused, as well (tricking them into thinking without their consent, actually), which is quite tough in a story where there's no easy place to insert a bout of violence, sex, or drugs.
Not that fuzzy caterpillars are enthused by violence, sex, or drugs. I'm just saying.
So! What to do?
- I know I say this quite a bit, but balance out your dialogue with description that's not related to the main theme or idea. I said something similar in a critique for Claude here: http://www.youngwriterssociety.com/viewtopic.php?t=12195&start=30. The gist of it is, if you've got a heavy theme or idea you want to come across, you need to balance it out or only a select few will be able to enjoy it. Why has everyone who's read it- spare one- enjoyed FREAK? You bring about some really 'deep' ideas, hidden beneath a very accessible cast of characters and setting.
- Make sure to keep your characters in check. Gah, I can't say anything new, right?
I mainly bring up this point because your characters are throwing popcorn at the screen- which is fine and dandy, but you've just lowered your audiences' expectation of their intelligence by like five hundred billion percent.
Also- you've got no names! When there are no names, you have to work several times harder to make sure your characters are properly developed and memorable.
THE MISSING LINK: Have something on the television corellate to what's going on in the story. The clerics in the bushes could be interpreted as Adam and Eve, but since the characters don't recognize it, it's just a pointless detail.
___
This was rather fun, Snoinkus, I've gotta say- daytime television is the most unlikely backdrop for such a conversation. Unexpected though, and cool.
Eep! The curse continues... I always forget a word in any of my stories I write. XD ALWAYS. But I put "anything" in. Hopefully it makes sense now.
When you say you want it longer, do you mean the philosophical conversation, or do you want the secular parts expanded? Just a question!
Fascinating stuff! I love how the characters can talk about something as deep as God and still have interesting, realistic dialogue. Now, normally I'm all for nice short prose pieces (attention span being minimal and all) but I think maybe this could be made longer. Not adding more to the plot, I mean, but I feel like maybe the conversation was too short.
A different shade? Was he a shade of pink before?Why are the two characters together watching TV? What is their relationship? And, for some reason, I want to know who made the popcorn.
Other than that, not much to say, as I'm not much for critting prose.
GILLIGAN'S ISLAND!
Colleen
I liked this, I'd never thought of it that way. Then again, I don't particularly think very hard on the matters of religion anyway since I'm not very religious despite my Catholic upbringing.
I believe an "anything" should be between say and to.*Snickers*
I liked how you made a very interesting argument that would normally be a very serious tone but used the comedic character to make it longer. I think you could possibly make it longer, but to keep it this length wouldn't do it any harm either.
Good work Snoinkus!
"When I didn’t say to this," - that didn't make sense to me.
That was an interesting perspective, and well backed up. I enjoyed it very much.
This is very interesting, and I think the start of something that could be a lot more in-depth. These two characters, the sarcastic speaker and the flustered philosopher, make a great pair, and they both have keen, though disparate, vantage points. I would suggest considering lengthening this, or maybe adding further dialogues.
In philosophy, the practice when considering a statement is to make it as strong philosophically as possible before derailing it, weeding out any bad concepts that break it down until you've got it as good as possible. Only then should the opponent demonstrate remaining flaws, perhaps attempting a reductio ad absurdum, or putting forth opposing analogies, etc. This is a great start, though, so I wouldn't recommend altering it. It wouldn't seem proper to leap into such intense philosophy anyway, and you don't want to lose its lighthearted fun. But I think you've got something neat here, at least.