Hey! It looks like you're new here. You might want to check out the introduction.
Show rules for this event
In Defense of Death
The statement that reads that "all men must die" is not only false—it's extremely stupid, and dangerous. Even worse, it also has some horribly sexist connotations.
Death is, of course, female. This is perfectly logical, and is accepted as a truth everywhere—we’re brought to the world by a woman, and so we’re taken away by another woman. This way, Death is said to be tall, dark-skinned, and breath-taking. The exact details vary depending on who you ask, though.
Now, what is to be understood is that, while reasonable, Death still has some flaws. And really, we can’t blame her for what she’s doing.
You see, before Life came to be—with his obnoxious adaptation and his constant, annoying evolution—Death reigned sovereign. Everything was dead, because life wasn’t there yet. And if you’ve never been alive, you’re dead. That’s pretty basic.
But then, as we said, Life came to be.
And, well, how was Death supposed to react? Life didn’t ask for permission, he just popped up and took everything from her hands without a warning. Everything was alive now. Especially humans—and most people only care about humans—which pretty much meant Death had nothing. That’s extremely offensive, and many would consider it an act of theft.
It’s really Life’s fault, is the message here.
Of course, some will say the opposite—and Death is accused by many of seducing Life as retaliation, because she was so deeply offended. And, true, she was angry, but to say that she actively tried to woo Life?
No way. That’s stupid. Death has charisma, she has this mysterious aura that makes men wonder what hides behind her smile. She didn’t seduce Life. She didn’t have to.
And we all know how Life is. He can’t take a no for an answer. It was him, on his own volition, who decided to shower Death in gifts to gain her favor. A rather vapid action, but then again, Life was never intelligent to begin with.
Should Death refuse those gifts? She doesn’t have a right to them, so the answer to this is definitely “yes”. Life is destroying his own creation for the sake of Death, and that’s just unsavory for all parties.
But, well. Death was offended by Life back in the days. Maybe she thinks that she deserves a little bit of recognition. And it’s not like she’s forcing Life to keep giving her stuff. Is she acting like a good person? No. But her actions make sense, if you have at least a little bit of empathy.
It’s understandable. Everybody has at least a little bit of pride, and Death’s took quite a blow.
Still, not all men must die. Sure, a couple of them have, and a couple of them will. But time heals all wounds, and Death is a pretty smart lady. She’ll see the error of her ways eventually, and then she’ll stop accepting those gifts that are not hers to begin with. Repeating that nonsense does nothing but convince Life that he’s doing the right thing here, and that’s making the whole situation actively worse.
So don’t blame Death for people dying. She’s not doing anything, she’s just hurt. Hurt people do dumb things. Rather, blame Life. He’s so busy breeding to get new gifts that he will never realize killing people is not getting him laid.
Death is, of course, female. This is perfectly logical, and is accepted as a truth everywhere—we’re brought to the world by a woman, and so we’re taken away by another woman. This way, Death is said to be tall, dark-skinned, and breath-taking. The exact details vary depending on who you ask, though.
Now, what is to be understood is that, while reasonable, Death still has some flaws. And really, we can’t blame her for what she’s doing.
You see, before Life came to be—with his obnoxious adaptation and his constant, annoying evolution—Death reigned sovereign. Everything was dead, because life wasn’t there yet. And if you’ve never been alive, you’re dead. That’s pretty basic.
But then, as we said, Life came to be.
And, well, how was Death supposed to react? Life didn’t ask for permission, he just popped up and took everything from her hands without a warning. Everything was alive now. Especially humans—and most people only care about humans—which pretty much meant Death had nothing. That’s extremely offensive, and many would consider it an act of theft.
It’s really Life’s fault, is the message here.
Of course, some will say the opposite—and Death is accused by many of seducing Life as retaliation, because she was so deeply offended. And, true, she was angry, but to say that she actively tried to woo Life?
No way. That’s stupid. Death has charisma, she has this mysterious aura that makes men wonder what hides behind her smile. She didn’t seduce Life. She didn’t have to.
And we all know how Life is. He can’t take a no for an answer. It was him, on his own volition, who decided to shower Death in gifts to gain her favor. A rather vapid action, but then again, Life was never intelligent to begin with.
Should Death refuse those gifts? She doesn’t have a right to them, so the answer to this is definitely “yes”. Life is destroying his own creation for the sake of Death, and that’s just unsavory for all parties.
But, well. Death was offended by Life back in the days. Maybe she thinks that she deserves a little bit of recognition. And it’s not like she’s forcing Life to keep giving her stuff. Is she acting like a good person? No. But her actions make sense, if you have at least a little bit of empathy.
It’s understandable. Everybody has at least a little bit of pride, and Death’s took quite a blow.
Still, not all men must die. Sure, a couple of them have, and a couple of them will. But time heals all wounds, and Death is a pretty smart lady. She’ll see the error of her ways eventually, and then she’ll stop accepting those gifts that are not hers to begin with. Repeating that nonsense does nothing but convince Life that he’s doing the right thing here, and that’s making the whole situation actively worse.
So don’t blame Death for people dying. She’s not doing anything, she’s just hurt. Hurt people do dumb things. Rather, blame Life. He’s so busy breeding to get new gifts that he will never realize killing people is not getting him laid.
There's a lot of telling here. But that said, the way you told it was humorous.
While I read this, I felt like I was watching a puppet show, two puppets interacting with each other while a narrator told the story. I like the narration style here. I can tell there was some serious thought put into this.
But, there is a serious problem with telling rather than showing here. In fact, you told me the whole story. There was nothing for me to imagine.
I'm also kinda torn on what we are meant to leave the story with. What's the moral? Is there one? Forgive people eventually? Don't fear death?
An enjoyable story, but I'm not sure what else I can say about it.
While I read this, I felt like I was watching a puppet show, two puppets interacting with each other while a narrator told the story. I like the narration style here. I can tell there was some serious thought put into this.
But, there is a serious problem with telling rather than showing here. In fact, you told me the whole story. There was nothing for me to imagine.
I'm also kinda torn on what we are meant to leave the story with. What's the moral? Is there one? Forgive people eventually? Don't fear death?
An enjoyable story, but I'm not sure what else I can say about it.
There are interesting ideas here, but the execution is pure telliness.
For example, the voice doesn't describe Life's advances; the voice merely tells us they happened. The voice doesn't show us Death's pride taking a blow, we're simply told "Death's took quite a blow".
You can't take the easy way out and tell the audience what you want them to think and feel; that isn't proper fiction. Your narrative voice tells us what to think and feel from the outset: simply read the first two lines, where we're told that a statement is false, stupid, dangerous, and sexist. Those opinions are forced on the reader. You're not trusting the reader to decide things. The reader isn't engaged.
The only time this kind of writing is acceptable is if the voice is developed as a character, but we have no idea who is speaking to us or how they know what they know.
Show-don't-tell is the hardest thing to learn in writing, and it's one of the most important things. The trick is to paint a picture with words that will lead the reader to come to the conclusions you want them to. Don't tell me someone is powerful; describe how they look or what they do in a way that conveys that feeling to the reader. It's an art you should push yourself to focus because you have some really neat ideas but they're all displayed in the vulgar.
For example, the voice doesn't describe Life's advances; the voice merely tells us they happened. The voice doesn't show us Death's pride taking a blow, we're simply told "Death's took quite a blow".
You can't take the easy way out and tell the audience what you want them to think and feel; that isn't proper fiction. Your narrative voice tells us what to think and feel from the outset: simply read the first two lines, where we're told that a statement is false, stupid, dangerous, and sexist. Those opinions are forced on the reader. You're not trusting the reader to decide things. The reader isn't engaged.
The only time this kind of writing is acceptable is if the voice is developed as a character, but we have no idea who is speaking to us or how they know what they know.
Show-don't-tell is the hardest thing to learn in writing, and it's one of the most important things. The trick is to paint a picture with words that will lead the reader to come to the conclusions you want them to. Don't tell me someone is powerful; describe how they look or what they do in a way that conveys that feeling to the reader. It's an art you should push yourself to focus because you have some really neat ideas but they're all displayed in the vulgar.
>>Trick_Question
I gotta say, I didn't like it that much either, sorry author, but in their hypothetical defense I think you've kind of missed the point just a little.
Unreliable narrator seem to be the key words here. Because the voice was a character, they just didn't bother to introduce themselves. Because they let their tone convey that character for us.
Show-don't-tell is important from the author's perspective, but this is obviously from the point of view of a third party. The conversational tone, almost casual campground-tale style of telling, is the key indicator here.
I gotta say, I didn't like it that much either, sorry author, but in their hypothetical defense I think you've kind of missed the point just a little.
Unreliable narrator seem to be the key words here. Because the voice was a character, they just didn't bother to introduce themselves. Because they let their tone convey that character for us.
Show-don't-tell is important from the author's perspective, but this is obviously from the point of view of a third party. The conversational tone, almost casual campground-tale style of telling, is the key indicator here.
>>MrNumbers
So you're in defense of In Defense of Death?
I know, a low-hanging fruit, but how could you not :v
but in their hypothetical defense
So you're in defense of In Defense of Death?
I know, a low-hanging fruit, but how could you not :v
>>FrontSevens
I have some low-hanging fruit. :V
EDIT: This post is a celebration of the inability to downthumb.
I have some low-hanging fruit. :V
EDIT: This post is a celebration of the inability to downthumb.
This story really doesn't work for me.
There's nothing wrong with combining a story and a logical argument. In fact, I rather like that you did. But the problem with doing so is that if the argument doesn't work, the entire story falls apart. And I think that's what happened here. Every time you laid down a premise, my reaction was basically, to use your own words, "no, that's stupid." So when you then start drawing conclusions from the premises, I am very disinclined to take them seriously. So basically, most of the story basically ended up as meaningless ramblings to me.
There is something to what >>MrNumbers said about the story being told by an unreliable narrator. But in my opinion, that doesn't really help much. Perhaps if we knew a bit about the narrator, we could learn more about them through this argument they present. But without any context, this story tells us nothing.
There's nothing wrong with combining a story and a logical argument. In fact, I rather like that you did. But the problem with doing so is that if the argument doesn't work, the entire story falls apart. And I think that's what happened here. Every time you laid down a premise, my reaction was basically, to use your own words, "no, that's stupid." So when you then start drawing conclusions from the premises, I am very disinclined to take them seriously. So basically, most of the story basically ended up as meaningless ramblings to me.
There is something to what >>MrNumbers said about the story being told by an unreliable narrator. But in my opinion, that doesn't really help much. Perhaps if we knew a bit about the narrator, we could learn more about them through this argument they present. But without any context, this story tells us nothing.
Should Death refuse those gifts? She doesn’t have a right to them, so the answer to this is definitely “yes”.
...Isn't not having the right to something the very definition of a gift?
Anyways, this has some interesting ideas. However, I feel it would be much stronger if it had been told as dialogue or description, instead of straight summary. You may gain space by summarizing everything, but it brings in its own problems: it naturally creates a lot of distance between your audience from your characters, and that's hard to overcome.
*skips other reviews*
Well, this was... A thing. O.o
I've never seen Life and death described in quite this way... Especially as a dysfunctional romantic couple.
Oh, and don't worry about dying, because that will all stop sometime soon. It's just a silly phase.
Well, you definitely get points for originality! I do wonder who our narrator is though. They're clearly somewhat biased and unreliable... But they definitely have some personality!
In short, weird ad quirky, but interesting.
(Besides, everyone knows that death is male! It's only far that if a woman brings you into the world, a man should take you out... Mandated gender balance in hiring practices and whatnot!) ;>
Well, this was... A thing. O.o
I've never seen Life and death described in quite this way... Especially as a dysfunctional romantic couple.
Oh, and don't worry about dying, because that will all stop sometime soon. It's just a silly phase.
Well, you definitely get points for originality! I do wonder who our narrator is though. They're clearly somewhat biased and unreliable... But they definitely have some personality!
In short, weird ad quirky, but interesting.
(Besides, everyone knows that death is male! It's only far that if a woman brings you into the world, a man should take you out... Mandated gender balance in hiring practices and whatnot!) ;>