Burden of Faith - Prolife Thriller

Oh good, someone posted so I wouldn't double post.

Yeah, I have one. WTF is up with the ending? It was just tacked in there and would there be a REASON for Kat to think that Amy and Maria are part of a group that kidnaps babies? I mean, most kids would think adoption, not that they got stolen by the people who raised them just because they have green eyes. Or, you know, genes. Genes do funny things like have all of my younger siblings have blond hair and blue eyes with brown haired green eyed parents.

That bit was just a little bit of the fail, but for some reason it made me the most angry.

I really don't understand people who obsessively Google themselves. This is the 2nd thread I've started this happened to and I've started 3. Do I just know how to pick egomaniacs or what?

Burden of Faith handles names, or the lack thereof, in several unusual ways.

DEATH: A character (not an antagonist) who needs no formal introduction. Briefly steps into the story, completes some important task, then exits, possibly never to be heard from again (single additional reference in chapter 28). No continuing part in story. Name identifies what it represents, not who it is). Example: Mailman

ANONYMOUS: An irrelevant number of unnamed characters impart important information (more profound than usual data dump) in a discussion, before stepping out of the story. In chapter 2, several (nurses) are used in a discussion which sufficiently identifies them. Because their names, number, and actual profession impart no value to the story, these attributes are omitted.

Author wrote:

Burden of Faith handles names, or the lack thereof, in several unusual ways.

In general, real writers don't do this kind of thing. They find an elegant way of handling pop-in characters who have no need of a name.

EPILOG:

The epilogue in Burden of Faith cleanly serves the traditional, end of story tasks. It reveals the fates of the main characters; Maria and Amy without introducing new characters as adoption or kidnapping would (Kathy was just being her sarcastic teenage self here), and ties up the primary loose end question of “whatever happened to Kathy.” Finally, the green eye issue folds smoothly into an introduction for this section, much cleaner than a more tangential contrivance would.

Reviewers in general have been quite satisfied with the epilog as it is.

Author wrote:

ANONYMOUS: An irrelevant number of unnamed characters impart important information (more profound than usual data dump) in a discussion, before stepping out of the story. In chapter 2, several (nurses) are used in a discussion which sufficiently identifies them. Because their names, number, and actual profession impart no value to the story, these attributes are omitted.

You mean there are several different characters who are referred to with the same moniker? That... makes for a very messy story. How are the readers supposed to know it's not the same character as previously? This matters. In general, even minor side characters have some importance. Their existence tells little tidbits about the world of the story, and it matters if they are present in a scene (for example, a murder is very different depending on whether there are witnesses or not).

Lexin: In general, real writers don't do this kind of thing.

Interesting choice of words...

I assume 5-stars from Midwest Book Review (among others) does not qualify me as "a real writer."

Peace...

Sunatic:Read chapter 2 (again?) and let me know if you experience any relevant confusion with respect to this story.
Thanks...

Ellipses, or three periods as you might also know them, do not work the way you are using them. If you are a published writer, you might want to comport your posting in the manner of one.

Also, a word of advice: if you have come here, for some reason, to defend yourself from our criticism, then I advise that you explain the answers to our specific concerns, not cite arbitrary star-number reviews from random, official-sounding literature-rating organizations. The Midwest Book Review saying your book is good does not mean it's good to everyone or even most everyone.

Wow, Author, your use of bold text totally means I have to listen to you.

Your writing should speak for itself. You shouldn't have to speak for it.

InkWeaver:

Thank you for your comment.

Please rest assured that when writing formally, I take more care then when posting within an informal forum such as this.

My primary interest here is to try to answer questions and to cover issues concerning the story within Burden of Faith. I will leave issues like 3 and 4-dot (3 plus a period) ellipses for others to address.

Quijotesca: Same comment.

I've never heard of the Midwest Book Review not reviewing a book that was sent to it. It's extremely prolific, which is not a good thing for a reviewer. And it's nearly all 5-star reviews and often it's regurgitated, slightly-rewritten ad copy, if any ad copy exists that you can look up.

A review by Midwest Book Review is like a review by Harriet Klausner. It's not worth much.

Notanoni: Thank you for your comment.

As to the value of a Midwest Book Review, it is what it is.

Now, do you have a question or issue with Burden of Faith?

I don't really think anyone has any questions or comments specifically for you. You can go.

Author wrote:

Now, do you have a question or issue with Burden of Faith?

If you have any slightest hope that someone here will apologize for not being impressed, or will learn something from you, you've completely misconstrued the purpose of this place.

This is a place for amusing ourselves by laughing at things. It's not a place to be nice to authors, or to have discussions about the good stuff (at least, not for the most part; there are a couple of threads for completely mindblowingly awesome stuff, which yours is not).

Authors who try to defend themselves here inspire indifference at best, amusement at worst. It has happened many times and it is always the same. There is nothing you could do to convince those here who don't like your stuff that it is suddenly just fine. Every point you think you could argue and every trick you could possibly think of has already been done, dozens of times, by those who come here to defend their creations.

The only possible way you could score points for yourself would be by gracefully dropping the subject, with no more defensiveness.

If the really rich professionals writers (like Anne Rice) can't get away with defensiveness in the public sphere without ruining their reputations, then why do you think defensiveness would work here, in a place devoted to making fun of things?

Natanoni:
Thank you for your post.

Your points are well taken. Fortunately I really don’t have any interest in teaching or impressing anyone, and must assume I have been successful in not doing so. I am, however, interested in assisting other contributors with questions concerning Burden of Faith. I’m sure you realize the issue is self-limiting. If there is no undue confusion as to my meaning (for example in whether the knife in chapter 1 is really a metaphor, which it isn’t), then you may (and with InkWeaver’s permission) thankfully never hear from me again.

Hey guys if I'm running off the lolz for you, feel free to tell me to bugger off.

From my point of view, when authors come here to explain or defend their work, it never ends well.

This one's just boring is the thing.

I'm kind of amused because I made a point of not direct linking to stuff because I didn't particularly want soap boxing. Instead, I get this pompous bold text crap.

A wild AUTHOR appeared!
A wild AUTHOR used BOLD TEXT!
It's not very effective...

The author could get a little more righteously outraged imo. It would be way more fun. I always enjoy ye olde "GAHHHH, MY WORK IS TOO PROFOUND FOR YOU PLEEBS TO UNDERSTAND!"

This one is useless.

Just sayin'.....

Either righteous indignation or gracious acceptance of criticism would be cool. This is just dull as hell.

Protip: Admit you are imperfect and be willing to learn how you might improve. It's the key to getting people here to like you. Unless you're funny. We like that, too.

The sad thing is, the book could be a lot better if it wasn't so darn boring. A woman who had to do something she does't believe in because of some reason? That should be intresting. But no, it's boring and reads like something a kid in middle school would write in order to be edgy.

Edit: Also if you want us to do more then point and laugh, answer what we have asked you. I still have gotten no real answer to what I asked.

Bleachedblackcat:
Thank you for your post.

I’m sorry you find Burden of Faith so disappointing.

Undoubtedly there are many who could do a better job at writing a pro-life novel such as this, but research seems to indicate they have found more productive things to do with their time.

As to answering your question/s. If you are referring to your post concerning the ending, I assumed my post entitled “Epilog in Burden of Faith” (below lexin’s post) would answer it sufficiently. If not, or I missed something else, please let me know. Assuming it is worth your time.

A bit more on the green eyes thing: In reading the novel, I’m sure you realized I found the eye-color contrivance useful to the story in several ways dealing with Kat, and then with Kathy in the epilog. The special nature of the genetics issue concerning brown-eyed parents having a green-eyed child (which led to Kathy’s suspicion) was researched.

Have a nice evening.

Quote :

Undoubtedly there are many who could do a better job at writing a pro-life novel such as this, but research seems to indicate they have found more productive things to do with their time.

This has got to be a lolarious troll

Quote :

Undoubtedly there are many who could do a better job at writing a pro-life novel such as this, but research seems to indicate they have found more productive things to do with their time.

Like not trying to vomit their own diet coke morality down the throats of their readers.