storymonger

I hope this has taught Quinn a very valuable lesson about the truth. If he's going to stay with Jude, his mother needs to know the truth before someone else comes along to tell her. And tell her with their own spin on the situation. It's always really frustrating when Quinn loses his backbone. And I hope that Marissa isn't going to turn into another ice queen. I can't say I care if someone else stirs up more drama, but it needs to be someone else. The bitchy, jealous girl thing has been done in a DomLuka story already. I'm not saying they need to be friends, but they need to reach an understanding.

And no one is suspicious of the fact that no one is at home at Brad's residence? And yet Dom feels the need to tell us that little tidbit twice?

I'll bite, I guess. I usually avoid all non-literary discussion on these boards, but... "If two people really click, then age shouldn't matter." See... that's a wonderfully romantic notion. And everybody loves to think that you can overcome all boundaries if you just love somebody enough. But the practical reality is that it's just not true. Age will always matter, and thirteen years is a big gap. Now, as time goes by, the gap isn't as big of a deal, but when you're talking about, say... a 21 year old and a 37 year old, that is a huge gap in life experience and maturity. How can such a disparity in the emotional development of two people NOT matter? And if you're dealing with a 37 year old who doesn't reflect that additional life experience in a greater sense of self and maturity, then it's probably best not to go there... I'm not interested in someone who is still clinging on to a bygone era of their life. Any time I see someone with another person who is much younger/older, the relationship is always unbalanced and has this paternal element to it that I'd rather not experience in my love life. The "daddy" fantasy just isn't for me. I have a simple rule of thumb... if it is at all possible that someone could have been my biological father, then the age gap is just too big by a margin of at least 5 years.

I personally really hope Dom finds the inspiration to continue with DD. I find all the characters compelling, though the progression of the story has been really slow (which may be why Dom is struggling to continue it). The new story... the new story is going to be really good. And I suppose that's all I should say.

Yes. (Well, if you're a Christian. If you're a Jew, the newer parts don't apply at all. If you are a Muslim, the word of Muhammad trumps the word of Jesus.) Yes. I'm sure they did. And other interests as well, ranging from artistic to a desire for accurate translation. It depends. No. Well, yes, if you're a Christian. According to Christianity, Jesus is the fulfillment of God's word, so he takes precedence (that's why it's called Christianity, after all). No. I'm not even a Christian, so why would I be saying that? I'm saying that is the role of Jesus IN Christianity. No. Where did I say this at all? I don't ever even remember mentioning the church itself, except for in reference to the creation of the canonical texts. I think you're taking this too personally...

I don't necessarily think that's true. For one, Christians have a long history of ignoring specific parts of Old Testament teaching. After all, it's been quite some time since Christians observed Old Testament dietary rituals or sacrifical teachings. The Old Testament is supposed to aid in the understanding of the New Testament, but just about all Christians believe that the word of Jesus Christ (i.e. - the Gospels) supersedes all other religious works, particularly the teachings of the Old Testament. And whether or not Christians should even consider the Old Testament as canonical has been explosive several times over the past 2000 years. Thus, the inherit contradictions in the Bible should be resolved as often as possible by the sayings of Jesus Christ, as he is the Savior and the dilverance of man. After all, what we know as the Bible didn't come to exist until the Council of Carthage in the 4th century. Certain holy texts were left out, even though they are still considered sacred. Furthermore, the Protestant Bible leaves out certain books from the Catholic Bible--Christians have never been opposed to re-mapping or re-interpreting their holy scripture. Plus, there's the issue of translation and accuracy from the original Hebrew/Aramaic texts. Often, texts we used today were first translated into Greek and then into other European languages. We've also been known to do a good bit of contextualizing of the Bible throughout history in order to reconcile religion with our daily realities (divorce, anyone?). That's one of the great frustrations over homosexuality--Jesus didn't actually say anything regarding homosexuals, so the lines are less clear. That's why the story of the adultress in the Book of John is so appealing to everyone... "he who hath not sinned" and all (John 8:7). Of course, people often leave out John 8:11, where Jesus tells the adultress to go and leave her life of sin. And of course, there's Matthew 7:1 which states, "Judge not, that ye be not judged." Which is one lesson Jesus left behind that I think a lot of Christians seem to be forgetting. All in good time, I suppose. This is actually a pretty interesting discussion.

I don't think the Book of Psalms mentions homosexuality? It's not mentioned in Matthew, either, IIRC (where the meek shall inherit the Earth is mentioned again). Remember, the Bible is a canonical volume, not a book, per se. Edit: I have a feeling I'm being overly pedantic in what was a light-hearted discussion. If so, I apologize, but I still feel that in this case the splitting of a few hairs is justified for bolstering the case for romantics everywhere.

1. YOUR MOVIE STAR NAME: (grandmother's/father's first name + favorite snack): Richard Frito. 2. YOUR FASHION DESIGNER NAME: (first word you see on your left + favorite restaurant): Sky Sonnys. 3. YOUR SOCIALITE NAME: (silliest childhood nickname + first town where you partied): Tomate Greenville. 4. YOUR "FLY GIRL/GUY" NAME: (first initial + first three letters of your last name): J Deb. 5. YOUR ROCK STAR NAME: (favorite candy + favorite musicians last name): Snickers Lennon. 6. YOUR STAR WARS NAME: ( first 3 letters of your last name+ last 3 letters of mothers middle name /+/ first 3 letters of your pets name + first 3 letters of the town you live in): Debnne Tangre 7. YOUR NORSE NAME: (first 4 letters of your name + the second of your surname) Jonae.

I see your point, but I was simply supporting the original poster's observation that Dom's protagonists are passive, regardless of why they are that way. They are human, true... but there are all types of humans. Passive and non-passive. I'm not, however, saying Dom needs to change his characters. He may choose to try to adjust his style to speed up his narrative, but that's his choice. I think where I failed to make the connection in my argument is that Dom chooses passive protagonists--no matter how he constructs them--for stylistic reasons. I'm just discussing why that (a passive protagonist, that is) can be problematic from the standpoint of a writer and how a writer (including Dom) gets around them. And what I feel the implications of those choices are on his style of writing. For instance, Dom spends a LOT of time building strong secondary characters, so they can be used to advance his more passive narrator. Which is great because we feel like we know the other characters, but it's also frustrating because it takes a lot of time to build up characters that may only be transient or serve only one specific purpose in the protragonist's life. It's a trade off, and when you choose a first-person perspective I think that makes it even tougher... to develop secondary characters where your reader feels like they know those characters OUTSIDE of the perception of just the main character. And being able to do that attests to Dom's skill as a writer. I'd like to know if that was taught, gained from experience, or wielded through gut instinct if I ever get the time to talk to Dom myself. If you've ever noticed, a lot of writers resort to multiple first-person narration when they come up against the wall of character development. And Dom hasn't. And I haven't even started talking about what effects I think a chapter publication system has on the work of an author publishing on the Internet. It's just... I guess what I'm saying (or defending) is that by discussing the why certain stylistic choices are "problematic," doesn't mean that the style being problematic is a negative. Does that make sense? Because with all types of character development and with all types of characters... there are unique problems and different ways to deal with those problems. I absolutely agree. He's not a perfect writer (and as someone who has written myself, I'm sure he knows that far more acutely than anyone), and any good writer should be open to constructive criticism. But if I didn't feel that what he was writing had any value... well, I wouldn't be wasting my time writing a short literary criticism of his work.

I cannot speak for Rigel, but as a newcover to Dom's stories I thought I would step in to express my own viewpoint. I really think, if anything, you're arguing Rigel's point for him, because you simply list reasons why they are passive without refuting the original claim that they are indeed passive. Obviously, it would be totally inaccurate to simply label a protagonist character as completely passive. However, I think it is a fair judgment to state that Rory, Quinn, and Owen all display major passive characteristics, regardless of the reasons. Rory refuses to ask questions about anything--his surroundings, the sexuality of those he lives with, his own feelings towards his mother and father--even when prompted by those around him. The defintion of being passive is to be unresponsive to an action directed toward you--how many times has Rory been faced with a question or truth and not responded in the obvious manner? Typically, he shuts down or runs away. I mean, the kid is the poster child for "Passive Aggressive." And his father ain't too different, himself. Owen and Quinn exhibit many of the same qualities, though I believe to a lesser degree because as they develop as characters they become less passive and more of an active participant in their own lives. Quinn in a somewhat irrational, schizophrenic manner. The result is a dramatic tension that slips opportunisticly into melodrama at the appropriate moments. And that's not bad. There's nothing wrong with a passive character, but by nature a passive protagonist is in many ways problematic because the protagonist traditionally moves the drama forward instead of being moved forward by it. Which is often the case with Dom's writing. For me, and this is also open to tonal intepretations, it creates a tension on the page (or screen) between the reader and the main character because of what the character knows and what the reader knows, even though they are looking through the same pair of eyes. Which is interesting, when you think that Dom has managed to create a quasi-omniscient reading through a limited, first-person point-of-view. Which creates a subtle undercurrent of irony through the entire work because the protagonist's actions often seem unrational because what we as the audience know is so much more substantial than what the protagonist knows. The reverse current, though, is what Rigel identifies in his original post: the feeling of stasis and/or hubris that develops around the main character as readers wait chapters for the action foreshadowed far before. Which heightens anticipation, which often spills over into downright frustration as a reader. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily. But the constant expectation is exhausting at times. I myself will admit to skimming (and I usually go back to re-read because of my acute sense of literary guilt) because my mind already knows the mental state of each character during said scene, and I'm ready to move on to the inevitable climax (or climaxes, as the case may be). And so there comes a moment where you want to reach through the screen into the imaginative beyond, grab young Rory by the shoulders, and yell, "Wake up, man! Do something!" Thus, you've literally been sucked into Dom's world, which is authorial genius. He just runs the risk of the reader eventually feeling like there is no one DOING anything and not reading any more. I mean, think about the disjoint between when the reader realizes that Eddie and Jase are a couple (with the original photo) and Rory figuring it out--not on his own, I might add. Seven chapters! Seven chapters of not even asking a question. Of not even going to his father's bedroom (or the attic, which he has yet to visit). And after all that anticipatory drama, one has to wonder when we'll slip into the realm of an anti-climatic literary climate. At the end of the day, it's Dom's story, but there are problems with just about every literary angle with which a story is pursued. You just have to mitigate the minefield, is all. In the publishing world, that's why we have editors. (And no, I'm not stating Dom needs an editor, but I will say that it probably wouldn't be a bad idea just for the inevitable typo.) That's what this forum does on the Internet--or should do--collectively back edits a body of work. The only problem (or perhaps the best thing) is that the original work still sits there, uneditted and unfinished for future readers. Pretty interesting stuff to think about, really.