Machine Gun Messiah: Apocalypse, Mon Amour

[Messiah]

.

I have added a new section - “Chick Litoris" - and performed a few minor tweaks in respect to the layout.



.

[Brett]

One of the most enjoyable installments for me. Liked this a lot, had me laughing many times. He hjas a very good point regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses (personally I invite them in, question why they give Judas such a bad time as without him there would be no Christianity and try to convert them into Guinness swilling, Hendrix loving decent chappies).

Typo - line 3: 'It's' should be 'its' ?

Cheers

Brett

[mark_sc]

Firstly – as ever – there seems to be an orchestration of spelling and grammatical errors. I’ve caught a couple of the more obvious examples for you.

“It’s” should be “its”, as in this instance “it” is a pronoun. These have their own possessive form. There are a number of websites which can explain the basics to you, if you’re unsure.

“Neighborhood” – why the modern American spelling of this? Are you American? Especially when you use the archaic "lissome" a few lines later instead of lissom. I think your prose needs some firmer consistency to really come up to standard.

“I wasn’t intending too” – should be “to” in this instance.

“Chic Lit” – do you mean “Chick Lit” – or do you actually mean “chic” lit – ie (presumably) literature which is stylish? Very confusing.

“She chuckled and picked up her empty glass. The breeze was cool, her delicious lips moist, and the Chateau Mouton Rothschild still buzzing delightfully through her veins.”
What tense are you writing in? Past or present? Unless you’re doing something purposefully experimental, you need to make a choice and stick to it.

"Mills and Boone" – obviously should be “Boon”

As for style, why is everyone smiling coquettishly or winking seductively? Feels like the Enid Blyton novels where all characters exclaim hello cheerily and eat their sandwiches hungrily. The dialogue is cringe inducing (is it supposed to be? Serious question – I may have missed that this is supposed to be a parody of something) and the jokes often don’t come off ("Fishy stories aside” for instance – a whale is a mammal, so this just doesn’t work on any level)

Finally, I can’t help but wonder what story this is actually telling. There’s no narrative – just a laboured rant about organised religion. Fair enough, I suppose – everyone is entitled to an opinion - but the religious contradiction is hardly a moving target. These arguments have been made time and time again and offer no revelation to anyone. As I mention above, perhaps it is a parody of somethine original. If not, maybe a blog to get these “insights” off your chest would be suitable than further attempts at fiction?

[Messiah]

I cannot help but wonder why it is that you follow me around like a puppy who cannot find his bone - or doesn't know what to do with it?!
Please go hither and bore someone else.
However, I will thank you most kindly for the typos. It is good to know that, even though you struggle to write, you certainly can read.

[mark_sc]

--

[Messiah]

I was going to say thank you, Brett, but am beginning to wonder if I can manage to extend even the merest of courtesies without finding myself drowning in a sea of tpyos.

[Messiah]

Following on from the deleted ( -- ) diatribe of marc_sc…

I've reviewed two pieces of your work - hardly "following" you around, is it?

Seeing as how you have chosen to dispute the validity of my claim, I feel that it is only prudent to lay a few facts down before you.

Yes, you have only reviewed two of my (many) works, but both of these came very quickly after I chose to review one of your efforts (Jan 5).
Secondly, during the period Jan 6 to Jan 10 your tiny contribution to the GW review process has been a mere two reviews, both of these against my works, leaving a big fat zero of your valued opinions posted against all of the other fabulous works on display here at Great Writing.
To my mind, this qualifies as tit for tat reviewing. Two tits, in fact - with emphasis on tit.
So, yes, I do feel that your limited activity qualifies you as someone who is following me around: Otherwise known as a stalker - ooh, it makes me feel all famous! Time alone will tell if this is a trend that will continue.
Time, also, along with the interest shown in our works by our peers, will tell if this Great Writing site is the place for me, or, indeed, the place for you. I know who my money’s on.
However, if you can say, hand on heart, that your reviews of my work were genuine reviews, and not the actions of a wounded cur seeking only to hound the individual whose words left him an injured party, then I will happily withdraw my original claim - although, I still feel it’s emphasis on tit.
Were you pulled off too soon, I wonder? The tit, I mean, not… oh, please yourselves!

And now it’s time for… EDUCATE THE IGNORANT
With your host… SPIRITUS SANCTI

If something is “fishy” it means that there is something suspicious about it.
Therefore, a “Fishy Story” is something that should be considered somewhat lacking in truth - it has nothing to do with aquatic mammals.
The Bible states that Jonah was swallowed by a “Big Fish”, not a whale, therefore Jason was correct in using the phrase “Fishy Story”.
It is only the likes of Eve (who is merely a dumb - when it suits her to be - blonde) and the feeble minded (check in the mirror) who believe that Jonah was swallowed by a whale.
Jason considers the majority of the Bible a fishy tale.
It only takes one nit to write a nitpick.

Best,
JC

[Mods]

Enough, guys... mark has posted his own chapters of one work, and reviewed 5 or 6 pieces of other people's. Stick to reviewing the writing, and if necessary agree to disagree. Getting personal doesn't help.

[Messiah]

Correction, and not wishing to be a pedant - but I've started so I'll finish - but since joining GW on Nov 4, and prior to his two (2) tit for tat reviews of my work, mark had posted 25 chapters of his own work yet offered only four (4) comments against the work of his peers:
Nov 13: University Stories
Nov 23: Pulling the Plug
Dec 3: Shoestring
Jan 1: Shoestring

Therefore, one whole third of his contribution as a reviewer has been against my work.

Please feel free to explore how this stacks up against my contribution to the review process, and then tell me who it was that made it personal.

[mark_sc]

Actually, Steve, I think you're right - Great Writing isn't the place for me.

After you've called me a "tit", "nit" and "feeble minded", I think I've upset you so much that you've been reduced to playground insults, rather than discussion about writing. Never intended to rile you so much, despite your claim that you came to cast conflict. Still - you can console yourself with the fact that you "won".

I maintain my 2 reviews of you work were genuine, but I shall now withdraw from the site, and take my posts down over the next few days.

Good luck to all