# My World



## marinadawnrose (Oct 12, 2014)

I'm interested in any feedback concerning my world.

One sleepless night, thoughts began streaming through my mind regarding a world in a parallel universe.  I was compelled to write them down.  I created a blog about these thoughts.  It is located here:

marinadawnrose


----------



## WooHooMan (Oct 12, 2014)

I don't know if "offended" is the right word but this whole thing made me a little uneasy.

The notion that AIDS is punishment from a polygamist deity against "Africa"? 
I also feel like your views towards Christianity might be a little inaccurate but I can't say that's the major issue with you "parallel universe".
Beyond that, you just spent the article talking about the gods' sexuality and familial structure.

You'd have a very hard time selling this to anyone.  It reads more like a cult's brochure than a fantasy setting.


----------



## Tom (Oct 19, 2014)

I'm being honest here, marinadawnrose. Please know I mean this with kindness and concern. 

As a Christian, I was slightly disturbed by your writings. As I read, I got the feeling you might be writing this to rebel against Christianity, or since you said you were "compelled" to write this, you are possibly being influenced by dark supernatural forces. I have experienced both of these myself. Both are truly frightening and isolating situations.

Please understand that I'm genuinely concerned for you. If you are having thoughts or compulsions that aren't your own, or are feeling frightened, find someone to pray for you and help you through it. As I write this, I'm praying for you myself.


----------



## psychotick (Oct 19, 2014)

Hi,

First your world is horribly mixed up, taking names and bits and pieces from all sorts of sources and throwing them together in a way that does not make sense. It will confuse anyone familiar with the three main Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam.) It may well cause offence to some.

The bit about AIDS and gay men being punished for female genital mutilation makes no sense what so ever.

And above all else - do not publish a work involving well known singers and actresses such as Melissa Etheridge and Sandra Bullock by name as fictional characters without their permission. The potential to be sued is enormous.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 20, 2014)

Please do not inject personal attacks into threads.


----------



## George Lightgood (Oct 20, 2014)

If you wish to go down this path, I'd suggest being very wary. It is a thin line between using "real" issues to make a world come alive and "preaching" on whatever subject you believe in. People rarely read fiction, particularly Fantasy, so that they can be proselytized to. 

For a good example of a parallel universe with religions and races that are enough like our own as to be recognizable, look at Glen Cook's Black Company world. Not only does he provide enough similarity to provide a mental "anchor point" to reality, if you will, he does it in a way that will not offend anyone. I should say, offend few, as there are obvious _wingbats_ that get offended by anyone with an idea different from their own.

It *should* be, and is, antithetical to communication in general and fiction specifically to be so very Orwellian. But in today's politically correct society, it is easy to become the target of one of the Advocate Group Mafias that go after people with whom they disagree. At least be ready for the firestorm you potentially bring. That is what these groups want: people to fear speaking, or writing, anything controversial. 

Look at the "twitter" versions of public tar and feathering in the form of "shaming", for one example. It happens all the time, be it group shout downs of speakers with differing viewpoints or throwing pies in the face of people  with whom they disagree or the focus of a boycott campaign. 

One sees it consistently and it is a sad fact of life. Just be mentally prepared for vitriol and close-minded ignorance bordering on mindless hatred if you espouse a view that "offends" certain groups. It is a constant presence in the media to further some political agenda.

This forum, based upon the genre and the fact it is comprised of people who read books by choice, probably has a reasonable intelligence level. Most here can imagine alternate views (or tolerate them), to a degree, so here represents a small focus group. Readers and writers are historically one of the last bastions of free thinkers.

Don't forget, however, there are vast swaths of humanity that, aside from knowing how to work the latest I Phone or name the latest Pop star/athlete scandal, are stupider than a baggie of dung. That does not make them harmless. The opposite actually, because one cannot reason with them. 

They have few original thoughts, but can parrot whatever narrative they have been programmed with. They will dogmatically blow up like cows stampeding in a thunder storm -- they don't know why they are running, but everyone around them is so they do, too.

Those people campaign, vote, protest or whatever and have no real concept of why other than they have been manipulated to do so by a few agent provocateurs. Just be aware if you poke a stick down the wrong hole.


----------



## Devor (Oct 20, 2014)

I couldn't read past the first paragraph.

I don't care about a setting.  I care about a character's journey.  A character could well have a great journey through a horribly offensive setting.  But based on the replies here, the paragraph that I read, and a brief skim through, all you have is a horribly offensive setting.

Take some time, dream up some characters, figure out what kind of character growth you have and how that growth comments on your setting.  Then _maybe_ you can still create something worthwhile out of this.


----------



## George Lightgood (Oct 21, 2014)

In my post below, I *was NOT defending* certain premises in the story outline. 

I want to clarify that I was addressing the controversy the original post would cause and the consequences behind it, but was referring to the RIGHT to say unpopular things and the potential fall out. 

As writers we need to be at the vanguard of defending the freedom of speech. The day that writers themselves begin self censorship, is the day that writing no longer matters. History is full of writers and books on unpopular subjects and controversy.

If anyone got the idea that I was agreeing with certain inflammatory premises made in the OP link, then I apologize sincerely for my lack of clarity. Likewise, if I misunderstood the thread's purpose, then again, _Mea culpa._


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 21, 2014)

George Lightgood said:


> As writers we need to be at the vanguard of defending the freedom of speech. The day that writers themselves begin self censorship, is the day that writing no longer matters. History is full of writers and books on unpopular subjects and controversy.



I was thinking much the same thing when I read the original post over the weekend. I was concerned the thread might turn into a bunch of posts condemning the OP, but it says a lot about our forums that that hasn't happened.

The setting doesn't offend me. There are aspects to it that are interesting and it could certainly serve as the basis for alternate-world development. The AIDS angle is, in my view, a bit stupid in its conception for a number of reasons - historical timing, demographics of the disease, affected parties, etc. all make this kind of a lame idea, particularly with the rationale the author uses to explain it. I'm not saying there's no way it could possible work, because I think almost anything has a possibility of working, but the idea is dumb enough to me in its initial conception that the foundation for it, and how it is handled in the work, would have to be so amazing that it blows my mind before I think I'd go with that particular story line.


----------



## Waz (Oct 22, 2014)

I have to agree with WooHooMan that your ideas seem more cultic than fantastical. Honestly, I would not be interested a story like this.

If you want to create a story from the dreams, I recommend dropping any celebrity, historical figure, or deity names. Easing up a bit on the sexual aspect of the deities would also make it more approachable. I would create a new pantheon of gods similar to that of ancient Greeks, and then use that as a platform for a unique story.


----------



## Jabrosky (Oct 22, 2014)

George Lightgood said:


> I want to clarify that I was addressing the controversy the original post would cause and the consequences behind it, but was referring to the RIGHT to say unpopular things and the potential fall out.
> 
> As writers we need to be at the vanguard of defending the freedom of speech. The day that writers themselves begin self censorship, is the day that writing no longer matters. History is full of writers and books on unpopular subjects and controversy.


You do understand that freedom of speech doesn't preclude others calling you out when you say something offensive, don't you? Maybe the OP has the right to claim that AIDS is a divine punishment against African "barbarism", but then we also have the right to state our objection to her claims. Freedom of speech goes both ways.


----------



## George Lightgood (Oct 22, 2014)

Jabrosky said:


> You do understand that freedom of speech doesn't preclude others calling you out ...



I agree with your statement 100%, Jabs, that freedom of speech should go both ways and am crystal clear on what freedom of speech should mean _(though too often no longer does)_. 

It is unclear to me what gave you the idea I do not understand. It seems that you and I are on the exact same page insofar as the freedom of speech and its consequences. Am I wrong? Maybe you misread _(or I mis-wrote)_ something.

My first post on the thread addressed the ramifications of speaking out and the consequences of doing so. That is a byproduct of ones Right to say what you think. Saying or writing something may attract the ire of a group of people and their freedom of speech. 

Organized shout-downs of unpopular speakers _(or the pie in the face)_ against those of opposing views have nothing to do with freedom of speech. Except the suppression of it. I think the South Park episode, Tolerance Camp, demonstrated the hypocrisy and irony much better than I can here. "We will not tolerate intolerance."

I also stand by the statement that, unfortunately, there are huge numbers of ignorant and easily manipulable people who will follow the herd in an apoplectic frenzy while having no grasp of the reasons why. 

In contrast, on this forum, there are likely people from most belief systems and almost all of them will have a good grounding as to why they believe as they do because they read and research. 

I did not personally agree with the OP's premises, but I wholeheartedly agree with his/her right to say it. 

Admittedly, the subject has veered way off the original thread, so I'll drop it.


----------

