06-01-2016, 01:17 PM
@Caleb Murdock: I thank you for and fully appreciate your feedback! Responses:
It is supposedly the speaker's heart covered; I have changed it.
For a moment, I had forgotten the implications of "heart of stone", but I think the blend of meanings work well, and undoubtedly it makes the whole thing more true. That said, this isn't really meant to be some sort of indictment on piety, just on certain applications of it, which I am sure your friend may have forgotten.
The bare stone. I thought that was syntactically clear, but now I don't know.
@ambrosial revelation:
Most of them are, and that was my mistake. This was supposed to lean more Orthodox -- but anyway, the sense in following either one is what's meant here, so I'm not sure I need to change it. That is, until I consider a later point.....
And so my point on "heart of stone" having the right blend of meanings.
"stony heart" seems more correct, and I think I should have used it, instead, but it does seem repetitive, with rock getting the point across equally well (at least to me), and rock does add that element of St. Peter which, however unintended, is appropriate.
.....which is that all that imagery is supposed to invoke Orthodox icons. Browns of flesh was a simple description: most of the icons I've seen used browns and yellows for flesh, yet I've already put gold leaf in; and flecks, too, but in retrospect the wrong word. And so, I've changed the title to "Icon", although that feels equally inadequate -- perhaps "Fresco"? -- and changed "flecks of black" to "flashes of red", which keeps the sonics, while adding a fuller (and more symbolically appropriate) image.
I seem to have a problem with overlong sentences. The next clause could be a new sentence, sure, but I myself keep clumping it with its older brother, especially since "it" (and again, I really don't know how to clarify this) is supposed to still refer to the unpainted stony heart of the first. So, the change to semicolon, though, as with the title, it's not a satisfying one.
The kinder home to moss is the unoccupied stone -- explaining the specific meaning of the moss would be a cop-out, so I'll just say that you almost nailed how moss "knows only compromise", and leave it at that. Almost -- biologically speaking, it also tends to compromise its hosts -- and another more spiritual meaning that you didn't quite get.
It is surely "too much" for mild, but I tend to give too much even in novice, so I don't really care --- plus, the more the crit, the better, yes? And I enjoyed the read; it wasn't that {
} nonsensical, and, more importantly, it gave me a whole lot of relevant points to digest. Many thanks!
First edit posted up top; first draft spoiler'd.
It is supposedly the speaker's heart covered; I have changed it.
For a moment, I had forgotten the implications of "heart of stone", but I think the blend of meanings work well, and undoubtedly it makes the whole thing more true. That said, this isn't really meant to be some sort of indictment on piety, just on certain applications of it, which I am sure your friend may have forgotten.
The bare stone. I thought that was syntactically clear, but now I don't know.
@ambrosial revelation:
Most of them are, and that was my mistake. This was supposed to lean more Orthodox -- but anyway, the sense in following either one is what's meant here, so I'm not sure I need to change it. That is, until I consider a later point.....
And so my point on "heart of stone" having the right blend of meanings.
"stony heart" seems more correct, and I think I should have used it, instead, but it does seem repetitive, with rock getting the point across equally well (at least to me), and rock does add that element of St. Peter which, however unintended, is appropriate.
.....which is that all that imagery is supposed to invoke Orthodox icons. Browns of flesh was a simple description: most of the icons I've seen used browns and yellows for flesh, yet I've already put gold leaf in; and flecks, too, but in retrospect the wrong word. And so, I've changed the title to "Icon", although that feels equally inadequate -- perhaps "Fresco"? -- and changed "flecks of black" to "flashes of red", which keeps the sonics, while adding a fuller (and more symbolically appropriate) image.
I seem to have a problem with overlong sentences. The next clause could be a new sentence, sure, but I myself keep clumping it with its older brother, especially since "it" (and again, I really don't know how to clarify this) is supposed to still refer to the unpainted stony heart of the first. So, the change to semicolon, though, as with the title, it's not a satisfying one.
The kinder home to moss is the unoccupied stone -- explaining the specific meaning of the moss would be a cop-out, so I'll just say that you almost nailed how moss "knows only compromise", and leave it at that. Almost -- biologically speaking, it also tends to compromise its hosts -- and another more spiritual meaning that you didn't quite get.
It is surely "too much" for mild, but I tend to give too much even in novice, so I don't really care --- plus, the more the crit, the better, yes? And I enjoyed the read; it wasn't that {
} nonsensical, and, more importantly, it gave me a whole lot of relevant points to digest. Many thanks!First edit posted up top; first draft spoiler'd.