[This message has been edited by debhoag (edited June 09, 2008).]

I didn't realise that Hawking was about God (as well as physics), so I learned something today--thanks!

One nit: "But when I was face-to-face ..." sounds a bit passive to me.

Wups, another nit" "...the guy who ..."?

The "NAFTLT" mention is a bit jarring (I think because I can't figure out how they'd say it; I wanted to subvocalise it as "naftilt" but that sounds, er, naff, as we say around here) but I could live without knowing what it means for a short while.

Nice title, too.

If you can wait a week or so for a crit, I'd love to read it.

Sounds cool. I'll be glad to read it when you're ready.

I did a brief google search on "Hawking atheist" or some such and it seemed to me that all camps--atheist, Christian, agnostic--wanted to "own" him. I felt but could not prove that he believes that if you're going to deal with the Big Bang and the Answer to Everything at some point you have to confront your beliefs in God or whatever or whomever. Quite what his beliefs are I could not establish--there were several references to him being an atheist, and another describing him as angry to be so characterised.

Deb, I hope we're not derailing your thread into a discussion of Hawking's philosophy, do stop us if it's not relevant.

Haven't seen your story yet in e-mail so I'm assuming it's still in the writing.

Cheers, and this sounds like a real interesting story ('cos I know you bring decent thoughtful research into your stories)
Pat

The first sentence of the excerpt begins in second person then switches to first person in the remainder. Switching immediately to first person did flow smoothly, but I lost whatever vestige of emotional investment I'd made in the first sentence. As such, it hung out in limbo on it's own.

In this excerpt, the second person of the first sentence diminishes the directness of the declarative statement and conditional phrasing further weakens its premise. I prefer firm and convincing statements.

When second person addresses the reader, I find it unpleasant, like it's telling me what to think. Second person in creative writing is best for self-reflexive addresses to the self of the narrator.

Second person allows the deepest psychic access. Self-reflexive thoughts occur at the level of conscience, where the conflict is internal and ambivalently contentious. I picture a second person internal conflict as a cartoon demon on one shoulder and an angel on the other. They argue for preeminence in the thoughts of the narrator. Second person stories are burdensome to read, even when they're self-reflexive, and should be very short for best results.

First person allows for close psychic access as well, though at a shallower level than second person, about at the level of consciousness. First person voice is ideal when the narrator has an internal conflict that's at the core of the story's literal meaning. God and Devil opposition in internal conflicts are as potent as life and death are in external conflicts. The external conflict and the internal conflict are related in the excerpt. For me, that's a sufficient hook to want to read on.

The inciting moment is begun but not completed causally. A desire to make a decision is conveyed, although the desire itself is in conflict. That's well done. The desire probably will lead to an action that causes an emotional reaction, an effect, which might in turn continue the introduced train of causation, all to the good of the story.

In general, my reaction is ambivalent. The start is on flat ground, but builds a smidgeon of steam soon thereafter.

"the whole point of physics is to prove with mathematical certainty that God exists" is a declaration that physics seeks to prove that God exists.

"If you" is a conditional imperative qualifier that implies reading of Hawking's publications is necessary to understand physics proves God exists. If being the conditional word.

I've read a lot of Hawking. I don't agree that he or physics attempts to prove the existence of God. The sentence was telling me to believe something other than what I believe. I didn't care for it.

When second person voice tells a reader what to believe, it's presumptive. Second person is oftentimes cast in an imperative tenor. It will instantly turn me off. I know the intent wasn't to tell me what to think. The form of second person in the example takes a softened approach, yet it is in an imperative tenor.

Self-reflexive second person is when a narrator carries on an interior dialogue that introspectively examines the circumstances of a story exclusively from the narrator's emotionally charged perspective.

Psychic access is the amount of access a narrator has to the thoughts of the characters. In first person, psychic access is to the entire range of the narrator's thoughts, though generally limited to surface thoughts, and in limited access to other characters' thoughts.

In second person self-reflexive, the amount of access is the same as first person, but generally deeper into the narrator's introspection and more limited in access to other characters' thoughts due to emotional self-involvement.

Third person allows for a wide range of access to character thoughts, from the omniscient everyone and anything to severly limited superficial access through nonverbal cues like gestures and expressions.

Conflicts are the opposing problems and purposes of the protagonist's desires or goals. God and Devil represent the conflict of good and evil.

An internal conflict is one a narrator, a point of view character, or a protagonist has with their own emotional issues. An internal conflict is a desire that is typicaly worked out in the story internally.

An external conflict is one a focal character has with external opposing forces or opposing characters or perhaps the entire cosmos opposing the protagonist's desires or goals.

The inciting moment of a story is when plot movement begins and tension rises from the emotionally neutral baseline. The inciting moment involves the start of causation and upsetting the equilbrium of the story through introduction of conflicting forces like purpose opposed by problems.

Causality, causation, cause and effect (action and reaction), are all names for one of the three attributes of plot. Causation drives the linear movement of plot in a relevantly connected train of cause-effect, cause-effect, and so on.

The three driving attibutes of plot are causation, opposition, and emotional tension.

Maybe not naming Hawking is the answer.

If you read enough about physics you'll become convinced that physicists are trying to prove...

It's like with Einstein, people take his use of the word "God" as proof that he was religious, when that is patently false.

Funny timing this post as I have just posted a story about physics and God as well. very different though. Send yours along when done; I owe you a crit.

Not much to offer on Hawking's religious beliefs, or lack of. I think other cosmologists have used physics to suggest the necessity of God (Nigel Calder comes to mind, the title I remember is “The Key to the Universe” - an older title). Maybe cop out of the debate with a generic but safe “If you read some modern physicists”)?

Don't know why, but the God and the Devil line sticks a little for me. Perhaps the repetition of God? “I don't dwell on metaphysics, overmuch” might be a smoother alternative.

“Face to face with the guy that made”? Unless you mean to suggest that God sustains the universe from moment to moment. Profound theological point, or typo

I'd kill the comma between “responsibility” and “and”.

“If he's telling the truth, of course.” is a killer line. I like it lots.

In his Telegraph article, Hawking recalls that and says his need to find answers to the fundamental questions about our existence remains undiminished, 20 years on.

“I thought, when I wrote A Brief History of Time, that we would one day know the mind of God: indeed, I gave the odds as 50/50 that a theory of everything would emerge by the millennium. But although we made a lot of progress, our ultimate goal still seems about the same distance away. I have revised my expectations downwards: I still think there’s a good chance of finding the theory by the end of the century, but there’s rather more of this one left.

“Physicists love to explain how our universe arose and how it works,” he writes. “We understand enormous amounts about it. But when we are asked how it all came to be, we don’t have one single answer – at least not yet.

“At a conference on cosmology at the Vatican, the Pope told the delegates that it was OK to study the universe after it began; however, they should not enquire into the beginning itself, because that was the moment of creation and the work of God. I was glad he didn’t realise I had already presented a paper at the conference investigating precisely that issue: I didn’t fancy the thought of being handed over to the Inquisition like Galileo.”

I'm still going to try to track down the original book and pertinent quotes(I can't believe it came out 20 years ago). If I do, I'll post it.

And I have to ask...how in the world do "religions" talk about god/God in any single way that excludes the definition above? I hope at least some of them can believe in God encompassing logic and universal harmony and the universe.

Generalization is a hot-button for me, but I have no intention of derailing the conversation--just challenging that statement. Big thinkers can't limit themselves to preconceived ideas of things, but that doesn't mean they can't interact with them in ways that make sense to those still working with those conceptualizations.

There is a sameness in the voice of your beginnings. You start out making some allogory about something, discuss some interesting theme and then follow that around to your precise, 13th line hook. The story proper, however, then starts again, following some other tenor, works in the information of the opening but not necessarily the tone. It seems as if you have cottoned on to an opening that works, but has now become a formula.

Welcome back, by the way.