all very worthy
but did you actually read the story? It rather stands on its own merits, theology aside.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Fri 13 Aug 2010, 11:57, 1 reply)

No it doesn't.
It's utter drivel.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 14 Aug 2010, 11:37, closed)

Oh, really - I hadn't realised that bioethics incorporated literary criticism.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Sat 14 Aug 2010, 16:33, closed)

I'm not speaking as a bioethicist particularly.
I'm speaking as someone - anyone - with a half-functioning brain.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 14 Aug 2010, 21:47, closed)

Speaking as a lecturer, I guess you're entitled to dismiss the intelligence of others - in which case, I wonder why you freely admit to having a 'half-functioning brain'; I assume you were implying that those who liked this little story would be intellectually defficient, but grammatically, you've actually argued the opposite. For my part, I've not done badly, academically-speaking - I've gone as far as an MSc (scholarship), via a BA, and only turned down the doctorate (fully funded) because I was bored of uni at that point. Perhaps that final step is the one that separates those with a fully-functioning brain from those with a mere half. I would note, however, that I took several modules from your stomping-ground (philosophy) as an interesting, easy-going aside from a course that actually demanded some effort.

Your arrogance is outstanding. Have you ever tried to write? I have. It's tricky, and short-stories are the hardest to accomplish. The subject of religion aside, this one is quite well done, but the massive chip on your shoulder prevents you from seeing beyonf the "OMG IT MENTIONS GOD!!!11!!eleventy!!!22" aspect of things.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Sat 14 Aug 2010, 23:06, closed)

This is the last one before I give up on this thread, I think - I don't think we're getting anywhere.
I think that the egg-think behind the link is awful, awful writing. It's also intellectually vacuous - mental mogadon. I'm baffled as to how anyone, irrespective their academic record, can see any virtue in it.

I can't comment on your experience of academic philosophy: if you found it easy, good for you. Plenty of people don't. Some people have a natural aptitude for it; others have an aptitude for maths, or languages, or biology, or whatever. I'm not quite sure what that adds to the debate in this thread, though.

Of course writing's tricky. I'm a pretty good academic writer, but I suck at most non-academic writing; I know it's difficult. The person who wrote this piece demonstrates that. I don't see what's arrogant about making a claim that it's terrible; you don't have to be a decent writer yourself to be able to comment on others' writing, any more than you have to be a baker to tell when the toast is burning.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sun 15 Aug 2010, 18:50, closed)

I didn't suggest you were arrogant for disliking the story - that's your perogative. Rather, I suggested you were arrogant for proclaiming that anyone who might not agree with your position must be mentally deficient. This is where the mention of my dabbling in philosophy came in; I quite liked the story, and yet am almost-certainly using both hemispheres.

I have no idea if it's been done before, but I quite liked the concept of there not being any humanity, as such - or rather, all of humanity as one being, and that being happens to be the offspring of some undefined higher power who invented the entire universe simply to train his kid. I'm not suggesting there's any previously-unrevealed truth here, any deeper meaning, but I did quite enjoy it for what it was.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Mon 16 Aug 2010, 2:01, closed)