Talk:Earth's Revolt/@comment-26193563-20150615232846/@comment-30868798-20170101142634

Don't look at what you think should be happening. The things that were "wrong" in the story are mostly your own personal preferences to how a story should go.

You're coming close to real analysis when you wonder at the protagonists' ire against people reaching out to God. However, you turn against yourself by starting a strange process of trying to change an already written work by insisting something else should happen instead. The protagonist "shouldn't" be more accepting about religion, because that's not what happens as written.

The scientific reason for the explanation of Earth's destruction not being written is not a "plot hole". The author did not see it as important; if it was, you could have read a full scientific paper attached as a PDF. You don't need to drag something irrelevant into the analysis. Perhaps the lack of an explanation is the key in reading the story!

When people start analysing a work of text, they almost always start on the side of cold logic and scientific research (why something happened, what is the most logical explanation, how can we write it on paper). For this story, it does not matter at ALL why the Earth is being blasted apart; the key is story-contained references, and character analysis.

You feeling outraged at all of Earth dying is nonsensical in the context of literary criticism. It's on the same level as giving a movie a worse review because the seats in the cinema were uncomfortable. Remove yourself from the context of the story, and dedicate your thought only to it.

For my actual take on the story: It's interesting that the same kind of cold, logical analysis of occurring events replicates itself in the story. As the narrator derides people for trying to get closer to God, he is, at the same time, being delivered unto heaven, although very literally and ironically.

Your critique was not quite a critique. Perhaps more like an opinion piece.