I need help with the last line, if anyone could help?

How about: “We did not love each other nor could we, for such…”?

Some other observations: Is “narrow-minded” really the word you want in the first sentence? It doesn’t seem quite right. Nor does the word “cavorting”. In the second paragraph, why is a group of psychiatrists given to discuss heart transplants? Seems odd.

i think you meant filling me WITH lust..

yeah i was curious why this group discussed hearts too.. I thought perhaps with their penthouse lives, they’d embellish stories about ‘members’ and ‘melons’.

And lastly, I bet gabe gives you 5 before he reads this comment…

Haha. I’ve been having trouble with some of the words…

Note: I often think like this. Would Gabriel give me a 5 for my brain juice? :P

I decided not on ‘members’ and ‘melons’ for these are the top notch. Anyhow I was disregarding a viewpoint. I chose Stendhal Syndrome instead because it is a syndrome in which one is, in a way, stupefied by beauty – in Hollywood, an afflicted person would never move :)

Lots of big words. Shows how people change with what’s new and cool in society, this was enjoyable. Affairs are always nice.

However, to be completely honest with you, I got sort of bored reading this. Maybe because I’m a dialogue kinda guy.

Anyhow, good job on the character I could feel her state of mind.

aww, he did that on purpose!

Did not!

Did not!

Did not!

good choice on the syndrome. and its not that I doubt their intelligence, but I suspect even elite doctors have juvenile bouts of testosterone filled banter…

Oh, I thought today would be the day…

Just explain the Catholic priest remark to me, please.

I’m sure you know what I mean _
I’m not saying I beleive it but the fact is these stories go around…

I think that you mean some priests turned out to be paedophiles and the church compounded this by making some wrong decisions, therefore I am going to brand all priests as paedophiles because they are now an easy target.

I liked your story in general, but I find your stereotyping of the priesthood to be deeply offensive. Given you state “any Catholic priest”, you are clearly tarring all with the same brush.

Maybe your protagonist was abused by a priest; if so, say “Father Smith” rather than “any priest”, please. Better yet, choose someone who is not such an easy target.

I am not the protagonist.

I never suggested you were.

I believe that by using the phrase “any Catholic priest”, the implication is clear that it’s the worst extreme being talked about.

Now, if it had been put in this way – “beyond which every Catholic priest thought they could fathom” – then you’d have a legitimate point.

Even so, since the topic of Catholic priests is based on some facts and many rumors, it would be fitting for a character that might indulge in rumors to have a stereotype view of priest – and that would fit with the story.

You dislike what you imagine to be THE CHARACTER’S stereotyping of Catholic priests. So – feel free to dislike the character.

Don’t get offended at the author.

Agreed with RoseTone, but also offensiveness if part of life. Anything has the ability to be offensive, but people don’t withdraw books from print because some people are offended by a point made in the book.

Just to be clear, I stated my opinion. I find the Catholic priests == paedophiles association to be deeply offensive. That is my opinion. At no point did I suggest that PJ (or anyone else) should alter or censor his work, and there’s plenty of room in society for upsetting people. Getting people out of their comfort zones is what good writing is all about.

You’re completely at liberty not to care that I find it offensive, as I am at liberty to point out my reaction to a single sentence in an otherwise enjoyable story. Personally, I am sick of people conflating priest with pervert and I merely ask that PJ (and others) consider choosing a target that is rather less clichéd next time.

As for getting upset with the character’s stereotyping of the priesthood, the character only does what the author writes. I’d be more impressed with a more original model of lust-after-young-boys. One that makes me think and not just “it’s priests again”.

In our culture – what more well-known model is there?

Yes, it’s controversial, but so are other statements – example, it could’ve been “beyond that which Michael Jackson could fathom.” But, of course, people might take issue with that as well.

What example, to depict and imply ilicit, passionate lust, would you have chosen? (It is not enough to state that you think it could be written better, give an example of HOW)

PJ created a believable character.

All right – if not priests, and something “rather less clichéd”, while still being just as clear (in the imagery it inspires) and with the same impact – then what?

Gary Glitter is the first name that springs to mind…

I didn’t picture this as a Garry Glitter age, mainly from the name Tibbs which inflicts something more 50s.

Said protagonist is not original; in fact until Hollywood he was the depiction of bland and Tibbs is his escape. He is conformist and I am sure Gary Glitter would not spring to mind.

woah…peace guys. It’s just a story is it not? And a good one at that. Nice character…
x