Hello netrov 
Greetings and Salutations!
I've read your story and wanted to provide feedback on it so you can continue to improve your writing. At least that is my wish in any comments I write here. Use what you wish, if you choose to edit this.
Why I thought I'd read your story. Well, I saw your suitcase on the Anniversary Review page and thought I'd drop in to honor this occasion, your 13th WDC Anniversary!
First Impressions: Wow, long, detailed, and hard to follow. I say hard to follow because you seemed to bounce around a bit in your thesis (you called it that early on), your thoughts in first one place, then another. In the first few paragraphs, you equate the Four Gospels to the seasons, and points on a compass. That's all well and good, but then you need to make points as to why you say this. As I read it, I saw you move from one Gospel to another as you wrote about things that happened during and after Jesus' life. To be honest, I couldn't get through the whole thing, I had to stop because I'd lost what you were trying to say. Or maybe I never knew your point, and what you were trying to say. My thoughts on this though, are that you need to tighten things up quite a bit. As I've said, your thoughts bounce from one Gospel to the next, from the New Testament to the Old, from quoting James Keifer to a link in the middle of the text. My specific notes are below.
Grammar: Well written, for the most part. Some of your sentences were very wordy, or poorly worded.
Areas To Consider Improving:
1. Find a starting point, and write about that. I think you could discuss the Gospel of Luke first for instance. Say all you have to say about his writing, then move on to Mark, John, etc. Put it in any order you want, but stick to one Gospel until you're done.
2. Once all four have been written about, summarize the differences briefly.
3. I don't think I'd quote anyone here, this is your thesis. Find the reference to James Keifer's comments, and provide that as a footnote, mentioning it at the end of the Gospel portion.
4. You go into far too much detail in the general discussion portion of this, and by bouncing around in the Four Gospels, you lose your readers. Make the comments about the Four Gospels specific, to the point. Stick to one at a time as I said. Then compare all four, but summarize in doing so.
General Comments:
1. A youth told the women to go on to Galilee where they would meet Jesus in person, but they told no one because they were afraid. You contradict yourself here. The youth told the women, but at the same time, told no one because they were afraid? Did you mean no one else?
2. Matthew was evidently incensed by the oppression enforced by the Hasmonean/Herodian and Sadducee-run establishment that controlled the religious, if not the political, order in Jerusalem. Matthew's nativity account incorporated references to Judea's near neighbours, Parthia (Persia) to the east and Egypt to the south west. So far, your thesis has discussed the New Testament only. After this passage here, you suddenly you shift to the Old Testament, and proceed to write about events that occurred long before Jesus birth. This should be a new chapter, and added once all discussion about the Gospels is complete.
3. To guard against this Astyages , when Cyrus was born, sent for his kinsman Harpagus, the steward of his property. whom he trusted more than anyone, and said to him: Worded awkwardly, very awkwardly. If I may suggest a minor edit here. To guard against this, when Cyrus was born Astyages sent for his kinsman Harpagus, the steward of his property, whom he trusted more than anyone, and said to him:
4. Herodotus, The Histories, in: Penguin Classics, Translated by Aubrey de Selincourt, 1974, P.87 This should be a footnote, not part of the thesis.
5. After this you proceed right back to the New Testament, but then quote James Keifer. You’re bouncing around a bit (a lot), and may lose some readers. I call it ‘shotgun’ writing. You’re not completing one subject before writing about a new one, then coming back to the original subject. After quoting James Keifer, you provide a link to another article, with no explanation as to why it’s there, why it’s pertinent, and what it might provide that you haven’t already discussed.
6. An anti-Roman implication in Matthew's stress on the triumphal and defiant aspect of the Resurrection, which could well be understood as a complete refutation of the Sadducees' disbelief in the possibility of a general resurrection of the dead, which the Pharisees affirmed, and, to boot, the Sadduccees were closely allied to Herod, and Herod to the Romans. You lost me here, until I realized that “in Matthew’s” should be “is Matthew’s”. This is still poorly worded though, too long, too wordy. Break it into 2-3 sentences.
I apologize, but I had to stop at about this point. First, I had no desire to seemingly cut this apart. Secondly, I'd been at this for an hour already, and could see that it would be another 2 hours at least before I could finish it.
Overall impressions: An interesting discussion of the Gospels in the New Testament. It needs a lot of editing TLC for it to achieve future high ratings.
Sum1
 WDC POWER RAIDER
|
| (3.5)
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
My review has been submitted for consideration in "
