Truth be told, I really think K needs you more than me though. And then njc. And then Dirk. They know it's true, but they'll never admit it.
This is what I get the day after writing Aussie's second appearance? Does the word "snip" mean anything to you? Although you did list me third, so that's a backhanded compliment.
Chapters 6 - 8 are up. Ch. 6 is a slightly modified version of the Galactipedia - New Bethlehem article, including a few extra paragraphs at the end to flesh out the society a bit more before we get to ch. 7. Ch. 7 is a redo of v2's "I Will Shake the Universe", which contains the trial of the traitors who attacked Joseph and his parents at the palace. It also includes the unveiling of Joseph's destiny. The biggest change is Joseph's homophobia and its consequences for Andrew. Also, Aussie makes her first reappearance (in the epigraph) since ejecting from Windsor's ship in Ch. 1. Ch. 8 is the Galactipedia - Rise of the Julii article that I had up out of sequence. I think only Seabrass reviewed the original before I took it down. It's essentially unchanged, except for the Further Reading section.
Quick, go read!
Thanks
Dirk
Perhaps a Pope's skullcap, although word has it he only gives those to fast-acting three-year-olds. Glue on some gold streamers for bangs and you're all set.
Funny thing. As the opinions were rolling in, I realized I needed to change the sentence, eliminating the need for this post. :-)
If you're curious, the final version is:
Your destiny is to create a new paradise across the stars for all humanity. You won’t just prevent the Apocalypse, you will end all suffering everywhere.
Thanks to all for their input.
Oh, wow, Amy. I'm so sorry. Barely know what to say. I hope everything goes well.
I think caps would work for King where there's clear context (the reader knows we're talking about Joseph), just as the reader would know Regent is Joseph's mother. Otherwise, you get things like: I'm king and my mother was the Regent. That makes it seem like Regent is more important than king.
Based on that, "No king (among many) and much less a regent (among many) has ever pardoned a traitor" should use lowercase for both, since that's the only thing that reads right.
If I understand you correctly, you're definitely saying that "no king (among many)" should be lowercase.
That suggests "You will become a Prophet, not a King" should be "You will become a prophet, not a king." However, that still leaves cases like "You will become a prophet, not the (one) King." So be it.
Let me know if you disagree.
Thanks.
Dirk
No, I got that. Thanks.
Thanks. I went with njc's suggestion. I came across several more instances like this, and they're all clear with just the one comma.
I was wondering if someone can tell me which of the following is the correct (or best) way to use commas:
1. You will create a new paradise across the stars for all humanity and, with it, you will end all suffering everywhere.
2. You will create a new paradise across the stars for all humanity, and with it, you will end all suffering everywhere.
3. You will create a new paradise across the stars for all humanity, and, with it, you will end all suffering everywhere.
1 seems cleanest. However, I believe "and" is functioning as a conjunction, so that would suggest 2 or 3. I believe 3 is the only one that would have made it past my fifth grade English teacher.
Thanks
Dirk
Amy, I can't recall if there has been more than one Lance in your story's history, but if there were, would you refer to them as Lances or lances?
Thanks.
Dirk
K, I'm using caps for titles like Prophet, King, Regent, etc. using your "rule of one".
What would you do with the following: "You will become a Prophet, not a King"? Since it's 'a' Prophet and 'a' King, it's one of many, but the line clearly refers to Joseph's future, not anyone else's. Caps?
What about: "No King, much less a Regent, had ever pardoned a traitor"? Should King be capitalized in this case? In this case, Regent refers specifically to Joseph's mother, even though Joseph's POV is worded as "a" Regent, so I assume caps on the latter.
What about: "New Bethlehem is ruled by kings"? I assume lowercase.
Man do I hate this stuff.
Thanks
Dirk
I do have a court system, but high-profile treason cases are subject to inquisition and potential Senate trials.
I did give them a lawyer this time. 
I'm wondering how detailed to get with armed forces on New Bethlehem. In v2, I had just the Armed Forces and robots providing all forms of guarding and policing. In v3, I've added a separate Royal Guard for the Royal Family comparable to the US Secret Service, and the Regent deployed the Armed Forces to secure the Senate when the Imperium invaded early in the book.
It seems easy to add a separate police force, but then come questions like who guards the Senate, who guards the traitors, who guards the parade, who guards the funeral route, and who deploys into the havens during the second invasion? Robots will be everywhere, but they're always overseen by humans. Most of these could probably be handled by police, although it seems odd (to me) to use a police force to handle the public hanging of the traitors.
Thoughts?
I'd go with #3, but then I tend to be comma heavy in my writing.
I'll ping you when Aussie reappears. He's definitely going to have a kickass scene in the book's revised wrap-up chapter.
Are you planning to post your latest revision of NS, Janet?
Cool. Thank you. Much better.
Done. Damn that took forever.
Given its history with and proximity to the Imperium Romanum, New Bethlehem is under constant threat from plots to undermine or overthrow its government. For this reason, it has adopted strict rule of law as a means of defending itself from attack, giving the government broad powers to detain and interrogate citizens suspected of treason. The interrogations, known as inquisitions, are considered harsh by Realm standards. Those found guilty are executed by public hanging, as a clear warning to others. Although there is growing pressure from other Realm worlds to eliminate these practices, most inhabitants of the planet accept them as necessary to protect their world from the Imperium, which many believe is the literal realm of Satan. Proponents of the laws claim that capital punishment is consistent with the Bible, while opponents claim that, since Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Laws, capital punishment should be abolished, frequently quoting John 8:7 of the New Testament: “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” Overly vocal critics of New Bethlehem’s practices are often accused of being Imperial sympathizers.
Yet there are verses in the NT that seem to support capital punishment.
Matthew 5:17-20:
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds wthat of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
I have read about a dozen different interpretations of the above verses, and they all amount to mental gymnastics. Most of the explanations refer to verse 17 and say Jesus was the fulfillment of the OT laws and that they therefore no longer apply to Christians. That's great, except that doesn't explain verses 18-20. Is it just me, or is he advocating all OT laws? There are several other verses where he does the same thing. Other verses do the opposite. For example, Romans 10:4:
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
Assuming the trend of the last 20 yrs continues we could see the end of capital punishment in one generation.
Unless you're guilty of treason on a world under constant threat by the Imperium. I'm trying to decide if it should apply for all capital offenses, or just for treason. As a strict law and order world, it would probably be the former. If I want them to be a little more humane, it would be just the latter.
Perhaps you could have Andrew's execution be a more humane lethal injection... or a private / secret hanging? This would give you an out to explain how society reverted.
I need Andrew's execution to be traumatic for Joseph. Joseph has a chance to speak on his behalf but is too afraid of what people will think if he comes to the defense of a gay kid. Andrew's homosexuality comes out during interrogation and is public knowledge by the time of the trial. The Senate vote in favor of Andrew's execution is very close, so Joseph's input might have made a difference. Ditto if he had pressed his mother to intervene.
His execution does kinda blow the idea of a friendly Christian world out of the water, though, huh? I'll find a way to include a debate about executing a minor, probably after his rather traumatic death.
It wasn't because of a reviewer. I'm trying to make v3 more Christian-friendly. That includes a world that at least questions the morality of its harsh laws, even though the conclusion is that it's a necessary evil caused by the constant threat from the Imperium, rather than just because they're right wing Bible-thumpers. The latter is how I wrote it in v2. This time I want a civilized Christian society turned harsh under threat from invasion by Satan.
Personally, I think there are some people whose crimes are so heinous that they deserve harsh punishment. Personally, I'd let them rot in prison rather than kill them with a simple injection. The guy in Calgary who killed a little boy and his grandparents has been beaten up twice in prison. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. Other than cases like his, I'm a liberal. The U.S.system is evil because it's completely biased against black people and the mentally ill. Texas has a damn revolving door on its execution chamber.
I'm going to try rewriting it again and include more morality before I add the threat of the Imperium as the driving force behind their strict laws, including the execution of minors guilty of treason (Andrew). The youngest person every executed (by electrocution) in the U.S.was only fourteen, which is how I chose Andrew's age. The youngest person ever sentenced to death was 10, although he didn't die until he was nineteen when they executed him.
What about the paragraph below to tack onto the end of the New Bethlehem Galactipedia article? I hacked away at all the detailed Biblical references from yesterday because there are too many conflicting/confusing points of view about key Bible verses I was hoping to use. I'm trying to establish that New Bethlehem is not an evil place (e.g., there are opposing points of view about punishment for crimes based on the Bible), but that being on the border of the Imperium necessitates strong rule of law. Should I eliminate the term inquisition, given its negative place in history? I could simply refer to them as harsh interrogation techniques...
Thanks
Dirk
New Bethlehem has been criticized for its use of harsh interrogation techniques, known as inquisitions, and death by public hanging for capital offenses. The term inquisition, with its troubled history, is meant as a warning to would-be criminals. There is growing pressure from other members of the Realm to eliminate these practices. Nevertheless, many Christians claim that hard punishment for sin is consistent with the Bible’s Old Testament, while others argue that Jesus was the fulfillment of the old laws, cleansing sin with his blood. Regardless, most inhabitants of New Bethlehem accept strict rule of law as a means of defending their world from the Imperium, which many believe is the literal realm of Satan. Conspiring with the Imperium is considered the worst possible crime, and high-profile cases are tried in the Senate, where the conviction rate is 97%. Overly vocal critics of these proceedings are often accused of being Imperial sympathizers.
Just spent the whole evening researching/writing one paragraph, only to decide that I'll probably chuck the researched parts in the morning. Either that, or do more thorough research. It's a critical paragraph for v3, so I'll probably keep at it. Interpreting Bible verses is a bitch. Based on the original Greek/Hebrew texts, one interpretation of Jesus's line "I have come to fulfill the Law" is "I have come to teach the Law", yet many websites and forums users claim it means the harsh Old Testament laws no longer apply because of the New Covenant. I may have to lengthen my estimate to 8.5 years for book one. Sheesh.
