Iqfauli

I know how that feels, and I’ve experienced it many times as well. Writing itself is already difficult, and continuing forward can be even harder, especially when it feels like no one is truly seeing your work. I can’t give specific advice because everyone has their own circumstances and reasons for writing. But I can say this, writing 20 chapters is not a small feat. Many people never reach that point. Even unfinished attempts build strength, discipline, and clarity. I hope you won’t stop writing. Not everyone has the courage to put their thoughts into words and share them to you as the author. But even a small audience can be deeply affected by a story more than you realizes. Perhaps your story doesn't need a criticism at all.

Understanding the concept of the Absolute and comprehending what it entails are two different things. We can define ‘absolute’ linguistically, but when applied to a being, it becomes far more complex. If God is truly absolute—omniscient and omnipotent—then His allowance of events does not necessarily mean absence, weakness, or contradiction. For example, if He prevented every evil act, would free will truly exist? And if free will exists, then the possibility of deviation must also exist. Allowing something is not the same as endorsing it. In the story, the point is not that the characters don’t understand the word "absolute". It’s that they cannot fully grasp how an absolute being operates within a system that includes freedom, causality, and layered realities. Conceptually, we can speak about absoluteness in its own term and meaning. Ontologically, when it comes "absolute being" we cannot comprehend it or it would be predicting God as a being.

Thank you, and I understand how frustrating this kind of theme when God is included in the story because many of them are either too shallow or "Omnipotent being" to be so-not omnipotent in the end. I avoid that in this story, and I'm trying to show how a truly "Omnipotent being" actually is, to be beyond reach and beyond human's and even higher beings' understanding like the Devil, Satan, etc even though God is spoken through their own narratives and perspectives. If you're into philosophies and human nature with their contradictions, you should give it a try. This might suit your taste.

You speak of logic, and I agree that a narrative must remain internally coherent. But I believe there is a subtle distinction here. You describe God as Absolute beyond time, beyond death, beyond limitation. Yet the moment we assert that such a Being cannot appear within a narrative without ceasing to be Absolute, we are already imposing a limitation on the Absolute itself. We are defining what the Absolute is allowed or not allowed to do. My intention was never to confine God within human logic, nor to reduce Him to a character bound by causality. Rather, the narrative explores how finite beings perceive, interpret, or confront the idea of the Absolute without ever claiming to contain it. The presence of God in a story does not mean the story contains God in His entirety. It only means the story contains an interaction, a perception, or an aspect that finite existence can witness. After all, if the Absolute truly is Absolute, then His ability to engage with the finite would not diminish Him just as the existence of shadows does not diminish the sun. So the question was never whether God can be constrained by a narrative, but whether a narrative can explore the consequences of His existence without claiming to define Him. I may not have conveyed it clearly in that excerpt, but God is never given dialogue in the story. His presence is implied rather than confined, and deliberately beyond direct reach. If you read the story, you might notice that the intention was not to limit the Divine, but to explore how finite beings interpret what they cannot fully grasp.

I think there may be a framework mismatch here. My depiction of Satan is not based on later Christian theology where Satan is a fallen rebel. It’s closer to the earlier Hebrew tradition, such as in the Book of Job, where “the satan” functions as an accuser or tester within the divine order. In that framework, interaction between God and the Accuser does not imply opposition or alignment in the later dualistic sense. It is part of a structured role within the system. So the wager, amusement, or praise are not meant to suggest uncertainty in God, but rather a dynamic within that cosmology. God never speaks directly in that scene. The only reference to God comes from the Devil himself. That raises an important question. Should the Devil’s words be treated as absolute truth, or as his own perspective within the story?"

I think you're misinterpret the whole scene here. Not even once there's a saying that God is surprised, but rather amused. So, I don't understand where did you get that you think God is surprised here?

It is intentional.

There's no romance for the MC, and it's not simply manipulation and play with people's feelings. MC is a pragmatist that break the illusion of their ideologies and questions their beliefs.

It's out on my ko-fi page.

Ah, I have to give everyone a fair share of screentime. Everything will connect in the end, so bear with me.