Story Rejection - Politics - just a heads up, not a bitch

[Kumquatqueen]

Probably more than half. Almost all of the opposite partisans, say 35-40% in the States, plus a healthy chunk of the 20 to 30% who despise both sides.

True, but if you've already pissed off most potential readers, what's a few more?

 

[Britva415]

Umm, whats the biblical phrase, take the stone out your eye .....

Huh, I never heard it translated that way before.

 

[Bamagan]

Meh. I heartily detest both sides, but if the writing is good and the characters are interesting? I'm happy with the story. I don't really care whether those characters are all that political. I'm looking for verisimilitude, and in real life people talk about politics. I'm not going to be bothered if characters do the same.

We probably don't wind up reading a lot of the same stories, haha! I tend to stay in the less-realistic categories, where verisimilitude was abandoned before the story was started. Although that lack of realism doesn't stop the occasional person from remarking that I described the physical attributes of a bunny girl wrong, which makes me laugh incredulously.

 

[madelinemasoch]

If anybody wants to see the story that was deleted, Wayback has it: https://web.archive.org/web/20170306015204/https://www.literotica.com/s/hayleys-party-ch-05

I'm guessing these are the "pretty innocuous" parts that got it pulled:







(And no, it wasn't me that reported it. I'd have backed them if they'd refused to publish it in the first place, but taking it down now feels more like CYA.)

That's... fucking disturbing.

 

[madelinemasoch]

it didnt add anything to the story except to show she was a hardass.

it didn't add anything to the story except to show she was racist.

 

[madelinemasoch]

Man, this sucks. Here I was thinking Lit is cracking down on political/religious themes/content in the stories, which would only make the stories more and more shallow. I'm over here thinking like "well, I guess I won't be posting anything from my heavily allegorical grimdark medieval fantasy world on this site, after all." And then it turns out that it wasn't actually political or religious content at all in question: it was just racism.

You got pulled for being racist.

 

[Voboy]

You got pulled for being racist.

Just pointing out that, as any fiction writer ought to understand, writers often create characters that aren't in alignment with their own beliefs. I've written corrupt cops; doesn't mean I am one. I've written pimps; doesn't mean I am one. I've written drug users; doesn't mean I am one. I've written people who've seduced their fiancees' moms; doesn't mean I've done that, nor that I support that. I'm telling stories, and oftentimes those stories require my characters to be offensive. Doesn't mean I share their views.

I've not read the story in question. But just because a character in there might espouse racist views, it doesn't necessarily follow that the writer is a racist.

 

[madelinemasoch]

it doesn't necessarily follow that the writer is a racist.

Point taken.

There's excerpts up there in Bramblethorn's post, you can make your own judgment. I made mine.

 

[KeithD]

Just pointing out that, as any fiction writer ought to understand, writers often create characters that aren't in alignment with their own beliefs. I've written corrupt cops; doesn't mean I am one. I've written pimps; doesn't mean I am one. I've written drug users; doesn't mean I am one. I've written people who've seduced their fiancees' moms; doesn't mean I've done that, nor that I support that. I'm telling stories, and oftentimes those stories require my characters to be offensive. Doesn't mean I share their views.

I've not read the story in question. But just because a character in there might espouse racist views, it doesn't necessarily follow that the writer is a racist.

Well, yes, though in this case, the author is, in fact, an extreme political rightist, who was pushing her agendas at us on the discussion board during the period in which this story posted, so that isn't really the issue here.

At the same time, she's a fascinating and endearing person in her other aspects and, in terms of literary contribution, a real asset to the Website. So, this is all conflicting.

I agree with your point, but, in writing, this is one of those cases that you only need a hint of the character's flaws and if you make them a centerpiece of the story or an excuse to soap box your political agendas, you can expect to lose readers--and not just for that story. They get turned off of one story for pushing politics or religion, you can bet they will remember to avoid the author all together henceforth.

 

[Voboy]

I agree with your point, but, in writing, this is one of those cases that you only need a hint of the character's flaws and if you make them a centerpiece of the story or an excuse to soap box your political agendas, you can expect to lose readers--and not just for that story. They get turned off of one story for pushing politics or religion, you can bet they will remember to avoid the author all together henceforth.

That's certainly fair. As long as a writer understands that risk, though, I don't imagine they would give a hoot in hell what anyone else thinks about that choice. And they shouldn't complain about the consequences.

FWIW, I think the OP has gone to great lengths here to point out that she's not complaining.

 

[ruddygore]

The major reason that a writer wouldn't go heavy on partisanship in including politics and religion in their story is that they would lose half of their possible readership right off the top.

There is at least one writer that I quit following for this reason. Their stories were fairly good, but when they slid in to constantly bashing the other side I gave up on them. I don't mind a little partisanship, but when it degenerates to my side good and does no wrong and your side is evil, evil, evil it's just to much. Especially when it's the whole side and not just one or two indiviuals.

BTW He recently posted in his biography about the unconscionable censorship of this site by daring to take some of his stories down.

Addendum- If you don't like the story for politics or religion don't report it. One bomb it and in the comments let the author know exactly what you thought about the story.

 

[KeithD]

FWIW, I think the OP has gone to great lengths here to point out that she's not complaining.

I think "great lengths" would be not to post about it at all. Chloe is usually cheerfully "whatever" about such things.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Probably more than half. Almost all of the opposite partisans, say 35-40% in the States, plus a healthy chunk of the 20 to 30% who despise both sides.

IMHO this is a better mindset for a political campaign than for an author looking for readers.

Most elections, I vote for a bland, uninspiring candidate. Not because I want bland and uninspiring, but because the choice is usually between "bland" and "awful", and if those are my only options, I'll take the least worst. I could abstain from voting for either but one of them is still going to win. Winning by not alienating as many people as the other guy is often a viable strategy.

When I'm reading, though? I don't have to settle. There are thousands of writers out there, and somebody who writes bland stories crafted not to offend anybody isn't going to hold my interest because I have better options. I can hold out for writers who actually believe something. And as an author, I need to aim higher than inoffensive blandness.

That doesn't mean I try to turn my stories into political pieces; that kind of heavy-handedness is something I find tedious even when I happen to agree with the author's politics. But I don't shy away from acknowledging politics or religion when it'd be natural for it to come into the story. I'd quit writing altogether sooner than fall into the mindset of "I can't include that bit because it's going to alienate college-educated 21-35 year old men in the Midwest".

A few years back I wrote a story about a lesbian relationship, with a Muslim love interest. For the sake of argument, let's assume that alienates 70% of the electorate right off the bat. But so what? I'm not even guaranteed the other 30%. If I want them to read to the end and come back for more, I need to give them something memorable. From some of the feedback on that story, I know the same choices that would've alienated that 70% were also the "something memorable" that gave other readers a reason to finish the story and go explore my others.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Addendum- If you don't like the story for politics or religion don't report it. One bomb it and in the comments let the author know exactly what you thought about the story.

Some authors thrive on that kind of engagement.

 

[dmallord]

I sincerely hope it doesn't become a case of "edit /remove only if people complain" thing.

There are plenty of things I disagree with when it comes to politics, religion, etc.

But no one is making me read their stories and if I don't agree I can just move on.

But forcing authors to edit or remove old stories simply because of a complaint or two seems needless and frankly sets a dangerous precedent.

You are aware that book banning is ongoing these days. Shakespeare is being taken out of the curriculum in some state - just in the news a couple of days ago. So editing old stuff goes back a loooong ways.

 

[NotWise]

Some of you sound like you think Lit is a public forum. It isn't. I think of it as Laurel's magazine. She, as content editor, controls what goes into her magazine.

I imagine her goal is to promote the greatest possible involvement in the erotic art. If that's so, then polarizing non-erotic content like politics and religion tend to narrow that involvement by pushing away people who may be fine with the eroticism, but are offended by those non-erotic topics.

The site is for erotic literature. Stick to erotic literature and stay away from the other stuff.

 

[Bamagan]

IMHO this is a better mindset for a political campaign than for an author looking for readers.

Most elections, I vote for a bland, uninspiring candidate. Not because I want bland and uninspiring, but because the choice is usually between "bland" and "awful", and if those are my only options, I'll take the least worst. I could abstain from voting for either but one of them is still going to win. Winning by not alienating as many people as the other guy is often a viable strategy.

When I'm reading, though? I don't have to settle. There are thousands of writers out there, and somebody who writes bland stories crafted not to offend anybody isn't going to hold my interest because I have better options. I can hold out for writers who actually believe something. And as an author, I need to aim higher than inoffensive blandness.

That doesn't mean I try to turn my stories into political pieces; that kind of heavy-handedness is something I find tedious even when I happen to agree with the author's politics. But I don't shy away from acknowledging politics or religion when it'd be natural for it to come into the story. I'd quit writing altogether sooner than fall into the mindset of "I can't include that bit because it's going to alienate college-educated 21-35 year old men in the Midwest".

A few years back I wrote a story about a lesbian relationship, with a Muslim love interest. For the sake of argument, let's assume that alienates 70% of the electorate right off the bat. But so what? I'm not even guaranteed the other 30%. If I want them to read to the end and come back for more, I need to give them something memorable. From some of the feedback on that story, I know the same choices that would've alienated that 70% were also the "something memorable" that gave other readers a reason to finish the story and go explore my others.

It might be sound advice for a political campaign, I wouldn't know, but I wasn't really advocating it as a writer's guide, either. Writers are never guaranteed an audience, no matter how carefully they try to position their work. An author does have one advantage in this regard over a politician, though. Campaigns might indeed only be able to offer a choice between "meh" and *vomit noises*, because all they can do is give you a politician at the end of the day. The writer can deliver a lot of stuff that never touches on that, so why even go there? I suppose there are some people who fetishize politics, since somebody fetishizes damn near everything. But an author who chooses not to take a firm public stand on some social topic is not automatically bland, in the way you might be using it to talk about politicians who do the same. Different strokes, I guess; we're all looking for different kinds of things, there's obviously plenty of room for people to slide social commentary into their stories, either subtly or more overtly, and sometimes it doesn't even detract from the sexy bits. Sometimes it even adds gravitas or whatever to the story, and sometimes it's clumsy and rude.
But even leaving all that aside, the real reason to avoid it is because the site specifically says they don't want it, everyone who submits a story clicks a little box that says they agree to the content rules, and whether one person complains or one hundred, a day later or ten years later, is basically irrelevant. (The last point is a bit of a non sequitur to you post, aimed more at some of the other comments I saw above.)

 

[mirafrida]

Some of you sound like you think Lit is a public forum. It isn't. I think of it as Laurel's magazine. She, as content editor, controls what goes into her magazine.

In the past, I've been as eager as the next person to have ugly stuff moderated out of Twitter, etc. So I can certainly understand these arguments (it's just a private company creating its own curated user experience, etc.). And, of course, whether I like it or not, that is the reality of the situation - Lit holds all the cards and writers hold none.

Still, as a writer, I find the resulting situation unsettling. I work really hard on stories. If I didn't believe I'd get some level of user engagement, I probably wouldn't bother. And it is surely my impression that Lit is the only site able to produce that sort of engagement, as it seems to get way more views and user response than any of the alternatives.

So - feeling like I might work for weeks on a story and then just have it get binned on the basis of vaguely defined and arbitrarily enforced guidelines is unpleasant.

One of my more popular stories was a 'preacher's wife' situation. I didn't write it to be political or insulting to anyone, and I kept it as non-specific as possible. But for the kinks I was working, the couple really had to be committed evangelical Christians. It took almost 3 months to write, and all that time I was worried it would be rejected out of hand on the basis of 'politics/religion,' and that work would be wasted.

Well, that didn't happen, and maybe my worrying was simply dumb and misguided. But that's kind of the point - one just doesn't know. Maybe on a bad day it would be rejected. Or maybe someday some random person will flag it and it will be toast.

I don't know what the answer is, I don't particularly want to read political screeds here either. But the feeling of uncertainty and powerlessness is disturbing, at least to me.

 

[Bramblethorn]

[re. "As The Snow Fell", published in 2018 under Chloe's alt Unity Mitford, named for this lady].

I wouldn't have called it subtle myself, but not current politics. Not yet, anyhow. LOL. More intended as a dystopian sci-fi future history.

Folk may want to make up their own minds about that "not current politics". Let's take a look at the story...

Music to listen to while reading this: "The Snow Fell," version sung by Saga, "First to Die" by Haymaker and "Be Still My Soul," men's choral version

* * * And the Snow Fell * * *

[lyrics snipped]

"The Snow Fell", Skrewdriver, version sung by Saga

For those who don't recognise those names:

Skrewdriver was a notorious British neo-Nazi skinhead band, perhaps the most influential in that scene. Their founder/front-man, Ian Stuart Donaldson, also had a side project called "The Klansmen". Among a whole heap of other things, in 1985 they released an album titled "Blood and Honour" (translation of the Hitler Youth motto "Blut und Ehre"), and in 1987 Donaldson founded a neo-Nazi music network and political organisation of the same name.

Saga is a Swedish white-nationalist singer who made her start with not one but three tribute albums to Skrewdriver, had some success with a cover of a song by a band named RaHoWa (white supremacist slang for "Racial Holy War"), and ended up getting a six-page write-up in the Journal of Terrorism Research after the terrorist who murdered 77 people in Oslo and Utøya mentioned her at length in his manifesto as an inspiration.

But okay, that specific song isn't particularly political. [Edit: or rather, the bits Chloe quoted aren't. The song in its entirety seems to be about the defeat of Nazi Germany on the Eastern Front, something that's cast as a tragedy.] Let's suppose that the algorithm just happened to point the author to that particular song, and she liked it enough to build a story about it, without ever reading anything more about the band who wrote it or the singer who covered it, and wasn't intentionally pointing readers towards white-supremacist artists. I guess it could happen.

Let's get into the story itself. We open with the protagonist preparing for trouble:

Safety on, mag seated, round up the spout because if the Ratdogs did launch a sneak attack behind the frontline

Hmm. Who could these "Ratdogs" be? They get mentioned a lot, and it's clear they're the Big Bad of the story, but for some reason they're not clearly defined.

There wasn't a lot on his file but I read it anyway because that was my job, and my job and following the regs was all that kept me going now. Registered Ratdog party member. Active. Very active. Donated. Volunteered for the last couple of election campaigns.

So they're a political party, I guess...

Poor little lefties and demonrats, all excited about a pile of steaming bs. Keep it up, please. Even on low view threads like these its so entertaining watching you all spin and smoke. Loving every moment of this. Hope you have plenty of puppies, playdoh and crayons coz the next four years is going to be a ball. I'm so looking forward to those 2018 midterm elections. Demonrats have to defend 25 seats in the Senate against 8 for Republicans. And a good few of those demonrat seats are in states that Trump won.

Whoops, accidentally pasted in an entirely unrelated post from the Politics board, not from Chloe's story. Sorry, I'm trying to delete it!

Active in encouraging illegals to vote and we sure didn't call them undocumented any more.

hmm, not ringing any bells, can't see any way that relates to real-world politics of 2018

They'd stolen the elections and assassinated the President-elect and her family, her husband and those five beautiful kids of hers, bomb in their aircraft.

What a way to go and we'd all hoped she could change things where that last guy had failed, back when I was a kid. He'd tried. God knows he'd tried, tried for two terms but even his own party 'd stabbed him in the back and the backlash had sent them into oblivion for a coupla terms but they'd come back some in the last elections, not that it made any difference now.

Bumped off her Vice-Presidential running mate and his family two days later despite all the extra security and the Speaker of the House had been a Ratdog and they'd appointed the crazy old bat about thirty seconds after the hit because the Speaker was next in line and that's when the shit hit the fan.

(If you were wondering, the President-Elect is named "Svetlana". Not Ivanka.)

The "Ratdogs" install their own president:

Because right over the top they were announcing that Ortez was stepping up as the new Prez because she was the Speaker of the House and next in succession or something and that old President, that asshole O'Rorke, he was gonna swear her in tomorrow afternoon

Definitely not to be confused with prominent Democratic politicians Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke. Nosirree. And the TV news networks are "Wolf" and "ANN", not "Fox" and "CNN". There's a "Federal Intelligence Agency", not a Federal Bureau of Investigation nor a Central Intelligence Agency...

The "patriots" fight back, and I Can't Believe It's Not Ocasio-Cortez is assassinated:

three days later the Second Republic was proclaimed and someone got to Ortez and blew the bitch to hell and back

In a touching finale, our protagonist machine-guns two thousand Step-Democrat prisoners in a cage:

Death scythed the Ratdogs down and every single one of them was gonna die. Every. Single. One. They did. They died. They died screaming. They died running. They died charging the wire. They died with their backs to me, trying to climb over each other. They died with their hands in the air. They died lying on the ground trying to hide behind other bodies. They died kneeling and begging and screaming for mercy but there was no mercy, not this morning.

Maybe we could just skip to the part where we acknowledge that it's obvious who all these people and organisations are supposed to stand for, and that it's meant to be obvious. Can we do that? Or do we have to keep doing with this bit where somebody who is very obviously posting real-person snuff fantasies based on the same real-world politics she plugs out of character keeps pretending that that isn't the thing she's doing, and we keep playing along with it?

---

A footnote on Skrewdriver. In 1982, Donaldson protested: "Skrewdriver are not a political band, and none of us are involved in politics. I cannot understand where you get the ridiculous idea that anyone who wears a Union Jack is some kind of Nazi".

Just a year later they released a single titled "White Power", calling for "White Power for Britain" and shooting "traitors", asking questions like "have they got the White man on the run?" Then they went on to do all that other neo-Nazi stuff I mentioned, and eventually Donaldson declared himself to be "a British National Socialist".

It's a pretty common extremist tactic: people keep on claiming to be moderates, even as their actions continually give them the lie. Right until the point where they feel ready to go mask-off. Food for thought there.

 

[Seadog777]

While I think its absolutely fucking stupid to pull it down; Literotica does belong to Laurel and Manu.
I understand why they have chosen to take this particular stance though.

I like Laurel.
You'll never hear me say a bad word about her, ESPECIALLY now that we've gotten to talking.
When I cut that fucking promo on her, when my first story was rejected 3 times, she could've cut bait and told me to fuck off.
She didn't. She took the time to personally contact me and explain the what and why.

I don't know Manu. I've never spoken a word to him personally.

My personal POV, is that politics are a part of everyday life, and we should be able to write about it in our stories.

 

[IWillEndYou]

Folk may want to make up their own minds about that "not current politics". Let's take a look at the story...

Thanks for this.

Even before the recent thread that quickly got deleted, I was aware this OP puts out alt-right content. I skimmed (as I couldn't stomach a close read) the stories published under her not-so-secret alt. I'd found it months ago through the comments of another popular author on this site. They left glowing reviews on stories published under "Chloe Zhang" and "Unity Mitford."

I watched this thread when the OP started it - and it still makes no sense why they felt the need to "warn" people, since most other authors' political content pales in comparison - to see who would tapdance around the subject and who would state things as they are. Winter_Fare did. You did too. It's heartening.

FWIW, it wasn't me who reported the Hayley story either, but it's funny how the site has pulled that while the Unity Mitford content is still up.

Now it's back to lurking.

 

[ElectricBlue]

My personal POV, is that politics are a part of everyday life, and we should be able to write about it in our stories.

It's Literotica though, not Politerotica.

You might find politics erotic, but I suspect most people don't. And I say that as an Australian, where we have a large and spicy history of sexual shenanigans between politicians, secretaries and biographers, going back decades.

Recent events have been less enlightening, sadly.

 

[Winter_Fare]

What gets me worked up about this whole situation is the lies. Chloe flat denied being associated with political content, yet here it is. For the record, I don't think the site should take political stories down. People can see for themselves what poisonous trash looks like. Take it down an the denial will continue, the author will make like it was all a fuss over nothing. The comments are gold too, let it all stand. The problem with banning stuff is it gets mythologised. Let the tale stand as a sentimental pile of neonazi crap

 

[ChloeTzang]

Thanks for this.

Even before the recent thread that quickly got deleted, I was aware this OP puts out alt-right content. I skimmed (as I couldn't stomach a close read) the stories published under her not-so-secret alt. I'd found it months ago through the comments of another popular author on this site. They left glowing reviews on stories published under "Chloe Zhang" and "Unity Mitford."

I watched this thread when the OP started it - and it still makes no sense why they felt the need to "warn" people, since most other authors' political content pales in comparison - to see who would tapdance around the subject and who would state things as they are. Winter_Fare did. You did too. It's heartening.

FWIW, it wasn't me who reported the Hayley story either, but it's funny how the site has pulled that while the Unity Mitford content is still up.

Now it's back to lurking.

I'm so sorry I missed that recent thread, oh lurker in the shadows. If it was about my stories, I would have loved to have jumped in. LOL.

As for Hayley, I think it's because Hayley was openly current politics (more or less - 2016 - which is a little dated), while the Unity Mitford stories are positioned much more as sci-fi / future alternate history and stay away from current politics completely, altho obviously there's some extrapolation at work to get there.

They may offend a few people LOL, but it's more by inference, and for me a big part of the story was the slow slide into insanity of the protagonist. By the end of the story she's not very well glued at all, and the whole thing was intended more to illustrate how easy it is for a society to slip over the edge and into civil war, when people act and speak without considering the consequences and when thinking only of their own objectives and lust for power, without considering the wider good of society and the need for a reasonable consensus, as well as the horrors of a civil war and the damage it inflicts on individuals. So no, the Unity Mitford stores aren't about current politics at all. You may not like the stories, altho obviously quite a few readers do, but current politics they ain't. Anyhow, we probably shouldn't keep discussing those here - the AH isn't really for politics as we all know and that tends to be where that discussion goes - if you want to talk about them more, open a thread on the Politics Board about it, let me know, and I'll be happy to jump across and join in the debate. And no need to tapdance around things on the Politics Board. LOL. But I don't think that discussion really belongs here, much as some of us enjoy it

Anyhow, as for Hayley, as I said, no big deal for me to edit the mild political asides out of Hayley and it was more the current politics that the original post was about. As a heads-up, I think its worth a mention. I think it's a good take by Literotica, regardless of it being my story that was returned, and I think it's guidance from Literotica that those of us on all sides of the spectrum that do love our snide little political asides should keep in mind going forward. I certainly will.

And I know it doesn't impact most writers here - but this was intended for those few, those happy few, those band of...oops, wrong speech. I mean those few of us that do sling these things in, and consequently suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous... I mean, incite the indignation of offended readers. LOL. Anyhow, we all know each other's views and there's no need to inflict them on everyone else on the AH. This was intended just as a heads-up in general, not as an in-depth analysis of anyone's stories. Obviously I am rather flattered at the attention given to certain of my works of literary mayhem, but that wasn't the intent and maidenly modesty prevails.

Literotica has always had somewhat of a downer on current political figures in stories here, but I think extending it to cover politics in general, is, under current circumstances, a good idea and it's one that I personally agree with, despite my own predilections in the opposite direction. It's certainly guidance that I will endeavor to abide by in future stories, altho it's soooooo hard to resist temptation.

 

[ChloeTzang]

What gets me worked up about this whole situation is the lies. Chloe flat denied being associated with political content, yet here it is. For the record, I don't think the site should take political stories down. People can see for themselves what poisonous trash looks like. Take it down an the denial will continue, the author will make like it was all a fuss over nothing. The comments are gold too, let it all stand. The problem with banning stuff is it gets mythologised. Let the tale stand as a sentimental pile of neonazi crap

I like that approach and I pretty much agree personally. That said, Literotica has provided guidance, and it is guidance I shall abide by. As for denials - nope, I do include snide political asides here and there, and that Hayley story was one where I did. It got rejected for what Literotica considered a valid reason. Given the guidelines provided, that's a valid rejection and I will be editing and resubmitting in line with those guidelines. It's Laurel's site, she sets the rules, and I can see her point of view and why here, and I respect that.