FAWC 5: Line, Please!

[AMoveableBeast]

I'm sorry I haven't participated in this discussion. My head's in my next project already. Like PL said, the binge reading doesn't allow me to store it all for too long either.

I know. I'm a party pooper.

Nonsense. You are always a pleasure and a treasure, regardless of how busy you are. Besides, I'm looking forward to your next opus. Get cracking!

 

[SecondCircle]

Two good points.

The decision to make Rachel and Adam cheaters wasn't originally supposed to happen, but it tied everything in full circle. Sort of a "karma is a bitch" kind of thing. I explored some real fears and emotion there, personally. I didn't wanna come right out of the gate and basically say in black and white, "these two are cheaters". When people read a negative trait like that (and in real life) they can't help but to automatically judge the characters, and make up in their mind eho the characters are before they get to know them.

That is a boat I like to rock. The flip. So here's this couple. She's a bit young, eccentric, playful and outgoing. He's a loving husband, hard working, logical guy. You get to know them and (I didn't succeed too well with this part) start to like them. Then piece by piece, I tried to imply that they had a past of cheating until Rachel says Karen's name in that argument. I was purposely vague there, probably a bit too much. The intent was to jostle the reader's feelings with the revelation they are cheaters, build a little conflict and then start to give reason as to why they were being "haunted". Then I (tried) to have the reader torn between sympathizing with those two, while resisting the idea they deserved what was happening. As karma. This was lackluster in the story.

As far as the ghosts actually being one entity, though that never made it into the story, I still love these sort of concepts. I actually try to stray from "typical" horror, and as this stands, it's kind of a typical ghost story, if a bit extreme. Right now, the reader is left with the perception I gave above. That it was all sort of karma. These wraiths terrorized them because they were adulterous and wicked, right? Well that's what I wanted people to think, right along with Rachel and Adam.

But I have this taste for horror. Not just "scary" or "spooky" like, extreme fear. The fear of something we cannot understand or try to fathom. As a kid, I had this lovecraftian type of fear that used to give me nightmares. I was so afraid that something so much bigger than us lived out in the stars. That it regarded us like insects, that we could be squashed under this cosmic being's toes without a passing glance. (Well actually, I was scared of God and Satan because the wrong person had told me the stories.)

What I had intended with the "single entity" was that Rose and Jack were really just a ruse. A mask. There was this... thing... that knew of their adulterous past and played on their fears and desires. Something akin to a demon I suppose. Something NOT human. It was playing with Rachel and Adam like a child would burn ants with a microscope. Because it was fun. Because it liked to see them squirm. This "entity" concocted this big "Rose and Jack" story and planted those three items (knife, book, handkerchief), then had Rachel chasing these clues in the diary, and believing they were haunted by a woman's ghost and the husband that killed her. And Adam, the skeptic, who was supposed to believe in his wife no matter what was slave to logic, and would not believe her and stand with her. Thus, splitting he and Rachel.

Whatever this single entity or demon was, it was playing a sick game on them, torturing them. In my mind, it would have continued until they were mad and probably even killed one another. Or something.

The thing that would "play" with humans like that is unfathomable and terrifying to me. And yaknow... write what you know and all....

Well, OK, now that you mention it... you did say that Adam and Rachel had an affair with each other and that led to the breakup of their previous relationships before they officially became a couple. Did I get that right? If so, I can't remember that being clearly mentioned in the story, but maybe I just missed it.

Also, I think you explained that you didn't see Rose and Jack as two separate ghosts but as one entity working together somehow to torment Adam and Rachel. Just curious as to why you would do it that way instead of leaving them as two separate ghosts with their own "personalities".

 

[SecondCircle]

PennLady, something that I have noticed with "Empire of the Stars" that I find really curious, is how a fair number of the people seem to have a negative reaction to it because so much of the writing is purposely bad. As in, the joke is just how awful the ideas and the writing are, but, at the same time, in its awfulness, the writing is actually quite good, and, in its stupidity, wonderfully intelligent.

Still, this begs the question: isn't bad writing, even if created intentionally, still bad writing? I believe this was Triple T's problem with the piece, and likely some others. It puts me in the mind of "Kill Bill"--a galvanizing movie that both feeds cliches and, in doing it so obviously and originally, turns them on their heads. The film is widely praised as being exceptionally clever and well-done, while the movies it so closely mirrors in all but spirit are derided. Unintentionally awful=bad. Intentionally awful=good.

The concept is fascinating to me. I wondered what your take on it was.

Personally, I liked your piece a lot. The real story was the author's bits. It was a long con, and the joke took a bit of walking, but I really enjoyed the journey.

Aye, I think to purposely write... are we calling it bad?... is not actually a bad thing. Mainly because you do it on purpose to serve a purpose. I mean really, that's actually the point of a lot of parody in comedy.

 

[PennLady]

Thanks for your comments. I hadn't considered that aspect of the line you quoted. I suspect most of the people I grew up with at that age would have agreed with you. I know I did. I wanted to express that she is nervous about the future and "growing up", but maybe my wording wasn't the best way to make that point clear.

Nervous about the future is fine; perhaps you could make her twenty-one and closer to graduation, when entering "the real would" is that much more imminent and tangible. She could worry about her next step, whether it be a job or grad school or whatever. Twenty-one is also more of a landmark birthday, since it's the legal drinking age as well.

 

[AMoveableBeast]

Aye, I think to purposely write... are we calling it bad?... is not actually a bad thing. Mainly because you do it on purpose to serve a purpose. I mean really, that's actually the point of a lot of parody in comedy.

I absolutely agree, and as I said, I really enjoyed the story. The issue, becomes that sometimes in being clever, you force a reader to spend too much time in agony before you yank them out with your cleverness. This is what clearly happened to TxTallTales in this story in his comments (sorry to speak to your mind Tx. Feel free to slap the shit out of me for making an "ass" out of "u" and "me" if I'm wrong. You're just the best example.)

Because those passages, the trite cliched ones, with their jumbled names and meandering style, are painful to read--just a shared, humorous pain. Like watching a guy get hit in the crotch on home-video.

It's a purple nurple the author is inflicting on you. With the right pressure, it is clever, effective, and rather charming. Too much, and it is too painful; too little, and you risk the reader not getting it. And it is such a difficult line to draw.

How do you know when to say when?

 

[PennLady]

PennLady, something that I have noticed with "Empire of the Stars" that I find really curious, is how a fair number of the people seem to have a negative reaction to it because so much of the writing is purposely bad. As in, the joke is just how awful the ideas and the writing are, but, at the same time, in its awfulness, the writing is actually quite good, and, in its stupidity, wonderfully intelligent.

Still, this begs the question: isn't bad writing, even if created intentionally, still bad writing? I believe this was Triple T's problem with the piece, and likely some others. It puts me in the mind of "Kill Bill"--a galvanizing movie that both feeds cliches and, in doing it so obviously and originally, turns them on their heads. The film is widely praised as being exceptionally clever and well-done, while the movies it so closely mirrors in all but spirit are derided. Unintentionally awful=bad. Intentionally awful=good.

The concept is fascinating to me. I wondered what your take on it was.

Personally, I liked your piece a lot. The real story was the author's bits. It was a long con, and the joke took a bit of walking, but I really enjoyed the journey.

I tended to think of the writing as "silly," but you're right in that all of them are supposed to be rather poor, or ridiculous, examples of their various genres. I don't think writing is "bad" if it's bad on purpose. Presumably if it's bad or silly or whatever on purpose, then the author has a bigger point in mind and then it's not bad in the same sense, at least not to me.

I think the negative reactions stem in part from the fact that it's just different from everything else, and generally not what anyone was expecting. And that was part of the challenge, to make especially the first two false starts not go on too long. I wanted to draw the reader in, but you have to kind of spring the trap reasonably quickly.

Personally I think I had a little better luck with lampooning the more contemporary stories, the mysteries and the nonhuman stuff. It was a little easier to choose the elements, because so many of them are used so often. Scifi and fantasy are a little wider-ranging and so it's a little harder for me to pick what I want to use.

 

[drteetho]

Nervous about the future is fine; perhaps you could make her twenty-one and closer to graduation, when entering "the real would" is that much more imminent and tangible. She could worry about her next step, whether it be a job or grad school or whatever. Twenty-one is also more of a landmark birthday, since it's the legal drinking age as well.

Well, for you it is. For me and the rest of us up in the Great White North, it's nineteen.

Beyond that minor detail, though, you have a good idea.

 

[PennLady]

Two good points.

The decision to make Rachel and Adam cheaters wasn't originally supposed to happen, but it tied everything in full circle. Sort of a "karma is a bitch" kind of thing. I explored some real fears and emotion there, personally. I didn't wanna come right out of the gate and basically say in black and white, "these two are cheaters". When people read a negative trait like that (and in real life) they can't help but to automatically judge the characters, and make up in their mind eho the characters are before they get to know them.

I know I've said before that I don't like cheating in stories, but the fact that these two had had an affair didn't bother me. Likely because that wasn't really the point of the story or their relationship. I had the feeling that Rose and Jack would have played their games on any unfortunate couple who lived in the house, because every couple has cracks you can exploit.

 

[PennLady]

Well, for you it is. For me and the rest of us up in the Great White North, it's nineteen.

Beyond that minor detail, though, you have a good idea.

Ah well, my mistake. But sure, use whatever landmark you want. Although I'd make it clear which country you're in. Just something to indicate that she's about to kind of grow up for real, which makes her nervous.

 

[Tx Tall Tales]

I absolutely agree, and as I said, I really enjoyed the story. The issue, becomes that sometimes in being clever, you force a reader to spend too much time in agony before you yank them out with your cleverness. This is what clearly happened to TxTallTales in this story in his comments (sorry to speak to your mind Tx. Feel free to slap the shit out of me for making an "ass" out of "u" and "me" if I'm wrong. You're just the best example.)

Because those passages, the trite cliched ones, with their jumbled names and meandering style, are painful to read--just a shared, humorous pain. Like watching a guy get hit in the crotch on home-video.

It's a purple nurple the author is inflicting on you. With the right pressure, it is clever, effective, and rather charming. Too much, and it is too painful; too little, and you risk the reader not getting it. And it is such a difficult line to draw.

How do you know when to say when?

Alright. I just reread Empires of the Stars, and I definitely have figured out why I had difficult with this story, and to be honest, it wasn't fair to PennLady.

Let me set this up. It was 2:00 a.m. I'd just finished critiquing 20 stories. I'd taken an hour out just minutes earlier to do an in depth critique of a story, every little possible detail, line by line. That critique was private.

I opened Empires of the Stars, and found myself doing the same, editor open, line by line finding each thing that drove me crazy. Clob/Cloba? Please! And the names just got worse the further I got. It seemed to take FOREVER to get to the author's comment, and I just couldn't believe how irritating that first section was to me. Like the worst pop-sci fi of the 50s. It seriously put me off, and I never recovered from that. At the time, I told myself that four or five paragraphs could have set the tone, and if I'd seen the Author's asides at that point, everything would have been cool.

Going back to read it. The writing wasn't nearly as bad, and I was through that section in a flash. The Author's words were humorous and reflected my thoughts exactly.

Now, part of this may be reading it the second time, but I believe that my effort to honestly critique the really bad part drove me away from recognizing the humor. Interrupting my reading every other line to take notes made it go ON and ON and ON . . .

I consider the first few paragraphs of any story sacrosanct. They have to be impeccable, the very best you can do, or you risk losing your readers. We all know the stats. How many stories are opened and closed almost as fast, 90% of published softback books are never read past the first chapter. My own writing group has argued for an hour over which scene in a linear story should be the opening one.

Prior to the critiques, I tried to avoid reading any of the comments, or even much of the thread, wanting to come to each story as 'fresh' as possible, and I hadn't read the thread about the name choices. I just thought they were horrible, and my initial critique, before I cleaned it up was riddled with issues about naming, and why it didn't work for me.

It was error free, and very well written, except the writing stank. Tell don't show, enumerating the issues between the house, etc. etc.

On the reread I flew through that part, and grinned when I read the Author's take.

It is an 'in' joke, and I'm not sure how well it will do with the hoi polloi, but my initial impression was harshly colored by my attempt to critique the purposely bad writing. On the reread, the story was no longer interminable (as it felt at 2:00 am with only two stories to go), and I found it clever. I could enjoy the change in flavor of each passage, and appreciate the different styles, a series of parodies.

I wanted to be honest, and put down my feelings as they occurred. I was honest, but hardly fair, and my comments ended up being an exaggeration of the primary issue - I didn't know it was a joke for the first few hundred words, and by the time I got there, I wasn't in a mood for humor. No fault of the author's.

The decision to make Rachel and Adam cheaters wasn't originally supposed to happen, but it tied everything in full circle. Sort of a "karma is a bitch" kind of thing. I explored some real fears and emotion there, personally. I didn't wanna come right out of the gate and basically say in black and white, "these two are cheaters". When people read a negative trait like that (and in real life) they can't help but to automatically judge the characters, and make up in their mind eho the characters are before they get to know them.

That is a boat I like to rock. The flip. So here's this couple. She's a bit young, eccentric, playful and outgoing. He's a loving husband, hard working, logical guy. You get to know them and (I didn't succeed too well with this part) start to like them. Then piece by piece, I tried to imply that they had a past of cheating until Rachel says Karen's name in that argument. I was purposely vague there, probably a bit too much. The intent was to jostle the reader's feelings with the revelation they are cheaters, build a little conflict and then start to give reason as to why they were being "haunted". Then I (tried) to have the reader torn between sympathizing with those two, while resisting the idea they deserved what was happening. As karma. This was lackluster in the story.

I think I picked this up exactly the way you wanted. I saw the creeping hints of infidelity, and recognized a Karmic element in it. The only thing I didn't 'get' was that the two ghost's were one and the same. This was especially difficult, since they were doing two things at the same time. One seducing, the other looking for revenge. Two distinct actions simultaneously. That eliminated, in my mind, any possibility of them being the same. Even the mention of Rose's first 'visual' failure, the drooping sideways looking eye, wasn't enough. I just figure she was wearing a glamour of some type. Both were ancient rotting corpses.

 

[SecondCircle]

Yeah I agree TX. The "two ghosts one entity" thing didn't exactly pan out because I left out the sections with Rita that would have made it make sense. Most of that stuff was in my head and never fully made it to the story. I didn't convey that well enough. It worked as a simple "two ghost" kind of story as it was, with those little inconsistencies sprinkled in. As far as the two being in different rooms at the same time (if I had completed it as intended) I was thinking that whatever that demon was, it certainly wasn't bound to the same laws and dimensional restrictions a living breathing human being was. Suddenly appearing in the pool, shower, kitchen, etc was like breathing for it, so manifesting as two separate things was similarly child's play. At least that was my line of thinking.

Your story... It's odd to ask of someone with such prestige, but did you accomplish what you were going for fully? I mean I thought so. Sure parts of it in the middle dragged and I was kinda disappointed with the wife that she couldn't come up for a better answer for why she wanted to cheat. But really if I step back, those are really just my tastes and preferences. Most people thought he was a dick for stabbing Channing Tatum (that's who he was I don't care what you say) and that it made him entirely unlikable. I disagree. Humans react ridiculously all the time. In the heat of passion and betrayal we MURDER each other if pushed far enough. I think he was a believable character. I've done shit (not that) that was completely insane because I was blind with anger. It was a mistake. I think the stabbing set up the ExPat and new beginning theme very well. And honestly... do we ever have a good reason to cheat? Do we ever react well to the news? Here you wrote flawed and at times full of shit (wife) characters that bleed red blood. They are real!

So really, I thought all that clicked. You got any thoughts on all this?

 

[PennLady]

TTT -- Thanks for rereading and I'm glad you liked it better the second time around. Careful with that binge reading; it can fuzz up your brain.

SecondCircle -- I think you're giving short shrift to the wife's situation in "Desperate Times," but then I thought the story did that as well. Depression is serious. And when a woman, or man, has been primarily a parent (as opposed to working at a job outside the home) and then that's not there anymore, it's a huge life change. I'm not saying that depression excuses bad decisions, but it can put a new perspective on them, or explain some logic even if the logic is wrong.

As for the stabbing, I didn't like it because I thought it was dumb, and on top of that, the guy was innocent. Not of flirting, but of the actual cheating. Part of me thinks, too, that it's not so easy to get away and out of the country after something like that, but I could let that slide. It also bothered me, as someone else said, that the wife and daughters said absolutely nothing about it. That kind of unprecedented behavior from someone I was close to would likely scare me away.

All that said, I figure the story will be a success with a certain group, and that's fine. It's the kind of story I wouldn't have read if it wasn't part of the contest, so I know my critique is a little biased.

 

[sr71plt]

Nowhere was it stated any story had to be "short." Your resistance to reading anything beyond a certain length seems both ridiculous and insulting to me and anyone else who has written a story more than three pages long. It would be like anyone else saying they aren't going to read yours because there was a bisexual character in it. The arbitrariness of it is what's insulting.

OK, now that this won’t really be interrupting the substantive discussion, I’ll respond to this. You expected a defensive response, and here it is.

If you’re insulted at my not reading any FAWC 5 story over four Lit. pages—and stating I don’t normally read any stories at Literotica and then not ones over three pages, which I’ve stated for years—then you must really be livid that probably over half of the FAWC 5 authors didn’t read or comment on any FAWC 5 stories at all—there’s no evidence they did. I did read a whole slug of them and posted on some of them.

And I guess I can feel insulted that there’s no evidence that you (or Swilly or JKennethDane) read my six-page story either, let alone commented on it. (I now know who posted the two Anonymous comments on that, and it wasn’t any of the three of you.) Very few read/voted on my six-pager, but I didn’t say anyone had to—it was their choice. I didn’t post that I was insulted by it. They didn't even have to give me a reason--that they had to polish their nails would have been acceptible.

I edit and assess literary works for money—and as my day job. I come to Literotica to write, not to read (and I posted to this thread that not reading six-pagers doesn’t mean I don’t write them on occasion. Apparently, unlike you, I don’t tell folks what they have to do—or that they have to do what I do). I’m not interested in busmen holidays. Just about the only works I read and comment on on Literotica are the FAWC stories, and I stretched to read the four-pagers this time. I’ve stated this up front for a couple of years—and I reject that my practice is ridiculous or arbitrary. Perhaps if doing the same thing for your day job was what your life was like, you’d see my stated position as being reasonable—and until/unless you do, you really have no perspective to claim that it isn’t. (Again there’s no evidence that I see that you read or commented on my six-pager either—so you can take your “insult” on that and stick it where the sun don’t shine.). A good half of the FAWC 5 authors haven’t bothered to give a peep about the works of others in FAWC 5 or give any reason why they haven’t. Where’s your “you insulted us” to them?

I rejected/reject Swilly’s notion (that you weighed in on) that a reader has an obligation to take your instructions on what could be written from the elements (again, if the elements aren’t a good standard to differentiate, why did you bother to have them?) to control the standards a reader could use in assessing the stories. And I reject any notion by you that I can’t define what is a short story for me and what is a novella (in this case, the e-book industry agrees with me) and where I draw the line in how many pages of a story I’ll read. And I reject the notion that I have to read and assess anything in the FAWC exercise. I, in fact, did and I’d be in crowded FAWC 5 author company if I hadn’t.

Now we can just drop this here if you like—both of us being insulted because neither one of us gave a discussion of the other’s six-pager.

As far as Swilly and JKendallDane go, they both are bottom-feeding backbiters who are going to attack me no matter what I do. Swilly ignored my six-pager too. And JKendallDane not only did that, he didn’t have the balls to put a story up for FAWC assessment at all. So, I don’t have the time of day for either one of them on this nonsense.

 

[SecondCircle]

I sympathize with the wife's side as well, PL. I too was wondering for a bit "where's her side? Why did she feel the need to seek comfort with another man?" Which is why I wanted so much more from her explanation. I wanted her to confront him with his flaws and her side of the situation.

But I think the POV was from inside Dan's head. His thoughts and feelings, however irrational or however biased to his self. I also might point out that while what you've said about depression and relationships are true, it doesn't apply to every single couple across the board. Many people told me how marriage was gonna be and I've experienced none of the sort because all people are different. I just allowed myself to say "yes, any given couple could be like this, the woman may have cheated for the reasons she did, however shalliw it may seem. In THIS story, this is how it played out. This is who these characters are, not copies of most characters or RL people".

To the stabbing, I did wonder how he got outta the country. I'm sure TX coukd write that piece and make it apply logically. But it wasn't entirely relevant to the story he wanted to tell, that is the rebuilding and new beginnings. That, and consider that any media of entertainment, movies, shows, citcoms, dramas... you could poke holes like this in them left and right. Sometimes those holes should have been filled. Others wouldn't have really served but to take space if they were filled.

That's not to say any of your points are wrong. It was just the way I approached them.

And the stabbing when the guy was really innocent... I don't think Dan's character knew that. I don't even think he would have been thinking straight. Rage or hatred are emotions (especially in emotional situations involving love) that blind you. Make you do stupid things. Make you say hurtful things. Now boil that emotion. Simmer and froth to the point that Dan was. My Jack ghost was symbolic of this very thing. Emotions so potent they drive you to insanity. Actual insanity. You punch walls, destroy vehicles, beat people, damn near commit suicide, kill each other, and all regardless of if our suspicions or fears are even real. Depression is real. But so is rage. Envy. Hatred. Sorrow so deep it decays your very core.

So Dan was swept into the mounting hate inside him. He knew, he just knew. 21 years of marriage. 21 years of marriage, 21 years of marriage. 21 fucking years all that... that time that devotion... thr kids how could she do this how coukd she why why why why that fucking prick that asshole that piece of shit.

That's what the mind turns to. Illogical and venomous.

Sorry... I get carried away.

Drink anyone?

TTT -- Thanks for rereading and I'm glad you liked it better the second time around. Careful with that binge reading; it can fuzz up your brain.

SecondCircle -- I think you're giving short shrift to the wife's situation in "Desperate Times," but then I thought the story did that as well. Depression is serious. And when a woman, or man, has been primarily a parent (as opposed to working at a job outside the home) and then that's not there anymore, it's a huge life change. I'm not saying that depression excuses bad decisions, but it can put a new perspective on them, or explain some logic even if the logic is wrong.

As for the stabbing, I didn't like it because I thought it was dumb, and on top of that, the guy was innocent. Not of flirting, but of the actual cheating. Part of me thinks, too, that it's not so easy to get away and out of the country after something like that, but I could let that slide. It also bothered me, as someone else said, that the wife and daughters said absolutely nothing about it. That kind of unprecedented behavior from someone I was close to would likely scare me away.

All that said, I figure the story will be a success with a certain group, and that's fine. It's the kind of story I wouldn't have read if it wasn't part of the contest, so I know my critique is a little biased.

 

[SecondCircle]

<looks around>

Shit. I got to the FAWCing bar late. Better put some tunes on the old Juke. I'm thinking "George Thorogood, I Drink Alone."

Serves me right. I gotta get some more reading done.

 

[_Lynn_]

OK, now that this won’t really be interrupting the substantive discussion, I’ll respond to this. You expected a defensive response, and here it is.

If you’re insulted at my not reading any FAWC 5 story over four Lit. pages—and stating I don’t normally read any stories at Literotica and then not ones over three pages, which I’ve stated for years—then you must really be livid that probably over half of the FAWC 5 authors didn’t read or comment on any FAWC 5 stories at all—there’s no evidence they did. I did read a whole slug of them and posted on some of them.

And I guess I can feel insulted that there’s no evidence that you (or Swilly or JKennethDane) read my six-page story either, let alone commented on it. (I now know who posted the two Anonymous comments on that, and it wasn’t any of the three of you.) Very few read/voted on my six-pager, but I didn’t say anyone had to—it was their choice. I didn’t post that I was insulted by it. They didn't even have to give me a reason--that they had to polish their nails would have been acceptible.

I edit and assess literary works for money—and as my day job. I come to Literotica to write, not to read (and I posted to this thread that not reading six-pagers doesn’t mean I don’t write them on occasion. Apparently, unlike you, I don’t tell folks what they have to do—or that they have to do what I do). I’m not interested in busmen holidays. Just about the only works I read and comment on on Literotica are the FAWC stories, and I stretched to read the four-pagers this time. I’ve stated this up front for a couple of years—and I reject that my practice is ridiculous or arbitrary. Perhaps if doing the same thing for your day job was what your life was like, you’d see my stated position as being reasonable—and until/unless you do, you really have no perspective to claim that it isn’t. (Again there’s no evidence that I see that you read or commented on my six-pager either—so you can take your “insult” on that and stick it where the sun don’t shine.). A good half of the FAWC 5 authors haven’t bothered to give a peep about the works of others in FAWC 5 or give any reason why they haven’t. Where’s your “you insulted us” to them?

I rejected/reject Swilly’s notion (that you weighed in on) that a reader has an obligation to take your instructions on what could be written from the elements (again, if the elements aren’t a good standard to differentiate, why did you bother to have them?) to control the standards a reader could use in assessing the stories. And I reject any notion by you that I can’t define what is a short story for me and what is a novella (in this case, the e-book industry agrees with me) and where I draw the line in how many pages of a story I’ll read. And I reject the notion that I have to read and assess anything in the FAWC exercise. I, in fact, did and I’d be in crowded FAWC 5 author company if I hadn’t.

Now we can just drop this here if you like—both of us being insulted because neither one of us gave a discussion of the other’s six-pager.

As far as Swilly and JKendallDane go, they both are bottom-feeding backbiters who are going to attack me no matter what I do. Swilly ignored my six-pager too. And JKendallDane not only did that, he didn’t have the balls to put a story up for FAWC assessment at all. So, I don’t have the time of day for either one of them on this nonsense.

I am one who didn't participate. That wasn't my intention, but I didn't plan the issues that life threw my way, either. On top of everything else, I've been dealing with a hacker and a screwed up computer. I apologize.

 

[sr71plt]

I am one who didn't participate. That wasn't my intention, but I didn't plan the issues that life threw my way, either. On top of everything else, I've been dealing with a hacker and a screwed up computer. I apologize.

You don't have to apologize to me, Lynn. I expressed no insult at the degree to which anyone read or commented on FAWC 5 or second guessed any reason given for why that participation was limited.

 

[_Lynn_]

You don't have to apologize to me, Lynn. I expressed no insult at the degree to which anyone read or commented on FAWC 5 or second guessed any reason given for why that participation was limited.

I know, but I feel bad, though.

 

[PennLady]

I sympathize with the wife's side as well, PL. I too was wondering for a bit "where's her side? Why did she feel the need to seek comfort with another man?" Which is why I wanted so much more from her explanation. I wanted her to confront him with his flaws and her side of the situation.

But I think the POV was from inside Dan's head. His thoughts and feelings, however irrational or however biased to his self.

I think you're quite right, and I think this is a huge reason that this aspect of the LW stories don't appeal to me and I try to keep it in mind when I read. When a story like this is told from the wronged guy's POV, it's not going to be fair, and perhaps especially so when told in first person. But when I read them, which I only do in certain circumstances like this, I can't help but want that other side -- the woman's side -- of the story.

And no, I didn't like her treatment of her explanation either, because it came across as, oh wasn't I so silly when I was depressed, or to be depressed, and that's not the case. People don't choose to be depressed. She can be sorry that it happened, regret the choices she made while in that frame of mind, but to dismiss it (as it seemed to me) as just a silly thing didn't work for me.

To the stabbing, I did wonder how he got outta the country. I'm sure TX coukd write that piece and make it apply logically. But it wasn't entirely relevant to the story he wanted to tell, that is the rebuilding and new beginnings.

Well I did let it slide, but it is a big deal and I think it is relevant, because him getting out of the country was a large point of the story. But again it's that realism sneaking in for me, I guess. You have to figure that the guy who was stabbed would have called 911, and told the police what happened and described or even identified our protagonist. That stuff can happen -- doesn't always, but can -- quickly, and I'm not sure if our guy could have gathered all the stuff he needed to get out of the country that fast. Still, for all that, I let it go for various reasons

And the stabbing when the guy was really innocent... I don't think Dan's character knew that. I don't even think he would have been thinking straight. Rage or hatred are emotions (especially in emotional situations involving love) that blind you. Make you do stupid things. Make you say hurtful things.

I wouldn't argue that in general. But in general, people don't go stab the person who flirted with their spouse. And I think this is another reason these stories bother me, that there is a sense of entitlement or something that the guy doesn't have to do anything to figure out what's wrong. That he's allowed to sit there and simmer and eventually explode and no one questions what he does as a result of that, even if it's totally out of character.

And yes, Dan thought his wife had cheated and he was wrong, so he was acting on incorrect information. And I can't blame him for that, because it wasn't his fault the info was wrong. But still, no remorse (that I recall) for stabbing an innocent man? (And if there was remorse, my apologies for not remembering.) Not a word about it from the wife or kids, whose husband/father up and left with hardly a word?

But what it comes down to in my mind is: This was a well-written story that will appeal to those it's meant to appeal to; and, I am not one of those people, but that's fine.

 

[SecondCircle]

I think you're quite right, and I think this is a huge reason that this aspect of the LW stories don't appeal to me and I try to keep it in mind when I read. When a story like this is told from the wronged guy's POV, it's not going to be fair, and perhaps especially so when told in first person. But when I read them, which I only do in certain circumstances like this, I can't help but want that other side -- the woman's side -- of the story.

And no, I didn't like her treatment of her explanation either, because it came across as, oh wasn't I so silly when I was depressed, or to be depressed, and that's not the case. People don't choose to be depressed. She can be sorry that it happened, regret the choices she made while in that frame of mind, but to dismiss it (as it seemed to me) as just a silly thing didn't work for me.



Well I did let it slide, but it is a big deal and I think it is relevant, because him getting out of the country was a large point of the story. But again it's that realism sneaking in for me, I guess. You have to figure that the guy who was stabbed would have called 911, and told the police what happened and described or even identified our protagonist. That stuff can happen -- doesn't always, but can -- quickly, and I'm not sure if our guy could have gathered all the stuff he needed to get out of the country that fast. Still, for all that, I let it go for various reasons




I wouldn't argue that in general. But in general, people don't go stab the person who flirted with their spouse. And I think this is another reason these stories bother me, that there is a sense of entitlement or something that the guy doesn't have to do anything to figure out what's wrong. That he's allowed to sit there and simmer and eventually explode and no one questions what he does as a result of that, even if it's totally out of character.

And yes, Dan thought his wife had cheated and he was wrong, so he was acting on incorrect information. And I can't blame him for that, because it wasn't his fault the info was wrong. But still, no remorse (that I recall) for stabbing an innocent man? (And if there was remorse, my apologies for not remembering.) Not a word about it from the wife or kids, whose husband/father up and left with hardly a word?

But what it comes down to in my mind is: This was a well-written story that will appeal to those it's meant to appeal to; and, I am not one of those people, but that's fine.

It's too bad you're still just having decaff. I could talk to you for hours about these stories. Unless... that is, you'd like a glass of some of this Jameson over here? I offered a guy some, but I don't think he's taking part.

You raise excellent points. The story I think still makes perfectly good sense to me, even if a few things could have been hmm, handled differently? And I do agree with you. A story can be absolutely great, but it doesn't have to appeal to everyone. The "Dan's" mindset thing. Its still very good, but if his story is offputting to say PennLady, thats totally fine. It's the same reason I don't shoot straight for romance when I read here. I mean it's good, and there's great Romance writers here (you should prolly count yourself among them) but it's just usually not enough to reach out and appeal to me. Or it rubs me a way I don't enjoy a lot.

A good half of the story was lost on me, for different but similar reasons you gave for yourself. I think in retrospect, it read to me like "time heals all" or something. There was no real epiphany from anyone, or any true resolution of conflict. The one I can think of is forgiveness maybe? Forgiving moving on, and realizing that you loved what you had no matter how resentful or angry you get. But past that it seemed to ease into their reunion without much actual gritty resolution from them.

Which is cool, and it still worked well. Just in a different way than I usually like. So that's just the opinion of THIS old drunkard, and not a standard to base the story on.

...you want this scotch PL?

 

[PennLady]

It's too bad you're still just having decaff. I could talk to you for hours about these stories. Unless... that is, you'd like a glass of some of this Jameson over here? I offered a guy some, but I don't think he's taking part.

I don't think I've ever had scotch, so I guess if I suddenly pass out, we'll know why.

You raise excellent points. The story I think still makes perfectly good sense to me, even if a few things could have been hmm, handled differently? And I do agree with you. A story can be absolutely great, but it doesn't have to appeal to everyone. The "Dan's" mindset thing. Its still very good, but if his story is offputting to say PennLady, thats totally fine. It's the same reason I don't shoot straight for romance when I read here. I mean it's good, and there's great Romance writers here (you should prolly count yourself among them) but it's just usually not enough to reach out and appeal to me. Or it rubs me a way I don't enjoy a lot.

There are a number of categories I don't read here, and it's just because the stuff doesn't interest me. And it's not that I haven't read any of them, because I have out of curiosity. But much of the time it just makes me realize, like I said, that there is an audience for whatever that is, and I'm not it.

A good half of the story was lost on me, for different but similar reasons you gave for yourself. I think in retrospect, it read to me like "time heals all" or something. There was no real epiphany from anyone, or any true resolution of conflict. The one I can think of is forgiveness maybe? Forgiving moving on, and realizing that you loved what you had no matter how resentful or angry you get. But past that it seemed to ease into their reunion without much actual gritty resolution from them.

Yeah, I'd agree, there wasn't a whole lot in active resolution in this one. It was more like everyone kind of slid into their own resolution, and again that's fine and not an inherently wrong way to handle things. But very little was directly addressed, or at least not to my liking, I guess. And it seemed like despite everything, it was the woman who ended up admitting fault even though there was blame to go around. As a woman, that doesn't sit well with me. As *me*, that doesn't sit well with me.

And again I have to come around to the fact that this simply isn't the kind of story I like, but I can tell it will appeal to those meant to like it.

And now, time to get ready to take the kids to the pool. Hope I didn't drink too much scotch.

 

[PennLady]

PennLady:

The vampire genre is one I avoid, but if you were to do one I might give it a try. The vampires at the Red Cross are as close as I usually get to that, and even there I sometimes get squeamish when making my donation and get faint. It's nice when the kind nurses bring me a glass of juice and a smile when that happens. But, that's another story.

LOL I've written two stories that involve vampires and there is some violence, but I tr not to go overboard. Maybe for you I need to write about a vegan vampire? One that won't use blood?

My beta reader and I have been tossing some ideas around for a vampire satire/comedy. I'm suspicious we may be overthinking things, but you still need a plan even for a silly story.

If by any chance you'd consider someday doing a sci fi or fantasy parody, perhaps somewhat like the first sample, I think it might be a lot of fun. Your title, btw, reminded me of an acclaimed episode of Star Trek Deep Space Nine. It's called "Far Beyond the Stars," and is seemingly a time-travel story centered around an alternate-reality version of DS9's captain, Benjamin Sisko, as a sci fi writer back in the 1950s. Here's a link with a little info, just in case you don't know it:

I am familiar with DS9, although not that episode off the top of my head. I watched it regularly but then they kept moving it and I lost it. Sometime I'll have to watch it all again. I would certainly consider an SF parody, or fantasy, or just about anything. It'd be fun to do something a little longer than this story, perhaps a little more focused, but it's a bit of a daunting task to keep the joke going longer than I did here.

Anyway, I feel Empires of the Stars works as-is without any significant changes. I think it's flat-out funny. And I think there's not enough good comedy here at Literotica. Hope you'll put it up and let it find its audience.

I am leaving it up, it will go onto my author's page and into the Humor section, at least that's the plan.

Like for some other authors who wrote favorite pieces for FAWK, I would like to read another of your stories, whether comedy or not. I guess I'll just look through your list, but if you have any recommends hope you'll mention a title or two. Thanks again for your work in bringing us many smiles and even a few laughs.

Most of what I have up right now is romance, not sure how you feel about that. I think "King's Bay" and "Lessons Learned" (a lesbian story) are a couple of my better efforts, if you're looking for something on the shorter side. "Rhythm and the Blue Line" is a straight up romance, but much longer; 12 chapters and probably 80-100k words.

 

[Tx Tall Tales]

Thanks for open discussion about my story. It does explain a few things, and show me where I wasn't clear on some of the things I tried to portray.

I think you're quite right, and I think this is a huge reason that this aspect of the LW stories don't appeal to me and I try to keep it in mind when I read. When a story like this is told from the wronged guy's POV, it's not going to be fair, and perhaps especially so when told in first person. But when I read them, which I only do in certain circumstances like this, I can't help but want that other side -- the woman's side -- of the story.

And no, I didn't like her treatment of her explanation either, because it came across as, oh wasn't I so silly when I was depressed, or to be depressed, and that's not the case. People don't choose to be depressed. She can be sorry that it happened, regret the choices she made while in that frame of mind, but to dismiss it (as it seemed to me) as just a silly thing didn't work for me.

I certainly didn't intend for it to appear she considered anything silly. Far from it. I tried to make a laundry list of reasons, including depression. Empty nest syndrome, change of life, feeling like she'd wasted an education, and in some ways that she'd wasted her life, dedicating it to the kids that were now gone. All very real issues, I know from first hand experience.

The message I wanted to convey and somehow didn't, at least not in your case or SC's was that these things are only elements of what is the underlying issue in nearly every case of adultery. And that is pure and simple selfishness. "What I want matters, and the hell with everyone else."

That was supposed to be her big self revelation. After months of meetings and counseling sessions, you can always find reasons and excuses, but in the end, the last hurdle is: Are you selfish enough to risk everything and hurt everyone to indulge your desires.

So 'silly' was not the intention, and if it came across that way, I have some more work to do.

Well I did let it slide, but it is a big deal and I think it is relevant, because him getting out of the country was a large point of the story. But again it's that realism sneaking in for me, I guess. You have to figure that the guy who was stabbed would have called 911, and told the police what happened and described or even identified our protagonist. That stuff can happen -- doesn't always, but can -- quickly, and I'm not sure if our guy could have gathered all the stuff he needed to get out of the country that fast. Still, for all that, I let it go for various reasons

Sometimes I forget that most of the readers are not from Texas, and have never been to Texas. Two-thirds of the population, at least 12 million people, live within 3 hours of the Mexico border. Two thirds of the border crossings between the US and Mexico are in Texas. There's nothing easier than hopping in your car and crossing over, especially late at night. I do realize that I didn't make it clear the story occurs in Texas. That should have been stated clearly.

I also believe the last line of the scene where the seducer gets stabbed, doesn't help.

"I turned away, got in my car, and started driving. I had nowhere to go, and planned on taking a long time to get there."

That was more about his life in general, and not his destination. In my mind, I made the journey I've made many times before. Get on the highway and drive south. Until five years ago, all you needed to get into Mexico was your driver's license.

Admittedly, it wouldn't have taken more than a paragraph to state this, and it probably should have been in there.

I wouldn't argue that in general. But in general, people don't go stab the person who flirted with their spouse. And I think this is another reason these stories bother me, that there is a sense of entitlement or something that the guy doesn't have to do anything to figure out what's wrong. That he's allowed to sit there and simmer and eventually explode and no one questions what he does as a result of that, even if it's totally out of character.

And yes, Dan thought his wife had cheated and he was wrong, so he was acting on incorrect information. And I can't blame him for that, because it wasn't his fault the info was wrong.

And here's the big one. The stabbing, and the reasoning.

In the story, the wife, after months of slow seduction, had agreed that the night of the confrontation was the night she was going to finally go through with it. I tried to leave a lot of clues that the husband knew this, without coming right out and saying it. I guess I was being to subtle.

He states that he had been reading her emails and texts. I don't like going into detail how he does this, but anyone who knows anything about technology understand it costs about $150 to put spyware on a computer and phone.

The line "She was a horrible liar, and terrible at deception. How she expected to get away with this I had no idea. Maybe she wanted to be caught." was meant to indicate he knew what was going to happen that night. Not suspected, but knew.

After months of marital strain, his actions that night were meant to indicate that it was the final straw. Once she went to the guy, it was over, and he was desperate to stop that. Desperate enough, that when he couldn't get HER to stop, he approached the problem from the other side.

Later when they meet for the first time afterwards she states she never slept with him. His response was:

"I read your emails, your text messages, and listened to your phone calls. For the last two weeks. I know everything, Sandra."

"Then you know I didn't do anything." Her voice was trembling, a little less confident.

"Only because I stopped him. I couldn't stop you, could I? God knows I tried."

That was meant to make it even clearer. It wasn't flirting. It had gone well beyond that, and the night of the confrontation it was going to go too far to come back from. She admits it, and even thanks him for stopping it before that last step.

It was also intended to show what a man can do when he's enraged. Maybe it's a man/woman thing. Most women don't respond with violence. Many men do. It's instinctive. If I'm in a bar and you hit on my woman, I'll warn you off the first time. The second time I'll punch you in the face. Simple and effective solution. And no, I won't go to jail, not in the real world. The two most like scenarios are I'll get thrown out and possibly get in a fight in the parking lot, or get in a fight in the bar, and get thrown out to continue it in the parking lot. If weapons break out, then you can expect the police to get involved. In my misspent youth, I was in a lot of bar fights in both New York (Brooklyn) and Texas (San Angelo and San Antonio). Never came close to going to jail. Not once. You don't worry about police, you worry that you have more friends than the other guy.

Back to the point. He wasn't stabbing the man because he was flirting with the wife. He was stabbing him to stop him from sleeping with her. He knew it was going to happen, and when he couldn't stop his wife, he wasn't going to let the bastard win.

That was the plan, although I may not have made that clear enough. The guy opened the door dressed to go out, with a grin on his face, expecting the wife. Instead he got the pissed off husband. And frontier justice.

Of course, a big part of the stabbing was the impetus to force him out of the country, without the option for returning. I think most of the readers understood that.

But still, no remorse (that I recall) for stabbing an innocent man? (And if there was remorse, my apologies for not remembering.) Not a word about it from the wife or kids, whose husband/father up and left with hardly a word?.

I had almost a page long discussion, where he asked how the wife got her hands on the things he left at the scene of the crime. She explains that she had been right behind him, and it was she who called 911. She also took the items so as not to incriminate him. Another act of desperation. Burning the album had opened her eyes to what was happening, and she realized that he was probably going to go after the seducer.

It was a long scene, with explanations and apologies on both sides. She asked why, he responded. He asked why she tried to cover it up, and she told him. He asked what the girls knew, and she told him everything, and why.

The scene seemed to drag on and on, and it was one of several I cut, to stop the story from getting even longer. I didn't think it furthered the story, just explained the past, and an astute reader could read into it the explanation they needed for it to make sense to them. Reading these comments, I now know that I would have been better off editing it down to a few paragraphs, so the issue didn't get glossed over. It was the only place in the story where I went into detail about that night, and by cutting it in its entirety, I weakened the story. That's the biggest flaw I see, in retrospect. I wouldn't have noticed it on my own, and it's one of the reasons I most appreciate the comments and discussions.

As for remorse. There was none. He's very clear on that. The protagonist believes, as do I, that assholes who pursue other men's women deserve everything they have coming. It's a shame the legal system protects them as much as it does. If you come into a man's home and steal his TV, you go to jail. Steal his wife, and the husband pays alimony. I know it's an old fashioned attitude, that somehow the wife 'belongs' to him. Many people say it's the wife who's the betrayer. I believe it's both, and in a situation like this, where a man goes out of his way to seduce an otherwise faithful wife, the seducer shoulders most of the blame.

After reading the comments, what would I change?

1) Make it clear that he knew THAT WAS THE NIGHT. And he was determined to stop it one way or another.

2) Add a short paragraph about how easy it is to get into Mexico, and make sure the reader understands this story was supposed to occur in Central Texas.

3) Edit and lean out some of the repetitive descriptions through the middle. They add atmosphere, but there was a little too much.

4) After he sees the three items, make sure at least part of the explanation of how they got there comes out, and at least a reference to what happened, beyond the two lines: "You almost killed him" "I'll do better next time"

5) Seriously rethink the explanation of why she did it. I'm not sure why it didn't work. I thought I made it clear, but I guess not.

And that's if I don't go with the whole 'it was all a halucination' which I thought was a really neat idea.

I would leave in the stabbing. I like that. And it is my story.

 

[PennLady]

Thanks for open discussion about my story. It does explain a few things, and show me where I wasn't clear on some of the things I tried to portray.

Let me say, too, that if I missed, misread or misunderstood anything, it was likely due to binge-reading and distractions provided by my kids. I admit when I'm reading a story where the subject matter doesn't do much for me, it's a little harder to pay close attention, and that's not quite fair.

I certainly didn't intend for it to appear she considered anything silly. Far from it. I tried to make a laundry list of reasons, including depression. Empty nest syndrome, change of life, feeling like she'd wasted an education, and in some ways that she'd wasted her life, dedicating it to the kids that were now gone. All very real issues, I know from first hand experience.

The message I wanted to convey and somehow didn't, at least not in your case or SC's was that these things are only elements of what is the underlying issue in nearly every case of adultery. And that is pure and simple selfishness. "What I want matters, and the hell with everyone else."

I have often said I don't care for stories about cheating or cheaters. I've read more than one romance or erotic couplings that was ruined for me at the end when it turned out that one or both of the characters involved was cheating. I can't help it. That said, I am okay with it in a couple of instances, such as a person who is getting out of an abusive relationship and isn't all the way out, or a person(s) who are divorced in but for the formal signing of a document. I can also add that although I agree that cheating is a selfish act, in a case like this, I have some sympathy for the underlying logic. It's wrong and doesn't excuse anything, like I said. But I get the logic.

So 'silly' was not the intention, and if it came across that way, I have some more work to do.

I know not everyone would do it, but when I read explanations like this I keep wondering why didn't she say something to him? I know it's not easy to talk to your spouse about things, but I don't know, I wish she'd at least said something even if it hadn't gone anywhere.

Admittedly, it wouldn't have taken more than a paragraph to state this, and it probably should have been in there.

I agree, and if this explanation had been there, I likely wouldn't have thought any more about it.

It was also intended to show what a man can do when he's enraged. Maybe it's a man/woman thing. Most women don't respond with violence. Many men do. It's instinctive.

I sort of buy that and sort of don't, but it's largely based on my own experience. I know very few men who would do anything like this. Not my husband, not my dad, not the men I know around my neighborhood, etc. I know there are tons of other people of all stripes out there in the world, so I'm not saying no man would do this, because obviously there are.

I think I have to file this under just "stuff that bugs me" in stories like this. For me, personally, such reactions are tiresome and not all that appealing. Assuming that I myself am capable of putting a stop to any flirting, I would not appreciate my husband doing something like that, like punching a guy, unless the guy was starting to physically assault me.

And on that note, I have to go choose a movie...

 

[yesterdays]

.....Maybe for you I need to write about a vegan vampire? One that won't use blood? ....

Most of what I have up right now is romance, not sure how you feel about that. I think "King's Bay" and "Lessons Learned" (a lesbian story) are a couple of my better efforts, if you're looking for something on the shorter side. "Rhythm and the Blue Line" is a straight up romance, but much longer; 12 chapters and probably 80-100k words.

A vegan vampire sounds pretty fun! And as for romance, I like it as long as it gets racy....