My story was rejected...

[DaddysTastyTreat]

I'm fairly certain there was little to no objectivity when reading (and subsequently rejecting) my story. There was no mention of age whatsoever in my story.

How else should I have written the story? Should I have began "It was 3 weeks after her 18th birthday when, etc. etc. etc."

Lame.

 

[sr71plt]

How did the rejection notice read? About 75 percent of the times authors post of rejection on the AH they haven't gotten the reason for the rejection right and can't receive help until they have cleared that up.

If it was rejected for underage content and you don't think there was any, then maybe all you need do is answer in the notes section that there's no underage sex in the work. Rejection notices are worded as questions not statements. The submission editor has to pass so many through that she's not really reading the stories closely. If one gives her the impression it doesn't follow the underage rules, she'll reject it with that question. (whether or not you or I think this is a good approach to the scrutiny doesn't matter; it's her approach.)

I've gotten a couple of rejection notices and have always gotten them through as written by simply answering "no" to the question.

Also, you might note that you have no argument on this with the forum. We're not the submissions editor. To contact her (Laurel), you have to send her a PM directly.

 

[DaddysTastyTreat]

Thank you, sr71plt, I appreciate your input. Sound advice. I simply wrote in the notes something along the lines of "Though age is never mentioned in this story, all characters are over the age of 18."

 

[sr71plt]

Hope that works. Let us know if it doesn't.

 

[Handley_Page]

Thank you, sr71plt, I appreciate your input. Sound advice. I simply wrote in the notes something along the lines of "Though age is never mentioned in this story, all characters are over the age of 18."

It's reckoned to be good to put that sentence at the start of the tale, too.

 

[Bramblethorn]

It's reckoned to be good to put that sentence at the start of the tale, too.

That said, if the rest of the story reads like under-age, a disclaimer may not save it. People have been known to try sneaking under-age content through by writing about "pre-pubescent" 18-year-olds.

 

[sr71plt]

I never put such a disclaimer on the front of a story. If I even slightly thought I should, I was really thinking that I hadn't made the content explicit enough concerning the age limit--and that it was the content that needed to be fixed. Disclaimers mean nothing. What's actually in the content is what is important and I assume that a high percentage of those using such disclaimers are purposely skating the edge and want the reader to think underage even if they don't explicitly play that card.

 

[Ldy_Sea]

Descriptions like budding breasts, or fine hairs growing on the pubic region, or other descrptions of budding early teen females (even though in real life it can happen especially if the female is very athletic) like she was getting her first period, will get a story rejected.

Also calling females girls too often is a red flag as well. New authors are subject to more scurtiny, though that's like saying they use a 5" instead of a 4" magnifying glass.

I hd never had a story reejected I had submotted. Then this one story got rejected like 14 times and each time it was a different reason. I got so feed up I used an editor for teh first time, and after they proofread it, it was approved.

Maybe that's a way to go. Find a well known editor in the edotor hangout to help.

 

[sr71plt]

I agree that using girl (or boy) can get the story rejected here (and at Amazon too, incidentally), but I think that's too stringent. It's common for people to use those terms with other people in RL without underage being involved at all.

 

[Ldy_Sea]

I agree that using girl (or boy) can get the story rejected here (and at Amazon too, incidentally), but I think that's too stringent. It's common for people to use those terms with other people in RL without underage being involved at all.

My understanding, which is admittedly thirdhand at best, is that using girl is okay, but if it's used too frequently (whatever that means) then it is impllying underage. One author who wrote a BDSM stroker, said his story was rejected even though the woman was in her late 40's and the guy in his 30's because the male dow called his subs little girl. Again this antecedote is third hand at best.

 

[Weird Harold]

Some time ago, Laurel expanded her definitions of rejectable content:

If any scene can be taken out of context to appear forbidden, then it IS forbidden. (OWTTE)

I took that to mean she had encountered a lot of stories that thinly disguised forbidden content as role-play.

 

[SamScribble]

Some time ago, Laurel expanded her definitions of rejectable content:

If any scene can be taken out of context to appear forbidden, then it IS forbidden. (OWTTE)

I took that to mean she had encountered a lot of stories that thinly disguised forbidden content as role-play.

Sounds fair enough to me. Laurel's the publisher.

 

[lovecraft68]

Sounds fair enough to me. Laurel's the publisher.

The rules are fair enough.

But where the word "fair" loses meaning is the "screening" process here, which for the most part isn't even a skim.

"unfair" is what people come here saying when a story was rejected for whatever reason and that author starts searching and finds dozens/hundreds of stories with the same content.

Then the comment of "Those are rules" loses ground and that's the problem.

One person gets rejected for something borderline and next thing you know there's a thread started about a story that featured a rape-described in detail-of an eleven year old girl with no attempt to hide it.

So when that "slips" through and on a regular basis. People then to get ticked when their story happens to be the one that got looked at.

 

[Swilly]

Kind of like the one car that gets nailed in a speed trap when all the driver was doing was keeping up with traffic.

 

[lovecraft68]

Kind of like the one car that gets nailed in a speed trap when all the driver was doing was keeping up with traffic.

Exactly except there its only the cop saying too bad. Here you have a bunch of the same tools telling the person "well too bad, don't like it leave"

The real good one is the rape rule. Posters here will say there is no rule against it....until someone says they were rejected for it then its "well there is a rape rule"

Herd mentality not creative thinking is the trait of a few people here.

 

[sr71plt]

It appears that this is one of those days you need to remember what your therapist says and try to go to your happy place, LC.

 

[lovecraft68]

It appears that this is one of those days you need to remember what your therapist says and try to go to your happy place, LC.

Maybe you should see a therapist for your compulsive lying disorder. That way you can learn to be happy in reality not your childish made up world of spy stories and "supersonic" jets.

 

[PennLady]

Exactly except there its only the cop saying too bad. Here you have a bunch of the same tools telling the person "well too bad, don't like it leave"

That's not really what some of us say. Often we suggest that a poster contact Laurel, because no matter what we may think or want on the site, she and Manu are the final arbiters. It is their site and it is free. Complaints to the forum do nothing; questions and complaints to them actually have a shot of being answered, even if the answer is "no."

The real good one is the rape rule. Posters here will say there is no rule against it....until someone says they were rejected for it then its "well there is a rape rule"

Again, I don't think most people on the forum, at least in my experience, say there is no rape rule. We note that there is one, but it is fuzzy, and appears to be inconsistently applied.

Herd mentality not creative thinking is the trait of a few people here.

It is a free site and they make the rules. So "if you don't like it, leave" is actually a reasonable answer at times.

What you don't like, and I agree it's problematic, is the inconsistent application of the rules. However, it does come back to the fact that the site belongs to someone else, and if we don't like anything about the site, we can leave.