A "Wannabe" Survivor Participant 2013

[Acktion]

Any feedback would be welcome, but specifically I am interested in thoughts about a recent submission of mine that I had intended for the celebrities category but was recategorized in Erotic Couplings; "Starcrossed".

Not so much the writing qua writing, which admittedly was a stretch in places trying to get in the mind of the envisioned protagonist. (And, is, even as we speak, my lowest scoring submission to date.) But, more so about the... "spirit" I suppose of the celebrity category.

I very carefully pruned any mention of the actresses name, but seeded the story with catch phrases from her work, paraphrases from her interviews, and physical markers that have a low percentage of probability being shared with most of the population, much less Hollywood.

Was shrouding this icon an unwitting violation of the spirit of the intended category? Or was it more likely that the starlet in question debased herself with John Q. Public rather than another star? I should like very much to learn from my mistake before hammering the keys in ernest come January.

 

[sr71plt]

Why fish for speculation from the forum? Laurel, the Web site editor, recategorized it. Ask her why directly by PM (the Private Message system, upper right on this page. The name to send it to is "Laurel").

 

[Acktion]

Perhaps I misstated myself.

Why fish for speculation from the forum? Laurel, the Web site editor, recategorized it. Ask her why directly by PM (the Private Message system, upper right on this page. The name to send it to is "Laurel").

Never a good habit for a person who has a burning need to pen words upon a screen, but perhaps my original posting was not as clear as it could have been.

When I said "specifically", I did not mean to imply that I would not be interested in sage advice on other accepted works. Also, when I said, "not so much the writing", I did not mean to imply definately not the writing as I would gladly accept meaningful commentary on the writing.

I suppose I could contact Laurel and take time from her more important work for such an inane seeming (at least to me) question but truthfully I am just glad to have my labor of lust accepted into any category and would just as soon she read the other odd dozen I have in the pipe to gain her acceptance or rejection.

No, my original posting was somewhat more along the lines of a tentative opening conversation gambit as I strolled into an established party with no clear idea of who might be interested in welcoming the new kid and considerable reluctance to burst in on a conversation in progress with thoughts and ideas that are still in the first stages of real growth before seasoned veterans.

I do thank you for taking the time to stop by and post a reply, sr71plt. Next time you pass by in the blackbird, give a wave. And I'll see ya around the other, more meaningful, threads.

 

[Derroreaper]

So you weren't talking about why it got moved?

 

[Acktion]

Oh, I was.

That was sort of the apex of the iceburg I ran aground on. But, I would say more "mildly curious" than "intellectually fixated".

I had thought that someone with more experience than I in the category, which would be just about anyone who has posted there, might give their impression and thoughts as they were writing a "celebrity based erotic story".

With all due respect to our editors and readers, knowing what they are looking for, doesn't really tell me the mindset of someone who has managed to provide it.

 

[gtopawb]

So you weren't talking about why it got moved?Moncler Jacket Outlet
Moncler Jacket
Moncler Down Jackets Outlet
Women Moncler Coat
Moncler Kids Down Jacket

 

[Acktion]

Ok, let me try this again.

"Starcrossed" was written, by me, to be a Celebrity Story. It was accepted, but was placed in the Erotic Couplings category.

So far, it is one of my lowest scoring stories failing to break the 4.0 mark. And I think I understand why that is, as I would have structured it far differently for the Erotic Couplings category.

While I am glad it was accepted, am more or less fine with the scores it is receiving (particularly as it was written with a different audience in mind), and have pretty well moved on to other stories in other subgenres, I still have a nag in the back of my neck about it as I plan on returning to the Celebrity category.

The story was supposed to be from the point of view of the common man falling into a situation where he had the opportunity to be sexually involved with a popular starlet who is desired by most men (and quite a few women) across the face of the planet.

In the character of the protagonist, I attempted to avoid divulging the name of the actress in question as I imagined he would, but gave out clues as to her identity based on description, well known quotes from her movies, and based on, often self-contradictory, interviews she has given in various publications.

What I am trying to figure out, what I am asking for help with in the "story feedback forum" is where I may have gone wrong before I get back to the other three in development.

Was the identity too obscured? Could a person reading it figure out just who the person was or not?

Is this a tacit violation of the contract on the part of a writer trying to publish in the Celebrity category with the readers of such stories to make them guess at the identity of the celebrity in question?

Should it have involved a second famous person rather than trying to hint to the common man that this could happen to him too?

Is the person truly a celebrity if they can not be recognized without seeing them or did I just pick piss poor choices in descriptive points and quotations?

Should I have gone with hair, facial features, and, of course, the bodacious breastages rather than the shortened phlanges of her thumbs which I thought were more specific indicators as it is a passingly rare genetic anomaly?

These are just some of the ninteen hundred and sixty-nine questions I have in my mind about that story and that sub-genre. Reading other stories in the category hasn't helped as I found some that I thought were doing the same things I was trying to do, indeed thought I did. Granted, they did not score as high as the ones that read like an episode of the television series, but they were still placed.

I apologize wholeheartedly for any confusion that my later postings may have caused as I tried to clarify my first posting or caused by my first posting when I attempted to capsulize all of the questions into the one "Why did it not get placed where I wrote it for?" and hoping that the answers might draw out several of the questions burning over it.

Thanks for dropping by, though. I'll see ya 'round.

 

[sr71plt]

What I am trying to figure out, what I am asking for help with in the "story feedback forum" is where I may have gone wrong before I get back to the other three in development.

Was the identity too obscured? Could a person reading it figure out just who the person was or not?

Is this a tacit violation of the contract on the part of a writer trying to publish in the Celebrity category with the readers of such stories to make them guess at the identity of the celebrity in question?

Should it have involved a second famous person rather than trying to hint to the common man that this could happen to him too?

Is the person truly a celebrity if they can not be recognized without seeing them or did I just pick piss poor choices in descriptive points and quotations?

Should I have gone with hair, facial features, and, of course, the bodacious breastages rather than the shortened phlanges of her thumbs which I thought were more specific indicators as it is a passingly rare genetic anomaly?

These are just some of the ninteen hundred and sixty-nine questions I have in my mind about that story and that sub-genre. Reading other stories in the category hasn't helped as I found some that I thought were doing the same things I was trying to do, indeed thought I did. Granted, they did not score as high as the ones that read like an episode of the television series, but they were still placed.

I apologize wholeheartedly for any confusion that my later postings may have caused as I tried to clarify my first posting or caused by my first posting when I attempted to capsulize all of the questions into the one "Why did it not get placed where I wrote it for?" and hoping that the answers might draw out several of the questions burning over it.

Thanks for dropping by, though. I'll see ya 'round.

And I think my original post still holds. If Laurel, the editor, changed the category story, it's Laurel who can answer your questions. It's also Laurel who could move it to your intended category if she's made to understand why you original marked it for that category. Laurel can be reached via the private message system (top right of this page).

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Why fish for speculation from the forum? Laurel, the Web site editor, recategorized it. Ask her why directly by PM (the Private Message system, upper right on this page. The name to send it to is "Laurel").

sr, yet again, vents his spleen against a newbie who needs guidance not macho abuse.

His drivel of infantile lists is more likely to turn people away from the forum and destroy the efforts that ML and Mistress C are trying to create in the editors' forum.

 

[sr71plt]

Ah, the wicked witch of the "haven't written a damn thing here in seven years" flies in again. The OP asks a question that can best be answered by the editor--who, beyond that, can actually change the category back to what the OP wanted--and ole crazy Elfin decides that I'm not giving the OP a helpful answer.

 

[PennLady]

sr, yet again, vents his spleen against a newbie who needs guidance not macho abuse.

His drivel of infantile lists is more likely to turn people away from the forum and destroy the efforts that ML and Mistress C are trying to create in the editors' forum.

You're right. How dare he provide a possible resolution to the category issue.

 

[PennLady]

Any feedback would be welcome, but specifically I am interested in thoughts about a recent submission of mine that I had intended for the celebrities category but was recategorized in Erotic Couplings; "Starcrossed".

Not so much the writing qua writing, which admittedly was a stretch in places trying to get in the mind of the envisioned protagonist. (And, is, even as we speak, my lowest scoring submission to date.) But, more so about the... "spirit" I suppose of the celebrity category.

I very carefully pruned any mention of the actresses name, but seeded the story with catch phrases from her work, paraphrases from her interviews, and physical markers that have a low percentage of probability being shared with most of the population, much less Hollywood.

Was shrouding this icon an unwitting violation of the spirit of the intended category? Or was it more likely that the starlet in question debased herself with John Q. Public rather than another star? I should like very much to learn from my mistake before hammering the keys in ernest come January.

I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. If you want this put back in Celebrities, then you should PM Laurel as sr71 suggested. If you're just looking for opinions, well then...

I don't write or read the Celebrities category but it does strike me that if you don't name the celebrity, then it's really not a celebrity story. Not everyone will get your references, for example. So IMO -- which really doesn't matter since it's Laurel who vets the stories -- by not naming the celebrity, you took it out of that category. Why would you do a celebrity story without naming the celebrity?

 

[sr71plt]

Why would you do a celebrity story without naming the celebrity?

He did say that he gave enough personality traits to the celebrity for readers to know who he was writing about. (Of course that's quite dangerous because there are folks like me who go "who/why?" even when some of the celebrities from today are standing in front of me.) I'd be surprised that this couldn't be included in celebrities, though--and think maybe that, in the rush, Laurel just didn't identify what celebrity it was. If the point is to be sensitive to backlash from the celebrity, this could come as much in something they saw themselves in--and believe others will as well--as in something they were directly named in.

But I think the quickest route to getting a good answer to the questions--and to getting the category changed back maybe--is to ask the one who changed category to begin with.

 

[PennLady]

He did say that he gave enough personality traits to the celebrity for readers to know who he was writing about. (Of course that's quite dangerous because there are folks like me who go "who/why?" even when some of the celebrities from today are standing in front of me.) I'd be surprised that this couldn't be included in celebrities, though--and think maybe that, in the rush, Laurel just didn't identify what celebrity it was. If the point is to be sensitive to backlash from the celebrity, this could come as much in something they saw themselves in--and believe others will as well--as in something they were directly named in.

But I think the quickest route to getting a good answer to the questions--and to getting the category changed back maybe--is to ask the one who changed category to begin with.

To your first point, I agree and said so -- I said that some people won't necessarily get the references. You never know what celebrities, books, movies, TV shows or whatever that people watch or don't. Like you, there are a number of celebrities or other pop culture things I wouldn't get via hints.

And again I agree and said so that PM'ing Laurel is the quickest way to clear this up, if the OP wants it cleared up.

ETA: Just to be clear, I wouldn't care whether this ends up in Celebrities or not. It seems not naming the celebrity in question makes the choice a little fuzzier, but I wouldn't argue against putting it there.

 

[Acktion]

Pertinent points and I thank you each for taking the time to make them.

I, myself, am oft times puzzled by "celebrity" status. As an example, I can remember waiting for a movie to start and reading quotes from "famous" people flashed on the big screen. One in particular, to paraphrase, spoke to how difficult it was being so easily recognizable. I found this a source of hilarity since I had absolutely no idea who the name attributed the quote was.

The friends I was with found it equally hilarious, though for a different reason as it was the starlet in the movie we were about to watch. They told me I really needed to put down my books and quit writing so much and look around more.

Frankly, if I was not determined to try my hand at the survivor contest in the coming year, I probably wouldn't touch the celebrity category (along with one or two others) with someone else's keyboard. To quote the first two sentences of one of the pieces I was experimenting with for the category and threw in my "it's crap!" folder; "How do you know if an actress is really getting off or not? She's an 'actress' for fuck's sake!"

(Sorry. The first person protagonist has/had a rather coarse and limited understanding and vocabulary which is why I had to kill him for the good of the literate community.)

However, I do thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and will try to put them into practice with the next piece I hold up to the light to examine to see if I might fling it at the wall marked "Celebrity" to see if it sticks.

confused: What do you mean, "why"? How else do you tell if the spaghetti is done?)