KillerMuffin
Seraphically Disinclined
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2000
- Posts
- 25,603
"Daddy," I Whispered: A Critique of the self-proclaimed "Lit's #1 Story"
As a person one fell semester short of a bachelor's degree in English, Creative Writing, and an author who has won awards for original fiction and poetry outside of Literotica as well as within, I feel that I am as qualified as the next reader to bandy about big words such as "character development" and "misuse of apostrophe." As someone who has been repeatedly, aaaah, dragged into little self-serving faux press-releases after a request that this behavior cease, I feel that I am due a measure of satisfaction since pistols at dawn cannot happen on the Internet.
I have a long and storied history of critique at Literotica. The story feedback forum is where I shed my dew claws. I owe Literotica and the many writers that offered their stories to me my maturity as an author. Thank you, scouries, for this unknowing opportunity to further my growth as writer. I appreciate your selflessness.
The story I have chosen from scourie's library is the one frequently noted in those infomercial quality press releases as "the #1 Story in Literotica's History," [url='http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=242587"]"Daddy," I Whispered[/url]
Note, for those eagerly anticipating the story, this is a full critique and as such, contains spoilers.
The story begins with the usual consensual father-daughter incest cliche: wanton daughter is overcome by her lust for her father's manly form. The characters are rather typical. They're gorgeous, white Anglo-Saxon protestant, Ivy-League educated, and doctors of independently wealthy means. Despite the fact that the story begins with graphic sexual descriptions, there is a detailed plot that is developed. It's not a wham-bam stroke story. A reader finds dialogue and narrative that builds expectations for depth of both character and plot. There is nothing wrong with a well-crafted stroke story. These kinds of stories are difficult to write well, actually. However, scouries chooses to write a developed story, so this critique will abandon what's acceptable in stroke story tropes and concentrate on developed stories. Cliched tropes are acceptable, even preferred in stroke stories. It allows the reader to quickly visualize a scene without a lot of expository interaction with the narrative. The same is not true with developed stories.
Before getting into the nit-picky details, I like to get a feel for plot and then character. The story is three Lit pages long, so somewhere on the first page should be the introduction to the main conflict in the story. I considered this line to be the main conflict: Since that first night I'd often seen Daddy come, and increasingly had had to fight myself from straddling Daddy and taking him inside me as he slept. This bit tells you the end of the story: But I knew that I had to be patient only a little while longer, that we'd be in Europe soon, knew that for ten weeks we'd be together and that inevitably we'd make love. Two questions arise. Who is the antagonist? Herself or Daddy? Is this a seduce Daddy story, or is this a fight her desires story? On the surface it's a seduce Daddy story. He's vaguely resistent to the idea throughout the whole deal and she does have to pressure him into it through use of her wiles and various forms of nonconsent/reluctance and trickery. The narrative is a simple description of how she seduces Daddy. The conflict is the minimal resistance Daddy puts up. Is that the primary conflict of the protagonist? Pretty much. Classic Daughter v. Daddy incest seduction trope.
Skimming the rest of the story bore this decision out. Despite a brief and unnecessary side trip via a convenient nightmare to some sort of racist nonconsensual rescue fantasy conflict, the main character's only conflict was fighting her urge to screw her father while in America. The resolution to the conflict came quickly. The went to Paris, where she had conveniently registered them as newlyweds. Even more conveniently, prior to leaving for Paris, the daughter had discovered her father was reading psychology texts about father-daughter incest. The night they checked into the hotel, they fuck like minks. They enjoy Europe as husband and wife, have a few kids, and live happily ever after.
It's a stroke-story trope wrapped with a few additional scenes added on. Is there anything wrong with that?
First, let's check in with sub-conflicts and other tensions. There's a minor scene on page one that drives the daughter to her father's bed, the aforementioned racist nightmare. The allows the author to feature a trembling, pouty fragile and delicate female wrapped in the strong and powerful arms of her rescuer, both of them arranged gorgeously naked upon his bed. Pure romance novel cover fluff. The question of every word in every story must be asked, does this further the plot? The answer in this scene is no. This speaks instead of character development, but more on that later. The getting into his bed part, sure that can be plot development. There has to be a clear line drawn between her desires for her father and his reading of psychology books on incest. What happens after the nightmare does so. She wallows around in the bed spouting the, again, consensual incest parent-child cliches. You're so hot. All my friends think you're hot when they saw you in your bikini/speedo. You're only 36-38 (isn't it great that all highly successful, gorgeous, incest story single parents had kids at 14, 15, or 16?). While she's saying all of these cliches, she's doing the innocent, yet wanton daughter posedown. Cue the next plot point: daddy's library of psychology texts. It works. It's not original, but it works.
Next sub-conflict, Daddy's resistance to daughter's seduction routine. It's traditional in incest. The incestuous seducee must say "We can't, it's wrong!" at some point before caving in and having the hottest sex ever because the seducer and/or situation is just so hot. It's the failing of the category, really. The conflict is on the silver platter for you. The lines are pre-written for you. It's almost sacrilege not to use them. Of course, that means that it's the same ol' same ol'. It's all been done.
So, final verdict, is there anything wrong with the stroke-story trope in a developed story? Actually, no. Is there anything wrong with it in this story? Actually, yes. The problem is that I can point it out so easily. I can slick through the story in about five minutes, cut and paste examples in ten and be finished with a what's wrong with this plot synopsis. Why? The plot's one-dimensional. There's one conflict. The protagonist resolves each plot point/problem that comes her way within a few sentences. The other character once he fully realizes the conflict, resolves it in two paragraphs, give or take. "No it's wrong! Suck my cock, sweetie! Let's get married!" Whoo. I'm underwhelmed as a reader. The plot has no depth to it. The nightmare sequence attempts to add depth to the plot, but it doesn't accomplish that because it's not a part of the plot. So what we've got is a stroke story with a bunch of people running around with clothes on in attempt to make the porn more than just fucking. The only way to do that with such a cliched stroke trope is character development.
Let's look in on character development. First, the protagonist, Steff. I don't like her. She's a whiny racist bitch. Why do I not like her? I could have liked her. She started out like most strangers do in the beginning. I didn't know her and I was willing to give her then benefit of the doubt. Then she went sniveling to "Daddy" with:
...and then one of the other ones put his finger in my rear, into my ... oh, anus,... you know, my bum Daddy...then he put his penis, his big Arab penis....they weren't circumcised Daddy... it was awful, filthy..."
[. . .] <-- KM's personal use of ellipses marks for the correct reason
"What about next year Daddy? When I'm away at school... all alone... there are so many foreigners in Boston Daddy. They hate us Daddy. They hate us because we're blond and good looking and healthy and smart and happy and Americans and Christians..."
"I'll always protect you sweetie," Daddy promised again as he kissed the tears from my cheeks.
To be honest, I can't tell who I'm more disgusted with at this moment, scouries or Steffie. The nightmare is the most horribly contrived plot device to move one character into another character's bed. It's just such a pathetic display of weak authorship that I want to bang my head on my desk to knock it loose. To make matters even worse, scouries attempts to capitalize on racial stereotypes to parlay emotion into the scene without exerting effort. "his big Arab penis" is supposed to do what, evoke images of 9/11, terrorism, and Osama Bin Laden in a tutu to heighten the emotions in the reader? It doesn't work that way. In fact, there's a word for the way it doesn't work: tacky. You can use cheap, too. Contrasting the golden girl of American perfection against this horrible foreign racists in some vague nightmare she's supposed to have had isn't evocative in the way it's used. Instead, the reader is distanced from the scene and given a picture of the female character that's a lot less sympathetic and disturbingly out of character from the rest of the story. We're reading a romance between a father and daughter and this is the best you can do? He rescues the beautiful princess from her nightmare of her own bigotry? Very romantic. And the rescue-from-rape trope is overdone, too, particularly as played out by swarthy skinned persons from the lower-classes with knights in shiny armor from the blonde upper classes.
As we move on, she giggles. She's interested in "boys." One of them is named Billy. She refers to herself as a "little girl." I'm sensing a theme. Is Daddy's little Princess planning on attending Hannah Montana concerts and playing with Barbies right before she attends Harvard Medical School? This is another incest cliche. "Daddy's Little Girl." The definition of cliche is something that has been so used as to become meaningless. In fiction, that means that when a character is presented with a certain number of running cliches, the character loses depth. She becomes flat and meaningless. Steffie is a cardboard cut-out that can be replaced by nearly any daughter-character from any father-daughter incest stroke story without alteration. This cliche is further worsened by the plot-trope that's almost unconflicted.
Small sample of the daughter cliche from the bottom half of page 1:
As the tale goes on, daughter doesn't gain any depth of character as one might hope. This is the fault of the plot. There are no opportunities for her to grow in the face of adversity. She resolves her conflict right off the bat and there you have it. Stagnation. All that's left is for her to be dewy-eyed and fetching while she seduces Daddy.
Daddy's character isn't any better. He does have more depth than the daughter, but only because he has moment of conflict popping up throughout the entire story. He's in bed with a naked daughter and he knows he isn't supposed to be, but he manages to extricate himself manfully. Of course, the descriptions of his body parts are Harlequinesque and therefore completely ridiculous (as in worthy of ridicule). The problem with Daddy's character is that for every problem he gives in really easily. He's conflicted for a few moments, reader time, then, oh, okay, whatever you say, Princess. Let's fuck. It's an issue for the trope's lack of depth as Daddy is supposed to be the antagonist and he's generally acting like he's just the dildo. We're given a laundry list of things that the daughter does to loosen Daddy up to the idea of incest, so it's not that hard to believe he'd cave so fast. We're given enough information at the beginning and throughout the story as far as his charater so that it's not so difficult to buy into Daddy throwing social mores to the winds and boffy his baby girl, especially in Europe where everyone is thinking she's his missus. And, just to add icing on the cake, they even get married and have babies. Yay. The problem we do get is that the lack of a role in the plot other than dildo really doesn't let Daddy's depth clear up the problems that crop up in the story.
A good plot point works like this: Problem/tension introduction, then tension rises between characters, then resolution of the problem/tension. I have to admit, I've rarely seen a seduction scene plateau tension. Congratulations on doing so regularly. It's like Favre's record for interceptions.
Impossibilities. You can't do that in fiction because of the suspension of disbelief factor. I will suspend my disbelief so far, and then I will roll my eye and call you a fucking moron, back click, and never read your crap again because you obviously don't know what you're talking about. When a reader reads fiction, that reader knows it's fiction and enters a story not believing it. That's called disbelief. In order to get to know the characters, to enjoy the characters, and to be a part of the story, that disbelief must be suspended. In order for that disbelief to be suspended, the author must convince the reader that the author is not lying to him or her by not lying to him or her. That means that a few things must happen. The big thing is that the story must be true to itself. Whatever the author establishes as true for the universe must remain true. Bram Stoker's Dracula was unable to walk in the sun. If he was suddenly able to get a tan and go surfing, he would lose the reader. The next big thing is that the author must have his/her facts straight. If some really exists, and it's in the story, then you'd better be right about it.
To wit:
A celebration of my being accepted that week into the September 1994 Freshman Class of Harvard Medical School 18 year olds are not accepted into the Freshman Class of Harvard Medical School. They must first graduate from a pre-med program, which consists of a 4-year degree in a biological science of some sort. After that, then they can be accepted into the Harvard Medical Program. It's not called the Freshman Class, either. It was called First Year. Google is your friend.
That's one. I'm not going to mine for more.
Moving along to paragraph level. The writing is romantic and fanciful. Dreamt? Leant? His crimson cock? "My" ruby nipples? Just oh my god. Have you been mainlining early Mills and Boon? Can the prose get more purple? You're not writing epic chivalric poetry. Gawain is not going to burst through the doors to claim his one true love. These are ostensibly late 20th century Americans. An American, no matter how upper crust, does not refer to her anus as her "bum." It's a butt. An ass. A rump. A rear. A bum, in America, is a person living on the streets begging for booze money. I found the narrator to be unreliable. She was supposed to be an 18 year old American during the year 1994, if upper crust. She sounded like a 50 year old British person pretending to be American from the early 20th century. Contrasting her bad Harlequin narrative with his occasional expletives was wince-worthy.
To get to the sentence level, you sentences are obese. A typical example: As Daddy walked up behind me and watched me bemusedly in the mirror, I suddenly slipped the spaghetti thin straps off my shoulders and let my top drop to my waist, baring my firm, full orbs to his startled eyes. Most, if not all, description is confined to adjectives, adverbs, and gerunds. This is a long sentence not because it's complex, but because it's bloated with adjectives and adverbs. Ignoring ridiculous euphamisms, such as "orbs" for breasts, most of the description in the story is like this. Breasts are full and firm. The word breast is replaced with some synonym. Cock is subjected to the same treatment. So is vagina. It's ineffective and annoying after a while. It shows, quite frankly, a lack of skills and an over dependence on a thesaurus. The simple fact is that description is expository. Once you describe appearance, you're repeating yourself when you keep doing it. I got pretty bored reading her "firm breasts" and her "full breasts" and her "firm, full breasts" and her "young, firm, full breasts" over and over again. Sensory images are important. Details are important. What's happening is important. What's most important, particularly when sex is involved isn't that her breasts are "firm, full orbs," but how he's relating to them. That's why the seduction scene's plateau in tension, by the way. They're explained, not shown. It's not about appearance, it's about action and reaction. Men are visually stimulated, so how is he visually stimulated? Other than his "angry cock" or sleeping giant awakens (I think that's how it was put).
Grammatically. Your diction and syntax are stupid. See above re: 50 year old Brit person. The grammar should fit the character, not grammar rules. It should also be legible. Case in point, paragraph 1, the run-on sentence:
"Oh Daddy, your words, they're so beautiful, thank you," I whispered, and then added, "You're the only man I'll ever love," while pressing myself urgently into him as my lips hungrily sought his, wanting him now to recognize the new me, wanting him to feel as I, wanting him to grasp that we were destined to be joined in every way.
On an aside, someone with the emotional maturity of a 13-year old had to have written this. It's that breathless, gasping, boy band infatuation love thing.
Anyway. The period is your friend. Use it. Commas, gawd. Just, gawd. Here's the same paragraph, de-run-on-ized:
"Oh, Daddy. Your words, they're so beautiful. Thank you," I whispered, and then added, "You're the only man I'll ever love." I pressed myself urgently into him as my lips hungrily sought his, wanting him now to recognize the new me, wanting hi---I just can't write this rest, it's too icky.
Punctuation, specifically the ellipses marks. The three "periods" in a row. They have a space between each mark. They are called ellipses marks because they make the sentences they are in elliptical, meaning something has been left out. Here are examples of proper use:
In the middle of a sentence: "I am running. . . for office."
At the end of a sentence with a period: "I am running. . . ."
At the end of a sentence with other punctuation: "I am running. . . !"
And finally, on to pronunciation, with an example:
"OH DADDDDY," I groaned or maybe screamed as I felt his big penis jerk inside of me, followed by a liquid explosion, then again, and again, each ejaculation met by a pulsing opening in my depths, an acceptance of his seed.
Pretty, isn't it? So how is it pronounced?
"Oh, Da-duh-duh-duh-duh-ee," I stuttered (because you can't groan out or scream out a series of hard consonants).
Another note on capitalization. Writers do not use moronic email capitalization techniques to indication yelling because, guess what, that's the job of the prose, not the punctuation. Punctuation and capitalization are signposts to allow the reader to navigate things like where to start a sentence, where to pause, where to stop the sentence, and which parts are landmarks. They are not there to make meanings. That's what words are for.
Here ends the critique. Disagreement and debate are more than welcome. I don't consider myself the authority on reading, simply an authority. There are many others who frequent these boards that have as much authority on the subject as I do.
As a person one fell semester short of a bachelor's degree in English, Creative Writing, and an author who has won awards for original fiction and poetry outside of Literotica as well as within, I feel that I am as qualified as the next reader to bandy about big words such as "character development" and "misuse of apostrophe." As someone who has been repeatedly, aaaah, dragged into little self-serving faux press-releases after a request that this behavior cease, I feel that I am due a measure of satisfaction since pistols at dawn cannot happen on the Internet.
I have a long and storied history of critique at Literotica. The story feedback forum is where I shed my dew claws. I owe Literotica and the many writers that offered their stories to me my maturity as an author. Thank you, scouries, for this unknowing opportunity to further my growth as writer. I appreciate your selflessness.
The story I have chosen from scourie's library is the one frequently noted in those infomercial quality press releases as "the #1 Story in Literotica's History," [url='http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=242587"]"Daddy," I Whispered[/url]
Note, for those eagerly anticipating the story, this is a full critique and as such, contains spoilers.
The story begins with the usual consensual father-daughter incest cliche: wanton daughter is overcome by her lust for her father's manly form. The characters are rather typical. They're gorgeous, white Anglo-Saxon protestant, Ivy-League educated, and doctors of independently wealthy means. Despite the fact that the story begins with graphic sexual descriptions, there is a detailed plot that is developed. It's not a wham-bam stroke story. A reader finds dialogue and narrative that builds expectations for depth of both character and plot. There is nothing wrong with a well-crafted stroke story. These kinds of stories are difficult to write well, actually. However, scouries chooses to write a developed story, so this critique will abandon what's acceptable in stroke story tropes and concentrate on developed stories. Cliched tropes are acceptable, even preferred in stroke stories. It allows the reader to quickly visualize a scene without a lot of expository interaction with the narrative. The same is not true with developed stories.
Before getting into the nit-picky details, I like to get a feel for plot and then character. The story is three Lit pages long, so somewhere on the first page should be the introduction to the main conflict in the story. I considered this line to be the main conflict: Since that first night I'd often seen Daddy come, and increasingly had had to fight myself from straddling Daddy and taking him inside me as he slept. This bit tells you the end of the story: But I knew that I had to be patient only a little while longer, that we'd be in Europe soon, knew that for ten weeks we'd be together and that inevitably we'd make love. Two questions arise. Who is the antagonist? Herself or Daddy? Is this a seduce Daddy story, or is this a fight her desires story? On the surface it's a seduce Daddy story. He's vaguely resistent to the idea throughout the whole deal and she does have to pressure him into it through use of her wiles and various forms of nonconsent/reluctance and trickery. The narrative is a simple description of how she seduces Daddy. The conflict is the minimal resistance Daddy puts up. Is that the primary conflict of the protagonist? Pretty much. Classic Daughter v. Daddy incest seduction trope.
Skimming the rest of the story bore this decision out. Despite a brief and unnecessary side trip via a convenient nightmare to some sort of racist nonconsensual rescue fantasy conflict, the main character's only conflict was fighting her urge to screw her father while in America. The resolution to the conflict came quickly. The went to Paris, where she had conveniently registered them as newlyweds. Even more conveniently, prior to leaving for Paris, the daughter had discovered her father was reading psychology texts about father-daughter incest. The night they checked into the hotel, they fuck like minks. They enjoy Europe as husband and wife, have a few kids, and live happily ever after.
It's a stroke-story trope wrapped with a few additional scenes added on. Is there anything wrong with that?
First, let's check in with sub-conflicts and other tensions. There's a minor scene on page one that drives the daughter to her father's bed, the aforementioned racist nightmare. The allows the author to feature a trembling, pouty fragile and delicate female wrapped in the strong and powerful arms of her rescuer, both of them arranged gorgeously naked upon his bed. Pure romance novel cover fluff. The question of every word in every story must be asked, does this further the plot? The answer in this scene is no. This speaks instead of character development, but more on that later. The getting into his bed part, sure that can be plot development. There has to be a clear line drawn between her desires for her father and his reading of psychology books on incest. What happens after the nightmare does so. She wallows around in the bed spouting the, again, consensual incest parent-child cliches. You're so hot. All my friends think you're hot when they saw you in your bikini/speedo. You're only 36-38 (isn't it great that all highly successful, gorgeous, incest story single parents had kids at 14, 15, or 16?). While she's saying all of these cliches, she's doing the innocent, yet wanton daughter posedown. Cue the next plot point: daddy's library of psychology texts. It works. It's not original, but it works.
Next sub-conflict, Daddy's resistance to daughter's seduction routine. It's traditional in incest. The incestuous seducee must say "We can't, it's wrong!" at some point before caving in and having the hottest sex ever because the seducer and/or situation is just so hot. It's the failing of the category, really. The conflict is on the silver platter for you. The lines are pre-written for you. It's almost sacrilege not to use them. Of course, that means that it's the same ol' same ol'. It's all been done.
So, final verdict, is there anything wrong with the stroke-story trope in a developed story? Actually, no. Is there anything wrong with it in this story? Actually, yes. The problem is that I can point it out so easily. I can slick through the story in about five minutes, cut and paste examples in ten and be finished with a what's wrong with this plot synopsis. Why? The plot's one-dimensional. There's one conflict. The protagonist resolves each plot point/problem that comes her way within a few sentences. The other character once he fully realizes the conflict, resolves it in two paragraphs, give or take. "No it's wrong! Suck my cock, sweetie! Let's get married!" Whoo. I'm underwhelmed as a reader. The plot has no depth to it. The nightmare sequence attempts to add depth to the plot, but it doesn't accomplish that because it's not a part of the plot. So what we've got is a stroke story with a bunch of people running around with clothes on in attempt to make the porn more than just fucking. The only way to do that with such a cliched stroke trope is character development.
Let's look in on character development. First, the protagonist, Steff. I don't like her. She's a whiny racist bitch. Why do I not like her? I could have liked her. She started out like most strangers do in the beginning. I didn't know her and I was willing to give her then benefit of the doubt. Then she went sniveling to "Daddy" with:
...and then one of the other ones put his finger in my rear, into my ... oh, anus,... you know, my bum Daddy...then he put his penis, his big Arab penis....they weren't circumcised Daddy... it was awful, filthy..."
[. . .] <-- KM's personal use of ellipses marks for the correct reason
"What about next year Daddy? When I'm away at school... all alone... there are so many foreigners in Boston Daddy. They hate us Daddy. They hate us because we're blond and good looking and healthy and smart and happy and Americans and Christians..."
"I'll always protect you sweetie," Daddy promised again as he kissed the tears from my cheeks.
To be honest, I can't tell who I'm more disgusted with at this moment, scouries or Steffie. The nightmare is the most horribly contrived plot device to move one character into another character's bed. It's just such a pathetic display of weak authorship that I want to bang my head on my desk to knock it loose. To make matters even worse, scouries attempts to capitalize on racial stereotypes to parlay emotion into the scene without exerting effort. "his big Arab penis" is supposed to do what, evoke images of 9/11, terrorism, and Osama Bin Laden in a tutu to heighten the emotions in the reader? It doesn't work that way. In fact, there's a word for the way it doesn't work: tacky. You can use cheap, too. Contrasting the golden girl of American perfection against this horrible foreign racists in some vague nightmare she's supposed to have had isn't evocative in the way it's used. Instead, the reader is distanced from the scene and given a picture of the female character that's a lot less sympathetic and disturbingly out of character from the rest of the story. We're reading a romance between a father and daughter and this is the best you can do? He rescues the beautiful princess from her nightmare of her own bigotry? Very romantic. And the rescue-from-rape trope is overdone, too, particularly as played out by swarthy skinned persons from the lower-classes with knights in shiny armor from the blonde upper classes.
As we move on, she giggles. She's interested in "boys." One of them is named Billy. She refers to herself as a "little girl." I'm sensing a theme. Is Daddy's little Princess planning on attending Hannah Montana concerts and playing with Barbies right before she attends Harvard Medical School? This is another incest cliche. "Daddy's Little Girl." The definition of cliche is something that has been so used as to become meaningless. In fiction, that means that when a character is presented with a certain number of running cliches, the character loses depth. She becomes flat and meaningless. Steffie is a cardboard cut-out that can be replaced by nearly any daughter-character from any father-daughter incest stroke story without alteration. This cliche is further worsened by the plot-trope that's almost unconflicted.
Small sample of the daughter cliche from the bottom half of page 1:
- his little girl's now ripe body
- I wish I could find a boyfriend as handsome and nice as you, someone big and strong to protect me, the boys at school aren't anything like you
- Your thing Daddy.... Your penis, it stretched your suit so much Daddy
- I didn't want the boys my age who in increasing numbers were flocking around me
- Daddy made me feel like a girl who had been transformed into a Princess, His Princess
As the tale goes on, daughter doesn't gain any depth of character as one might hope. This is the fault of the plot. There are no opportunities for her to grow in the face of adversity. She resolves her conflict right off the bat and there you have it. Stagnation. All that's left is for her to be dewy-eyed and fetching while she seduces Daddy.
Daddy's character isn't any better. He does have more depth than the daughter, but only because he has moment of conflict popping up throughout the entire story. He's in bed with a naked daughter and he knows he isn't supposed to be, but he manages to extricate himself manfully. Of course, the descriptions of his body parts are Harlequinesque and therefore completely ridiculous (as in worthy of ridicule). The problem with Daddy's character is that for every problem he gives in really easily. He's conflicted for a few moments, reader time, then, oh, okay, whatever you say, Princess. Let's fuck. It's an issue for the trope's lack of depth as Daddy is supposed to be the antagonist and he's generally acting like he's just the dildo. We're given a laundry list of things that the daughter does to loosen Daddy up to the idea of incest, so it's not that hard to believe he'd cave so fast. We're given enough information at the beginning and throughout the story as far as his charater so that it's not so difficult to buy into Daddy throwing social mores to the winds and boffy his baby girl, especially in Europe where everyone is thinking she's his missus. And, just to add icing on the cake, they even get married and have babies. Yay. The problem we do get is that the lack of a role in the plot other than dildo really doesn't let Daddy's depth clear up the problems that crop up in the story.
A good plot point works like this: Problem/tension introduction, then tension rises between characters, then resolution of the problem/tension. I have to admit, I've rarely seen a seduction scene plateau tension. Congratulations on doing so regularly. It's like Favre's record for interceptions.
Impossibilities. You can't do that in fiction because of the suspension of disbelief factor. I will suspend my disbelief so far, and then I will roll my eye and call you a fucking moron, back click, and never read your crap again because you obviously don't know what you're talking about. When a reader reads fiction, that reader knows it's fiction and enters a story not believing it. That's called disbelief. In order to get to know the characters, to enjoy the characters, and to be a part of the story, that disbelief must be suspended. In order for that disbelief to be suspended, the author must convince the reader that the author is not lying to him or her by not lying to him or her. That means that a few things must happen. The big thing is that the story must be true to itself. Whatever the author establishes as true for the universe must remain true. Bram Stoker's Dracula was unable to walk in the sun. If he was suddenly able to get a tan and go surfing, he would lose the reader. The next big thing is that the author must have his/her facts straight. If some really exists, and it's in the story, then you'd better be right about it.
To wit:
A celebration of my being accepted that week into the September 1994 Freshman Class of Harvard Medical School 18 year olds are not accepted into the Freshman Class of Harvard Medical School. They must first graduate from a pre-med program, which consists of a 4-year degree in a biological science of some sort. After that, then they can be accepted into the Harvard Medical Program. It's not called the Freshman Class, either. It was called First Year. Google is your friend.
That's one. I'm not going to mine for more.
Moving along to paragraph level. The writing is romantic and fanciful. Dreamt? Leant? His crimson cock? "My" ruby nipples? Just oh my god. Have you been mainlining early Mills and Boon? Can the prose get more purple? You're not writing epic chivalric poetry. Gawain is not going to burst through the doors to claim his one true love. These are ostensibly late 20th century Americans. An American, no matter how upper crust, does not refer to her anus as her "bum." It's a butt. An ass. A rump. A rear. A bum, in America, is a person living on the streets begging for booze money. I found the narrator to be unreliable. She was supposed to be an 18 year old American during the year 1994, if upper crust. She sounded like a 50 year old British person pretending to be American from the early 20th century. Contrasting her bad Harlequin narrative with his occasional expletives was wince-worthy.
To get to the sentence level, you sentences are obese. A typical example: As Daddy walked up behind me and watched me bemusedly in the mirror, I suddenly slipped the spaghetti thin straps off my shoulders and let my top drop to my waist, baring my firm, full orbs to his startled eyes. Most, if not all, description is confined to adjectives, adverbs, and gerunds. This is a long sentence not because it's complex, but because it's bloated with adjectives and adverbs. Ignoring ridiculous euphamisms, such as "orbs" for breasts, most of the description in the story is like this. Breasts are full and firm. The word breast is replaced with some synonym. Cock is subjected to the same treatment. So is vagina. It's ineffective and annoying after a while. It shows, quite frankly, a lack of skills and an over dependence on a thesaurus. The simple fact is that description is expository. Once you describe appearance, you're repeating yourself when you keep doing it. I got pretty bored reading her "firm breasts" and her "full breasts" and her "firm, full breasts" and her "young, firm, full breasts" over and over again. Sensory images are important. Details are important. What's happening is important. What's most important, particularly when sex is involved isn't that her breasts are "firm, full orbs," but how he's relating to them. That's why the seduction scene's plateau in tension, by the way. They're explained, not shown. It's not about appearance, it's about action and reaction. Men are visually stimulated, so how is he visually stimulated? Other than his "angry cock" or sleeping giant awakens (I think that's how it was put).
Grammatically. Your diction and syntax are stupid. See above re: 50 year old Brit person. The grammar should fit the character, not grammar rules. It should also be legible. Case in point, paragraph 1, the run-on sentence:
"Oh Daddy, your words, they're so beautiful, thank you," I whispered, and then added, "You're the only man I'll ever love," while pressing myself urgently into him as my lips hungrily sought his, wanting him now to recognize the new me, wanting him to feel as I, wanting him to grasp that we were destined to be joined in every way.
On an aside, someone with the emotional maturity of a 13-year old had to have written this. It's that breathless, gasping, boy band infatuation love thing.
Anyway. The period is your friend. Use it. Commas, gawd. Just, gawd. Here's the same paragraph, de-run-on-ized:
"Oh, Daddy. Your words, they're so beautiful. Thank you," I whispered, and then added, "You're the only man I'll ever love." I pressed myself urgently into him as my lips hungrily sought his, wanting him now to recognize the new me, wanting hi---I just can't write this rest, it's too icky.
Punctuation, specifically the ellipses marks. The three "periods" in a row. They have a space between each mark. They are called ellipses marks because they make the sentences they are in elliptical, meaning something has been left out. Here are examples of proper use:
In the middle of a sentence: "I am running. . . for office."
At the end of a sentence with a period: "I am running. . . ."
At the end of a sentence with other punctuation: "I am running. . . !"
And finally, on to pronunciation, with an example:
"OH DADDDDY," I groaned or maybe screamed as I felt his big penis jerk inside of me, followed by a liquid explosion, then again, and again, each ejaculation met by a pulsing opening in my depths, an acceptance of his seed.
Pretty, isn't it? So how is it pronounced?
"Oh, Da-duh-duh-duh-duh-ee," I stuttered (because you can't groan out or scream out a series of hard consonants).
Another note on capitalization. Writers do not use moronic email capitalization techniques to indication yelling because, guess what, that's the job of the prose, not the punctuation. Punctuation and capitalization are signposts to allow the reader to navigate things like where to start a sentence, where to pause, where to stop the sentence, and which parts are landmarks. They are not there to make meanings. That's what words are for.
Here ends the critique. Disagreement and debate are more than welcome. I don't consider myself the authority on reading, simply an authority. There are many others who frequent these boards that have as much authority on the subject as I do.
Last edited:
