Incest, Anal, BDSM, and a little Bi-sex rolled all into one story.

[scorpiosting]

I was asked by a fellow member to write this story. If you like stories that have a little bit of every kink all rolled into one, check it out.


All In The Family
http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=111121&page=1

 

[Rainbow Skin]

Delicacies of dialect

This has a very odd effect -- I'm speaking linguistically for now, not about the content. It's obviously written by an Australian or American (and afterwards I noticed your 'Seattle') who's actually been to England or read widely enough to pick up the speech fairly accurately. But because you mostly get it right (though you pile them on too quickly), the clangers stand out more.

I'm not sure why you set it in England, and if it was for the fellow member you mention then you might not make a habit of it, but for the future you might find these useful:

icebox: refrigerator or fridge

check: cheque

quid: doesn't mean money ('amount of quid'), it means 'pound', though without plural -s: five quid = five pounds

sis, brother: We don't address each other with these, or very very rarely.

teapot: The kettle is the metal thing you put on the stove, or the plastic thing you plug into the wall socket, while the teapot is the ceramic thing the resultant boiling water gets then poured into.

running errands: Your dialect dictionary is out of date or out of place here. Could still be used for 'going shopping' in the north of England, perhaps, but not Oxford.

stoplight: traffic light. In fact 'stoplight' is such an unusual word that I'm guessing your list says we call traffic lights stoplights, or we call red lights stoplights. Well we don't: or perhaps we did fifty years ago, or perhaps it's done dialectally. But in normal speech, traffic lights or red light, depending on which you mean.

'Driving through the streets to our home in Oxford': this sounds slightly wrong but I can't quite work out why. I think it needs a knowledge of local geography you can 't be blamed for not having. If you live in Oxford, and you're driving on streets, then you're already in Oxford. To get to Oxford from a smaller town outside it you'd drive on roads. (I think this use of 'street' and 'road' is pretty much the same as in Am.E. but I can't be sure.)

'Hi honey': basically an Americanism, though it could be said here.

have a pint: doesn't mean have a drink, or have a beer. To have a pint you need to go to a pub and get the beer in a pint glass. At home you'd just say a beer.

backyard: back garden

lass: another Northernism. I am beginning to wonder whether your informant or the place where you stayed was up north, because several features place it there ('errands', 'love', maybe 'stoplight').

dating: hardly ever used, a recent import from America. No real equivalent: perhaps 'going out with'.

 

[Rainbow Skin]

Content

Those out of the way, there are several other language points to make. First is the use of introductory clauses that begin with an -ing: 'Doing such-and-such, X did so-and-so.' For these to be clear, it has to be X who is doing the first thing also.

Clear example: Smiling to myself, I retraced my steps to the front door

Unclear example: Gripping the back of her head, I could see wisps of blond hair between his fingers. This sounds like it's short for As I was gripping the back of her head, I could see... We know from the context that this can't be right, as at that stage he's still in hiding, but the impression is so strong that it clashes noticeably.

Another thing, there are a number of bits of conversation like this: If he is still awake he is probably wondering where I am. and I thought that you liked it rough and what we have been up to where you've used written style instead of spoken style.

These are easily fixed: use contractions all the time and omit 'that'. But there are others where the speech sounds like writing: Has Paula ever told you any details about their friendship? and Well John, they were more than just friends. They were actually lovers. and It was common to find... would all be perfectly natural in a written story, but seem rehearsed and stiff when used in speech.

So the upshot of all this is the whole story comes across as stiff and even slow, or play-acted, or unconvincing. The people aren't talking naturally so the reader can't really get their motivations and thoughts. This story is driven by the participants' hidden motivations and changing thoughts, so it's especially important to make these flow smoothly and seem convincing.

 

[wornoutkeyboard]

Sorry to jump on the thread....

QUOTE:
First is the use of introductory clauses that begin with an -ing: 'Doing such-and-such, X did so-and-so.' For these to be clear, it has to be X who is doing the first thing also.

Clear example: Smiling to myself, I retraced my steps to the front door

Unclear example: Gripping the back of her head, I could see wisps of blond hair between his fingers. This sounds like it's short for As I was gripping the back of her head, I could see... We know from the context that this can't be right, as at that stage he's still in hiding, but the impression is so strong that it clashes noticeably.

________________________

Can you give some more examples of when this is and is not ok to do? I have been tagged for this before and like the ellusive semi/colon I still can't figure out the exact rule for usage.

See...when I look at the "unclear" example it seems perfectly fine with me. But I know its not because I have been told as much before.

Is this a rule you can passively break in fiction writing or is this a hard and fast rule to live by?

I know in "journalism" (notice the quotation marks) we will compound clauses for the sake of extreme brevity. But I have been warned that it is a no no in fiction.

Any sage like advice?

~WOK

 

[Rainbow Skin]

There are three people in the scene. Now here's the sentence:

Gripping the back of her head, I could see wisps of blond hair between his fingers.

Who's gripping her head? Logically it can be any of the three people mentioned. The sentence can mean the same as any one out of these three:

As I was gripping the back of her head, I could see wisps of blond hair between his fingers.

As she was gripping the back of her head, I could see wisps of blond hair between his fingers.

As he was gripping the back of her head, I could see wisps of blond hair between his fingers.

The intended person was he. But this is the furthest away from the bit beginning Gripping. It just feels more natural to suppose that the one doing the gripping is someone mentioned soon after: I or she.

Do you think that's reasonable? Of course, given how the scene is set, you can work out that it's meant to be him, but it's not the first impression most people would have.

So okay, she is the closest ('her head'), so if my logic is true, shouldn't we naturally suppose it means 'As she was gripping her (own) head...'?

Now the reason here is grammatical logic, not just how close the words are. 'I did X, and I did Y' is simpler than 'I did X, and someone did Y to me' or 'I did X, and Y was done to me'. So we see 'Gripping...' and wonder who's gripping... We read on and find that I am doing something else (I am seeing...), so it's simpler to assume that the one who's doing the seeing is also the one who's doing the gripping.

Of course when I saw 'assume' I don't mean we really think about it, I mean the instantaneous grammatical understanding we have when we read a sentence. It's automatic. Most people on reading 'Gripping..., I could see...' will automatically think it's I who am gripping.

If instead it's someone else, we have to backtrack and think for a moment abput who's standing where and who could be doing what. It stops the action.

Notice please that in all this I'm saying we do this because that's how it usually sounds, or it's natural. I never, ever say to do something because there's a 'rule' about it.

 

[scorpiosting]

Just wanted to pop in and say thanks for the feedback.

Here is the entire paragraph in question:

Stopping with a clear view of the kitchen between the hinges of the door, I saw my wife on her knees. Her soft pink lips were wrapped around her brother's thick cock. He was shirtless, sparse blond hair decorating his chest. Gripping the back of her head, I could see wisps of blond hair between his fingers. Slurping sounds broke the silence as he pulled her head back and forth on the shaft of his thick cock. Instantly I grew hard watching his tight balls swung with each thrust of his gyrating hips.

I can see where there is some confusion as to who is gripping the back of the wife's head. I should have re-written that sentence to better.

However you will notice in the paragraph that the husband is staring through the hinges of the kitchen door. So if he is staring through the hinges of the kitchen door he is observing and is not actually in the room.

If he is not actually in the room and he narrates, "I could see wisps of blond hair between his fingers" why would the husband refer to himself as his?

Once again thanks for the feedback. It always helps to have a piece critiqued. I saw between his fingers.

I guess that I could have re-written the sentence to read, "He was shirtless, sparse blond hair decorating his chest, one hand on the back of her neck, wisps of blond hair poking out between his fingers."

 

[wornoutkeyboard]

(insert lightbulb here)

Thank you for the example. It makes great sense to me now. I think I should be safe as long as I keep the subject(s) & object(s) consistent throughout the sentance.

Spank ya!

~WOK

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Looking at your story, I began to notice a pattern. Reading further, the pattern began to annoy me. Skimming down further, I saw no relief. Closing the window, I had to shake the dizzyness from my head. Writing this brief note, I wonder now if I'm permanently damaged.

Varying your sentence structure, is advisable.

---dr.M.

 

[scorpiosting]

Please identify the pattern

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Cute critique Dr. M.

Devestating, but cute.

Did I mention I live in fear of critique from you guys? If not, let me say it again. Yipe!

-Colly

 

[scorpiosting]

It is great to say that you see a pattern and I welcome the feedback, but it would also be helpful to have you identify the pattern.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Scorpio,

Look at the way Dr. M's post is worded.

Looking at your story, I began to notice a pattern.
Reading further, the pattern began to annoy me.
Skimming down further, I saw no relief.
Closing the window, I had to shake the dizzyness from my head. Writing this brief note, I wonder now if I'm permanently damaged.

Varying your sentence structure, is advisable.


The pattern of the post identifies the pattern that was noted.

-Colly

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Please identify the pattern

Yeah, I was teasing. The pattern I noticed was the pattern in my post. You have too many sentences that use this contruction:

"Doing such-and-such, I did so-&-so."

Others have noticed this too (I posted my comments before I read theirs) and pointed out.

Read down the first line of each paragraph on the first page. First para's okay, second is a quote, but then the next 5 paragraphs each open with the same sentence construction, and it's quite noticeable; so noticeable that I couldn't finish the story. I just kept on seeing that sentence construction. Maybe I'm oversensitive, but it drove me to distraction, and that's too bad, because you seem like a competent writer except for that.

You can argue about how noticeable an author's style should be in a story. I happen to think it should be invisible: that means that you're not aware of the writing style at all. The author does whatever he does to you without your noticing it, otherwise it's like a magic act where you can see the wires. In my opinion, anything that makes you aware of style is usually bad. (There may be occasions where you want the reader to be aware of your style. but that's another subject.) When you read a story, you want to be aware of the story, not the way it's being told. You want the atyle to be transparent, to let the story show through.

One of the keys to a transparent style is variation in sentence structure and length. Anytime you have too many of one type of sentences, it's going to show, and it's probably going to distract the reader. Luckily, this problem isn't that hard to fix. You just have to be aware of it and use your ear when you read.

---dr.M.

 

[scorpiosting]

I catch your drift. I am actually re-writing that piece in order to put a different slant on it. After working on it last night and then working on a larger piece that I have in the works, it was like night and day.

It goes back to the "show don't tell" mechanics of writing that I seem to have forgotten about