joelafayette
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2012
- Posts
- 542
.....
Last edited:
trying a new GM story from new perspective
- Thread starter joelafayette
- Start date
sr71plt
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Posts
- 51,872
Once I got beyond the setup, I enjoyed this story a lot (and gave it a 5). It's well written; well above Literotica average in grammar; spelling, and punctuation; the dialogue is good and it and the plot flow well.
The setup isn't believable enough to me. In real life in the time it's set it, Sinclair would have been out the door before the fifth paragraph. And even today, he'd probably be bounced--certainly not sent back to any unit--because of the attitude he was willing to verbalize. Over and above that, the narrator, in real life, wouldn't then have sought him out for sex. Sinclair would be persona nongrata and the narrator would know that any hookup with him as the narrator set it up would land the narrator in the same trouble. The only believable approach I see to this would be the narrator, yes, becoming obsessed with Sinclair, meeting him incidentally off base entirely away from military influence, being overpowered and seduced, and giving in to him as a submissive whose needs overshadowed his fear of being caught (which would become a strong emotional element of the story). I wouldn't have had the narrator rationalize a hookup (beyond wanting it) in any way before he was blindsided and overpowered.
A couple of minor technical points, which don't really degrade the read at all, except that I, for one, was distracted by the title capitalization:
1. Ranks aren’t capitalized unless they are in front of the name (e.g., commander, sergeant, battalion commander). But you weren’t consistent, which added to the distraction.
2. Most numbers are written out (e.g., forty-five days; at twenty-four years old, after twenty minutes).
3. Percentages in prose text are rendered as arabic numbers, but the percentage sign is spelled out (100 percent),
4. People are “who” not “that” (e.g., “only person in the room who . . .).
5. “Mind-set” is hyphenated.
6. “LT” wouldn’t be said in dialogue. He would have said “Lieutenant.”
The setup isn't believable enough to me. In real life in the time it's set it, Sinclair would have been out the door before the fifth paragraph. And even today, he'd probably be bounced--certainly not sent back to any unit--because of the attitude he was willing to verbalize. Over and above that, the narrator, in real life, wouldn't then have sought him out for sex. Sinclair would be persona nongrata and the narrator would know that any hookup with him as the narrator set it up would land the narrator in the same trouble. The only believable approach I see to this would be the narrator, yes, becoming obsessed with Sinclair, meeting him incidentally off base entirely away from military influence, being overpowered and seduced, and giving in to him as a submissive whose needs overshadowed his fear of being caught (which would become a strong emotional element of the story). I wouldn't have had the narrator rationalize a hookup (beyond wanting it) in any way before he was blindsided and overpowered.
A couple of minor technical points, which don't really degrade the read at all, except that I, for one, was distracted by the title capitalization:
1. Ranks aren’t capitalized unless they are in front of the name (e.g., commander, sergeant, battalion commander). But you weren’t consistent, which added to the distraction.
2. Most numbers are written out (e.g., forty-five days; at twenty-four years old, after twenty minutes).
3. Percentages in prose text are rendered as arabic numbers, but the percentage sign is spelled out (100 percent),
4. People are “who” not “that” (e.g., “only person in the room who . . .).
5. “Mind-set” is hyphenated.
6. “LT” wouldn’t be said in dialogue. He would have said “Lieutenant.”
Last edited:
Similar threads
