Forum: Author Hangout

I have not found an alternative to this site that is sex story specific and as user friendly to the author to post serial stories.

The others just lack in so many ways - there is really no other home for my stories.

Thanks for all of the replies!

I like the idea of using separate pseudonyms to group stories differently. Is it possible to move a published story from one pseudonym to another?

And, yeah, after one or two stories I quickly realized I needed to write what I wanted / liked, because someone would always be offended. I had one early reader respond with an email entitled, "Are You Stupid?" He disagreed with a plot point and spent a few paragraphs telling me how dumb it was that a character took a particular action. Obviously, I disagreed as I wrote it and thought the action was inline, and consistent, with the character's beliefs and motives throughout the story.

Story #8 was just published and I don't have anything else close to being done so it will give me a little time off to think up my next storyline!

I had one early reader respond with an email entitled, "Are You Stupid?" He disagreed with a plot point and spent a few paragraphs telling me how dumb it was that a character took a particular action. Obviously, I disagreed as I wrote it and thought the action was inline, and consistent, with the character's beliefs and motives throughout the story.

I still get that on occasion. Mostly I simply politely respond, explain why I had something happen, then moved on. Most of my comments about my writing is actually right in the open for all to see. And I almost never filter it, about the only time I delete something is if it is future plot related.

Heck, I recently got the recent as a "review", and I leave it up still for all to see.

I genueinly like your storytelling, well written, certainly. But it does get very repetitive and seems to go nowhere.

9/10 for the prose, the writing craft, 4/10 for getting a storyline on track.

Well, yea. And as most who have read my comments know it is very much an "experimental story". Heck, the main character did not even put his penis into the girl he met in Chapter 1 until Chapter 26. It is rambling, it tends to bounce around a bit, I took an insane amount of time until I finally let him hook up with the "love of his life".

Uhhh, on purpose. Jokingly, I have been calling it the "Seinfeld of Porn". It goes off on tangents, you may get chapters about things that other than details repeat over and over again. But guess what? That's life. But if somebody looks for details, things do change, and those passages are showing the changes over time.

But I got lots of other stories that are more to the point. So if somebody does not like my scribblings in one, they are welcome to find another they like more.

And I laugh at "getting the storyline on track", it amuses me because part of the story was simply allowing me to see how long I could drag things out. Yet at the same time have things progress, and not simply stagnate.

We all know those. Guy meets girl, guy fucks girl, 100 chapters later guy is still fucking girl. Ad nauseum. I simply got it in my head to try something new. Even including the **GASP** main character have at least 3 hot girls hit on him and state they wanted to sleep with him, which he turned down but then had varying levels of sexual tension with afterwards.

But ultimately, we are the authors and creators of the worlds we make. I welcome input, and am pleased others enjoy what I post here. But ultimately, I am writing for my own enjoyment and sanity.

Posting a story while it is a work in progress come with the risk that reader comments might sway the author's direction. Readers don't have the full vision that a writer is communicating until the whole story is told.

If a writer needs reader feedback to build the story, more power to them. I only post completed stories.

Conversely, I have also noticed any story that puts the US army in a 'bad light' will also attract the wrath of One Bomber Command...

And most of them I would simply laugh at and ignore.

I make no secret I am career Military. But at the same time, I also recognize that there are "bad eggs" in every group.

About the only time I ever get upset is when somebody is simply outright wrong and tries to portray the military itself and its members as "evil". The military only teaches people to kill, the military is full of nothing but idiots and criminals, rape is taught and endorsed, things like that. If somebody wants to make a story about a rogue group that goes on missions and decides it is their duty to go around and impregnate young girls, they can knock their socks off as far as I am concerned.

Just so long as they openly state that the missions are unsanctioned, and they are doing all they can to hide it because they know the military would be all over them like stink on shit.

Now if they try to state in the military it is official policy to do that, well then yea I would have major issues. Unless it is say "future history" in some kind of dystopia in 50 years.

Mostly, my issues here in those classified as "military" (which I actually almost never read) is because they are factually moronic. Most involve the kid with the IQ of a turnip who becomes a Seal-Green Beret-Sniper who accumulates 300 kills, and can bed anybody he wants just be being the studly man he is. Either that, or the author does not hide they hate the military, and is doing all they can to make all in it look bad.

Of course, I also almost never watch "war movies" either. Same thing, I find most of them moronic and retarded in the extreme.

For instance, if you create the pen name "Peter Poo Pants" and only post scat related stories there, then you have less chance of a non-scat interested reader stumbling across it, being morally outraged at their squick being triggered and down-voting accordingly.

*LAUGHING*

I think one thing that always annoys me is those that get all offended and outraged, when the codes are already listed. Or offended because they are not finding what they want in my stories, even though the codes they want are not in my story.

"I WANT MORE INCEST!"
"Why are you telling me? This story has no incest code, go find one that does."

"I WANT THE CHARACTER TO GET EVERYBODY PREGNANT!"
"Uhh, the main character is 16. That would turn it from a fun fantasy into a horror."

"I WANT TO SEE SUCH-AND-SUCH POLITICIAN HUMILIATED!"
"Uhhh, this is not a political story, I don't do that."

"I WANT..."
"Tell you what, then. Stop complaining to me, and write your own damn story with all of that you want in it."

"BUT I CAN'T WRITE! CATER TO ME!"
"*Considers the legality of defenestration.*"

In short, do not worry about those that only complain. Most are not writers, would never be writers, and are lazy and selfish SOBs that only think they should get whatever they want.

I have to admit, that sometimes I write purely because I am curious as to whether or not I can, in relation to certain subjects. I posted a story not too long ago where the premise was to take as many 'offensive' story codes as possible and put them in as cohesive story as possible. Which given the story tags involved was quite a challenge...LOL. Hell, I even said what I was doing in the story descriptor and sat back for the fireworks. I wasn't disappointed. LOL. But I had a blast doing it and the scoring was hilarious, talk about polar extremes, it was about as Marmite as you could get without actually being Marmite. Plenty of votes either end and nothing in 'the middle'.

I agree with you Mushroom. I don't tend to watch or read much military stuff. I also had the pleasure of working alongside many forces, along with their associated branches (Navy, Land, and Air and SF ) and the difference between them all and their branches was astoundingly polar.

I have to admit, that sometimes I write purely because I am curious as to whether or not I can, in relation to certain subjects. I posted a story not too long ago where the premise was to take as many 'offensive' story codes as possible and put them in as cohesive story as possible.

And I have done the exact same thing. I wrote on purpose an absolutely horrible story. Including in it every code I could, writing in a juvenile manner, and warning everybody in the description exactly what I was doing.

I was sitting at work and died.

Then I woke up and realized I was a teenager again, and I was a woman! I was not just any woman, I was my own 16 year old twin sister! Wow, I always wanted to fuck my twin sister, so now I can fuck myself as my brother!

So I went into the hall, and realized I was not reliving my life, I was in heaven! And stretching before me was a hallway of endless doors.

I went into the first one, and saw my mother fucking my father. Or was he fucking her? Either way, they were fucking. I watched and jacked off on the doorway, then went to the next door.

Yea, absolutely nothing like anything I had ever posted before. Yet I still laughed when I got some hate mail, saying that I did not include enough of their kink to keep their interest.

Obviously they missed the joke. The narrator finally realizes they are not in Stories Online Heaven, they are actually in Stories Online Hell. Part of the strange sense of humor that caused me to "Rick-Roll" my readers at another time.

That would be easy enough... turn 'The Aristocrats' into a flash story, and end with the punchline being delivered unexpectedly.

I have actually done something similar, but not as Flash.

Hot sex, middle aged guy banging the hell of out of a hot young chick. Only at the very end to realize he might now have HIV. Or a chick letting a guy who she thought was her husband bang her on a rooftop over looking the city as they were preparing to get her pregnant, only to realize that had not been her husband.

Or as a challenge here once, thinking he was only banging his sister's occasional lover, only to realize...

Part of the fun I think of making a good story is to work to get your readers thinking they know where you are going. Then at the very end to pull out the tablecloth, and reveal you were going somewhere else all along.

Just like the classic "Aristocrats" joke. And yes, I am very familiar with the concept. For those that are not, it is an old and very off-color joke. Generally a booking agent at a theater talking to a talent scout who hopes they will book their act.

The agent will describe a "Family Act", that includes things like scat, incest, beastiality, pedophilia, and anything else that falls into the area of the most sick humor the comic can think of. And the punch line, is that they call themselves "The Aristocrats". Being the exact opposite of what the act actually does on stage.

Part of the fun I think of making a good story is to work to get your readers thinking they know where you are going. Then at the very end to pull out the tablecloth, and reveal you were going somewhere else all along.

Deus ex machina.

You might enjoy writing them, but I bet readers are less appreciative.

AJ

Then at the very end to pull out the tablecloth, and reveal you were going somewhere else all along.

Deus ex machina.

You might enjoy writing them, but I bet readers are less appreciative.

Not if done well. The movie "The Sixth Sense" for example.

The movie "The Sixth Sense" for example.

I agree with those writing experts who say that a good twist should leave the reader thinking, "I didn't see that coming but I should have."

'The Sixth Sense' matches that criterion IMO - it's not exactly a complete bolt from the blue.

On the other hand, a David Baldacci protagonist being saved at the last moment by someone the reader didn't even know existed is IMO poor/lazy writing.

AJ

a good twist should leave the reader thinking, "I didn't see that coming but I should have."

Did you know that every scene with a dead person had red in it? So much so that the people making the movie thought someone would surely notice.

I guess that meant every scene with Bruce Willis had red in it.

Did you know that every scene with a dead person had red in it?

No, I didn't.

To me, it's a good film but not one I'd want to see more than once. I wonder whether including such covert symbolism was M Night Shyamalan's way of trying to attract multiple viewings.

AJ

To me, it's a good film but not one I'd want to see more than once. I wonder whether including such covert symbolism was M Night Shyamalan's way of trying to attract multiple viewings.

When he is good, he lays out a very meticulous world, that follows very specific rules. The Sixth Sense worked, because not only did it state very clearly early on what those rules were, but in a way nobody could miss.

Yet, everybody missed them.

Cole Sear : I see dead people.
Malcolm Crowe : In your dreams?
[Cole shakes his head no]
Malcolm Crowe : While you're awake?
[Cole nods]
Malcolm Crowe : Dead people like, in graves? In coffins?
Cole Sear : Walking around like regular people. They don't see each other. They only see what they want to see. They don't know they're dead.
Malcolm Crowe : How often do you see them?
Cole Sear : All the time. They're everywhere.

The multiple viewings are mostly to appreciate the art he used of literally putting everything in your face, yet missing it. Like that the only person Bruce Willis ever interacts with is the boy. Others appear to, but in reality do not.

Something he did not really do again well until Unbreakable. Most who watched it could see the entire thing, and not even realize they were literally watching a Superhero Origin movie.

the only person Bruce Willis ever interacts with is the boy. Others appear to, but in reality do not.

Like when he's sitting across the table from his wife at a restaurant. She never answers him. And when he reaches for the check she snatches it first.

Not if done well. The movie "The Sixth Sense" for example.

M. Night is kind of hit or miss. Had an excellent movie, then an OK movie, another excellent movie, then a slew of forgettable movies.

Then found his stride again when he threw in his twist at the very end that it was a sequel to an earlier movie.

Myself, my earliest inspiration came before he was known by using O. Henry as an example. The Gift of the Magi, The Cop and the Anthem, The Caballero's Way, and similar stories. But the key is that they story is good, that is where M. Night lost it. He got to concentrating so much on the twist that the stories sucked.

a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem in a story is suddenly and abruptly resolved by an unexpected and unlikely occurrence. Its function can be to resolve an otherwise irresolvable plot situation, to surprise the audience, to bring the tale to a happy ending, or act as a comedic device.

Wikipedia (spit!) indicates a broader usage, which includes the concept of a plot twist that is impossible for the reader to see coming.

AJ

Wikipedia (spit!) indicates a broader usage, which includes the concept of a plot twist that is impossible for the reader to see coming.

Only when nothing was ever given to indicate it is coming. Like say as the hero was about to be shot a truck driven by somebody never seen before runs down the shooter.

If done right, hints and clues were dropped. But it is all up to the reader to pick them up or not.

For example, in mine I gave a great many hints and clues. Describing an illustration that looks like a spikey beachball with spikes on it, in a folder called ART. And the fact that the ex-boyfriend who tried to cyberstalk the girl will never be a problem again.

https://www.avert.org/sites/default/files/styles/article_scale_style_780/public/RS16_iStock-640012070-lpr.jpg

Well, the "spikey beachball" is what the HIV virus looks like. ART is Anti-Retroviral Treatment. And yea, the ex blew his head off when the treatments stopped and he developed AIDS. I pretty much laid all of that out very early on, but it would be up to the reader to put most of that together.

But others were simply decisions. Like the main character refusing to leave with a hot girl, because he had fallen in love with a sexbot.

But then I made one with 2 twists. First, the sexy neighbor the main character gets caught having sex with is 16. OK, goes to the expected trial. But when the attorney tries to get the girl to testify, the character changes their plea to guilty, refusing to put the girl through any more trauma. Then willingly goes to jail to protect her.

Twists can come in many different ways. Twilight Zone was full of them. And the best dropped it right in your lap at the very start.

"To Serve Man".

For example, in mine I gave a great many hints and clues.

I once counted the number of clues in my story "Forced Lust" after many people told me they never saw it coming. It's too long ago to remember now, but there were probably a dozen clues. You don't see them reading it the first time, but you do the second time.

You might enjoy writing them, but I bet readers are less appreciative.

Then you would bet wrong. I get a huge number of complements about how the ending surprised them.

The reason for Space Force to exist is every bit as valid as the reasons for the Army Air Corps to become the United States Air Force in the 1940's.

Heck, the Russians have had this since the 1990's. And the Soviets since the 1970's. Most of the wags do not really know what it is, or what it does. They simply wag their tongues for political reasons.

Plus the USSF needed to be a more open organization, as it is expected to cooperate with the Army, Navy, and NASA as well as other government agencies. Something the Air Force often has problems with.

They also are no longer to lord over the other branches about GPS and most Satellite communications. Yes, the Navy's SPAWAR had some stuff in orbit that Space Force "Acquired" as well to my understanding. But it's more palatable to deal with a service branch (Space Force) whose mission (at present) is to make sure you get the technical services you need.

But it goes even deeper. As they have other tasks.

One of the largest is that they become the "Central Command" for cyber warfare. At this time, each branch has it's own organization, answering only to their own chain of command. As the organization in charge of this among the DoD, they become the organization that will help coordinate the efforts of each branch so they are not duplicating themselves.

It also is the organization in charge of launching things into space. The Air Force and Navy (as well as NASA) each still have their own space launch capabilities. With one organization to help coordinate that, less conflict and overlap of operations.

On the war front (which is a small part), you then have oversight into the various ABM operations of all 3 main branches. All 3 branches do have their own capabilities in this. NORAD was the Air Force organization in charge of detecting an attack against the US, then responding to it offensively. With once again all 3 major branches having their own nuclear response capabilities.

SF is similarly taking charge of the various ABM operations. So that if an attack is launched, you do not have the Army, Navy, and Air Force all "doing their own thing" and not working together as a team. Such as say all branches only concentrating on protecting their own assets, meanwhile letting other places go up in a mushroom cloud.

Or all 3 concentrating on defending only one point, when in actuality they could let one branch do that, and the other 2 defend other locations.

Having been involved for years in ABM operations myself, I see this as very important. It got tricky even on a theater wide basis, which is why such operations are normally a weird chimera of Army and Air Force both in charge. With us largely treating the Navy as a "Free Agent". Who might get involved, and then again might not.

But yes, the conflicts between the Navy and Air Force are legendary. The AF never liked that they have been allowed to have their own air programs, completely removed from what they saw as "their" area of specialization. These have been even more bitter than that between the Army and Marines.

And one the Marines take advantage of, as they can thumb their nose at the AF, and say "Don't like it, tough. We are part of the Navy."

The Air Force is still bitter because almost 30 years ago, their "Joint Advanced Strike Technology" (JAST) program became secondary, and was forced to fall under a Navy "Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter" (CALF) program, and the "Joint Strike Fighter" (JSF) was born. They wanted a replacement for the F-16, and wanted a "Super F-16". But the Navy/Marines could not use the F-16, so their toy was taken away and became something that was more specialized for those 2 branches.

Then you have the issue of the A-10. Another program the AF has wanted to kill for decades. But if they ever do, the Army has said they would consider creating the "Army Air Corps II", as the AF is mandated to provide a fixed wing dedicated close air support aircraft to the Army. And if they ever refuse, the Army can resume their fixed wing ground attack operations again.

My understanding is that drones are causing disruption in the services also. AF requires full pilots, which means AF officers. Army trains drone operators, which are enlisted personnel. Exacerbates the difference in the two services as to who does the fighting. AF- officers. Army - enlisted.

Both branches use "Enlisted Pilots". However, one things that both have in common is that only an Officer can authorize and launch weapons from the drones.

This is where the differences are seen. Since the Vietnam War when the Army bumped up their Warrant Officer program, that means they have more who are authorized to take that role. A strange position to most branches, they are both officers, and not officers.

The Army is able to put a Warrant Officer into that authorization position, where as the Air Force only uses full officers.

I always found it curious that of all 4 branches, only the 2 ground branches (Army and Marines) ever really utilized the potential of "Warrant Officers". The Navy I can kind of get, but still think they should use them in the more non-combat positions (Corpsmen, Clergy). But the Air Force not using them always puzzled me. As the very position calls for a "Subject Matter Expert", it always seems to me that this would almost scream for such a rank.

Then again, it would not surprise me if there was a cadre of Academy Graduates behind the scenes not wanting this, to ensure their positions.

But in the end, one thing has to be realized. No matter what branch, each requires an Officer (or Warrant Officer) to authorize the pushing of the button to release a weapon. Any monkey can pilot the drone, aim the PATRIOT missile, or turn the canon to the right direction. But only an officer can authorize it's use other than in self-defense (or in cases where the authority is passed to an NCO).

As I already mentioned, I worked with ABM systems for over 5 years. And while there were 2 people (normally low ranking enlisted) that ran the operations in the "Command Van" that actually launched the missiles, it was always a Commissioned Officer or Warrant Officer that actually gave the command and flipped a switch to authorize it. 3 people, but only 1 of the 3 actually given the authority to give that order.

Compared to the other branches, the Air Force is "full of officers". While as the Marines have 1 officer to each 8 enlisted and the Army and Navy have 1 officer to each 5 enlisted, the Air Force has 1 officer to each 4 enlisted.

This is why you see many more positions that other branches give to senior NCOs and Warrant Officers given to Officers in the AF. They simply have "excess that need jobs". In a branch where if you are not flying in some way, you are largely ignored.

entire basis of SF was to 'drop bombs'

Was never the purpose. I always laugh when people say things like this.

I wouldn't worry about that one, we'll see if it's even a 'governmental organization' in another year. I'm guessing it won't be, as space has LONG been considered non-national (i.e. everyone is free to explore all they want as there are NO national boundaries, as the entire basis of SF was to 'drop bombs' (i.e. shooting down other nations' military satellites) from space!

This reply (and the other ones in reply to the reply) confuzzled me greatly... And then it finally dawned on me (in it's own sweet time) that there had been a misunderstanding. When I said SF, it was in the terms of 'Special Forces' NOT Space Farce (sic). I have never worked with a Space Force (Met plenty of Space Cadets....) I have met Buzz Aldrin though, and what a thoroughly nice bloke he was to, he even said he would send me a signed photograph, which I rather skeptically disbelieved in typical Blighty fashion, right up until a large envelope popped through the letterbox a few weeks later- all the way from America, stamped all over with NASA's logo.... LOL. Inside was his photo signed by him to me by name. It was a valuable life lesson, not all famous people are twats.

As to demographics, I keep hearing here that people prefer no-sex stories and skim over sex scenes. I bet the silent majority on SOL would beg to differ.

I dislike very long stories where there's an obligatory cut-and-paste sex scene every chapter. If there's a decent story arc, I'll keep reading but page down past the sex scenes after the first handful.

AJ

But that's a bad writing problem not an issue with sex scenes in general.

I'm glad you said that and not me ;-)

I have no objections to sex scenes per se. I even read the odd stroke story. But for a novel-length story, I would like the sex scenes to advance the story.

AJ

A good story needs a plot, but it also needs other things besides the plot.

Subplots?

A story needs a setting and props, background scenery.

You almost make it sound as though they're necessary for the plot ;-)

AJ

A story needs a setting and props, background scenery.

This is from an article by Nathan Bransford called "How to know what to cut from a novel." He's was a literary agent turned novelist and I've read good information from him in the past.

The very first one is titled: "Scenes that merely exist to "introduce" characters or a setting."

Often writers make the mistake of padding their openings with scenes whose sole purpose is to establish a particular character or a setting and don't otherwise advance the story. These chapters usually end up feeling unnecessary and a bit confusing because nothing at all important is happening.

Instead: Introduce characters and settings in the course of telling the actual story.

We don't need an entire scene where nothing substantive happens just to get to know a character or provide exhaustive exposition. Just pick up where the story actually begins and trust that you can fill in the other details as you go along.

It's much better to get to know a character in the course of the story unfolding than in an otherwise meaningless scene.

Even if you want to show what your protagonist's "normal" world is like before things get knocked off kilter and the plot gets going, give them a mini-quest in the beginning to pull the reader through the opening.

You always need to be telling a story and keeping your protagonist active and motivated. Cut anywhere that's not happening and fold the exposition in elsewhere.

And the mini-quest mentioned is still something separate from the story's plot.

Description is not plot, and description is needed. Not every word written advances the plot. Or even builds characters.

I thought what was suggested was that you can have a chapter that doesn't advance the plot.

The journey itself is as important as the destination. Slow down, smell the roses and don't be in such a hurry to get to the end as quickly as possible.

That's true, but when have the story seems to be an internal discussion as to the significance of what the painter is trying to express in the painting Blue Poles, then you have to start wondering what the hell is the point of the story.

I dislike very long stories where there's an obligatory cut-and-paste sex scene every chapter. If there's a decent story arc, I'll keep reading but page down past the sex scenes after the first handful.

I had a number of people make this point, and that led to a significant reduction in sex scenes in my series, and after the 'honeymoon period' in the upcoming book in my 'Good Medicine' series, it's basically zero sex.

and after the 'honeymoon period' in the upcoming book in my 'Good Medicine' series, it's basically zero sex.

Then we need the opposite of the "slow" story code. "Slow" means it takes a while for the sex to begin. The new code would reflect sex in the beginning but then no more.

That suggestion was tongue-in-cheek, of course.

But SOL itself doesn't have a targeted audience so it has stuff for everyone, and that means someone isn't going to like something.

That reminds me of the grief that Baen Books got for publishing John Ringo's 'Ghost'. How DARE a science/military fiction publisher put something out with pornography in it!

Since I'm somewhat ideologically to the right of Atilla the Hun (kill 'em all, and who cares whether God sorts 'em out or not), yet at the same time, I have no issues with some good old down and dirty sex (or clean and puritan sex, bad new up and clean sex, or whatever, so longs as it's consensual and the parties are old enough to give consent, however many there are), I appreciate so many of the older stories on SOL, where the author tied the sex in.

That's the biggest issue with a lot of books today, IMHO. They want to pretend that sex doesn't happen in EVERY society. And it obviously does.

They want to pretend that sex doesn't happen in EVERY society. And it obviously does.

Except the ones we don't know about because they Darwinised themselves ;-)

AJ

I keep hearing here that people prefer no-sex stories and skim over sex scenes.

The main reason I'll skip over sex scenes in a particular story is because after the third sex scenes you're seeing the same scene again with only minor word changes, if any, other than the names. Thus the scenes get extremely boring and annoying. There are a few authors who've been able to make each sex scene different, and those are the ones where I will read the sex scenes.

The other time I skip sex scenes is when they actually disrupt the story as it seems the author thought he should have sex scenes and decides to throw one in at random points.

Apart from some early works before I learned my lesson on such issues I now restrict sex scenes to where they are actually a part of the plot or progress the story / plot in a useful way. That doesn't mean I won't end up writing another stroke like story at some point, just that they're few and far between now.

SOL is a general "publisher." I guess Finestories and Scifistories are imprints. But SOL itself doesn't have a targeted audience so it has stuff for everyone, and that means someone isn't going to like something.

WLPC - World Literature Publishing Corporation - is the publisher. SOL, FineStories, SciFiStories, et al, are the imprints. At least as I understand how things work.

WLPC - World Literature Publishing Corporation - is the publisher. SOL, FineStories, SciFiStories, et al, are the imprints

Except WLPC doesn't publish anything. It's more the legal entity behind the scenes.

I don't see SOL as an imprint. It's too generic. That's why I've said in the past that now that there's Finestories and Scifistories, SOL should be the adult-content site.

People who want no sex stories, go to Finestories.
People who want SciFi stories (with no sex), go to Scifistories.
People who want stories with adult content, go to SOL.

It's my understanding that stories on Finestories and Scifistories are also on SOL. No wonder the demographics for SOL is so confusing.

It's my understanding that stories on Finestories and Scifistories are also on SOL.

While there are many authors who do post on all of the sites, that's not the case, and there are some stories that are on one site and not the others, despite being able to post to them all.

What I greatly appreciate about SoL is it's the only site where I can post all of my stories without having to worry about someone bitching and having a story pulled. Although Bookapy is also in the same category for having everything.

People who want SciFi stories (with no sex), go to Scifistories.

You can have SciFi stories with sex in them on SciFiStories. But the main story plot has to be SciFi or related, and you have to specify above age 17. I have Love Never Changes, A True History Book One, and I'm posting A True History Book Two on that site now, as a payback to Laz for hosting this site.

I've had people ask me what SOL is, because they know about that site, but not this one.

Readers that look for stroke content only are basically two groups - a younger demographic, and those specifically interested in their own particular kink only.

I don't resemble that remark.

I'm not the younger demographic, and I know I won't find my particular kink. But that doesn't stop me enjoying a well-written stroke story. I've even edited/proofread quite a few.

AJ

I'm not sure about tags, but it's reasonably obvious what sort of story themes attract the highest readership and highest scores. You can't go far wrong with a combat-veteran marine, for example.

Most of my writing overall is science fiction. Although it scores highly here, I'm trying to diversify as a writer so I've tried to avoid Sci-Fi themes in my SOL stories.

I've also tried to avoid characters that could be described as all-American stereotypical heroes. And none of my characters have 12 inch penises ;-)

AJ

Part of me thinks that it would be mighty interesting to pull the last 12 months worth of reader stats and create charts for the popularity of no-sex vs the various levels of sex content, then another chart for all the various tags.

I didn't do an analysis of the various tags, but back in July 2017 and April 2018 I did do an analysis of the stories based on the five sex categories and the scores the stories got. While they're several months apart the figures shown are reasonably consistent over the 2 periods. I did the work in response to a similar thread to this back then. Check the files as I think a few people will be surprised at what they show.

The interesting stats are the No sex stories make up just over 10% of the total number of stories and just over 53% are in the Much Sex group.

The files are available on my DropBox site as Sol Stats ...

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ebk8ve052m0c1rs/AACohN7e_x8OuRFrn0EbQ2L6a?dl=0

I also had to decide whether coding something that happens forty-plus chapters in is 'fair'.

I was reading a very long story that had a very good premise, then at about chapter 60 of 100 plus chapters there is one extremely heavy BDSM scene that was not only not coded for at all, but there was no warning until you hit it. I never did finish that story and that author is on my 'do not read or recommend' list as I now know I can never trust them to doe a story properly or to have an appropriate description for a story. I've very few authors on that list, and each made it for the same type of crap - not coding something that should've been coded. I'll forgive poor writing, bad plots, silly plots, and almost anything but what is the literary equivalent of a bait and switch by giving information to encourage reading but not mentioning extreme material that would discourage reading.

It was so long ago that I don't remember the story name, I'd guess about a decade ago. At the time I did complain to Lazeez and he checked the story then he added codes he felt it should have. He also added codes to a couple of other stories by the author involved. Of the author list only acolodude still has stories on SoL, but I'm not sure if it was one of his stories or not. Heck, I may have the story length wrong, but it was a long one and the scene was just after halfway, with a long scene and enough extreme bdsm and torture to upset me, even after some of the stuff I've written along the lines of bdsm and bondage.

I suspect a large part of the issue for me was that it was not needed for the story as it was up to that point (I can't speak of after that as I didn't finish the story), and it was so extreme without any warning or indications to expect it at all.

NB: I have some memory issues from 2005 to 2013 due to medications I was on at that time. Thus I suspect the story is from that period, but, again, I'm not sure as I tried hard to forget about it.

This brings up an interesting point. Heavy BDSM is obvious; it's a code, you go with it. The question is on things in another area. For instance, rape. Per a very specific description in the Author Agreement, rape that isn't described isn't coded 'rape'. That's all well and good - a reader might be looking for a rape story and it wouldn't be one.

On the other hand, a character getting raped and suffering major trauma and consequences is a huge story element that might truly upset readers. 'Caution' seems to apply, but 'caution' is super-broad. Someone being badly injured in a traffic accident and having to deal with it might be 'caution' to some readers.

It's easy to work with codes that unquestionably should be there. BDSM, in that example, counts. Not coding it is a mistake. But the 'caution' catch-all is more interesting; if one doesn't code 'caution' and something significant that might upset some readers happens, is that a failing?

Most long stories that are capturing someone's life are going to have significantly negative things happen; do they have an implicit 'caution'? I struggle with how to deal with that; it would both lose impact and cause the reader to constantly be guessing who will be the victim if you, e.g., write in a forward: 'Someone's going to get raped and have a major life crisis; be ready.' But someone who's sensitive to rape might be thoroughly upset if they find a character they've come to love suffering that way.

And I'm choosing that as an example because no one gets raped in Book 1 of my story, so it's not a spoiler. Doesn't mean it can't happen later - I don't know much of what will happen in later books; my characters haven't told me yet. And it definitely doesn't mean that nothing bad happens to anyone in Book 1, or that there aren't some parts that might be difficult for some people.

rape that isn't described isn't coded 'rape'.

According to the definition of the "rape" story code, non-consensual sex because of blackmail, coercion, drugs, etc. is not rape. I've had readers complain that I did not have the rape code in those kinds of stories. Why would someone who doesn't like non-consensual sex read a story with the "non-consent" tag?

I'm sorry, but I expect my readers to be open-minded. Tolerant. If it makes for a good story, live with it. I don't know why SOL readers are so sensitive.

From a tag standpoint, I agree, it's 'NonConsent' and not 'Rape'. From an ethical standpoint, rape, in my opinion, but the tag specifically says 'violent'.

'NonConsent' really does adequately cover those other cases (of course, there are also specific tags for blackmail, coercion, and drugged, so those narrow it down).

From a tag standpoint, I agree, it's 'NonConsent' and not 'Rape'. From an ethical standpoint, rape, in my opinion, but the tag specifically says 'violent'.

From a legal standpoint, consensual sex with someone below the age of consent is rape — statutory rape.

Agree, and it's a factor in my story, but only in the sense that everyone who is affected (which is pretty much everyone) is nonetheless legal under state law at the time (not under fourteen and within two years).

There may well be off-page pairings discussed which do not meet that threshold, but that's not within the story proper.

At the risk of a truly minor spoiler, "Romeo and Juliet Laws" will be a plot point in Book 3.

Can someone rape a statue?

Ayep, the idiot woke crowd have been raping statues all year long.

Can someone rape a statue?

It's been happening a lot lately with statues of men people all of a sudden don't like, like Christopher Columbus. Even Jefferson. They have been raped (abused).

They even did a statute of a long time abolitionist who joined the Union Army specifically to fight against slavery.

And are trying to remove one of President Lincoln right now in DC, that was erected by a Freedmans's Group. The founding member of which put up the money from her first pay as a free woman.

Then people wonder why I laugh when I call Progressives "Reactionaries".

And are trying to remove one of President Lincoln

They recently put up a statue with Susan B. Anthony and I believe Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Why put up a statue of racists?

The disagreements at that convention led not only to the dissolution of AERA, but a split in the women's suffrage movement between those who supported the 15th Amendment and those who did not. Stanton and Anthony joined the faction that did not; and after the amendment passed, many of the suffragists on that side pandered to white southerners by arguing that that if white women could vote, they could drown out the Black male vote.

Anthony also sought to distance her work from Douglass, who continued to support women's suffrage for the rest of his life. During an 1890s suffrage meeting in Atlanta, she asked him not to appear onstage with white women because it would seem inappropriate.

They recently put up a statue with Susan B. Anthony and I believe Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Why put up a statue of racists?

Or proudly getting awards in the name of Margaret Sanger. Quite a few women today proudly proclaim her works. Yet, she was a racist, an anti-immigrant, supported forced sterilization of the mentally ill and retarded (as well as keeping them locked away from society), and was a huge believer in eugenics, and that through birth control whites would be able to outbreed blacks until they became a minor group in the country. The KKK were frequent donors to her programs, and she often spoke to women's groups of the organization.

Oh, and who was strongly anti-abortion, unless it was to save the life of the mother. She was strongly against it as a form of birth control.

Yet, I find it ironic that many almost want her canonized. Yet after a statue of staunch abolitionist and civil war hero Hans Christian Heg (he was killed fighting for the Union) was torn down and decapitated by BLM marchers, that his statue should be replaced by one of Sanger.

On the other hand, a character getting raped and suffering major trauma and consequences is a huge story element that might truly upset readers. 'Caution' seems to apply, but 'caution' is super-broad.

That's where you can include something in the story description to help describe what you just said. There you can say something like 'A rape victim has ..' and not use the rape code since it's not on screen. Another option I have seen used by others is someone describes another character and says, 'watch what you say to her as she's a victim of severe rape and a bit touchy about some subjects.'

The codes are meant for what occurs on screen, and that's how I try to use them.

I might do that to the side; the problem is the loss of surprise and the addition of pointless suspense. If I say 'someone gets raped', there's no surprise when it happens. That surprise is important, I think. And there's unintended suspense: Who? When? Is it about to happen? That's suspense I didn't build into the story. It also makes very light foreshadowing into heavy foreshadowing. If character X is a little 'edgy', instead of it explaining bad behavior later, everyone's suddenly staring at them as the potential rapist.

'Caution' covers it without unnecessarily tipping the author's hand, but it also is, to me, almost implied.

I can think of specific story situations in major, well-regarded SOL stories (some of Michael Loucks' stories, G Younger's 'Stupid Boy', Aroslav's 'Transmogrification of Jacob Hopkins', Bluedragon's OSL for examples) where bad to very bad things happen to or around nice people. None of those are coded for either the bad thing or 'caution', and, in my opinion, it's appropriate that they're not. The impact of the events would be muted if someone told you that a bad thing was imminent.

None of those are 'miscoded'; the 'bad things' are simply outside the scope of the codes. Things within the codes should be properly coded.

I'd feel bad if someone was majorly upset by a bad thing I wrote that's outside the codes. I get upset by some bad things I've written! There are things that were hard to write and that upset me every time I proofread them. But that should happen, I think.

Maybe the Foreword needs a bit more of an explanation that 'it's life, and bad things do happen'?

Maybe the Foreword needs a bit more of an explanation that 'it's life, and bad things do happen'?

That helps. However, It's been my experience that many don't read a foreword. You have no idea how emails I got about Boone which I answer with the simple statement - Get back to me if you still have a question after you read the foreword - So far I've had no questions from the people involved.

I might do that to the side; the problem is the loss of surprise and the addition of pointless suspense. If I say 'someone gets raped', there's no surprise when it happens.

In my mind a lot will depend on the importance of the character and the incident involved. If it's a secondary character you could introduce the event in the story with a dialogue between 2 other characters who mention the person has issues due to having been raped.

As to mentioning the rape victim in the description, that's where I'd put it only if they are a central character and you want to alert people up front about how they look at things due to that. Otherwise do it in dialogue or narrative when you introduce the character involved or just before then.

Continuing with the theme of rape, which - again - doesn't happen in Book 1, assume for the purpose of discussion that a major character is raped mid-story ('off the page'; we don't see the rape, though - for the purpose of argument - assume another character finds them immediately after, in the heart of the trauma, maybe even saves them from additional harm), and it results in major issues: breakups, trouble in school/transfer to a different school, and so forth. Saying up front 'a major character will be raped' is a giant spoiler and, I think, a net negative for the majority of readers. And it doesn't at all meet the spirit of the 'rape' tag, so it's not 'mandatory'. Indeed, I think the 'rape' tag would be misplaced.

Again, going with analogies off other stories, I can think of cases where something similar happens and neither codes nor 'caution' were involved. At some point, 'bad things happen to good people' needs to be an answer.

As noted elsewhere, however, if someone asked me privately 'does anyone suffer a rape?', and someone does, the answer would be - and has to be - 'yes', not 'wait and see'.

Mine's a series; subsequent books will be their own postings. Book 1 is long (89 chapters; 325,000 words) but it's book. Book 2 will have its own codes (some of which will be different).

again - doesn't happen in Book 1

Do you intend to post all the books of the story as one big story on SoL or each book as individual stories? That's important as the codes for each story should apply only to what is being posted as that story. So if one posted story is Book 1 - then code only for what happens on screen in that book; then do the same for the other books. If an on screen rape appears in book 8 the rape coded isn't needed until book 8.

only ever code for what appears on screen in the story.

Another place you could include some information if you don't want it in the description is your author blog, or as stated earlier in a foreword.

Bad things happen to good people is called life.

Repeating from above (overlapped with your posting), each book will be its own SOL story. There's a fixed scope and I won't start posting until a book is complete from a content standpoint (Book 1 still has one editor reviewing for grammar/punctuation/etc, but the story is long since settled).

I don't mind single-story endlessly-continued works (I just read them at a point in time, then go back and reread after a long hiatus), but that's not what I want to do. And, yes, they're a nightmare from a code standpoint.

I agree - only code for what appears 'on screen'.

I wish the writers would use 'caution'

I think I used it once. But I think it's a cop-out and useless.

If I have something that's a squick to a reader, having the caution tag will not shield me from his wrath. He'll want to know why the specific code wasn't there.

I'm not a real fan of 'caution' either. But, then, I'm drawn towards long works where it's likely that at least some bad things will happen.

If there IS a code for something, the code should be there, or the author should provide a specific 'uncoded activity ahead - read at your own risk' warning. 'Caution' doesn't excuse not coding. And 'caution' as a catch-all for uncodeable things is only very vaguely helpful to a reader.

I'm likely not going to use it, partly on the grounds that other writers who I admire don't use it and have done things that have caught me up short (and would reasonably have truly upset some people). But I'm going to warn via Foreword, blog, and possibly story description that things may happen that could bother some people.

Absolutely. If someone wrote me to ask, I'd answer them. It's one of the few cases where I'd give one reader a 'spoiler'.

Going to blog about this in the next day or so. And update the Foreword.

On the other hand, a character getting raped and suffering major trauma and consequences is a huge story element that might truly upset readers. 'Caution' seems to apply, but 'caution' is super-broad.

Hence, the way I decided to handle it. This is at the very start of the chapter:

NOTICE: This chapter will include things not added in the story codes, to include rape, sexual slavery, and genital mutilation. This is for story reasons in this chapter alone, and will not be repeated. For my own reason those tags are not added, but if they are objectionable feel free to skip to the next chapter. A brief synapses is included at the start of the next chapter to bring you up to speed if a reader decides to skip this chapter.

And I did provide a 1 paragraph description of the important things that had happened. And I will admit however that I did take special delight in having the "tool" of the rapist severed.

Which also is not something that the average "rape fetish" reader would enjoy reading.

And if other authors feel that a story needs "strong" content, I would suggest doing the same thing. Give the reader the courtesy of a warning, then after offering them to skip that chapter give a brief rundown of the story elements skipped. Ultimately, to me it is about respecting the reader.

Which also is not something that the average "rape fetish" reader would enjoy reading.

The psychologists say rape if about control not sex.

The psychologists say rape if about control not sex.

"Rape fetishist", not "rapist".

I recognize that 98% of those readers that have a "rape fetish" are not actual rapists (or want to be raped). But I do not play that game at all, and see it as disgusting any way. Hence, why in the times I do have it, I spend time punishing the rapist if I can (as brutally as I can), and also in trying to have the one that suffered through it deal with the trauma afterwards.

I spend time punishing the rapist if I can (as brutally as I can),

The theme of my first novel is revenge. It's two subplots that come together at the end, so there are two heroes. One hero is a cop who's hunting down and murdering the men who raped his sister when she was a young girl.

I used a Development Editor on that novel. The woman told me that a hero cannot be a murder. I never used a Development Editor again. Boy, what a subjective comment.

That sounds like a genre-specific 'unwritten rule'.

Well, she wrote Romance so maybe it is genre specific. Just like the Romance editor told me the heroine can't commit adultery.

I recently read a Lee Child (Jack Reacher) novel called "The Affair." Reacher murdered in cold blood 3 people. First when a member of a militia confessed to shooting and killing a black boy, Reacher put a bullet through his forehead. Then he killed a Senator and the Senator's son who was a captain in the Army. Broke their necks and left them in a car in front of a speeding train. The genre is Thriller, not Romance.

Dexter was the 'hero' of his series.... Typically, 'hero' is used equivalently to 'protagonist'... if the protagonist is a 'bad guy' it's reasonable to describe the antagonist as 'the real hero'

The antagonist and protagonist remain the same, but the main character is more correctly called an "antihero".

Gregor Samson, Vito and Michael Corleone, Deadpool, Hulk, Punisher, Huck Finn, even the "Man With No Name" are all antiheros. But that does not make them antagonists and those they oppose protagonists.

"Rape fetishist" is a good term. It distinguishes it from 'rape fantasies', which are much more often about the fantasy of relinquishing control to someone who, in the end, was not awful.

I could well write a character who wanted to play out a rape fantasy with their partner (or another selected person with whom they'd consent to be in that situation). That's totally different from a situation in which they are non-consensually forced into something, violent or not.

And such a rape fantasy wouldn't fit any of the tags except 'caution', truly. Even if there were faux-violence, if there's no actual violence and the act is consensual, it's consensual non-rape.

On the other hand, a warning isn't a bad idea at all. Someone highly sensitive to actual rape might not want to read about someone indulging in a fantasy 'rape'. However, that would likely be easy to handle in most cases, since the characters should be negotiating the events well in advance.

I could envision sidestepping negotiation with written slight-of-hand, even in a first-person story:

I almost couldn't believe the request I was making of this near-stranger; this person I only knew because my girlfriend vouched for him. Who would have?! But I'd wanted this for years, and now was my opportunity.
[Direct cut to fantasy rape with no explanation]

That would be a really bad idea, though. The slight fun of foreshadowing, then showing and surprising, isn't worth the risk of presenting something that way, when it's something one can predict people might not want to see.

'synopsis'

'synapses' is a plural for specific portions of the nerve system

*nods*

Which is why I am actually going through this story now, to catch things like that I missed the first time. But I was just doing a copy and paste to show what I have done in the past.

I was reading a very long story that had a very good premise, then at about chapter 60 of 100 plus chapters there is one extremely heavy BDSM scene that was not only not coded for at all, but there was no warning until you hit it.

I will admit that I myself have done something somewhat similar. But to provide a caveat, I did include "Caution" in the tags, but not a specific one as it is not something I find "sexy", and did not want people reading my story thinking it was all about rape.

And at the start of that chapter, I explained why I had it there for story purposes, and even told my readers it was safe to skip that chapter and move to the next one, and at the start of the next one I provided a paragraph explaining briefly what had happened that was important to the story.

That was 1 of 2 "rape scenes" I have written. The other was more of "attempted", and at the end even wrote about the horrors and statistics of sexual assault on those who are impaired. But I had to include them, as both were crucial to later character development into who they became later on.

I can "skirt the edges" of things like that, but for me it is never something done for the "enjoyment" of the reader. It is always portrayed as something horrible, but needed for character growth.

And at the start of that chapter, I explained why I had it there for story purposes, and even told my readers it was safe to skip that chapter and move to the next one, and at the start of the next one I provided a paragraph explaining briefly what had happened that was important to the story.

Actually, I could probably have lived with that, but there was no transition from nice to extreme violence or any warning to expect it. That's what made me angry.

Actually, I could probably have lived with that, but there was no transition from nice to extreme violence or any warning to expect it. That's what made me angry.

Well, the 2 stories that included things like that were "Superhero" stories. So there was a fair amount of violence expected (not graphic, but there).

And as 3 of the 4 main superheroes who are involved in the plot are female, I saw it as part of their development into why they decided to take up that kind of life. Not trying to imply anything, other than those who suffer such attacks would be more likely to be "hyper-sensitive" and protective of others who would also be subjected to sexual abuse. And tend to take a rather "vigilante" response to any they meet in the future.

A strong "tying" moment towards the climax of the first story in the series culminates in the "team" coming together to eliminate child prostitution, and going to extreme lengths to create a place to care for those children once they are saved. Something each of them feels very strongly about on a personal level.

I doubt very seriously you'll ever find that in any academic bylaws. Having said that, in practice you're correct. In my first two years I witnessed many who flamed out due to drugs and alcohol.

I bet it is more likely that they were not removed, as much as they lost scholarships and other benefits (dorms) because of low GPA and simply could not afford to remain.

I knew of one kid that took 7 years to get his degree. Failed half his classes his first 2 years, was finally told to get serious or dad was going to cut him off.

Anyway, back on topic. Tom Holt, writing as KJ Parker, writes a series of books that would probably make readers here throw themselves off the nearest tall building/bridge. Yet, the books don't have sub-categories on the front (or back) page, warning potential readers of content that will hit you like a shovel to the face.

And even more, if one knows about Anne Rice. Her retelling of Sleeping Beauty in many ways starts like the original folktale, with her being raped. Then goes on through 4 books full of torture, S&M, more rape, gangbangs, and more.

Who at the end of the story finally becomes queen, and then strives to turn her entire kingdom over into such a place for everybody.

Or another she wrote, Belinda. I actually enjoyed the book a great deal, but it also deals with a author and illustrator famous for creating children's books. Who then begins a torrid affair with an underage girl, and releases a series of illustrations of her nude. And finally end with them racing to get married before he is arrested by the police for statutory rape.

Great book. I figured it as being Anne Rice's retelling of Lolita.

Well, other than he does not have to drug her and try to rape her, did not need to groom her as she was more than willing in Belinda. And did not end with him killing the man she left him for, and her dying in childbirth.

Belinda is a good book, but it also is a book which almost forgives the claims of the groomers out there. "Oh, but they really wanted it. It is not rape nor should it be illegal if they want it."

Now realize, I am not making any decisions for or against in any way, simply stating the troubling parts that were not mentioned at all on the covers. Ironically, I picked up the book in a USO in Japan in 1988. The cover described it as a love story, and it was rather interesting.

Then about halfway through it is revealed she was 15 or 16 and a runaway. I still finished it, but got a rather creepy feel about it. That early edition was still under the "Anne Rampling" authorship. It was not until years later when I read a reprint under her own name that I knew who actually wrote it.

I somewhat see the reactions to those Anne Rice novels, as well as e.g. American Psycho, as being analogous to story-code kerfuffles. There was a significant amount of outrage directed at those works for not warning people of the 'offending' content (and, given the breadth of content in them, it's likely something in there would be pretty offensive to a lot of people).

It's good to help readers determine that a particular work may not be their cup of tea early in the process. On the other hand, it can go too far.

I would support an author who published something on SOL which said, in a clearly visible foreword/preface/author's note/whatever: "Codes have been intentionally omitted. Read at your own risk." But, failing that, if the code covers it, there's every expectation that the code will be used properly.

Of course. I doubt I would read a story intentionally left uncoded - it'd really depend on the description, scores, reviews, etc. However, I think 'caveat lector' / 'abandon all hope, all ye who enter here' is a perfectly valid choice on the part of an author - it just may cost them most of their potential readers. And, to do it ethically, you have to spell it out.

I agree that society seems to be getting more fragile. I'm decidedly on the 'liberal' side on many social issues, but I don't believe in any right not to be offended. I do think it's good to provide people with information when possible so that they can avoid material they don't wish to come in contact with, but it's impossible to warn everyone of everything that might conceivably be an issue. Caveat lector.

That growing fragility has been a theme in Michael Loucks' stories, and I think he has a lot of it right. There are also lots of other examples from both fiction and the real world.

When my kids were very, very little (ca. 2000) I read a great piece from a medical doctor talking about how fractures and broken bones were at an all-time low - and how this was a terrible thing for society, because it had been achieved by removing so much of the risk from childhood that kids were no longer learning how to perform risk analysis. Can't fall out of a tree if you're not allowed to climb a tree; can't harm yourself on playground equipment if the most dangerous thing there is appropriate for a toddler (and, seriously, I've seen many playgrounds where the 'ages 5-10' equipment is toddler-appropriate).

My kids climbed trees and played on the 'big kid' equipment and, in general, did things that are scary to a parent (I have some pictures that are still a bit nerve-wracking). They survived and thrived and are able to make intelligent decisions about risk (doesn't mean they always DO, but that's being a late teen). And I've been called a bad parent over it a time or twenty, which bothers me not at all.

But the vast momentum in society is the other way: see risk, eliminate risk. That isn't sustainable; there are major costs over time. Get rid of lead paint? By all means; there are easy, cheap substitutes and it's really bad. Get rid of tree-climbing? Much, much more difficult problem with far-reaching implications.