I think the most inconsistent thing on SOL is the "sex contents" the author chooses.
Boy, do different people have different definitions.
I think the most inconsistent thing on SOL is the "sex contents" the author chooses.
Boy, do different people have different definitions.
Alas, both the story coding and the descriptions issues are basically the newbie authors simply not caring about standards. The fact the average scoring for many is in the low 6's is no accident. They just don't give a damn what anyone likes. So now it's mostly old-school and who-gives-a-sh*t clans.
You has mistaken us (the readers) for a personage of discriminating tastes.
Mexican bandit voice: We don't need standards. I don't have to show you any stinkin standards...
Obi wan voice: Abuse The Written Force, Buck. Abuse the standards.
Yoda voice: Fucking useless, Buck is.
Beginners make mistakes by not knowing the rules, while the masters write bestsellers because they know when and how to break the rules.
It's hard to break any standards when you can still barely grasp them. Wisdom comes from experience, which can originate in schooling—creative writing classes or 'Master Writing Classes' or it comes from working your ass off and seeing what works, when, and what doesn't.
Or, put another way, you have to know the most common pitfalls to avoid repeatedly tripping over them. Reading certainly helps, yet the most valuable experience is the dearest, gained from your most painful personal failures—as it's usually impossible to forget your most humiliating mistakes. You just pay more attention after those, not wanting to be caught with your pants down again.
My vote would go to the contents of the story descriptions.
What do you mean?
I just finished a long story that was listed as "some sex." There was no sex. No sex described, anyway. Even the off-camera sex was minimal. The description was about body swapping. Even if the story would have had some sex, the description probably wouldn't be changed. Why define the sex in the description unless you're writing a sex story (vs a story that has sex)?
"No Sex" stories are not eligible for Clitoride nominations.
I wondered if you were "talking" about Once More With Feelings - long, body swapping, not that much sex - but that one is not described as "some sex". It's also a classic!
I wondered if you were "talking" about Once More With Feelings -
It is "Swap" by Ms. Friday. A really good story, by the way.
It's a 3-part story where the first part is a strong 10. Unfortunately, the other 2 parts weren't as good.
Unfortunately, that's fairly common, as it's easier to make a broad impact with a new story, while any sequels tend to get decent, but generally declining scores.
while any sequels tend to get decent, but generally declining scores.
Part 2 and 3 are not sequels. The MC jumps into a different person's body in Part 1. In Part 2, he jumps again, into another body. And in Part 3, he jumps into yet another body. It's a single story.
Again, I'm describing tendencies, as some stories have weaker sequels or volumes than their first, introductory book. Yet that hardly covers every single SOL story ever written.
So once again, I was talking about common trends, not about your story in particular, as it is an issue in many stories.
So once again, I was talking about common trends, not about your story in particular,
I thought you were referring to the story I had read and commenting on in the post — "Swap" by Ms. Friday.
What do you mean?
Some of the story descriptions are irrelevant to the story contents (author bio, witty comments), some of them are direct quotes from the story but giving no clue as to the characters or plot, and some summarise the story so completely that there's no point in reading it. Those are some off the top of my head; I'm sure there are plenty more candidates. I even contributed to them because I'm rubbish at story descriptions.
Perhaps the author of your body-swapping story intended to include sex but took fright when the German exerted extra-territorial pressure over story contents and forgot to downgrade the sex contents afterwards. Have you queried the sex contents rating with the author?
AJ
but took fright when the German exerted extra-territorial pressure over story contents and forgot to downgrade the sex contents
Nope. The story was completed in 2011.
I stopped messaging authors for things like sex content. I never got a response for those.
So your comment that I didn't understand had to do with the inconsistency of story descriptions. That you think they're the most inconsistent thing on SOL.
So your comment that I didn't understand had to do with the inconsistency of story descriptions. That you think they're the most inconsistent thing on SOL.
That was my first thought. If I were to reconsider, there are other possibilities. Like the AI tag, which some authors refuse to use/admit.
AJ
Sadly, for good reason. I'd rather have an author who's at least partially ashamed of not writing their own stories than one who'd openly claim they're too lazy to write their own. It's not a sin to need help, but openly declaring it in the story description, that's a bridge too far, even for newbie authors.
I read a story today which had the AI tag. I was surprised at the number of comma splices. Surely AI ought to be able to get punctuation correct!
AJ
I read a story today which had the AI tag.
Have you heard of Tilly Norwood? A cute actress with a social media following. On social media there are photos of her getting coffee, of her messy bedroom which fits her age, and other typical social media stuff. So much so that Hollywood agents are talking about signing her.
Why did I bring it up when you were talking about the AI tag? She's not a real person. She's an AI actress.
This is one of her Instagram videos — https://www.instagram.com/p/DPHLo6Rkdg0/
Have you heard of Tilly Norwood?
If I haven't, I heard of similar cases.
Why did I bring it up when you were talking about the AI tag? She's not a real person. She's an AI actress.
I'm not allowed to view the video, possibly because my browser is too old.
Those who use AI to generate stories for SOL still have author credits? What acting credits does Tilly Norwood have and do any of them involve interactions with fellow thespians?
AJ
What acting credits does Tilly Norwood have and do any of them involve interactions with fellow thespians?
From what I read, all Tilly has done so far is build a social media following. It seems an actor spends more time promoting their movie than they do in front of the camera making the movie. Talk shows, social media, etc. So the thought is if the AI has a following, that's a plus for the movie she's (it's?) in.
I'm not allowed to view the video, possibly because my browser is too old.
Can you view this one? It's ABC news.
https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Culture/video/ai-generated-actress-causing-uproar-hollywood-126072506
Why did I bring it up when you were talking about the AI tag? She's not a real person. She's an AI actress.
I just read that the person who created Tilly is looking for an agent to represent her which has pissed off many actors.
What I would like to see is all clients of the agent who sings up the AI leaves the agent and if somehow someone books the AI all real actors backout of the project.
At least with CGI they tend to use real people to base it on.
What I would like to see is all clients of the agent who sings up the AI leaves the agent and if somehow someone books the AI all real actors backout of the project.
The creator of the AI is an actress (and comedian). She says using an AI character is no different than using an animated character in a movie. It's another form of creativity.
As to the actors who are pissed, f*ck them. They're the same people who cry that their creativity is being censored. They have big mouths until it affects them.
The creator of the AI is an actress (and comedian). She says using an AI character is no different than using an animated character in a movie. It's another form of creativity.
An animated character is still voiced by a live person, can you say the same about AI?
An animated character is still voiced by a live person, can you say the same about AI?
My guess is no.
Since I mostly tend to read stories over 100kb.
Much sex is graphic sex in every chapter.
Some sex is every few chapters.
Min. sex is not very graphic sex only a few times.
No sex are some of the best out there.
Some sex is every few chapters.
Min. sex is not very graphic sex only a few times.
Interesting. One of my stories is currently set to Min sex. But my chapters are longer than my usual length so there ends up being sex every few chapters and it is fairly graphic, Tab A into Slot B etc.
I'm never quite sure about those in-between levels.
AJ
No sex is often stores that don't require sex scenes to be exciting or engaging. Too often, just like when authors list every single story code, we all tend to use certain distractions to hide what we're not so good at.
I think the most inconsistent thing is "sex contents" relative to "Tags" I've seen Minimal Sex followed by four lines of tags. I've also seen Much Sex followed by only one tag: Heterosexual.
I think the most inconsistent thing is "sex contents" relative to "Tags"
Hmm. I guess it boils down to how the author defines sex in the story. The story that triggered this thread was defined as "some sex" and included the "masturbation" tag. But there was no masturbation in the story. There were references to characters who had masturbated, but none did it on camera. So this author considered referencing the masturbation to be sex in the story.
Again, that's not uncommon, as there are often scenes in a story where one party is merely masturbating, even in "much sex" stories. It could be a tease, it could be one simply isn't directly participating it could be someone merely admitting to masturbating over someone. Masturbating isn't as clear cut as 'anal play' is.
And I've said this before, some people just have more sensitive asses than others, so not everyone is equally inclined towards that one aspect of sexuality.
Some lines get cloudy in those categories. As I've always viewed most "anal" codes as being "too shy to admit they're yearning to be gay". It may not always be true, yet it's never been my first inclination to shove my dick into my lovers' asses. ;)
If they ask nicely, I'll try just about anything, but otherwise, I'm going to ask "Eh, why is it such a major concern?"
Not just authors; also readers.
I've mentioned this before, but will mention it again: fairly early (~20 or so chapters) into publishing my first story (Variation on a Theme, Book 1) I had messages from readers saying both "'Some sex?!' There's no sex at all!" and "'Some sex?!' It's all sex! There's nothing but sex!"
At that point in publishing, there was no actual sex, per se. A bit of 'showing off' and a certain amount of fondling, but no 'actual sex'.
The first commenter was right. There was, by that definition, no sex.
The second commenter was also right. Much of the story was focused on relationships, dating, and the pursuit of hopefully-soon-to-come sex. Not all of it, to be fair, but that was the focus.
They approached it from such different perspectives, there was nothing to do but reply and assure the first commenter that there would indeed be sex, and the codes applied to the book, not the already-published chapters, while assuring the second commenter that a lot more was going to happen than simply trying to get into each other's pants.
It's inconsistent all the way down.
Coding stories is itself a pretty inconsistent standard, as there are few 'hard and fast' coding rules. Yes, lots of people are offended by "gay" "mm" stories, yet how many kids participate in mutual jerk off sessions with close friends long before ever engaging in sex? There's no actual gay sex there, yet it's at least nearing the line.
I started writing a story that had the potential to qualify as "Much Sex." Before anything happened, most of the major characters resolved, and were adamantly not that kind of girl. So the story started to look like "No Sex." I kept sketching the story and several of the secondary characters started to resolve to be more forward. Right now, it looks like it will be "Some Sex."
I don't like to post stories as I write them, so it will get a reasonable label when I do post it. If I had started posting chapters right away, though, I would have used a different label.
I will also try to make the story description something helpful. This might be enough, though: "A girls' boarding school is forced to start admitting boys."
This might be enough, though: "A girls' boarding school is forced to start admitting boys."
That's the inciting event but I think prospective readers need more of a clue about where you're taking the story.
AJ
a clue about where you're taking the story.
Like "When a girls' boarding school is forced to start admitting boys…"
Like "When a girls' boarding school is forced to start admitting boys…"
The author intended to write a much sex story but so far it's a no-sex story. Get your mind out of the gutter! :-)
AJ
I don't like to post stories as I write them, so it will get a reasonable label when I do post it. If I had started posting chapters right away, though, I would have used a different label.
Is it possible to change labels once posting has started?
Not only is it possible, but many of us delay posting certain codes, until the events actually occur.
Listing 'squicks' is one thing, yet preannouncing something which comes much later can be just as problematic for readers.
I am reading a story right now where I didn't notice the much sex tag and the first 6-7 chapter had no sex, and I was really enjoying hoping for a love story between the two MC's. Now it is becoming an orgy story between the male MC and every woman he meets.
the first 6-7 chapter had no sex
That's what the "slow" tag is for. But I don't use the "slow" tag because I can't bring myself to say my story starts out slow. There may not be sex, but I sure hope anyone reading it won't think it's slow.
That's what the "slow" tag is for. But I don't use the "slow" tag because I can't bring myself to say my story starts out slow. There may not be sex, but I sure hope anyone reading it won't think it's slow.
I am not talking about your story. The story I am talking about started out looking like a love story between a boy and a girl. But now in the last number of chapters it has him either wanting to screw or screwing every girl and/or woman he meets. It's my fault because I didn't read the tags.
I am not talking about your story.
I didn't think you were. I was giving my opinion of the "slow" tag (which you didn't even mention). I guess that tag rubs me wrong. Sorry.
I think that's another tag which has more than one meaning, which is obviously somewhat confusing. Or, it could just be about a 'slow' kid, fumbling through life.
As learned in I.T. (and likely many other areas..)
The wonderful thing about standards...
... is that there are so many to choose from!
The wonderful thing about standards...
... is that there are so many to choose from!
Take the USB.
USB stands for Universal Serial Bus, an industry standard for connecting devices and transferring data and power between them.
It was so successful at providing a single standard that there's now at least half a dozen variants. The EU is in the process of standardising on USB-C for the recharging of electrical devices.
AJ
It's inevitable. The more people strike and demand things, the more employers will look for cheaper, less hassle alternatives, and to be honest, Hollywood has a pretty big target on it's digital head.
Look at how many films have been screwed before release, by the very same 'stars' of those films. And no one knows that more than the poor unfortunates that had to work with Rachel Zegler, the poster child of career suicide.
Producers and money people want stars who look good, and don't open their mouths to say anything other than what has been scripted for them. I would be very worried about job security if I was a young acting person. It's going to be AI pretty soon.
And here I thought, movie producers are looking for actresses they can diddle and coerce into having sex with them. AI? Not so much.
And here I thought, movie producers are looking for actresses they can diddle and coerce into having sex with them
I don't think that will ever go away. Young easily impressionable girls will always think that they are the next 'starlet' and there will always be men preying on them, with promises of them being in the next film, only to come up with excuse after excuse as to why it never happens, film after film ("It required a woman of X colour", "or a woman of a certain height/ethnicity" "But don't worry, the next film will be yours...")
And it's not just mainstream movie land. It's always been a case that 'failed' mainstream movie actors often turn to porn movies as a way to 'pay the bills'. But even that's taking a hit. There is so much user generated content out there in the form of Onlyfans and chat rooms where couples willingly play together for a paying audience, that the main porn studios are going broke. All they have left is extreme content that the average woman will not contemplate, like sleeping with 400 men in 24hrs etc etc). I think the only reason porn producers have not gone full AI, is that the programmers cost more to hire than an actual, desperate actress who thinks this film 'Will be the one that lifts her out of porn into the mainstream..'
And as the porn consumers become de-sensitised to the sheer variety and content of porn (How long till the novelty of the likes of Bonnie Blue sleeping with a 1000 men wears off, before consumers start looking for the next novelty?) then the more extreme acts are going to become 'normal'. Very much in the same way a drug user has to keep increasing the dosage in order to chase that original high. Eventually it's going to get to the stage where the majority of actual porn actresses go "Nah, no chance." And the content producers turn to AI to provide the extreme content the consumers demand.
The alternative is that some of the audience decides that quality matters and walks away from the crap you can get on PornHub to pay for stuff that's actually good.
That's their main objective, having AI play characters who are already dead and buried years and years ago. Why stop churning out profits, especially if you needn't pay out any royalties to the deceased's family.
But just because the producers don't have any morals, viewers and actors DO (at least occasionally)!
especially if you needn't pay out any royalties to the deceased's family.
They couldn't do it without the heir's permission. They own the rights to the image and name. And without permission I would hope SAG would not allow other members to work it.
Except, there were specific exceptions carved out of the AI guidelines in the U.S., which as the main literary and movie force, carried over everywhere else, exempting such egregious actions. It was only recently, once the Americans essentially tarnished its reputation across the board on all of those fronts, that the European Union finally responded, countering those guidelines across the board throughout Europe.
Of course, America refused, yet most media companies, finally seeing the writing on the wall and our countries overall decline, also capitulated. Especially since those media have been failing in America as well.
Even now, actions have consequences, especially where financing is concerned since our 'rule of law' is pretty much merely a forlorn memory at this point.
They couldn't do it without the heir's permission. They own the rights to the image and name. And without permission I would hope SAG would not allow other members to work it.
SAG got pissed off, because the family of James Earl Jones made a deal for AI use of his Darth Vader performances without going through SAG.
Yeah, now that you mention it, that is how this whole thing first started.
SAG doesn't care about the AI use of James Earl Jones' voice and image, they are pissed off because they didn't get a cut of the deal.
SAG doesn't care about the AI use of James Earl Jones' voice and image, they are pissed off because they didn't get a cut of the deal.
The funny thing is, SAG still have to process the residual checks as I am sure the heirs still get in the deal.
This (Tilly Norwood/AI actress) is actually an OLD concept. Remember the movie "Looker"?
This (Tilly Norwood/AI actress) is actually an OLD concept. Remember the movie "Looker"?
Didn't they still need a live person for the motion capture and for the voice over.
Yeah, AT FIRST, but then they had enough info that they could just replace her and let the computer make the new stuff. Of course, then they notice longer needed here around, and they didn't want to pay her, for her likeness...
re: AI (re-?)generated characters..
A number of years back, there was a little kerfuffle over Brandon Lee and the movie The Crow (2?)...
A number of years back, there was a little kerfuffle over Brandon Lee and the movie The Crow (2?)...
And then there was Oliver reed, who was glad he ate her.