Forum: Author Hangout

Yeah, distinguishing is different from should be different is something that I can't do with my reader hat on. I suspect I'm not a very typical reader.

And I disagree with Crumbly about warnings not being in the description. A reader might not even look at the story codes so a warning might save you a 1-bomb.

My objection to including squick warnings is due to the character limit on story descriptions. Since I'm already cutting my standard description short, anything I include about squicks limits what I can say about the story. Given that limitation, I don't think it's appropriate for authors to limit the story description to the few people who don't understand how story codes operate. If you only have a two or three line story description, then fine, include all the warnings you want. But story warnings DON'T sell your story, and a limited description isn't an efficient enticement for readers to read your story.

If you want to warn your readers, say because you have a MM encounter in chapter 12, then putting something into that chapter is more effective than making your entire sales pitch a weak and unconvincing argument.

That said, I have included warnings in my story descriptions before--though I've come to see them as a disincentive to read the story. So I now try to stay away from them.

In the end, if you include scat or MM codes in your stories, you're going to get 1-bombed no matter what you do, and announcing you're including it only encourages the dreaded 1-bombers to seek you out (whereas otherwise they might not even notice the story).

My objection to including squick warnings is due to the character limit on story descriptions. Since I'm already cutting my standard description short, anything I include about squicks limits what I can say about the story.

While this is literally true, i.e., more words about A means fewer about B when there's a fixed limit, it's a false dichotomy to say anything that isn't description is a fatal flaw to the description itself.

Indeed, the art is in offering a hook in those limited words to draw the reader in. The whole 5-second, 15-second, 30-second pitch thing, right?

bb

Under Serial Update there is a story called A Sharing Pact by Mark Gander. I know nothing about the story or the author. However, it is an excellent example of overwhelming a reader with story codes. There are 9 lines of story codes. I'm not going to count the codes, but it looks like over 100 codes.

A common problem with many stroke stories is that they keep trying to best themselves, so each chapter ratchets up the sex content, adding extra codes as they go. Some of these stories increase the number of partners (a long list of women the main character has sex with, or else they add a long list of codes, instead of relying on a central story thread).

These stories work, as readers are intrigued to a degree, but the list of codes becomes overwhelming.

I went to investigate the story to see if the author has mis-tagged it or not. So I started skimming the thing and up to chapter 16 the story was pure stroke.

However, in chapter 17 the protagonist turned out to be God himself!

So I just gave up.

However, in chapter 17 the protagonist turned out to be God himself!

So I just gave up.

That's a lot of squicks for God. Whatever happened to "Love thy Neighbor"? Or maybe he took that a bit too literally?

That's a lot of squicks for God.

You didn't read the Old Testament. Nothing was off limits to Him. Incest. Adultery. Murder.

If you believe that 'rib' was a mistranslation of 'bakulum' (God wasn't very good at science in those times), it's no great stretch to wonder if Eve was in fact Adam's daughter, the ultimate 'forbidden fruit'.

AJ

If you believe that 'rib' was a mistranslation of 'bakulum'

The English version of the Bible have some accidental mistranslations, but it also has far more translations where options were available and the translators chose the one that suited what they wanted to say best, as well as some deliberate mistranslations. Then you get to add in the deliberate falsification of doctrine and meanings by the later Church leadership.

Back in my teen years I was a member of the youth group at my church. Our Minister ran the group and he helped us to learn about the bible. One of the things he made us aware of is a book called the Interpreter's Bible, I may have the title wrong, but it explains the different books of the King James's bible and the meaning of different verses.

One of the Bible's errors addressed by this book is a translation error in Genesis. If I recall the error correctly, the Bible was written in Hebrew and that version of the Bible indicates that God made Man and Life. Evidently the translation came through as God made Adam and Eve.

The book of Revelations is another book that is misunderstood by many. Based on what I recall, Revelations is based on a series of letters John the Baptist wrote to his fellow disciples while he was imprisoned by the Romans. It is written using a code that refers to the political structure of the Roman Empire in the Middle East during that time in history. If you understand the code, the letters were not prophesies but letters of encouragement to the other disciples.

I suspect even in those times they had an inkling of the dangers of incest, something still not appreciated on the Indian subcontinent, where the abundance of second cousin marriages leads to an abundance of birth defects.

AJ

Inbreeding only becomes a significant risk when it is repeated over many generations.

That explains the British Royal Family. (I apologize to all you Brits. I couldn't resist.)

If cousin marriages are as common as you suggest, in India.

I know a girl in Pakistan who just got engaged to her first cousin. It's common there.

Can't a brother and sister marry in Sweden? I don't see a lot of genetic deformity there.

I know a girl in Pakistan who just got engaged to her first cousin. It's common there.

So is having heaps of kids, so the relationships like that are more common while still having a wider gene pool to go with. The high defect rate in some countries is more often related to the nutrition levels during pregnancy than anything else.

First cousin marriages are legal in the UK too, although genetic counselling is recommended first.

In areas of the UK with large populations of immigrants from the Indian subcontinent, there has been a dramatic rise of births with genetic defects. The multi-generational aspect may play a part since there's a tradition of trying to keep businesses within the family.

AJ

If so, even non-incestuous couples would be at much higher risk of birth defects.

There's no evidence of that. The birth defects only correlate with cousin marriages.

AJ

Not all birth defects are even genetic. Some are caused by malnutrition or exposure to certain toxins.

Some are caused by a mosquito.

Correlation is not causation

Heh, the UN has ruled that it is in their meat/cancer scare.

AJ

You can probably have more confidence than with the native Christian-oriented population. Family honour is more important to people originating from the Indian Subcontinent, and not just to Islamists.

AJ

it's no great stretch to wonder if Eve was in fact Adam's daughter

I don't remember the people's names in the Old Testament, but two daughters got their father drunk to have sex with him to get pregnant.

EDITED TO ADD: It was Lot and his daughters.

And Cain must have married his sister (since they both had to be children of Adam and Eve).

And Cain must have married his sister (since they both had to be children of Adam and Eve).

It's never explicitly stated anywhere in Genesis, but it's assumed that, when God created "Man and Woman", he meant "of his people", since there were enough other people for his sons to select their own brides (since Genesis makes no mention of daughters).

However, in that case, Adam and Eve represent no "miracle" but rather another Frankenstein error, where God tried to make a better human, using his angels as models, and ultimately screwed up once again.

Genesis is less a "creation story" as it is a badly handled "oral tradition" story of who "begat" whom.

I believe there are two reasons for that. The first is that most of them are basic requirements for a civilised society. And secondly, even the non-requisites have become widespread because of the dominance of the Abrahamic religions.

AJ

There are strong elements of reciprocity in the Christian commandments. For example, it's much easier for civilisation to flourish if you don't go around trying to kill people and they don't try to kill you. Similarly if you don't steal their wife or possessions and they don't try to steal yours. I think those precepts were widely accepted before the idea of legitimising them with a flying spaghetti monster even occurred to religionists, that's why they were adopted.

AJ

What bothers me is the fantasies included to justify claims the advice comes from something higher than humans, rather than simply, "Do these things as best you can and you will be happier in the long run".

What annoys me is the common assumption that, without the fear of Devine retribution, no one would ever behave honorably. However, that's simply not true. In most disaster scenarios, the majority of people do the right thing, even when it takes weeks to restore order. When law and order collapses, it's often the result of long-term economic failure, where people grow desperate and those without morals manage to steal more than anyone else, building status as warlords. That doesn't point to a basic inhumanity, but the need for equitable resolutions--something most Western (cough, cough, Americans) Christians resist as "Communistic".

It's never explicitly stated anywhere in Genesis, but it's assumed that, when God created "Man and Woman", he meant "of his people", since there were enough other people for his sons to select their own brides (since Genesis makes no mention of daughters).

When I say the Old Testament I mean the Hebrew version, not Genesis in the Christian Bible. There is no mention of "other people."

On the 6th day, God created the land animals, and at the end of the day, man. No mention of "other people." So if Adam and Eve didn't have a daughter who Cain married, then Cain committed bestiality.

There is no mention of "other people."

@Crumbly

It's never explicitly stated anywhere

You're going to refute me by repeating what I said? It's NEVER STATED EXPLICITLY that there are any other people, yet they show up, so you figure out where they came from. If God created Adam and Eve, then why is their world already filled with others?

It's NEVER STATED EXPLICITLY that there are any other people, yet they show up, so you figure out where they came from. If God created Adam and Eve, then why is their world already filled with others?

It's not.

Even though only these three males are mentioned by name, Adam and Eve had other children. In Genesis 5:4 a statement sums up the life of Adam and Eve—"And the days of Adam after he had fathered Seth were eight hundred years. And he fathered sons and daughters." This does not say when they were born. Many could have been born in the 130 years (Genesis 5:3) before Seth was born.

During their lives, Adam and Eve had a number of male and female children. The Jewish historian Josephus wrote that, "The number of Adam's children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters."[11]

11 - William Whiston, translator, The Complete Works of Josephus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1981), p. 27.

There is no mention of "other people."

Genesis 6: 2 The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them to wives of all which they chose.

The theme of God's sons and the daughters of men continues in Genesis 6:4

6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth

It seems sin/wickedness goes back to the beginning. Didn't God create man in His image?

So, no, "sons of god" and "men" in "daughters of men" do not refer to two distinct groups.

Theologians have been debating that one for centuries. There is no general consensus, because there are two clearly defined groups - sons of God - and men.

Cite an actual Theologian then.

Augustine of Hippo

edit to add: for a more modern one Charles Gordon Strachan

Cite an actual Theologian then.

Bob said it, as well as 3,926 others, most forgotten by history.