Forum: Author Hangout

You might even ask him to elaborate on various points.

Sorry, this is a lengthy reply, but even if you dismiss my initial advice, I suggest you continue reading, as I make a series of related points you should consider.

I'd definitely ask him to elaborate. Even with beta readers, who are assigned the task of finding plot holes or problems with a story the author never anticipated, they need to be prodded to explain precisely what bothers them about a particular passage.

Once that central issue is identified, you can take one of two approaches, either flat out fix it, or if you know the story eventually resolves the issues, you can buy the story time by having your character acknowledge the problem (ex: say by having someone sit the main character down, and telling him he's got a problem, and have him (the MC) justify his actions. Once readers know it's an issue in the story, those concerned with that issue will often wait to see how it plays out.

Here's a classic quote for you:

Remember: when people tell you something's wrong or doesn't work for them, they are almost always right. When they tell you exactly what they think is wrong and how to fix it, they are almost always wrong.

- Neil Gaiman

Note: his comment about readers being wrong about what's wrong is why you need to press them, as their first complaints usually are, which is why you continue to press them, because their initial complaint ("This story is going in the wrong direction") often point to another, more specific complaint, they aren't publicly voicing, and it's only when you drill down that you'll discover the underlying condition (though their being wrong about how to fix it rarely fits a particular story).

However, a separate problem is, it NEVER pays to respond to a negative review in public, as it makes you look like an ass to the entire world, and rarely changes anyone's opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and if you disagree with someone's direction for your story, the best option is to suggest other stories (hopefully yours), they might prefer instead. That way, you remain true to your story, but still retain a future appreciative fan.

By badmouthing someone, you're more inclined to turn off anyone Googling you, who may be trying to decide whether to read (or buy) your stories. It's NEVER a good idea to engage trolls. Everyone gets bad reviews, and an false accusations or bad advice almost always speaks for itself (i.e. your other readers will recognize it as invalid, so you don't need to make an issue of it. In fact, most reader automatically discount any reviews that are all positive, as they assume they were all written by the author and his minions (i.e. friends and relatives).

Finally, as a follow-up on Gaiman's thought, while everyone's opinion has merit, they don't always represent the majority opinion. However, that said, you never know how many readers you'll eventually lose by refusing to address their concerns with your story. Thus, tread lightly!

I thought it was constructive feedback, not mean spirited at all.

ETA: You might even ask him to elaborate on various points.

Second this. Except for his last para (you're an amateur, etc.), which labels him a jerk, I agree that his comments were reasonable, albeit not clear and not elaborated on.

So thank him for his feedback [EDIT TO ADD: tell him you're sorry the story isn't working for him any more—if you wish to go that far] and, if you wish, leave the door open for him to elaborate on his comments, e.g., something along the lines of, "I'm interested in why parts of the story aren't working for you [or engaging you] and would welcome any further comment."

I wouldn't advance any explanation of where the story is going or why you did what you did until and unless he tells you a little more about why he's lost interest.

Absolutely skip the snark, skip the invitation to get lost, take the high road, and you're gold.

bb

If its honest feedback he should be willing to at least tell you what went wrong with the story.

Again, reemphasizing my point about engaging them, rather than pissing them off and making a lifelong enemy who'll bad mouth you to everyone he comes in contact with (never a positive for an author).

It's much better leaving someone who'll say, "I never cared much for that story, but the author's a decent chap and I might read one of his future stories."

If its honest feedback he should be willing to at least tell you what went wrong with the story.

I am not trying to support the comments.

I have found that many people know how they feel about something, but do not understand why they feel the way they do.

His comments may be the best that he can do to describe his feelings. Personally, I doubt it from what I read.

I appreciate you all taking the time to respond to my request. I just need to get a thicker skin.

That's the golden rule for authors. Not only do they face continual rejection from traditional publishers, but also from negative reviews and, like you've observed, fans. I've got my own band of dedicated SOL 1-bombers, because I wouldn't turn my stories into conservative tracts dictated by them.

I learned the hard way, by responding to an Amazon review I thought was unfounded, but paid the price for it. You're best approach (the next time it happens), like I said, is to suggest other books, that way, he'll leave on relatively good terms, and someone will benefit.

There are a lot of idiots who would equate that with the Booker prize ;-)

Uh, dumb question but ... just how many people died while reading your book? :D

Yes, ascribed to a certain Donald!!!

It especially describes Hilary and most people in the US congress.

It especially describes

If you had to choose between a crook that is knowledgeable and experienced in both politics and the diplomatic arena and a crook without that knowledge or experience, which would you want to be Australia's leader?

If you had to choose between a crook that is knowledgeable and experienced in both politics and the diplomatic arena and a crook without that knowledge or experience, which would you want to be Australia's leader?

neither. However, the option the US had at the last election was someone who had experience in politics and diplomatic arena and shown themselves to be incompetent and dangerous in both, so they voted against her.

Like you, they let their prejudice guide them, not the persons record.

Yeah, a record of not protecting confidential information, outing intelligence personnel, and lying to Congress. Great record, I think not.

There's a difference between what the facts are, and when they're enough to take a person court. She's just very good at having much of the evidence destroyed before the police can get enough to convict her.

. She's just very good at having much of the evidence destroyed before the police can get enough to convict her

Now that is a good politician!

Trump's record includes:

Racial Prejudices - He seems to be prejudice against all races except white.

Lying -
He lied to the voters by telling him he would Make America Great, and refuse to tell them what he meant by the term.

He lied to the media and the citizens about the World Trade Center, his actions backstage at the Miss America pageant, about the video of the good ole boy just talk locker room talk, and more things than I can remember.

One of his biggest lies is when he claims "Fake News" when the media print the truth about something he doesn't want known to the public.

Charities - He collects money from others adds some to it, and then says it was all his donation. That donation usually goes to a charity that he mismanages.

I could go on, but its getting late and I need some sleep.

As against Hillary putting her name on a book someone else writes, and never acknowledges the other person in the book. or how about Hillary promoting policies to give preferences to non-whites because she believes they can't compete with whites on an equal basis - yet you don't call that racial prejudice. How about when she names intelligence people in a public forum while the person is still working under cover, hows that for diplomatic behaviour.

Anyway, it's clear we're not going to agree on Clinton, so we may as well let this drop here while we agree to disagree.

And as you always do ... only after you've had a long, tedious, last word. :(

Actually, I don't always have the last word, there are many cases where another has continued the discussion and I've ignored. It's just many people choose to leave it alone when I make it clear I'm not going to say anything else on the subject covered. That subject was politics, and this subject is having the last word. So feel free to make another comment on having the last word, and you can have the last word on having the last word.

Actually, I don't always have the last word, there are many cases where another has continued the discussion and I've ignored.

Says the man, desperately trying to have the very last word!

As against Hillary putting her name on a book someone else writes, and never acknowledges the other person in the book. or how about Hillary promoting policies to give preferences to non-whites because she believes they can't compete with whites on an equal basis - yet you don't call that racial prejudice. How about when she names intelligence people in a public forum while the person is still working under cover, hows that for diplomatic behaviour.

Your 'racial equity' arguments sound like they were penned by Steve Bannon. If you think Trump isn't 'selling out' the U.S., then I'm glad you can't vote in the U.S. elections. We already have too many people willing to give up our constitution because they don't like freedom for anyone else besides themselves. :

As for the choice given to the USA voters - well, as a foreigner without full information on every quirk of every candidate I should keep out of it.

Politicians usually run on a party platform, not their personal opinions. Trump was different. He is a Conman who told people what they wanted to hear and he rarely, if ever, told the public what he actually intended to do if elected.

Except he is actually TRYING to do what he said he would.

Exactly. Overturn the Government regulations, turn more power over to the wealthy, without limits, and restore Russia to full diplomatic relations with the west--despite they're openly trying to influence our democratic institutions.

Yeah, Trump has never denied he's a flat out racist, out for nothing but himself. But why that supposedly makes him into a better candidate, is beyond me.

Except he is actually TRYING to do what he said he would.

I haven't said anything since he decided to not answer my question and said he didn't want to discuss it further.

Except he is actually TRYING to do what he said he would.

Sorry, I thought you were dumping on me about Ernest.

Basically, Trump refused to tell us what he intended to do. Look at his campaign promises again. Make America Great does not define the specifics of how he intends to accomplish that goal.

When reporters tried to pin him down on what he meant by his ambiguous statements, he wouldn't answer.

Now that he is the POTUS, he is making his intentions clear and there are a hell of a lot of us that disagree with what he is doing.

The people who elected him now have to live with him. I think the projection is that 8,000,000 Americans will lose their health coverage if Trump puts his health plan in effect. I don't think those people will like Trump very much and if they voted for him, they will regret it.

The same thing is true in other business areas also.

I agree with you about taking care of our own first.

One thing you MUST remember: Obama Care is NOT the health plan President Obama proposed. It is what the Republicans turned it into. Obama had a choice accept a bastardized health plan or let Americans go without a choice.

The entire ACA is written to make money for the big pharma companies, not to make health care 'affordable'.

You can whine all you want about the select few (tens of thousands?) who see their costs go up, but in the end, Millions were able to purchase healthcare which they previously could not. The Republican health care is "health care for anyone who can afford to pay cash", while the democrats is "force everyone to underwrite it, so we get the best cost/benefit for everyone".

Big Pharma wins in either case, simply because the system wouldn't exist without them. As long as they continue to churn out new deserately needed drugs, they'll continue to pull the strings. The key is 'what's the best way to control costs'. Costs will always increase, but they've increased less under the ACA than they have under the previous 10 or 20 years.

Still, if you don't want to pay for anyone's birth control or ER visits, then yeah, you'd prefer stripping everyone of their health care so you don't have to 'carry anyone'!

As long as they continue to churn out new deserately needed drugs

Actually they don't, they churn out revenue streams. No new antibiotics to wipe out MRSA, but plenty of new, expensive cancer drugs which increase chances of survival by a few percent.

AJ

As for cancer drugs I hope you meant that many of them extend life by a few weeks/months.

That too. They're not game changers, just marginal improvements, which is why NICE refuses to pay for most of them.

At least one form of MRSA is now resistant to all known antibiotics, according to a newspaper article a few weeks back.

Current English prescription charge (rest of UK gets them free) is £8.40. Under Hammond's omnishambles budget, that should rise to £8.60 on 1st April but I haven't read anywhere that the budget has been passed by parliament.

AJ

You can whine all you want about the select few (tens of thousands?) who see their costs go up,

In Arizona, there's only one insurance company remaining that writes Obamacare policies. I believe our costs tripled. And then the deductibles are so high many people can't afford to get sick even though they have insurance.

In Arizona, there's only one insurance company remaining that writes Obamacare policies. I believe our costs tripled. And then the deductibles are so high many people can't afford to get sick even though they have insurance.

Strange, but here in the semi-rural east (eastern N.C.) I know multiple people who've never been able to afford insurance, who only just now got it through the ACA and often had life-saving surgeries, who now stand to lose it again. If you want to blame anyone for insurance companies pulling out of the market, try Trump for leaving the future plans so much in doubt no one wanted to bet their financial futures on nebulous nonspecific promises.

The Republicans were given little to no input into the bill.

Big Whoop! The Republicans were given a voice, but they chose not to participate (i.e. not private concession to Republican concerns). However, the Republicans haven't given the Democrats any voice either. In fact, only one Republican Senator was allowed to view the proposed bill, and he was only given 15 minutes to 'quickly scan' it.

You can't accuse the other side of doing exactly what you're doing! That's known as "hypocrisy", the Politician's bread and butter.

at this point I would support a single payer system over either the ACA or the even bigger mess that the Republican bill would create.

So would most of us, but there's not a politician alive who'd vote for it! They'd rather drag the public through the mud and make them eat dirt and pay through the nose first.

By the way, what does this have to do with 'responding to readers'?

It's particularly funny when the EU contingent and the Australian contingent start arguing over US politics. :)

Everyone is discussing U.S. Politics now! It's rivaling football (soccer) now for global entertainment. What I find exceedingly strange is how the Europeans are attacking Trump politics, while the Aussie contingent seems to be defending him (why, I haven't quite figured out yet).

When the USA has two major presidential candidates such as we saw last year we get nervous.

As did we in the U.S. We seem to be voting on the worse of two evils in every election.

As did we in the U.S. We seem to be voting on the worse of two evils in every election.

Worse, we vote on side issues (gay marriage or trans rights) rather than policy (jobs, government investments, taxation policy, etc.). Sadly, we're easy to distract and rarely focus on any issue longer than 10 minutes. :(

When the USA has two major presidential candidates such as we saw last year we get nervous. When we see the presidential news that is coming out of the USA ......

That's what surprised me about the largely Trump support. I'd think, anything that upsets the existing status quo, and threatens world markets (potentially) would scare most countries since they wouldn't know the potential impact.

Again, at least with Hillary, you always knew what you were getting and how she'd respond. With Trump, you never know from one minute to the next how he'll respond to any particular event.

It was my understanding that Clinton actually received more votes than Trump.

Clinton got almost 3 million more votes, but it's the electoral votes that elect the president and Trump won that big.

My high school was named after someone who won the popular vote but lost the election -- SJ Tilden. But in that case I think it had something to do with a deal because it wasn't clear who won several of the electoral states. It had something to do with, "I'll give you the presidency if you pull the Northern troops out of the South" (not long after the end of the Civil War).

I think there were 5 elections where the loser actually won the popular vote.

It was my understanding that Clinton actually received more votes than Trump.

Yes, she did receive more votes. What you seem to be missing is how our election of a President and Vice-President works.

The votes cast by the voters do not elect the President and Vice-President. The votes cast in each state, determine the people who will represent the state at the Electoral Convention. How the Electoral Convention works is also confusing for it is not what most people think of as a convention. Each state's electors send their votes to the Senate and the votes are opened in the Senate and recorded. The person receiving sufficient votes becomes the next President and Vice-President. If no one receives enough Electoral votes, the Senate decides who is to be the next President.

Not correct

I'll take your word for it. I didn't recheck the process and recalled it being the Senate.

at this point I would support a single payer system

Be careful what you wish for. When I got on Medicare, I was shocked to find out how many doctors didn't accept Medicare patients.

offer NHS treatment in a few months or private treatment in a week's time

I believe that's true in Canada, too. You either wait to have it done there or cross the border and pay a U.S. doctor for prompt treatment.

The first is in no small measure due to greedy doctors playing the system for their own enrichment.

The second is a form of rationing - the unelected quangos running the various bits of the health service will cut anything other than their own bloated bureaucracy :(

AJ

neither.

Are you sidestepping the question or is it that you don't vote.

I know what happened in the US. A person even less competent and more dangerous than Hillary won the election.

Are you sidestepping the question or is it that you don't vote.

a. I'm not entitled to vote in the US elections. And

b. The the question was so clearly biased it wasn't worthy of a proper answer.

There wasn't much to see between the two candidates, however Hillary had proven her self to be untrustworthy, and careless of what's right. She also stabbed everyone else in her party in the back to get the candidature.

It wasn't a case of Trump winning the election, but Hillary getting so many of her party's supporters angry with her they voted against because they couldn't stomach the idea of her winning, so she lost the election.

The big advantage Trump has over Hillary is Trump isn't likely to sell the country out, the way Hillary and her faction have been doing.

I'm not entitled to vote in the US elections

My question addressed potential candidate for the position of Australia's PM.

Current classic is excessively rich bloke went in to politics to stop taxes affecting his mining companies.

Clint Eastwood wanted a liquor license for his restaurant (bar?) in Carmel, Calif. He didn't get it. So he ran for mayor and won — and got his liquor license.

Clint Eastwood wanted a liquor license for his restaurant (bar?) in Carmel, Calif. He didn't get it. So he ran for mayor and won — and got his liquor license.

Trump wanted Schwarzenegger fired from "The Apprentice". Once he was president, three guesses what happened? ')

Trump wanted Schwarzenegger fired from "The Apprentice". Once he was president, three guesses what happened? ')

He didn't need to be president to do that.

Trump wanted Schwarzenegger fired from "The Apprentice". Once he was president, three guesses what happened? ')

He didn't need to be president to do that.

No, but it certainly didn't hurt ("what, you expect to be allowed into White House Press conferences? Guess again!").

I can only hope that Trump might choose to retire to Australia.

Well, if we had to take either Trump or Clinton, I'd rather take Trump because he'll do a lot less damage to the country.

Ayers Rock would become a hazard on the 18th fairway ;)

AJ

Ayres Rock, instead of Uluru.

And the tribe who gave it that name and made it a sacred site would just love to have free access to it again. But they haven't been allowed near it since the Hawke government gave it to the tribe that forced them out of the area in the early to mid 1800s.

Ayres Rock

Was it named after Pam Ayres, the poetess?

I am sure Australia has its fair quota of the professionally offended, but I suspect outside Australia Ayers Rock is better known than Lieutenant Uhuru.

AJ

I'd rather take Trump because he'll do a lot less damage to the country.

Your opinion, which I disagree with. As an Aussie, you also don't have to live with the internal-US consequences of the man's actions.

As an Aussie, you also don't have to live with the internal-US consequences of the man's actions.

Technically, that's true for all US presidents, but when the US government makes decisions that affect other countries via business, then we all have to suffer the effects of what they do. When the election came down to Trump or Clinton there wasn't much to look at in either camp. But, like the US voters, Trump is better than Clinton. It's a pity she knifed Bernie Sanders early on, because he would have beaten Trump without any trouble.

But then your personal issues with the person blind you to reality, and so any facts that don't support your point of view are considered either false or irrelevant, and anything that supports your point of view, no matter how far it diverges from the facts, becomes a fact in your eyes.

physician, heal thyself.

you have an issue

Ayep - my issue is I hate lying thieves like Hillary, especially when they try to cover up or put the blame onto others.

Unlike what would have happened with Hillary in office

Like lifting the sanctions on Iran and giving them $300 billion dollars to support terrorism.

As I previously said, we had to choose the worst of two evils.

Australian mining companies make Trump look positively innocuous. I'm not sure whether has Australia has introduced fracking yet, but that was pre-Trump anyway.

AJ

This is on the original thread. Should I spend time answering someone who doesn't care for my work, or write for those that do? Ignore the small hearted bastards, you owe them nothing.

I try to respond to everyone, just because I value feedback, even if I'm not inclined to take their advice. Usually, I'll tell them when I can't do something without hurting a story, though as I noted, often when someone protests something, with a little work I'll learn what turned them off of my work.

As for critical responses, treat them the same as you hope the readers treat you: if it's helpful feedback, say so; if its a barking rant, say so, but don't argue the points.

Helpful advice. Best of all, don't encourage them to badmouth you. Simply kindly explain why you can't change the nature of your story and suggest other stories (similar to yours) that they might enjoy more.

It's better to have someone who admires you, but doesn't read/buy books, versus someone who'll badmouth you to everyone he talks to. And if they're really obnoxious, suggest they read authors you REALLY dislike! 'D

While this gets complained about in terms of abortion and transsexuals, it is fortunate for this kind of case that the majority of hospitals in the US are run by Catholic non-profit organizations.

That was true in the 50s, however most have been taken over by corporations, as there aren't enough nuns to run such institutions anymore.

If there is a pandemic of a disease which is generally fatal if untreated (such as plague or polio) what does the USA do about people who contract the disease, who wander around infecting others and cannot afford immunisation or treatment?

We can generally take actions against individuals, though we're reluctant to take action against those who refuse to participate (such as with inoculations, which results in widespread disease outbreaks because of low participation rates).

I'm actually working on a story about 'coerced treatments' in a particular state (since each state handles it differently).

In real life there are many immature, irresponsible, teenage male children who have done exactly what Greg's character has done.

I see this aspect of his story more as a case of art reflecting reality. Although, the modeling, acting, and other aspects are far more than you would find, when looking at real-life case of a boy abandoning a pregnant girl to take care of the situation they jointly created.

In real life there are many immature, irresponsible, teenage male children who have done exactly what Greg's character has done.

I didn't understand the feedback to be that. For instance, "The characters have all become really shallow and vapid too" and "I feel really estranged from the main character."

Note the "become" and that he liked the previous books.

Since the characters typically drive a story — the reader needs to love or hate the characters; empathize with them — for some reason this reader lost empathy with the main character. He thought he became flat.

I don't believe the reader was criticizing what the character does, but how he does it. But that's my opinion and I always look for something to learn when I get feedback.

ETA: btw, the reader may be wrong. That's why when you get feedback from a Beta Reader, if you don't get multiple people telling you the same thing there may not be anything wrong.

I didn't understand the feedback to be that

The way I took EzzyB's comment was that Greg was presenting his character as an immoral person, and that presented the reader with a message that immoral behavior is acceptable.

EzzyB's comment was:

But listen to him.

Let's face it, here's what I got from the latest chapters of the 'Stupid Boy' series.

1. I got a girl pregnant
2. Lawyer up
3. Let my parent's raise the child so I can get on with my life.

What EzzyB is not saying about the story is:

1. Greg's character David admits that there was an instance where he did not use protection and thus there is a possibility that he got Pam pregnant. He also says that if Pam says the baby is his, then he believes her and accepts responsibility for impregnating her.

2. He doesn't address the reason David lawyered up. It had nothing to do with Pam and the fact he got her pregnant. It had everything to do with the actions of Pam's father Cal.

3. The statement is not an accurate quote. David is still in High School. Pam, David, and his parents discuss the matter. They volunteer to assist David and Pam in raising the baby, and David makes it clear that he wants to be involved in raising the baby and will provide all financial support for the baby. David does not just walk away from the situation as EzzyB implies.

Personally, I think Greg is presenting a character who is accepting responsibility for his actions. Although, David does continue to act in a promiscuous manner.

The way I took EzzyB's comment was that Greg was presenting his character as an immoral person, and that presented the reader with a message that immoral behavior is acceptable.

I'm at a disadvantage because I hadn't read the story, but I didn't see it that way. If what you're saying is true, that the characters didn't act like that in Book 1 and 2, then the reader simply doesn't like the direction of the story. Nothing you can do about that.

But if complex characters turned into flat, predictable characters who do the same thing over and over again, that's something different.

So to answer the OP, maybe Greg should ask the reader.

But if complex characters turned into flat, predictable characters who do the same thing over and over again,

The only repetitive aspect I've noticed in the story is the main character is too trusting of others and keeps getting caught out and hurt by the actions of others. In the latest book he makes an effort to not be so trusting and easily hurt by not leading with his chin so much. It's a natural growth and progression for the character in the story line.

It's a natural growth and progression for the character in the story line.

Then the reader didn't get it. Or he wanted the story to go in another direction. Nothing you can do about that.

That is probably why he is called a "Stupid Boy"

So to answer the OP, maybe Greg should ask the reader.

or, if he no longer trusts that one reader, put out a question on his blog, asking if anyone else sees a problem with where the story is going. If the problem is widespread, you'll get confirmation. If no one agrees with him, then it's (generally) safe to dismiss the claims. Though I'd still keep the complaint in my back pocket, in case it ever rears it's ugly head again. Frequently, readers tell us what they expect we want to hear (especially when we rail against anyone who disagrees with us), and thus dislike critiquing the way a story is going. Unfortunately, most readers are more likely to abandon as story than to complain to an author.

I agree; this seems to be the correct summation. I've fervently wished that some higher power (perhaps the author?) would stuff that character's penis back between his legs under a cast iron jock strap, superglue it there, hence freeing the young man to get on about his life. Unless, of course, the young man is incidental to the plot and the penis is, in fact, the true protagonist.

One approach I appreciate, is when a character is acting wrong (say sleeping around), there's some form of payback, even if it doesn't change their behavior. That way, you at least know the author recognizes he (the character) is an ass. What's more, I also appreciate harem stories where the lead character get turns down, and every woman he meets doesn't simply jump into bed with him but stands on their principals (at least that way, we finally learn something about the female characters in the story).

for some reason this reader lost empathy with the main character.

Which is a very important point to keep in mind, because the main characters in Stupid Boy haven't changes much at all.

edit to add: Maybe the gap between the two parts caused the reader to lose focus.

Maybe the gap between the two parts caused the reader to lose focus.

Maybe David's action now in light of what previously happened punched one of the reader's HOT buttons.

I don't believe the reader was criticizing what the character does, but how he does it. But that's my opinion and I always look for something to learn when I get feedback.

See my previous response. I'm guessing the reader finally saw the author shinning through the character, instead of the character himself, at which point the character stopped being real to them, and only the author's weaknesses showed in the story afterwards.

In real life there are many immature, irresponsible, teenage male children who have done exactly what Greg's character has done.

Except, in reality, RL often continues banging on their door until they finally answer it. In this story, it reads more as the authors' wish-fulfillment as he imagines being so attractive he can get away with anything he wants. Thus, his readers are interpreting it as a wilful act by the author, and NOT his characters.

That's the point where you lose most of your readers. Whoever hasn't abandoned the story at that point, never will. :(

Stories that end with the hero getting crucified are few and far between.

Try reading a few of my stories. 'D

However, I've got to admit, some of the most insightful responses I've ever gotten to a story are my "I loved your story, but ..." where they continue to tell me why they'll never read another story I write.

Invariably, I write back. Since I have experience with beta-readers, and know to dig beyond the first answer when asked what they dislike, I know how to approach the questions. But once I get beyond the "you're too liberal" or "Your character is too ...", they reveal some very insightful information on why others might also be having problems. You can't always address those issues, but if you know it's a problem, you can at least recognize it for what it is, and consider ways of working around--whether that's how you approach stories, or how you write you story descriptions. A critical critique is often more productive than dozens of glowing "I LOVE your stories" ones that provide no insights into why readers don't appreciate your stories.

Finally, as I've mentioned before, I often conclude those letters with "Well, if you don't like this/my story/stories, maybe you'd appreciate ...". That way, you leave on good terms, you help spread the wealth, you let them know you respect their opinion--even if you can't change your story.

Never forget, someone who isn't interested in a given story may not read/buy your book, but anyone you piss off will tell all their friends to never read/purchase any of your stories because you're an ass. And that hurts you more than the loss of any single reader. You instead lose dozens of potential future readers.

In short, it never pays to argue with readers, even if what they say is complete misguided (readers typically recognize crazy when they see it, and negative reviews lead a sense of honesty to all your glowing reviews).

but there is just no way that every female in the story would drop their panties the minute he enters the room

Isn't Lubrican successful writing stories like that? Not only do they drop their panties, but get pregnant with his child. At least in the few I read.

I don't think I have read any of his stories and probably wont.

Lubrican is very popular on SOL based on his scores and that he won SOL contests (I think he won the first one, but not sure of that). I believe he's also doing well as a self-published author on Amazon.

He writes well. And not stroke.

He writes well. And not stroke.

I agree he writes well. You're never left guessing at who a speaker is or who is performing an action.

While his stories are not straight stroke, there's usually plenty of sexual encounters described in enough detail to qualify as stroke scenes.

If/when I post enough stories to qualify for Premier membership, one of my first actions will be to read a Lubrican story for Premier Members only which is described as a thriller. Now if only I can remember the title...

AJ

While his stories are not straight stroke, there's usually plenty of sexual encounters described in enough detail to qualify as stroke scenes.

I still use the definition of stroke as "no plot."

I still use the definition of stroke as "no plot."

I'd prefer something along the lines of "liable to extract reproductive fluids from a senior". :)

AJ