Forum: Author Hangout

ass to pussy sex

I was trying to figure out how that kind of sex was done — and then I realized what you meant. Sheesh.

or mentioning STD dangers.

IMO, that should only be mentioned if it's part of the story. Alfred Hitchcock once said: "Drama is life without the boring bits." You can't fill a story with a lot of boring bits.

IMO, that should only be mentioned if it's part of the story. Alfred Hitchcock once said: "Drama is life without the boring bits." You can't fill a story with a lot of boring bits.

That makes sense, but it's such a major concern for so many, that it's worth at least a single sentence's mention in a story. Otherwise, the story seems to be complete fantasy, rather than representing the 'common man' who often wrestles with these issues and ends up being bitten on the dick by them too.

I doubt that there are very many people among the 'common man' who actually want to read a story about someone else living the same boring, dreary life that they are living. Fantasy and escapism are 98% of the point of recreational reading.

The whole 'common man' approach was never about writing about boring people, instead it's a way of humanizing a story's main characters and giving a way for readers to relate to someone who's ever wish comes true with no effort on his part.

You'll find the same 'common man' approach is stories as varied as thrillers, post-apocalyptic tales, space sagas, historical epics. It's not about Walter Mitty stories.

Instead, readers need a reason to care about what happens to a character. If the character isn't particularly pleasant, or his situation doesn't seem 'real' (where many stories with people riding space ships are considered 'realistic portrayals'), then you'll lose many readers.

- characters constantly "chuckling"

Or giggling. :-)

(My two main failings, which I have to watch carefully).:-)

- characters constantly "chuckling"

Or giggling. :-)

(My two main failings, which I have to watch carefully).:-)

Showing mirth or humor in a given situation can help define a character (it demonstrates a tendency to not take oneself overly seriously), but one major problem is just how to achieve it. For those unable to think of clever comebacks, a chuckle is the easiest solution, but is often overly simplistic. But you also have to watch how someone can talk incessantly while laughing at the same time.

I am currently reading "Magician" by QM and every character is chuckling, every time. It feels like every conversation contains at minimum 1 chuckle.

Like every tool in an artist's quiver, each is only valuable when used appropriately. Using any one all the time robs it of it's power, making it's use merely obsessive. The key is picking the right time and place, and then largely underselling it, so it stands on its own rather than the author forcing it on readers.

But I agree, it can and does get overused. I was merely referring to how authors frequently have to struggle with finding ways of utilizing it.

I am currently reading "Magician" by QM and every character is chuckling, every time. It feels like every conversation contains at minimum 1 chuckle.

I once read a series (can't remember it's name or the author's name) that I liked a great deal. Something like "The House at the End of the Street."

One day in his blog, he said he was going to "show" more. I don't think he understood what that meant. Every character kept sighing.

Well, poo!

I like using both, because I like writing happy conversations and find that a chuckle or a giggle verbalizes those feelings.

As I read through other peeves on this thread, I agree with the homophone list and the spelling errors, though.
'
I mean, come on, dude... You're writing porn and you haven't figured out 'tounge'?

Most of the time, dialogue tags should just be "said"

Not "ask" if it's a question?

who are adamant that 'said' is the only dialogue tag authors should use.

I used to only use "said." And then one day I changed the dialogue tags for questions to "asked." Now "said" for a question looks funny to me.

Some would argue he's saying the question. I also ran into problems when the dialogue is worded as a question, but the character isn't really asking a question.

"What's the problem!" I say, "A rhetorical question without a question mark is a statement the speaker says."

Then again, there's always the ol' interobang, if you can manage to find it anywhere to include in your text. 'D

Not "ask" if it's a question?

There are a number of well-known authors, Stephen King for one, who are adamant that 'said' is the only dialogue tag authors should use.
I'd be like you (if I agreed with that principle) and ask why 'asked' and 'replied/answered', at least, should not used be too.

I'll qualify that. I personally have no problem with "he asked", but I do when it's used repeatedly (say during an interview, or an interrogation). While 'said' is largely ignored, the same isn't true for 'asked', so you've got to watch how often you use it. Like most things, it's enough to only use it every now and then, instead of each time someone asks a question, as you're only reminding readers that a specific person is asking the question. However, interspersing the occasional 'he asked' with plenty of 'he said's will make your story much easier to read.

I presume your main point here is that perhaps no more than one-third of paragraphs in a two-person exchange of dialogue need attributions at all, just enough to remind readers which side of the ping-pong table the ball is on. I agree with that and that a smattering of 'asked' in amongst mostly 'said' should not then burden readers.

That is what I intended, but more specifically, I'd probably go with a 30%/70% "asked"/"said" attribution for questions, just enough so readers understand that they're looking for answers, but not so much that the 'asked' becomes repetitious. Of course, if they only ask one questions, then ask away, but in most cases, "said" is a more reliable choice than the alternatives.

I can see the principle that 'said' should usually be preferred because it's "invisible" to readers, but I'm not so sure that seeking invisibility is always best. Does it depend on the story and/or the situation within a story?

These guidelines are often stated as definitive rules, but they're not. The key is, don't get lazy and watch how often you do things by rote. Although "said", like vanilla, is pretty mild, it will become obnoxious if used repeatedly. However "chortled" becomes wearisome after only the second use, and "giggled" after the third in a LONG chapter.

But for all that I preach about using "said", I actually use quite a variety of attributions (I should look up the percentages of each in a typical dialogue just for giggles (but not during discussions)).

If you have a two person point/counterpoint dialogue, then you don't need many attributions, just an occasional one to remind readers who's speaking at the given time. If you have more than two, the same applies as long as its point/counterpoint by two, but whenever you introduce a third, identify who it is. But even then, there's such a thing as using too many attributions, especially for a extensive dialogues, which is why the action attribution comes in handy, as it breaks up the monotony, but more importantly, it slows the reader down, giving them a chance to absorb what's been said before they start arguing once again.

Perhaps those who state 'only use said' as a definitive rule consider that part of "showing"? Do they actually mean they prefer to show an action in circumstances where others would tell with an alternative to said?

Having the narrator say "said" is in no way showing by anyone's accounting. You show by letting someone's actions or display of emotions what's not explicitly stated. In my earlier example, the 'action attribute' (where Al comforts his spouse) is showing their close affection for one another in a way that "Al said, comforting his spouse" wouldn't.

I was not suggesting 'said' is showing. I was more asking if alternatives to it are telling. If so, an author would avoid telling by using 'said' when they have nothing to show, and an action verb when they do have something to show.

Oops! Sorry. Yeah, I'd agree with that then. "Said" is pretty much the ultimate in telling, as you're TELLING the reader who is speaking. In most instances, the reader can figure out who's speaking easily enough, only only needs a simple reminder (in a two-person dialogue) every now and then.

"This knife is sharp" Tom Swift said cuttingly.

or "This knife damn near sliced my finger off!" Tom said sharply.

And in particular, tags like "giggled", "chucked", "laughed"

I thought the post about giggling wasn't using it as a dialogue tag, but having characters giggling all the time. As to using "giggled" as a dialogue tag, I'm against it. This is from Writer's Digest:

First, dialogue cannot be smiled, laughed, giggled, or sighed. Therefore, this example is incorrect:

"Don't tickle me!" she giggled.

You can't giggle spoken words. You can't laugh them or sigh them or smile them, either.

The article also says:

If you need an attribution, use said. If you must use something different for the occasional question, you could throw in "asked" for variety, but not too often.

So this person believes if the dialogue is a question and you need a dialogue tag, "said" is preferable to "asked."

First, dialogue cannot be smiled, laughed, giggled, or sighed. Therefore, this example is incorrect:

"Don't tickle me!" she giggled.

And yet it is perfectly understood by all readers as being shorthand for "Don't tickle me! she said, giggling.

I think the article is giving poor advice.

AJ

"Don't tickle me!" she giggled.

And yet it is perfectly understood by all readers as being shorthand for "Don't tickle me! she said, giggling.

Do you really want to assume a reader understands the "shorthand" intended?

You're changing what a dialogue tag is. All the dialogue tag is is to identify who is speaking.

Do you really want to assume a reader understands the "shorthand" intended?

No 'want' involved. It doesn't exactly require the intellectual processes of Sherlock Holmes to work it out.

You're changing what a dialogue tag is. All the dialogue tag is is to identify who is speaking.

No change, IMO - 'she' is clearly identified as the speaker. There's no law against including more in the text before/between/following dialogue than just the attribution.

eg "Time for tea," said Mrs Blakely, putting the kettle on.

AJ

No change, IMO -

eg "Time for tea," said Mrs Blakely, putting the kettle on.

Yes, a change. In your example, "said" is the dialogue tag. The other stuff is what she's doing while talking.

What you believe is you can merge "she said, giggling" into "she giggled." You've replaced the tag "said" with the tag "giggled" assuming the reader converts it to "said, giggling." I actually believe the reader would do that (speaking while giggling), but why do it that way?

If you believe that the reader will in fact understand it the way it was intended, why not?

Because it takes them out of the dialogue. They have to interpret the tag, whereas "said" is invisible and all they hear is the words.

I admit I'm in a minority here so I can't criticise suthors who write 'said, giggling', but I think 'giggled' is more evocative. IMO, although not of the same ilk as a fight scene, 'giggling' is an action and by default benefits from succinctness of verbiage ;)

AJ

I always suspected you were a closet minimalist. :-)

Aw, a smiley. You DO care!

AJ

I admit I'm in a minority here so I can't criticise suthors who write 'said, giggling', but I think 'giggled' is more evocative. IMO, although not of the same ilk as a fight scene, 'giggling' is an action and by default benefits from succinctness of verbiage ;)

I agree with what you say here. However, some words inherently exhibit vocal aspects of speech and some don't. Thus I now tend to have things like 'Fred shouted - Fred whispered - Fred replied' and others where the word clearly indicates an understandable spoken response. I also use other words like giggling etc. as an additional description, thus I'll write something like 'Mary giggled, and said, ...' or 'Mary giggled while saying ...' because some words don't immediately indicate clearly understandable spoken words but they're needed to paint a better picture of the scene or person's actions.

edit to add: I will also sometimes have a reply / response that is physical and not verbal such as - George responded by giving Harry 'the bird.' - Mary giggled in reply, and walked away. - George chuckled in response as he turned and walked away. and similar type actions.

but why do it that way

To me said implies a clearly stated sentence. Giggled, chuckled, and other words imply the sentence is broken up by the giggling, chuckling, etc.

Yes, a change. In your example, "said" is the dialogue tag. The other stuff is what she's doing while talking.

What you believe is you can merge "she said, giggling" into "she giggled." You've replaced the tag "said" with the tag "giggled" assuming the reader converts it to "said, giggling." I actually believe the reader would do that (speaking while giggling), but why do it that way?

The main difference between dialogue tags (attributions) and action attributions is the element of time. In your example, the added commas help, since they add a small time lag between Mrs. Blakely saying "it's time for tea" and her putting the kettle on (or between saying something then then giggling about it).

However, you have a more significant time delay by posting the action in a separate sentence, thus the action stops, and narrator describes what the characters are doing, which allows the reader to pause, absorb what's been said, before the back-and-forth rapid fire discussions resume. That's why the action attributions are often a welcome relief from the constant dialogue tags, because they provide a break from unending dialogue. As such, I'd even suggest authors specifically use them after each significant point, so readers have the proper time to consider the points raised, rather then rushing on and potentially losing them in the other unimportant details being discussed.

"Don't tickle me!"; 'she giggled' may be just a description of her reaction to his tickling.

Only if "she" is capitalized.

Can dialogue be "snarled"?

Not often, or the reader will suspect your character just had a tooth extraction. Once a chapter may be too much, but as an added emphasis, most readers will understand the usage.

Sure the other way is a short cut, and achieves brevity

In an earlier thread, the general consensus was to eliminate unnecessary words. That discussion would support using 'she giggled' instead of 'she exclaimed between giggles'

If the words are needed in order to communicate information not otherwise present

The point of the thread was to omit words like 'that' which added nothing to the scene.

Example: He saw that I had added unnecessary words.

In an earlier thread, the general consensus was to eliminate unnecessary words. That discussion would support using 'she giggled' instead of 'she exclaimed between giggles'

Sorry, but the earlier discussion was about dropping specific unnecessary words (either passive, repetitive or words like "that" which don't add anything to a given sentence), but reducing an entire description of a woman giggling between sentences is just ... criminal for an author to commit.

In the first, the passages become easier to read, as the 'passive phrases' have been removed (which only weaken the sentence), while in the second, the entire context of the giggling is lost.

about dropping specific unnecessary words

That is true, but it also addressed minimizing the number of words used to say the same thing.

Personally, I don't care for 'she giggled'. However, I can visualize a difference between 'she exclaimed between giggles' and 'she giggled'. In the first, there would be short sections of understandable passages separated by giggles. In the second, the words and giggles would be so intermixed that it would be difficult to understand the speaker.

Not "ask" if it's a question?

Logic and sense has nothing to do with habits from early training. I try to write as i would talk and if I'm recounting and event to another I'd say something like '... then George asked Fred ...' and not use the word 'said' in that situation.

I also find when you have a group together and one asks a question by using 'replied' you make it clear they're answering the question, while following with another speaker using 'said' could mean they're saying something different and it isn't a reply to the question.

Mind you, when you write in the present tense the use of the word 'said' isn't at all common, but 'say' is.

typo, sue me - corrected

Still, I see the same regularly. I don't believe they are all typos.

I very rarely edit my forum posts or check them after typing them - thus I often have typos, the most common being teh for the, sue for use, nad for and, ti for to, and often have letters missing due to not hitting the keys hard enough.

Oh, I didn't mean in forum posts, I see it in stories to.

If you see that sort of bad grammar or typos in any of my stories please let me know - exception being UK spelling as against USA spelling.

Still, I see the same regularly. I don't believe they are all typos.

Muscle memory often damns us all. Ernest has a history of type "hte" for "the" and "sue" for "use", but most of us have gotten used to it, and it's easily enough cleaned up during editing. Here on the Forum, we're not quite as formal about the proper spelling as we are in print.

Ernest: "If I was used every time I mistype "sue", then nothing much would change."

There is a minor precedent for "the/The" before a name, but that is reserved for when the name itself is being used as though it were a title in its own right.

I had an extensive discussion with my editors of an AI who only identifies itself as "The One". Does that mean, subsequently, that its official name is "The One", "the One" or merely "One"? We still haven't successfully resolved the issue, even many years after the first book's release.

I suggest your AI sounds egotistical enough that they'd definitely have chosen to name themselves 'The One'.

The AI wasn't that egotistical. When asked who he was, it simply replied "I am the one who brought you all here", so the humans simply accepted that his 'name' was "the One", and have referring to him as such ever since. But back when I first started on book 2, I had to reread the passage multiple times figure out whether to use an upper or lower case "the".

Further complicating matters, the crew at large refers to the AI as "the One", while the Captain of the ship treats him as just a member of the crew, calling him "One" (showing they have a more personal relationship than the other crew members).

I can see your dilemma and, FWIW, I agree with your choices.

The bigger problem is, in book 3, more of the crew follow their captain's lead in dropping the "The", but with so many characters, it's hard to recall who's using the formal name ("the") and who's using the informal (just plain "One").

Oh, the many travails we lay before our feet and then decry the insurmountable obstructions! 'D

From https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18233844

"The Ukraine" is incorrect both grammatically and politically, says Oksana Kyzyma of the Embassy of Ukraine in London.

"Ukraine is both the conventional short and long name of the country," she says. "This name is stated in the Ukrainian Declaration of Independence and Constitution."

The use of the article relates to the time before independence in 1991, when Ukraine was a republic of the Soviet Union known as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, she says. Since then, it should be merely Ukraine.

There is no definite article in the Ukrainian or Russian languages and there is another theory why it crept into the English language.

Those who called it "the Ukraine" in English must have known that the word meant "borderland", says Anatoly Liberman, a professor at the University of Minnesota with a specialism in etymology. So they referred to it as "the borderland".

"After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukrainians probably decided that the article denigrated their country [by identifying it as a part of Russia] and abolished 'the' while speaking English, so now it is simply Ukraine.

"That's why the Ukraine suddenly lost its article in the last 20 years, it's a sort of linguistic independence in Europe, it's hugely symbolic."

The Germans still use it but the English-speaking world has largely stopped using it.

There are many other country names that are habitually referred to with "the", such as Congo, Gambia, Yemen, Lebanon, Sudan, Netherlands, Philippines and Bahamas.

But according to several authoritative sources, such as the CIA World Factbook, the Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World and the US Department of State, only two countries, The Bahamas and The Gambia, should officially be referred to with the article.

The two Congos are officially Democratic Republic of the Congo and Republic of the Congo. And the longer, official name for Netherlands is Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Thanks, Switch, for that informative post. Though, I've never referred to Gambia with a definitive article, and I can't recall ever hearing it referred that way either in print articles or on the news, so that last tidbit is completely new to me. I'm wondering whether it (the definitive use for Gambia) is a dated reference in those individual documents, or everyone in America has been using it incorrectly my entire life (or at least as long as Gambia has been a country)?

The "the" before a name, is that a typical American way of speaking?

Funny you should ask that. The first line of my new novel (as of now) is:

The boy sat on the ground behind Cactus Point High School, leaning against the dumpster with knees raised.

I had to remove the "the" I had before "Cactus Point High School." When I first wrote the sentence is was simply "the high school." When I named the school I forgot to remove the "the" until reading it.

I had to remove the "the" I had before "Cactus Point High School." When I first wrote the sentence is was simply "the high school." When I named the school I forgot to remove the "the" until reading it.

Another thing that authors do that annoys me (including myself) is authors who use "the the".

I see that a lot. Context usually indicates the author meant 'then the' or 'that the'. It's that muscle memory striking again complicated by seeing what you expect to see when editing.

Yeah! That is how a lot of grammatical errors find their way into well-written stories.

I learned UK English and from that I think the prefix is wrong or at least it sounds wrong. Ernest confirmed that. I am referring to the occurrence in stories, not in forum posts where typos are trivial.

I was taught that the use of the word 'the' in a name is for titles of some sort as in The President of the USA, or the name of something like The USS Enterprise, and it's not part of a person's name. However, there are the odd times when what is a person's name is actually a title.

Many people call a low level runner a 'Gopher' as in 'go for this or go for that'. In some organizations the lowest level runner of errands is called George and referred to as The George - in this context it is not a name but it's a title. However, this is a very rare type of situation and I doubt it's what Keet is listing as a problem.

In a related way I've noted a number of US authors who use the word that when they should use than and the same ones often use than when they should be using that. The times I've seen it done it's obviously intended as the misuse is consistent through the story. I do wonder if it's a result of a specific education program in one part of the USA, but I don't have enough of a sample to make any clear judgement on it.

Then the author forgot to go back and look for cases of "the Fred".

"The Fred in Blue". I like it. I can picture an entire series of children's stories all about the continuing adventures of "The Fred in Blue". Now when it gets reduced to "The the in blue" is when you completely lose it!

Just to confuse you, there are a few instances where native English speakers would use 'the'. For example, the Ukraine, the Congo. I recently read an article by a 'writing expert' expressing the opinion that usage is wrong and should be dropped.

AJ

I vaguely recall this subject being discussed in a previous topic. I suggest you don't try writing 'Bronx' without the definite article preceding it ;)

AJ

I looked up 'Ukraine' at dictionary.com. Interestingly, every 'contemporary example' they provided did not have 'the' while every 'historical example' did.

The Ukraine used to refer to a vast area, transcending current national boundaries and encompassing much of what nowadays is Russia. That a small piece of it has been formalised into a country, called Ukraine, adds to the confusion.

Did this "expert" express an opinion on The Hague and the Netherlands? I'd always use 'The/the' with both of those.

No, they didn't.

AJ

I meant that the "the" prefix is part of the name, not necessarily the capitalized "The".

I've noticed more and more the 'the' being dropped, with journos writing only 'Netherlands'.

AJ

The words 'nether' and 'land' have existed in English since the tenth century with their current meaning. If describing an area of low land it is natural to say 'the nether lands' rather than 'nether land'. When English grammar for creating names is applied to the translation of your country's name the result is 'the Netherlands'.

So you decide we (all English speaking countries) should always translate the name, and then individually reconstruct the name based upon their English equivalents, rather than simply accepting a foreign countries own word for their country? (Frankly, I've never understood why we continue to refer to Deutschland as "Germany". It's use seems pointlessly archaic.)

Thus since the Netherlands has a very well defined border it should be Netherland. Thank you for another argument in favor of my personal, although unofficial, favorite name Netherland.

You've convinced me too. Goodbye "the Netherlands", you were good to me, but our time is past. Hello "Netherland", it looks like we'll have a much friendlier time of it. (Now if I can only convince my readers of my unorthodox usage.) My spellcheck program hates it!

There are lots of prostitutes in Amsterdam's red light district. Let's name the country 'land of the hos', or Holland for short ;)

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

AJ

Good one! Although Amsterdam and the red light district has lost most of it's glory due to immigration and politics.

Not to mention the abundance of both online porn and online dating (cough, cough, hookup) sites.

Although Amsterdam and the red light district has lost most of it's glory due to immigration

Why would immigration affect it?

new very leftist mayor

London's got one of those.

Blimp representing baby Trump wearing a nappy? No problem.

Epidemic of violent crime? Dum de dum de dum.

AJ

Helmut-

One entertaining (to me) finding of my years in Germany was finding out that it was die Fraulein, neuter, when sitting on a park bench in the summer observing passers-by clearly indicated that such was NOT the case.

Just to confuse you, there are a few instances where native English speakers would use 'the'. For example, the Ukraine, the Congo.

The Bronx. It's Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island, but the 5th borough is "the Bronx."

Mind you, when you write in the present tense the use of the word 'said' isn't at all common, but 'say' is.

"You don't said?" he queried, while his obnoxious girlfriend giggled hysterically.

It's not that "giggled" or "chuckled" (or, for that matter, "laughed") are intrinsically bad words to use. It's that they need to be used sparingly. It's far too easy to overuse them and have your characters come off as ditzy airheads. (Especially if the stuff you have them giggling is not as funny as you think it is.) Most of the time, dialogue tags should just be "said". Or nothing at all.

It's especially important to be realistic with your choice of attributions. It's virtually impossible to 'laugh' while speaking. You can giggle, lightly, but it extends the time needed to convey simple concepts. Chuckling works, short of, because like giggles, they tend to be short, lasting only as long a few short words. But again, if two people are constantly laughing, you've gotta question whether they're high on something, or just insecure simpletons.

Certain authors always jump all over me with both feet whether I assert this, but evidence (largely anecdotal, but based on a large number of successful authors) demonstrates that while readers recognize "said" attributions, it doesn't stop them in their tracks the way that other attributions do (mainly because the reader has to parse what the hell the action has to do with the dialogue). Thus 'said' is largely invisible to readers. Thus it's fine to use other attributions, but limit how often you use them, and think before blindly throwing them into dialogue.

For what it's worth, many of us prefer 'action attributions', where you stop the dialogue to show the speaker doing something, rather than using 'he said'. This not only helps pace the dialogue, and gives readers a sense of what's happening amongst the speakers, but it's also a nice change of pace from the constant barrage of 'he said'/'she said'/'he guffawed'/'she giggled'.

For what it's worth, many of us prefer 'action attributions', where you stop the dialogue to show the speaker doing something, rather than using 'he said'.

Could you please provide an example?

Joe slammed his hand on the table. "Get out of here!"

Instead of:

"Get out of here!" Joe said.

"Get out of here!" Joe yelled angrily, slamming his hand on the table.

Just because. :)

"Get out of here!" Joe yelled angrily, slamming his hand on the table.

Do you really think those extra words adds anything?

Also, by putting the action BEFORE the dialogue, you hear the anger in his voice. When you put it after the dialogue, you find out he's angry after you read the words.

By itself, no. But we are playing and picking at nits here.

I can see myself using any of the three versions depending on the scene, the flow at that point in the story.

But we are playing and picking at nits here.

Isn't that what always happens to long threads on this forum? The train of thought gets completely derailed and we delve in the minutia? Especially considering that with this being a global forum, we're never going to agree on anything?

(Other than Ross is annoying, as CW mentions?)

These guidelines are often stated as definitive rules, but they're not

(Other than Ross is annoying, as CW mentions?)

Hey! Don't go putting words insulting others into my mouth. Instead, do like everyone else, and quote them directly from my multiple posts so there's no question that I said them. 'D

For the record, though, Ross is incredibly helpful in many instances, but he does tend to get caught up in meaningless minitia (like his endless ngrams) just like the rest of us.

Which works best:

1) defining the emotions related to the scene before presenting the dialog. The reader can visualize the character's mood before reading the dialog.

2) defining the emotions relate to the words after the dialog. The reader reassesses the dialog after the words are read to put the words into context.

Personally, I favor 1.

For what it's worth, many of us prefer 'action attributions', where you stop the dialogue to show the speaker doing something, rather than using 'he said'.

Could you please provide an example?

I wanted to get a real-world example, rather than making one up on the fly and then having people attack it. Here's one from my next story:

"That's why I'm glad to be starting fresh."

"There were just too many bad memories there." Al leaned over, taking Myi's hand and lifting it to his lips and kissing it. "Though they were mixed with happy adventures, trusted friendships and decent people I'll never let go, as long as we live."

This segment follows a long discussion between various people, but here, after Myi points out how stressful events have been, Al pauses (the benefits of using actions instead of speech) and comforts his wife. That's an 'action attribution', since the attribution consists of an action in a separate sentence, rather than merely a noun and a verb standard attribution.

but wording is naturally consistent

Word choice is usually affected by the setting. The word you would use when out drinking in a bar would probably be considered inappropriate in a church setting.

Word usage is also part of character development. Using inappropriate language in a given situation can be used to show the character is insensitive or just doesn't give a damn.

Word choice is usually affected by the setting. The word you would use when out drinking in a bar would probably be considered inappropriate in a church setting.

You're right. In a bar, you'd typically say "the ... the bitch!" whereas in a church setting, your drop the unnecessary "the"s, leaving it merely as "that bitch". 'D That accounts for the many recitations of the basic 'that demon rum' sermon by ministers and pastors.

- not caring for health issues like...not implementing or mentioning STD dangers.

Some authors explicitly state their stories occur in universes where STDs do not exist. For some readers (and author's I'm sure) those concerns mess up the erotic nature of the story. Not a big deal to me, either way.

For the purposes of most erotic fiction, I operate on the assumption STDs have been removed from that world by some means unless or until the author says otherwise in the story.

Gonorrhea or syphilis is a real mood-killer in a story arc.

Do teenage males exist with that much drama?

Yes.

As for the extremely sensitive and wimpy teenage male getting the girl, didn't happen for me but all else being equal I appreciate it when I see it in a story.

As for the extremely sensitive and wimpy teenage male getting the girl, didn't happen for me but all else being equal I appreciate it when I see it in a story.

It's a common literary motif that those who suffer eventually win, it's the whole 'underdog' meme. It's not that they're 'wimpy', it's that they've suffered, refocused their efforts and have rose above their earlier positions.

Put it another way, consider all those 'wimpy nerds' who now own software company worth billions? Being the top of the heap in high school isn't a clear path to success in life, and teenage girls can rarely judge worth in suitors as they lack the necessary experience in dealing with people

However, the key word here is 'wimpy'. You don't want your main character to be a punching bag, instead, they've got to have an under core of steel resolve, and be willing to suffer in order to win the day. Just because someone gets picked on doesn't make anyone 'great'.

However, the key word here is 'wimpy'.

Which means different things to different people. Yes, it can mean spineless, but it also can mean too damned weak to do anything about it. I don't mind a character who is a punching bag, but one that grovels so he won't be used as a punching bag is another thing altogether.

I don't know that I've seen many stories with the cowardly version of the wimp getting the girl. In some he finally gets the girl when he decides to stand up for himself or, more likely, someone else even though he gets thoroughly thrashed in the process.

Personally, I like the physically weak type of MC who uses his wits and friends to overcome situations.

That's part of the 'physical limitations' meme, where the main character is seen as flawed, yet he manages to overcome his inherent flaws to prove himself despite his natural inclinations. Thus the character from "House M.D." qualifies under this particular meme, even though he's simply an ass, his limp notwithstanding.

What bothers me with those situations isn't that a particularly weak character wins the girl, but he wins girl after girl after girl, with not a single one questioning him or turning their backs to him. Even one or two cold shoulders would feel like a splash of refreshing cold water after so much of the same.

Letting characters that try to kill the mc go so they can write more drama when said characters come and try to kill the mc again

Does that fit under the previously mentioned 'pansy' objection. There's being betrayed after trusting someone, but then there's doing something that common sense tells you is simply a stupid, stupid move.

As someone who uses "Little one" as a term of endearment to grown women in real life. consider yourself rasberried. ;)

As someone who uses "Little one" as a term of endearment to grown women in real life. consider yourself rasberried. ;)

But what if the women are munchkins, fairies or pixies?

First one is a writer who deliberately withholds story codes they KNOW ARE COMING until the moment they arrive in the story.

In my mind that's about the only thing that really justifies a 1 vote. It ensures the author is placed on my blacklist of authors to avoid at all costs.

It's so easy to put the code in and include a note as part of the story description to state a code belongs to one particular scene in one chapter if it's very minor.

First one is a writer who deliberately withholds story codes they KNOW ARE COMING until the moment they arrive in the story.

Of course some writers don't know what's coming up because they're making it up as they go along but I agree with your point. It's one of the reasons I almost never start stories these days until they're complete. By then the author should have an idea what's going on and have coded for it.

Not fully coding a story is definitely one of my peeves. I'm OK if the author says in the synopsis that they are withholding codes (though I won't read the story) but if they just leave off codes that I find objectionable then they get a 1 vote and they land on my exclusion list. The codes aren't only there to let us know what stories we'll be interested in but also the ones that we'll want to avoid.

Most authors tend to write the same or very similar types of stories and they develop habits in the way they present their stories.

I agree that the practice of withholding a story code that you know will be added as a surprise is not appropriate. The readers of authors who use this practice should be aware of the author's habit of adding uncoded content to a story. If you haven't read their stories, then you can always review the codes they assigned to completed stories, and hopefully they added missing codes when they included potentially objectionable material in a story. Of course that assumes the author has multiple stories posted and that you read or attempted to read the stories. If true, then you should have a general idea of the types of content to expect of that author.

A new author or an author you haven't read is a different situation, and there is no way to predict what you will encounter. :( However, a new author is an experienced reader. They should know that including uncoded scenes that may be objectionable is a bad practice based on how they felt when they encountered objectionable content. On the other hand, maybe as a reader, the new author liked having uncoded, objectionable material being included as a surprise.

They should also have read Lazeez guides to good writing practices including the sections addressing proper coding for a story. If they implement inappropriate practices, they deserve to lose their readers. But they should be aware that others don't share their opinion.Unfortunately, new authors will not read the guides or they think they can get away with practices they objected to other writers using. :(

minor edits

Even taking context into account it could be confusing.

I agree. I'm having that problem with Part 2 of my current story. Part 1 of the story had a Sam Thomas and a Samantha (Sam) Reppa and they have major postions in the story.

I fixed that problem for future stories. I found several lists of first and last names and merged the respective lists. I then deleted duplicates of first names and last names, but missed a few duplicates and need to go through the listing again. I now have a list of about 800 first-last character names. I just have to avoid names where a nickname duplicates another characters name, like Sam/Samantha.

LOL... ANOTHER thing that I find annoying is when the writer has several characters that have the same and/or very similar names. I just reviewed one like that where there was an "Uncle Lee (called Lee) and a niece named Lee. The writer used a lot of dialog that went, "and Lee said" when both character were present. Even taking context into account it could be confusing.

I had one story, with well over 100 characters, where I had some fun with this. Finding another character with the same name, the MC dubs him "Alex 2". I had fun playing around with this (ex: "which Alex is that?"/"Oh, Alex 1").

Even in my newest story, dealing with aliens whose names are so strange they'd never repeat, the humans assign human names to anyone who's name they can't pronounce, and if one happens to act like a previous character, they simply say, "OK, we'll just call you Gary 2 until we finally master your name."

But, at least I make it clear who's saying what, and my editors are very good at telling me when my speakers aren't clearly identified.

I had one story, with well over 100 characters, where I had some fun with this. Finding another character with the same name, the MC dubs him "Alex 2". I had fun playing around with this (ex: "which Alex is that?"/"Oh, Alex 1").

I have this in real life! One of my friends shares a name with one of my sons. They became 'Josh 1' and 'Josh 2'. And that's how we refer to them.

My niece has 2 uncles with the same name (her only uncles).

I'm sure most of you have heard of the author cmsix, well, he uses that nickname because when he was born there were already 5 others in his close family with the exact same first, second, and family name - thus he was the sixth with the same first and second name with the initials of cm.

I do some genealogy research and have found many cases where the first born son of every son in a family is given the same name. Thus you can get John B has four sons and they have four sons who then have four sons. so if he lives long enough to see his great grandsons you have in those 4 generations from John B a one John B in the 2 nd generation, but 4 John Bs in the 3rd Generation and 16 John Bs in the 4th generation giving 22 with the same name at the family Christmas party.

I have this in real life! One of my friends shares a name with one of my sons. They became 'Josh 1' and 'Josh 2'. And that's how we refer to them.

In one sci-fi novel, I used 'Thing 1' and 'Thing 2' from Dr. Seuss's Cat in the Hat. It's a quick lighthearted way to dance around having to name creatures who are hard enough to describe in English.

My family always uses themes in selecting family names (first names for family members). One family named everyone for nature (ex: Brook, Dale), another for flowers (ex: Rose, Heather, Iris), and so on. My parents with "V"s. Us kids were Vincent, Victor, Valerie and Copy (my grandmother's nickname for Vernon III). My parents were Vernon Jr. and Vera, and my grandparents were Vernon I and Gook (short, sorta, for Gladys). We also lived in Virginia Beach, Virginia, drove a Volkswagen bus and had a dog named VIP (for Very Important Puppy). Although they've always denied consciously choosing all V names, they conceded they were forced to stop having kids when faced with naming the next boy either Vaughn or Virgil.

To top it off, My sister met someone she who attended her high school at their 30th reunion with the name of Vincent Vita, and as you can imagine, they ended up marrying, so now I'm Vincent and her husband is simply Vince.

Try working that into a story without it sounding absurd!

Girl (A) and Boy (B) fall in love and get married. At the wedding they make the mistake(?) of introducing her widowed father to his single mother. A year later the happy couple become step-siblings when their parents get married to each other. I assume much yelling was involved, but I've never actually met any of them.

Just think of the confusion if the parents in question had another child (C) :). Girl (A) and Boy (B) would both be half siblings to Child (C).

Actually, I know someone who's had that happen. The two children were both in their early 20's, parents had both married young (or at least had kids early), so the mom was only in her late 30's. The first generations kid was in my grade at school, the parents kid was two years behind me. It was funny because Vic (in my grade) would call Jeff (two years younger) his uncle - which was correct. Jeff would get a kick out of saying, this is my brother and my sister, his wife.

In one sci-fi novel, I used 'Thing 1' and 'Thing 2' from Dr. Seuss's Cat in the Hat. It's a quick lighthearted way to dance around having to name creatures who are hard enough to describe in English.

In AWLL, Jesse calls Jennifer and Josie 'Mom One' and 'Mom Two' :-)

I think the V theme would be fun to write into a story.

"But...Vernon, doesn't that get confusing?"
"Very!"

My family was more George Forman-esque. The father is Charles, the sons were Charles M., Charles B., Karl (Charles in German) and Charlene.

Then there was me, I came in between Charles M. and Charles B. in age, but I was the result of an affair and was named David. Gee... that helped me fit in.

As far as the name thing goes, I am actually using that as a low-key, ongoing joke in my current story.

Jack is the MC. He meets Jake, a grand-father type figure who has a security chief, Dave. Dave finds Jack a security chief named Dean. When Jack gets a girl, Dean finds the girl a bodyguard named Deb.

Jack is the only one that things it is at all strange.

the character has a name, then they have a nick name, then they have another nick name used by another character.

Common in real life. Some people know a person by one nickname, and others know them by another nickname - depending on where they first met. Most people call people by the name they were first introduced to some one by, so you get that.

Related to that is the use of short name forms. My family always called me Ernest, those who knew me from school always called me Ernie, those who knew me from work called me Ern, and I also picked up the nickname of 'Deadly Ernest' which also got shortened to 'Deadly' along the way.

I know someone named Gary James who gets Gary, Gazza, GJ, Rev, Skipper, and Skip from different people due to where they first met him - there's 6 to play with.

Similar issue- the character has a name, then they have a nick name, then they have another nick name used by another character.

In one of my works in progress I have a character whose name and nickname are based on someone I know. The character is named after his grandfather and the legal name is Randolph Leyland Taylor - Leyland is pronounced lay-land by some people and lee-land by others. Mother not wanting him called Randy for short starts him out with the nickname of Lee as the short form of his middle name. Due to activities as a youth he also picks up the nickname of Tinker thus he gets called Lee or Tinker by people and the official records call him Randolph.

Which all goes to show, you really can't make it a rule that no author can ever use more than one name to refer to someone, but just like using first and last names in informal and formal settings, you've got to work extra hard to remind readers of each name, who knows him by those names, and when it's appropriate to use them. The sheer workload in keeping all of that straight, and keeping the reader appraised as the story progresses, should discourage most authors from even attempting it.

It's not that it can't be done, but the more complicated you make an otherwise simple thing, the more difficult it gets to implement. And it's yet another reason why many authors keep active character lists, so they can keep their character names straight, and hopefully notice when one character uses another character's first name as their middle name, and yet another uses it as their last.

Found it on a graphic I stumbled upon one night while perusing various MILF video vignettes.

Smirk: Slight, often fleeting upturning of the corners of the mouth, completely voluntary and controllable

I like your list, because not only does it tell you how a character displays the action, but it ties the character's actions to the responses of other characters, so authors using the list are less likely to abuse the attributions.

George Foreman named all five sons George.

George Jr.
George III ("Monk")
George IV ("Big Wheel")
George V ("Red")
George VI ("Little Joey").

Technically, the positional titles (Jr., IIIrd, IVth) aren't to relate sequential order, but generational order. Thus if you have five children all named George, the first would be George Jr, but the rest would all simply be "George", with no distinctions. George Jr's son would be George III, but that name couldn't be applied to any other of the many George Children. Thus if "Monk" had a child named "George", he'd only be George Jr, not George IV or George VII.

But then, George simply named his kids whatever he wanted, with little regard for how they'd deal with the name, the implications or the appropriateness of the titles.

George simply named his kids whatever he wanted, with little regard for how they'd deal with the name, the implications or the appropriateness of the titles.

On his website, Foreman explains, "I named all my sons George Edward Foreman so they would always have something in common. I say to them, 'If one of us goes up, then we all go up together, and if one goes down, we all go down together!'"

The name should be consistent when using a dialogue tag.

In my first novel, I have a character named Rocco. Most people called him Rock while some Sarge, etc. Those were nicknames/titles people called him in dialogue. But when Rocco spoke and needed a dialogue tag, it was always "Rocco said."

If everyone has their own name for the character, then clearly, the narrator does too.

The name should be consistent when using a dialogue tag.

However in Redsliver's 'Magic is Gross' stories the characters have dialogue tags reflecting their personas at the time they utter the dialogue. In the circumstances I think it's the right choice.

AJ

What's confusing about it? Are you still hung up on your personal grammar rule that an adverb must come before the verb it modifies?

While I recognize that the process of putting adjectives and adverbs after what they modify is common in some European languages it's not done that way in English - why that came about is not something I've been able to find out. Nor is it a personal grammar rule.

In some languages it's correct to say the house blue and the car fast in English the correct way is to say either the blue house or the house is blue and the fast car or the car is fast.

Take the Swift type comment earlier:

"This knife damn near sliced my finger off!" Tom said sharply.

That makes good English. However, in the examples I see and am complaining about they would have:

Tom said, "This knife damn near sliced my finger off!" sharply.

which is bad English and it causes you to stop a moment to make sense of it.

An adverb without a verb is a grammatical mistake and I'm pretty sure no one will object.

Is that true?

The google featured site (dictionary.com?) claims an adverb is "a word or phrase that modifies the meaning of an adjective, verb, or other adverb, expressing manner, place, time, or degree (e.g. gently, here, now, very ). Some adverbs, for example sentence adverbs, can also be used to modify whole sentences."

AJ

Some adverbs, for example sentence adverbs, can also be used to modify whole sentences.

Now that I'd like to see. Did they provide any examples? Otherwise, I can't imagine how you'd modify an entire sentence.

Ex: Fastly the fireman run into the burning house, hoping to save to family's one-year-old puppy, Snappy Doodle!

Now that I'd like to see. Did they provide any examples? Otherwise, I can't imagine how you'd modify an entire sentence.

Finally, the balloon landed.

"Finally" is the adverb.

Not much different from 'The balloon finally landed.

ETA - I have a sentence in my story that I think would be a good example of what you mean

Afterward, they snuggle.

Finally, the balloon landed.

"Finally" is the adverb.

Technically, the adverb doesn't modify the sentence, it only modifies the phrase, which just happens to be the only content of the sentence, but it has nothing to do with modifying entire sentences other than a random length of the sentence.

Its a choice, not a compulsion.

Exactly, most politicians choose to lie when it's convenient. However, a certain current nationwide office holder seems incapable of uttering the truth, preferring to invent entire facts on the fly, while decrying the validity of 'truth' as a general concept. Now that's compulsive, when you lie just because you can't resist lying.

All politicians lie, but some are better at it than others. If you can't believe anything someone says, then nothing they say is any more important than "kerfuffle" statements.

I think part of it is that his lies are so blatant in most cases that it isn't that they believe them.

During the 2016 campaign, a TV interviewer asked a man in the parking lot of a Trump convention about whether he believed Trump was a liar. The man's response was, Yes I believe Trump lies, but he wouldn't lie to us his supporters. I think most of Trump's supporters know he lied to them to get elected, but their pride will not allow them to admit it.

Many of Trump's current supporters believe he is doing the proper thing in areas that interest them. They don't care if he is doing improper things in areas that are of little or no interest to them. They don't realize the impact his actions will have on them in the future.

A good example of that is Trump's tariff war. I doubt that most of his supporters understand the negative impact his war will have on their lives is an increase in the cost of the merchandise they will buy.

Trump's tax bill is also a good example of the negative impact his actions have on the general population. It has been presented as being a good thing for big business and the average person will see lower taxes. I think my family falls into the average category. I asked my tax man how Trump's bill will affect my 2018 taxes. He told me that if they were applied to my 2017 taxes, I would have had to pay an additional $800 in taxes. Those of us living in the US need to be prepared for their 2018 taxes being higher than expected.

How does that differ from avid supporters of any politician? I remember a quote about a U.S. Senator from Georgia (I think 1940s or 1950s) in which one person said - "He's a crook." ANd the other said, "Yeah, but he's our crook."

That reminds me of the longstanding Daley administration in Chicago. Everyone knew he was as crooked as a three-dollar bill, but his patronage system actually accomplished things for great numbers of people (as opposed to the current patronage system, which promises the sun and moon, but only delivers for the rich and powerful funding campaigns, while betraying the voters at every turn). That was back in the days when individual votes actually counted, and politicians could be counted on to pay the working stiff for those votes!

I find it terrifying that so many Americans cannot see how different this president's dishonesty is to all those before him.

Trump is just an obvious liar. The others were better at it. LBJ lying about the Vietnam war? Tricky Dick (Nixon)? Obama lying through his teeth about his promises for Obamacare?

They all lie. Trump just sucks at it.

Show me the person that claims they've never lied, and I'll show you a liar. From my perspective, it's more about intent and frequency.

That's the yardstick we should ALL focus on. But instead, many simply assert that it doesn't matter a wick if their candidate lies until they're blue in the face, but they'll raise holy hell if someone they dislike mispronounces a single word!

Again, when people complain about government, they're rarely talking about politicians in general, they're just ranting about the party currently in power (or in many cases, the party which won't allow them to do whatever the fuck they want>. And that particular knife cuts in both directions, as everyone is equally at fault!

What if it's something really serious? Say you're the President and somebody asks you a question, and a true response will reveal national secrets that you fear could put many people's lives in danger?

Just curious, but just how many lives would a politician threaten if he actually revealed that a tax cut won't create millions of jobs?

While your clarifications are valid and warranted, it doesn't cancel out the argument that politicians, of all ilk, frequently lie simply for convenience, rather than out of malicious intent, a misunderstanding or a disregard for their constituents. Sometimes, they simply convince themselves that everyone would benefit if they simply didn't admit the truth. That creates very blurry lines which had hide virtually ANY crime!

the house blue

"Waiter, a bottle of the house white please."

AJ

Either way, you merely provided a distraction to argue about something totally unrelated.

Bugger, I missed off the smiley. ;)

BTW, is Ernest confusing adverbs and adjectives? An easy mistake - I've always wondered whether the distinction is artificial.

AJ

While I recognize that the process of putting adjectives and adverbs after what they modify is common in some European languages it's not done that way in English - why that came about is not something I've been able to find out. Nor is it a personal grammar rule.

The only semi-authoritative reference I know is the one we discussed in the past, about the 'natural order of adjectives', but again, that reference doesn't precisely state why those words sound more natural, it only states that they do.

why that came about is not something I've been able to find out

I suspect the reason is separating the adverb from the verb it modifies could lead to confusion if the sentence were to have two or more verbs and the adverb could modify either.

I have a habit of putting the adverb at the end, but lately I've placed it where the position seems to give the best emphasis to the sentence.

One thing that I find not only annoying, but sometimes leads to confusion with the reading is when an author places an adverb after the verb.

He ran fast.
He spoke slowly.

What's wrong with them?

He spoke slowly.

Nothing, wrong about either. I think EB is talking about having words between the verb and adverb.

For instance: He spoke about running down the hill slowly.

What is being done slowly, speaking or running.

Actually, there is only one verb in this sentence.

You are mistaken. The speaker is talking about his act of 'running down the hill', so the example has 2 verbs.

The point of the example is if a writer places the adverb after the verb the writer wants the adverb to modify, then if text is placed between the adverb and its verb there can be an ambiguity. In this particular case, the reader can interpret 'slowly' to be 'slowly spoke' or 'slowly running'.

What is being done slowly, speaking or running.

Neither. What's being done slowly is discussing what's being done slowly.

That is due to English using articles to introduce nouns, titles, etc. Other languages may not use articles in that manner, so "I live in United States of America" might sound natural to them.

translates as 'cat food'

That reminded me of what we called 'Puppy Chow', back before they started making it complete. Chex Mix.

And everyone's favorite 'Bug Juice' ... aka Soy Sauce.

And everyone's favorite 'Bug Juice' ... aka Soy Sauce.

Technically, its major component is 'ink' from octopi (which gives it that distinctive jet-black color, thought the ink has no real discernible flavor itself). In case you were wondering, I owned a fish shop/restaurant for a while, and learned a HELL of a lot about what's involved with seafood!

And everyone's favorite 'Bug Juice' ... aka Soy Sauce.

Technically, its major component is 'ink' from octopi (which gives it that distinctive jet-black color,

While some recipes may combine octopi 'ink' with soy sauce, 'ink' is not an ingredient in soy sauce.

Soy sauce (also called soya sauce in British English) is a liquid condiment of Chinese origin, made from a fermented paste of soybeans, roasted grain, brine, and Aspergillus oryzae or Aspergillus sojae molds

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soy_sauce

Reminds me of an early date with my Filipina wife. She asked to see the movie all-a-DEEN. It took a few minutes to figure she meant a-LAD-in. The difference being between English and Tagalog pronunciation and syllable emphasis.

She should'a just said "I wanna see the movie with that cute Arab boy!" If nothing else, you'd definitely pay more attention! 'D

Isn't Formenterror one of the Balearic Islands?

AJ

I've just seen the correct word, 'foment', so it looks like my pronunciation and hearing have been faulty for a long time.

Not an uncommon mistake. After years of using the wrong word myself, and having editors miss it entirely too, I was finally corrected by one clear-eyed editor.

Again, if you're unsure what to search for, dictionaries are utterly useless! My problem (with dictionaries) has always been that I could never spell well enough to use one, so I ended up reading dictionaries as I would a reference work instead. However, that's NOT the optimal solution! 'D

And anybody who tells a lesbian they have to either give up their dildos or give up identifying as lesbians best watch out.

Sorry, but the people quoting those 'lines' are typically the lesbians themselves, as few honest lesbians have any interest in dildos, are rarely use them. However, you see them all the time in videos of Lesbians, because straight men just can't figure out WTF lesbians do!

Basic fact of nature, those who crave cock are by definition, either straight or Bi (although, admittedly, most lesbians have often spent decades trying to 'pass' as straights before finally admitting they're lying to themselves.

In the same way, lesbians run screaming when 'straight girls' want to experiment, as they see it as a complete waste of time. Why waste time 'training' someone who'll never be interested in a repeat performance. Instead, they prefer those who know what interests them and aren't into playing games (aside from the fun lesbian games, of course!).

And in the modern 'gender fluid' movement, the traditional assumptions are being further bent, rather than the LGTBQ folk wanting to accept the traditional roles. Thus you'll have openly declared lesbians 'trying out' more masculine roles. That doesn't mean they want to be men, only that they DON'T like dressing up in frilly feminine garb just to please others.

In that case, I say more power to them. People are generally willing, once they know someone's position, to allow them to 'redefine' themselves, as long as they don't continually flip-flop, deciding to be lesbian one moment and then straight the next. That's just a case of 'gender confusion', a classic straight male attack on gays and lesbians.

Note: As someone who's been at the periphery of the LGTBQ movement for most of my life, I take these things seriously. I've also spent a LONG time researching the attitudes of the people involved (it took me forever to develop an effective 'Lesdar', even though my gaydar has always been very finely tuned. Researching my A House in Disarray was a real eye-opener, as it overturned many of my previous assumptions about lesbian culture.

My youngest daughter is about as masculine as you can be and still be female. To look at her, there's no make up no dresses or skirts and her hair is always short. She is often mistaken for a boy. At 17 she's shown no real interest in dating either way.

Due to issues in school (She has Agenesis of the Corpus Callosum) she was in counseling and being the dutiful father led me to search her computer. This led me to discover she was interested in girls which given her demeanor was no big surprise.

What concerned her mother and I is we raised her in Holy Roller Christianity which has very definite opinions about sexual relationships. We did not want to lose our daughter to suicide over emotional turmoil caused by our faith or perceived disapproval by us. I'm of Norse descent. It doesn't bother me to tell a deity to take a flying leap off Mt. Motherfucker (a spot back home) if they act against my interests. We talked with her and assured her of our love and acceptance either way. She claims she's straight and we don't push the issue. We just love her and support her goals.

What does grind my gears is one of her counselors after meeting her once tried to put her on a track for transition to male. I about blew a gasket and about went and pulled a drunk. I haven't been drunk in over 20 years, but that about did it to me (I made myself a promise that my children would never see me drunk while they were children).

I'm just not down with that shit. How in the hell is a child supposed to have the life experience to make a decision like that when most full grown adults can't? Here's a real simple test look at your genetics. if it says you're male then you're a man and if you like other men you're homosexual. If you like Men and Women you're Bisexual. If you like only women you are Heterosexual. What's so hard about that? Then you dress how you want. If people laugh at you so what?

Do you want to see something funny? It's me wearing my half-kilt which is remarkably like a skirt, except I'm a man and don't wear skirts. Fuck you, it's a skirt and I like it. I wear black knee socks with it too. But I'll be damned if I'll put lacy frills on it or wear a pink one.

I had a female Bi buddy who leaned strongly toward girls and she was heavy into the scene. She was telling me about these poor unfortunates who were pasting hair to their faces to look more masculine. I felt so sorry for those people. I haven't always liked myself but damn.

What bothers me is males working to look more feminine. Because TBH if I were to find myself kissing on someone and suddenly discovered it wasn't a girl there IS going to be violence. To me what they did was sexual assault even though they didn't use force and I would beat them like I would an attempted rapist. I know I would probably go to prison but shit happens.

I also don't like females who are trying to pass in the men's room. All she has to do is say he touched me and the man is ruined.

I had it happen on a job and I raised hell. As I told HR, you know if I strolled up into the ladies room I would leave in handcuffs. All she has to do is accuse me and I can lose my professional licensure and since it would be a sexual accusation I would lose custody of my children until it's resolved. I would be ruined. They made her stop.

anyway, there's my 2 cent's

Darian, while I understand your concerns, their based on an underlying fallicy (that transexuality is based entirely on sexual orientation). In short, it's not. It's about not feeling comfortable in your own body. When most people transition, it's about 50/50 whether they end up gay or straight (i.e. it's unaffiliated with their sexual interest before or after their operation).

However, the biggest danger for trans folk (the currently accepted phrase) is recognizing and acting on it early. If you wait until someone is an adult, it's already too late to them to EVER successfully transition. Instead, the best bet is to open communications, get them some legitimate (i.e. non-religious counceling by those who understand the underlying issues), and, if necessary get them on medications which will delay the normal sexual hormones from permanently making them either obviously male or female.

They can always change their minds later, as many do, but if you wait until they are legally capable of deciding for themselves, they'll never fit in, whether they transition or not.

However, it's never an easy choice, no matter at what age it's undertaken. Just as gays (in the 80s and 90s) famously asked "If being gay is a choice, would I choose a life of oppression and hostility?" No one will decide to 'change' their sex just because someone wants them to, just as no one will remain as they are just because others frown on it.

However, while gays and lesbians are generally accepted nowadays, trans folk still have a mountain to climb before they ever see widespread acceptance.

As I know exactly what you're talking about, onset of puberty results in the dimorphic traits of the relevant genders to start presenting.

Not to berate the point, since we're in agreement here, but more specifically, that' the age where the changes become less about the current hormone levels, and become 'permanently' encased in their bone structures. (i.e. it's 'permanent' only until we learn how to 'regrow' every bone in a person's body). While that makes for an interesting question is a sci-fi story, it's a pretty definitive point in someone's life.

a warning on their packet of peanuts, "may contain nuts".

If the peanuts are packed in a factory that also manufactures nut products, there is the possibility of trace contamination by nuts.

AJ

Peanuts aren't actually a true nut; they're a legume (in the same family as peas and lentils). ... For this reason, people who are allergic to peanuts can also be allergic to tree nuts

Your quote omitted the actual 'reason', that peanuts and tree nuts can have proteins in common.

Peanut allergy is far more common than tree nut allergy. So peanut allergy sufferers have more reason to be concerned about tree nut products contaminated by traces of peanuts.

AJ

Peanut allergy is far more common than tree nut allergy. So peanut allergy sufferers have more reason to be concerned about tree nut products contaminated by traces of peanuts.

I suspect all of these allergies cropping up are simply mother nature working to thin the herd and improve the species on her own. Think of it as evolution in action.

I suspect all of these allergies cropping up are simply mother nature working to thin the herd and improve the species on her own. Think of it as evolution in action.

That's why I'm all for those spouting off nonsense on the internet strangling each other. Hopefully, in the end, we'll have less racist/sexist/bigoted people (and also fewer people automatically defending behaviors they really don't understand). 'D

Change the first sentence to this and that's exactly what I think. :-)

That's why I'm all for [Americans shooting] each other.

Yeah, our entire 'civil discourse' is crumbling around us, I'm not convinced there's any way out other than us all strangling each other. However, the same divisions which are so rampant here, are popping up everywhere else too. So while it's worse in America, this is hardly an isolated 'American problem'. Instead, we've become the bellweather for everyone else, a clear example of how NOT to address the issues. It may be too late for us, but if the rest of the world doesn't figure out a way around the problems, they're unlikely to avoid them too.

Note: Sorry for the thousand-post deluge, but I've been purposely avoiding this thread for a LONG time, and had many useless points to object too (but truthfully, I have insights into several of the 'publishing' aspects of the topics raised).