Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

For me, a good sex scene is about expressing the emotions the characters feel, not their physical actions; granted the physical activity is what usually leads to the emotional reaction. As a reader, when the scene's content looks like it is 90+% description of inserting Tab A in Slot A and the screams of passion, which are often boilerplate for the specific author, I fast forward to the interesting parts of the story.

The only details which differentiate one sex scene from another are the characters themselves, which make character development essential. Although I don't include much sex in my stories anymore (even though the stories that do include them continue to be my best sellers). However, I've found that, rather than the 'tab D into slut C' scenario, the 'talking and joking' sex scenes, that allow your characters to open up and admit things they normally wouldn't, work best, as it provides new views on the entire story, rather than simply recycling the same tired cliches.

I essentially gave up that practice because of repeated complaints (by a small number of readers) who bitched about not understanding what was happening after skipping any chapter which included a sex scene of any kind, but I'm now rethinking that approach. Since my primary readers are from SOL (and are therefore, older while males), it benefits us to cater to their interests (longer books with longer chapters, more sex catering exclusively to male readers), tempered by sex scenes which advance the story, rather than merely providing a distraction from it.

I essentially gave up that practice because of repeated complaints (by a small number of readers) who bitched about not understanding what was happening after skipping any chapter which included a sex scene of any kind,

You know my response to that. READ WHAT I WROTE. I wouldn't have written it if it could be skipped.

Some people don't read prologues that are essential to understanding the novel and then complain they don't understand the story. It's the same thing. Read the prologue!

Some people don't read prologues that are essential to understanding the novel and then complain they don't understand the story. It's the same thing. Read the prologue!

But in some genres, prologues have become adopted as the place to site an infodump, which readers can skip over initially and go back to if they need the minutiae, much as cast-lists are used.

AJ

The one that immediately springs to mind is scifi/fantasy, where the author has done a substantial amount of worldbuilding not immediately pertinent to the story.

AJ

The one that immediately springs to mind is scifi/fantasy, where the author has done a substantial amount of worldbuilding not immediately pertinent to the story.

Heinlein did it with almost no worldbuilding. He pulled the reader right into the story and let the sci fi elements speak for themselves. To Sail Beyond the Sunset is problematic for many reasons, but look at one of the first sentences. The main character is trying to figure out where she is: ''My last clear memory was of being a passenger in a Burroughs irrelevant bus, bound for New Liverpool..."

We don't know what a "Burroughs irrelevent bus" is, and we don't know why there's a "New Liverpool," although we can guess something bad may have happened to the old one, or maybe this is a copy on another world, but I don't think he needed to explain the terms. The reader rides along, so to speak, with faith the terms will become clear later on, if it's important to the story.

bb

Heinlein did it with almost no worldbuilding. He pulled the reader right into the story and let the sci fi elements speak for themselves.

I found this:

In Heinlein's Time Enough for Love, the body of the novel follows Lazarus Long as he recounts highlights from his three-thousand-year-long history. The prologue is written like a historian's preface to a published memoir, and analyzes the credibility of the events therein. Along the way it explains how people have come to live so long, and how this had affected human society. It also gives background about Lazarus Long, which makes the reader look forward to meeting this character "face to face".

Which genres? I ask to make sure to avoid those genres in the future.

It's known as the 'world/universe building dilemma', as many prologues include virtually all the authors research into the universe, just to prove that he did the research, even though it's a slog to read through. Thus many people have learned, over time, to avoid the prologue as being unproductive, instead wanting to jump directly into the first chapter where the action presumably begins.

Of course, that's not how everyone reads books, but the majority of sci-fi stories contain prologues and epilogues, so other genres will get even fewer people reading prologues!

but the majority of sci-fi stories contain prologues

If you truly believe that, you don't read enough Sci-Fi books. My personal experience is closer to one in ten. In fact, I'm trying to think of any book recently read in that genre that has one, and the only one I can think of was a Neal Asher book and the prologue was just as good if not better! than the rest of the novel...LOL

You know my response to that. READ WHAT I WROTE. I wouldn't have written it if it could be skipped.

That may be true of you Switch, but it isn't true of every writer. There are some authors on SoL where you can cut all the sex scenes and still have a full story. I remember reading one story which was about 40% sex scenes, but there were only seven actual sex scenes he kept cutting and pasting in with different character names all through the very long story.

When I first worked on Shiloh there were many thousands of words that got cut because they were superfluous, that's true of every one of the long stories of Mike's he's had me work on for him. When working with Cazna on his stories I did a lot of work trying to vary the sex scenes a bit, but it wasn't always possible.

You'd be surprised how many stories are improved by reducing the sex scenes. I've had the pleasure of editing the revised version of the first 75% of Deja Vue Ascendancy when he was getting it ready for publication, and one of the major changes was reducing the sex scenes, and the story was a lot better for it. However, he ran into issues and hadn't finished the revision the last i heard.

If you think that superfluous must mean "extra 'fluous,'" along the pattern of such words as superabsorbent and superabundant, you're not far off. Superfluous comes from the Latin adjective superfluus, meaning literally "running over" or "overflowing."

When I was at school, back in the Jurassic Period, I was taught the word superfluous meant unneeded or unwanted excess or overflowing excess - thus ordering 10,000 bricks to build a building needing 7,500 meant you had 2,500 superfluous bricks. But then, at that time decimate meant to kill one in ten and could only be applied to something alive (usually humans) and devastate meant to all but destroy something non-living. So who knows what a word means today, the leftist snowflakes now claim free speech = hate speech, so almost anything could have changed without me knowing it.

And anything spoken or printed by the left is considered "Fake News".

That's somewhat true, but most folks I know limit it to shit that's just made up, or a misleading headline or lede that bears little resemblance to the meat of the story (that most people never read.) Lying, distorting or misrepresenting in order that the reader forms an intended opinion that fits a narrative and not the truth. That's about 80% of CNN. AP's Twitter headlines are atrocious.

Lying, distorting or misrepresenting in order that the reader forms an intended opinion that fits a narrative and not the truth. That's about 80% of CNN.

And, in my opinion, that's what polarized the U.S. First the media and then the politicians who played to what their constituents believed. And then the media again talking about the politicians (and often out of context).

ETA: CNN and those like it are not news. It's all about ratings. And what drives rating up in sensationalism. So they sensationalize everything even if it's not true.

What troubles me is most people believe them. I shiver at the thought of my fate being determined by "a jury of my peers." I was the foreman on a jury where one jurist wouldn't agree to convict the guy. She said she sees all the time on TV where the police lie. I negotiated a verdict and got a conviction on 2 counts. But not the other two counts (something about 2 counts of using a gun for the crime). I asked the prosecutor afterwards and was told it saved him 10 years of prison time. You should have seen the huge smile on the guy's face when the verdict was read.

Hence the need for multiple, different, sources of news.

Multiple sources, that all have the same leanings, don't really qualify as different sources...

Agreed.

Many written pieces are internally inconsistent. There's the twitter hook, the headline, the lede, and the rest of the story. They can be written by different people with different intentions. They know that many readers never get to "the rest of the story" which is more often the truthful portion and which they can point to to cover their ass if questioned.

The other day Politico had a piece with a Twitter hook of "No President Should Have This Much Power." The replies were predictably full of people complaining about Trump's fascism. I actually clicked the link and read the whole story, and made a screen shot of the actual headline which read, "Trump Is Giving Away His Power, Even If He Doesn't Know It" and posted it in the Twitter comments under "For those of you who didn't click the link." Echoing comments I had already made myself, the author of the piece described how Trump had been paring back executive power and handing issues back to Congress, even if the author didn't think Trump was smart enough to knew that's what he was doing. But the Twitter hook was totally misleading. So you had a reporter who told the truth even if he couldn't believe it, along with a social media editor with an agenda.

And I will conceed that I find it hard to believe that changes in the tax code which result in most of the benefit being felt by those with the most money to begin with are accidental.

Something like 90% of taxes paid are from like 10% of the taxpayers. So any cuts would have to affect them.

But what the Democrats are preaching, is the tax cuts are solely for the wealthy. If the tax revisions go into effect, the standard deduction will double. That won't benefit the rich. Child credits will increase (double?). That will affect middle and lower income more than the rich.

Even the estate tax. The Dems are preaching it's to preserve the wealthy's estates. They forget about the main reason the tax is bad. Farms that have been in families for generations are lost because the heirs can't afford the estate taxes.

Will cutting corp tax create more jobs? I have no idea. But having a one-time tax of something like 12% on money kept overseas must be a good thing. To bring trillions of dollars back into this country.

But all you hear is the tax cut is for the wealthy.

Will cutting corp tax create more jobs? I have no idea. But having a one-time tax of something like 12% on money kept overseas must be a good thing. To bring trillions of dollars back into this country.

They don't have to cut tax rates to have a growth strategy.
1) As you said, encourage repatriation of assets
2) Have US business taxes more in line with rest of world to help bring the businesses back home
3) Eliminate as many deductions as possible. Targeted tax cuts, aka loopholes (where politicians give breaks for their pet ideas, or decide who they think deserves a lower tax) encourage business sub-optimal business spending & investment. When every activity has a different tax rate one has to consult their accountant or tax attorney to see how each decision affects the bottom line. A non-zero number of decisions will be made for tax rather than business reasons. If all activity is taxed the same business decisions can be based on what benefits the business, not what saves on taxes. This is what will help grow the economy. Politicians are generally idiots. Let the govt get their cut for necessary spending, but don't let them direct business decisions. In the end, the tax rate can be lower because the tax base is larger, as more of the gross is subject to taxation. So even though the rates are lower, the revenue may well be the same.

US corporate taxes are HIGHER than most of the rest of the industrialized world.

That's what I meant. Lowering US corporate taxes so that they are then comparable with other countries will encourage companies to either not leave or to come home (rather than threaten a tax penalty as they are out the door.)

That's what I meant. Lowering US corporate taxes so that they are then comparable with other countries will encourage companies to either not leave or to come home (rather than threaten a tax penalty as they are out the door.)

Except, historically, every time the U.S. has lowered it's income tax rates to attract investment, most other countries around the world lower their tax rates even more, to prevent 'investment flight'. Thus the U.S. can pass anything they want, but whether it will ever have its intended effect is entirely out of their hands. Assuming any tax change will 'pay for itself' is pure nonsense.

Historically, the best return on investment with taxes is to give money to the poor, because they'll spend virtually everything they get, and the associated spending triggers even further activity. Giving tax benefits to the lower-middle class generally provides a seven-fold increase in economic activity, whereas benefiting those paying for political campaigns generally goes into someone's pocket. True, it produces even more political contributions, but almost nothing reaches the general economy.

Historically, the best return on investment with taxes is to give money to the poor, because they'll spend virtually everything they get, and the associated spending triggers even further activity.

Yes, the poor will spend most of their income on consumables. The rich also consume, often in larger portions. Someone has to build that yacht or fancy house. The rich can also save their money (which is borrowed by individuals and businesses) or invest it themselves (giving to a business). In the end, all money is put to use in the circular flow.

Yes, the poor will spend most of their income on consumables. The rich also consume, often in larger portions. Someone has to build that yacht or fancy house. The rich can also save their money (which is borrowed by individuals and businesses) or invest it themselves (giving to a business). In the end, all money is put to use in the circular flow.

Economically, it isn't enough for 'someone to spend something', it's the rate of reinvestment. If the rich only spent ten or twenty percent, sure it's a larger portion than if someone poor spent ten or twenty percent, but what economists measure is the 'return on investment' (i.e. the tax giveaway). With payments to the 'working poor', there's a clear history of a seven-fold increase. Giving money to the poor, there's a less than 10% reinvestment rate. Sure, they can 'invest the money', but there's no guarantee it'll even be in this country (think it being deposited in the Cayman Islands).

Every time anyone mentions tax reform, they bring up the old 'the rich pay more money than the poor', but that's NOT the money that makes the financial investment (in pay cuts) pay off.

@Joe Long

I worry that tax rates that are too progressive discourages people from trying. When the top marginal rate was 91%, why even bother to make that much money? The extra money in the pocket is less than the extra effort expended.

Yes, that is an issue, but it's mainly a question of what is a worthwhile tax give-away. Lowering the tax rates sounds nice, but as we're seeing, that typically only amounts to moving it from one person's pocket into another person's pocket, and thus you're once again playing favoritism, rather than benefiting either the public or the economy.

I should also point out, the one way to spend money which has guaranteed results, is funding the IRS to investigate tax fraud, yet the U.S. has continually defunded the IRS for a long-time, to the point they can't allocate the personnel to check cheating. Paying the IRS would generate a LOT more direct revenue than large tax giveaways to the wealthy, but that doesn't reward those who fund political campaigns. Also, defunding the IRS means the few auditors they have are more likely to audit the small mom & pop business than the major corportations and hedge funds that employ hundreds of accountants and lawyers to fight any active investigations—once again resulting in increased losses to the economy and bigger benefits to those who offer no real advantages in the investment (aside from future campaign funds).

If the rich only spent ten or twenty percent, sure it's a larger portion than if someone poor spent ten or twenty percent, but what economists measure is the 'return on investment'

But savings and investments also have economic benefit, as others are able to use that money for their own spending.

But savings and investments also have economic benefit, as others are able to use that money for their own spending.

I never argued that it had NO benefit, just that it's harder to justify on a return-on-investment basis. Sure, the person investing the money gains immensely, the borrower less so, but the economy as a whole tends to fair much worse when compared against other types of investments.

It's fairly easy to measure increases due to investment after a major tax-cut. Do investments in stocks rise after tax cuts (they certainly have in the lead-up to the tax cut, though we'll see how they fair afterwards), do investments in start-ups and venture capitalism increase. Those are all measurable. All those pie-in-the-sky estimates about how much the rich will pay to their workers, though, have no basis in reality, and rarely, if ever, are borne out after the fact.

Once again, it's not question of whether the person getting the tax break spends or invests the money, it's the return on investment. If you give to someone whether, they'll either spend it once (a 1/1 return), they'll pocket it or invest it overseas (a 0% return) or they'll invest it (generally a less-than 1/1 because of inefficiencies in the system (the investor invests, the person getting the money spends, generating more income, but that's at best a 1/1 increase as well, minus everything that's pocketed or lost to the system)).

Once again, it's not question of whether the person getting the tax break spends or invests the money, it's the return on investment.

You made an informed response. My problem is with the masses who think that if the rich get a tax break the money no longer claimed by the government will be stuffed ina mattress, thus having zero economic benefit.

I believe the question is judging who will spend the money to greater benefit - the private citizen or the government? Government spending may well do more to directly benefit low income people, but I believe is not as good at growing the economy.

Rather than a simple tax reduction, I'd prefer a restructuring of how the tax system works. First, figure out which govt spending is actually beneficial and which is unnecessary or wasteful. It was said here that historically the revenue of the US federal govt has averaged around 16$ of GDP. Let's call it 15% after some trimming.

I'm then fine with supplying them that 15% as their cut (no meaningful reduction in revenue) but I'd like the personal tax code to be simplified and especially the business code, allowing them to make decisions free of political meddling, of get a better growth of the economy.

Instead of a laundry list of "targeted tax cuts" (aka loopholes) that have a business paying a 30% tax on 50% of their income, strive towards having them pay a 15% tax on 100% of their income (or profits.) I realize there are legitimate business expenses that are worthy deductions and thus may be retained, but way too many are simply incentives to direct spending into areas that politicians desired and which are usually not economically beneficial.

TL,DR: Let business do business and then give government their cut.

figure out which govt spending is actually beneficial and which is unnecessary or wasteful.

Good luck on that. LOL

And what's beneficial? It depends on the senator/congressman's constituency. If they can get the money for their state, it's beneficial.

But all you hear is the tax cut is for the wealthy.

It's politics of envy and outrage rather than informed analysis.

I've no argument with the estate tax going away.

Folks on Twitter have argued with me that because it affects so few people there's no problem in keeping it. I replied that the money it brings in funds the government for less than a day, and it does hurt some people, so we won't miss it. And, as you say, it's not new income, It's already been taxed.

But a true argument implies you have the ability to elucidate your views, and I don't see how this can be done on Twitter.

One can learn to be pithy rather than verbose.

A lot of states have what are called gift taxes.

True. I bought a house for my son to live in. When the real estate market crashed in the Great Recession, I was able to sell it to him for a price he could afford. But I worked with a friend of his who was a realtor to make sure it was a fair price based on the current market. Didn't want the IRS coming after me. (Also got the long-term capital loss on it.)

Wouldn't work in the UK unless you were paying a realistic rent to live at the property, otherwise the Inland Revenue would consider you still the de facto owner.

AJ

A lot of states have what are called gift taxes.

In some states, the giver is required to pay the 'gift tax'.

In some states, the giver is required to pay the 'gift tax'.

I believe it's always the giver. Otherwise it would be income.

Otherwise it would be income

To a state, all financial gain is income, so a gift is income. However for gifts, they put the burden of paying the "income" tax on the giver.

In most situations, it is common for the recipient to declare the gift's value as income and pay income tax on the additional income.

To a state, all financial gain is income, so a gift is income. However for gifts, they put the burden of paying the "income" tax on the giver.

I don't agree. It's not income. You wouldn't call the Christmas gifts you receive income. it's simply another way to tax someone.

I know people who give their children the max each year so no one pays taxes on it. They are basically giving away their assets while living. I wonder if the removal of the estate tax would stop that.

I don't agree. It's not income.

If you check the federal and your state's tax laws, you will find that any monetary gain (i.e. property, merchandise, money, etc.) is defined as income regardless of how it was obtained.

If you check the federal and your state's tax laws, you will find that any monetary gain (i.e. property, merchandise, money, etc.) is defined as income regardless of how it was obtained.

Then you would have to pay income tax on it. But you don't. Because it's a gift, not income.

Believe me, if the IRS could not tax the giver with a gift tax they would declare it as income and tax the receiver.

Any suggestion that the rich aren't already paying their fair share of taxes is a lie.

It highly depends on how you define 'fair share'. 'Fair tax share' is a very highly subjective thing.

Ask an average person what he thinks is a fair share for himself and fair share for the rich and you'll get something like: 10% for me and 90% for the rich.

A lower middle class person would want to tax the rich enough to bring the rich man's take-home income to the same level as his own take-home income.

Listen to socialists discuss taxation and you'd think they've given all the money to the rich and they want it back. Socialists, if allowed, would tax the rich (or maybe everybody) into the ground or even below ground.

What is fair though? Is it fair that in California, if you make $2.5 Million you get to keep less than half? Sure, you can afford it and you can live on the $1.2 millions you get to keep (while the various governments split almost $1.3 millions that you made). Is it fair that you get to keep less than half? And that's not counting the non-claimable property taxes you pay and various duties and sales taxes you pay while spending your hard earned money.

It's easy to talk about other people's money and their taxation, and one won't feel the burn until they reach that level.

Full disclosure, I am one of the 1%, and I am a libertarian. I started from scratch and worked really hard to get where I am. My hard work resulted in jobs and income to more than 500 people that I employ. My employees even unionized and nearly shut me down at one point. I barely take home as much as 18 of my lowest paid employees. I pay personal income taxes as much as 45 of my own employees.

Yes I'm blessed. I managed to succeed despite everything but it really hurts when I see my hard earned money being treated so cavalierly by those who didn't lift a finger to earn it and all they do is ask for more.

Yes I'm blessed. I managed to succeed despite everything but it really hurts when I see my hard earned money being treated so cavalierly by those who didn't lift a finger to earn it and all they do is ask for more.

I worry that tax rates that are too progressive discourages people from trying. When the top marginal rate was 91%, why even bother to make that much money? The extra money in the pocket is less than the extra effort expended.

I'm building a consulting business from home. Last year, with a mortgage and four kids in the house, my effective tax rate (tax divided by gross income) on the income from my day job was less than 1%. My 2nd job brought in about a quarter of the gross from my regular job, but by falling in a higher tax bracket, having to pay the employer's portion of social security and medicare, and not being allowed to use 100% of the child tax credit, the income for the second job was taxed at close to 30%. The year before it was pushing 50% as the combined income was higher.

So I pay virtually no federal income tax tax on my day job, but have had to hand over up to half the income of my second job. It makes one wonder if it's worth the effort - and if I stop my clients are worse off (without giving it away, I will say that you've heard of all my clients. They pay me a few thousand each to help them manage hundreds of millions in payroll and acquisition with my data science skills)

Last year, with a mortgage and four kids in the house, my effective tax rate (tax divided by gross income) on the income from my day job was less than 1%.

It's been about 15 years ago now, but I was self-employed as a specialized contractor for about 5 years. With a mortgage and two kids, as well as an home based business (and I could easily take the home office deduction, since, again, contractor) after all the deductions plus allowable business write-offs, I was showing about $500 net taxable income. That was on about $150K gross income.

Amazing once you write off cost of materials, tools, business use of vehicles, insurance, and all the other things, you can get things down. A friend of mine was a law enforcement officer for the IRS - I discussed it with him several times, how the tax code could really help a small business owner, that this sometimes felt like I was cheating. He told me, "Nope, it's written to help big businesses. It just happens to help small ones, too."

I worry that tax rates that are too progressive discourages people from trying. When the top marginal rate was 91%, why even bother to make that much money? The extra money in the pocket is less than the extra effort expended.

My memory isn't what it used to be, but I read in a book about the subject once that experiments have shown that the highest effective rate that a government can impose is 74% tax. Beyond that at 75% and above, taxation starts to bring less money.

So people who are captive in their countries can possibly tolerate that much tax before giving up on making more money. I'm sure those who can leave would do so at a lower tax rate than that, but at 75% tax rate, even those who can't leave and make money would rather not waste their time and effort to make more money.

I've been in discussion with many socialists before, and socialists really try to advocate for a tax rate that high because they only think about how to maximize the income for the government. They seem to never consider how fair it is for the taxed.

I've also had the misfortune of coming across some marxists and let me tell you, those guys need to kicked out of any decent economic system because they will destroy it if they get their way, and hamper it if they get any influence.

would rather not waste their time and effort to make more money.

I knew at least one doctor who felt that way. Instead of taking more patients and being open for business longer, he figured out how many hours to work to make a certain amount of money (the line that crossed into a higher tax bracket). He felt the hours worked earning that money at the higher tax bracket wasn't worth it so he played golf instead and the patients looking for an appointment suffered.

My memory isn't what it used to be, but I read in a book about the subject once that experiments have shown that the highest effective rate that a government can impose is 74% tax.

In the UK the figure has been shown to be around 45%. Higher than that and too many rich go offshore to tax havens.

AJ

In the UK the figure has been shown to be around 45%. Higher than that and too many rich go offshore to tax havens.

That's about where I reckoned it would be.

Wouldn't work in the UK unless you were paying a realistic rent to live at the property, otherwise the Inland Revenue would consider you still the de facto owner.

Here it's a lot more lenient when passing from parent to child. Even today in Pennsylvania there are no inheritance or sales taxes when transferring homes, car, etc to children.

In the past deeds weren't even filed unless a property left the family. A father's will, filed with the county at his death, would state which children he left his land and property to, but unless money was exchanged there frequently wasn't a deed. Those records are still maintained and made available, as people today make a living researching deeds to find if the history of ownership might affect something today, particularly with a new sale.

I've been in discussion with many socialists before, and socialists really try to advocate for a tax rate that high because they only think about how to maximize the income for the government.

Real life experience has shown that such high tax rates kill the economy and reduce money for the government due to people spending far less money. It also encourages those with money to pack up and go somewhere else, which is another adverse effect to the economy.

I've seen small business owners decide against expansion and hiring more staff because to do so puts them in a higher tax bracket and what they end up with in pocket just isn't worth all the extra work, so they don't expand.

I've also seen small business owners not expand or stop expansion when there were compulsory minimum wages increases, due to the extra costs pushing the cost of the extra business to the point they ended up with less in pocket. It wasn't the hourly rate that killed the hiring of more staff, but all the government mandate extras and overheads like payroll tax, mandatory employer pension payments, etc.

There's a lot involved when looking at taxes, and that's before you start adding all the extra state taxes, excises, etc.

Congresscritters deliberately phrasing things to get people all riled up

It's expected that politicians lie. The problem is when CNN tells us that a banana isn't an apple then shows us a banana. Podesta's emails allowed us to see which 'journalists' cleared their stories with the politicians before publishing.

Pundits express opinions. We know which side analysts look at an issue from. My problem is with the journalists who pretend they're showing us apples.

It's expected that politicians lie.

Here's a beauty I heard about today. It's Democrats against Democrats so we can avoid the Right vs Left aspect (although it might be Democrats to the left of Dianne Feinstein).

Those who want to force Feinstein out used a quote from a speech she gave. They say she said something like: "Trump is a good president."

That was 5 words of the 150 words she spoke criticizing Trump. In it she said something like, "If only Trump would do so-and-so, he'd be a good president."

They lie and lie and lie.

They lie and lie and lie.

That's why we have fact-checking sources like Snopes and others. However, most people who rant about the media base their arguments purely on their assumptions, rather than how extend of the lies. Focusing on the sensational is unfortunate, but it's typically easy for most (who care to invest the time) to understand what the actual truth in the reports are (hint: it's NOT from only reading the headlines, or even just the first paragraph).

I keep running across fans of FOX News, who go apoplectic whenever someone mentions Trump lies. When they ask for proof, and you refer to the fact checking sites, they've never heard of them (which I find hard to grasp in this day and age). Their next question, in trying to refute your claim, is "Yeah, but did they ever report anything that Obama and Clinton did?"

The answer is yes, they routinely call whoever is in office on anything they say which is untrue, qualifying it from 'mild untruths' to outright 'pants on fire' lies. Everyone fudges the truth to make themselves look better, that's hard to avoid, but we need to not simply dismiss wholesale falsehoods with no basis in reality.

Note: I'm not picking on Conservatives here, as there are many financially responsible conservatives who are perfectly capable of researching facts themselves. Instead, I'm criticizing the 'they're all picking on us just because we're trying to hurt them' arguments.

If you ship out those willing to do the work no one else is doing, guess what, the economy is going to suffer. If you give money to the wealthy, you aren't really creating jobs. Businesses create jobs based on need, not on tax incentives. Right now, corporations are investing heavily in robotics, meaning LESS jobs in the future, not more!

However, most people who rant about the media

I do rant about the media, but my example (they lie) was politicians, both Democrats lying about the other.

I rant about the media based on the fact that stories where I have direct personal knowledge, they get even the most basic things wrong.

If they can't get those things right, why should I trust them on any other topic?

There's slant, there's getting something wrong, and then there's flat out lies (either of omission, lies of opportunity and flat-out, pants-on-fire lies). You expect the slant, and you generally factor that in whenever you go to a particular source, but generally the details (at the end of the story) will reveal what the slant disguises. Flat-out lies are hard to disguise, because fact-checkers spot those almost immediately. It's the lies-of-opportunity that are the most problematic, as they're easy to justify by either side in an argument (ex: "Oh, that argument isn't really germaine to the discussion").

You disbelieve the news from certain networks

Ted Turner believes what I said about CNN to be true. Or should I say I agree with him. He created CNN and was very vocal about it not being a news network any longer.

As to that jurist, that was my point. We've become a society of morons who believe whatever we're told. I have two elderly neighbors at my mountain home. They once told me that, under ObamaCare, Muslims don't pay for health insurance. I asked them why they said that. They said it's true. They heard it. It's fact.

I'd be curious who's included in the phrase "CNN and those like it." MSNBC? Fox? Breitbart?

IMO, yes.

All news-gathering organizations?

I've been watching ABC's World News at 5:30pm and it seems like news.

"thumbs down" icon do - signal disagreement?

It flags the post to the webmaster to look at as being abusive.

What does the "thumbs down" icon do - signal disagreement? Consign the author to die in the lions' den? Summon the word police?

It deletes serial commas, which cause the rest of us to rise up in one foaming froth!

Some people don't read prologues that are essential to understanding the novel and then complain they don't understand the story. It's the same thing. Read the prologue!

I agree with that premise, but after some research, concluded that you're unlikely to win that battle. Only 20% of sci-fi readers ever read a prologue, and that's a genre that's been trained for over a hundred years to read the prologue to stories. You can't expect readers unfamiliar with them to reach the same level of participation.

Thus I've taken a new approach. Assume that no one will read the prologue, provide nothing essential to the story (otherwise no one will read it), but do provide an incentive to read it. In my case, I provide a unique insight to the story (ex: a third-person perspective on what's happening, so the readers have knowledge the characters themselves don't). That way, the readers will be shouting to the characters as they're reading 'don't open that door!'. It's a readers of getting reader buy-in to the story, and helping prepare your readers to read the prologues in your future stories.

Read enough westerns and you will discover that there are only so many ways an author can describe a gun fight.

I ran into that in my latest novel. The protagonist is a cross between Jack Reacher and Dirty Harry. The way he killed the bad guys could easily have been repetitive.

The way he killed the bad guys could easily have been repetitive.

So he could be a serial bad guy killer?

So he could be a serial bad guy killer?

He believes in justice and breaks rules.

What I meant, though, was that I found myself writing the same stuff when he encountered the bad guys. I had to work at it not to make them all the same. I didn't have that problem with the sex scenes.

What I meant, though, was that I found myself writing the same stuff when he encountered the bad guys. I had to work at it not to make them all the same. I didn't have that problem with the sex scenes.

Easy solution: instead of having him simply shooting them, have him kill them via bad sex! 'D

Easy solution: instead of having him simply shooting them, have him kill them via bad sex! 'D

But then people would skip over it. LOL

There was a scene where the protagonist "tortured" the bad guys to get information. He shot one in the thigh and when he still didn't talk put a bullet in his brain. That was to get the other one to talk.

I had another scene where he needed info from the bad guys. I changed it around. He freed a woman who the bad guys forced into prostitution. The protagonist let her loose on the bad guy making sure she didn't go too far. I needed something different.

I had another scene where he needed info from the bad guys. I changed it around. He freed a woman who the bad guys forced into prostitution. The protagonist let her loose on the bad guy making sure she didn't go too far. I needed something different.

I'm doing a first person present tense narrative. For things that happened out of his sight to become part of the story he has to be told somehow by another character. To not make it repetitive or stale, I know I'll have to limit how often it occurs and change how the news is delivered.

I can think of three incidents in the third act after the two leads break up their relationship. They are first cousins, as their mothers are sisters and will talk to each other regardless of the kids.

1. He goes to see her, but she turns away and ignores him. When he's home and mom is trying to console him, she shares a secret that was withheld. I don't have to go into any details about how mom found out, it's not important, and the readers can generally figure out from the context.

2. The ex is being taken to the ER. That news comes in a phone call (hurry to the hospital.)

3. The aunt catches her husband in the act ad throws him out of the house. I've already used a phone call (although ti happens later in the story) so this time the aunt drives to her sister's house to vent her rage.

And the sex is like real life - once every month or so if you're lucky. So there's maybe half a dozen sex scenes in what's likely to be 160k words. They all have different setups and scenarios.

For things that happened out of his sight

For me, that's the hardest part of writing fiction — keeping POV straight.

My wife is currently reading a novel in 1st-person where an omniscient narrator drops in occasionally to tell the reader what the 1st-person narrator doesn't know. She says it works.

My wife is currently reading a novel in 1st-person where an omniscient narrator drops in occasionally to tell the reader what the 1st-person narrator doesn't know. She says it works.

That's known as third-person limited (a story told in third person), but there are still limits on what you can include. Generally, in a 3rd-person limited story, the narrator can only include what the main character knows. Third-person omni allows you to include anything the narrator knows, but you're not supposed to include it in a first-person story. As noted above, in an exclusively first-person perspective story, you either switch first-person perspectives between chapters, or you 'show' the information the lead character is unaware of by showing how those surrounding the main character respond to him. That's a little more difficult to pull off, though.

Again, often it's not which forms are generally accepted, as what you can pull off and get away with!

That's known as third-person limited (a story told in third person), but there are still limits on what you can include. Generally, in a 3rd-person limited story, the narrator can only include what the main character knows.

The novel she's reading is not 3rd-limited. It's 1st-person. But sometimes it steps out of 1st-person to give the reader info the narrator doesn't know. I called it an omni narrator. It could be the author talking to the reader.

Third-person omni allows you to include anything the narrator knows, but you're not supposed to include it in a first-person story.

Did you know you can have 1st-person omni? I never knew that until someone on wattpad informed me. The omni narrator is a character in the story in 1st-person omni. In "The Book Thief," the omni narrator is Death and he uses "I".

But sometimes it steps out of 1st-person to give the reader info the narrator doesn't know. I called it an omni narrator. It could be the author talking to the reader.

That's know as 'author intrusion' or 'breaking the third-wall in fiction'. It's frowned on for a good reason, though sometimes it can pay off.

Did you know you can have 1st-person omni? I never knew that until someone on wattpad informed me. The omni narrator is a character in the story in 1st-person omni. In "The Book Thief," the omni narrator is Death and he uses "I".

The other cases we're discussing are the same thing (1st person omni). If the 1st-person narrator is telling the story from some point in the future, he essentially knows EVERYTHING that occurred, and thus can reveal anything he wants to. That doesn't always make it a wise choice, but if done judiciously, can work to the author's (and readers') benefit.

If the 1st-person narrator is telling the story from some point in the future, he essentially knows EVERYTHING that occurred, and thus can reveal anything he wants to.

Not exactly true. He's not an omniscient narrator because he doesn't know EVERYTHING, only what he learned. For instance, If something happened on the other side of the world he wasn't privy to, he couldn't tell the reader. An omniscient narrator could because he is all-knowing.

Not exactly true. He's not an omniscient narrator because he doesn't know EVERYTHING, only what he learned. For instance, If something happened on the other side of the world he wasn't privy to, he couldn't tell the reader. An omniscient narrator could because he is all-knowing.

I've always believed in knowing who my narrator is, even if it's never specified, so I can give him his own voice. Often, it's the proverbial 'fireside storyteller', simply someone who's been told the story by others, so he knows more than those in the story, but still not quite everything. But at a minimum, I can tell anyone WHO the narrator is.

I'm not a big believer in omniscient narrators, as even God seems to lie on occasion whenever it suits him. Thus knowing who your narrator is allows you to cater the narrator's story based on what they would know.

I'm doing a first person present tense narrative. For things that happened out of his sight to become part of the story he has to be told somehow by another character. To not make it repetitive or stale, I know I'll have to limit how often it occurs and change how the news is delivered.

Technically, your 1st person character doesn't need to be told. Sometimes, it's enough for him to witness his friends talking to one another, and then his observing their reactions around him. That's enough to alert readers that something is afoot which he doesn't know about, and you can sprinkle in enough clues that, while readers won't know precisely what is in the offing, they'll have a clue what direction the story is leaning. This works particularly well when the big surprise comes and readers all collectively say "I never saw that coming, but looking back on it, it makes perfect sense."

Another approach is to switch perspective between chapters. So most of the story is told in 1st person, but if readers NEED to know something the main character doesn't, it switches to another character's 1st person perspective. Thus the entire story will be told in first person (or 3rd-person limited), but you can still include information the main character is utterly ignorant of.

Technically, your 1st person character doesn't need to be told. Sometimes, it's enough for him to witness his friends talking to one another, and then his observing their reactions around him.

That's still a method of the 1st person narrator becoming aware of the info. If he doesn't know, the readers don't know (unless you switch POV) Let me add that to my list of options!

It's also possible to explicitly set it up so your first person narrator is telling the story some time after the events occurred which would allow him to know things that he couldn't have known at the time without him learning those things in the story. (I found out after the fact that....)

I decided to keep my narration within the real time of the story. I enjoy all the logical exercises of piecing together the various intertwining story lines.

I'm a loyal reader of She Is the One at AFF and the author jashley13 does use this method. He tells the story as if he's informally discussing it with a listener, perhaps over a beer, and frequently breaks the wall and speaks directly to the readers and occasionally jumps to the time that he's telling the story, sharing knowledge (usually as a teaser) of some event that is yet to happen in the story itself

It's also possible to explicitly set it up so your first person narrator is telling the story some time after the events occurred which would allow him to know things that he couldn't have known at the time without him learning those things in the story. (I found out after the fact that....)

That's why I prefer 3rd person, because you can get into the mind of the omniscient narrator. Typically, it's someone who knows the story intimately, but you don't always know precisely who the narrator is until the end, and many times not even then. But knowing who the narrator is, for the author, allows you to breathe personality into the narration.

It's also possible to explicitly set it up so your first person narrator is telling the story some time after the events occurred which would allow him to know things that he couldn't have known at the time without him learning those things in the story.

Stephen King does that in "The Green Mile." The 1st-person narrator would say something like, "I found out later after reading the report that..."

Thus the entire story will be told in first person (or 3rd-person limited), but you can still include information the main character is utterly ignorant of.

My challenge is that in the 3rd act the romantic leads are no longer together. The story continues to be told from his POV, but important things are happening in her life that he's not aware of. I've decided not to change POV, so that the readers will find out when the MC does, because it's his reactions to the intermittent updates on her that drives the plot. I believe the readers can better feel his emotional reactions if they also don't know what's coming.

Thus the entire story will be told in first person (or 3rd-person limited), but you can still include information the main character is utterly ignorant of.

My challenge is that in the 3rd act the romantic leads are no longer together. The story continues to be told from his POV, but important things are happening in her life that he's not aware of.

Again, in those instances you have to include the information indirectly, showing how their mutual friends respond to him, alerting him (and the readers) that something is up, and that his friends are aware of it, without making it apparent to him. It's not always easy to carry out, but it can be done.

Often, simply knowing that something is approaching, and that the main character is heading for a proverbial cliff, ratchets up the story tension, making readers eager to see what unfolds.

I believe the readers can better feel his emotional reactions if they also don't know what's coming.

That's what I meant by giving too much information reduces the tension.

Read enough westerns and you will discover that there are only so many ways an author can describe a gun fight.

I am going to disagree with that. I have been in numerous firefights, and other combat. There are quite a few more way to kill, wound, or miss someone or something.

The only thing that is repetitive is how many rounds Miss the intended target!

Unless it is a Sniper, a well executed Ambush, or CQB by American, British, Canadian, Australian, etc. troops in CQB post 1981 (Falklands, Desert Storm, BHD, Afghanistan, Iraq), etc. The vast majority of rounds miss!

The Falklands may be the best example, the Argentines were a professional army equipped with basically the same rifle, GPMG, etc., and a similar doctrine. Except the Argentines used WWII era KD (know Distance / "Bullseye") Rifle Ranges, and the Brits (and Gurkhas) used the US Army style "pop-up" at variable ranges human silhouettes, and other (Expensive) training techniques.

In a Western, I could almost accept a "Gunfighter" / "Shootist" who would employ one of just a few successful techniques, deliberately walking up until so close "You Can't Miss" thus disturbing many opponents so much they Do Miss, or just don't shoot. Using a Shotgun (aka "Street Howitzer") both best used from 7' SEVEN FEET or Less (maybe twice that for a shotgun) or "Bushwacking" (Back Shooting) a foe with no witnesses.

In a "realistic" Western most kills/wounds should be made using Rifles, or occasionally shotguns.

For example the "Great Northfield Range" as I recall nearly every bullet that hit was fired by a person with a rifle. The Dalton Younger Gang got shot to "ragdolls" although, as I recall, all but one survived (at least the day) two of them were shot more than a dozen times, and lived to go to prison!

In a Western, I could almost accept a "Gunfighter" / "Shootist" who would employ one of just a few successful techniques, deliberately walking up until so close "You Can't Miss" thus disturbing many opponents so much they Do Miss, or just don't shoot.

In the UK, when Cressida Dick authorised the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes, he was fired at at point blank range by specialist police officers. The majority of the shots missed.

AJ

Yup. Too many people it is Shocking how many bullets miss an Intended Target! Even by "trained" LEO (Law Enforcement Officers). An incident in Florida in the late 80's dubbed the "FBI Murders" was 2 Serial Bank Robbers vs. a Dozen FBI (Special) Agents (all Special Agent means allowed to carry a firearm on duty). It was a debacle, although one of the FBI SA was considered to be one of the "Best Shots" in the FBI, and a Firearms Instructor!

An incident in Florida in the late 80's dubbed the "FBI Murders" was 2 Serial Bank Robbers vs. a Dozen FBI (Special) Agents (all Special Agent means allowed to carry a firearm on duty).

We actually used clips of a movie made on that as training videos.

It must be remembered, like the 1997 North Hollywood Shootout that during that time, a lot of criminals were actually better armed than the law enforcement sent after them.

In the 1986 Florida incident you describe, agents with 9mm semi-automatic pistols went after suspects where one was armed with a 5.56mm semi-automatic rifle. Able to put out a lot more fire than they could.

Volume of fire is not everything, but it can make a huge difference when one side is armed with semi-automatic rifles that can hit targets at 500 meters with 30 round clips, while the other has has weapons that can shoot to 50 meters with 15 round clips.

One of the most interesting studies I read in the late 1980's compared ammunition expended by Marines as opposed to Army infantry in Vietnam.

The Marines expended a lot more Machine Gun ammunition, but much less rifle ammunition. And per shot still had a higher kill count than the Army. Of course, they also train to shoot more "aimed shots", and at greater distances.

Myself and others who had been in the Corps and are now in the Army frequently laugh at "Army Marksmanship". They are trained that 350 meters is the maximum range of the M16A2. Meanwhile, we qualify annually at ranges up to 500 meters (we even fired at those ranges with the M16A1).

And at my last duty station we used to regularly let those firing for qualification expend extra ammo at the 600 yard line (550 meters) that had been there since the weapon used was the M1903. And more often than not, the Marines could hit a man sized target at that distance. A range most "Soldiers" would think impossible.

For over a decade, I have urged every command I have been in to arrange time at a "Known Distance" course, to train them in basic marksmanship at fixed targets. But being the Army, they all say that such ranges are "pointless".

Meanwhile, I see Soldiers that have been in for 10+ years have some of the worst marksmanship skills I have ever seen, and have no idea why they have to fire 5 and 6 times just to qualify.

Shocking how many bullets miss an Intended Target!

First world fertility issues mean many unsuspecting men are effectively firing blanks ;-)

AJ

When you get a story which starts with the female admiring her secondary characteristics in a mirror

That's nothing to do wth sex. It's one of the things they say not to do in any part of a story to describe a character. It's poor writing (which is what I believe the real complaint here is).

It's poor writing (which is what I believe the real complaint here is).

It was good writing the first couple of times. Now it's just a hackneyed cliche. Except on the occasions when the character really doesn't know what they look like eg Dr Who after regeneration (thanking the universe that, yet again, he doesn't have red hair).

AJ

That's nothing to do wth sex. It's one of the things they say not to do in any part of a story to describe a character. It's poor writing (which is what I believe the real complaint here is).

Second this.

Spring for Diana Gabaldon's I Give You My Body, her advice on how to write a good sex scene. It's worth it.

Spoiler alert: it's not about Tab A and Slot B, which is the problem described here. Nevertheless, her sex scenes are freaking hot.

bb

Spoiler alert: it's not about Tab A and Slot B, which is the problem described here. Nevertheless, her sex scenes are freaking hot.

Pretty sure what my wife would do if she found that book on my device. But to the subject - no, I don't read sex stories anymore, I read stories that have some sex in them.

I've been at my WIP for a few years now. I've gone back and toned down the description of the sex. It's still there, but I'm trying to focus on the relationships and the plot and character development.

There are a couple writers from AFF that I correspond with occasionally and we talk about how to write sex scenes that aren't about sex. Last night I watched "I Believe In Unicorns", an indie movie, on Netflix. I paid attention to the sex scenes of which there were several, but only once showed nudity (a split second shot of the guy's butt.) Instead, it was all about the emotions of a 16 year old girl losing her virginity and then her innocence to an older guy.

An aside - in light of current headlines, I found it interesting that this movie filmed in 2013 featured a sexual relationship portrayed by a 27 year old male actor and a 16 year old female actress. She was never shown naked, but he did fondle her clothed breasts and lick all the way down to her waistband while she was shown in bra and panties. The shot was cut when he lifted the waistband.

Pretty sure what my wife would do if she found that book on my device.

My wife, an Outlander fanatic, brought the book to my attention. She thinks Gabaldon writes hot sex scenes, because the scenes are about the characters and what they offer each other, as others have pointed out in different ways.

Of course, like about 75% of the straight women and probably a significant percentage of gay men on this planet, she thinks Sam Heughan, who plays Jaimie in the screen adaptation, is super hot.

I've been at my WIP for a few years now. I've gone back and toned down the description of the sex. It's still there, but I'm trying to focus on the relationships and the plot and character development.

Diana Gabaldon would agree with your approach entirely.

I realize I'm sounding like a shill for Gabaldon and Outlander, but the fact is she writes powerful sex scenes and more than one woman, including my wife, has made it very clear why they like them. ETA: To be clear, Outlander is a story with sex scenes, not a "sex story."

According to enthusiasts, the screen adaptation is a success, too.

bb

Diana Gabaldon would agree with your approach entirely.

Showing clues to character development is something else I'm working on as part of editing what I've written already and what's to come.

In the scene where they both lose their virginity, I'm going to touch it up so that he, the first person narrator, focuses on how his first intercourse physically feels to him, such as comparing and contrasting the sensations to when he's previously masturbated. As time goes on, and especially in what ends up being the final time they do it, he'll be focused on describing her reactions to their love making. That tracks his growth from initially thinking of himself, thinking of sex as being self satisfaction, into an attitude of putting her first. He's there to give, a partner in mutual giving, not just to receive.

In the same way I'm showing each character's use of profanity. This was inspired by the movie Machine Gun Preacher. When Sam Childers was first out of jail at the beginning of movie he very liberally uses the f-word, but severely restricts his curse words after he becomes a Christian. Later, when he has a crisis of faith, the swearing returns. My protagonist starts off as a casual swearer, with an occasional f-bomb, but the girl friend objects. He takes care to clean up his language around her, and as the story progresses the bad language generally fades away. However, she's in a negative arc, and as her life situations turn bad she starts saying 'shit' and 'damn' in ways that she never would have at the beginning. It helps to illustrate her loss of innocence.

That sounds Excellent!

If it's overly repetitive, it will become boring even if it advances the plot.

Sometimes (when getting laid is the plot), you've got to ask whether there's any plot to consider.

Sometimes (when getting laid is the plot), you've got to ask whether there's any plot to consider.

I didn't see it, but isn't getting laid the plot in "The 40-year-old Virgin?"

Getting laid might or might not be a key part of the plot of a story I might or might not be working on ;)

AJ

I didn't see it, but isn't getting laid the plot in "The 40-year-old Virgin?"

Also in each of the "American Pie" movies. That still doesn't make it a decent writing strategy.

No you don't. It may not be a very creative or original plot, but it is a plot.

Note my wording: "A plot to consider". It may be the plot, but it's not once that's designed to be treated seriously by the readers, as it's merely a pretense to get the characters naked.

What do you label as a 'sex story'? A story containing sex scenes or the kind of stories which on SoL are usually referred to as 'Stroke Stories'.

I had one story, which I posted to FS (Fine Stories) which had an incest-based plot, but where it didn't take much work to strip out the sex scenes so they were effectively off-screen). Thus the stories were still family friendly, but still dealt with issues that most kids are well-aware of. Thus, yes, you can indeed have a no-sex sex story! All it takes is closing the damn bedroom door. (Of course, the sex scenes typically include the emotional satisfaction in the story, so readers won't enjoy it as much.)

Thus, yes, you can indeed have a no-sex sex story! All it takes is closing the damn bedroom door

Not even that. You just have to begin or end the story at the right point. From mine:
The Price and the Cost began as a revenge against spam story. The spam advertised, "young, dumb, and full of cum." I had the antagonist young and dumb. I was about to put her in a gangbang to get her full of cum, but I felt that was already obvious. So, I stopped the story there. SOL software won't let me advertise it as "no sex" and "gangbang," but it is.
Afterwards is clearly a sex story between a married couple, but the sex ends bef9re the story begins.
Prone is not Synonymous with Supine, or Let Me Put that to you in a Different Way has the story end just before the sex starts. (SOL software truncates the title.)

I had one story, which I posted to FS (Fine Stories) which had an incest-based plot, but where it didn't take much work to strip out the sex scenes so they were effectively off-screen). Thus the stories were still family friendly, but still dealt with issues that most kids are well-aware of.

Which one? I'd like to check it out.

I had one story, which I posted to FS (Fine Stories) which had an incest-based plot, but where it didn't take much work to strip out the sex scenes so they were effectively off-screen). Thus the stories were still family friendly, but still dealt with issues that most kids are well-aware of.

Which one? I'd like to check it out.

Not-Quite Human 1: The Cuckoo's Progeny.

For a similar exercise, the first book in my "Great Death" series, "Love and Family During the Great Death", I included a bunch of young kids in the adult's sex life—all without them taking an active part in the activities themselves. What it does show is an observed phenomenon in children who have survived life-changing events such as they'd experience in a global apocalypse.

They develop an attitude of 'stop treating me like I kid! I've already experienced things much worse than you've ever experienced, so it's stupid trying to shelter me'. But it's a nice way of including characters (or scenes) without getting yourself into legal troubles. In this case, it developed each of the characters (by their response to their eavesdropping), as well as interjecting some much-needed humor into an otherwise dark, foreboding tale.

By the way, that approach worked so well, that even though roughly a quarter of my readers were unable to finish the first book, they all returned for the second book because they loved the unique character interplay in the story.

My stories do not have sex scenes and my scores are just as high as those who write them.

My no sex stories still have relatively high scores, but the stories with more sex in them end up with higher download counts, and more reader enthusiasm overall, especially if the main character ends up with the girl of him dreams at some point.

The sex clearly isn't essential, but it's still important to the mix.

Does every story even need a prologue?

I am writing a story I hope to post by June 6th 2021, that focuses on a Platoon Company in the Second Wave of units landing on Utah Beach.

My Prologue is a bit of historical context; mostly it is information that is outside the scope of the Platoon/Company which is the viewpoint of the story. This way I won't come out of the story to explain some things that a person In the Story would know about the 1930's/40's; as well as a bit about the Great War (WWI) and Great Depression.

I also have a Character List, but only the Characters who have been together for 18 months (or more) Training together.

The main character volunteers to join the US Army days after Germany Invades Poland, and his father is a Veteran of the Great War (World War One). The character will mention these things briefly, but focus on his personal experiences.

The first couple of chapters will be used to depict the training and preparation, and allowing readers to "feel" the characters, especially the main characters.

Combat will kill off, or wound many characters, and most of the replacements will be just a name, if that, from the prospective of the Main Characters, as few will last long. In the ETO the average time in combat for an Infantry Replacement was 24 Hours, some being taken back on the same truck that brought them up.

Nearly all of the story will be what is occurring in the dozen, to few hundred yards around the characters. People may refer to the Prologue for a broader perspective. As the main character is promoted, his perspective will expand from the Platoon, to the Company.

I plan to have a "What happened to them after the war" since a number of characters will "drop out of the story, and to give a perspective of how many Men typically died in an Infantry Company during 9 Months of War, and perhaps a 100 Days of combat.

but I know of no country that actually has national health care that has ever tried to repeal it

That's because once it's ion place there's a bureaucracy set up to maintain it and they fight like hell to keep their jobs, and it's to them the majority of the money goes to be wasted, they siphon it off and very little goes to service delivery.

The UK's NHS is incredibly inefficient and that's in no small part due to government interference. It seems that whenever there's a process that works reasonably well, the NHS splits it into three parts, each with its own team that doesn't talk to the others.

AJ

So: what metrics would you propose for demonstrating that the US system produces better outcomes than the UK system? Plus, citation desired)

The biggest one, like the Canadian example, is access to immediate (within the same year) health care. If someone has 'universal' health care, but can't access it, they'll simply go where they CAN access it (just as many Americans go on 'heath vacations' to be treated in the Caribbean, or Asia). Those cases throw all the calculations out the window, as that's all 'invisible' health care spending unattributed to anything.

Obesity rates have nothing to do with the quality or lack thereof of any countries health care system.

Again, from an economist's views, it IS accounted in the return on investment basis. As the population gets heavier, medical services go up. Some are fully paid for (by the wealthy or well-insured) while others are borne exclusively by the tax-payer (hospital losses due to non-paying clients resulting in increased medical spending overall). And don't forget, for every dollars 'saved' by not investing in preliminary health care (i.e. testing, education, and easy access to health care), you're talking MUCH higher costs eventually when that 'small sore I won't bother with' turns into a full-on amputation and perpetual unemployment by the previously fully employed worker.

That 'details' are all captured in the return-on-investment numbers (total spending on health care/the number receiving health care benefits).

America's principal failings aren't in technology (which is cost-prohibitive in itself), it's in their failure to offer basic health care to such a wide swath of the population, which increases costs to everyone. A prime example of that is closing down Planned Parent hood clinics over abortion fears. PP covers a range of health prevention in communities which largely aren't served by anyone else. If you shut those clinics down, three guess what happens to health care costs. Abortions may go down somewhat, but health care costs skyrocket for those affected.

PP covers a range of health prevention in communities which largely aren't served by anyone else.

I'd like to see real evidence of that claim (which has been made by many)

I'm not sure that's true. The NHS is pretty dire in terms of health outcomes despite government propaganda telling us 'it's the envy of the world'. The rest of Europe wipes the floor with us in terms of cancer diagnosis and treatment.

AJ

I'm not sure that's true. The NHS is pretty dire in terms of health outcomes despite government propaganda telling us 'it's the envy of the world'. The rest of Europe wipes the floor with us in terms of cancer diagnosis and treatment.

Even more than that, the overall cost of medical care is much higher in the U.S. If you divide the total cost by the number of people receiving care, factoring in those getting 'complete' care (those in Congress at tax-payer expense) and those getting no care or minimal care (which costs everyone in higher payments and losses to emergency rooms), the U.S. system is losing across the board, regardless of how many of those injuries are due to gunshots.

Frankly, no matter how you look at it, the U.S. health care system is a massive failure when you count dollars vs. those helped.

In the UK, if you visit your GP with the symptoms of cancer, it takes an average of five visits before the GP makes a correct diagnosis. In fact, most cases of cancer in the UK are diagnosed at A&E. The NHS frequently runs advertising campaigns (eg the current 'if your cough lasts longer than three weeks') to prompt patients to ask whether it's cancer in order to get GPs to diagnose properly.

If you have adequate insurance in the US and turn up at a doctor's with symptoms of cancer, the doctor will straight away order a surfeit of diagnostic tests.

AJ

In the UK, if you visit your GP with the symptoms of cancer, it takes an average of five visits before the GP makes a correct diagnosis.

I have a Twitter friend who's an M.D. in the US and hates socialized medicine. He has a son with cystic fibrosis and recently sent me this

I was tweeting with a girl with CF from the UK. I recommended she call her doctor about an issue. She thought I was being ignorant, as you can't just call a doctor and expect a call back. We call my kid's pulmonologist and we always get a return phone call within two hours at most. And it's not just us, they do that for every patient Oh… They couldn't get Kalydeco for almost 3 years in the UK.

I only got minimum wage, so I would have been bankrupt and in debt the rest of my life if I was in the US.

Insurance covering only big items like hospital stays can be quite affordable, but they were outlawed by Obamacare, which requires a much more expensive comprehensive plan.

I favor a system where insurance covers the catastrophic events (when I was a kid insurance was called 'hospitalization' because that's when you used it) and then shop around, aware of prices, for routine office visits. Tax-free Health Savings Accounts can be encouraged to cover the smaller expenses and for the insurance premiums. If someone doesn't make enough money to pay for what they'd need then I'm fine with a subsidy to bring them up to an acceptable level in the savings account.

And yet it still produces better health outcomes than the US medical system...

I have no idea what you're basing that on. There's a reason people come to the U.S. from all over the world to be treated. And many Canadians elect to pay for treatment in the U.S. even though theirs is free, often because of the long waiting list for the service in Canada.

The major problem I've found in the U.S. is when the government is involved. My wife and I are now on Medicare (with a supplemental). She has a torn meniscus and needs surgery. It was hard finding a surgeon who took Medicare patients.

I think that it is the right of every citizen to bitch about taxes.

This thread is an early Christmas present for Lazeez. Bitching about taxes is more fun than bitching about the scoring system.

Comments like this are why this forum needs a like button. :)

Comments like these are why some people like leaning on their imaginary like buttons. :)

I know what the biggest problem with sex stories is. All the characters are getting more than I am!

Even worse, they get it so much easier (i.e. no fights over shopping, taxes, visiting the in-laws, who's doing the shopping, picking up the kids, etc.)

Heck, without all those responsibilities, why wouldn't everyone have sex all the time?

Even worse, they get it so much easier

Or just go knock on the new neighbor's door and ask, "Hey, you want to have sex? And your mother and little sister too!"

"Hey, you want to have sex? And your mother and little sister too!"

Nah, these are sex stories. It would be, "And your mother and daughter too."

Nah, these are sex stories. It would be, "And your mother and daughter too."

When I was 20 and in college I worked at one of the hospitals in town. One of the nurses at the nearest station was just over 40 and not to bad for her age. She also had a daughter who was like in her first year of nursing at the same hospital, and who I'd see sometimes in my rounds.

One day the mom tried to seduce me. Really. She gave me a shot. Sometime after having told me that if I didn't use it often enough it would shrivel up and fall off, she asked me to walk with her to the linen closet. While we were all alone at 2 am told me that's where doctors would ask the nurses to go when the doctor was interested in hanky-panky. I was still too damn shy to try anything. I knew later she likely would've let me, maybe everything.

So afterwards my mind is wandering and I thought - I was 20, she was 40, daughter was 20. What if I'd had both of them? Grandma was maybe only 60, so her too. When I was 40 the young one's daughter would be 20, and when I was 60 (two years away now) there'd be another 20 year old.

A realistic way to nail five generations of women, all between the ages of 20 and 60.

A realistic way to nail five generations of women, all between the ages of 20 and 60.

I for one look forward to your story telling us about it and making us care about why it happened the way it did.

bb

the daughter, the mother, and the grandmother were all pregnant and he was the responsible party.

Biology gets in the way of that story unless granny & mom were both under 15 when granny had mom and mom had daughter. Daughter would have to be under 15 as well when she got preggers or granny would likely already be in menopause. I do know a woman who became a grandmother at age 32.

So the story is perfectly plausible

It's not impossible, just very uncommon. There are always examples that are the exception to the norm. My own 2nd wife & her mother gave birth two weeks apart - only in this instance, I wasn't responsible for either! :O

It's quite doable

Possible, but very unlikely. 60 yr old women getting pregnant naturally is uncommon enough to be newsworthy.
Still, lets not let reality get in the way of a good joke. :)

Possible, but very unlikely. 60 yr old women getting pregnant naturally is uncommon enough to be newsworthy.
Still, lets not let reality get in the way of a good joke. :)

15, 30, and 45 is not crazy, assuming a rational age of consent.

15, 30, and 45 is not crazy, assuming a rational age of consent.

Age of consent has nothing to do with getting pregnant. Sometime back, I read the article about the girl who gave birth at the age of 5 years 7 months. If I recall she got pregnant due to being raped.

Party pooper. :P

For many (okay, 'some') the Poop is the prime benefit of any party, though I tend to avoid those stories, as a whole.

Lots of different kinds of...

Any of which will case me to avoid the story. Just not my thing.

Lol, Good one.

I find that's true of any kind of action in any kind of story. What makes a sex story genuinely interesting (and hot) is the context, the characters and the set-up. If that's all there, then the sex itself is interesting. If not, then it's not.

Well said.

I like that sex scene.

Same here. I use 'some sex' because it seems to fit. That said, at a quick guess perhaps 1/4 of the chapters contain 'sex' with another handful containing e.g. 'heavy petting', and none of those chapters is 'just sex', they're other things plus sex.

In general, unless it's a really new pairing or they're trying something new, I do the same thing, skimming the encounter, often e.g. picking up with them snuggling in bed, if the conversation would be worth covering. Otherwise it's even more skimmed.

I've read a lot of 'some sex' stories where the amount of sex is fairly low, yet above the 'minimal sex' threshold (which is a gray area itself).

I'd tend to avoid 'much sex', or at least approach with caution, but, even then, there's a big difference in what 'much sex' means to different writers.

Much Sex: Story contains plenty of sex.
Some Sex: Story contains Some sex.
Minimal Sex: Story contains just a bit of sex.

Vague wording. 'Plenty of' sounds different than 'some', to me, but I can see people seeing them as similar. But 'some' also sounds somewhat similar to 'just a bit'.

I'd tend to avoid 'much sex', or at least approach with caution

Many (most?) of Lubrican's stories are "much sex" and he has a huge following. And he often has the MC get one woman after another, usually impregnating them.

discuss the differences

An erotica author years ago said: "Erotica is better written. Porn pays more."

discuss the differences

An erotica author years ago said the difference is: "Erotica is better written. Porn pays better."

Anais Nin wrote erotica. Guy de Maupassant wrote erotica. For the most part, SOL is full of sex stories. We'll need a new thread to discuss the differences.

But that was also a very different era. Where many places still banned any kind of description beyond the biblical "Joseph knew Susan". Writing descriptive sex could get somebody arrested, which is why many wrote anonymously. Like Felix Salten, the creator of Bambi. Who also wrote a rather pornographic book in 1906 about a teenage prostitute in Vienna in the 1800's.

There are only so many ways you can really describe things without repetition, and authors who try to avoid it by using every synonym in the book just make it worse.

For dating/relationship-driven stories, sex is an integral part of the story, and (even if just hinted at), it matters a great deal if/when it happens, and interesting character development happens the first few times, at least, and sometimes other times.

But, aside from that, skimming is everyone's friend.

That's leaving aside stroke stories, of course :)

I seem to remember a corollary that Sturgeon was an optimist.

IIRC, despite its unpretentious demeanour, the Toyota Corolla was actually rather robust and reliable.

AJ

But why would you buy a toy auto? I'd prefer a real car.

A Realiant Robin? With three wheels? (Okay, it had four but the fourth was the spare.)

AJ

I'd rather read what characters are feeeling/thinking as well.

Does that include head-hopping?

AJ