We have discussed many factors relating to why a reader reads a story.
It occurred to me when looking a the New Stories page, that some pennames make me reluctant to read the story. Pennames like 'Donna the Dog Lover' are a turn off to me.
What are your thoughts about a pennames and your decision to read the author's story?
Pennames like 'Donna the Dog Lover' are a turn off to me.
On the other hand, aficionados of doggyrotica will probably dive into her stories without reading the blurb or story codes.
By contrast, a penname like REP will probably attract insurance salesmen or door-to-door hawkers ;)
AJ
I don't totally exclude the possibility of reading the author's stories if I'm turned off by their penname.
The names don't affect me at all, except in that if I find a good story by an author I'm likely to have a closer look at the other stories by the same author, whatever the name is. Conversely, if I find a story that I absolutely hate how they write or something they did (i.e. not have all the codes in at the start) then I'm likely to avoid all of their stories after that.
As a reader I look at the description and title. The writers name is last thing I look at.
I am typically looking for certain kinds of stories, so I frequently look at the codes first, then the description. I barely pay any attention to either the title or the author before reading a story.
yes codes are another thing I look at,,,
For me, they aren't just another thing I look at, they are what I look at first.
My thoughts are similar to REP. If a pen name is related to an activity that is a turn-off for me, and I see the story description matches the pen name, I will skim right past the story and future stories by the same author. If perhaps that same author later writes different types of stories, i may never skim slow enough to notice. (Author hurts his/her chance to expand audience.)
On the other hand, a pen name indicating anything else has little effect on me. Perhaps if someone used "romance" or "western" in a pen name, i might give a longer look at story descriptions. But that advantage will be lost if a new story is about "erotic dog lover" :-)
When I see Master or submissive I just skim right by. Of course I rarely see them since their stories usually run afoul of my filters but when they do that's as far as I read. Probably unenlightened and I might have missed a story or two worth reading, but probably not.
What the author calls them self only becomes a factor once I have identified that author's style / content. If it is predominantly content that I find offensive I usually just add that author to my block list.
What are your thoughts about a pennames
On sites like SOL, it doesn't matter. But for a novel for sale, I believe it does (hence changing Switch Blayde to S. W. Blayde for my novels).
What are your thoughts about a pennames and your decision to read the author's story?
Personally if I found my pen name affected my decision to read another author's story, I'd seriously consider changing my pen name... :)
Personally, it doesn't have any affect. He'll, half the time I read before I even look to see who wrote it. Unless it's Lubrican (still love me some BOB)
Most names are generic and don't affect me at all (except that there are names I know because I like their stories).
Some are genre specific, which the example of Donna the Dog Lover is. Those might either make me give the story a closer look than I would normally have, or they migh turn me away from a story if I don't like the genre. In my case, as I read the description and codes, that doesn't make a difference - I wouldn't have read the story in any case.
I think this might be an advantage to the author. I don't want to open the can of works called 'voting', but I do believe there are people who read a story without reading the description or tags, and when they don't like the topic 1-bomb it. If those are kept away, that's good for the author. And anyone turned of by the pen name wouldn't have read a story that revolves around having an intimate relationship with your dog in any case. Win-Win.
Now if said author writes stories without dogs in it, I'm sure she would create a new pen name for that. I agree that otherwise there might be negative effects.
Typically, the most common use of alternate pen names is when one story's content will sour readers on your work. Thus if someone writes action adventures, and then decides to write a romance, they'll typically use a separate name, so the two sets of fans won't overlaps.
I did that for my one gay erotica story, which served as a tribute to my brother, as it focused on a core theme of his which isn't heard much anymore. I didn't do it when I crossed over from Sci-Fi to write a mystery novel, but the newer genre attracted additional fans who then sought out my older SF stories as well.
Obviously, if you're writing romance, you typically pick a feminine name, while for action adventures or gumshoe stories you stick with short masculine names (like Quirk Jones, or Banger McGee).
If anyone wants to expand their range, have at it, but don't expect your followers to eagerly follow you down a particular rat hole if it differs from your other works substantially.
Pennames like 'Donna the Dog Lover' are a turn off to me.
In my personal case after I read the descriptions and tags of the stories produced under that pen name I put it on my Author Exclusion List.
If I were to chose between two stories with the same codes and similar descriptions, I would first read the one that had an author that has other stories I enjoyed.
When a story is in the process of being posted I am more likely to give a vote after the first chapter when I am familiar and enjoy the works of the author.
"Donna The Dog Lover" is one of the many nyms of RWMoranUSMCRet, as far as I can see it is used for his K9 stories.
I don't have it on my explicit blacklist but still ignore anything which comes out under that label.
I actually had somebody question my choice of pen name because an ancestor of his was persecuted by the good Reverend.
I have not read any story with a pen name similar enough to a famous author. E.g. I wouldn't consider reading a story by some 'Bob Heinlein'.
HM.
For me, unless I'm already familiar with the author and sometimes even then, the story description is usually the decider. If it sounds interesting to me then I'll at least give it a look - if it turns out to be not to my taste I'll delete it and not vote. If it turns out okay I'll look at other stuff by them, assuming I haven't already, even if their other story descriptions may have been lacking. Poorly written or descriptions full of spelling errors will make me think that the story will be the same, or worse. In a few cases where I've looked at the scores rather than the description and started reading, the descriptions have done a real disservice to the story and the author, as they turned out to be excellent. If there's one thing I'd say to all the authors it's to spend time on the story description, especially if you are just starting.
I do notice names, can't help it, because it's presented as part of the title.
If the name could be a real name, then all is well.
If the name describes some action or desire, though, then I've learnt that that is a bad sign.
There are some pen names that are the exceptions that prove the rule (eg lubrican).
I start reading enough of the stories whose title, author name and blurb don't add up to much promise anyhow, just to keep my intuition in tune.
How does a penname affect you reading a story?
I've had complaints from readers because of a penisname.
AJ
I've had complaints from readers because of a penisname.
If you named it Richard I would complain. Dick would be ok.
I've had complaints from readers because of a penisname.
Only because you christened it "richard the lie on hard" which was a load of cock. As bad as your previous attempt of "william the conquer her".
Note I'm not feeling evil enough to suggest that your first attempt was "Alfred the grape", which had the advantage of being descriptively accurate.
:)
Grant.
(Hopefully, else someone really screwed up)
That's actually wrong. It's a trick question.
The correct answer is: No one is buried in Grants tomb.
Ulysses S Grant and his wife are entombed in sarcophagi above ground in an atrium
The correct answer is: No one is buried in Grants tomb.
Groucho strikes again.
Ulysses S Grant and his wife are entombed
To be picky the correct term is is interred, not entombed.
To be picky the correct term is is interred, not entombed.
Are you certain about this?
Verb
inter (third-person singular simple present inters, present participle interring, simple past and past participle interred)
1. To bury in a grave.
2. To confine, as in a prison.
Etymology
From Middle English enteren, borrowed from Old French enterrer, enterer, from Vulgar Latin *interrΔre ("to put in earth").
Verb
entomb (third-person singular simple present entombs, present participle entombing, simple past and past participle entombed)
1. (transitive) To deposit in a tomb.
2. (figuratively, transitive) To confine in restrictive surroundings.
Noun
tomb (plural tombs)
1. A small building (or "vault") for the remains of the dead, with walls, a roof, and (if it is to be used for more than one corpse) a door. It may be partly or wholly in the ground (except for its entrance) in a cemetery, or it may be inside a church proper or in its crypt. Single tombs may be permanently sealed; those for families (or other groups) have doors for access whenever needed.
2. A pit in which the dead body of a human being is deposited; a grave.
3. One who keeps secrets.
According to these quotes it's entombed, not interred.
HM.
According to these quotes it's entombed, not interred.
My source of all things funereal told me that a body placed in a tomb is entombed, as apparently they are/were often placed into said tomb without being first placed in a casket. Whereas a body is interred when placed into a sarcophagus. Apparently the technical difference is that a sarcophagus or similar is sealed and can be placed in a public space 'on display' so to speak, whilst nobody would want to visit a body if placed in a 'normal' coffin that is not fully sealed, decay stinks something awful.
Whilst I would agree that a dictionary definition is usually dependable, I've also found that those who are intimately involved in a specific practise etc are more accurate.
My source of all things funereal told me that a body placed in a tomb is entombed, as apparently they are/were often placed into said tomb without being first placed in a casket. Whereas a body is interred when placed into a sarcophagus.
And if the sarcophagus is in a tomb as is the case with Grant and his wife, would not both terms apply equally?
And if the sarcophagus is in a tomb as is the case with Grant and his wife, would not both terms apply equally?
I can ask.
I presume it comes down to a combination of location and circumstances. If his sarcophagus was placed in a cathedral then no tomb, so no problem. Then again if a person is cremated and their ashes buried complete with marker/grave stone, would you say they were cremated or buried at (location)..?
Of course the pedantic would say that a corpse is not a he/she but an it. So whilst 'he' might be said to be buried/interred/entombed, if taking about the corpse then 'it' is buried/interred/entombed. Various religions claim that the soul leaves the body upon death, thus the 'it' part. Pinning those people down on where the soul goes to is more difficult. (No, for christians it isn't heaven, or hell)
Whilst I would agree that a dictionary definition is usually dependable
The definition of a term is only dependable as long as all usages of the term conform to its definition. When the term is used in a different context, the definition is subject to change. That is why dictionaries are constantly undergoing revision.
Buried in his tomb is Alfred the raisin.
I'm no ampelographer, but surely as he died Alfred the grape, upon resurrection he becomes Alfred the raisin.
I've learned you cannot judge a book by the cover - so it makes no sense to judge by the author name alone.
A clever pun name, a nickname etc -that is the least of my concerns.
Story codes, a good blurb, a catchy title - those will snag my interest. The author name only if it is by reputation because I've enjoyed their stories before (AKA: Vulgus)
