Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

Burning bridges

What about these?

You missed the reason that I've noticed most often: removed to go commercial (although such removed stories don't always make it to a marketplace)

I'd say more often than not, but as they say, you gotta pay to play, though it's incredibly annoying for their readers, who end up feeling betrayed by the author, whatever their reason for gambling their reputation.

What does the contract say?

read it here:

https://storiesonline.net/author/posting_guidelines.php

the key part is;

You grant Storiesonline, its parent company 'World Literature Company (WLPC)' and its affiliated sites unlimited rights to publish the work in any format that it supports, on any of its sites for as long as WLPC exists or until you withdraw the work with a written request for removal. You retain all copyrights that you may have for your stories. (All other material becomes the property of Storiesonline and WLPC)

Nothing in there about the readers.

Nothing in there about the readers.

And it says "until you withdraw the work." Pretty clear.

or until you withdraw the work with a written request for removal.

Thanks.

I must have confused SOL with another site because I had the notion there was a minimum period during which the deletion of the story was at the management's discretion.

AJ

A throwaway thought - should there be a week's grace before stories are deleted, and an 'Up for Deletion' list to parallel the 'Up for Archive' list?

No, that would go against the reason the author is deleting the story.

I never deleted a story from SOL so I don't know why authors do. But it made me think. What if I wrote the kinds of stories in the past that I didn't want associated with my name anymore (maybe because of the writing style, or content, or whatever). Notifying people that it was going away so they could download it would be the opposite of what I wanted. Authors have rights.

I have deleted stories for 2 reasons.
1) I tried to sell some stories. I never got paid for them, buy I had to delete them from other venues.
2) I consolidated some series into serials. They left me with as many words on the site, but fewer stories.

In both cases, Lazeez removed the stories as soon as T asked.

That's why I scuttled my early effort 'All About Gisele'. Not my type of story anymore. Other stories I could fix with a revision, but Gisele had a tacky premise to begin with.

A throwaway thought - should there be a week's grace before stories are deleted, and an 'Up for Deletion' list to parallel the 'Up for Archive' list?

Oddly enough, under another topic, there were complaints about an author deleting their stories, with no notice, to move them to Amazon.

I can understand why authors might object but readers think otherwise. Personally I don't think it would be a terrible imposition - authors have never had the right of an instant delete, they've always had to request deletion by management.

AJ

Moaning and bitching is so much easier than supporting and encouraging.

Explaining is not moaning or bitching.

Not that long ago, I sent a message to my followers about a chapter I had posted. I noticed the score had dropped dramatically so I thought I should explain why the chapter was written. A woman was sexually abused in the chapter.

One of my followers sent me an email that said I came across as whining. I wasn't complaining about the drop in the score. I don't really put much credence on the score. But I thought it was important to discuss why I wrote what I wrote.

In the novel, I wanted to show how bad the bad guy was (justifies what happens to him in the end which I couldn't talk about) and how affected the woman was by what he did to her (important for future chapters that I couldn't talk about).

So when an author (at least me) gives a justification or explanation, I guess it comes across as whining or moaning or bitching.

Interesting.

Not that long ago, I sent a message to my followers about a chapter I had posted. I noticed the score had dropped dramatically so I thought I should explain why the chapter was written. A woman was sexually abused in the chapter.

That is a subject I generally try to avoid in my stories. But in one series, I have included several cases of sexual assault. And each time, I covered it in as "technical" of a manner as I could, and to show that it was not sexy at all, it was a revolting act (helped in that in both narrations the POV was of the female).

I also provided warnings, and in one case the sad reality of sexual assault against those who are disabled with actual statistics. But in both of those cases, it was only "attempted rape", something happened in both to stop it from being completed.

However, I also had in one an outright rape, with complete penetration. And for that chapter I provided a very clear "squick warning", as to why it was needed for character growth, and that I would provide a short description so they could skip the chapter if they wished.

And on a side note, I greatly enjoyed describing the fact that in essence the "victim" severed the penis of her rapist mid-act. A sad fact, is that of the 3 women that mattered the most in my life that were not family, 3 were sexually assaulted and 2 were raped. And all during our relationships that was something I helped them deal with.

Myself, I am a peaceful man. But if given a chance, I would give out some serious righteous retribution upon any who took such an act intended to be loving and perverted it in that way.

And one story I worry about I have outlined but not written, because of that content. A "serial molester", who during the course molests a great many women. He is vile, abuses his authority for his own pleasure, and degrades women regularly. However, it is also one of my "dark tale" stories, so is not intended to have a "happy ending".

At least, not a happy ending for him. That is a story I have been working on for over a year, and only visit it occasionally as I find getting into the mind of that kind of man leaves me feeling dirty.

But if given a chance, I would give out some serious righteous retribution upon any who took such an act intended to be loving and perverted it in that way.

I've mentioned my disagreement with a Development Editor in the past who said a hero cannot be a murderer (kill someone in cold blood). That was a different novel, but my hero, Lincoln Steele, just like Jack Reacher, does just that to get justice.

So the person they kill has to deserve to be killed (or worse). The things the bad guys do in this novel are horrific so they deserve it. But if I just tell the reader they're really bad, it doesn't have the effect of how evil they are.

I'm in the "show don't tell" camp. I prefer to say I write cinematically. So what I write is graphic, whether it be violence or sex. And this scene is written from the victim's POV because I want the reader to empathize with her, feel her pain and humiliation (to show her character strength). It's not that the reader wasn't warned. The story has codes like rape and violent and non-consent. The worst thing is, the next few chapters will be worse than the one readers objected to. Not that I would have written them any differently.

What I learned is not to explain why I wrote something in a certain way. And I believe the readers are losing out because of that. But I don't want to sound like I'm whining.

"A hero cannot be a murderer" is one of this stupid rules-of-thumb that may make sense in some contexts but is just plain idiotic out of context. Either that, or it's a slippery definition of 'murderer', 'hero', or both that lets some things slip right through the cracks.

For instance, a rule saying that, in genre X, few readers would accept a 'hero' who killed in cold blood might be perfectly reasonable. In other genres, we make enormous allowances for determining the reasonability of killing someone. James Bond hardly interviews everyone he interacts with to make sure they're deserving of a bullet.

Luke Skywalker blew up an enormous number of people, then Han went and did the same thing a couple movies later. As 'Clerks' points out, perhaps in 'Star Wars' every person in the Death Star was a dyed-in-the-wool evil bastard who deserved to be blown up. But, in 'Return of the Jedi', the second Death Star would've been full of construction workers, presumably not _all_ dyed-in-the-wool evil bastards. Yet we accept both as heroes.

Sure, both are kill-or-be-killed scenarios, but there are still giant moral questions we gloss right over.

Now, if we rephrased that to 'a hero can't single out and intentionally kill someone they know to be innocent for no good reason at all', well, OK then. That's a lot harder to argue with. But it sure does water down the rule of thumb.

And, on the bigger picture, I'd like explanations like that, and it seems to me that they're better shared than just sent via email to interested parties. But I'm not sure how to do it. Maybe Blog A saying 'interested why I wrote X? See Blog B.' Still, someone will think you're 'whining'.

in genre X, few readers would accept a 'hero' who killed in cold blood might be perfectly reasonable

In the last Jack Reacher novel I read, after a militiaman admitted to killing a black teenager, Reacher shot the unarmed man in the forehead. Later, when the sheriff asked what happened to him, Reacher cooly said, "He committed suicide." The genre in that one is thriller.

Dresden is a good example, too (as would be Hiroshima or Nagasaki). The broader point really is that the definition of 'murderer' is very, very slippery. All sorts of exceptions have been carved out in a few posts.

Some genres may not tolerate a 'hero' who also kills people. Some genres will tolerate heroes who kill lots of people of dubious personal badness if they are associated with bad actors/causes/nations/whatever.

One can also use the term 'antihero' to dodge this, but in some ways that's really just playing word games; if genre X won't support a 'hero' that kills people, but will support an 'antihero' that kills people and that the story revolves around, what practical difference does it make?

By some definitions of 'antihero', a 'killer hero' is an antihero. If you believe that a hero can't be a killer, a 'killer hero' must be an antihero. One could lump James Bond, Dexter, and a bunch of others into that broad category.

On the other hand, that leaves out e.g. 'war heroes'. And, as was noted, history is written by the winners, for the most part (and then revised, over and over). A history written by a triumphant Empire would consider Luke and Han war criminals; a history written by a triumphant Germany would consider those who firebombed cities war criminals.

"A hero cannot be a murderer" is one of this stupid rules-of-thumb that may make sense in some contexts but is just plain idiotic out of context. Either that, or it's a slippery definition of 'murderer', 'hero', or both that lets some things slip right through the cracks.

This is the kind of thing that ultimately killed the CCA, or "Comics Code Authority", as well as the Hayes Code (movies, pre MPAA).

Both had some rather strict rules, intended to make their medium more "friendly". But the problem was, that also stifled creativity and even good moral stories.

The CCA was rather simple, and reads good for the most part. But it forbade things like nudity, drugs, horror, killing, and extreme violence. This is what turned Batman from his original dark version to the "Silver Age" with 10,000 gadgets that most became familiar with.

However, it also opened up say Archie to showing Betty and Veronica in underwear about once an issue. Is weird to imagine, but Archie was actually one of the "sexiest" comics for decades. Archie making out in a car with Veronica, as Betty and Reggie were in the back seat. The back of a topless Veronica in low cut panties as she talked to Betty in a low cut bra.

And finally, Marvel wanting to release a series of comics based on Edgar Allan Poe. Combined with wanting to do a series depicting Harry Osborne (Spiderman's friend) getting addicted to drugs and the hazards of drugs. Both were nixed by the CCA, so they just dropped the code for many issues.

And by 2001, it was dying. Marvel submitted a new series in 2001, and it was rejected by the CCA. So they just dumped the CCA altogether. In 2011, even DC and Archie Comics both abandoned the CCA and it was dead.

I bet that most do not even realize that little CCA shield vanished over a decade ago.

The reader really doesn't need to personally witness the event for the reader to get the full impact, but it's the physical act of dragging readers into situation where they have no desire to be that generates such ill-will towards the authors.

I disagree.

Not to the latter part of what you said. In "High School Massacre" there are several scenes of women being abused, and after those chapters were posted the score went down considerably, just like you said.

But I disagree that the author can simply tell the reader the bad guy is a really bad guy rather than drag him into it. Maybe it's my "show don't tell" bias, but telling the reader he's a bad guy would not justify the hero cutting his dick off and opening his veins to bleed out. The hero would be seen as a sadistic murderer, not the vigilante hero getting justice. But put the reader through the woman's abuse and, although it might disgust him, it will create the impact I desire as the author. To have the reader empathize with the woman and despise the bad guy.

So just telling the reader the bastard raped the helpless woman isn't enough.

Bill Gates is a dynastic schemer who married his dad's boss's daughter after much of the future value of their company was transferred to Gates. The cream pie face & nervous nerd PR campaign just made him a low value target for terrorists.

Of course, the rest of this was just as nonsensical, but this one took the cake.

Bill Gates did not get married until 1994, when he was already one of the richest men in the world. Melinda is from Texas and her father was an engineer (Bill's father was a lawyer in Washington state).

But hey, if you are going to just make things up, go big. Do not forget that a lot of politicians are really alien lizards while you are at it.

The alien lizard people aren't nearly that evil.

Did you watch 'V'? Of course, they're that evil.

Did you watch 'V'?

Aha, another hero killing people in cold blood.

I guess it's true for any vigilante hero.

Aha, another hero killing people in cold blood.

He was talking about the early 1980's miniseries and TV series. Not the more recent comic and movie.

Now You Get The Needle!

(watch Weird Al's "Aluminum Foil")

Depending upon the sport, it's either a little better, or a lot worse, than that.

My son was a very good High School hockey goalie. His approach to the sport in college was "There are around 60 NHL goalies at any given time; what chance is there that I will be one of those 60 at any point i time?" He decided they were low enough that he chose to play club hockey rather than team hockey at UW Madison.

That does not even account for all the foreign players who are recruited to US pro teams and fill the coveted spots.