Intelligent Stories that don’t insult you

[AchtungNight]

Honesty is always the best policy. You can check out A Small Sacrifice it is the first part of my Vampire Stories the Sacrifice Tales. The second part will be my Halloween Contest Entry and it is already ready, already, cued up waiting for the go-live date.

Thx. I’ll put it in my queue.

 

[theWollstonecraftWoman]

My attempts at writing Westerns haven’t worked out great either, and I’m actually from Texas.

I get why women want to emasculate men in writing, and why some men want to do the equivalent to women. But neither has ever been a turn-on for me. Forgive me if I avoid your work. If you can direct me to stories I might enjoy, try, and I might give you a chance. Sorry, being honest, hope that’s ok.

Westerns are easier to read or watch than write. Don't you agree?

 

[pink_silk_glove]

If your story rates above a 4.5, it gets an H. That does not mean the story is a great read.

This could not be more true.

There's a phenomenon rampant in lit stories that I call the "Ken, Mounted Policeman Sydrome". Some of you may be familiar with the Monty Python sketch Tudor Porn Merchants in which a vice detective poses undercover as Sir Phillip Bleedin' Sidney to bust purveyors 16th century porn. After his big bust of "6000 pages of tit and bum" or somesuch he retires for the evening where his wife happens to be reading a copy of "Shakespeare's" Gay Boys in Bondage and bids her to read aloud "Ken, 25, was a mounted policeman, with a difference ... and what a difference!"

Of course this scene is a take on pulp smut in general that so often starts out by listing all the vitals and the backstory quickly off the top. Mary showed up for her first day on the job after graduation. She was a bubbly blonde and a virgin because she was saving herself for marriage. blahblahblah-yadayadayada ... Such structure is not only criticized but oft ridiculed as poor amateur writing. Indeed even here in AH whenever someone new to writing asks for advice the first rule that is trotted out is "show don't tell" of which this common pulp listing practice is the exact opposite. The list is lazy hackdom that tells to avoid showing.

We've all seen them, thousands of stories out there it the lit-verse that start off listing vitals and backstories straight off the top. Piles and piles of them have Red Hs. I read one just the other day that was about four kids off to college and all four were literally listed off with vitals and motives very quickly in the first 500 words. Four "Ken Mounted Policemen" right off the bat and it really didn't get much better after that. It had several spots that took me way out of the moment, but did have big tits and multiple orgasms though. What was the score on this piece? 4.6-something.

There are thousands of these written to the same amateur template with weak descriptions, carboard cutout characters, and almost no plot and even less subtlety, but they're kinky and they have Red Hs. The Red H doesn't mean jack.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I had never been in the chat rooms, so yesterday I thought I'd check them out. I looked in on about a dozen rooms, and nowhere did I see anyone discussing anything to do with the stories on the site. Where is that taking place?

You have to talk to people. You can't just be a fly on the wall for 20 minutes.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Not at all. Most of us write to tell a story. Ratings are merely a validation of that effort. Only a portion of readers bother to rate a story even though it amazingly easy.

So you just said that a Red H doesn't necessarily mean that story is good. Then you claim that the score is a validation of the effort put in. Are you saying then that people vote highly even if they don't like the piece on the basis of "oh, well he tried, so it's a 5"?

Effort is not part of the scoring criteria. There is no scoring criteria.

If a Red H (as you say) doesn't necessarily mean a good read, then how could one take validation that their work might be good from a good score?

 

[theWollstonecraftWoman]

I don't get that at all. I think a red H means that people liked the subject matter despite poor writing skills.

So you just said that a Red H doesn't necessarily mean that story is good. Then you claim that the score is a validation of the effort put in. Are you saying then that people vote highly even if they don't like the piece on the basis of "oh, well he tried, so it's a 5"?

Effort is not part of the scoring criteria. There is no scoring criteria.

If a Red H (as you say) doesn't necessarily mean a good read, then how could one take validation that their work might be good from a good score?

 

[Gamblnluck]

So you just said that a Red H doesn't necessarily mean that story is good. Then you claim that the score is a validation of the effort put in. Are you saying then that people vote highly even if they don't like the piece on the basis of "oh, well he tried, so it's a 5"?

Not at all. Authors use scoring as a validation of their effort. Readers who rate stories often use different standards for that rating. They may not like your character or your premise. You might write a fair story with a single very erotic scene and get a high rating. Plus it is influenced greatly by category.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Not at all. Authors use scoring as a validation of their effort. Readers who rate stories often use different standards for that rating. They may not like your character or your premise. You might write a fair story with a single very erotic scene and get a high rating. Plus it is influenced greatly by category.

Oh, so then you're merely saying that despite the fact that using scores is a terrible way to validate your efforts, authors do it anyways. Gotcha.

 

[theWollstonecraftWoman]

Oh, so then you're merely saying that despite the fact that using scores is a terrible way to validate your efforts, authors do it anyways. Gotcha.

I don't evaluate my work by the scores. But I'm very happy when my score is four or more.

 

[SimonDoom]

Oh, so then you're merely saying that despite the fact that using scores is a terrible way to validate your efforts, authors do it anyways. Gotcha.

It's not either/or; it's more complicated than that.

I believe story scores have a very rough correlation with quality. Choose 100 stories with scores over 4.7 at random, and 100 stories with scores under 4.2 at random, and the 4.7+ stories will be better than the others. This is true.

But there's not MUCH more correlation than that, and there are so many factors that go into what score a story gets that one has to be careful about drawing conclusions.

I like getting high scores, but I've gotten to the point that I don't evaluate my own stories based on what score they get, because the differences in scores have much less to do with the quality of the story than with other factors. But that's not the same thing as believing that scores are altogether unimportant or that I don't like it when they are high.

 

[NoTalentHack]

It's not either/or; it's more complicated than that.

I believe story scores have a very rough correlation with quality. Choose 100 stories with scores over 4.7 at random, and 100 stories with scores under 4.2 at random, and the 4.7+ stories will be better than the others. This is true.

But there's not MUCH more correlation than that, and there are so many factors that go into what score a story gets that one has to be careful about drawing conclusions.

I like getting high scores, but I've gotten to the point that I don't evaluate my own stories based on what score they get, because the differences in scores have much less to do with the quality of the story than with other factors. But that's not the same thing as believing that scores are altogether unimportant or that I don't like it when they are high.

I'll jump on this and add in that, in our own favored categories, we often have an idea what does or does not work. Therefore, we can do more than simply take the ratings with a grain of salt, we can use the knowledge of what works there to say "okay, this was/was not good within the category." We can also use other factors to figure out "how" a story worked.

Example: LW hates cuck stories. I think I've seen a grand total of one that managed to make it above 4.0 in the last five years. I wrote a cuck story in there; it got about a 3.9. It got a reasonable amount of views for a clearly labeled cuck story in LW. Comments that I got said it had good writing and also made them think about that subgenre of LW stories in a different light. Few of them liked it better, but they at least kind of "got" it, so the "usual" commenters liked it. I got a bunch of follows from guys with "cuck" in the name afterwards, so the people that like cuckold stories liked it. I got a bunch of feedback from cuck enthusiasts who said "this is exactly right" and in one case thanked me for explaining his own kink to him in a way that let him finally understand his urges!

The 3.9 rating actually makes me happy because I actually have the context for why stories do and don't work in there. I know LW is... different, but it's not SO different that an experienced writer can't figure out what works. It's not the ONLY metric, and most of us know that. But pretending that it's not in any way a useful metric is silly, too.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

I don't get that at all. I think a red H means that people liked the subject matter despite poor writing skills.

I think you're right about this. Most people have a pretty low bar with smut. They have a few generic things that turn them on: blondes with big tits, sexy cheerleaders, high heels, butt-fucking. So if they come across a story about a big-titted blonde cheerleader in high heels getting fucked up the ass, they give it five stars regardless of the quality of the writing. This is why I find porn almost unwatchable. It feels like the producers are just ticking off the content boxes.

 

[MelissaBaby]

You have to talk to people. You can't just be a fly on the wall for 20 minutes.

I may have gotten a wrong impression from your previous comments about Chat. If people are talking about stories there, why do I have to go start a discussion? Where are the ongoing conversations? Is there a particular room where people have them? I expected to see rooms with names like "I/T Discussion" or "Romance Fans". I could find nothing like that

 

[MelissaBaby]

Westerns are easier to read or watch than write. Don't you agree?

I wrote a Western for the Crime and Punishment event. I thought it was a lot of fun to write. Whenever I didn't think it was "westerny" enough, I'd just go to YouTube and watch a few clips of Deadwood.

Abby and the Outlaws

 

[AG31]

Unrelated, but is there a guide to customizing sigs here? I see folks with images in their sigs, more than four lines, etc., and I'd like to tweak mine more.

Looks like you achieved your goal. Am I right? Or did you want a pic?

 

[NoTalentHack]

But most of the stories fall within the range of 4.2 to 4.7. What is the fundamental difference between them?

Fun facts: you get a positive factor of 0.15 just for being a woman. You get another 0.15 if the story is over 50K words. Another 0.15 if you place it in generous categories like N&N or LS, and other weird parameters that have nothing to do with quality.

Hi there, “new” person with three day old account who sounds an awful lot like someone who claimed they’d be leaving for good yet again. Thank you for your insights that I’m sure are meant to be completely sincere and not at all more sour grapes disguised as an unearned air of superiority. That guy added SO much to the discourse.

 

[NoTalentHack]

Looks like you achieved your goal. Am I right? Or did you want a pic?

A pic, yes, but I’ve also seen more formatting, people with multiple paragraphs’ worth of text, etc. Not saying I want all of that, but knowing how to do it would be nice.

 

[AG31]

Speaking of customizing one's presence. Where does "Loving Wives SME" come from? And what does SME mean? And have you considered a link to label your URLs in your signature? In case you don't know about links, click on the two linked chain links in the line at the top of a post. Then paste in your URL at the top and your label below.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I believe story scores have a very rough correlation with quality. Choose 100 stories with scores over 4.7 at random, and 100 stories with scores under 4.2 at random, and the 4.7+ stories will be better than the others. This is true.

If there was any criteria for voting whatsoever, or any consistency amongst voters whatsoever I would probably agree with you, but there is none. You have no idea if your red H is for a gripping story, some sociopolitical judgement or just a good fap. The comments can tell you a lot more, but the comments have nothing to do with the scores.

 

[SimonDoom]

But most of the stories fall within the range of 4.2 to 4.7. What is the fundamental difference between them?

Fun facts: you get a positive factor of 0.15 just for being a woman. You get another 0.15 if the story is over 50K words. Another 0.15 if you place it in generous categories like N&N or LS, and other weird parameters that have nothing to do with quality.

I think the answer is that if all you know is that story A has a 4.4 and story B has a 4.6, you know nothing useful. Factors other than pure story quality will probably have more to do with the score.

 

[SimonDoom]

If there was any criteria for voting whatsoever, or any consistency amongst voters whatsoever I would probably agree with you, but there is none. You have no idea if your red H is for a gripping story, some sociopolitical judgement or just a good fap. The comments can tell you a lot more, but the comments have nothing to do with the scores.

I think you are making the mistake of trying to apply your logic to voting and scores. Throw out logic and look at empirical reality instead. If you were to pick 100 4.7 stories and 100 4.2 stories at random, do you REALLY believe that there would be no average difference between them in terms of quality? I don't believe that for one second, based upon 20 years of reading stories here and based upon statistical reality. The criteria are irrelevant. Given enough of a gap and a sufficiently large sample size of stories, we can be confident that the average quality of group 1 will be better than group 2, and that's all we have to know.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I'll jump on this and add in that, in our own favored categories, we often have an idea what does or does not work. Therefore, we can do more than simply take the ratings with a grain of salt, we can use the knowledge of what works there to say "okay, this was/was not good within the category." We can also use other factors to figure out "how" a story worked.

Example: LW hates cuck stories. I think I've seen a grand total of one that managed to make it above 4.0 in the last five years. I wrote a cuck story in there; it got about a 3.9. It got a reasonable amount of views for a clearly labeled cuck story in LW. Comments that I got said it had good writing and also made them think about that subgenre of LW stories in a different light. Few of them liked it better, but they at least kind of "got" it, so the "usual" commenters liked it. I got a bunch of follows from guys with "cuck" in the name afterwards, so the people that like cuckold stories liked it. I got a bunch of feedback from cuck enthusiasts who said "this is exactly right" and in one case thanked me for explaining his own kink to him in a way that let him finally understand his urges!

The 3.9 rating actually makes me happy because I actually have the context for why stories do and don't work in there. I know LW is... different, but it's not SO different that an experienced writer can't figure out what works. It's not the ONLY metric, and most of us know that. But pretending that it's not in any way a useful metric is silly, too.

According to this post, it's comments that told you how you did, not the score. The even tell you that your score itself is skewed by politics and cannot be trusted as a measure of quality. That is to say, they agreed with you. The cucks upvoted you because you "got it right" not necessarily that the story was well written. You simply portrayed their kink the way that they want it portrayed.

The comments told you how well you connected. It sounds like they gave you some very meaningful feedback, which is excellent. But the score told you nothing.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I think you are making the mistake of trying to apply your logic to voting and scores. Throw out logic and look at empirical reality instead. If you were to pick 100 4.7 stories and 100 4.2 stories at random, do you REALLY believe that there would be no average difference between them in terms of quality? I don't believe that for one second, based upon 20 years of reading stories here and based upon statistical reality. The criteria are irrelevant. Given enough of a gap and a sufficiently large sample size of stories, we can be confident that the average quality of group 1 will be better than group 2, and that's all we have to know.

You say yourself that there are many factors that contribute to scoring. I agree with that. You also assert that quality is one of those factors. I can also agree with that. But how much weight quality has in the equation no one truly knows, and if you don't know that, you cannot equate the quality of your work through the score - at all.

You are then asserting that statistically speaking if we took large enough samples sizes and compare two groups we could then isolate the factor of quality. Excellent premise, but it's not really possible. I wish that we could, but it doesn't work because for every individual story those factors equate in different weights. How many of those 100 stories are in contests? How many of those stories are in LW? How many of those LW stories are BtBs? What is the plot/smut ratio in each of those stories? How many of the authors of those stories have large followings? How many of those stories were written by the same author even? How many of those stories were under 5k words? How many of those stories were single chapters in series? How many were the first chapter of a series? How many of those stories had over 100 votes? How many of those stories are less than a year old? To try to isolate quality as a factor is futile.

 

[theWollstonecraftWoman]

I wrote a Western for the Crime and Punishment event. I thought it was a lot of fun to write. Whenever I didn't think it was "westerny" enough, I'd just go to YouTube and watch a few clips of Deadwood.

Abby and the Outlaws

Bout to read it right now.

 

[StillStunned]

One big question is: how do you define quality? If you're writing for an audience, you could say that quality is making you're readers happy. It might not make them happy for the same reasons it make you, the author, happy. They might not even be the readers you had in mind when you were writing. But still, somewhere, for some reason, someone was a bit brighter because they read your story.

Given the almost infinite range of styles, subjects, vehicles and goals, I think it's as valid a measure as any.