Pet Peeves

[sr71plt]

Is "Submissiveness" supposed to be me? If it is, I never wrote what you said I wrote.

Yep, that was you. This is the posting I was responding to.

"It's a story. It won't make a difference to 99.99% of people who read it if the pharmacy on the corner is now a beauty shop. No one is going to know or care. Besides, most stories are irrelevant to a specific time line. Era, yes; decade, perhaps. But pre-construction or demolition... that's getting a little picky in my opinion."

You really are full of beans tonight, aren't you?

 

[Submissioness]

Ah, I guess your aggressive bitchiness is preferable.

I call 'em as I see 'em, toots--and I have a whole lot of postings on this forum that aren't "negative everytime." Do try to be accurate when you're trying to put someone down.

Again, I hope tomorrow we see you without the chip on your shoulder.

And you're less bitchy? Get off your high horse. I'm not interested in putting you down, just trying to help you get that chip off your own shoulder. I'm not the one acting like I'm better than someone else.

I've read your posts in this thread and you're generally a pretty negative person. You seem to always have something to argue about or nitpick.

 

[sr71plt]

And you're less bitchy? Get off your high horse. I'm not interested in putting you down, just trying to help you get that chip off your own shoulder. I'm not the one acting like I'm better than someone else.

I've read your posts in this thread and you're generally a pretty negative person. You seem to always have something to argue about or nitpick.

Didn't call you an idiot yet, have I? So I'm at least one up on you, hon. That burr under your saddle is your problem.

 

[Submissioness]

Exotic is nice, but only if you can carry it off. If you must use an exotic locale, or one you haven't been to in a while, use Google to research it and use Google Earth to get a view of how the different elements of architecture, streets, and nature relate to each other. The photos metatagged into Google Earth can also help you with visualizing your story. You never know when the office building, market, or roadway essential to your story might not be there anymore.

And I also disagree with Submissiveness on being able to carry a story off in any locale. I've posted nearly 350 stories here. If they were all in the same locale, I would have run out of readers by story number 50, I think, no matter how different the plots and characters were. There's a reason why TV sits don't go over seven or eight seasons. Time/locale/history are enrichment elements for a story.

I kinda was with you until this.

It's a story. It won't make a difference to 99.99% of people who read it if the pharmacy on the corner is now a beauty shop. No one is going to know or care. Besides, most stories are irrelevant to a specific time line. Era, yes; decade, perhaps. But pre-construction or demolition... that's getting a little picky in my opinion.

If I write a story about the Luxor hotel in Vegas (where I've been) and it gets demolished in 2 years (but it might not) because it's sinking into the ground (which it is), I'm not going to re-write it to fit into today's date, so why would I bother? If I'd never been there I wouldn't talk about it. I get that. I would mention the second floor and how the interior is structured and I see how if I read a story and it did not accurately describe what I've seen, that would throw off the story.

Then again, as others have said, that's what research is for. You can look at pictures without being there.

Yep, that was you. This is the posting I was responding to.

Did you read the quote I was commenting on? He was talking about being up to date and current in the locations that you choose. And I said there's no point in worrying about so many irrelevant details. I said nothing about only writing in one setting.

You won't be able to describe a complex structure (like the Luxor in my example) as accurately as you would be able to if you had seen it first hand. It would be better to have first hand experience behind it. I'm saying that if it's inaccurately described, it would be a put-off. That's all. No harm done.

Full of beans? How old are you anyway? Sorry... Your passive aggression must be provoking my bitchy aggression.

 

[Submissioness]

Didn't call you an idiot yet, have I? So I'm at least one up on you, hon. That burr under your saddle is your problem.

Well then, Mr. Burr, don't act like one, and I won't point it out.

 

[sr71plt]

Goodnight, Submissiveness. Hope you feel better and less bitchy tomorrow.

I'm sixty--and just stuffed with graduate degrees. That makes me feel quite free to use terms like "full of beans." I understand where you might want to be more pretentious.

 

[sr71plt]

Will leave you with two thoughts, Submissiveness.

1. It's ironic that you accuse me of being negative on a thread that is all about negativity (pet peeves) on which I've constantly said "but wait a minute" about poster's negativity.

and 2. I'm still amused (at the point where you went ballistic) that on a thread that rants on the use of measurements in stories, you use a cup size to describe a character.

 

[NightDrive]

Here's another pet peeve...when women are in the process of being raped, and it turns into consentual sex. That is just TERRIBLE.

 

[sandra_dee]

Here's another pet peeve...when women are in the process of being raped, and it turns into consentual sex. That is just TERRIBLE.

I haven't read that kind of story! I hope I never do!

 

[Joeehartley]

I like this thread

As a new writer, I find it very valuable to find out what others like and dislike. Most of what I'm reading here deals with editing. I find that, for my writing at least, an editor is necessary.

Thank you for this thread.

-Joe-

 

[driphoney]

As a new writer, I find it very valuable to find out what others like and dislike. Most of what I'm reading here deals with editing. I find that, for my writing at least, an editor is necessary.

Thank you for this thread.

-Joe-

Wow. So many different types of us writers out there. Personally, I find this thread very discouraging. Maybe it's because I'm not really a good writer, so I'm not really able to mold and shape my writing to meet a demand, I can only write what flows out of my struggling brain.

 

[ericahope]

I also think a huge detractor from a lot of stories are when all of the characters have a D cup and all males have a penis length of 9-12 inches. Variety is hot, flaws are hot, and realism is very hot.

I totally agree about this one. When someone is writing a story I think the author should take ten minutes and walk around their local mall or public place. Look at people. There is so much variety out there, and very few people are perfect tens. There's nothing wrong with having a hot character in your story. Hot people exist. But when every single guy has a thick, nine inch cock, a chiseled chest, and can last for an hour in bed and every single woman has blonde hair, a perfect tan, no extra flab, pert DD breasts (there's no such thing! They sag, get over it!), a shaved pussy, etc. it gets old really really fast. Variety is a total turn on.

If a woman is middle aged why can't an author write that her breasts sag and she's got a muffin top? It's totally realistic and it's not a turn off to me at all. It's also not a turn off if a couple is getting it on and the guy has a premature ejaculation. Who cares? That's life. I like stories that seem real.

 

[CWatson]

I have that battle with my readers all the time. ...Or, at least, with people who get turned off by my stories, because I insist on realism at all times.

The motivation behind this particular decision--realism vs. stylized perfection--really comes down to The Writer, and what s/he's trying to do with the story. Some of us are in to be profound and tell some truth (or try to, and look rather pretentious while we're at it ). And some of us are in it just to get a rise (ha-ha) out of The Reader. When you're doing that, then of course you want Playboy centerfolds getting speared by the throbbing, pulsing, manly 14-inch cocks of some tanned bodybuilder. Of course you aren't going to waste time on details, or characterization, or realism. Your objective is to coax out of The Reader the most massive hard-on he's ever had in his life!--details and characterization and realism will hinder your pursuit of that goal! So leave them aside. Go for the gold. Double Ds all the way down.

Now, obviously, if you're going to say that you prefer meaningful] stories that are about more than an erection, I will applaud you all the way (and take a moment to shamelessly endorse my own works), because I feel the same. But what I'm saying is, when you're reading a story that is only about an erection, don't expect it to try and take on anything else.

 

[ericahope]

CWatson - As a fan of realistic stories, I should probably check into yours. I'm glad you appreciate realism.

I definitely see what you're saying as far as what the purpose of the story is. But I guess it all depends on what your definition of a pet peeve is too. Is a pet peeve something that is objectively wrong to do when engaging in literary writing that just bothers some people more than others (not proofreading, using 34 inch waist vs thirty-four inch waist, etc) or is a pet peeve something that is a matter of personal preference (I don't like it when writers used measurements to describe people, but there's nothing wrong with it objectively).

And to clarify, I guess my real pet peeve isn't with making all characters look like porn stars (even in the "quick rise" stories), my pet peeve is with the assumption behind that - that is, that a vast majority of readers are turned on by that. It's actually <i>not</i> a turn on for me to have a blonde, tan, tall, DD porn star getting it on with a Fabio lookalike. Yuck. I have to relate to the characters to get turned on by the situation.

Now, you might be thinking, Erica is a woman and women have different "turn ons" then men. And I'd agree with you. But the proliferation of amateur porn sites and porn sites devoted to chubby girls or older women or any other deviation from the DD porn star tells me that even men like a little variety.

I have that battle with my readers all the time. ...Or, at least, with people who get turned off by my stories, because I insist on realism at all times.

The motivation behind this particular decision--realism vs. stylized perfection--really comes down to The Writer, and what s/he's trying to do with the story. Some of us are in to be profound and tell some truth (or try to, and look rather pretentious while we're at it ). And some of us are in it just to get a rise (ha-ha) out of The Reader. When you're doing that, then of course you want Playboy centerfolds getting speared by the throbbing, pulsing, manly 14-inch cocks of some tanned bodybuilder. Of course you aren't going to waste time on details, or characterization, or realism. Your objective is to coax out of The Reader the most massive hard-on he's ever had in his life!--details and characterization and realism will hinder your pursuit of that goal! So leave them aside. Go for the gold. Double Ds all the way down.

Now, obviously, if you're going to say that you prefer meaningful] stories that are about more than an erection, I will applaud you all the way (and take a moment to shamelessly endorse my own works), because I feel the same. But what I'm saying is, when you're reading a story that is only about an erection, don't expect it to try and take on anything else.

 

[BrushStrokes]

I may have to check out CWatsons realistic stories page....
I agree with eh concept of people having real world bodies, rather then waxed, sculpted at the gym etc etc with DD breasts and Willies like a length of Salami....real world bodies, nervousness at that first link up, we've got the idea....

Check that, will read, rather then may read.....

regards

 

[zex95966]

I have a few things that turn me off pretty quick.

The number one thing though is realism, if i don't believe a story or character it just ruins everything.

for example a virgin wouldn't know a lot of dirty terms or actions... unless they read erotica hehe, but if they do I should know about it otherwise I can't believe it.

 

[CWatson]

And to clarify, I guess my real pet peeve isn't with making all characters look like porn stars (even in the "quick rise" stories), my pet peeve is with the assumption behind that - that is, that a vast majority of readers are turned on by that. It's actually <i>not</i> a turn on for me to have a blonde, tan, tall, DD porn star getting it on with a Fabio lookalike. Yuck. I have to relate to the characters to get turned on by the situation.

Now that I can get behind. I'm not a big fan of the generic "porn star" look either (as you can probably tell by my AV), and it can be frustrating when The Author tries to make me think that look (or any look) happens to be attractive.

I think this is one of the reasons new authors rely so much on the Intro-Paragraph-Describing-The-36-24-36D thing: they want The Reader to find the female character attractive. One can hardly blame them. The problem is, it doesn't work--Especially if The Reader (like you and I) happen to be in one of the minorities that doesn't like America's Perfect Woman. (What was the saying? "The French say an ideal breast should fill a wine glass. Americans think it should clog a toilet.") Try to force-feed your own personal beauty-values down The Reader's throat, and they'll just vomit it up again.

I think the better solution is an emotional description instead of a physical one. We've already established that we can't make a character physically attractive to everyone... But we also know that we can make any character emotionally attractive to everyone. So view the character through the eyes of love. Don't tell me why I like her, tell me why you like her. Tell me why you love her. You can even do it in physical terms: tell me about her long mane of night-colored hair, or her green almond eyes, or her nipples like black diamonds on her chocolate skin. And suddenly it doesn't matter whether The Reader happens to like that body style. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder; what matters is not the woman being viewed, but the eyes doing the viewing. And if those eyes love...

(The only problem being that this technique requires, umm, actual skill, which some writers on this site, well... )

 

[beautifultits36]

bad grammar, no spaces... and sometimes they're just down right boring :x

 

[v_hearts]

Wow this got more replies than I expected. I didn't mean to discourage anyone so please don't let this get you down. Pet peeves are simply personal dislikes. Just because a person doesn't like something doesn't mean everyone wouldn't like it... except for bad grammar. There is just no excuse for bad grammar, not when there are so many wonderful editors available here (free of charge)

 

[beautifultits36]

EXACTLY X.X it kills me reading bad grammar =\ ruins everything.

 

[driphoney]

Wow this got more replies than I expected. I didn't mean to discourage anyone so please don't let this get you down. Pet peeves are simply personal dislikes. Just because a person doesn't like something doesn't mean everyone wouldn't like it... except for bad grammar. There is just no excuse for bad grammar, not when there are so many wonderful editors available here (free of charge)

Umm, well, not so easy. Took me four tries.

(I'll now mosey on over to finally re-submit a wrongly-submitted story. How embarrassing, is that? Yet not enough to get me to fix the problem, the damage already done and all. Horrid numbers, etc.)

And nice of you to be so nice about not meaning to discourage.

 

[sandra_dee]

for example a virgin wouldn't know a lot of dirty terms or actions... unless they read erotica hehe, but if they do I should know about it otherwise I can't believe it.

OR if she does research online or watches porn.

 

[CWatson]

I have a few things that turn me off pretty quick.

The number one thing though is realism, if i don't believe a story or character it just ruins everything.

for example a virgin wouldn't know a lot of dirty terms or actions... unless they read erotica hehe, but if they do I should know about it otherwise I can't believe it.

Very true. There's a difference between someone who's a virgin and someone who's innocent.

As to the other--and here I quibble with technicalities, so feel free to ignore me. But I'm a sci-fi & fantasy geek, and I think this point is important--as to the other, I'm not sure "realism" is the right word. I think "plausibility" might be better. If a story had two lovers consummating, and then at the end the male unfolded wings and flew away, because he was secretly a bird-man, we would not call it plausible, even if it was rendered in perfect, gritty detail and the author swore on her grave that it had really happened to her. Conversely, a story that features 39DD breasts, a 14-inch cock, and the fumbling and occasional embarrassment of sex... Well, that's plausible, even if it isn't (technically) realistic.

 

[LadynStFreknBed]

Here's another pet peeve...when women are in the process of being raped, and it turns into consentual sex. That is just TERRIBLE.

That scenario is unrealistic and even disturbing, but writers do have a real challenge in writing a story in the Nonconsent/Reluctance category without such a turn of events. The basic premise of that category is that it has to be a nonconsent story in which the reluctant party enjoys the experience. Unfortunately, it just generates stories that belittle rape or are just profoundly unbelievable.

Perhaps you have a suggestion for how to tackle that problem?

 

[GingerCat1]

The biggest thing lacking in most stories is build-up. If you're writing a story where a neighbour lusts after his young next-door-neighbour, it makes zero sense to have them having sex by the second paragraph. I get fantasy, but when there's build-up in a story, the payoff when the protagonist finally DOES get hooked up is that much greater.

Sorry for bringing this old thread back to life but I agree completely with this. I am not interested in reading stories where the characters are already having sex after a few minutes of me reading. I think build up in stories is like foreplay in sex. Without the foreplay then the sex is not nearly as good. If two characters are having sex almost straight away in a story there there is no emotional build up and I have not related to the characters in anyway meaning I do not feel much when reading the sex scene.

Another pet peeve I have personally is guys in stories that seem to have yo yo cocks in that they seem to be getting hard almost all the time and for no reason. I actually find it quite distracting in a story if a character is fully erect when his sister wears a mildly sexy outfit and a few minutes later he is getting fully erect again when his sister is eating spaghetti, then he is fully erect again a few minutes later when he sees her breasts bounce a tiny bit when she jogs for a few moments. Most peoples cocks do not work like this and having the main character get erect all the time for almost no reason actually gets quite distracting.

Also and I know this is a personal preference but I find the guys in stories stealing used panties and then sniffing them and masturbating with them to be highly creepy. If a character does that in a story then I stop reading and move on to the next story.