Movies

[KeithD]

As fun as it is to contemplate about these things, making actual movies based on Lit stories is not very realistic. It would take too much funding and organizing, too many locations for filming, too many actors, and all that feels way out of our reach. There is also the question if there is enough audience for a story driven and nuanced porn or erotica.
That being said, I do think another approach would be doable. Animated movies, or at least voice-acted stories with plenty of visual scenes done in applications such as Dazz studio are very much doable. There are thousands of teenagers who are making porn - visual novel games with those tools. Many of those games have nonsensical story and characters, but they do find their audience. The whole thing doesn't require too much technical knowledge and it doesn't even require programming knowledge, as we wouldn't be making a game; we would just be rendering scenes. All it would take is a couple of decent PCs for the rendering process and a few people to put together those scenes with assets in Dazz or similar tool. I imagine that finding a couple of voice actors wouldn't be very difficult either. I bet some Lit authors would even like to participate. To be honest, I don't have illusions about something like this ever being done though. Most people here are passive thinkers without much initiative.

You've been here for less than a year. How do you know what folks have tried to do on change and seen what the response is? What is it you think the users could do that they haven't tried? The attempt--at first sanctioned, then ignore, and finally denied having been sanctioned at all--on the creation of a bi category has been discussed within the time you've been here.

What is it that you think could be done that you've done?

I don't agree that folks have been passive. They've been ignored and have gotten realistic. What's here is workable and we appreciate being provided this much. Some of us just go ahead and work with what's here rather than fantasize individual preferences being instituted on the rest of us. I for one am here to post stories, not to play network engineer.

 

[KeithD]

Making published stories editable, so we can correct small typos and mistakes. Everyone was in favor, but again no action.

No, everyone here wouldn't be agreeable to that. Where did you get the notion everyone is in favor of that? I haven't even seen that proposed and discussed on the board. It takes content control out of the hands of the Web site owners-- or forces them to chase storied around forever after they've been posted. This is a Web site that's already pornographic enough to attract attack. You could get a story posted and then turn around and redo it into something attracting the furies in an edit.

As has been noted, having a thousand different users trying to redecorate this site to their individual likes isn't going to fly--nor should it.

 

[MelissaBaby]

Instant comments for better communication with readers. That was universally supported by everyone, yet no one wanted to act.
Blog function for authors? There was decent support and there were no objections from those who didn't want that function, as there would be no one forcing them to use it.
Making published stories editable, so we can correct small typos and mistakes. Everyone was in favor, but again no action.
That is just off the top of my head. Sure, there were some that resulted in heated discussions and divided opinions, such as those about ratings changes, categories changes, removing or not removing HOT etc. I'd say that even in those discussions we would have been more constructive if we had a real desire to be heard and to put our requests forward.

It was not my impression that there was a consensus on instant comments. A fair number of authors voiced concern about spamming.

Most of us were indifferent to the author blog idea.

Author edits, we have been told are in the works.

 

[RejectReality]

Actually, point and click editing is on the docket. It would still be reviewed, but Laurel would be silly not to have a track changes script running that lets her instantly jump to changes and make quick work of small edits like that. If a dozen one or two typo corrections came in, she could whip through them all in a couple of minutes with track changes in place.

No doubt the current process is just as time consuming for her as it is for us.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Instant comments for better communication with readers. That was universally supported by everyone, yet no one wanted to act.

As Melissa said, no, some of us were at least willing to consider that comment delays might be the lesser of evils when the site's being hit by comment spam.

Blog function for authors? There was decent support and there were no objections from those who didn't want that function, as there would be no one forcing them to use it.

As I've mentioned to you before, you have a bad habit of misrepresenting other people's words. Here are some comments from the thread where the idea of blogs was discussed:

[re. need to monitor blog content] Most likely, and I imagine that would be the reason it wouldn't happen. Between stories, comments and private feedback, they're already screening enough, I can't see them wanting to take on more.

I think LC has nailed it. It's a potentially massive moderation nightmare.

No.
Like a few others have written, it'd be more moderation work for Laurel and Manu. With no benefit for them.
You want to write a blog? You've got plenty of options, and you can always link back to your page here.

And count me among those who think that the author musing on their process, or updating about works in progress would be boring and of no added benefit to me as a reader.

I'm still unsure of the need for this, nor of how that might be evaluated. As it needs to be, before Laurel and Manu lay out the dosh.

I'd prefer to see any new developments being in the area of interactive and threaded story comments, with the question always, how would the site moderate content?

I'd have thought, if anyone wants to start a conversation on their writing process or self-musing, whatever, there are already enough forums where they can do that. Start a new thread and invite people to jump on board, or watch it die, depending on interest.

Or pop your musing into a 750 word blurb in your story file - is there much difference between that and a blog post? Although, an added burden for Laurel.

At the end of the day, I agree with others, more moderation headaches for no real benefit.

Or using the blog for spam. Every blogging site I know of has to fight a perpetual war against spammers, and I can't see Literotica blogs being the exception.

Good point. I'll see your spam and raise you the inevitability someone starts talking politics.

You even acknowledged these objections at the time:

Those are all reasonable points, but I think it could be worth a try at least. (Pre)Moderating comments on his/her blog page should always fall on the author himself, so how "Live" the blog will be will depend on author's own activity. I suppose some would want to chat with readers often, some only rarely. Either way it should certainly bring more traffic to the website, that is why I think Laurel and Manu might be interested.

And they continued:

Seems there are a whole lot of things Lit. should be doing with its site before getting around to sponsoring blogs.

Just because you liked the idea doesn't make it unanimous.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Say what now?










You even acknowledged these objections at the time:



And they continued:

How exactly have you disproved my point? No one was really against it; they were all concerned that it would be "hard to moderate for Laurel and Manu." All the reasons mentioned are reasons that Laurel and Manu could maybe voice, if they ever deigned us of any response. The fact that people here are arguing in their favor and pretending that they know how Laurel and Manu function, pretending that they know what is hard for them and what isn't, is ridiculous in so many ways. It's like an ongoing joke here - people acting as if they had intimate knowledge how Laurel and Manu think, what they want, what they like, what they would never accept and so on. My point was and still is: no one had any legit reason against the idea FROM THEIR OWN PERSPECTIVE. In fact many would probably welcome it if they weren't inhibited by this weird version of Stockholm Syndrome.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Moral righteousness, humbuggery, and hypocrisy run rampant in this country. But somehow they don't deter the dissemination of smut. The truth is that self-styled traditionalists and conservatives want sex just as much as anyone else.

What we DO have going for us in the US is more robust free speech rights than in most countries. There's relatively little you can be punished for saying in the US--by government, at least. Prosecutions for obscenity have almost, though not entirely, disappeared. There's no such thing as "hate speech" per se in the US: you can't be prosecuted for political statements about groups of people or religions. You can legally be a Nazi. There's very little sexual expression you can be prosecuted for at this point, so one way or another if you are determined to publish it, you can. We have a guarantee of free speech written in our constitution, unlike some countries (including, I think, Australia, but I'm not certain of that).

https://pen.org/report/banned-usa-growing-movement-to-censor-books-in-schools/
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/commentisfree/2023/mar/10/drag-show-bans-tennessee-lgbtq-rights
https://apnews.com/article/north-ca...s-government-1a9e2fd69b41171a7b55a22440486912

The Constitution is only writing. It means as much or as little as human beings want it to mean. When intimidation by armed gangs is shutting down performances, "free speech" is a legal fiction.

On paper, Australia has more restriction on speech, and there are areas where that does mean things that can be published in the USA can't be published here. But the overall situation in the USA is in some ways far more restrictive than here.

 

[gunhilltrain]

Well, yes. Literotica is a porn site.

Although I do have stuff on here that is not porn, mostly non-fiction. If Lit wishes to publish it, that's fine with me.

Also, some of the stories in Romance are not strictly speaking porn. Those can vary a lot.

 

[gunhilltrain]

Yeah. Writing all this erotica stuff takes so little thought, no discipline, you don't have to think about anything. It's all so passive, nobody does anything at all creative. Let's go make cartoons. Seriously, you think this?

Some of those anime cartoons (redundant phrasing?) are pretty elaborate, and they can be quite explicit too.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Edits? Does Margaret Atwood edit after publishing? Of course not. She makes sure that it's done right before she publishes. If you hit the send button too soon, you're not writing properly. You're addicted to instant gratification, or you have ADD. Slow down.

Then there's the whole deal where you submit a story, someone comments about a certain scene, then you change/add/omit the scene and the comment now makes no sense.

No edits. You want to change something after publishing? Submit a new version.

 

[alohadave]

Edits? Does Margaret Atwood edit after publishing? Of course not. She makes sure that it's done right before she publishes. If you hit the send button too soon, you're not writing properly. You're addicted to instant gratification, or you have ADD. Slow down.

Margaret Atwood's work is printed on paper, so edits are kind of difficult. That said, there are always errors, no matter how good you are, or how many people you have to review it.

And errors are fixed when a new edition is printed (if another edition is ever printed).

It has nothing to do with ADD, or working too fast. We are human and we all make mistakes and errors.

No edits. You want to change something after publishing? Submit a new version.

No one is stopping you from working that way. It's kind of presumptuous for you to say that your way is the only right way to do it.

 

[MelissaBaby]

Edits? Does Margaret Atwood edit after publishing? Of course not. She makes sure that it's done right before she publishes. If you hit the send button too soon, you're not writing properly. You're addicted to instant gratification, or you have ADD. Slow down.

Then there's the whole deal where you submit a story, someone comments about a certain scene, then you change/add/omit the scene and the comment now makes no sense.

No edits. You want to change something after publishing? Submit a new version.

Published books get edited in subsequent editions all the time.

 

[Bramblethorn]

How exactly have you disproved my point? No one was really against it; they were all concerned that it would be "hard to moderate for Laurel and Manu." All the reasons mentioned are reasons that Laurel and Manu could maybe voice, if they ever deigned us of any response.

Nobody needs L&M to tell them that it takes time to set up and moderate a blog service, not least for a site where moderation is a constant source of friction. Nobody needs L&M to tell them that time and effort invested in that would mean less time and effort available for working on other changes that might be a higher priority. And while there are times where I'd like to see more response by L&M on the board - e.g. clarifying non-obvious things like the "no politics/religion" rule - having them waste time on explaining the bleedin' obvious means even less time for working on those other changes.

When people say that a thing isn't worth what it would cost - in this case, the opportunity cost of forgoing those other improvements - that means they're against doing the thing. It's not hard.

The fact that people here are arguing in their favor and pretending that they know how Laurel and Manu function, pretending that they know what is hard for them and what isn't, is ridiculous in so many ways. It's like an ongoing joke here - people acting as if they had intimate knowledge how Laurel and Manu think, what they want, what they like, what they would never accept and so on. My point was and still is: no one had any legit reason against the idea FROM THEIR OWN PERSPECTIVE. In fact many would probably welcome it if they weren't inhibited by this weird version of Stockholm Syndrome.

Historical note: "Stockholm Syndrome" was invented by a police psychiatrist as a way to discredit a woman who had criticised his handling of negotiations in the siege where she'd been held hostage. Without having ever counselled her, and with an obvious conflict of interest, he labelled her with a mental illness he'd just invented, one which isn't generally accepted by psychiatrists as a real condition.

The way you're using it here seems very much in that tradition.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Published books get edited in subsequent editions all the time.

Certainly. So publish a new edition.

 

[MelissaBaby]

Certainly. So publish a new edition.

There is no significant difference between typos or spelling errors being corrected in subsequent edition of printed work, and correcting them digitally in works published online.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Margaret Atwood's work is printed on paper, so edits are kind of difficult. That said, there are always errors, no matter how good you are, or how many people you have to review it.

And errors are fixed when a new edition is printed (if another edition is ever printed).

It has nothing to do with ADD, or working too fast. We are human and we all make mistakes and errors.


No one is stopping you from working that way. It's kind of presumptuous for you to say that your way is the only right way to do it.

As a professional editor who has AD(H)D, I can confirm this. Indeed, if one googles, there's more than one post out there specifically discussing typos found in published Margaret Atwood books.

It's rare for me to read a mainstream-published first edition of any book without noticing a few errors along the way, even though those books have had the luxury of professional editing. Even the later editions are unlikely to be perfect.

Noting again that labelling other people with a psychiatric condition as a debating tactic is cheap and shitty. ADHD diagnosis typically requires multiple sessions of detailed questioning including references from people who knew the subject as a child; it's not the kind of thing that even a trained psychiatrist can do based on casual acquaintance online.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

There is no significant difference between typos or spelling errors being corrected in subsequent edition of printed work, and correcting them digitally in works published online.

But editing digitally doesn't just edit typos. You can't police that. You can plunk in a completely different story if you want.

 

[MelissaBaby]

But editing digitally doesn't just edit typos. You can't police that. You can plunk in a completely different story if you want.

Frankly, I don't care if they do, as long as the edited version does not violate site rules.

 

[MelissaBaby]

Noting again that labelling other people with a psychiatric condition as a debating tactic is cheap and shitty. ADHD diagnosis typically requires multiple sessions of detailed questioning including references from people who knew the subject as a child; it's not the kind of thing that even a trained psychiatrist can do based on casual acquaintance online.

Telling someone with ADHD to "slow down" is like telling someone with vision problems to open their eyes wider.

 

[Bramblethorn]

There is no significant difference between typos or spelling errors being corrected in subsequent edition of printed work, and correcting them digitally in works published online.

And I've never known a publisher to put out a new release just for the sake of correcting typos/spelling errors, unless it's something like a medical reference where the error could have serious consequences. Usually what happens is those things get put on a list to be pulled out the next time the publisher has some other reason to do a new edition, or at least a new printing, and they get rolled into the process for that.

 

[KeithD]

With today's publishing press capabilities, edits can be made on a printed book in the next session's run.

 

[Bramblethorn]

With today's publishing press capabilities, edits can be made on a printed book in the next session's run.

Yeah, that's becoming more of a thing with the products I work on. But it's something that happens at a point where the publisher already needed to do a new print run, usually because they're running low on stock; minor typo fixes wouldn't be the trigger for a new print run in themselves.

(Just by coincidence, in between my last post and this one, I came across an error that probably shouldn't wait for the next print run. But if the publisher feels the same way about it, I expect their response would be an online erratum rather than an early reprint.)

I'm not sure there's really a Literotica parallel to reprints, though. On some of the other platforms where I post my story, post-publication edits are a simpler process and I might submit an edit just for the sake of a few typos; here, I'd wait until I had some bigger reason to update the story, which is usually "never". I do my best to catch those things before submission, and any readers who are offended by the few remaining errors can contact me for a full refund of what they paid for it.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Frankly, I don't care if they do, as long as the edited version does not violate site rules.

Except that it wouldn't get vetted by Laurel unless it got reported, and there seems to be a real reluctance from many here to do any kind of community policing.

If the "let them edit" approach prevailed, I can see some less scrupulous authors submitting and getting approved a sweet vanilla story, then coming back and editing in a complete new non-compliant story. And the site wouldn't know.

 

[ElectricBlue]

What we DO have going for us in the US is more robust free speech rights than in most countries. There's relatively little you can be punished for saying in the US--by government, at least. Prosecutions for obscenity have almost, though not entirely, disappeared. There's no such thing as "hate speech" per se in the US: you can't be prosecuted for political statements about groups of people or religions. You can legally be a Nazi. There's very little sexual expression you can be prosecuted for at this point, so one way or another if you are determined to publish it, you can. We have a guarantee of free speech written in our constitution, unlike some countries (including, I think, Australia, but I'm not certain of that).

Citing the American Constitution is not necessarily the best argument (not with me), not given what else it allows (or is interpreted to allow). Looking in from the outside, there are a number of elements in the Constitution that could do with a bit of a fix.

Your little Freudian slip sums it up nicely - even you don't seem fully confident that your current state of liberty is secure. Given your Supreme Court right now, I'd be nervous too. Let's wind back more clocks that I'm sure nobody thought could be wound back.

Boil a frog slowly, my friend, and it never knows how much trouble it's in.

 

[Whanmore]

Why aren't these stories made into movies?

We talkin porn ?