The separator between the comment pane and the story pane is moveable. Drag it up or down if you need more room to read on the screen.
From: Mat Twassel
Re: Office Politics, by Alexis Siefert
Date: 27 Aug 2001 20:34:20 GMT
This "introduction" seems to divide into two parts, and I'm at a loss what happens between the divisions. Maybe it will become clear later.
Although all the information is okay, the revelations don't seem quite dramatic enough. Especially the first section. A suggestion: see if you can do this introduction backwards. Start with the woman hooked up on the table, from there through the pulling off of the tape, see if you can work your way back to the start of the evening, to the start of this new career.
I do like the premise. I think we could use some more details in places. It feels a bit rushed.
I am interested in where the night will go.
So a big plus for premise and another for promise.
You need to work on the prose. There are many little rough spots. Probably just because it's an early draft.
The security guard is a young man, working nights so that he can be home during the day for his children and his wife. He rarely sees a woman other than his wife nude, and he's never seen one bound and displayed as I am. He's flustered, not knowing how to respond to me, especially when he looks me in the face and realizes that he sees me every day, coming in and out of this building. You see, this is where I work. These are the people for whom I work. He looks to the man I'm with then back to me. Understanding dawns and his face changes. No longer does he look at me with respect, as a highly educated professional woman. He realizes that I'm nothing more than a bought-and-paid-for plaything.
In here we have some mild POV problems and we have too much summarizing. We need to see more and be told less. No need to rush!
--Mat Twassel
From: Anoninsac
Re: Office Politics, by Alexis Siefert
Date: 27 Aug 2001 14:10:45 -0700
Hi Alexis,
I second what Mistress Desdmona said about the descriptions. I think the way the story unfolds really started to build the tension up to the point where she arrives at the building and she realized what was going to happen.
I also noted some problems in the story. Coming out of the elevator she falls to her hands and knees but her hands are handcuffed behind her earlier and then released later.
It kept me reading and makes me wonder what happnens next.
From: Gary Jordan
Re: Office Politics, by Alexis Siefert
Date: 27 Aug 2001 22:37:15 GMT
1. For a work involving bondage and humiliation, this one seems to strike dead-on. I feel her humiliation as accutely as she does.
2. The idea of collusion among the legal eagles, "respectful adversaries" who must make amends to one another for defeats is interesting.
However, the improvement in my professional life didn't begin to compare with the improvement in my personal life.
Maybe instead of "improvement", you might say "change". Until she shows her true submissive nature and revels in her humiliation, it's hard to say it is an improvement. Too soon in the story to say, I think.
I hit the floor on my hands and knees, the carpet leaving small burns on my delicate skin.
Aren't her hands bound *behind* her back? There are a few continuity gaps, and others have pointed to others. Nothing a good proofreader or editor wouldn't catch.
So, when can I prepare the web page?
Gary
From: Nick
Re: Office Politics, by Alexis Siefert
Date: 27 Aug 2001 15:48:18 -0700
Wot! No sex?
Well anyway, I dont mind about that. Actual sex is not necessary for good erotica.
I like the way the story is scoped. It's clearly about humiliation, but it isn't just sexual humiliation. This extends to the 'real' world - her future working relationship with colleagues and clients etc. Unfortunately Des beat me to commenting on the security guard bit, but that certainly added flesh to the story. It would be interesting to see if this develops along those lines. How would she deal with someone who had seen her naked (and worse) on a professional level? Particularly if she is trying to prosecute that person!
The other thing I like is the actual style of writing. It kind of 'whispers'.
I'm interested the contrast between the ambitious young lawyer and the 'subbie'. We see the situations:
Some are easier to identify than others. There is the last lawyer I embarrassed during a trial with an expertly written brief. The doctor whom I helped to best during a malpractice suit, the other adversaries that our firm has encountered, all of whom have probably referred to me as the "bitch" at one time or another. I know I'm good, very good at my job, and my arrogance has on more than one occasion colored my attitude and demeanor towards those around me. Towards co-workers and opponents. That's what got me here.
But at this point she is facing them naked and they are about to take their revenge. We know how she feels as a subbie, but how does she feel as a lawyer? How does that part of her that 'enjoys the kill' react? I think you could play with this thought, though I realise that to do so you would probably have to step outside the genre. Characters with internal conflicts are always interesting.
Finally, it may be me, but I didn't feel that her reaction to her boss asking her to stand up would have indicated anything that significant as written. Something like: 'In my confusion I felt awkward complying, and I tried to stand with as much poise as poossible. However, it was as if he could read my mind...'.
Cheers
Nick
From: Ray
Re: Office Politics, by Alexis Siefert
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 17:32:40 -0400
"Desdmona22" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] ...
The following is story # 7 in The Fish Tank, we invite your comments under the same guidelines:
2 positive comments
2 things for improvement
Try not to repeat!
Submissions and comments are being stored at: www.asstr/~Desdmona/fishtank/base
Alexis would like you all to understand that this is an unfinished introduction to a story, and she's wondering if it's really worth pursuing. There are parts she likes, and parts she doesn't. (And yes she knows there's no actual sex in this part!)
Office Politics (M+F, bdsm, humil)
Alexis,
First, yes. I do think the story is worth pursuing. Thus far it is very well crafted with thought given to certain details which can truly bring a story to life. Things like noticing the change in floor texture as she moves from one area to another, though rather than 'hearing' this change it should also be something she 'feels' through her pumps.
The introduction of a 'new associate' with the firm also being present was an additional master stroke.
Two things to correct ... which two? I think it was Nick or Gary who pointed out her falling to her hands and knees ... I won't duplicate, but might suggest that she twists as she falls, landing on her right shoulder and knees (since no alternative was offered.).
Two things to point out: one subtle, one obvious.
You mention that the Security Guard recognized her as being bound, "How?" - her hands were cuffed behind her, and attached by a chain or another set of cuffs to a "ring" on the back of her collar. All of the hardware covered by the 'cape' she was wearing. Your comment was "I'm wearing only a dark cape, fastened at my throat. It drapes over my front, but it opens slightly with each step I take." Wearing only the cape and collar, with her arms behind her, the action of the cape, as described would show nothing to the guard of her bindings, only her barely hidden nudity.
Two things have not yet been properly established, although they were marginally alluded to. Her "desperate" situation in her former job. ( ... He had found me, desperate in my cramped office ... ) Maybe "desperately trying to make ends meet in ... " The second thing not yet fully established is her Arrogant better than thou gloating attitude (which supposedly is what has gotten her into trouble with her "Master") Outside of her sitting at his desk, emulating his own posture, no 'samples' are given. If nothing else, answer this question: "What did she do or say to the 'new associate' to gain his admittance to the 'Humility Party'?"
I do realize that this is an early draft and I hope our comments are helpful in refining it for you. Again, I definitely think you should NOT abandon the project ... it has such promise.
Ray
From: Always Horny
Re: Office Politics, by Alexis Siefert
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 08:55:47 +0200
Desdmona22 wrote:
The following is story # 7 in The Fish Tank, we invite your comments under the same guidelines:
2 positive comments
A lot of well-done descriptions. Good use of vocabulary.
The good lead-in and the creative setting for the well-described humiliation.
2 things for improvement
1-The constant use of present-tense 1st person PoV is wearing. And overly technical at times: "A quick intake of air through my clenched teeth is my only reaction" sounds out of tone to me.
2-Is the blindfold really useful if she is taken to her usual office? The same building, with the same employees as daily, that stretches my SoD: how is this boss going to run his company with productive employees afterwards.
Try not to repeat!
-Hands and knees, ofc.
-high heels don't make a difference in reaching the table with the toes.
AH
A_H_01 at hotmail. com
From: Jeff Zephyr
Re: Office Politics, by Alexis Siefert
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 08:59:40 -0600
On 27 Aug 2001 17:52:40 GMT, [email protected] (Desdmona22) wrote:
The following is story # 7 in The Fish Tank, we invite your comments under the same guidelines:
The intro part is definitely worth continuing. The feel for the humiliation, and the subtle submission (we don't see her struggling with the relationship up to this point, or even too much with the situation presented), is very well done. There are lot of nice details and description of the senstations, while the heroine remains rather anonymous in appearance. Makes it sound like a secret confession, a chronicle of her "fall" from her position of power and importance.
In order to do this, the story uses 1st person POV with an omniscience narrator. It isn't always clear which "voice" is speaking. I get an impression, which isn't clearly shown, that the tale is told from a point of view long after the events in the story. That is why details about the guard's life (who the heroine wouldn't know much about, most likely) and such, the foreshadowing of the acceptance of the changes, etc., all fit. But it is hard to tell, since it doesn't open with a hint of retrospective, no clue as to where the heroine is now, telling the tale.
The submissive relationship to the boss isn't made quite clear. That is OK, except that I think that it needs more details in each transition, to let the reader know that time has passed, and that the relationship seems happy. We don't know why she submitted so easily, only that she did and she seemed to enjoy it, at least up to this point.
Other places, like her changing clothes, entering the room, and others seem to be missing a few details to clear up things. A little more introduction to each situation, a few more details, a better description maybe of each of her new "masters," might make it stand out more.
The tale itself is a very nice consensual humiliation piece, well worth keeping.
Jeff
Web site at http://www.asstr.org/~jeffzephyr/ For FTP, ftp://ftp.asstr.org/pub/Authors/jeffzephyr/
There is nothing more important than petting the cat.
From: Anne747
Re: Office Politics, by Alexis Siefert
Date: 31 Aug 2001 02:10:17 GMT
Desdmona wrote:
The following is story # 6 in The Fish Tank, we invite your comments under the same guidelines:
I'm going to bow out this week. I've left it too late for no repeats, and to Alexis - I never quite 'get' humilation pieces, so I don't know that I could help out.
To Matt, yes it does stand alone (although at the start I had a few moments where I couldn't wrap my brain around the various characters).
To Alexis - any story that .you. the writer is interested in, is worth continuing.
Next week, I'm planning on taking some time Monday night!
Anne
To reply by mail - remove the b in the address
Anne's Erotic Story Archive - http://annejet.pair.com/ Free Story FAQ - http://annejet.pair.com/fsfaq/
From: Poison Ivan
Re: Office Politics, by Alexis Siefert
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 10:39:49 -0400
Alexis,
Your story did catch my interest, and I'm not usually intrigued by these humiliation stories. The part I liked best was the hinting at what she did in her professional life to deserve this humiliation. What it was she did that makes her feel deserving of humiliation wasn't exactly made clear - not yet - but it looked like it was beginning to come together. Was she sub-consciously ashamed for "selling out?" Or did she feel genuinely guilty for defeating her adversaries? Or was she just too ambitious for her own good? Her employer spells it out as not acknowledging the worth of her opponents, but I'm not sure this is all she cares about.
I thought the opening paragraph could be made a little clearer. When you say "he", it is sometimes vague - are you talking about the televangelist or the boss? You could get away with this paragraph later in the story, when we know the relationships a little better. But at the very beginning, it was a little confusing.
The first paragraph of the second section is in past tense, and the rest in present tense. Was this intentional? It's OK the way it is, I suppose, but I wonder if there was a reason for it. If there is no reason for it, it reads like a mistake.
There were lots of good bits and pieces throughout. The part where she's sitting in the car, a mockery of Victorian manner. I liked that conflict implied by that. "I'm wearing only a dark cape, fastened at my throat." The use of the words "dark" and "throat" gives a sense of menacing. And, as things kick into action, when he waits for her response: "I remain still, my head bowed." Reminded me of a parent scolding a child: "Why did you do such a thing?" And the kid standing there, his hands thrust in his pockets, staring at the ground as he answers, "I don't know." Very nice.
But it's the ethics of being a lawyer that kept the story moving along for me. While I expect the next section will focus more strongly on the humiliation, I hope you can continue to work in what she thinks about herself and her job into the story. I am very curious to see what the climax of the story is, and what our heroine thinks about herself as it comes!
Poison Ivan
From: PleaseCain
Re: Office Politics, by Alexis Siefert
Date: 31 Aug 2001 21:12:30 GMT
The scene where he tells her to stand is a real deirdre moment. The way she hesitates and then does it, you really nailed it. I think even if you work this into a long story, that this early scene would still be the most memorable. The image of her walking naked beneath the cape is also striking.
Another of your strengths is the way you work her background into the narrative. Most of it is delivered in one paragraph, and yet the narrative voice still sounds natural and unforced. Very skillful.
Some of the punctuation needs improvement, and there is a continuity error in the fact that he gestures for her to turn around outside the car when she is still blindfolded. Both of these can be fixed in further editing.
I became a bit disoriented with the stated reasons for her punishment. Obviously he is putting her through her paces to redress some personal wrong or disobedience she had committed against him, but having worked amongst these creatures for some years, I can assure you that they lose little sleep, and in fact positively rejoice, at the defeats and slights delivered unto their rival-tribes. I think perhaps my own confusion may be rooted in the powerless narrator's awkwardness during that section, and in that case it is a positive.
It's a good piece of writing, thanks for sharing it with us.
Cain
From: Frank McCoy
Re: Office Politics, by Alexis Siefert
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 19:11:03 GMT
[email protected] (Desdmona22) wrote:
2 positive comments
At least the story doesn't seem to be one of those torture-things that goes on forever; being just one pay-back for one night. And (being a flashback) she obviously isn't all that unsatisfied or cheated with the long-term results.
As a start, it's OK I guess, fairly well written and not annoying with inconsistencies. Pain and bondage stories (as you can guess) not being my favorite; though this could be one I might read without too much of a squick. I can't tell yet though. For a BDSM story, that's about as big a compliment as you might get from me.
2 things for improvement
Well, just ONE thing bothers me ... OK, two in one; but both basically the same idea. A. There has to be some indication to the girl right up front (and therefore in the story itself) that no permanent damage is going to be allowed to her, or with her old enemies in charge like that, with no restraints, what's to keep them from burning her with torches, tying her mouth closed with duct-tape, kicking her in the gut with hobnailed boots, and leaving her to choke to death in her own puke?
Many people, especially ones who felt like those you described in the story, would gladly do that or worse to an enemy left in their hands. In fact, many would do just that sort of thing, even if they KNEW it would cost them many years behind bars, just to get real revenge.
There has to be not only limits, but some indication of monitoring to prevent our little heroine from being left dead, carved-up, tattooed, face torn-off, or completely broken after being beaten with baseball bats as revenge.
And if SHE doesn't know this, right up front and obvious, so she feels SAFE (if not from just normal pain and abuse) then there's no way I could believe that she'd ever go for it. A mousy and dusty ending in some small store-front would be better by far than losing her beauty, personality, or even life to vindicative people who feel she's done them dirt.
Yeah, that's ONE objection.
The second part, really applies to the first as well: Permanent
damage. That includes damage to career, as well. Remember, she's
doing this to FORWARD her career, not destroy it. And those cameras
running that you mentioned would do just that ... especially if people
who had it in for her (as described) have the film. Just ONE of them
(and who is to tell which one) could leak the film out and completely
destroy her career. Somehow I doubt almost as strongly that she'd
submit to having her career in THAT kind of danger, as she would to
being beaten to death or similar damage done to her body, as described
above. Not if she has a brain in her body at all, and isn't just some
dumb idiotic bimbo (which certainly doesn't fit the rest of the
story).
Try not to repeat!
Not having looked at the other replies, I don't think I repeated. I'll go look after posting this.
/ ' /
,-/-, . __ /
(/ / ((/|/ / </ <
From: Alexis Siefert
Re: Office Politics, by Alexis Siefert
Date: 13 Nov 2001 23:00:46 GMT
Frank (and all others)
THANK YOU!!! I had to look for a minute to realize that this was my story you were responding to. That made me realize that I don't think I ever responded in the group to the other wonderful and dead-on suggestions and comments made when this piece was originally in the tank.
Unfortunately, RL seriously intervened right around the time that this story was 'tanked' (in more ways than one <g>), and I wasn't around these parts for the conclusion and weeks following the story's open comment period. Since then, I've been 'off' writing, but when that part comes back, I'll take another look at this story and the suggestions and hopefully get it finished.
Thank you all for your comments and your help.
One of the things that I wanted Des to make clear is that this is very much a rough story in progress. She e-mailed me early one morning asking if I had anything because at that point the entries had all been from male authors (looking for some diversity <g>) and she didn't have an entry for that week. I had this one sitting around, partially written, sitting stagnant. I had hoped that a week in the tank would light the fire
Specifically about Frank's comments ...
I know, Frank, how you feel about BDSM and D/s stories, so I appreciate that you could put aside your personal story preferences and comment positively; I realize how hard that is to do with a story that is way out of your preferred genre. In other words, when it comes to positive feedback, I'll take what I can get. The comments from other readers were very encouraging and supportive, thank you all.
Your comments concerning what you see as a logical outcome of her situation (massive damage, death, permanent damage, etc) are often ones that are dismissed as being part of the genre. I realize that her relationship isn't fully developed in this piece as currently written, but D/s encounters that are within an established relationship are not analogous to random kidnap/torture sessions (which most often do end up as you described). This is possibly one of those genre-specific quirks that doesn't translate well to someone who doesn't read D/s or BDSM stories. However, I'm not an expert - that's just my opinion.
About the danger to her career, first of all, these weren't 'enemies' in the revenge/anger/hatred sense. These were professional rivals in a profession that takes rivalry and the old-boy network very seriously (the major reason I didn't finish law school - game playing, game playing, game playing). This story could possibly fit into the 'secrets that happen in the backroom' type of story. Things that no one really knows about but that go on behind the scenes. There was a Dilbert cartoon some time back where all the CEO's of competiting companies were playing golf, joined for the first time by a woman CEO. She waxed rhapsodic about how wonderful it was that she could finally experience what really happened when the "old boy network" met. They talked golf and the weather until she got disgusted that no business was happening and she left. No sooner had she left the green than they decided who would get what contract from the point on and what each person was going to bid, etc ... That's sort of what I saw this story being - a behind the scenes look at what doesn't really happen, but what someone might fantasize goes on in the boardrooms.
Alexis
(p&e)
"An idea that is not dangerous is unworthy of being called an idea at all." - Oscar Wilde
ftp://ftp.asstr.org/pub/Authors/Alexis_S/ http://www.asstr.org/~Alexis_S/
From: Frank McCoy
Re: Office Politics, by Alexis Siefert
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 01:44:19 GMT
[email protected] (Alexis Siefert) wrote:
Frank (and all others)
THANK YOU!!! I had to look for a minute to realize that this was my story you were responding to. That made me realize that I don't think I ever responded in the group to the other wonderful and dead-on suggestions and comments made when this piece was originally in the tank.
Unfortunately, RL seriously intervened right around the time that this story was 'tanked' (in more ways than one <g>), and I wasn't around these parts for the conclusion and weeks following the story's open comment period. Since then, I've been 'off' writing, but when that part comes back, I'll take another look at this story and the suggestions and hopefully get it finished.
Thank you all for your comments and your help.
One of the things that I wanted Des to make clear is that this is very much a rough story in progress. She e-mailed me early one morning asking if I had anything because at that point the entries had all been from male authors (looking for some diversity <g>) and she didn't have an entry for that week. I had this one sitting around, partially written, sitting stagnant. I had hoped that a week in the tank would light the fire
Specifically about Frank's comments ...
I know, Frank, how you feel about BDSM and D/s stories, so I appreciate that you could put aside your personal story preferences and comment positively; I realize how hard that is to do with a story that is way out of your preferred genre. In other words, when it comes to positive feedback, I'll take what I can get. The comments from other readers were very encouraging and supportive, thank you all.
Your comments concerning what you see as a logical outcome of her situation (massive damage, death, permanent damage, etc) are often ones that are dismissed as being part of the genre. I realize that her relationship isn't fully developed in this piece as currently written, but D/s encounters that are within an established relationship are not analogous to random kidnap/torture sessions (which most often do end up as you described). This is possibly one of those genre-specific quirks that doesn't translate well to someone who doesn't read D/s or BDSM stories. However, I'm not an expert - that's just my opinion.
Oh I read them. Not exactly my favorite; but my reading is most catholic. I read many stories I don't particularly enjoy.
However. the objection I have isn't what you think. You say, "D/s encounters that are within an established relationship are not analogous to random kidnap/torture sessions," and I'd fully agree. What bothers me here in this story, is that it is NOT an "established relationship" with those who will be torturing her ... and not even one with the person she has established a relationship, but with people who (as you point out) have no reason to do her anything but dirt! Not only that but you imply that the one person she might trust in the whole deal is going to GO AWAY, leaving her to the not-so-tender mercies of people who have no reason or need to be easy on her. And ... she COULD just slip away in the night; just one more body floating down the river, and who would say differently?
That maybe the people in the story aren't as bad as I fear, doesn't mean SHE would be willing to risk life, health, beauty, career, sanity, and even life itself in the hands of *people she does NOT know, has NO previous relationship to, and NO reason to trust!
My point is:
She needs SOME very definite reassurance that she's going to come
out of this session whole, sane, alive, and with no permanent damage,
or she'd be a bloody-assed FOOL to accept the deal. In the story, no
such reassurance is given ... and THAT bothers me as being
completely inconsistent with the woman's intelligence as previously
demonstrated.
It's the inconsistency that bothers me in the story. She can't be both a brilliant attorney and a stupid blithering idiot when it comes to trusting people ... people especially who have a reputation of being nasty to those they don't like.
So, either she has some really definite idea that somebody is watching out for her interests, somebody she TRUSTS, or she just bloody AIN'T going to go in there!
You're right about "established relationships". This (as described) is anything BUT such a relationship. So, where's the monitor to make sure somebody doesn't use the bullwhip to strip the skin from her face, or the baseball bat to break her legs? You just implied that the ONLY person she trusts just left her in the complete control of people who dislike her ... Oh maybe not like a jilted lover or man she'd crushed and destroyed a career; but ones who had no reason to wish her well, either. So ... Why should any one of them CARE if one of the others had sadistic tendencies and LIKED to see pretty girls raped with baseball bats and have their eyes cut out while alive?
A trusting BDSM arrangement has a safe word. None here. There (as described) isn't even mention of repercussions if one of the men accidentally maims her permanently, let alone deliberately does so.
So ... Tell me again why a brilliant lawyer is going to TRUST these men, when they have no reason to even leave her alive, let alone sane and whole in body?
NO, I just cannot buy the story as presented. She's either smart or she's not. You have her being an idiot when it comes to personal health, while still being a brilliant lawyer. As a story, it just doesn't make sense to me. WAY too much "suspension of belief" needed.
Now if you want to CHANGE the story into where she is kidnapped and delivered to these people, I could buy it, no matter how much (or how little) they took revenge on her.
OR, if you put in some believable restraint on them that she knows about, then again, I could buy her being willing to give a night's pain for a successful career. (Though, even there, I'd REALLY expect there to be some evidence that in similar circumstances she could expect to have such a chance at somebody who had "stepped out of line" in a similar manner ... That, for it to be believable. Only an idiot is going to take punishment that ONLY applies to her, and nobody else. Again, she's not supposed to be an idiot.)
So ... Either she's there voluntarily ... and somehow KNOWS FOR SURE she's going to come out of it sane and whole, or she has been abducted. If the knowledge isn't there, she AIN'T going to put her head in a noose voluntarily. Pain she might accept. Death, torture, and dismemberment, no.
So, resolve the two somehow, or have a totally unbelievable story. Of course, if what you WANT is to have her believe that she could be cut in two with nobody caring what happens, then accept that gracefully ... Well, that to me is some REALLY weird type of mind-control story, which isn't what I think you wanted to have.
Oh yeah ... I've read stories about where girl didn't mind having their guts cut out before their eyes and left dangling on the floor in front of them ... and they really didn't mind at all. But I didn't find THOSE stories believable in the slightest, either.
Just trying to help show WHY I find it so objectionable; and it's NOT whatever pain and punishment she might get, but the dichotomy of the story not being consistent with it's own premise.
About the danger to her career, first of all, these weren't 'enemies' in the revenge/anger/hatred sense. These were professional rivals in a profession that takes rivalry and the old-boy network very seriously (the major reason I didn't finish law school - game playing, game playing, game playing). This story could possibly fit into the 'secrets that happen in the backroom' type of story. Things that no one really knows about but that go on behind the scenes. There was a Dilbert cartoon some time back where all the CEO's of competiting companies were playing golf, joined for the first time by a woman CEO. She waxed rhapsodic about how wonderful it was that she could finally experience what really happened when the "old boy network" met. They talked golf and the weather until she got disgusted that no business was happening and she left. No sooner had she left the green than they decided who would get what contract from the point on and what each person was going to bid, etc ... That's sort of what I saw this story being - a behind the scenes look at what doesn't really happen, but what someone might fantasize goes on in the boardrooms.
Ah ... But the "danger to her career" is that video getting out ... even accidentally! It's NOT the men watching it, in this case, but somebody slipping a copy "to a friend" to watch ... and that friend loaning it to somebody else ... until the wrong person (a judge, for example?) and she suddenly has no credibility in a courtroom at all.
Again, it's her brilliance as a lawyer that's being reduced to the stupidity of an autistic child. Supposedly (being a good lawyer) she KNOWS what evidence like videos are, how they get where they aren't supposed to get, and how little they can be trusted to stay secret, once made.
I just cannot buy the idea of HER agreeing to have her career ruined in the future, for a very TEMPORARY advancement of same. For the video WOULD get out, she would KNOW that (being a lawyer) and the moment she saw the cameras would walk out!
Political Suicide can be as real as physical. I can't see her tying THAT noose around her neck either. And in LAW practice, having a video like that of you making the rounds would be FAR worse than her stripping naked in public and running through a playground! (The snide background remarks ....) OK ... OK!!! Not "worse" ... Just as bad, though.
Nope ... I just can't buy it. Sorry.
So ... is the gal really a brilliant lawyer or actually a complete idiot who believes anything she's told by the lying asshole who's set out to destroy her in this manner?
/ ' /
,-/-, . __ /
(/ / ((/|/ / </ <
From: Alexis Siefert
Re: Office Politics, by Alexis Siefert
Date: 14 Nov 2001 23:31:59 GMT
Frank ~
You raise some interesting points. I'm sure that they will remain in my mind when I open this story again and finish it.
Thank you for taking your time.
Alexis.
"An idea that is not dangerous is unworthy of being called an idea at all." - Oscar Wilde
ftp://ftp.asstr.org/pub/Authors/Alexis_S/ http://www.asstr.org/~Alexis_S/
From: Jeff Zephyr
Re: Office Politics, by Alexis Siefert
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 20:33:37 -0600
On 14 Nov 2001 23:31:59 GMT, [email protected] (Alexis Siefert) wrote:
Frank ~
You raise some interesting points. I'm sure that they will remain in my mind when I open this story again and finish it.
Thank you for taking your time.
A quick short point, just on this issue: in a story it is possible to sweep away certain realistic worries or problems, and simply assume that they aren't relevant. The reader either has to agree with the author that it isn't relevant, which works fine for tales about fantasies since reality doesn't quite belong there, or has to get caught up in the situation enough to put up with the unrealistic activities.
NC stories in many ways, of all sorts, tend to the fantasy side of things. Realism tends to involve much more cooperative relationships - in RL, NC = rape.
Jeff
Web site at http://www.asstr.org/~jeffzephyr/ For FTP, ftp://ftp.asstr.org/pub/Authors/jeffzephyr/
There is nothing more important than petting the cat.
From: Frank McCoy
Re: Office Politics, by Alexis Siefert
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 03:22:25 GMT
[email protected] (Alexis Siefert) wrote:
Frank ~
You raise some interesting points. I'm sure that they will remain in my mind when I open this story again and finish it.
That was the idea.
The problems are not insurmountable for the story to work essentially
the way you want it to. (I can think of several quick fixes, and one
good one ... that takes a bit more writing.) It just will take some
thought.
Example of a quick-fix:
She walks in thinking, "At least HE will be here making sure nothing
goes wrong." Then, when her neck is in the noose (figuratively, of
course) he walks out, leaving her to their tender (Ouch!) mercies.
(Of course, those cameras could be for HIS [or his people] monitoring, not for their fun and games to do with afterward.)
A more comprehensive fix might be involving her in some PREVIOUS punishment (of a similar nature) for somebody else ... so she KNOWS the rules, because she had to abide by them herself in the past. That solves almost every issue I brought up. Only the mention being made that she HAD done such need be brought up somewhere in the introduction. A lesser possibility (not so satisfying) being that she was an observer to same, enforcing the rules.
Just two examples of how it's possible to resolve the brilliant-lawyer/trusting-bimbo dichotomy.
Thank you for taking your time.
You're welcome. I hope you DO finish the story. As that type goes, it was quite a good start. Of course (as you know) that genre isn't my favorite. Sometimes examining the idea of torture and humiliation WITHOUT causing permanent damage (or better yet, without damage at all) can be ... well, instructive.
OH! Yes ... With that in mind: A PLUS for the story I didn't mention before:
That bit with the duct-tape was cute. She WAS warned to shave ... and ripping out loose hairs is pretty much accepted practice for those who want to get rid of such. People even PAY for such torture (if you can believe that)! They call it, "Waxing." ;-} Hmmm ... maybe wax would have been better than the duct-tape. HOT going on (not scorching skin, but hot enough to be painful) and doing a better job of removing any hairs missed by a razor.
But I LIKE the idea of her first punishment being on something she was warned about well in advance. (One thing I did NOT like about it, was the implication of her being punished AFTERWARD for something she had no control over ... stumbling. The idea, as I read the story, was her being punished for her deliberate actions. Ah well. I realize some people get off on the idea of punishment for the pleasure of punishing, with little or often no excuse at all.) I think it would be really CUTE (but not very likely or maybe not even possible) for ALL her punishments to be of that type: Things she was TOLD about, but didn't take seriously enough, where the pain comes from not following instructions completely. Toenails come to mind, along with hairdo. Other things might include having an enema, lube placed in her cunt, proper height of high-heeled shoes, the very outfit she wears, and (an extreme because it's a permanent change, but acceptable in our society) even making sure her ears are pierced. Still, it's hard to imagine such things going on all night. That wouldn't be quite consistent though, with her having observed such activities before ... because then she would KNOW to take extra care.
Consistency, consistency.
What I like (and rarely get, but really appreciate when I do) is when People tear MY stories apart, especially for inconsistencies. "Realism" isn't as important (in my mind) as a story following it's own logic or original premise. After all, "real life" is boring ... That's why we read (and write) stories about life on the edge of what "normal" people would never do, or things happen. They should be possible, even if highly improbable. (That's a hint: My story is supposed to be posted Monday.)
Ah well ... I've rambled on far longer than I usually do on the stories I really LIKE. Maybe it's easier to find the flaws in one that a person doesn't drool over.
/ ' /
,-/-, . __ /
(/ / ((/|/ / </ <
From: Jeff Zephyr
Re: Office Politics, by Alexis Siefert
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 10:08:00 -0600
On 15 Nov 2001 06:05:56 GMT, [email protected] (Gary Jordan) wrote:
Frank said:
[email protected] (Alexis Siefert) wrote:
Frank ~
You raise some interesting points. I'm sure that they will remain in my mind when I open this story again and finish it.
You know, these are the exact words I've seen recommended by various authors for kissing off some "fan" or other correspondent who doesn't get it and can't take a hint.
That was the idea.
The problems are not insurmountable for the story to work essentially the way you want it to. (I can think of several quick fixes, and one good one ... that takes a bit more writing.) It just will take some thought.
For its genre, the story needs none of the fixes you recommend - the "victim" is revealed to be a natural submissive with masochistic tendancies. In the BDSM Hum stories I've glanced at, no safe words are ever given. Does that squick you? You've admitted that it does.
For me, when I responded, the issues that Frank brought up simply didn't trigger anything for me. The woman clearly accepted her situation, and wanted it. That is the whole package in the genre. If it were otherwise, you'd have a very different kind of tale, which could be OK, but the need to use coercion and go on about the threats and hazards would change the tone completely.
Besides, the danger is part of the thrill. Assume that she secretly likes the risk-taking - maybe part of letting go of the stress from her work - and accept that she will go along with things, because she enjoys the situation. Or at least, doesn't believe that it will go too far.
Especially, take it as a fantasy that this woman might have about the situation, rather than something she finds to be absolutely true as given.
Jeff
Web site at http://www.asstr.org/~jeffzephyr/ For FTP, ftp://ftp.asstr.org/pub/Authors/jeffzephyr/
There is nothing more important than petting the cat.
From: Desdmona
Re: Office Politics, by Alexis Siefert
Date: 15 Nov 2001 17:06:44 GMT
From: [email protected] (Gary Jordan)
<snipped>
I don't understand S/M
myself, nor hum. When people called me on the safeword issue in my FT story, they were right - I write rom cons with light bondage. Calling Alexis wrong for writing a D/S S/M hum is just not understanding the target audience, or the nature of the story.
I just want to make one point here. Unless a story says upfront that it's a non-fiction story, we can assume that a large percentage of stories that are written and submitted are fantasies. Of course there are those that tend to bring in flahses of real-life, but still the fact remains they are fantasies. (At least I hope so)
Having said that, I don't think any author intends for their story to be used as a visual aide to teach the responsible way to write or for that matter, act out in RL, about any particular genre.
If responsibility was the main issue, then we'd all have to talk about the use of condoms in every story. (There are tons of other responsiblity issues but I'll stick to this one, hoping it has less fuel to start a flame)
In "Chocolate Sighs" I believe the reason the safeword became an issue is because it was brought up in the story itself. Once you establish knowledge between right and wrong then there needs to be some plausible reason for choosing wrong.
If the idea of a safeword had never been brought up, the majority of readers woudn't have given it another thought. But because the characters are aware of using a safeword, and suddenly decide not to use one, then you get bowels in an uproar over just exactly what the purpose of a safeword is.
One thing is for certain, we have as many varying opinions on what genre's squick us as we do authors and readers, so we'll never be able to come to any hard set rule on what should and shouldn't be included in genre stories.
Alexis's story is clearly a story about humiliation. When I read it the first time, and then again after Frank's posting, I still am awe-struck by the vast emotion that swoops off the page. I felt every bit as humiliated as the character did, maybe more! What's more humiliating than being a high-powered, intelligent attorney, but for some reason (not disclosed) craving and giving into being a submissive?
Sorry to disagree with you Frank! But it's because she's so high-powered and intelligent that the giving into submissiveness becomes so humiliating!
I woudn't change a thing about that.
Desdmona
From: Frank McCoy
Re: Office Politics, by Alexis Siefert
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 01:34:05 GMT
[email protected] (Desdmona22) wrote:
If responsibility was the main issue, then we'd all have to talk about the use of condoms in every story. (There are tons of other responsiblity issues but I'll stick to this one, hoping it has less fuel to start a flame)
It's not a responsibility issue, it's a scared-to-death issue.
Irresponsibility, is having sex without a condom, therefore chancing pregnancy.
Scared-to-death is having sex without a condom and an open sore on your prick, with a woman you know has full-blown AIDS.
Irresponsibility is noose-play with somebody you know, love, and trust.
Scared-to-death is noose-play with a complete stranger you just met, while the Hillside Strangler has killed three people in the local area in the last week, and it's the number one issue on everybody's lips.
Irresponsibility, everybody does on occasion. Scared-to-death people only do to escape what they see as a worse or more-certain fate (like a 44-magnum aimed at their brain). (How many here would willingly stay on a plane full of Arabs heading for Israel, when you saw a gun and what looked like several sticks of dynamite peeking out of one of the men's carry-on-luggage? That's WILLINGLY. Remember, you've got to VOLUNTEER to do it, just like the woman in the story. Sure, you WANT to go to Israel. You've PLANNED this vacation to the Holy sights for YEARS. Just like the woman in the story likes bondage and discipline, and WANTS to be punished.)
But, nobody here seems to see the difference; so I'll shut up. "It's all part of the genre."
Maybe so ... But that doesn't mean I'm going to believe it's even a possibility. I don't know ANYBODY that crazy (and I know some really weird people). Hell, I can't even imagine anybody that crazy.
I'd sooner believe in people intentionally diving ten stories head-first off a building, into a concrete sidewalk and surviving. Makes a lot more sense. Yeah, I suppose it's possible. And (to me) a lot more probable that either of the somebody volunteering for one of the two "scared-to-death" scenarios above ... OR the story as presented without any safeguards.
Mind the TWO qualifications: "As presented" and "without safeguards".
As written, the story sounds about as much fun, about as likely, and about as safe as a man cutting off his own prick to "see what it feels like" just for the thrill of it. Some thrill. I'm supposed to "suspend judgement" and believe that an intelligent man, not high on drugs, would do that?
I think not.
I'd far sooner believe "The Pied Piper's" story about kids having lots
of fun letting somebody cut their guts out and filling the body-cavity
with sand, just for the thrill of it. (Ick!) It makes more sense.
But, like you say, "I don't understand the genre."
Since nobody here seems to even SEE the point I'm trying to make, and it's NOT about disliking bondage and discipline (or even rape and mayhem) stories, I'll shut up. I've said my say, made my point; and nobody here even seems to have a clue as to what I'm talking about, from the responses I've gotten.
Geesh. I thought most people here had brains.
I understand the thrill some people have with bondage and punishment. I just don't swallow one person being both brilliant and a complete idiot in the same story ... no matter WHAT the story is about. It makes the whole story complete bullshit to me. If she does calculus in her head, and then suddenly can't make correct change at the grocery store, then either she's just had a massive blow to the head, a stroke, or the person writing the story can't make up his/her mind what sort of person is being written about. Stories like that are worse than ones with wandering tenses and horrible spelling. (To ME, at least.) Especially when problems like that are as easily corrected as spelling mistakes, once somebody points them out.
Not one person HERE would make the mistake described in the story; so why would the as-described super-smart lawyer? Now if she was a simpering, submissive, idiot who trusts everybody, then OK ... But such people don't last ten minutes in the law profession. Make her a sexretary, a dancer, a loan-officer, even an Electronics Engineer ... but not a supervisor or (Heaven forbid!) a brilliant lawyer. Such people CANNOT trust just anybody and survive. Supposedly, she not only survived, but ate the competition alive. No way! Combining the two types of people in one person is like having an ugly beauty-queen, a tone-deaf pop-singer, or (in this case) an intelligent idiot or a blindly trusting paranoiac.
I don't think that was the type of parody intended here.
If anybody else wants to discuss this with me, take it to email. I've belabored the point long enough here; and it's been like explaining the rainbow to somebody who is color-blind.
Responsibility issue indeed.
NOT!!!
/ ' /
,-/-, . __ /
(/ / ((/|/ / </ <
From: dennyw
Re: Office Politics, by Alexis Siefert
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:01:43 -0800
On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 01:34:05 GMT, [email protected] (Frank McCoy) held forth, saying:
I just don't swallow one person being both brilliant and a complete idiot in the same story ... no matter WHAT the story is about. It makes the whole story complete bullshit to me. If she does calculus in her head, and then suddenly can't make correct change at the grocery store, then either she's just had a massive blow to the head, a stroke, or the person writing the story can't make up his/her mind what sort of person is being written about.
Ummm ... I personally know two math-major types who solve differential equations in their heads (and do calculus that way also), but who just plain can't do the arithmetic involved in making change. THAT phenomenon isn't rare at all. As to your first line: "both brilliant and a complete idiot in the same story" - that describes a number of folks. Among others, Mr. William Jefferson Clinton would seem to have shown such behavior. He's a brilliant politician, and quite bright about a lot of other things - but square that with how he acts wrt women, and you get 'brilliant, and a complete idiot.'
However, all that is by-the-way: folks got your point the first time you expounded it. YOU haven't got their point. The stories in a given subgenre FIT that subgenre. The 'humiliation' ones (that I've read, at least) all have the victim, regardless of his/her ('her' in the ones I've seen) competence over-all, being a complete twit in at least one way.
It's willing suspension of disbelief. Those who like such stories are happy to turn a blind eye to the character's obvious foolishness, in order to let the story go where they want it to.
The same can be said of stories involving 8 yo girls being screwed by adults and loving it. Especially when those girls are just bouncing with joy over the idea of having babies at the earliest possible time. Do I buy this scenario? Nope. Do many others here in ASSD? Probably not. But, for the sake of the story many readers do.
To address your 'a smart lawyer wouldn't trust someone that easily' issue: confidence men have done well over the years with the highly skeptical but greedy types.
-denny-
"I fear that we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve ... " - Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, Dec. 8th, 1941
From: Jeff Zephyr
Re: Office Politics, by Alexis Siefert
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 13:06:17 -0600
On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 02:40:09 GMT, [email protected] (Frank McCoy) wrote:
[email protected] (Desdmona22) wrote:
Sorry to disagree with you Frank! But it's because she's so high-powered and intelligent that the giving into submissiveness becomes so humiliating!
I don't have ANY fault to find with that. In fact, I agree completely. And not a bit of that has to be changed to address the issue I raised.
[snip lots ...]
Could SOMEBODY tell me what's so objectionable about fixing that? WHY is it so wrong in the genre for her to even think about what will happen afterwards, or whether she even lives or dies?
Because like falling in love, there isn't a need to explain that her desires overcome such fears. Rationality doesn't apply.
The story could try to explain her every thought on that subject, but we take it as a given that she doesn't find the situation unacceptably risky. She doesn't bother to explain it to us within the tale, and even if she did, if you don't share those feelings wouldn't you object to it anyway?
Just assume that she looked at the situation, and made the decision to go along. She isn't thinking about the risks visibly, but she isn't unaware of them. In context of this tale, it sure seems to me that there is an implicit understanding that she will be safe, and that she is OK with what she is doing. If she understands that, does it matter if you as the reader doesn't?
Yeah ... I know ... she's ONLY supposed to think about that WHILE she's being tortured ... and then it's supposed to be too late.
But (and this is my objection) knowing this a minimum of several DAYS in advance (as the story goes) she, a brilliant lawyer, is supposed to simply ASSUME, with no guarantees of any kind from anybody, that she'll survive (mentally, physically, or career-wise).
Yeah, right. Tell me another.
She'd sooner buy gold bricks or the Brooklyn Bridge.
Love can make people assume that guarantees aren't necessary. You can understand how she might assume, with no guarantees at all, that her lover's wishes are good for her.
OK, this isn't that kind of story. But if love can make people do irrational things, so can other desires. There is someone she trusts here, and that trust is enough to make the implicit assumption that she will be safe and survice valid.
Now, in some stories, we'd find out that she was wrong about that. But so far in this one, it was valid. If she was right, maybe her judgement of character and situations really is brilliant?
Anybody who wants to continue this discussion with me, carry it to email. I've already said (several times) what I think ... and it seems not one person here understands a word I say.
I don't think it is that. It is that some of us can look at an unrealistic situation, with people behaving oddly compared to most typical humans, and accept that they just did so in the story. It makes the tale move along as desired, and the logic problems aren't relevant. We can believe it, because humans aren't entirely rational, and we can do very stupid things, even if smart.
I hear everybody ASS-U-ME that it's just because I don't like bondage and discipline stories, or don't understand them. Nobody listens to what I DO say, or what I REALLY object to, which has nothing to do with how she's treated, what she agrees to submit to, or even whether or not she enjoys such treatment. It only has to do with self-preservation; something which even the most submissive and passive sub takes into account. It has to do with TRUST, or (in this case) lack-thereof.
No reason at all is given in the story for her to trust in the slightest those about to do dirt to her. And then, a LAWYER is going to VOLUNTEER for mistreatment at their hands, for some wispy promise she MIGHT lose her career if she doesn't?
Well, assume that she was there on the spot and saw something which gave her a feeling of trust. She obviously did so, after all. She didn't spell it out for us, she just went along as if she did trust the situation.
Now, in RL, I'd expect that you'd have more negotiation. But a story doesn't need to be about RL, realistic situations. A lot of fiction gets to break realism rules, and still can be quite fun. The key consistent element in the story is that she does - without any visible reason - trust the situation, and believes in the promises. Also, there is the other secret assumption that she really does desire to explore this kind of situation, and doing so "involuntarily" gives her a way out. She can go along and experience it, without needing to worry.
What if this tale were simply her fantasy, nothing which ever really happened to her. Just something to tell her lover about, like telling ghost stories to frighten your friends when you are a kid. Would you suddenly object that your lover's tale was completely unbelievable, even if it was compelling and erotic, because the protagonist did something which seemed out of character? What if the odd behavior was the secret thing that defines the character?
Do you REALIZE how much that sounds like every scam most lawyers are trained from the first day in law-school to recognize? And the ones who don't, DON'T end up causing trouble for other brilliant lawyers by beating them consistently in court cases.
I just don't buy the premise of people who are complete idiots in their own line of work, while beating the pants off the competition.
(Well ... OK ... It CAN happen when gambling, or running the stock-market, which is essentially the same thing. but that's LUCK, not personal brilliance. OK ... I SUPPOSE she could be an idiot, and just lucky ... but then that spoils the story, doesn't it?)
Is she a brilliant lawyer?
OR
Is she a completely trusting naive idiot.
I just cannot buy both at once.
I can. Trust in some things doesn't imply idiocy. And brilliance in one thing doesn't imply the same in others. Trust, like love, is sometimes irrational. Maybe, it is often irrational, or even almost always so.
Why not fix the story so she doesn't have to be the second one? What is so bloody WRONG in the genre about her being smart THERE too? It doesn't spoil the humiliation she'll receive. It has nothing to do with how much it will hurt. It doesn't affect how long it's going to last. It doesn't change the punishment she'll receive. (Except she'll KNOW she's not going to be permanently damaged.)
Or is it that last that bothers those who read the story so much that they yell and SCREAM and object with bloody tears if I so much as suggest she might care?
She does care. But she doesn't need to ask about the situation, since she inherently believes that she isn't going to be truly harmed. There isn't any sign of that kind of treatment in the tale, and until she sees some of it, she might not object. OTOH, once she submits, she might find that the thrill of the risk is enough to keep her going, even if it does run into situations which might be harmful to her.
If that's the case, then why have her allowed to bow-out at all? Or ... Is it that's the REAL issue here? You want her to VOLUNTEER to be raped, beaten, burned, flayed, and left to die in her own vomit, and then be graciously spared by her tormentors who only torment her a little bit?
Yes, that's it! You got it now!
The bow-out escape clause lets her know that this isn't going to truly hurt her, just scare and humiliate her. If they were going to kill her, it wouldn't be necessary. Her position, her options, all seem geared to a reasonable chance to make it through it with her position improved.
If that's the case, then why not put it all up front?
Why mention things which you already know? In this genre, some things don't need to be said. You don't need to say that the sky is blue every time people go outside in a story, do you?
Would YOU volunteer to have your dick beaten with a meat-tenderizer, for the promise of a career in Porno movies? Just how much would you believe such a promise?
Not in RL, but it might make a nice fantasy. What is wrong with the story showing a situation which isn't believable as reality, but which is very erotic and interesting?
Oh ... She's supposed to be THAT much of a gullible fool?
OK ... If you folks say so.
I'm outa' here.
Well, I'll give a fine case in point: Story of O. Classic tale of a smart professional career woman who, at the request of her lover, submits to increasing degrees of torture, with no promise of escape. She had a perfect choice about it too, but her love made her willing to explore these new things, and she found that she actually liked it.
But if you don't get that someone might enjoy being tortured and tormented, or at least enjoy imagining that, you might not be able to get stories about that stuff.
Jeff
Web site at http://www.asstr.org/~jeffzephyr/ For FTP, ftp://ftp.asstr.org/pub/Authors/jeffzephyr/
There is nothing more important than petting the cat.
From: Frank McCoy
Re: Office Politics, by Alexis Siefert
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 20:38:34 GMT
Jeff Zephyr <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 02:40:09 GMT, [email protected] (Frank McCoy) wrote:
If that's the case, then why have her allowed to bow-out at all? Or ... Is it that's the REAL issue here? You want her to VOLUNTEER to be raped, beaten, burned, flayed, and left to die in her own vomit, and then be graciously spared by her tormentors who only torment her a little bit?
Yes, that's it! You got it now!
The bow-out escape clause lets her know that this isn't going to truly hurt her, just scare and humiliate her. If they were going to kill her, it wouldn't be necessary. Her position, her options, all seem geared to a reasonable chance to make it through it with her position improved.
Hm. That's the BEST explanation I've heard so far. And, it does cover the fact that she's quite smart ... In fact, it requires it; as somebody without smarts would miss that. The point being not that it wouldn't be neccessary; but that they wouldn't even OFFER her the "out-clause" or chance to leave. Why bother, if you intended really nasty mayhem?
It's still jarring though.
OK, I'll buy that explanation.
(I don't have to like it; but it is an explanation.)
The reason I STILL don't like it much, is that it would be that much more titillating to really NASTY people to trick her into putting her own head in the noose (and she would know that). Of course, supposedly she's met these same people in court before, and knows SOMETHING about them, so being the type who would can her body in a drum would probably have shown through. Perhaps (annoying that it's not mentioned) she knows far more about them than is covered in the story. Family members, advocates, volunteers, that sort of thing. Having opposed them in court, she might well have such knowledge. And it would only take ONE "nice guy" in the group to protect her.
Would still like to see some such logic presented though. But I suppose it could be just implied. ;-{
OK. I'll shut up.
/ ' /
,-/-, . __ /
(/ / ((/|/ / </ <
From: Jeff Zephyr
Re: Office Politics, by Alexis Siefert
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 08:24:29 -0600
On Sat, 17 Nov 2001 20:38:34 GMT, [email protected] (Frank McCoy) wrote:
Jeff Zephyr <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 02:40:09 GMT, [email protected] (Frank McCoy) wrote:
The reason I STILL don't like it much, is that it would be that much more titillating to really NASTY people to trick her into putting her own head in the noose (and she would know that). Of course, supposedly she's met these same people in court before, and knows SOMETHING about them, so being the type who would can her body in a drum would probably have shown through. Perhaps (annoying that it's not mentioned) she knows far more about them than is covered in the story. Family members, advocates, volunteers, that sort of thing. Having opposed them in court, she might well have such knowledge. And it would only take ONE "nice guy" in the group to protect her.
Uncooperative (nc) stories may turn out that way, surely - the bad things do end up happening. Her judgement about the safety, and eventual escape, turns out to be terribly wrong. Conversely, some such stories end up with one "nice guy" saving the victim, after learning that things are going farther than he/she likes.
That is the nice thing about stories. We can let the thing go in many possible directions. A scary situation can turn out well or badly. In a horror story, the obvious victim might end up surviving all the horrors, or everyone might die at the end.
Would still like to see some such logic presented though. But I suppose it could be just implied. ;-{
OK. I'll shut up.
Good idea :-) No, really, this is hard to argue about because the unrealistic choice thing applies in so many kinds of stories. You have a natural reaction to the pain and danger in the situation, a squicky reaction, which makes it hard to let go of the SoD which others can take for granted.
But in a RL topical thing - once upon a time, when a plane was hijacked the passengers would expect to be released, and therefore cooperate with the hijackers until that point. This despite the fact that numbers alone outweighs the threat of weapons, and some would likely survive the attempt to take the hijackers out.
That isn't likely to happen again. Someone telling a tale about a plane hijacking who has the passengers cooperate without much struggle, and has some passenger spokesman argue against trying something, will have it feel less believable than in the past. And yet, the situation isn't changed, is it? I mean, it is only the perception of trust, the concept that your captors will let you go, or not?
In a nc BDSM sort of story, the belief that you will be released (if you use victim POV) is valid. If irrational, you still cling to the hope that it will go well. If you have some reason as victim to cooperate, you'll grab at it. And if it turns out well, you'll thank yourself for having good judgement :-)
Jeff
Web site at http://www.asstr.org/~jeffzephyr/ For FTP, ftp://ftp.asstr.org/pub/Authors/jeffzephyr/
There is nothing more important than petting the cat.
From: Frank McCoy
Re: Office Politics, by Alexis Siefert
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 15:39:31 GMT
Jeff Zephyr <[email protected]> wrote:
That is the nice thing about stories. We can let the thing go in many possible directions. A scary situation can turn out well or badly. In a horror story, the obvious victim might end up surviving all the horrors, or everyone might die at the end.
One (of the many) things I don't like (hate actually) about "slasher" movies, is that there are put into the movie so many obvious victims. Minor characters obviously brought into the story ONLY to serve as temporary foils and eventual bodies.
One of the things that I hated about a story by one of my favorite authors, Spider Robinson, in "Lady slings the booze" was when the hero met the twins. "Oh no!" I thought to myself, the moment I realized the situation, "ONE of these two lovely creatures is going to end up DEAD!" I hoped, pleaded, begged, and limped through the rest of the story, just hoping against hope I was wrong ... But sadly I wasn't.
I wanted to write Spider a long, tearful, and castigating story for doing that to me ... But I didn't. Usually I love every one of his stories. But waiting through THAT story, from about the third chapter on, waiting for the axe to fall, yet knowing that it would be in the end, if at all, gave me the same feeling that I hate about slasher movies: You just KNOW that particular girl is going to get her head chopped off ... the movie calls for it. You just aren't sure when, or how bloody the director will make it. Spider made THAT scene about as bad or worse than I could imagine. ;-{
But: Horror and slasher movies get BIG box-office.
/ ' /
,-/-, . __ /
(/ / ((/|/ / </ <
From: Father Ignatius
Re: Office Politics, by Alexis Siefert
Date: 19 Nov 2001 02:51:42 -0800
[piggy-backing cuz I couldn't induce google to offer an option of replying to the original post]
2 positive comments
1. It's nice to see clear elements of plot emerging. Not enough plot around these parts, IMHO.
2. Should you continue? Yes: you have here the genesis of a story, or even a series, here, that has original aspects.
2 things for improvement
1. Hackneyed unoriginality.
In one of this group's acknowledged talent authors, one is disappointed to see tired repetition of tired formulae: he was too angry to speak, I was unused to the 5" heels, ...
One dares hope that, this being an unfinished introduction, these would be burned away in the white-heat of revision.
2. Implausibility, inconsistency
The cynicism of the Guatemalan orphans and the televangelist don't chime in with the later condemnation of her adversarial behaviour. And, frankly, the public perception of lawyers is such that I'd say the reader would need to be prepared for the surprise injection of decency. On the other hand, if there's something else going on, I didn't get it. You've lost me.
Authors may, of course, choose to apply the reality of their choice. As a reader, I am happy to be led anywhere but I don't like being taken for granted. I need more, and more consistent, establishment of the nature of the two main characters. Is he a sleazeball or a straight arrow? Is she a brutally tough lawyer or an idealistic wimp? If they are more complex than one or the other, lead us to who they are.
"Trista"? Yuck.
Try not to repeat!
Pshaw! A slur on my originality, my divine fire? <mutter, mutter, mutter>
Pshaw! A slur on my originality, my divine fire? <mutter, mutter, mutter>
From: Jeff Zephyr
Re: Office Politics, by Alexis Siefert
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 13:20:25 -0600
On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 15:39:31 GMT, [email protected] (Frank McCoy) wrote:
Jeff Zephyr <[email protected]> wrote:
That is the nice thing about stories. We can let the thing go in many possible directions. A scary situation can turn out well or badly. In a horror story, the obvious victim might end up surviving all the horrors, or everyone might die at the end.
One (of the many) things I don't like (hate actually) about "slasher" movies, is that there are put into the movie so many obvious victims. Minor characters obviously brought into the story ONLY to serve as temporary foils and eventual bodies.
Sure. but it takes more work to make the characters into someone who might survive, then kill them off.
One of the things that I hated about a story by one of my favorite authors, Spider Robinson, in "Lady slings the booze" was when the hero met the twins. "Oh no!" I thought to myself, the moment I realized the situation, "ONE of these two lovely creatures is going to end up DEAD!" I hoped, pleaded, begged, and limped through the rest of the story, just hoping against hope I was wrong ... But sadly I wasn't.
I wanted to write Spider a long, tearful, and castigating story for doing that to me ... But I didn't. Usually I love every one of his stories. But waiting through THAT story, from about the third chapter on, waiting for the axe to fall, yet knowing that it would be in the end, if at all, gave me the same feeling that I hate about slasher movies: You just KNOW that particular girl is going to get her head chopped off ... the movie calls for it. You just aren't sure when, or how bloody the director will make it. Spider made THAT scene about as bad or worse than I could imagine. ;-{
But: Horror and slasher movies get BIG box-office.
Yes, they do.
And so do some similar themes in sex stories, at least in terms of apparent audience response.
Jeff
Web site at http://www.asstr.org/~jeffzephyr/ For FTP, ftp://ftp.asstr.org/pub/Authors/jeffzephyr/
There is nothing more important than petting the cat.
From: Frank McCoy
Re: Office Politics, by Alexis Siefert
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 00:46:10 GMT
Jeff Zephyr <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 15:39:31 GMT, [email protected] (Frank McCoy) wrote:
Jeff Zephyr <[email protected]> wrote:
That is the nice thing about stories. We can let the thing go in many possible directions. A scary situation can turn out well or badly. In a horror story, the obvious victim might end up surviving all the horrors, or everyone might die at the end.
One (of the many) things I don't like (hate actually) about "slasher" movies, is that there are put into the movie so many obvious victims. Minor characters obviously brought into the story ONLY to serve as temporary foils and eventual bodies.
Sure. but it takes more work to make the characters into someone who might survive, then kill them off.
Hm. Never thought of that before. I guess you're right. THAT is why some of the characters are so shallow you know right away they're just meat. Especially on those low-budget films, which most of them are.
One of the things that I hated about a story by one of my favorite authors, Spider Robinson, in "Lady slings the booze" was when the hero met the twins. "Oh no!" I thought to myself, the moment I realized the situation, "ONE of these two lovely creatures is going to end up DEAD!" I hoped, pleaded, begged, and limped through the rest of the story, just hoping against hope I was wrong ... But sadly I wasn't.
I wanted to write Spider a long, tearful, and castigating story for doing that to me ... But I didn't. Usually I love every one of his stories. But waiting through THAT story, from about the third chapter on, waiting for the axe to fall, yet knowing that it would be in the end, if at all, gave me the same feeling that I hate about slasher movies: You just KNOW that particular girl is going to get her head chopped off ... the movie calls for it. You just aren't sure when, or how bloody the director will make it. Spider made THAT scene about as bad or worse than I could imagine. ;-{
But: Horror and slasher movies get BIG box-office.
Yes, they do.
And so do some similar themes in sex stories, at least in terms of apparent audience response.
I've noticed. ;-}
/ ' /
,-/-, . __ /
(/ / ((/|/ / </ <
Note that all the comments archived here were culled from active discussions occuring in the Usenet newsgroup alt.sex.stories.d. If you want to contribute to the discussion, please join us in ASSD and say your piece. Everyone is welcome.
If you do not know how to read Usenet newsgroups, there is a nice, free web interface on Google: http://groups.google.com/. If you have any problems, send us email. If we're lucky, we'll get you set up and contributing in no time!
If you have not done so, please read the Comment Guidelines. We ask that all comments include two positive remarks and two suggestions for improvement. Please, try not to repeat!
From: Desdmona
Re: Office Politics, by Alexis Siefert
Date: 27 Aug 2001 18:45:27 GMT
Alexis~
I think you have a great way with description. (One of my favorite things in a story) For instance, "I was working late slodging through a particularly difficult opposing counsel argument..." Slodging is such a great word in this context, it describes the action perfectly. Another wonderfully painted picture, the cherry wood being scratched by her pumps-- although you might want to change that to hearing her feet scratch the cherry wood rather than the cherry wood scratching- There are other examples of description Enough so that the scene is splayed out in front of me in every detail.
Wow! what a great job you've done in setting up the humiliation, starting with when she's face to face with the security guard. "He realizes that I'm nothing more than..." you've set up not just immediate embarrassment, but embarrassment on a daily basis from here on out. It just builds from there... her head downcast, she being the only one visible on the video... etc. There's something very potent about a very strong, confident woman being dominated.
A couple of things that I think you need to take a look at, first-when she's stepping out of the car, she's still blindfolded, but he "motions" for her to turn around. She wouldn't have been able to see that, would she? And further with the blindfold, when she takes it off, I think it might read better if she removes the blindfold and then talks about letting her eyes adjust. A second inconsistency that I noted was near the beginning of the same scene, a paragrah starts with, " I quickly dress..." and yet when she gets out of the car she's naked--except for the cape. Maybe you could say something like " I quickly don the cape he has brought for me to wear..." or something like that.
All in all, I certainly hope you continue with this story. You've done such a terrific job of her character, she deserves her whole story to be told.
Thanks for allowing us this chance to read a marvelously unfolding story.
Desdmona