All Comments on 'The Most Demanding Audience'

I think you are probably right, particularly with your depiction of trolls. You could have also mentioned those that will bomb a story simply because they think it's real and dislike the subject.

I guess I'm ignorant, but I hadn't thought of this collection in what amounts to marketing terms. Interesting: suddenly I feel like I'm wanking with an audience (whoops, wrong section).

It's interesting to consider others' preferences in this section: it seems so feelthy, nasty & un-PC that chatting hardly seems appropriate.

Anyway, I guess I'll give my two comments: I like the variety: people with their obsessions (and no writing skills) sometimes manage more sincerely hot stories than those who seems to be writing to a formula. On the other hand, many of the obsessive stories are too disgustive to read. The other thing I like are the women writers who talk at length of the feelings (emotional & physical) that go along with their enjoyment of getting fucked in the ass. There aren't a lot, but some of them make my head explode, virtually.

Anyway, good job, Boxlicker. Keep up the good work.

Good insights. One thing I've always found very interesting about the trolls, though, is their selection. From what I've seen, stories involving slut-wives and cuckold husbands are the only ones on this site that get condemnation from a moral standpoint. Sure, many stories get panned because of poor writing or unbelievable characters and bad dialogue, but I don’t think that any stories besides “slut-wife” stories actually get trolled because of the morality of the characters’ actions.

I find it interesting that these people feel the need to condemn those who fantasize about an unfaithful wife, but ignore stories that feature far more taboo subjects, like rape or incest. Why is it that these trolls leave nasty comments about slut-wife stories, but ignore stories about mothers having sex with their sons, brothers and sisters going at it, or fathers raping their daughters? I would think those stories would be more morally offensive.

For the record, I’m not bashing any of these stories or authors. Everybody’s got their own fantasies. I was just curious about troll psychology.

Methinks Ol’ Box is getting a little defensive, considering how much space he used up to defend ass licking which he asserts is a key component of his stories. I’ll have to take his word for it because I’ve never read one of his stories, and I do not intend to do so. Curiously, it seems the only feedback Box likes is from people who approve of such an act…and everyone else is a troll. (Being a troll must be a really bad thing based on the way Box refers to them.) Have I got that about correct? I think I do, so I’ll continue.

Look, writers who post on LE put their works “out there” for review, whether they allow voting or commentary…or not. Authors of books do the same and they have to put up with critical reviews too. A buyer, walking into Barnes & Ignoble, should (I certainly do) read those reviews before investing $20 or whatever the going rate is in your local. That buyer then “votes” for the content, story line, plot development, dialogue, etc., etc., of that book by either buying the book, or the buyer withholds a “good” vote by not making the purchase.

Here at LE, one reviews stories for the things the reader wants to see in a story and if a reader finds the writer has not met those expectations, the reader is entitled to vote any way on that sliding scale (and for whatever reason) they see fit. Why should they not? Just because they read a story, they’re obligated to “like” it and give the writer a thumb up? Certainly not. How can you possibly expect that?

Look, Tom Clancy put out a clunker a few years back that was voted on by lots of “non-buyers.” They gave it zeros, if you want to look at it in that fashion. The reviews on the book were terrible (rightly so, in my estimation) and he did his darndest to atone by getting another on the market very quickly (too quickly, in my estimation) that WOULD meet his readers’ expectations. That’s the way the game is played.

Frankly, if you just MUST include something you know in advance is going to offend the sensibilities of some of your readers, hey…go for it. But don’t expect kudos for doing it! What kind of sense does that make?

If you’re on a righteous campaign to make sure one particular sex act is explored over and over again, I’m not sure why you’re doing it…but it IS totally up to you. To me, it would seem the point was made already and it’s now getting redundant, but you’re entitled to feel differently. Personally, I’ve never been one for pounding my head against a brick wall.

On the other hand, if your goal in writing is to write a story that gets a rating above 4.80 (or whatever), then write a story the reviewers can identify with instead of something they cannot. Don’t moan about readers who give you low marks because of something YOU don’t consider a valid point. The point those readers are making is as valid as yours, if only you would see it.

As for me, I’m going to keep on trolling in the “Loving Wives” category (the only story type I read) and I’ll keep slamming writers who can’t string two sentences together in a logical pattern OR who base their stories on male humiliation, and deciding their male protagonists MUST be wimps. I don’t confine myself to using one criteria or the other and I won’t stop writing those reviews.

Hey, good luck with your future endeavors, okay?

Besides terrible writing, the one thing that tempts me to downrate stories in the anal category is when the characters use condoms - I mean, c'mon, it sucks having to use condoms for anal in real life, why would I want to read about it in a piece of frickin' fiction? I guess if it's an account of actual events, the condoms might stay in for accuracy's sake, but in a made up story, I say leave 'em out...

Now, I feel the need to raise a few questions about this article. You claim that "trolls" will vote with a low score if a story doesn't follow a particular plot which they already have chosen. This thesis seems sound enough to me but I have a few questions to raise in relation to your own treatment of other's works. You say that if there is no analingus before penetration then you stop reading and vote at 2 or 3, similarlly you dislike certain phrases "asshole" is the example I believe you use.

Now, it appears to me that you are trying to perscribe a formula for writers to stick to. But this is a site of personal sexual expression and if, for instance, someone did not want to include analingus into their story who are you to comdemn it? In the real world, i like to perform cunnilingus on my girlfriend before penetrative sex, however this does not mean that I do it every time. Varitey in a sex life is what keeps it interesting, doing the same thing everytime gets boring very quickly. The same principle applies to literature, if each anal story followed a flow-chart like plot then by reading one story, you have essentially read every story.

This is not something that we want.

Therefore, if you want to claim that you do not like certain things, then go ahead, but you can't then call people trolls for doing the same things even if their trollishness is based in racism or antiquated ideas and yours is just a culturally excepted personal preferance.

Additionally, I don't see how you can make claims about the readers of the anal articals likes and dislikes, if you have some reliable source, please do enlighten us.

Yours

Jamie (jimbob_barnes@msn.com if you want to reply)