I have to say even while reading it I wonder how my own characters may stack up to some other's critic of how they may see the character, or even the writing of the story. I have to say reading this alone makes me want to watch you and so I shall. :D

I thank you. I try to take my satire seriously, but also the messages behind my work.

I've tried reading what I can, and skimmed the rest. (Sorry Dyslexia often screws with my reading skills) but as someone who's trying to write an "AntiVillian" mad sicentist, I thought your points were quite useful, if not entertaining. (I love reading critical reviews of bad things. :3 ) but have you read or heard of "Bullies, Bastards and Bitches." by Jessica Morrell, it covers the topic in a little more depth, including when writing for Sociopathic characters. (Just thought I'd get a second opinion before committing to anyone's advice.)

But like I've complained about in my journal on terrible art skills, it's also true when I'm reading a story that's really badly written for grammar and spelling, it makes it all the more frightening for all the wrong reasons.

Jessica...hmmm,. I'll be sure to look her up!

I agree with most of this:
1 - Good quality writing and proofreading -- extremely important! :)
2 - Interesting good guys and bad guys -- extremely important! :)

However I disagree with some of your points:
1 - Good guys need to have flaws and need to do selfish things once in a while to be realistic (or 'badass'). Even Jesus acts like a jerk sometimes in the Bible--if only to make a point.
2 - Like it or not, rape or other non-consensual sex activities is a very common fetish. People can dislike that, and it's fine, but it's very common for women and men alike. I listen to the sex advice show "Savage Love" (google it) and women call in frequently saying "Thinking about rape turns me on a lot but I'm ashamed of myself." It's better just to do the same thing you do with vore: Just accept that it's a fantasy, clearly mark it as so, have your fun and move on.

" - Good guys need to have flaws and need to do selfish things once in a while to be realistic (or 'badass'). Even Jesus acts like a jerk sometimes in the Bible--if only to make a point."

Of course. But there's just too much over-saturation of people who have almost entirely negative traits that are PAINTED as "good" on sites like this. Which is remarkably poor writing. Which then leads into your second point...

Yes. I am aware that it's a fantasy. And I'm sure there's a healthy medium to be had. But here's the thing. I don't agree with the idea that it's "just" a harmless fantasy and there's nothing wrong with it as a result. I don't agree with the idea that Americans know the difference between what's real and what matters and what doesn't. They don't! Let me tell you what most people DO understand.

1. Buying four sandwiches to get the fifth sandwich free is a GREAT deal.
2. Angels are real.
3. Half of the country feels Obama is a Socialist. Who might also be a Muslim. From Kenya.

So for anybody who says "I feel ashamed"...I say "that's fine, because it means you still have a conscience and you don't want to even consider making said fantasy a reality". And I wish I didn't even have to put something like this up. But I've been on a bunch of fetish sites and I'm shocked at how many people on them are misanthropes and it scares me.

All I really want is for people to really THINK about what they're writing about. About what it means, what it represents, not merely to themselves, but to others. I want them to try and look at the big picture. I don't want to force my ideas down anybody's throat. But I do feel the need to raise objections to the blanket argument of "it's just a fantasy", because let's face it, the things we fantasize say a lot about who we are as a person, don't they?

First: I agree with most everything you say here -- and thanks for clarifying that about the "good guys". I also agree that there are plenty of twisted people on sites like this and Eka's.

But, here's where I differ:
==========================
I don't agree that the things we fantasize about say a lot about who we are as a person. I write vore stories, but I have no desire to eat people. Are you suggesting people should feel ashamed that they get entertainment from something, such as vore or rape, which involves a person harming another? Well, action movies involve people killing one another. (Ever watch James Bond?) Should everyone who enjoys James Bond movies be ashamed of themselves because they are entertained by danger and people harming/killing others? I say no. Most people have a strong ability to understand the difference between fantasy and reality. They do not need to be ashamed of themselves in order to exercise restraint.

But the difference is James Bond is killing people who will feed other people to sharks, or who sacrifice people in voodoo rituals, or who are trying to blow up M16. My concern is when people seem to enjoy just seeing lots of death PERIOD with no regard to context, or in the enjoyment of the suffering of innocents in fiction, and who feel that the more graphic the depiction, the better. These people honestly TERRIFY me.

I think in most mass media cases they are just responding to demand. People are bloodthristy and selfish and increasingly depraved and they crave this stuff because it's been taken out of our society (and at that, just barely. Sexual assault happens.) Go back a few hundred years and look at some of the atrocities people have committed; people are naturally inclined to have these sort of desires because it was part of normal life not too long ago. Modern society suppresses these desires (basically civility), but the deprivation of modern life in general makes these sort of 'sex/violence fantasies' a forbidden pleasure and people flock to see it. So don't shoot the messenger...

I agree wholeheartedly when you complain about the effect of just dropping rape or ultraviolence into something as it pertains to the story. I'm not into comic books partly because most of what I've run across is just exactly what you lay out -- shock and 'modern issues' get shoved into stories where they aren't needed, and get treated with the same cardboard treatment as the characters. Same for a lot of 'newer' SF and other things.

I don't think you should necessarily extend that to all depictions though, especially when you get into actual erotica (porn has only one 'rule' and that is 'is this arousing?'). A lot of rape 'fantasies' have more to do with catharsis and deep psychological issues. I'd even say to some extent erotica at least allows for more of a focus/discussion on sexual assault (even if it is usually skewed, though I can't really say as I don't read or enjoy rape stories) since it deals with it directly and on a very personal basis rather than just overlaying it as a cliche plot device/character builder.

You could be right, and perhaps I'm assuming too little of those who write here. But the problem is that many
people's idea of dealing with rape directly on this kind of site is "graphic detail" with no regard for the consequences or real context. An almost "drive by" method of handling what should be touchy subject matters. It's why I usually satirize or parody works and authors who I think don't handle it well enough. One time I think that sort of depiction does work is when the person is trying to make an ironic comment of some kind like, say, the rape of a woman is horrible but the rape of men is something that just makes people go "that's ridiculous, men never get raped".

In fact, there's one episode of Family Guy (which you may remember) that, albeit clumsily, tries to address such an issue. It's making rape into a joke for shock value, but Peter is the one being sexually harassed because his female boss wants to sleep with him. The others in the show even comment on how Peter is a guy, he CAN'T be sexually harassed. It's because it plays against type that what would normally be a very uncomfortable subject suddenly becomes ironic and more thoughtful than what Family Guy usually does.

...ok, so based on the entire post and the comments, I get the impression that your wish for the writing community out there is to continue expressing whatever their imaginations can conjure.

...provided that they follow the simple, but seemingly mandatory guidelines that:
1. all avenues explored should be done fully and whole heartedly, so as not to sow the seeds of confusion or longing for a better outcome.
2. the words remain clear and concise and not become a convoluted mess of poor spelling and/or grammer.
3. Show some sense of a realistic plotline so the reader can at least relate to one or more characters without becoming bored, disgusted or just plain numb to the story as they get their jollies.

I have a question if i may... do you write for a living?

Mandatory? More like "de facto" than mandatory. And why?

well i ask because the majority of the writers out there don't and either don't know these guidelines or don't really care much for them despite their importance.
my thoughts are that they just want to try and share the ideas which excite them so much and aren't really that worried about how it's conveyed.

A professionally paid writer need not be reminded of them as he has ingrained them into his damn DNA. lol
...but he would also try to 'help' other non-professional writers learn these things as he would feel compelled to do so as he read their work.

Well, it's kind of hard for me because it's very easy for me to get on my soapbox. That's a big issue I have to grapple with.

i see, well i don't fault you for it mate.
in fact i agree with it as a whole. ^_^

Thank you for posting what you feel is helpful to others ^^

I just get upset with things like high fantasy such as Star Wars(I mean this based on the way the old movies flow compared to typical high fantasy.) or Lord of the Rings where there is NO moral ambiguity at all.
while there is good or evil and that is fine, it really simplifies all the characters too much.

what really is needed is people need practice with balanced characters. I am not talking about neutrality, I am talking about the development and dimensions of a character. I mean in the sense someone is not doing every possible thing evil just because. And good characters that use their brain are needed, as to many "heroes" favor brute strength and judgement over actually thinking.

There's a time and place for black and white, but nuance is so often overlooked. Though they do occasionally show it in those films. Darth Vader, for example, showed a bit more nuance than you'd think. And Han went from selfish and self centered to selfless. And in LOTR, Frodo's struggle with the ring makes him fluctuate between good and evil. Plus Boromir and his father show what happens when good men are tempted towards the dark side.

I know. but my main thing with Star Wars is the books, which if you read them, leave you wanting.

And I do not like how Middle Earth became Regular Earth in the Lotr books. Things with extinction of most anything really bothers me.

and yes, I dislike world destruction sometimes as it really is annoying for me having to say "well, what was the point of saving the town in the first place if it is destroyed n book 2?"

Do you think Silent-Hunter is too one-sided?

I don't know, I haven't learned enough about him yet. Knowing more of his backstory would make him more fleshed out.

I'll tell you then. ::)

As someone who read over the first draft of his novel and felt that it sucked, it feels great to know why it does. Thank you, and always remember:

Enslaving the world defeats the purpose of saving it!

Don’t stop rocking!