Shadowknight12

This is a very common doubt that plagues writers, particularly if they're new at the art. The only way to really know whether the characters you're writing are Mary Sues or not is to develop a strong sense of objectivity. You need to learn to pretend you have other opinions, other viewpoints, that you don't know what you, as a writer, know. Place yourself in the eyes of the audience, that's the only way you're going to find out. Like, for example, pretend you despise "cuteness" or clinginess. Does your character still have redeeming factors? Does she have flaws the audience can identify with? (remember: a flaw is only a flaw if it actually hampers the character; arachnophobia is not a flaw if the character never encounters spiders or never actually gets hindered in any way when she encounters one).
Being detached and unemotional about your own writing is one of the hardest skills to acquire, but it's arguably the best when it comes to ensuring the quality of your work.
And if you ever become a respected author someday, do try to keep this sort of thing in mind. I can't tell you how many authors I've seen who become so full of themselves in their maturity that they don't even consider the possibility that they too can make mistakes and write painful Mary Sues.

This is a very common doubt that plagues writers, particularly if they're new at the art. The only way to really know whether the characters you're writing are Mary Sues or not is to develop a strong sense of objectivity. You need to learn to pretend you have other opinions, other viewpoints, that you don't know what you, as a writer, know. Place yourself in the eyes of the audience, that's the only way you're going to find out. Like, for example, pretend you despise "cuteness" or clinginess. Does your character still have redeeming factors? Does she have flaws the audience can identify with? (remember: a flaw is only a flaw if it actually hampers the character; arachnophobia is not a flaw if the character never encounters spiders or never actually gets hindered in any way when she encounters one).
Being detached and unemotional about your own writing is one of the hardest skills to acquire, but it's arguably the best when it comes to ensuring the quality of your work.
And if you ever become a respected author someday, do try to keep this sort of thing in mind. I can't tell you how many authors I've seen who become so full of themselves in their maturity that they don't even consider the possibility that they too can make mistakes and write painful Mary Sues.

Yeah, that's true, but then again... unless she was a COMPLETE idiot, she probably had an inkling already. This was just confirmation.
Hah, good point on that last bit.
Hahahah, funny as that sounds, I think I'll pass. With my luck, someone will stumble upon that story and be utterly convinced it was written by a person they know. And then I'll be actually ruining lives without being there at all!
But yes, I agree with JD. Your friend did the right thing.

My first reaction: Holy fucking shit, that sucks.
My second reaction: Wow, that guy's a fucking moron.
My third reaction: There's a depressing amount of hilarity in all that.
Other than that, I have to agree with you. I don't do requests from people I'm not on at least acquaintance basis. I'd only accept a request from someone I've talked to several times before, whose sanity I can verify.
I honestly don't know what to say, JD. That really sucks. What happened to you is bizarre, almost horror story-like (and considering this is you we're talking about, that's rather ironic, as well!), but it's something that may ring true to many people. I'd say that the vast majority of authors crave feedback like that, and most would find themselves agreeing with what you did, only to be horrified at what happened later. It's good that you posted this. If it was up to me, I'd make it a sticky/pinned topic and say "read and learn." I think that this is a valuable lesson for anyone, regardless of outlook or experience.
So, I guess I just wanted to say "thanks for sharing." And yeah, don't let it get to you. It's not your fault. It's like trying to blame the dildo manufacturing company for the actions of a man who beat his sister to death with one. You can't be held accountable for how fucked up other people are.

Well, every guy will tell you something different about orgasming. It also varies on what exactly brings the guy to orgasm. Some will say that a handjob can't hold a candle to anal, or that a blowjob is a million times better than vaginal intercourse, if the person giving it is skilled enough. Some will be reduced to a quivering, wrecked puddle if you can deepthroat, while others will tell you that they have the best orgasms while being assfucked (this is because a guy's orgasm begins with the contraction of the anal sphincter and the pleasure 'waves' travel all the way from there to the tip of the penis, therefore anal stimulation often enhances a guy's orgasm).
Physiologically, what happens is that the guy starts combining the different fluids that make up his sperm, and then gathers them up at the base of the penis before shooting it at high velocity. Some guys will feel all the stages of this process, from the moment his balls withdraw to his body to the pooling of hot seed at the base, to each and every blast being forcibly expelled through his urethra. Some won't feel anything like this, only waves of undefined pleasure as he climaxes. If you look at a cock's underside while it climaxes, you can sometimes see (depends on the dick in question) how the urethra bulges in sections and returns to normal, then bulges and returns to normal, again and again, as the sperm goes through it.
What you might have experienced before this stage is an increase in the flow of precome, which increases as the guy approaches orgasm (or as his arousal increases). Another explanation could be that right before an orgasm, there's an influx of blood to the organ (related to the diffusion of the neurohormone oxytocin, which is responsible for urethral contraction, needed to pump out the sperm). So any of this can be the explanation for what you feel in your mouth when you're giving head. Normally, all of this is not necessarily registered by the guy. The guy's brain is being bombarded by the extremely pleasurable sensations you're placing on his very sensitive cock, which kind of block out any subtler sensations. Normally, he'd only feel (clearly) two things during orgasm: 1) anything touching his cock, 2) the orgasm itself. Oh, and anything touching his asshole, too, because of what I explained above.
In my case, it varies depending on how aroused I am, and for how long I've been in that state. Sometimes it'll take my by surprise. I'll go 'oh shit' and then bam, a lot of sudden pleasure that quickly subsides. But usually, I'll feel a certain 'tightness' in my groin, like that feeling you get when you're tethering at the edge of a cliff and you start leaning forward and you just know that you can't go back, that you're already starting to fall. That's pretty much the same. I feel a vaguely pleasurable sensation that signals it's all over. If I stop then, I still orgasm, it's just not as good (my cock twitches pleasurably once or twice and then it's over... but I still shoot a small load). If I keep going and embrace it, the pleasure starts rising and comes in sort of waves, usually synced to every shot of sperm. It's hard to describe because it happens too fast and sort of short-circuits the brain, you know? Pausing to analyse something like that is like asking someone to describe what they feel when they're on a roller-coaster. I think that what I can best describe is something like an electrical discharge, only instead of painful it's pleasurable. It's really that fast. And there's a lot of them, one after the other.
If any guy out there has a better way of explaining it, go ahead. I'm no good with words.

I think there's one or two things I can contribute with, that haven't been touched yet. For you girls, I think that the best way to imagine how an erection feels like, clothes or not, is to think of your clitoris. Some of you may not know this, but a clitoris is basically an internal penis. The actual clit would be the equivalent of the male glans (the 'head' of the penis) and it's just the tip of the larger body that extends behind your vaginal wall. If you want to know what an erection feels like, then get aroused and pay close attention to how your clit behaves. You'll notice that at first it's just small, but that as your arousal increases, it begins to swell with blood and become very responsive to pleasure. That's pretty much what we feel, too (and really, it's the exact same erectile tissue, the sensations are practically the same), including the build-up to an orgasm.
You can also draw a parallel between a clitoris and an uncut cock. A clit has a 'hood' covering it, called prepuce, which is pretty much the female equivalent of a guy's foreskin (so if you want to know how foreskin feels like, well... you have a way to find out). It protects the clit from abrasion and chafing. This varies from guy to guy and woman to woman, but generally, a woman who's not aroused or only slightly so might actually feel discomfort or pain if (for example) a guy rolls back the prepuce and tongues her clit directly. That happens to uncut guys who aren't fully hard, too. As the levels of arousal increase, the erectile tissue is capable of enduring more direct contact, to the point where it's actually very pleasurable for both to apply direct stimulation.
And finally, a penis is not (usually) something that can be turned on and off like a lamp. Going from limp to throbbing hard and back again isn't something that happens in a matter of seconds (save specific exceptions, like exceedingly powerful stimuli). There are stages of hardness, but the time that takes the guy to go from one to another varies depending on the guy in question and what's triggering the arousal. Also, not all guys have the same amount of stages. Some have just four, some have more, some may even have only three or two.
The first stage is limpness, which is the cock that hasn't even begun to experience arousal. This is the default state (when an erection is the default state, it's called priapism and it's a very hilarious illness). Then there's the 'stirring' stage, where the male first sees something vaguely arousing. He might catch a glimpse of cleavage or start fantasizing. The cock is not hard here, but it sends 'warning signs' to the guy, telling him that if he keeps going down that road, things are going to get stiff. If the guy is clothed, nothing is visible. If the guy is naked, his cock might twitch on its own or even roll lazily a little, across his leg/navel/hip. Might grow an inch or so if the guy's a grower (that is, if his cock changes size between limp and hard. Some guys have the same size regardless of arousal, they're usually called 'showers'). Then you have the 'half-hard' stage, in which the arousal continues its course and blood begins to flow into the penis. Here is when the guy starts to get slightly stiff and his dick starts to grow. If the stimulus isn't strong enough, the growth might stop here. If a guy catches sight of a nice ass, for example, maybe it won't get him fully hard (depends on his personal tastes), but it might be enough to get his blood flowing. Usually the cock remains like this for a few moments even after the arousing stimulus has passed, it doesn't immediately go back to limp (assuming he doesn't see something horrifying that completely kills his mood, of course). It's like his cock is saying "hey, are you SURE you don't want to keep thinking about that ass? I already have all this blood here, it would be a shame to send it back to the body..."
Some guys have different stages of hardness, and whether all or some of them should be called "fully" hard is a matter of debate. What they all have in common is that a guy can orgasm in this state. If a guy is jerking off, for example, to relieve stress or because he's used to it or because his body demands release, he might not become 100% hard. He might only reach 90% of his potential, but it's still enough to climax. It's like a chore, the guy's not really into it. He gets hard enough to do his job, comes, and then he goes back to limp very fast (in a minute or less). Now, if the guy is actually interested and he's very aroused, he might reach his peak and become as hard as he can get. The main difference between these is basically the intensity of the orgasm and the volume of cum. In the first case, the guy may have a quick orgasm and shoot a small load, maybe a couple of shots. In the latter, the guy may have a longer, 'better' orgasm, and his ejaculation might be a little or a lot more copious. Oh, and in the latter case, the cock usually stays hard for a long time after climaxing (from a couple of minutes to remaining hard enough to go at it again once the refractory period is finished). Of course, some guys have more than these stages. Maybe a guy gets 80% hard when he's jerking off every day, but he can get 90% hard when he's getting laid, and 100% hard when his girlfriend/boyfriend has him tied down and spanks him with gusto; or he engages in his favorite fetish. It varies.
And as a closing advice: watch porn. No, seriously. The best way to familiarize yourselves with a penis is by looking at it so often and from such different angles that you can practically draw it with your eyes closed. Look at the different shapes they come in, how they change color depending on how hard they are, how most guys will start dribbling precome if they're REALLY aroused and they're not getting any. It doesn't need to be video, of course. Pictures/manga/etc work just fine, too. The key is to get as familiar with it as you can.
I think that's all, hope this helps iron out some leftover details on the matter.

As I said in the shoutbox, that was pure gold. Some I've made myself:
"I am a neutered side in all of this."
"I like the way you simile."
"Your eyes are like pools of crisis water."
"What the hall is going on here?!"
"You move with such grape..."
These are very old, since I started getting so many of these I turned off the autocorrect option.

As I said in the shoutbox, that was pure gold. Some I've made myself:
"I am a neutered side in all of this."
"I like the way you simile."
"Your eyes are like pools of crisis water."
"What the hall is going on here?!"
"You move with such grape..."
These are very old, since I started getting so many of these I turned off the autocorrect option.

Urgh. Please tell me you're going to subvert the hell out of that stupid stereotype about how being a bottom makes you unmanly. I swear, I have never written a single bottom who wasn't loaded with manliness and testosterone precisely because of that ridiculous stereotype. Urgh. Can't stand it.

Uh... what? What part of what I'm saying precludes the use of jail as a change? I'm actually suggesting you how to extend the sentence if 6 years is too little.
As for the originality thing... you will never have an original idea. None of us will. Everything has already been done before, whether by someone famous or by someone who fell into obscurity, and seeking originality is a madman's goal. It's better to just let go and embrace that fact. What makes a story enjoyable is not the originality of the plot, but the way it's told.

If it sound like an autopsy... it too clinical and not sexy, still some slang word are vulgar or sexist, I rather use a discription of what the body part does or how it reacts, in place of slang or anatomical terms, to me it's whatever makes the story flow and evokes the right sexy mood.
Angry Cursing is another story, it calls for different guide lines, it need to shock!
I positively hate the word cunt it is totally sexist,...I wont use it for any reason what- so- ever, not even as a curse...and pussy is silly I can't take it seriously. I'd rather use wet folds, or moist petals. For Female insults I'd rather use slut or horny bitch.
As for men I perfer Cock, shaft, manhood over dick, but will use dick in cursing, even though it could have two different meanings in that context.
For what it's worth my 2 cents
It would be nice it they would come up with more cleverily discriptive words for sexual functions!
Even thought it probably considered anatomical or clincal...I'm sort of like the word ejaculate, it has its own funky class.LOL
Cal

We were recently contacted by a well respected British publication about appearing in an article supporting Fan Fiction since we are one of the largest Fan Fiction communities out there. The following is his email to us:
I would love to have some of our more established, long term, articulate Fan Fiction Authors who are currently active (Perhaps even an Originals author as we don't JUST do fan fic) speak with him. If this is something you are interested in, please let me know via a forum PM. Alternatively, if you have not signed up for the forums, you can always send me an email at admin@adult-fanfiction.org with your pen name/link to your profile and contact information that you would like to be provided. I'd appreciate, but not require, a brief statement as to why you would like to represent the site.
I'm expecting a large response (I mean who doesn't want to be quoted in an article!) so please understand that so he is not overwhelmed, I'll be sorting through the responses and sending only a handful on to him. I will be looking for someone who, as I mentioned above, is currently active in the archive, well versed and well spoken and has been with the site for a decent amount of time.
I don't know about you guys, but I'm so excited for the recent popularity and acceptance of fan fiction! If you have a chance, make sure you check out PBS's Idea Channel episode on YouTube talking about it! They'd love for our users to sound off in the comments!


Edit: Okay! So, I've got the short list created ... of 18... I still gotta whittle down, but at least I'm getting somewhere! Please understand that due to the sheer volume of applications, it is just not a possibility for me to respond to each of you individually. It's been a pleasure getting to understand a bit of why you do what you do and I can't even begin to express how blessed I feel to have such a supportive group of people!

Well, I think that a lot of the people who react poorly to concrit and yet admit there are problems with their writing is because concrit reminds them of their failures and they react negatively to it. Is it immature? Of course. But I have to say, it's pretty damn hard to swallow your pride and take concrit when all you want to do is yell "I know! I know it's horrible! Don't rub it in!". LOL. It takes so much maturity and conscious effort I can't find it in me to condemn people who fail to do it.

This is where I often see on cleanup the review that says "You might be best served to obtain a beta. As is, this piece is somewhat difficult to read."
And, honestly, that review is enough. You don't have to go through the whole thing if it made you cringe that much. You've told the author (though very bluntly) that they have a good deal of work to do. They can choose to listen to you or not. But I bet you, nowadays, that review would quickly be deleted.
One of the minors we recently deleted actually said this: "Normal people just click I agree. They don't actually read it, ya know."
(Not going to tell you how much that made my blood boil. I'm just not.)
It's the concept of accountability - no one wants to be responsible, and if I didn't read it, then you can't hold me liable. Absolutely incorrect, and completely flawed in premise. But that's the thought process. This is why it's actually printed in the driving manuals when you have to take the test: "Ignorance of the laws of the area you are travelling in does not make you any less liable for violations. Be sure you know the laws when travelling between counties, and out of state."
Hear, hear! I've said it before, I'll say it again: heaven help you if you walk into one of the larger fandoms and read a story by an author with a large fanbase and don't like something that author did. It's like someone posting an Anne Rice fanfiction - you get hounded to the point that you're ready to call your ISP and tell them to disconnect your service.
So who gets to start it off then? Chicken-egg syndrome. (And here comes the debilitatingly blunt side of me) If you want better reviews, you have to leave better reviews. Because if all someone is getting is "good job!" or "you need a beta" and no other feedback, that's all they're going to leave for someone else. And when someone is new to the community, and that's all they see, that's all they're going to leave.

I'll be perfectly honest. I have had the oh-so-delightful experience of being attacked personally for my role as a moderator. It's stupid, and childish, and not what I expected from people on this site, but I tend to give people more credit than they deserve, it seems. Apparently, not only did these bullies never bother to actually read the Terms of Service and Content Guidelines that they agreed to when making their account, they find it unreasonable for us to expect them to actually comply with it.
Although we now use a separate moderator account for our work here, I don't think I'm alone in remaining reluctant to expose myself to the bullshit of retaliation reviews. While I'm intelligent enough not to take the content to heart, I'm also hampered in how I can respond because I am a mod for the site, and even in my "personal" role, what I do and say reflects on the site as a whole. I know that standing up to bullies works, but I can't do that, and silence only encourages that particular form of vermin, whereas I'd rather hold up a mirror and force them to confront their own blindingly evident inadequacies.
Even worse, they help to alienate readers and authors who would otherwise leave reviews that were meaningful and contained useful concrit. I enjoy being told what worked, but even more so, I want to know what doesn't work. I will never improve if I don't know where I'm lacking, and I'm not delusional enough to think I don't have vast room for improvement. I particularly resent losing the gorgeous and invaluable concrit from ShadowKnight, and the blunter but no less cherished concrit from wanderingaddict. They kept me going when I started writing here, and I've taken their advice to heart, to my great benefit.
The utter nadir, though, is seeing writers with talent and potential crushed by bullies who unleash the full fury of their minions on someone who dares to leave a less than fanpoodling review. It's not in my scope of authority, but I'd cheerfully ban those bullies without a moment's hesitation. I never permitted my children to throw tantrums in public and if certain users want to behave like children, I'm more than happy to administer swift parental response. Being an adult comprises more than just having reached a certain chronological benchmark.

Danyealle's post rang so true.
I think there are two separate issues.
There are many super-sensitive authors who take the slightly criticism as a personal attack. Their stories are their babies and when they say 'please review' they mean 'make nice comments about my baby'. Telling them that their story has faults is heard as 'your baby is ugly' and they either get incredibly upset or retaliate.
Then there is the problem of being online. Some people don't have a personal code of conduct. Give them anonymity and they behave abominably. They get a kick out of picking on people. Sometimes they dress it up as retaliation. Sometimes they don't bother to do even that.
I don't think the review system is for concrit anymore. I think it serves two main purposes:
It encourages the author to keep writing. I say this from personal experience. I am writing the last story in a series on this site. It is a lot of work and, like all writers, I sometimes love it and sometimes wish I had never started. I know I wouldn't still be going if it wasn't for the readers who review. Some review for every chapter, every Wednesday and every Saturday. THANK YOU! Other reviews come out of the blue and are equally welcome.
Sometimes authors use it to garner ideas about ways forward

Even if the review system is only fulfilling these limited purposes, I would still encourage readers to review because it is so encouraging for a writer to make contact with readers.
I think authors who are serious about concrit get a beta. If they can find one. Mine, Small Fox, is wonderful.
Don't get me wrong, I am happy to receive concrit. If I feel the reviewer has a point I try to act on it. It can be really useful. I have had extensive PM exchanges about issues some reviewers have brought up and such discussions have changed the way I write.
But I am 52. I have been a technical writer. I am used to working with editors who do not hesitate to tell me that what I am writing does not come up to standard or why my bright idea doesn't conform or will not work.

Pretty much sums up 90% of my reviews anyway!

Seriously, though, I have gotten bored in stories, and I do tell the author that. Because if it's not entertaining, then I'm not going to keep reading. I don't say "This is boring!" That would be ASKING to get hammered.
What I do say, generally, is where and why I lost interest. I think that's helpful to an author - especially if they are actually trying to hone their craft.
Now, before I leave the story, I ask myself if it's because I'm thinking about something else and it's plaguing me that my mind isn't focused on the story at hand? And when that's the case, I leave it for a while, then come back. If it holds my attention the second time, then obviously, that's not something on the author - that's on me and life in general.
And, no, SK, you're not alone. I stopped reviewing for the longest time having to do with a girl in the Netherlands over on FFN. I say girl, because she couldn't have been more than nineteen. At any rate, I didn't appreciate being hammered in my PM box every time I logged on to FFN by her - and eventually some of her friends - over leaving her a concrit review. I had to block them all (which thankfully there is such a feature to keep them from harassing me in PMs). But I didn't resort to that right away. I started out by trying to explain to her that I was trying to help her hone her skills, especially given that English wasn't her first language and she was choosing to write in it. Regardless, there was either some break down in communication, or there was a refusal to understand said communication.
Eventually the new friends (or sock puppet accounts, what have you) stopped PM'ing me. And while I kept reading other authors, I didn't dare review anything else - my god, if that's what happens on one concrit review that was NICE, heaven help me if I left something slightly more abrasive. I'm a blunt person and tend to be a bit sharp unintentionally.
When the RA started up, I figured this site is for adults (first of all) and the archive doesn't have a PM feature, so I'm not going to get slammed like that. Everyone that keeps harping about a PM feature doesn't realize, that's one of the things I actually like about this site - I don't have to worry constantly about blocking someone - and all of their friends - because I left them a review they didn't like. If it's added, it's added, and there might be a serious decline in the number of meaty reviews I leave.
Like Slayitalldown, I'm not fond of leaving "Good job!" and that's it on a review. I feel like I cheated that author. I do my damnedest to actually tell the author what was good about it. What did I like? What was done well? What was about this story that kept my interest all the way through? After all, I got all the way to the review button, so something must have intrigued me. But to be completely honest, when you see even those reviews -the ones where you told them what was good about their story - disappear from a review board.... well, that's when you're ready to throw in the towel.
Still, I try to leave a review if I read it. (Not if I clicked on it to check for site-related stuff - sorry, but your hit count will go up without a review for that.) Even if I know (or strongly suspect) that the review won't be there in five hours.
But like Dany and rowdy both said: if you only want praise, say that in an AN at the top, so I can click the back button and find something else to read.

I'll also add to Dany's statements (and Apollo's welcome to smack me if I step over the line, but she knows that )
There are those who come into the Shoutbox here on the forum and practically beg for reviews. They constantly complain about how they get none. Now, sometimes, they really don't. Sometimes they have one review for every 200 or so hits on their story.
One of the ones that really didn't have any reviews, I reviewed two of hers. Her response was to delete one of the stories completely, and delete my review on the other.
Tell me, as a reader, how I'm supposed to react to the fact that when you beg for reviews, and I leave you one that isn't, as Dany said, an "I luff it" review - and your response is to delete it?

*shakes head* These writers apparently have NO idea just how much time and work goes into a concrit review. I have spent over an hour on some of my concrit reviews, it depends on the number of errors and how long the chapter is. I try to make them as professional as I can because the purpose of these reviews is to help the author improve their writing skills. Nobody is going to spend that kind of time on someone who can't appreciate it.
You get one solid review and cry FLAME? The writer should be sending the reviewer flowers for taking the time to read their story and for writing a review meant to help them grow in the craft!
If all a writer wants is fluffy reviews, they should put an author's note at the start of the story saying: Praiseful reviews only.

I'm going to be honest, I’ve been avoiding this thread like it's nuclear waste because it's the kind of thing that can lead to serious rants and some very hurt feeling but, after today, I decided to add my two pennies to it (and Apollo is checking those pennies to make sure I don't step over the line with this rant).
For those on here that don't know, I've been an archive moderator since '08 and seen a lot of things over those years so I can quite honestly say that, despite what someone asserted, it's not a few bad apples that have ruined reviews for most everyone but a whole lot of them rotten apples that have killed it! That's no joke, folks! And the biggest problem with getting reviews is the authors themselves. They are the ones that have, bluntly, made it to where so many are out and out scared to leave a review of any kind for anyone. It's sad, but it's true! I know people are going to argue with that assertion but hear me out.
One very shining example of this happened today. A few days ago, I was working on doing my ten reviews for AFF's Review Association (for those of you that don't know what that is we go in and review stories each month that have none. Our reward for that? We get a banner. Nothing else. If interested, they are always accepting members-plug over, back to rant...). It's been a few days since I did it so I didn't think anything of it until I woke up today and was getting ready for work. Checking the standard pages I do when I get up, I found that one of the beings I left a review for reported me for it! Now, being a mod, I know what the difference between what a flame and concrit is. I also know where the line is drawn and don't even step close to it. If I feel something I’m saying is too harsh, I get BW or Apollo to check it over for me to see if there isn't a way to soften up what I said or to ensure that I didn't step over any kind of line with it.
The review in question wasn't even one I had to do that with. It was nicely worded, slightly blunt but not overly so, giving the issue, a link about how to fix the issue and how what was done affects the reader when trying to read it. I started and ended the review with positive things about the story. Nor did I rip the thing apart. But, still, I got reported for it and there was a long rant from the author about the whole thing basically saying I need to quit pretending this is a professional writing site or Hollywood and stop leaving those kinds of reviews. I was... STUNNED. Then I laughed my ass off! Am I mad about it? No, I thought it was funny as hell! Am I in trouble for it? No, because I did nothing wrong and I didn't flame or attack anyone. Is this odd? Yes and no. It's odd that I got reported but these kinds of tantrums over concrit reviews are quite common. There are plenty out there, more than just a small handful of them, that want nothing but fandpoodling OMGWTFILUFFIT reviews and for you to say nothing else though they ask for reviews.
Other examples are just as bad. Plenty pimp the hell out of their stuff all over and ask for reviews but when you give them an honest one, they just delete it and don't bother to fix any of the issues you pointed out even if you give them a very easy way or solution to fixing what is wrong. Talking to Rogue, another member of the RA, we figured out that we are running about 50/50 with reviews we leave. About 50% stay up and the other 50 either get rid of the review or out and out delete the story (this month's 5 I did serious concrit for has resulted in 2 reviews already being deleted and one reporting me for what I had to say so you can see this is not an exaggeration). That is sad but true. And, generally, they all but beg for reviews in the story, the thread in the forum to promo the story or elsewhere. But if you don't just gush, they get rid of it. How many times are you going to go through with this until you give up? It generally doesn't take long before you throw your hands up and say 'I give' then quit. It get's worse though.
Though many of you might think I’m joking (I can assure you, I’m not), it goes downhill from there. Like I said at the beginning, I’ve seen a lot over my time as a mod and a common thing to happen is the flame baiting by authors. BW and I have both had this happen to us because we're mods and the author didn't like something we told them to change. We've had them say something in the story then had their readers go after our stories with reviews that are intended to be retaliatory and bombing our ratings. And if they'll do it to a mod, who knows what's going on and how to handle it, you can damned sure bet they do it to reviewers that say something they don't like! They have too, many, many, MANY times.
They leave a butt-hurt, whiney ass AN about how someone was so mean to them in a review or that they think they should just stop writing because of something that is said then BAM the reviewer gets nailed. It happens more than you think, folks! And if you think it's just younger authors that do this, think again! There are plenty of older ones that do the same thing. This, more than anything, has made it to where people are afraid to leave a review. Would you want attacked because you were honest or were giving feedback to someone that's not mean but intended to help them improve what they do? The majority of you would say no to this but it's what happens. And plenty have seen this so they back off and say nothing rather than be on the receiving end of that kind of flaming. That results in people not reviewing. Since this has gone on for years, the end result is what you see now; reviews are minimal. If someone gives one, it's just standard fanpoodling OMG update soon or something like that.
So, know what? You want to bitch and complain to someone about this? Go find the authors that do this bonehead stupid stuff, and more I didn't mention, and let them know because they are the ones that have killed the reviews for the rest of you more than just the readers that never bother.

Oh, good! I'd miss my perfect concrit otherwise!

Compromise: Write in British English, but do it as if you were Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins.

I love to know what people think. I adore reviews, and I especially adore people who take the time to tell me what works and doesn't work in my story, so I can improve. There's always room to improve, in my opinion, and no one is ever perfect. I'll also be the first to admit that I don't review as much as I should, but I'm hoping to get back to reviewing when things calm down.
But even when I don't get a single review, I write because the stories want out. They're not going to give me a moment's peace until I write them. Being a writer isn't a choice for me. It's how I make sense of the world, by seeing life through that lens and trying to capture it, however feebly and ineptly. I can't force people to read my work, or to review it, but I do hope that on my very last day on this Earth, I manage to write something. If nothing else, I'll at least have been true to myself.

Wicked paladin. Now my secret is out!