the reason why the archive is struggling a little is this (in my opinion)
1) like anything, if it gets messed up, and isnt repaired quick enough, interest is lost and despondency sets in, not saying the effort put in isnt appreciated by far it is, just saying its human nature to become despondent after 12 months of none finished repair... its life
2) i dont think login is an issue, if something as simple as logging in saves it, thats fine, but, alot of stories are still missing AND all over the place in wrong sections, and the New Stories... stories should only be in there for a week maximum, otheriwse it just looks shit.
anyways those are my little opinions, its like the archive is NEARLY done, but needs finishing off, and has needed that last finishing off push for the past few months, i think if that can get done then it will gather momentum again and a few more contributions from members would help interest grow and itll soon pick up speed
Death of Fiction?
-
wannabe (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 144
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 1:51 pm
-
Posting Rank
-
janekane (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 583
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 11:26 am
-
Posting Rank
Re: Death of Fiction?
I have yet to read most of the Archive stories. Those I have read, I find tend to have two "levels" of redeeming social value. One of those levels is of a "sexual" form, function, and nature. Absent sexuality in one way or another, there shall be no people to read or write Archive stories, or, for that matter, there eventually also shall be no people to be or do anything. The other of those levels is of the relationship of the individual person to other individual persons within the framework of the structure of human society, and the dance between authoritarian social structures (authoritarian, dogmatic, tyrannical, coercive, and ultimately, so I observe, tragically deceptive) and authoritative social structures (no one has coercive power over anyone else, authority is found only in observation of events and is not any personal attribute, objectivity guides subjectivity, and coercion and its inescapable tyranny, in every form and function, is diligently "rooted out" and set aside as a social organizing methodology).
I abhor authoritarianism.
In its ultimate form, I find authoritarianism to be akin to someone claiming the right and the power to declare, without any place for mutually reciprocal dialogue-based negotiation, "Don't do what I tell you to do, or else; and, if you disobey me, I will make you suffer until you do as I told you to do."
I embrace authoritativism.
In its ultimate form, I find authoritativism to be akin to someone relating to self and others in ways that affirm that live, as human experiences, may be regarded as a sequence of events to which people respond, and, in responding to events, learn of their response abilities.
Whereas, I find authoritarianism imposes a-priori "responsibilities" on individual people in ways that inextricably condemn people to being defined as inadequate, imperfect, or worse, because "responsibilities" inherently coerce people into failing to meet "their responsibilities," it is impossible for a person to fail to meet their "response abilities" for the simple reason that the way a person actually responds to a life event is inescapably of the person's actual ability to respond.
In the authoritarian, "responsibility" model, people are never competent to live their actual lives; in the authoritative "response ability" model, people are always competent to live their actual lives.
To me, authoritarianism is obscene, and authoritarianism is the one and only obscenity.
The most absolutely profound obscenity I have ever come across is the convention of some human societies and/or human cultures that human sexuality is, in any way whatsoever, obscene. I find that social convention, in those societies and cultures in which human sexuality is regarded as obscene, to be a profoundly socially and personally damaging biological atrocity.
I have a number of story ideas in the works. There are some events that I also have in the works, events that I find need to predate my submitting stories to the Archive because of aspects of my understanding of the Code of Ethics of the National Society of Professional Engineers, of which I am a member, and in accord with which my license as a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer requires that I work.
The Code of Ethics concern for me is of the need for me to hold paramount the public safety while avoiding deception.
For me to submit Archive stories, I need to be able to write them so that they meet my understanding of that Code of Ethics and are also written so that those who read will find such reading worthwhile.
And...
I have worked in business settings in which there was a commercial enterprise (storefront operation) in which there was often a single employee present, and customers came at random intervals. Sometimes, hours would go by with no customers, sometimes ten or more customers would arrive almost concurrently.
The writing and submitting of Archive stories may be a tad like a small retail business, in that stories may come in the manner of a random process, such that the rate of story arrival may be remarkably chaotic. From time to time, a person's "creative juices" may flow less than at other times.
As for access to the Archive stories, making access more difficult may tend to preclude alarming authoritarianists to some extent, and the temporary shutdown of the Archive in 2011 was a (to me, somewhat freaky) form of authoritarian tyranny imposed on the Archive by an insufficiently informed authoritarianist.
Were I to make a guess, and guesses tend to be wrong much of the time, I would guess that one reason for the reduced rate of story submission may be the difficulty of getting to the Archive stories, so that people who have not come upon the stories because they are more difficult to find and read, and who are bursting with "creative juices" are not writing and submitting stories because they have been shielded from the Archive in a way similar to how the present Archive story access structure may have shielded the stories from authoritarianists such as attempted to destroy the Archive in 2011.
In my view, authoritarianists are plentifully abundant, and making the Archive stories harder to find may be damaging the Archive more than the authoritarianists can.
It makes sense to me to understand the 2011 temporary Archive shutdown and its independent re-emergence as an indication that the Archive stories really do represent a valid and socially significant challenge to authoritarianism and its destructive ilk.
Might it be wise to affirm that social significance by making reading the stories less of an obstacle to be overcome only with difficulty?
Has the goal of the (authoritarian?) person or persons who got the Archive temporarily shutdown in 2011 been met by making the stories harder to get to and read?
To whatever extent that is true, what would be a wiser way to structure Archive story access?
I have been busy reading Richard Elkins, "The Nature of Legislative Intent," Oxford University Press, 2012. (The publication date is December 12, 2012.)
Op. cit., page 124, "The community is not able to legislate itself because the community at large lacks the capacity to consider the reasons that bear on legal change and to formulate proposals for legal change that are responsive to the relevant situation."
Op. cit., page 125, "The legislative act is also able to settle decisively what shall be done, in a way that is not open to challenge or argument. Legislation is posited at a certain point in time in a canonical formulation and is prospective in effect. It is thus a form of law that is suited to the rule of law."
Those two quotations from Elkins are, for me, about as concise an account of the unmitigated atrocity which I find is the essence of authoritarianism as I have yet stumbled upon. Authoritarian law imposes responsibilities prospectively, taking into account nothing of the circumstances not anticipated in the law when posited that generate alleged violations of the law.
As a Wisconsin-licensed Registered Professional Engineer having B.S. and Ph.D. degrees in bioengineering from the University of Illinois at Chicago, I find that the Anglo-American Adversarial System of Law and Jurisprudence, in its present form in the United States of America, actually violates itself, and, in violating itself, violates all the people it claims to possess. I surmise that the work I do in bioengineering related to public safety aspects of the structure(s) of human society may be somewhere near or in the realm of the frontier of theoretical biology and its practicable application.
Op. cit., page 125, again, "To change the law is to change the set of propositions that constitute the law. The law is this set of propositions in the sense that its primary reality is that it provides reasons for action for the members of the community whose law it is. That is, the law is a prescription of practical reason promulgated by legal authority, a prescription which the person subject to the authority is to adopt as if it were self-prescribed."
To that last fair-use quotation from Elkins, op. cit, my response is terribly simple. "Absolutely not... Like HELL, I do. Like, (INFINITE SEQUENCE OF VILE EPITHETS), I adopt that prescription as if it were self-prescribed."
I had developed a conscience before I was born. After more than 70 years, I have found a way to describe my conscience, a way that makes useful sense to me, if to no one else, that I can put into word-form. I find that my conscience is functionally the anthesis of prescriptive adversarial law.
My conscience functions thus, put into words:
{begin conscience description in word form}
If it is right, it is helpful.
If it is helpful, it is right.
If it is hurtful, it is wrong.
If it is wrong, it is hurtful.
AND:
It is helpful to learn what is hurtful so as to learn how to avoid what is hurtful; therefore everything hurtful that actually happens is right because no other process exists whereby learning what is hurtful and how to avoid it is achievable.
Whatever actually happens, as it happens, is necessary and sufficient, because it is what actually happens.
Therefore, the actual happening of actual wrongdoing is an actual impossibility.
AND ALSO:
Teaching children that they accomplished an impossibility and torturing them as coercive punishment massively damages children's brains, so severely that many children develop severe to near-total amnesia for the inherent truthfulness of a newborn infant; this coercive punishment torture is the essence of the infant-child transition and the child protests sometimes named "the terrible twos." This massive brain damage is the essence of the "unconscious mind" that makes actual decisions outside conscious awareness, and therefore, also outside conscious control, in people who went through the infant-child transition so well that their transition from infancy to childhood, in the socialization tradition sense, is actually a discontinuity of conscious awareness.
SUCH THAT:
Well before I learned to talk in word-based sentences, I had recognized that the infant-child transition was hurtful, and therefore, was wrong, and I chose, with fully conscious, fully deliberate effort, to avoid it, regardless how others might treat me for having not gone through the infant-child transition.
AND:
I have never accepted or internalized, "The Rule of Law," because I have always found it to be deceptive, dishonest, and destructive beyond my power of words to begin to convey.
I only accept the rule of deception-free conscience, with which I was born, and which I have ever since retained intact and undamaged.
{end conscience description in word form}
It seems to me that, in responding to the forced and unwelcome temporarhy shutdown of the Archive in 2011, an unintended, unwitting, and unplanned consequence may be doing more damage to the Archive than the shutdown accomplished.
Perhaps I am mistaken about that...
I abhor authoritarianism.
In its ultimate form, I find authoritarianism to be akin to someone claiming the right and the power to declare, without any place for mutually reciprocal dialogue-based negotiation, "Don't do what I tell you to do, or else; and, if you disobey me, I will make you suffer until you do as I told you to do."
I embrace authoritativism.
In its ultimate form, I find authoritativism to be akin to someone relating to self and others in ways that affirm that live, as human experiences, may be regarded as a sequence of events to which people respond, and, in responding to events, learn of their response abilities.
Whereas, I find authoritarianism imposes a-priori "responsibilities" on individual people in ways that inextricably condemn people to being defined as inadequate, imperfect, or worse, because "responsibilities" inherently coerce people into failing to meet "their responsibilities," it is impossible for a person to fail to meet their "response abilities" for the simple reason that the way a person actually responds to a life event is inescapably of the person's actual ability to respond.
In the authoritarian, "responsibility" model, people are never competent to live their actual lives; in the authoritative "response ability" model, people are always competent to live their actual lives.
To me, authoritarianism is obscene, and authoritarianism is the one and only obscenity.
The most absolutely profound obscenity I have ever come across is the convention of some human societies and/or human cultures that human sexuality is, in any way whatsoever, obscene. I find that social convention, in those societies and cultures in which human sexuality is regarded as obscene, to be a profoundly socially and personally damaging biological atrocity.
I have a number of story ideas in the works. There are some events that I also have in the works, events that I find need to predate my submitting stories to the Archive because of aspects of my understanding of the Code of Ethics of the National Society of Professional Engineers, of which I am a member, and in accord with which my license as a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer requires that I work.
The Code of Ethics concern for me is of the need for me to hold paramount the public safety while avoiding deception.
For me to submit Archive stories, I need to be able to write them so that they meet my understanding of that Code of Ethics and are also written so that those who read will find such reading worthwhile.
And...
I have worked in business settings in which there was a commercial enterprise (storefront operation) in which there was often a single employee present, and customers came at random intervals. Sometimes, hours would go by with no customers, sometimes ten or more customers would arrive almost concurrently.
The writing and submitting of Archive stories may be a tad like a small retail business, in that stories may come in the manner of a random process, such that the rate of story arrival may be remarkably chaotic. From time to time, a person's "creative juices" may flow less than at other times.
As for access to the Archive stories, making access more difficult may tend to preclude alarming authoritarianists to some extent, and the temporary shutdown of the Archive in 2011 was a (to me, somewhat freaky) form of authoritarian tyranny imposed on the Archive by an insufficiently informed authoritarianist.
Were I to make a guess, and guesses tend to be wrong much of the time, I would guess that one reason for the reduced rate of story submission may be the difficulty of getting to the Archive stories, so that people who have not come upon the stories because they are more difficult to find and read, and who are bursting with "creative juices" are not writing and submitting stories because they have been shielded from the Archive in a way similar to how the present Archive story access structure may have shielded the stories from authoritarianists such as attempted to destroy the Archive in 2011.
In my view, authoritarianists are plentifully abundant, and making the Archive stories harder to find may be damaging the Archive more than the authoritarianists can.
It makes sense to me to understand the 2011 temporary Archive shutdown and its independent re-emergence as an indication that the Archive stories really do represent a valid and socially significant challenge to authoritarianism and its destructive ilk.
Might it be wise to affirm that social significance by making reading the stories less of an obstacle to be overcome only with difficulty?
Has the goal of the (authoritarian?) person or persons who got the Archive temporarily shutdown in 2011 been met by making the stories harder to get to and read?
To whatever extent that is true, what would be a wiser way to structure Archive story access?
I have been busy reading Richard Elkins, "The Nature of Legislative Intent," Oxford University Press, 2012. (The publication date is December 12, 2012.)
Op. cit., page 124, "The community is not able to legislate itself because the community at large lacks the capacity to consider the reasons that bear on legal change and to formulate proposals for legal change that are responsive to the relevant situation."
Op. cit., page 125, "The legislative act is also able to settle decisively what shall be done, in a way that is not open to challenge or argument. Legislation is posited at a certain point in time in a canonical formulation and is prospective in effect. It is thus a form of law that is suited to the rule of law."
Those two quotations from Elkins are, for me, about as concise an account of the unmitigated atrocity which I find is the essence of authoritarianism as I have yet stumbled upon. Authoritarian law imposes responsibilities prospectively, taking into account nothing of the circumstances not anticipated in the law when posited that generate alleged violations of the law.
As a Wisconsin-licensed Registered Professional Engineer having B.S. and Ph.D. degrees in bioengineering from the University of Illinois at Chicago, I find that the Anglo-American Adversarial System of Law and Jurisprudence, in its present form in the United States of America, actually violates itself, and, in violating itself, violates all the people it claims to possess. I surmise that the work I do in bioengineering related to public safety aspects of the structure(s) of human society may be somewhere near or in the realm of the frontier of theoretical biology and its practicable application.
Op. cit., page 125, again, "To change the law is to change the set of propositions that constitute the law. The law is this set of propositions in the sense that its primary reality is that it provides reasons for action for the members of the community whose law it is. That is, the law is a prescription of practical reason promulgated by legal authority, a prescription which the person subject to the authority is to adopt as if it were self-prescribed."
To that last fair-use quotation from Elkins, op. cit, my response is terribly simple. "Absolutely not... Like HELL, I do. Like, (INFINITE SEQUENCE OF VILE EPITHETS), I adopt that prescription as if it were self-prescribed."
I had developed a conscience before I was born. After more than 70 years, I have found a way to describe my conscience, a way that makes useful sense to me, if to no one else, that I can put into word-form. I find that my conscience is functionally the anthesis of prescriptive adversarial law.
My conscience functions thus, put into words:
{begin conscience description in word form}
If it is right, it is helpful.
If it is helpful, it is right.
If it is hurtful, it is wrong.
If it is wrong, it is hurtful.
AND:
It is helpful to learn what is hurtful so as to learn how to avoid what is hurtful; therefore everything hurtful that actually happens is right because no other process exists whereby learning what is hurtful and how to avoid it is achievable.
Whatever actually happens, as it happens, is necessary and sufficient, because it is what actually happens.
Therefore, the actual happening of actual wrongdoing is an actual impossibility.
AND ALSO:
Teaching children that they accomplished an impossibility and torturing them as coercive punishment massively damages children's brains, so severely that many children develop severe to near-total amnesia for the inherent truthfulness of a newborn infant; this coercive punishment torture is the essence of the infant-child transition and the child protests sometimes named "the terrible twos." This massive brain damage is the essence of the "unconscious mind" that makes actual decisions outside conscious awareness, and therefore, also outside conscious control, in people who went through the infant-child transition so well that their transition from infancy to childhood, in the socialization tradition sense, is actually a discontinuity of conscious awareness.
SUCH THAT:
Well before I learned to talk in word-based sentences, I had recognized that the infant-child transition was hurtful, and therefore, was wrong, and I chose, with fully conscious, fully deliberate effort, to avoid it, regardless how others might treat me for having not gone through the infant-child transition.
AND:
I have never accepted or internalized, "The Rule of Law," because I have always found it to be deceptive, dishonest, and destructive beyond my power of words to begin to convey.
I only accept the rule of deception-free conscience, with which I was born, and which I have ever since retained intact and undamaged.
{end conscience description in word form}
It seems to me that, in responding to the forced and unwelcome temporarhy shutdown of the Archive in 2011, an unintended, unwitting, and unplanned consequence may be doing more damage to the Archive than the shutdown accomplished.
Perhaps I am mistaken about that...
-
bobover3 (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 893
- Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 12:39 am
-
Posting Rank
Re: Death of Fiction?
The stories are an essential part of EA. Otherwise, it becomes just a highly specialized bulletin board. There is, I think, a significant collective literary value to the stories, as spotty as some may be. More important, there's a big therapeutic value. Because of EA's focus, many of its members have pain and trouble in their lives beyond the ordinary. Deep emotions result. Many who can not or will not express themselves directly about these things can do so indirectly through stories. Even those who don't write stories may still exorcize their demons by reading others' stories. The value of the stories as a way of working through people's problems can't be overemphasized.
If there has been a sudden recent fall in story submissions, better to ask what has changed about EA in the same period, even in small ways, even things not directly related to stories, that might affect overall interest. The difficulties described so far are not recent, yet the drop in submissions is, so I doubt those difficulties can be the whole reason.
One person mentioned the loss of anonymity when e-mailing submissions. This problem might be solved by using one of the various "cloud computing" services available now for free or low cost. Authors might submit stories to an on-line box without identifying information.
Author appreciation is very important. I published 3 stories several years ago, and I used to check the count of readers every day. Rising totals thrilled me. If authors can only see daily totals now, that's meaningless. An author wants to know that many people have read and enjoyed his story, not just on the latest day. That's true even for print authors. A "best seller" means not only big royalties, but a large appreciative audience. If readership totals are unavailable, it takes away one of an author's greatest pleasures. For the many authors of old stories, the loss of their readership totals from the change of server is grievous. What could be more demotivating than to spend years building a fan base, only to have that accomplishment wiped away? I don't know if there's any way to retrieve this data - probably not - but authors of the many old stories should be in some way acknowledged or at least consoled for their loss.
I agree with Slammr that we need a clear, simple, sensible set of rules. I submitted 3 additional stories in recent years, only to be told that I had run afoul of some seemingly arbitrary rule so would not be published. This really discourages writing. It's not a question of the work. It's that these stories are often deeply felt, reflecting the author's most vulnerable inner life. A story rejection is very much a personal rejection. Authors burned this way are less likely to try again. For example, one of my submissions, reflecting deep personal pain, was rejected because it wasn't long enough. Such a buzz-saw approach, looking for reasons to reject, ill serves both authors and readers, even if it makes editing easier.
My point is that authors should be encouraged. I was attracted to EA by the stories, and I wrote stories before I posted much. If EA loses its stories, it loses a big part of its soul. The stories are where many people pour their hearts out. EA should not lose this through inattention.
If there has been a sudden recent fall in story submissions, better to ask what has changed about EA in the same period, even in small ways, even things not directly related to stories, that might affect overall interest. The difficulties described so far are not recent, yet the drop in submissions is, so I doubt those difficulties can be the whole reason.
One person mentioned the loss of anonymity when e-mailing submissions. This problem might be solved by using one of the various "cloud computing" services available now for free or low cost. Authors might submit stories to an on-line box without identifying information.
Author appreciation is very important. I published 3 stories several years ago, and I used to check the count of readers every day. Rising totals thrilled me. If authors can only see daily totals now, that's meaningless. An author wants to know that many people have read and enjoyed his story, not just on the latest day. That's true even for print authors. A "best seller" means not only big royalties, but a large appreciative audience. If readership totals are unavailable, it takes away one of an author's greatest pleasures. For the many authors of old stories, the loss of their readership totals from the change of server is grievous. What could be more demotivating than to spend years building a fan base, only to have that accomplishment wiped away? I don't know if there's any way to retrieve this data - probably not - but authors of the many old stories should be in some way acknowledged or at least consoled for their loss.
I agree with Slammr that we need a clear, simple, sensible set of rules. I submitted 3 additional stories in recent years, only to be told that I had run afoul of some seemingly arbitrary rule so would not be published. This really discourages writing. It's not a question of the work. It's that these stories are often deeply felt, reflecting the author's most vulnerable inner life. A story rejection is very much a personal rejection. Authors burned this way are less likely to try again. For example, one of my submissions, reflecting deep personal pain, was rejected because it wasn't long enough. Such a buzz-saw approach, looking for reasons to reject, ill serves both authors and readers, even if it makes editing easier.
My point is that authors should be encouraged. I was attracted to EA by the stories, and I wrote stories before I posted much. If EA loses its stories, it loses a big part of its soul. The stories are where many people pour their hearts out. EA should not lose this through inattention.
Re: Death of Fiction?
The rules: http://www.eunuch.org/forums/showthread ... t-Anything!
Which has been a sticky thread for years...and may or may not be revised by Cainanite, since it's HIS show now.
And just so you know, I never used a buzzsaw or went "looking" for stories to delete/refuse.
There was plenty of garbage submitted over the years for that.
Which has been a sticky thread for years...and may or may not be revised by Cainanite, since it's HIS show now.
And just so you know, I never used a buzzsaw or went "looking" for stories to delete/refuse.
There was plenty of garbage submitted over the years for that.
-
Cainanite (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 1069
- Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 12:54 am
-
Posting Rank
Re: Death of Fiction?
The biggest thing I don't publish is "Snuff" stories. That is to say, stories where the only object is to have someone end up dead.
I am perfectly fine if someone dies in the story, but it cannot be completely about that topic. I had one entry lately that was borderline. I wrote back to the author, and he made changes. That story is now on the fiction archive.
The only other reasons I will reject a story are;
1. Bad spelling and/or bad grammar. I will not fix these things for you.
2. Re-submitting your old stories to bypass the editing process.
3. Submitting a story where you continue someone else's characters or plot without first gaining permission or crediting the original author. Or claiming someone else's story as your own. Plagarists will be banned if I catch you!
4. Not Following the submission guidelines, even after you have been told how to do it. I have a few authors that I have repeatedly told how I want their stories submitted, and they keep ignoring the instructions. I have been lax on this due to too few stories, but it could be a reason I might not publish your story.
Generally, I am VERY lax about these rules, and I will almost always tell you why I did not publish your story, if there was a problem. Otherwise, just follow the rules as they have already been laid out in the past. I see nothing wrong with the guidelines for story writing already posted. Follow them, and you WILL see your work on the archive.
I try not to be a jerk about following the rules to the letter. I want authors to write and to share. I know it is art, and we artists can be a flakey bunch at times. I try to roll with what we get.
I still don't have any new stories for this Friday's update. Just another chapter of my own story.
I really hope the fiction archive doesn't die.
I am perfectly fine if someone dies in the story, but it cannot be completely about that topic. I had one entry lately that was borderline. I wrote back to the author, and he made changes. That story is now on the fiction archive.
The only other reasons I will reject a story are;
1. Bad spelling and/or bad grammar. I will not fix these things for you.
2. Re-submitting your old stories to bypass the editing process.
3. Submitting a story where you continue someone else's characters or plot without first gaining permission or crediting the original author. Or claiming someone else's story as your own. Plagarists will be banned if I catch you!
4. Not Following the submission guidelines, even after you have been told how to do it. I have a few authors that I have repeatedly told how I want their stories submitted, and they keep ignoring the instructions. I have been lax on this due to too few stories, but it could be a reason I might not publish your story.
Generally, I am VERY lax about these rules, and I will almost always tell you why I did not publish your story, if there was a problem. Otherwise, just follow the rules as they have already been laid out in the past. I see nothing wrong with the guidelines for story writing already posted. Follow them, and you WILL see your work on the archive.
I try not to be a jerk about following the rules to the letter. I want authors to write and to share. I know it is art, and we artists can be a flakey bunch at times. I try to roll with what we get.
I still don't have any new stories for this Friday's update. Just another chapter of my own story.
I really hope the fiction archive doesn't die.
-
ICarryHerProperty (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 3:13 am
-
Posting Rank
Re: Death of Fiction?
foxytaur (imported) wrote: Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:32 pm I think it's possible and although the EA is a large community, perhaps another young programmer could perchance come long the scene and pitch in.
This is all hypothetical thinking but where theres a will theres a way
I'd certainly be glad to take a look at implementing such a feature. I couldn't write a story to save my life, but I can code.
I do find the story archive's authentication a touch on the broken side, it's forgetful of the "remember me" checkbox and when it times out (or you have to log back in for some reason) it forgets where you were going.
I don't have a huge amount of time, but being an archive reader for almost a decade and only more recently working up the guts to post on the forums... I'm willing to chip in.
I'm a little sad to see some of my favourite stories haven't come back, I've even save a couple to my disk.
Re: Death of Fiction?
You see how warm and wonderful of an editor you have now? The avatars say it all.-
StefanIsMe (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 770
- Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 3:32 pm
-
Posting Rank
Re: Death of Fiction?
Allow me to just say this.
- I appreciate, to my core, the work done by you guys (Cainanite firstly these days, but Paolo, Tal, Krister, etc etc too).
- Many others do to.
- Internet writing begets damn little feedback by its very nature.
- Internet writing on more... visceral themes, on more wild kinks, gets even less
- Having a closed (members only) library reduces feedback even more (NOT that I'm 'dissing' ours; ours DOES have to be closed)
- Posting volume is very cyclical; lots one month, little the next; lots one year, fewer the next; rebounds will happen, trust me!
- If our library ever closed down, it'd send me into a spiraling depression, my dog wouldn't get fed, and my fish would die. Yes, indeed, this library must live or else goldfish will die!!! This must not happen!!
Please understand I'm being honest, and sarcastic, and silly here. All sillyness aside, please remember, Dear Managers, that our library is a cathartic, neccessary tool for many, many people, most of whom are simply lazy or shy.
I'm sending in a story I've been reluctant to post because it's a pointless, soul-less piece of porn with a couple of stupid ideas in it, but our library needs feeding, so hopefully somebody will enjoy it.
And I promise to the one or two who enjoyed it, that I AM still writing a 2nd and final chapter to my un-finished piece soon. I'm on two weeks holidays and plan on doing some writing, but I've had no time until this coming weekend to start.
- I appreciate, to my core, the work done by you guys (Cainanite firstly these days, but Paolo, Tal, Krister, etc etc too).
- Many others do to.
- Internet writing begets damn little feedback by its very nature.
- Internet writing on more... visceral themes, on more wild kinks, gets even less
- Having a closed (members only) library reduces feedback even more (NOT that I'm 'dissing' ours; ours DOES have to be closed)
- Posting volume is very cyclical; lots one month, little the next; lots one year, fewer the next; rebounds will happen, trust me!
- If our library ever closed down, it'd send me into a spiraling depression, my dog wouldn't get fed, and my fish would die. Yes, indeed, this library must live or else goldfish will die!!! This must not happen!!
Please understand I'm being honest, and sarcastic, and silly here. All sillyness aside, please remember, Dear Managers, that our library is a cathartic, neccessary tool for many, many people, most of whom are simply lazy or shy.
I'm sending in a story I've been reluctant to post because it's a pointless, soul-less piece of porn with a couple of stupid ideas in it, but our library needs feeding, so hopefully somebody will enjoy it.
And I promise to the one or two who enjoyed it, that I AM still writing a 2nd and final chapter to my un-finished piece soon. I'm on two weeks holidays and plan on doing some writing, but I've had no time until this coming weekend to start.
-
Cainanite (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 1069
- Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 12:54 am
-
Posting Rank
Re: Death of Fiction?
Just a short note to tell those who are interested that there will be stories posted today, however it will be about 12 hours from now. I have to work late, and I will do it once I get home.
Thank-you to the authors that submitted.
Thank-you to the authors that submitted.