Here we are at Week 346 as another seven days slope into the distance.
I really do appreciate when these write themselves.
I’m a bit of a lazy bastard and don’t like thinking but to be fair, I don’t think much and pish still comes to me.
However, this was an easy topic as it came up in a discussion between us and I thought that it would be good to let you see this. It may explain something that all three of us have been struggling with.
We were wondering about content and how we were willing to accept stories about beasts (Not beasties, like crabbit donkeys, pigeons, rats, cats etc – But freaky sick fuck paedophiles like Randy Andy Pandy who likes to shag a wee lassie) and we ended up having quite the discussion. I actually think we came to a conclusion that is clear and I’ve decided to share this.
I’ve tied in our comments and hopefully this will give some explanation.
The way we look at it is really all to do with how gratuitous the content is. Any stories that we have published to do with child abuse, have never been very graphic. There is an argument that the suggestive can be as bad, if not worse. However, when it comes to animal cruelty, most of it, to be realistic, HAS to be graphic and that is where distaste can cause us not to want to read. If a story’s’ details are left to the reader, then it’s up to them where their mind takes them.
I hate Tom’s, Titanic story, but it wasn’t graphic, the horse went under the ice and we were left with the sadness. He didn’t write about the actualities of the drowning and to me, this is why it worked.
Too much sugar in romance, too much sadness in an ill kid story and too much confusion in senility stories would all be refused for the overkill. So we feel fine about not accepting animal cruelty if the animal suffering is too strong. (Fuck!! – Is there any other kind??) We would never accept a child abuse story if it went into detail regarding what actually happened to the kid.
I think we’ve all struggled, thinking on double standards when we find something distasteful that we’ve published before, but when I think on the actual descriptions of the two types, (paedophilia and animal cruelty) one is stated and left to your own mind whereas the other is described and in your face.
I think overall, when dealing with distasteful material, it needs to be showcased but if it is, suggestion has a greater chance in getting published than description. The dark side of life must be considered but we don’t need the images from the writer, it’s much better to leave the reader with their own thoughts. That way, the reader can never wonder about a writers motives.
Let’s be honest – If you are writing anything and get a questionable reaction to your own words, that can be a bit worrying and you should then question your motive. Are you a story teller or a proclaiming fantacist??
…And don’t think the reader hasn’t those suspicions!!
Hope this has given you some idea on what we discuss and consider and some more transparency on our thinking and reasoning!
Ahhh – Transparency – The Invisible Man tried to be transparent but he caused a double negative which meant everyone could see his penis. He was embarrassed about his short-comings (See – No specific description!)
Okay, onto this weeks stories.
Only one new writer and four of our busiest writers to grace the site this week. Topics include; excess, a two dimensional character, reminiscing, friendship and alternatives.
As always our initial comments follow.
‘I can’t resist this voice.’
Mick Bennett was our new writer. We hope that he has fun on the site, welcome him and want to see more of his work.
‘A very well drawn character.’
‘Sincere without being sentimental.’
‘Moving without being maudlin.’
This year wouldn’t be this year without another story from Yash Seyedbagheri.
He broke the back of the week with ‘What If?‘
‘I love anything that gleans the deeper meaning from ‘The Big Lebowski”.
It is always a pleasure for me to introduce a story from one of me fellow editors.
So next up was not only by Leila but her friend Daisy! ‘Citizen Pie-Eyed Peety‘ nearly finished off the week.
‘I love these ‘persons”.
‘Love the linoleum road!!’
‘Excellent and inventive as ever!’
And from one legend to another.
Tom Sheehan finished off the week with ‘A Little Red Wagon.‘
‘Tom at his best.’
‘This gentleman has a top shelf memory.’
‘The detail in the description of the details is stunning!’
Just to finish off I saw the maddest thing ever this week and that was vegan dog food. That in itself is mad but it’s three quid for a can!
Imagine paying three pounds for food that your dog is going to hate you for giving it. Be happy if they just refuse, they are forcing your hand to feed them the entrails that they desire. Be worried about the pets who just suffer it and eat it. They are doing so as they don’t believe that they have a choice. But the first slip you have into unconsciousness, wee Fido will be on you like a Prince on a teenager and after they’ve shagged you, they will eat you. Just like a prince with a teenager and a pizza. (Again – An example of nothing graphic and by fuck did I hold back on that one!!!! So I’ve let your thoughts take you where they will)
As I am typing this I’m just hearing in the news that The Metropolitan Police are not investigating Randy Andy Pandy who likes to shag a wee lassie.
I wonder why??
Maybe it has something to do with whose picture adorns every Police Chiefs Office up and down the whole of Britain.