g4 :: 3: Death, and that which is more terrible by TheGuyWhoKnows

Posted by newenglandee 14 years ago Report

Look. I have to say this. I...this was...I...can't...I can't say anything nice about this. I just can't. EVERYTHING that Jess said in this and the chapter before, ALL of it is COMPLETELY made pointless by pretty much this entire ending. It just comes off as nothing got accomplished except two pointless, horrible, cruel, senseless deaths. The one time I really like your protagonists of your stories...and you kill them. Do you see the issue, here?

Posted by nephilim 14 years ago Report

I disagree. I have to applaude "Zeus" here. As a writer, it takes a certain kind of bravery to be able to send off a character in such a memorable and powerful way. To kill off a character - for good or ill - means to elevate the story to an even more sacred level. Because here we have not just the exploration into how tenuous and fleeting mortality is, but we have a writer upholding the integrity of a story and its respective participants.

For Volscy to NOT follow through with what was so heavily foreshadowed in the beginning, would be censorship, and a severe and abrupt departure of realism.

This was morbidly beautiful. There were a lot of unique and interesting devices in this story. Such as Oscar and Jess trying to interact within the beast's body; the prolonged and unwilling endo; the luminescence of the tongue innards; and the tail-vore and crop.

I love Jess's brief moments of insanity - these mental non-sequiturs and tangential thought processes not only deepen the relationship between her and Oscar, but bring it to a level we could not appreciate otherwise.

This was overwhelming, emotive, and brilliant. I am proud to call you my friend fellow writer on this site.

Posted by newenglandee 14 years ago Report

I'm not so sure.

Are you aware of the movie "Deep Blue Sea"? Samuel Jackson is making this big, impressive, really powerful speech to the rest of the cast as they're struggling to escape from a facility full of giant man-eating sharks and BAM, right before he finishes the thing, a shark pops outta some water nearby and eats him. In short, the whole emotional bit he just did, the entire mood of the scene, gets RUINED by something that inverts it all in less than five seconds.

This felt like that. Everything established about the characters, everything positive and memorable...just chucked in the garbage.

Posted by TheGuyWhoKnows 13 years ago Report

Awww... *blushes* And I am flattered to have you be proud to have me... well, you get the idea. Thank you.

I will admit... there was a lot of fun things to be doe in here. I've gotten myself a notable thing for that kind of "aboslutely surrounded by the predator, leaving not even a bulge* sort of endo... and the scene between them was just... ;~;

As much as I couldn't have explained myself like that, thank you for claiming so.

And yes, it took me this long to reply. I WAS TOO GOBSMACKED BY YOUR BRILLIANT INSIGHT. :3

Posted by nephilim 13 years ago Report

That's how I like my vore too: "aboslutely surrounded by the predator, leaving not even a bulge* sort of endo

Posted by nephilim 14 years ago Report

Oh. I see now. You dislike sadistic predators and stories of moral ambiguity. Ah-ha... ha ha... yeah. Then stay away from my sordid little tales.

Posted by newenglandee 14 years ago Report

That's because I think that sadistic predators are the worst kind of all. There's no motivation, no sympathetic backstory or characterization to make us LIKE or RELATE or ADMIRE them. They're just evil jerks who like eating people, flat as a piece of paper.

Also...moral ambiguity? The dragon was straight up evil. Which is SO cartoonish. Yeah, I do straight-up evil characters too, but my work's satirical and makes FUN of people with bad motivations. In fiction, there shouldn't even BE any straight-up, utterly buttfuck evil characters because people are dynamic and complicated, but they NEVER, would EVER call themselves "Evil". Everyone's the hero of their own story. Nobody wakes up and thinks "I'm gonna go burn an orphanage down cuz I'm evil". People are evil because circumstances dictate them to be, or because they believe they are mutually qualified or owed something, and act evil to GET it.

Posted by nephilim 14 years ago Report

There's no motivation, no sympathetic backstory or characterization to make us LIKE or RELATE or ADMIRE them. They're just evil jerks who like eating people, flat as a piece of paper.
===
No motivation? Why, they are no less - nor more - motivated than any other sadist. They do it because they ENJOY it. They extract incredible pleasure from their exploits. I don't agree with such a caliber of person, it's not my job as a writer to do so, instead I simply tell a story.

If they like eating people and do it because they like it, and that is their only sterling quality, then, yes they are a 'flat' personality. But that is more a failing of the writer than the personality of the predator. If the predator cannot be created so as to be interesting, then the onus is on the writer.

If no sympathy is inspired - and, if, ONLY if that was the intent of the author - then that's the failing of the writer, also.

Also...moral ambiguity? The dragon was straight up evil. Which is SO cartoonish.
===
I was not referring to the story. I was stating that - in general terms - you don't seem to like moral ambiguity. However, in this story, yes the dragon was evil. But because we're not supposed to necessarily LIKE the dragon, he is simply a plot-device to drive the story forward; so, yes, he's a casualty of such a premise. As for unmitigated evil being cartoonish? Not in this case. He had a purpose, and he served it admirably.

Yeah, I do straight-up evil characters too, but my work's satirical and makes FUN of people with bad motivations.
=====
Then that's your prerogative. "Evil" characters with personality can be rather enjoyable, if done well.

In fiction, there shouldn't even BE any straight-up, utterly buttfuck evil characters because people are dynamic and complicated, but they NEVER, would EVER call themselves "Evil".
====
Well, this I agree with. One should always strive for realism in their work. And flat one-dimensional evil characters (if they are not serving as a story-device) should be avoided.

but they NEVER, would EVER call themselves "Evil". Everyone's the hero of their own story. Nobody wakes up and thinks "I'm gonna go burn an orphanage down cuz I'm evil".
===
Well. This all depends on the stylistic devices and the approach the author takes. If the writing is third-person omniscient, then, that's a re-telling of events, without any true attachment to any one character, so it's up to the audience to draw their own conclusions, of how evil a character is. (Unequivocally bad writing is when there's any sentence in the narrative that points out the obvious: "He was evil"; so that won't happen in a well-written tale).

If the story is done from a particular perspective, or shifts voice from character to character, then how a character perceives himself is entirely contingent upon how their mind works. If they're narcissistic, shallow, or suffer illusions of grandeur, then some may deny that they're "evil" and some may embrace it. You can't just create a blanket statement saying "a character would never call themselves evil."

Nobody wakes up and thinks "I'm gonna go burn an orphanage down cuz I'm evil".
===
If they have a sudden onset of a psychotic episode, then this could happen. It happens in real life too. And I wouldn't see an issue with this in a story if it had was part of a motif, or had symbolic significance in some manner to the story or characters themselves. Or, if the antagonist derived enjoyment from it and we are offered a glimpse into their mind as to WHY.

People are evil because circumstances dictate them to be, or because they believe they are mutually qualified or owed something, and act evil to GET it.
===
Or they are hedonistic, and others simply perceive their actions to be evil.

Posted by newenglandee 14 years ago Report

"No motivation? Why, they are no less - nor more - motivated than any other sadist. They do it because they ENJOY it. They extract incredible pleasure from their exploits. I don't agree with such a caliber of person, it's not my job as a writer to do so, instead I simply tell a story.

If they like eating people and do it because they like it, and that is their only sterling quality, then, yes they are a 'flat' personality. But that is more a failing of the writer than the personality of the predator. If the predator cannot be created so as to be interesting, then the onus is on the writer" Well, at least we agree on something: that there actually SHOULD be an onus on the writer.

"I was not referring to the story. I was stating that - in general terms - you don't seem to like moral ambiguity. "

I don't like characters who do nothing but dabble in moral ambiguity without ever ADDRESSING it. It becomes the elephant in the room and only causes problems.

"If they have a sudden onset of a psychotic episode, then this could happen. It happens in real life too. And I wouldn't see an issue with this in a story if it had was part of a motif, or had symbolic significance in some manner to the story or characters themselves. Or, if the antagonist derived enjoyment from it and we are offered a glimpse into their mind as to WHY."

Then those people would, in the real world, be considered INSANE, wouldn't they? Like the Joker. He's pure evil and an anarchist to boot.

Posted by nephilim 14 years ago Report

I see that you wrote a thread in the forums. Let us stop here; we are defacing his page.

Posted by TheGuyWhoKnows 14 years ago Report

Oh, I don't mind. I'm just sorry I was away and wasn't able to contribute my own two cents as the discussion unfolded. :3

Posted by TheGuyWhoKnows 14 years ago Report

Well, I'm sorry I haven't replied before now. But I am at least pleased that you've been touched enough by Oscar and Jess to disapprove so much of their demise. I'll also thank you for persevering as the horribleness got more and more intense, despite the grimness of it all.

However, I'm afraid to say I disagree that this ending rendered the story meaningless. Although I haven't seen the film in question, I don't think it sounds like a very apt analogy. The death in the story is anyting but sudden and unexpected. On the contrary, it is clear from the first word that these swamps contain something dangerous, and by the time Oscar and Jess enter we already know that they're being hunted. And then the act of consumption itself takes over 12,000 words, over 6 hours in total for poor little Jess, and spends a lot of time developing how their characters are being affected by this horror. in short: I have tried to use the death as ann integral part of the atmosphere, rather than just throwing it in casually.

Yes, the deaths were cruel and senseless. But that's what I wanted: to explore in full depth the sheer horror of a vore situation, especially one like this. Are Oscar and Jess any more special than any other innocent prey in another story? Are their lives somehow better?

(...well, they are sort of more special, you could say. >_> As I said... these two ain't finished you.)

But regardless. There is a world of difference between a predator being portrayed as cruel, casual, and horrific, and the writer treating the death casually and cruelly. I like to think, at least, that I have not done that.

And Volscian? Yes, he's evil by just about anyone's standards. But he doesn't do things because they're evil and therefore fun. Volscian finds the idea of morals or of right and wrong to be nothing but a ludicrous invention by the Sentients of this world. Good and evil are pointless. There is only the hunter and the hunted.

Volscian does what he does for a simple reason: he is a predatory creature. Although sentient, he does not use his intelligence much except to enjoy his food, as we can see, preferring to use his instincts for determining his actions. Essentially, he thinks and acts like a feral beast... who just happens to be able to speak. His tortures all stem from his predatory urges - as far as he's concerned, Oscar and Jess are weaker and therefore prey. Simple, as far as he's concerned.

And also... he's not my character. I couldn't portray the dragon god in any other way without conflicting with the character references and details I'd been given for this commission. He is a sadistic predator, and if you're still not happy with that, take it to Offaim, his original creator.

And no, moral ambiguity has little place here. I don't like stories where the prey apparently "deserves" their fate, because in my mind, they don't. I am strongly against the death penalty for any crime, and can't stand the idea of murder being justified - which is why my stories make no bones about the cruelty of the act.As GWG has kindly said: the death was clear from the beginning, and even if it hadn't been anyone who knows me would know what's going to happen.

Finally, I must ask... considering that my tales of terror and sadism seem to be rather far from your preferences, why do you keep reading?

Posted by newenglandee 14 years ago Report

Your stories are much like Stephen King's to me. I KNOW I'm gonna hate myself for reading them through fully cuz innocent people are gonna die HORRIBLY. I mean, the guy had a bully strangle a baby to get an erection in "It". Stay classy, Stephen!!!

...But I truly admired...and still admire...your talent and dedication to your work, and the passion you pour into your characters. I've never wanted to attack you in any way because...

Well...you care. It just seems sometimes that you don't by the way you treat your characters. On a site like this, the only way to judge people if they don't post in non-vorish forum topics is by what they write, that what they write can reveal so much about their interests and attitude. But you go the extra mile to try and show that you're not nearly half the sadist that you typically love writing about. That's why I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. If all I went by was by what you write for fiction, I'd think you were a horrible, sick, twisted person who deserves to be clocked in the head with a frying pan and lectured on the basics of morality. Having seen the person BEHIND the writing, I know better.

Posted by TheGuyWhoKnows 13 years ago Report

I have to admit, no matter the context, I'll be flattered by any comparison to Stevie. So thank you for that, and thank you for the kind words.

But I think there is an important difference between placing one's characters in cruel, grim situations, and actually not caring about them. I do care about them... but the story comes first. The thing is... well, this may start getting a bit abstract, but the thing is that I see my tales and my characters from the point of view of not an all-powerful god, who can send whatever I can imagine to affect them, but of a documentor: the story is already happening, and all I can do is tell it. In this context, I see it as being... almost less cruel to emphasise the grief, pain and loss of the situation, so that I can make the reader understand the sadness of the situation. I hate stories where the prey's feelings are completely passed over by the writer - just another guy or gal to disappear down the beast's throat. The predator might do that, in which case it's not exactly under my control - they're a character, I can't make them do something they wouldn't - but anyone being eaten would be very emotional, and that's where the prey's personality should show through.

If Oscar and Jess are going to be eaten and murdered by this horrible beastie, I'd frankly prefer to make the situation as horrfic as possible instead of just having them getting nommed, wriggling and dying. If they're going to die, let their deaths show us how cruel an act it was.

And I would prefer my head unclocked, thankyou very much. I have a frying pan of my own, and I will use it. And I may have said this before to you... if writing stories in which people suffer is morally wrong, you'd better get your big saucepan. That's the entire creative industry in a nutshell. In every book, every play, every film ever written - beyond "See Spot Run" and so on, of course :P - there is conflict. And people suffer. My stories may make the suffering more intense than usual, and pivotal to the plot, and I may describe it in exacting detail... but again, that's just because I want to do it justice.

Posted by nephilim 13 years ago Report

*Applause* (:

Posted by greatwhitegut 14 years ago Report

newenglandee.. Two things.

First, I don't know why you were expecting a different ending. The author made it pretty obvious what kind of fate was going to befall the protagonists from the beginning.

Second, you obviously didn't read the additional info for this story:

"Oscar and Jess belong to me. Because this won't be the last we'll be seeing of them... and yes, it's part of the canon of Actura's story. Just you wait and see..."

So... they died, yes, but their story doesn't seem end here. I'm surprised you didn't read the authors note. Why wouldn't you if you just read several pages of their work? :?

TheGuyWhoKnows, you should be proud to cause this much chaos with this wonderfully written piece of literature.

Posted by newenglandee 14 years ago Report

1. Doesn't change how wasteful it feels to me, like the "Deep Blue Sea" speech I mentioned.

2. That makes it a little better. But not much. When a character you know and love dies in the comics, you know they're most likely gonna come back if they're main protagonists. Are you still affected by HOW they died? Of course. In a good story, we, the audience, are angry at the villain. In a bad one...we're angry at the writer. But I'm not angry with him. I'm just critical of how he chose to END the story is all. There's nothing wrong with that.

Posted by TheGuyWhoKnows 14 years ago Report

Thank you. ^^ Controversy is always interesting. And I'm a bit flattered you were so kind as to spring to my defence like this. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

Posted by Simura 14 years ago Report

I thoroughly enjoyed this, my average cup of tea, this was rather a good read, I'll read up from the first chapter as soon as I have the time, I simply must experience every moment. <3

Posted by Simura 14 years ago Report

MAy comment again after my third read through. :)

Posted by TheGuyWhoKnows 14 years ago Report

Third? Wow... I'm flattered. ^^

Posted by Simura 14 years ago Report

^.=.^

Posted by Simura 14 years ago Report

Absolutely gripping, the sheer scale of your writings like a maelstrom of desire, flowing like a valley stream across a rocky ledge. Every little sentence gripping and filled a sense of dread, I'm going to have to ask how you will crown these three related chapters, so feral, so primal, I've never felt so much loss. ^^

Posted by TheGuyWhoKnows 14 years ago Report

Aww... Now that's a really pleasing comment. I'm flattered. ^^

I honestly haven't a clue how I'm managing to do half of these things... but yes, loss is a pretty primal part of this story, and I wanted to make it as strong as I possibly could. I'm glad you felt it. Thanks a lot! ^^

Posted by dragon_lady 14 years ago Report

Will there be a part 4 i am very interested in this series ^^

Posted by TheGuyWhoKnows 14 years ago Report

Well... Volscian may return... if I get another comission with him, lovely dragon that he is.

But as for poor, poor Jess and Oscar... believe you me, anyone who's read some of my other stories may now that sometimes death is the kindest thing that can happen to someone. They will certainly return.

Thanks for your interest. Glad you liked! ^^

Posted by Kenkii 13 years ago Report

I throughly enjoy your stories for their raw, dark nature. After reading through some of the comments, it seems many people dislike them, but that's besides the point for me. I have nothing but praise for your sadistic predators.
Because it is my favorite book/play (and is more near and dear to my heart than can be imagined), I tend to keep comments on -Peter Pan- off of this site. But your comment "As a writer, it takes a certain kind of bravery to be able to send off a character in such a memorable and powerful way" sang to me of Captain James Hook. James M. Barrie (the author of -Peter Pan-) felt very deeply for his "antagonist" (I put the word in quotes because it is really Peter who is the antagonist, contrary to popular interpretation and belief). Barrie was very careful with how he handled James' death: "James Hook, thou not wholly unheroic figure, farewell". This consideration for the character he both created and destroyed is one of the most admirable qualities of Barrie of which I can think. Your comment simply solidified this notion.
As always, a great story and read. I look forward to future pieces of yours.

Posted by nephilim 13 years ago Report

I am so sorry that my response comes so late! I had no idea that you responded to one of my comments. (The thread was not nested correctly, I don't think). You were talking to me, yes? As I made the comment "As a writer it takes a certain kind of bravery..."

@_@ Gosh, this thread format is confusing!!

Posted by Kenkii 13 years ago Report

XDD I suppose it was you I was talking to! Either way, it's a brilliant insight.