Message-ID: <20623eli$9903180425@qz.little-neck.ny.us> X-Archived-At: From: "E.Z. Riter" Subject: (ASSM) REVIEW - CR 318 Newsgroups: alt.sex.stories.moderated,alt.sex.stories Followup-To: alt.sex.stories.d MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Path: qz!not-for-mail Organization: The Committee To Thwart Spam Approved: X-Moderator-Contact: Eli the Bearded X-Story-Submission: X-Original-Message-ID: <94RH2.160$256.369@news20.ispnews.com> X-Is-Review: yes In Celestial Reviews 318, Celeste responded to my postings concerning her review of "Ballbuster," a story I had written. Her initial review was in Celestial Review 316. My response was posted as Review of a Review. I further posted Review. These, and related comments by others, were in ASSD. Celeste's latest writings, as the first on this subject, were ill-formed and rambling, more of a tirade than a review or response. In CR 318, the response was postured as Celeste, defender of all that is good, against perpetrators of spousal abuse. Paraphrasing unknown "reputable psychologists" and incorrectly calling forth the weight of the Catholic church, she railed against any man or woman allowing the story's situation to exist. She attacked the author, which is a common enough defense as demonstrated by Johnnie Cochran and the O.J. defense team. Carefully selecting quotes out of context like a petulant teenager selecting bonbons in a chocolate shop, she attempted to misconstrue the story to make three points. Point one: The story is sick. Point two: The author is sick. Point three: Anyone in this type of relationship is sick. But, Celeste is not sick for reading them and a "dysfunctional and illegal" tale can still be worth reading. I believe she has read the story, although the reading was after my initial comments. I suspect she read it as a lawyer reads a judge's order: looking for loopholes. However, she did not appear to read with comprehension. The relationship of the characters still is beyond her grasp. So, I will explain it. Jack loves Ellen. Ellen loves Jack. Ellen is submitting to Jack as some women (wives) submit to their men (husbands) because they both want it that way. They are two adults entering a happy, positive relationship which has been germinating over years. Ellen is not an abused woman. She is smart, socially aware, mentally tough, and sexy as hell. The story is not about and does not represent spousal abuse. In stating the story is an example of spousal abuse, Celeste: (1) debases the very real problem of spousal abuse; (2) reflects her own ignorance of spousal abuse; and, (3) effectively proves she either did not read or did not comprehend the story. Celeste's point two states I abuse women and should seek counseling. Oh, it is phrased in a cloying, indirect way, but the statement is there. These comments go far beyond the bounds of a review, particularly one posted in alt.sex.stories. They are the self-serving, self-righteous, and hypocritical prattling of a little and closed mind. In point three, the least cogent of her conclusions, Celeste, in her omniscience, gives both psychological and legal advice against a relationship like that in the story. She further states she enjoys such stories if they are well written and her problem with this story must be the writing. To attack a story as spousal abuse, and then say you would have enjoyed it if it were well written, is beyond my comprehension. Spousal abuse cannot be enjoyable. Celeste, with the disdain and ease of someone spending someone else's money, purports to know and to offer the opinion of "reputable psychologists," with the clear but unstated conclusion any psychologist not agreeing with her must not be reputable. Rather then invent something attributed to an unknown "reputable psychologist," I offer the following (all NIV): "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord." (Ephesians 5:22). "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." (Ephesians 5:25) "Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands . . . " (1 Peter 3:1) and, last, but certainly not least, "Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect . . . "(1 Peter 3:7) Many reputable psychologists follow these dictums. Many strong and lasting relationships are built on these principles. I point out Celeste's well-known preference for "vanilla" stories and her reputation for acerbic comments. Everyone is different and viva la difference. But, she is not God Almighty. She does not dictate what is "proper" in real life, nor are her "reputable psychologists" so endowed. (I wonder what the "reputable psychologists" representing the school board which employs her would say about her involvement in all this.) Celeste states, as her conclusion, "An author should be capable of accepting an opinion that a story fell short without labeling this criticism as ‘dishonest'." She is correct. We all should be able to accept as well as make comments. What fell short is the review. Even shorter were the latest comments by Celeste. Her review was dishonest. Her remarks in CR 318 are malicious, sanctimonious, and neurotic. In Celestial Reviews 316, Celeste stated she has no need to read a story, that she is capable of judging whether a story is good just by looking at the title or name of the author. This is a Godlike quality I was unaware any human possessed. Perhaps she saw the title of this story and escalated into histrionics, pawing through the text, like a foraging bear, to find meat for her grinder No matter its genesis, the flatulence found in Celestial Reviews 318 is offensive and indefensible. -- +----------------' Story submission `-+-' Moderator contact `--------------+ | | | | Archive site +----------------------+--------------------+ Newsgroup FAQ | ----