Date: 21 FEB 1996 12:21:02 -0500 From: Celeste801 Subject: Celestial Reviews 63 - Feb 21 Celestial Reviews 63 - Feb 21, 1996 Note: I have become uneasy because I think sometimes I assign too many 10's in my ratings. The problem is that on the average the stories I have been getting lately are so much better than those that I reviewed six months ago. I want to keep the ratings parallel - so that, for example, a story rated 8 now is comparable to one rated 8 last year. In my first few issues of CR I ran the gamut of ratings from 1 to 10. Now nobody sends me any garbage, and if there still are bad stories out there (and I'm sure there are), I don't have time to read them. So the 10's are probably accurate, in the sense that the stories that get that rating are comparable to 10's last year and are a lot better than the run-of-the-mill stories that appear on a.s.s. but which I don't review. However, it's not really possible to use the ratings alone to distinguish between a good story and a great story; to do that you'd have to check out my level of exuberance in the review narrative. This really isn't all that bad; if you read a story with a 10 rating, you're going to get a really good story. On the other hand, I'm rating 30-40% of the stories 10's nowadays; and so the Top Rating kind of loses its importance. I am trying to get around this by posting the monthly Top 15 lists. That solves one problem: since I review about 75 stories a month, only a fifth of them can possibly make that list; but it introduces a different problem, because I feel genuinely bad when I have to bump a really good story off the monthly list. So, what I plan to do is tighten up the ratings a little - I'll try to be a little less generous with the 10's; but at the same time the stories keep improving, and so I'll probably keep giving more 10's than make good sense. Meanwhile, I encourage readers to look at the whole reviews (not just the ratings) and to use the monthly Top 15 lists to supplement their own judgments about the quality of the stories. Second Note: Stephanie (an266891@anon.penet.fi), who is a popular writer with this newsgroup and whose stories I have often reviewed in CR is sponsoring a writing contest. The only rules are that all entries have to include Celeste (me) somewhere in the plot and they have to be submitted to Stephanie by March 20. Stephanie is the sole judge; and as far as I know the only prizes are the sense of pride the authors will derive from writing the stories and possible fantasies associated with them. It sounds like fun! - Celeste "Preparation" by Deirdre (anal sex) 10 "Rock" by Deirdre (exhibitionism) 10 "Seat" by Deirdre (new life in an old flame) 10 "Fantasy Bathhouse" by Mark Aster (small but hot orgy) 10 "Burning the Candle at Both Ends" by Greg n' Ross (varieties of mf & ff sex) 6 "Gwen and Wendy - Amateur Astronomers" by Jonathan Dzoba (emerging adolescence) 10 'Bud's Awakening" by JaScO (mindless sex) 2 "Oneness" by Patrick Donovan (romance & hot sex) 9 "Preparation" by Deirdre. The man wants his wife to take it up the ass. For a long time she refuses, but then one day she agrees - on one condition: she wants him first to experience exactly what she will experience, so that he will understand what he is asking of her. A dildo will not do; if he wants to stick his penis up her ass, he should be willing to take a live one up his first. This reasoning is so simple and obvious that it's difficult to understand why the man would even have second thoughts; but he does. Not only does the wife make the suggestion, but she also teases him with her cute little ass until he simply has to take the offer seriously. After all - just a few minutes of discomfort for a lifetime of pleasure; and with proper lubrication it wouldn't hurt much at all. Deirdre sets up this premise nicely and carries it off very well. (Rating: 10) "Rock" by Deirdre. The man and his wife go for a walk deep into the woods. He tells her to take off her clothes. She surprises herself by agreeing and soon finds herself atop a huge rock with him licking her cunt. As she starts really getting into it, she notices two college girls watching in the distance. When she mentions them to her husband, he suggests that she wave them over. Things get pretty hot, but maybe not in exactly the way you would expect. (Rating: 10) "Seat" by Deirdre. Dammit! I write a carefully prepared introductory note, pointing out that my ratings have been too high and resolving to really stick it to the authors from now on; and then I give three 10's in a row to Deirdre. It's gotta be mind control! Why can't she just give me orgasms or make me her sex slave? But no, she has to go out and write three good stories that demand a 10 rating for each. Life really sucks sometimes - but that's not all bad. Anyway, after 14 years of marriage, the husband and wife in this story seemed to have fallen into a rut. Brad told her she'd always say she was tired and he got so discouraged being turned down that he stopped asking. (Incidentally, when dogs are in a rut, it's a different thing. The rut these people had fallen into is related to the English "route." The animal activity is derived from the French word "ruit," which means "roar." Just thought I'd mention that.) To break out of the rut, the husband suggests that they vow to make love twice within the next week. They keep the vow, and the wife enjoys it. She expects him to suggest that they make this vow permanent; but instead he suggests a different vow: that she promise to *initiate* sex twice within the next week. So far this sounds like what a creative, competent marriage counselor would suggest. But then things get out of control. Or do they? You'll have to read the story to find out. (Rating: 10) "Fantasy Bathhouse" by Mark Aster (MyFrThAl@aol.com). As the author says in his introduction, this story takes place in a fantasy world where vaccines against AIDS and pregnancy are safe and common,and casual sex with strangers is not suicidally stupid. In addition, even the most outlandish sexual experimentation never has a negative impact on anyone taking part in that activity, and people who are paid or otherwise induced to please others sexually are not being exploited. As the story begins, Julie Allen is in a taxi seated on one side of the narrator and grins TRANSPARENTLY in anticipation of hot sex at her sister Pat seated on the other side. Were I not already familiar with the Allen Sisters series, I would have suspected a Tom Swift incest story. If anyone caught that humor.... Actually, the story is about a night of festive sex given to the narrator by his benefactors, the legendary Allen Sisters. They take him to what can best be described as a really nice brothel, where the three of them receive the sensuous attention of two beautiful young Oriental women who are either expensive prostitutes or interesting hobbyists. The author does an excellent job of describing the sexual activity in enticing detail. This otherwise excellent story contained an interesting mistake in word usage. "Incredulous" means skeptical or not inclined to believe. "Incredible" means fantastic, hard to believe, or too good to be true. For example, many male readers of this review would be incredulous at the capacity of my incredible cunt to swallow and massage their cocks. While it is possible that either you or I might break out in an "incredulous scream of ecstasy," like the Allen Sister in this story, it would be interesting to speculate what that might sound like. I think the author meant to say an "incredible" scream of ecstasy. (Rating: 10) "Burning the Candle at Both Ends" by Greg n' Ross (wyldryce@ix.netcom.com). The new next door neighbor drops by to get acquainted; and as kind of a reverse Welcome Wagon gesture, she starts giving the narrator some really great head. The next day he visits his girlfriend; and what do his wondering eyes see but Raven fucking the hell out of her with a dildo! A bit bewildered, the guy goes home, paddles his pickle, swallows his own cum, and then plans to check in with the Dynamic Duo the next day. When he tries to surprise them, they surprise him instead. He finds himself handcuffed; but what the hell, he has Raven fucking his ass with a really great dildo and Beth swallowing his cock at the same time! The action is kind of hot, and the plot has potential; but the story is not developed properly. The author just blurts it out - like a high school kid that gets a neat idea and wants to combine it with as many other neat ideas as possible to impress his friends. (Rating: 6) "Gwen and Wendy - Amateur Astronomers" by Jonathan Dzoba. The heroines are high school seniors who go to a cabin on a lake to study the stars together for a week. On the first night out one of them lowers her scope to the cabin across the lake, where a young woman is fucking the brains out of her young lover. This erotic scene stimulates Gwen and Wendy to mutually explore each other's bodies. The next day the man and woman come over for a visit. Wendy goes for a walk and serious talk with Alisa, while Gwen stays behind and eventually has sex with Jack. Later, Jack fucks Wendy too. The sex is hot, realistic, and sensitive. What I liked most about the story is that the girls didn't go to the cabin just to have sex; it simply happened as a normal part of their friendship and adolescence. It would be ideal to get laid by a guy for some reason other than to stop being a virgin; but life doesn't always work that way, and this story does a good job of representing reality in a relatively pleasant manner. How does a person with a name like Jonathan Dzoba know so much about the emerging sexual feelings of young girls? After I wrote that sentence, it occurred to me that I had written the same sentence six months ago - in a review of "Susan and Becky" by this same author. (Rating: 10) 'Bud's Awakening" by JaScO (cjmaggio@rmii.com). This is one of those stories that is so bad that it is almost good. I mean, there are a lot of grammar errors that this author doesn't make more than once and he spells a large number of words correctly, but the story certainly does come across as the hormonal drivelings of a college kid who has had a kind of interesting idea and figured he had better write it down and post it before he sobers up. The story is an electronic episode from "Married with Children." Bud, it seems, has a 9-inch cannon between his legs. While participating in Onan's Olympics in the ladies' restroom, he is discovered by the lovely Jennifer, to whom he gives the ride of her young life. She plans to meet him for more horizontal folk dancing at the fraternity bash; but since all the young ladies at that event will be wearing bags over their heads, she tells him to look for the red dress and cold cross on her necklace. Then she conspires to have Bud's sister, the lovely but air-headed Kelly, dress exactly the way she has described. So Bud fucks the brains out of Kelly; they discover each other's true identity; and they agree to copulate more often in the future. This doesn't really qualify as an incest story. From what I know about the TV show, they're not likely to be closely related anyway. In addition, the main problem with incest is the high probability of genetic miscombinations; and both of these people are already mutants. The story is terribly proofread, and so it contains some great typos. For example, a shutter (instead of a shudder) runs through somebody's body. Our hero also has his cock "...vain pulsing with hot blood." That should be "vein" - or maybe he meant to use "vane," as a picturesque metaphor. If you need to feel intellectually superior to somebody (however briefly), you might enjoy this story. Otherwise skip it. (Rating: 2) "Oneness" by Patrick Donovan (an242041@anon.penet.fi). Two college kids meet by e-mail and join for an in vivo encounter. The sex is passionate and realistic - the kind of thing we would all like our own fantasy relationships to be if they ever really came about. This author writes well. (Rating: 9) GRAMMAR TIP OF THE WEEK: I have been getting e-mail messages asking about the difference among the relative pronouns: "that," "who," and "what." Some of my correspondents have insisted that "who" refers to persons and "that" to things. This is not true. "Who" always refers to persons. It can be used in either restrictive or non-restrictive clauses. (I'll explain restrictive clauses later.) "Which" always refers to things - except in really archaic English. It is almost always used in nonrestrictive clauses. "That" can refer to either persons or things. It is always used in restrictive clauses. The relative pronoun "that" is often omitted. Thus, the following sentences are equally correct: She's the woman whom I fucked yesterday. She's the woman that I fucked yesterday. She's the woman I fucked yesterday. A restrictive clause is one whose meaning is essential to the interpretation of the sentence, because it restricts the meaning of the word it modifies. A nonrestrictive clause, on the other hand, is not essential to the interpretation of the sentence; it merely adds an idea that reminds the author of relevant information. My sister, who has slept with twelve senators, is meeting with the President tonight. The preceding sentence means that the speaker has one sister and that person is meeting with the President. The following sentence conveys different information: My sister who has slept with twelve senators is meeting with the President tonight. This sentence implies that the speaker has more than one sister, but it is the one who has slept with Congress who is meeting with the President. The "who" clause is restrictive. Therefore, it would be appropriate to say the following: My sister that has slept with twelve senators is meeting with the President tonight. It would not be correct to use "that" in the first example, where the "who" clause was nonrestrictive. "Who" is further complicated by the fact that it has an objective case (whom) and a possessive case (whose). A final complication is that "whose" is also the possessive of "which." Therefore, the following is not a mistake: She fucked my ass with a dildo whose size and shape scared the shit out of me. Here are some examples that are not about persons: The graduation orgy, which I attended with my wife, her two sisters, and my mother-in-law, was a resounding success. The graduation orgy that I attended with my wife, her two sisters, and my mother-in-law was a resounding success. The first example means that there was only one graduation orgy, and the "which" clause gives additional information about it. The second example implies that there might have been several orgies, one of which was attended by the group under consideration. Note that it would be acceptable to use "which" in the second example (although most writers and speakers would use "that"), but it would not be correct to use "that" in the first example. In short, the actual distinction regarding the relative pronoun "that" does not depend on whether it refers to a person or thing. "That" is restrictive; "who" and "which" may be either restrictive or nonrestrictive. If you want to insist that "who" refers to persons and "which" and "that" refer to things, your writing will not be incorrect. This rule will almost always work in your own writing. Just don't insist that others are wrong when they use "that" correctly to refer to persons. Also, you'll occasionally put yourself into an awkward position: I'm not half the woman who I used to be! No native speaker of English would use "who" in that sentence. Either of the following would be acceptable: I'm not half the woman that I used to be! I'm not half the woman I used to be! The solution, of course, is to take your vitamins and have plenty of good sex, and then you WILL be all the woman that you used to be! One final note: The people over on alt.usage.English are having a discussion on this topic. I'm too busy to take the sex out of this message and send it to them. I honestly do not want to post this exact message over there, because school kids are encouraged to read that newsgroup; and I really do believe that their parents and teachers have a right to hope that that group will remain free of objectionable words and ideas. Anyway, if anyone wants to clean this message up with wholesome examples and send it to that group, feel free to do so. My explanation makes more sense than anything I have seen posted on the topic on a.u.e.