lurker

The cliffhanger is one of the most overused techniques in online serial writing. Good writing doesn't need a deliberate cliffhanger (unexpected visitor, fade out in the middle of dialogue, last minute explosion or collision, etc.) to build suspense. There are some authors who think that the cliffhanger is needed in every other chapter (at least), and it drives me nuts when I'm reading it. Others have already posted some of the reasons I dislike cliffhangers, such as 'unending' stories or waiting too long between posts. I agree with Mark that having the next chapter ready ought to be a prerequisite for posting a cliffhanger. And even if an author isn't quite that fastidious, he better at least KNOW how that cliffhanger gets resolved. If a story is suspenseful and interesting, then I'm eager to read the next chapter whether the last line is "And then I went to sleep for the night" or "What are YOU doing here?" The feeling that I can't wait to see what happens next can't be manufactured simply by how an author ends a chapter. It also loses the suspense if I know that a cliffhanger will be resolved in the first 3 sentences of the next chapter, because that is the author's m.o. I don't mean to suggest that no cliffhangers are ever successful as a technique in building anticipation. But the good cliffhanger comes chapters and chapters along in a story, catches the reader off-guard when it appears, and takes more than a paragraph to resolve in the next chapter.

I love it when... ...New-found friends inspire me to put love above all else. ...I don't mind doing a favor for an ex, because I'm surrounded by love. ...I look back on an amazing year getting to know the guy I love more than anything. ...I smile for four days non-stop. ...The reason I'm sore has nothing to do with ice hockey. ...I get to see Revenge of the Sith with him, and his presence warm me from the chills that it gave me. ...I wake up holding him and realize that I didn't have to let go all night - and I didn't. ...I can sneak his shirt into my bag and bring it home with me. ...I get my elite upgrade to first class each way and get some writing done on the plane. ...The next trip is already booked, and it isn't too far off. ...I know that the number of days left as a frequent flier are diminishing. ...The people I care about - both old friends and new ones - are at least as fortunate as I am. ...I find people who can understand that even a sarcastic critic can't help feeling a little shmoopy from time to time.

Then to reply to the example, I don't understand how it is analogous to our discussion or either of our positions. It sounds like the statement of someone who undermines the fact-based premise he says by insisting on a value-laden judgment that differs with that premise. I don't think I've used a value-laden term that undermines my own position. It might disagree with yours, but hey, that's what the debate is about. [And rather than reporting you to the analogy police, I chose to accept it as rhetoric and move on initially.] Ok. I understand you. We disagree. The true fantasy can be good/bad in my world, and it can not be in yours. Personally, I view your system that bases moral judgment in a relationship with people or things to be a theology of its own. Here is a question about your relationship oriented view of morality: is it ever possible to do wrong to yourself? If you choose to focus on feelings and thoughts that are painful to you or refuse to forgive yourself for something, have you done yourself wrong? Does the relationship with the self ever mirror the 2 person situation you mention?

Ignoring your example, because I respond to substance and not rhetoric, I think you read my post through the filter of knowing that I am a Deist and missed a little of what I was trying to say. First, let me point out that I did not say that I personally viewed sex-without-meaning in fantasy as morally inferior to sex-with-meaning in fantasy. I haven't actually said anything in this thread about my value judgment on that issue, even though I have indicated that I deem sex-with-meaning in reality to be morally superior to sex-without-meaning (which you correctly deduce as stemming from my own theology). Second, I specifically pointed out that people can believe that sex-with-meaning is morally superior to sex-without-meaning for various reasons: because society tells them too, because of theology, because they believe in innate morality independent of that. There are people who believe in morality without theology - or at least think they do (personally, I think the 'non-believing' are far more influenced by being socialized in a religious world than they might think they are, though this is a tangent). As a Deist, I find morality without theology incoherent, but I don't find it nearly as incoherent as moral relativism. My suspicion, based on your comment about the literary world not posing any threats of exploitation, is that you believe in morality without theology rather than complete relativism. Otherwise, why would exploitation be wrong? But I don't purport to know what you believe. At the end of the day, if you are posting to say "Aha! See! You can't do anything without being informed by your theology," then by all means, you are correct. My belief core shapes my view of the outside world, and my view of the outside world informs my beliefs. It is a complementary cycle. But if you are posting to say, "I disagree with you, because you're just giving things value judgments based on your beliefs. There is no such thing as a bad fantasy, because nothing is really 'bad,'" then we fundamentally disagree on the existence of morality. If you are posting to say "I disagree with you, because you're just giving things value judgments based on your beliefs. There is no such thing as a bad fantasy, because fantasies are harmless," then we fundamentally disagree on the source of morality. You have decided that fantasies are all ok based on the value that 'if no one gets hurt, it is ok.' The fact that you have no specific theology in mind does not make this any less a value judgment. Nor does it even mean that our specific values - despite their different origins - differ in this regard.

I see nothing wrong with implying that one fantasy can be morally superior to another. Sex takes many forms and shapes. One of the biggest divisions I see is sex-with-meaning vs. sex-without-meaning. Sex can be one of the greatest expressions of intimacy that two people can share (or more than two, depending on how you feel about polyamory). Or it can be a physical pleasure/enjoyment independent of meaning. This is the dichotomy that this thread raises. I think you're right that the hetero and homo labels can be red herrings. The anti-gay sentiments of the past century often turn on labeling homosexual sex as sex without meaning - no love, no relationship, just physical sex. Acceptance of gay rights has been linked to the realization of gay relationships as no different from straight ones in a romantic/sex-with-meaning sense. And to the extent people conflate sexual intimacy with marriage, the debate spills over into the issue of same-sex marriage. Many (though not all) of those who reject same-sex marriage are rejecting the idea of gay relationships as having sex-with-meaning intimacy. It is the societal norm to believe that sex-with-meaning is better than sex-without-meaning. But this is also a point that I think many of us can substantiate from our own experiences. Perhaps it is the societal construct that tells us so, perhaps it is our theology, perhaps it is an innate sense related to our desire to connect with other people - the reasons differ. The evidence, though, favors sex-with-meaning. Taking the reality to the fantasy world alters things. Morality forces us to draw lines in different places. Some people reject even the fantasy of sex-without-meaning because they find that for them it demeans sexuality and lessens the experience in reality. Many people who don't want to experience sex-without-meaning in real life enjoy the fantasy of sex-without-meaning precisely because they crave/desire the physical without the intimate connection at times, though they would not act on these feelings. I disagree with the argument you seem to be making that fantasy is fantasy and no fantasy is morally better than any other, because no one gets hurt. On one level, I disagree with the 'no one gets hurt' issue as it relates to questions of how societal norms develop. But that's not the real debate here. Let's say I assumed that fantasy is victimless. Even then, I think the expression of a morally superior reality through fantasy can indeed make the fantasy morally superior. If I think that sex-without-meaning is porn and sex-with-meaning is erotica (which is not what I've said, but seems to be a common opinion in this thread), then perhaps I am rightfully saying that sex-with-meaning EVEN in literary fantasy is morally better than sex-without-meaning. This doesn't mean that literary fantasies (if victimless) should EVER be suppressed. It just explains why some people might think one fantasy type is morally 'better' than another, with good reason.

This discussion reminds me of The Naked and the Nude, a poem by Robert Graves.

For all the talk about Domaholics and Danimals, we're all really Myr-ites here at GA. Happy Birthday, Myr!

Ditto. You rock, Myr!

RC Cola? Proud sponsor of the New York Mets... I took the Pepsi challenge the first time around. I think I picked Coke. I don't remember. I was thirsty and picked whatever they'd give me first. No one was giving out water. I've long given up on Coke and related beverages - I prefer my sugar in Tropicana form - but the amount that people can drink is scary. Super Size Me profiles some folks who drink a gallon a day. A gallon!!! Guess who was heading in for gastric-bypass surgery.