A Quiet Affair Part 6

[Anubisx]

Amazing story. Keep the good job, King!

[catfightlover40]

It was luck. Maggie slipped and Amber took advantage of the misfortune. That doesn't mean that Amber could not beat her under other circumstances, but the way the story unfolded, Amber needed every advantage she had and still nearly lost. In the earlier chapter, of course, the reverse almost happened - Maggie was able to get Amber off in a tie only because she was able to get in a good slap. That is what is great about making the characters so equal in every way - any one could win, given the right circumstances.

JB57

We might disagree on what constitutes as strong character in this context. While the author did a very good job in depicting them, I'll say this without bias, Amber is a cheater and a hypocrite. Since she's but human, she can't help developing a power dynamic where she can dominate others she considers lesser, and is by all given data a selfish lover (points the progress on not shying away to create a female character, not a mirror image of a man or borne out of misogynistic paranoia). This exists in contrast with her chosen mission statement of rejecting all authority, hence probably she's more contrarian than actual objector. King does a great job pitting her against someone whose very job is order, if the Dewey Decimal System is any indication. If she were honest, she'd follow the laid down path of the '60s and reject university education altogether as a sign of dismissing the "intelligentsia factory". The fact that she doesn't only she rebels against rules that inconvenience her, and while I can't look into the author's head, were she my character, it's a double edged poisoned sword where she both seeks daddy's approval as well as she resents her mother. Who knows, that's possibly why she picked (on) Wayne, because he represents the picket fence version of her mother's dreams, which she despises. King of course wisely avoids saying it outright that she's morally corrupt, it's our decision whom we support and why.

For a fleeting second I hoped that even after winning Amber does lose her balance and falling back on Maggie she has to fight her way out. If anybody had seen a clip that was named Geisha Fight (even though only one of them is, the other is a prostitute) I had imagined going that way, with every touch sending shock-waves, aiming at dehydrating the other until she sobbingly begs to stop.

That's also why I support a new story, because this gem here is top shelf, not meant to be consumed lightly, and any followup shall of course be carefully planned.

[zara03]

'Disappointed' would be one word to summarize this part for me. I was disappointed because Maggie lost, whatever the reason be, she was the lead character in the series and reading her lose was something very very disappointing. If not win i would have much preferred if this fight ended in a draw by a mutual orgasm or a by some interruption.
As per the writing it felt like the whole thing was rushed. I know the writer have very great capabilities as he showed that in his former parts but this part felt rushed and wasn't able to build any excitement for me.
A tragic & disappointing end to a brilliant beginning.

[AegonHentaryen]

Feels like people will never be objective if they character doesn't win. Get them angrier! make Amber sexfight champion

[JB57]

I think it's interesting that people are having such strong reactions to this story. I don't doubt that Amber is a terrible person and that she "deserves" to lose. As I mentioned, I was disappointed in the outcome - being a nerd myself and rather liking Maggie's character, I was rooting for her all the way (or hoping for something closer to a draw, if Maggie could not win). But the fact that King gave us a character to root against is important too, and doing the unexpected can have major payoffs. Now, the rivalry between Maggie and Amber is that much more intense and has actually created some stakes for the readers.

In the end, however, we all need to remember that the writer has a right to his/her own characters and stories. We may not like what he/she does with them, but that is the nature of the medium.

JB57

[catfightlover40]

I think it's interesting that people are having such strong reactions to this story. I don't doubt that Amber is a terrible person and that she "deserves" to lose. As I mentioned, I was disappointed in the outcome - being a nerd myself and rather liking Maggie's character, I was rooting for her all the way (or hoping for something closer to a draw, if Maggie could not win). But the fact that King gave us a character to root against is important too, and doing the unexpected can have major payoffs. Now, the rivalry between Maggie and Amber is that much more intense and has actually created some stakes for the readers.

In the end, however, we all need to remember that the writer has a right to his/her own characters and stories. We may not like what he/she does with them, but that is the nature of the medium.

JB57

This reminds me in part on Annie Hall where Allen confronts the jackass moviegoer with the actual critic who has more insight than the offered ranting. Full disclosure, I was raised in place, which recently had appointed an oncologist for a cabinet position in an administration seemingly very convinced secular values are the devil's candy. Major crises, like the global food crisis brought on by corn fuel, the housing and banking shtick made a lot of people angry to the point "that sounds like a you problem, but what about my suffering?" so the amplification of clearly identifiable values are a commodity again. I won't lie that yes, I'm very much into redheads with green eyes, but it did not influence my opinion. My strong reaction came from King understanding what he wants to tell and how. I do agree with Zara, it could have been more descriptive.

Since I know women like Amber, I already don't expect that she'll actually accept a rematch. While you're not wrong seeing them as equal, the psychological profile that was set up indicates otherwise, Maggie will have to pretty much denigrate her to get a rematch, in which case Amber has already won by dragging her down to the muck. I'm not proud of the fact that I used to be radical myself, so having experience in those circles I'm unfortunately aware of the postulated black and white worldview and yet still being very hypocritical.

Somewhere in a very far corner of the postulated stream of human consciousness, Amber represents a power dynamic to be detested, where people like her fear a world where rules don't only favor them, so they either denounce all (anarchy) or create their own (authoritarianism). It'd be abysmal not to oppose that, unless the powers that be declare it's uncool to do so.

[dwcole]

I to wanted Maggie to come out on top.
After their finger fuck fight, they kind of, had a little respect for one another.
I was hopeful a down to the wire - tie, was in the works. Giving both women
reason to have even more respect for one another.

But I personally, in a way, like it when the bad girl comes out on top - barely.
That way, the next time they tangle. The bad girl will be more careful to what
the good girl - can do.

[JB57]

This reminds me in part on Annie Hall where Allen confronts the jackass moviegoer with the actual critic who has more insight than the offered ranting. Full disclosure, I was raised in place, which recently had appointed an oncologist for a cabinet position in an administration seemingly very convinced secular values are the devil's candy. Major crises, like the global food crisis brought on by corn fuel, the housing and banking shtick made a lot of people angry to the point "that sounds like a you problem, but what about my suffering?" so the amplification of clearly identifiable values are a commodity again. I won't lie that yes, I'm very much into redheads with green eyes, but it did not influence my opinion. My strong reaction came from King understanding what he wants to tell and how. I do agree with Zara, it could have been more descriptive.

Since I know women like Amber, I already don't expect that she'll actually accept a rematch. While you're not wrong seeing them as equal, the psychological profile that was set up indicates otherwise, Maggie will have to pretty much denigrate her to get a rematch, in which case Amber has already won by dragging her down to the muck. I'm not proud of the fact that I used to be radical myself, so having experience in those circles I'm unfortunately aware of the postulated black and white worldview and yet still being very hypocritical.

Somewhere in a very far corner of the postulated stream of human consciousness, Amber represents a power dynamic to be detested, where people like her fear a world where rules don't only favor them, so they either denounce all (anarchy) or create their own (authoritarianism). It'd be abysmal not to oppose that, unless the powers that be declare it's uncool to do so.

Amber is a fictional character in a sexfight story. While I don't doubt that King has some idea of what her "psychological profile" is, I do doubt that he has plotted it out. She is a "type" - the unlikeable beautiful girl who is lording her beauty and her selfishness over others. She could have been an heiress just as easily as a "punk" -and I would not go too far with the "punk" stuff since the only aspect of this that really seems to apply to the character is that she has pink streaks in her hair and wears a nose ring.

This could involve a much deeper discussion about the way in which characters define themselves to the writer, but the only person who really knows the character is the author. If he wants to tell us what he thinks of his characters and his motivations, that is fine.

Take care,

JB57

[catfightlover40]

Amber is a fictional character in a sexfight story. While I don't doubt that King has some idea of what her "psychological profile" is, I do doubt that he has plotted it out. She is a "type" - the unlikeable beautiful girl who is lording her beauty and her selfishness over others. She could have been an heiress just as easily as a "punk" -and I would not go too far with the "punk" stuff since the only aspect of this that really seems to apply to the character is that she has pink streaks in her hair and wears a nose ring.

This could involve a much deeper discussion about the way in which characters define themselves to the writer, but the only person who really knows the character is the author. If he wants to tell us what he thinks of his characters and his motivations, that is fine.

Take care,

JB57

My only take on the last paragraph, but it also has been a staple, that I do invite readers for this very reason to incite a discussion (at least on my own work). I've read stories where a lot of emphasis is being put on sexualizing the character (which is understandable as this is a sexual fetish) without going much into pesky details, like motivations, character background and the like. In one recent one I've read the fight was already on in the second paragraph and the first was a short one. Compared to those, King's seems to be a work of write about the things you know and to some detail the characters too are based on existing humans. This is to say I oppose the idea that they're merely characters. I guess what I'm trying to say is that where Bella Swan and Anastasia Steele are characters, in that they belong to the human race, King's creations are more akin to carbon copies who could leap off pages.

I think we can agree that there's a difference between boiling down more fleshed out characters to serve a focus but still show glimpses that they could exist in any other story, and a story where characters are either thinly guised author avatars or plot points disguised as characters to serve a conflict. Actually, as I watched the Liam Neeson movie about Mark Felt, I do need to make one correction. Trust fund kids of anarchy of the era, like Patty Hearst and the members of Weather Underground were more contrarian than anti-establishment and in that sense, less hypocritical, they were also the ones who transformed from hippies into yuppies (and yes, I'm of course keenly aware that hippies were pacifist, non-radicals, not anarchists).

There's a chance to toy with the idea, how in a new generation of interconnectedness, narcissists already helped by social media can set their own trends on what values are, against which Maggie is one of the last gatekeepers. I'm a proponent of more elaborated stories, because, even if for a short time, the even more sexual porn had stories, intricate plots, the giallos of Italy, the sex comedies of Austria, Germany, Sweden, and of course America with its own Deep Throat or Debbie does Dallas.

[JB57]

My only take on the last paragraph, but it also has been a staple, that I do invite readers for this very reason to incite a discussion (at least on my own work). I've read stories where a lot of emphasis is being put on sexualizing the character (which is understandable as this is a sexual fetish) without going much into pesky details, like motivations, character background and the like. In one recent one I've read the fight was already on in the second paragraph and the first was a short one. Compared to those, King's seems to be a work of write about the things you know and to some detail the characters too are based on existing humans. This is to say I oppose the idea that they're merely characters. I guess what I'm trying to say is that where Bella Swan and Anastasia Steele are characters, in that they belong to the human race, King's creations are more akin to carbon copies who could leap off pages.

I think we can agree that there's a difference between boiling down more fleshed out characters to serve a focus but still show glimpses that they could exist in any other story, and a story where characters are either thinly guised author avatars or plot points disguised as characters to serve a conflict. Actually, as I watched the Liam Neeson movie about Mark Felt, I do need to make one correction. Trust fund kids of anarchy of the era, like Patty Hearst and the members of Weather Underground were more contrarian than anti-establishment and in that sense, less hypocritical, they were also the ones who transformed from hippies into yuppies (and yes, I'm of course keenly aware that hippies were pacifist, non-radicals, not anarchists).

There's a chance to toy with the idea, how in a new generation of interconnectedness, narcissists already helped by social media can set their own trends on what values are, against which Maggie is one of the last gatekeepers. I'm a proponent of more elaborated stories, because, even if for a short time, the even more sexual porn had stories, intricate plots, the giallos of Italy, the sex comedies of Austria, Germany, Sweden, and of course America with its own Deep Throat or Debbie does Dallas.

I understand exactly what you are saying, but I am reluctant to criticize people for not writing what I want to see. What I mean is that you want to get into the deep psychological and symbolic motivations of characters and make them into something they may not have been intended to be, then criticize the writer for not doing what you want him to do. (If I'm misunderstanding you on this, I apologize). But I don't think that is fair; while I certainly understand the benefits and advantages of having characters that are deeply constructed, that is not really the purpose of this kind of story. I certainly agree with the argument that good stories of any kind require character and background and buildup, but in this kind of story (a sexfight story) the buildup is meant to give texture and suspense in the roll up to the ultimate point of the story- i.e., an erotic confrontation. It's all a fantasy and should be understood as such.

Again, good characters make good stories. But, for this story, what it needed to do was give us two women who are physically beautiful and sexually powerful, and who are deeply attracted to each other so that, when they finally get around to fighting each other with their sexes, they are striving to humiliate and dominate each other sexually while reveling in and straining to withstand the enormous pleasure that they give to each other. I think that King's story does this beautifully, especially with the buildup to the final chapter. What he establishes is that Amber and Maggie give each other levels of sexual pleasure that neither has ever experienced with another person; this adds a whole other layer of desire and anticipation to their future meetings. The fact they may despise each other and all they "represent" (to you or to each other) is spiced with the appeal of intense mutual desire.

Again, this is a sex fantasy, which may work against your desire to see fully fleshed out "human" characters. After all, in the real world, I don't assume at all that women who hate each other settle their differences by having mind-blowing sex with each other! When I write - even when I try to give my characters greater depth - I never lose track of the idea that the entire premise is based on a particular kind of fantasy, which inherently compromises the idea of true emotional reality.

Again, I don't necessarily disagree with you, I just think that you are asking too much of a story that is meant to serve a very particular erotic purpose. To refer back to your earlier evocation of "Annie Hall" - in that particular scene, what it is about is a man in line who is expounding on the theories of Marshall McLuhan. Woody Allen reaches off screen and brings in McLuhan himself who then proceeds to explain to the other man how he misunderstands what McLuhan's theories and intentions really are. In a similar way, I think we have to allow the writer to describe the meaning and intentions of his/her work and make those intentions the parameters within which we evaluate the story. I don't know what King's intentions were but if he was trying to make a hot sexfight story with a couple of sexual archtypes who could fulfill the basic needs of the story, then he succeeded brilliantly (though not necessarily in the way I wanted).

Take care,

JB57