Don't forget to add the link to your story into your signature here on the forum.
Since Scribble Hub uses the 3rd party software for their forum, there is no easy way to access the story one mentions here. The forum and the story webpage as essentially two different sites, even if they share the login and are interlinked. So always put the story link in signature so other may find it. Considering you are now active on the forums in may (or may not) be worthwhile. There aren't many readers frequenting the forums, but there are some, and some of them may enjoy the story.
As far I know there isn't any rule against linking to other sites too (this isn't Spacebattles)
So I had a particularly bad experience on RoyalRoad, simply from trying to post my first story there. I'm thinking about coming over to ScribbleHub instead, as a result....and without trashing RR too much, I just wanted to see if anyone else has had an experience like mine?
Essentially my submission kept getting these vague rejections like "We allow sexual content on this site, but it can't be the focus of the story blah blah blah,
Go ahead and trash it. It made its bed, and it should bloody well lie in it.
I once posted a story to Royalroad, which was rejected for referencing a real world religion… in a post apocalyptic setting where religion, and ritual, and mysticism hold great power.
I name-dropped Christianity in chapter 3 but the depiction was unmistakable throughout (you might know it as that little religion with 2 billion claimed real-world adherents (when counting peoples children; weird stat, makes sense — hate it)), which is to say: by the usual reckoning a whole quarter of the world is Christian (and a full half of it religiously Abrahamic.)
I don’t think they actually read so far down as my transubstantiation becoming substantial (because perception = reality in it): the Eucharist, also known as Christendom’s core ritual: is weird, but makes loads of sense how it happened theologically if you break it down (which I will not do here, because it’s so not the point) — it’s so culturally ingrained on this Earth that it is actually difficult to find fiction (especially gothic) that contains no references or conceptual relation to it at all.
Would they crucify Dune for the nuanced rendition of space Islam iterated so magnificently with such an emphasis on the spirituality? The Chronicles of Narnia is (okay) but it’s rather explicitly religious, so dead on arrival: what about Noragami and Percy Jackson? It’s way nastier to shit on the long dead religion of Greece (now orthodox) and to represent in fanfic-style the currently practiced Shintoism with less than 100 million adherents (WHICH IS A LOT OF PEOPLE FAM!) than it is to pick on poor persecuted Christianity.
I wonder: would they have even recognised the other names of Zoroaster’s teachings, if I had led with a chapter about its resurgence in my little apocalypse? It’s practiced by less than 200,000 people, and has been actively persecuted by Muslim and Hindu practitioners alike.
I know this is a ‘death of the author’ example, but it is a popular modern example I find relevant to their rejection: American Gods.
It’s a nonsense.
Whatever their reasoning: it is garbage.
It was such a tilting experience for my worldview.
They lucked into relevance on the back of the very thing they decry: The Legendary Moonlight Sculptor (upon which the site was formed) itself is deeply mystical, drawing deeply on ‘pagan’ representation as it explicitly names and uses Lugh, Freya, Thor, Hestia, and Tyr throughout its pages.
… That it also implicitly uses elements of Christianity, Zen Buddhism, and Taoism absolutely everywhere: holy relics and quests, Confucian values, and the grand theft of the martial arts… is not in question at all. Though, I do wonder where they might draw the line of censure and censorship — I don’t really: it is arbitrary. The basis is whatever the moderator who reviews it wants it to be.
Not that Scribblehub has a different process inherently: a person still reviews it… but whoever they have in charge of that here is at least twenty times cooler than the people over there.
The Scribblers let me put the first chapters of two of my stories up, no questions asked, despite the first explicitly name dropping two people as being Christian in different ways, an extremely graphic transformation/gore, and poetic inclusion in one story’s first chapter — and the second as wholesale Slavic pagan representation (Baba Yaga) complete with a children’s song smack dab in the middle of it.
The fact that such was so painless to put here (never minding my struggles to format it) is self-evident that this is the right place for me to expand upon them.
As for Royalroad… that such sensitive censorship could exist on a site that simultaneously hosts numerous works set in the real world: is absurd.
Contemporary fiction endlessly represents real world cities, in real world countries, and sometimes includes depictions of real world people as relevant (I remember reading a Dungeon Core story there set in our world, which after Trump’s first presidency included the event in a manner which was appropriate to a work incorporating real world events into it).
Heck, I’ve read many such depictions in works from Japan, Korea, and China — settings in catholic schools, with Christian motifs on their vampire-hunting vampires; would these be likewise denied?
I thought they might deny anything and everything at any time for no good reason, and what a downright depressing thought that was.
I not only didn’t post anything for years (and I will never post something to Royalroad) but I also stopped writing out of shock (because life took a turn, but I might have pushed through it if my entire worldview on what was socially normal and reasonable to depict in fiction hadn’t been so shaken and unravelled: my confidence dried up, and that was on me — but having that confidence back in spades, I will not subject myself to such rampant overreach).
I flirted with the idea of posting it up while renaming the religion Ytinaitsirhc just for their website, but the thought of such a protest exhausted me more than anything.
I considered that I could drop all references to it from the first chapter, maybe they’d let it sneak in, and then it wouldn’t get flagged for my story-necessary depictions of religion, but I didn’t do it in the end — and never will.
That story has marvellously evolved in the interim (it’s been many years), but when I think that A Christmas Carol would have been rejected for the exact same reasons: I am bothered. Only they themselves know how they might have handled Robinson Crusoe (depictions of slavery sans modern understanding in historically relevant setting), or Around The World In 80 Days (which uses some very… lovely language to refer to — Jules Verne is hella racist and has such become a pretty hard read on revisiting).
With such an overbearing censorship, I had no interest (and have no interest) in putting any stories on it — and I actively avoid looking for new things to read on it (which isn’t fair to fellow authors, but I can’t help them there: it’s been years and I’m still angry).
I hate Royalroad, the entity, for being arbitrary and excessively policed.
I can never see a time where I want to work with them, because whether it be on their forum or their website: they’re abundant with absurd, oversensitive takes, and are incapable of understanding context or communicating courteously.
That is all for my particular view.
Infinite love, I’m sorry you had to experience that regardless <3
Is it in your story’s best interest to find a way to enter their site? Probably. If you can make it work, it is (was?) a very popular website. I use it now and again to check in on works that aren’t anywhere else, but I use it sparingly.
You could always do the old, “add tags later as they become relevant” trick, which I find a bit revulsive, as tags are for readers to understand what they’re getting into, but iirc (as of four years ago) that was their stance on the matter.
Don’t take my word for it though, read their Byzantine policies instead!
Ok, since if I start talking things would escalate quickly, I will save you the argument arc and directly jump to the tldr version:
[A very serious argument that explains the rules and guidelines of RR, the matter of sponsorship, the age range of general audience, the percentage of sexual content, and some common sense on why the story and its cover got rejected]
...So as I said, based on the above reasons, your story wasn't suitable for the Royal Road's audience as it was.
And is all the more reason to use this site instead. :)
I think much of the contention comes from the shift-over-time of Royalroad: from Dryad Re: Life (or whatever it was called) style works with explicit wall to wall smut, to what it is now — there was a transition from unfettered growth to the tightening yoke of standards.
In that period of intentionally steered transition: many users were caught either unawares as the terms changed beneath them (a clause in Scribblehub’s terms affords them this same capacity) and the site’s moderation strengthened as they became a ‘household name’ of sorts.
This is indeed to be expected.
It is also to be expected that it is easy for those rejected to lambast an entity that begins to execute operations that lead to such rejection… and are made subject to removal.
Sexy ≠ sexual, necessarily (it’s an odd thing, this, but bear with me).
I get where you're coming from: as humans (and other peoples, should they exist, might also:) have the capacity to find humans visually appealing, a person can sexualise just about anything, but that is not necessarily inherent unto an image i.e. a person performing sexual acts (coitus in all its grand forms) is necessarily sexual… but a woman and a man in their birthday suits standing side by side with their arms around each other: is a depiction of nudity, and in their closeness or presentation could be interpreted as sexual... but is not necessarily so.
But if there’s nothing specifically sexual about nudity (and there really isn’t — the birthing process is many things, but sexual it is not, and naturally, we are born naked (and what I said about sexualisation still stands, though I really really really wish it wouldn’t (I’ve heard some atrocious stories as a product of living in this world with an internet connection and a fascination with the occasional Ted Talk, but senility hasn’t taken those things from me yet))
TLDR: It’s a mess. Language, terms, legislation of evolving semantics… a mess I say.
Being as sexuality is so… utterly interpretable on a personal basis, and language artefacts of English being similarly slimy when it comes to definition (see: sexy vs sexual): legislatory language regarding the subject is a profound kick in the teeth to read, and a pain in the neck to write.
So unfortunately, all I can say is what I said from the start:
A charming, easy on the eyes, and pleasantly plump woman wearing a bodysuit which contours fittingly to her shape by necessitation of function while outlining aspects of her copious and dare-I-say overwhelming femininity:
Is sexy. Very.
And if sexual things were to be on the table, or the chair, or the bed in my room: I would not be unhappy to see her there.
But she’s not there, or on the contextual chair, or on the table at all, and is thus, for me:
Not a particularly sexual image of a woman not doing any particularly sexual things.
All words share the same seed, which… is a Lot, and quite the opposite.
My family on all sides may have originated with the Swedes, but my unfortunate upbringing and related youthful practices precludes me from feeling ‘at home’ with such an experience.
That is to say: what is fine for them, is not fine for me.
Good for them: getting naked together to have a good time.
Bah, should have read the thread the whole way through before I started going back:
Yes: people perceive things differently. No: it isn’t strange that people engage with what they see according to how they view it.
Yes: that means there is a capacity to engage with the same thing differently. No: that doesn’t mean that there is a right way for anything to be engaged with.
As such, much like Schrodingers tits:
The Image-On-Trial is both sexual and not, simultaneous like, depending on which person is looking at it. Nobody is projecting, everybody is interpreting, the world is not so ordered as for the dichotometrical to obscure the abstract and incomprehensible nature of — don’t worry about it, really.
I like it.
We all like it.
People don’t have to project themselves upon an image to take meaning away from that image: i.e. horny vision and normal vision are *very* different lenses with which to view the world, as is one with an eye for aesthetics and another with a mind searching for meaning: we wear all of these and more to see the world, and all visions of the world are as accurate as they are delusional, which is: completely.
I can see how a person might view it either way, entirely dependent on their personal take, and as such: I totally understand why it might have been either accepted with ease (here) or rejected outright (there).
But what is neither here nor there is this: I hope everyone’s had a wonderful day so far <3 This was a fun mental exercise for me.
Bah, should have read the thread the whole way through before I started going back:
Yes: people perceive things differently. No: it isn’t strange that people engage with what they see according to how they view it.
Yes: that means there is a capacity to engage with the same thing differently. No: that doesn’t mean that there is a right way for anything to be engaged with.
As such, much like Schrodingers tits:
The Image-On-Trial is both sexual and not, simultaneous like, depending on which person is looking at it. Nobody is projecting, everybody is interpreting, the world is not so ordered as for the dichotometrical to obscure the abstract and incomprehensible nature of — don’t worry about it, really.
I like it.
We all like it.
People don’t have to project themselves upon an image to take meaning away from that image: i.e. horny vision and normal vision are *very* different lenses with which to view the world, as is one with an eye for aesthetics and another with a mind searching for meaning: we wear all of these and more to see the world, and all visions of the world are as accurate as they are delusional, which is: completely.
I can see how a person might view it either way, entirely dependent on their personal take, and as such: I totally understand why it might have been either accepted with ease (here) or rejected outright (there).
But what is neither here nor there is this: I hope everyone’s had a wonderful day so far <3 This was a fun mental exercise for me.
Can you give me a TLDR of what the whole "it's sexual or not" thing was about? I tried to understand it, but my pea-sized brain refused to process the information. And judging based on the massive shlongs of text you wield, you look like a someone who can explain stuff.
Can you give me a TLDR of what the whole "it's sexual or not" thing was about? I tried to understand it, but my pea-sized brain refused to process the information. And judging based on the massive shlongs of text you wield, you look like a someone who can explain stuff.
Can you give me a TLDR of what the whole "it's sexual or not" thing was about? I tried to understand it, but my pea-sized brain refused to process the information. And judging based on the massive shlongs of text you wield, you look like a someone who can explain stuff.
Can you give me a TLDR of what the whole "it's sexual or not" thing was about? I tried to understand it, but my pea-sized brain refused to process the information. And judging based on the massive shlongs of text you wield, you look like a someone who can explain stuff.
Grog is angry, Jrog hates his cave picture of Mother Earth, says "agoga". Grog goes another cave, complains to cavemen inside. Brog and Arog can't come to conclusions and argue about the picture. Grog tries to shove himself into argument, gets heated. Everyone has their opinions, but know Jrog is wrong. Cave picture is a cave picture.
Grog is angry, Jrog hates his cave picture of Mother Earth, says "agoga". Grog goes another cave, complains to cavemen inside. Brog and Arog can't come to conclusions and argue about the picture. Grog tries to shove himself into argument, gets heated. Everyone has their opinions, but know Jrog is wrong. Cave picture is a cave picture.
Can you give me a TLDR of what the whole "it's sexual or not" thing was about? I tried to understand it, but my pea-sized brain refused to process the information. And judging based on the massive shlongs of text you wield, you look like a someone who can explain stuff.
IMO the pose is a little suggestive but I've seen FAR worse get a pass so not sure what the fuss was, unless the mod just was being overly cautious at first, and then got ticked off at the author when it was challenged.
It’s fundamentally impossible to change someone’s mind through argument (or so it would forever seem: we are most likely not rational beings of logical basis who formed out of the Three Great Edicts A=A B≠A No C… but are emotional ones with a genetic basis that enables us to hold contradictory information together and faithfully argue for it with irrefutable coherence), so we should embrace what we all agree on, or as Magneto once said in a terrible movie I was once made to watch: Aku Aku always wanted to build bridges.
Explanation is just a whole lot of Tell in a really bad Show.
Can you give me a TLDR of what the whole "it's sexual or not" thing was about? I tried to understand it, but my pea-sized brain refused to process the information. And judging based on the massive shlongs of text you wield, you look like a someone who can explain stuff.
My cover art got my submission rejected on RR for being "incredibly sexual" despite the fact shes fulky covered with no skin showing below the neck, right? She was wearing a form fitting space suit and she was a curvy girl who may be a little overweight, but not enough to be chubby or fat. (It was approved without issue here on SH).
The space suit was similar to the space suits in Gundam Wing ect. Form fitting. Very much like a scuba diver suit actually.
Then Muffin said the image was sexual.
Which is projection. Doesn't mean I think hes a pervert or a bad person. Just means he was attributing an internal thought or feeling to something outside of he-himself. In this case, I didnt make the image with that intention, and aside from the fact other people find her body shape to be sexy, it wasn't meant to be sexual by nature.
Muffin then accused me of making a personal attack, which immediately made me disengage from further conversation on the topic because we arent going to agree, and he's making it out like I was harassing him when I was just saying what any Psych 101 professor or student would say. Its projection. That isnt a bad thing per say, its more like a logical fallacy in a certain sense.
Then Anon decided to make a big deal about it, even though I said I was done with the topic already, and he accused me of bullying and harassment and all this other stuff. All because I said that Muffin's statement and statements after it were projection. It is really dumb. I kept saying "Lets just agree to disagree" but these guys would not let it drop. lol.
Then Star Knight posted a snarky post insinuating that my character was in a body suit (kind of true) and he left a bunch of angry reacts on my actual forum posts. So I went and posted a response like: Women wear body suits/onesies (not the fetish kind) where I live and its not sexual. Then a lot of other people posted and made a few snarky comments in the status itself. Personally I think its more like a scuba suit myself. Is a scuba suit a bodysuit? Kinda. Not sexual tho.
So now its kind of like...its a 3 vs 1, 5 vs 1 at this point, and while all this is going on Anon keeps accusing me in his forum posts of bullying and harassing and blah blah; while all these people are ganging up on me. lol. Its so stupid. If anything Im the one being bullied.
And I got called "insufferable" multiple times by multiple people. ?
Like holy shit. I think its projection. I think the act of finding it to be sexy and then projecting that onto the image itself is projection. Right. If I wore a scuba suit for its intended purpose in rl, would that make me 'sexual' just because someone thought that? Or thought it was sexy? Or saw the potential for it to be seen as being sexy. lol. No.
But I dont think that makes someone projecting like that a bad person. Its just a fault in their logic.
I just wanted to agree to disagree the whole time so the thread could go back to the RR topic rather than being derailed for pages and pages and pages.
I dont think Muffin or Anon are bad people. But they think I am, apparently.
I feel like at some point, someone thought "this is a sexy character" (which, to be fair, can be entirely true. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all)
The problem comes when someone does the logical leap that "sexy character" = "sexual picture".
It's just a cool character in a space suit on a moon. It's not like she’s in the middle of anything obscene or even close.
It's nothing more than a super hero(ine) pose, in a skintight suit. Something we have seen billion of times in comics.
Is any random screenshot of Black Widow in Avengers "sexual" ? I sure hope not.
Now, that said, the synopsis goes further than the picture at hinting that the story may contain sensual or sexual tension, and that could be the actual reason RR wanted nothing to do with it.
Stitch that same picture on some other description and it would probably pass without any issue. My impression is that the themes, tags or description has tainted the moderator's perception, and the image itself might have been the easiest target to justify the actual reason why they denied the story on their site.
You don't say you fired someone from a job because of their sexual orientation, religion or ethnicity. But if they arrive late a few times in a week, then people will use that as the justification for getting rid of you, even if their actual beef was with something else about you.
