Celestial Reviews 34 - Nov 4, 1995
Note: I sincerely appreciate the e-mail I receive from readers.
Please understand that I would like to respond individually and in
detail to everyone who writes to me, but my time limitations often
prohibit this. I hope you will accept my column as my response to your
communications. It seems to me that people are enjoying my writing,
and that makes me feel good.
- Celeste
"Door" by Deirdre (spanking) 5
"Doctor" by Deirdre (bondage & doctors) 7
"Drawer" by Deirdre (female dominance & slavery) 9
"Cindy" by Dave Schulte (e-mail & office romance) 7
"The Wolf and the Seven Little She-Goats" by Anonymous
(fractured fairy tale) 5
"For Celeste" by Delta (mock epic poetry) 10
"Ode to a New Car Shoulder Belt" by Jackie (light verse) 9
*"The Classified Ad" by Ann Douglas (hot ff sex) 10
* = Repost of a previous review (because the story has recently
been reposted.
"Door" by Deirdre (an65862@anon.penet.fi). This story is stylistically
well written, but I didn't enjoy it. I'm not into the spanking scene;
but I'm usually not interested in actually doing what happens in *most*
of Deirdre's stories. Nonetheless I usually do find the stories
interesting. She has the ability to make even very weird things sound
interesting. But this one missed the mark with me. It's about a girl
who goes out with a friend, who gets spanked for her birthday; then
they masturbate. That's it. Maybe spanking enthusiasts will enjoy it
more than I did. (Rating: 5)
"Doctor" by Deirdre (an65862@anon.penet.fi). If you've always
suspected that doctors and nurses were really sex perverts, this story
will confirm your suspicions. The woman in this story is bound and
manipulated in various ways to satisfy her own lust and that of the
medical personnel whom she encounters. This is another one of
Deirdre's "Twilight Zone" stories. (Rating: 7)
"Drawer" by Deirdre (an65862@anon.penet.fi). People who are into
domination and submission with the woman doing the dominating will
enjoy this story. From what I've learned in recent months, this story
seems to be a short version of how to whip the guys into line.
Although in my real life I enjoy reciprocally flirting with and
seducing my husband on a regular basis, a story like this has a certain
earie appeal. Why not just keep the guys around sixty-nining one
another until we women need someone to pamper us - and then we just
pull one off the rack or head over to the sanctuary to pick up some
sex. Maybe it would be even easier to have someone else control the
men for us. Yeah, that's it! Maybe we can find a sport and a
beverage, and the guys could sit around on couches or stools and just
stare mindlessly at the sport on television while they guzzle the
beverage; and whenever we need them to service us, we could snap our
fingers or turn off the TV and they'd come running. (Rating: 9)
"Cindy" by Dave Schulte (SchulteD@aol.com). What would happen if a guy
were carrying on a hot flirtation with an anonymous woman through
cyberspace and he suddenly found out his e-mail partner was a co-
worker? What if he found out it was a guy - oops! That's the wrong
story! What if he found out it was a woman whom he already found to be
attractive? This story has a potentially interesting plot line; but I
can't help thinking that it could have been improved with a little more
refining. For example, one more proofreading of the grammar would have
made this story a lot easier to read; and a few ideas need development
or clarification. Maybe those things will happen before Dave reposts
this story. (Rating: 7)
"The Wolf and the Seven Little She-Goats" by Anonymous submitted by
Frank McCoy (mccoyf@millcomm.com). As you can easily imagine, the
teachers' lounge in most American schools is a vibrant place, where
enthusiastic, scholarly young pedagogues gather to rejuvenate
themselves over a chilled container of fruit juice while they discuss
with their colleagues innovative ideas to further the enlightenment of
the young people committed to their care. Not so our school's lounge!
It is a dismal place, reminiscent of the Dickensian hulks, where burnt-
out, senile or senescent grouches gather not to discuss Hubble's
constant but rather to commiserate about their arthritis and to vent
their spleen with regard to the degenerate assholes entrusted to their
care. I normally stay away from that cesspool of iniquity; I spend any
free time I may have in my classroom at my computer, where passers-by
think I am "doing grades," but where I am more likely perusing
alt.sex.stories, where the level of conversation is at least slightly
more uplifting than would be likely in the Lounge.
About two weeks ago my own computer was down, and so I had to use the
one in the Lounge. Mr. Snotfart was waxing eloquent to a group of his
colleagues. He pounded the table and concluded emphatically, "That's
what's wrong with these fucking kids!" Just then Marian the Gym
Teacher came through the door. (Actually, it would be a better
anecdote if she were a librarian; but I've already lied about Mr.
Snotfart's name, and I don't want to stretch your credulity.) She
stopped, appeared startled, and said to me, "Oh my! What's he talking
about?" This lady almost never speaks to me, and so she had taken me by
surprise. I didn't want her to see what was on my screen, and so I
shrugged and replied, "Something about goats having trouble propagating
their species." "Oh!" she said; and then she turned and walked out of
the room.
Such a great line for such a small reaction! But that's what this
story is about: fucking kids! Literally. I mean, it's about goats
having sex. Fucking kids! Maybe you had to be there....
I usually don't enjoy pedophilia or bestiality; but when you put them
together, the negatives seem to cancel out. I mean, a 10-year-old goat
(like the protagonist in this story) would actually be about 54 in
human years. And a 45-year old wolf screwing a 5-year-old kid changes
from a repulsive activity to a gerontological phenomenon that would
possibly be of interest to Guiness. However, the ages of the kids in
this story were a little confusing: They all sounded pre-menopausal to
me. In addition, they were extremely anthropomorphic.
The tale begins with Momma Goat leaving the kids Home Alone. They
joyfully masturbate and play with the Family Dildo. (This is a German
fairytale. Hence the capital letters for nouns and the ceremonial
sharing of the dildo - a custom perhaps unfamiliar to American kids.
However, I don't write German too well. Hence the lower case letters
for other nouns.) Then an Intruder enters the peaceful house. It's
not clear whether his name is Wolf or Smith. Since this is a German
fairytale, we'll assume his name is Wolfgang von Smith. Instead of
eating them up, Smitty pretends to be asleep while the kids play with
his Cock. After a little while Smitty fucks the oldest kid. When all
the other kids cry "Me too," Smitty realizes he may have bitten off
more than he can chew. However, he dutifully boinks all seven of them
- much to their delight; and when Momma Goat returns home the happy
kids tell her that the Big Bad Wolf may be big but he isn't so bad
after all. The End.
The sexual activity in this story is somewhat bloody (perhaps denoting
a British influence). For sports enthusiasts, there are subtle but
unmistakable allusions to British soccer fans. For example, the author
refers to "the jerks of the narrow channel that milk his prick"; and
the kids who are not being fucked by Smitty at any given time make
themselves useful by cheering and licking up any fluids they can find.
This story raises some unresolved questions about the mongrelization of
the species; therefore, it should not be used by nannies or governesses
as bedtime reading for children whose parents are Racial Purists. (I
myself cannot really comment on relationships between goats and wolves
are likely to be successful when they are based so heavily on sex
rather than common literary or political interests.)
Grammatically, the story sucks (an American - possibly California -
influence); but the tale would probably lose some of its childish Charm
if the coma splices and dangling modifiers were removed. The story
possesses what the Separatists in Quebec might refer to as a certain je
ne sais quoi, and their English speaking confreres as nonsense. What I
find truly amazing is that the phrase "je ne sais quoi" is actually in
my unabridged dictionary, right before Jenghis Kahn and directly
opposite the word jerkinhead, which is right below a picture of a
jerkin. This can't all be mere coincidence. I'm going to stop writing
this review and go out and buy a lottery ticket. Am I glad I read this
story? You bet your sweet jerkinhead! (Rating: 5)
"For Celeste" by Delta (an248969@anon.penet.fi). It may be true that
everyone gets fifteen minutes of fame in his or her lifetime; but few
people get an epic poem dedicated to them. I have now received that
honor, even if it is a short epic. I admit that I had a conflict of
interest reviewing this poem; and my dilemma was heightened by the fact
that the United States does not have a poet laureate for us taxpayers
to consult. Therefore, I contacted the poet laureate of England, more
commonly known on the Internet as SirBigStick, who verified the
validity of this review and also offered to dub me his understudy.
To be enjoyed to its fullest, this story has to be read out loud.
Actually, to be enjoyed to its absolute fullest, it should be read out
loud while one is eating one's favorite food and doing one's favorite
thing. Perhaps being covered with warm chocolate syrup would help too.
My point is that many of us in Western society have lost the ability to
communicate in heroic verse, and this story should do as much as
anything to restore that talent to our culture.
In addition to its obvious metric qualities and excellent use of
metaphor, this story/poem effectively uses understatement to describe
the sexual activity between a goddess and her demigod lover in terms
that can be understood by mere mortals.
I showed this story to my husband, and he was at first upset. But then
he realized that the line "shriveled mightily" did not refer to him,
but was actually "shivered mightily" with reference to me.
I enjoyed this story; and I think those of you about whom it's not will
also enjoy it. It's a very clever piece of writing. It really is a
good parody of Homeric verse as that form was often imitated in
Elizabethan times. Or, as SirBigStick put it: "Delta! A Poet? I
didn't know it!" (Rating: 10)
"Ode to a New Car Shoulder Belt" by Jackie (an338903@anon.penet.fi). Since
poetry got in by the back door in the preceding review, I might as well review
this poem now. It's a meditation on a woman's breasts from the perspective of
her car's seatbelt. The poem presents light-hearted refreshing insights as
the woman progresses through the various stages of her life. The difference
between this and the previous poem is that whereas Delta actually parodies a
classical style, this author merely uses rhyme to chain together some pleasant
ideas. That's not a problem - just a comment. I enjoyed this poem. (Rating:
9)
"The Classified Ad" by Ann Douglas (an309642@anon.penet.fi). Because
she is frustrated by her husband's lack of interest in her life, a
woman posts a classified ad on a BBS. In it she expresses a need to
meet with another woman to explore her own sexuality. A female doctor
responds, and the two of them hit it off very well together. By the
end of the story the woman's self concept and lifestyle have taken a
radical shift. While this is an excellent short story in its own right,
it could also be considered an essay entitled "Lesbians Are Normal
People."
My only problem with this otherwise excellent story is that I had
impression is that the author rushed it to press. Near the end there
are several passages where the punctuation disintegrates badly - for
example, quotation marks and apostrophes disappear almost completely;
and the author selects wrong words (e.g., sign for sigh). At first I
thought the author was omitting the punctuation to achieve a purpose;
but then the story reverted to good punctuation again. I'm convinced
that the author simply wrote these parts last and did not proofread
them carefully. However, in spite of this annoyance, I truly enjoyed
this story. (Rating: 10)
TIP OF THE WEEK: In each issue of Celestial Reviews I present one of
the guidelines from Celestial Grammar, which I have posted on alt
sex.stories.d. and which I'll continue to develop and revise from time
to time. My theory is that if all of these tips were followed, about
95% of the really distracting errors in a.s.s. stories would be
eliminated. (The other 5% will eventually be covered in Advanced
Celestial Grammar.) I was going to name this part of the column TIP OF
THE {something sexual}, but I thought the innuendo might detract from
the sober serious business at hand. Here is this week's Tip:
WHO and WHOM (also WHOEVER and WHOMEVER)
Technically, who and whom are either relative or interrogative
pronouns. That doesn't matter for now. The rules for using relative
and interrogative pronouns are identical.
The main rule is that the way the word is used in its clause determines
the form to use. In general, if it's a subject (nominative case) use
WHO (or WHOEVER). If it's an object of a verb or of a preposition
(objective case), use WHOM (or WHOMEVER).
If you are uncertain how to apply this rule, you can do it by ear.
Simply replace WHO by HE (or SHE) and WHOM by HIM (or HER), and see if
the sentence sounds right.
That is the man WHOM I plan to seduce tonight. (WHOM is
the object of seduce. I plan to seduce HIM tonight. "I
plan to seduce he tonight" sounds absurd.)
That is the woman WHO will seduce me tonight. (WHO is
the subject of will seduce. SHE will seduce me tonight.
HER will seduce me tonight sounds absurd.)
WHOM do you plan to seduce tonight? (Just answer the
question: I plan to seduce HIM (not HE) tonight.)
WHO will seduce you tonight? (Just answer the question:
SHE (not HER) will me tonight.)
In America, correct grammar is often viewed with suspicion. Therefore,
some people use WHO almost all the time, especially when it occurs at
the beginning of a sentence. Therefore, intelligent people may say the
following, even though they know each sentence is incorrect:
WHO did you fuck last night? (This should be "WHOM did
you fuck last night?" If you say it correctly, the person
to whom you are speaking will know you're either an
English teacher or a narc.)
WHO do you want to sleep with tonight? (This should be
"With WHOM do you want to sleep tonight?" However,
guys to whom this would be said would suspect that
they were in for an expensive and perhaps boring
evening with a girl who would say this correctly. It's
just not cool.)
My impression is that in written speech, almost anyone can feel
comfortable using the proper word. I guess maybe the ordinary person
thinks if you have time to revise, then it's OK to use WHOM.
Sometimes confusion arises from the fact that WHO/WHOM appears to be
part of a different clause. However, as long as you put the word in
the right clause and follow the preceding guidelines, you will not make
mistakes. Here are some more difficult examples:
I know WHO will seduce me tonight. (Some people think
that WHO is the object of "know." This is not accurate.
WHO is the subject of "seduce." The whole clause "who
will seduce me tonight" is the object of "know." You can
solve the problem by inserting HE/HIM. HE will
seduce me.)
I know WHOM I plan to seduce tonight. (Some people think
that WHOM is the object of "know." This is not accurate.
WHOM is the object of "seduce." The whole clause
"whom I plan to seduce tonight" is the object of "know."
You can solve the problem by inserting HE/HIM. I
plan to seduce HIM.)
The issue is sometimes more difficult with WHOEVER. This is because
many people who can distinguish WHO and WHOM by ear get confused by the
longer word.
I'd like to have sex again with WHOEVER seduced me last
night. (Many people incorrectly say WHOMEVER,
because they think the word is the object of the
preposition "with." This is incorrect; it is the subject
of
"seduced." Again, you can solve the problem by
inserting HE/HIM. HE seduced me last night.)
I'd like to have sex again with WHOMEVER I seduced last
night. (Many people correctly say WHOMEVER, but
they do this because they think the word is the object
of the preposition "with." This is incorrect; it is the
object of "seduced." Again, you can solve the problem
by inserting HE/HIM. I seduced HIM last night.)
That's all there is to it.