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.