A T-frame is constructed by using a solid wooden post as the up right, and attaching to it a cross beam so that the finished assembly looks something like a giant letter "T". T-Frames were used extensively in Europe and the Americas as whipping frames in the 19th Century.
Early whipping posts where constructed from having a single pole erected upright, the top far higher than any person's wrists (when held upright, extended over the head). But some genius spotted that by tying the victim to a T-frame, arms extended outwards(as opposed to over the head arms) flattened and squared the back, giving a better target for the lash. And as an added bonus, should the sentence be half the strokes across the back and half across the buttocks, the person so sentenced was perfectly positioned to receive all of them in one uninterrupted session.
As far as I can ascertain, a T-frame lying horizontal to the ground, on trestles or similar, never made it to institutions of corporal punishment. (The upright T-Frame had, but it was solely for punishment). The horizontal T-Frame has made its appearance in videos, fiction and custom spanking furniture - for it makes the victim vulnerable to other forms of "abuse".
From adopting the real life T-frame to the spanking scene, it was almost inevitable that X-frame would make its appearance. Wood slats are constructed to make a frame that looks line the letter "X" and now we have four securing points - two for the wrists and two for the ankles. And a nice narrow bit for wrapping some securing material around the waist and the frame. A spread-eagled securely secured naked penitent can be dealt with in anyway that comes to mind, and has become a staple of a certain class of disciplinary scene in which pain may be followed by sexual activity. The X-frame never made any sort of appearance in real life, but turns up regularly in fiction.
As writers of spanking fiction, we can create spanking benches and whipping frames out of just about anything. We can dream up of a tree of exactly the right height so that it becomes a substitute for a Y-frame. With a little bit of misdirection, an overturned wheelbarrow can be put into use as a spanking bench. And so on.
We might need an excessive amount of description to explain an out of the ordinary spanking implement (as discussed in Q is for Quirt), but when it comes to the furniture used to secure the miscreant, we have a far easier time of it. And having an unusual spanking bench not only might give a tale a new twist, it can be instrumental in the whole set up the entire piece. If you are struggling to start a new tale then you might want to try the technique of identifying some unusual spanking bench. Work backwards to show how it came to be used, and you will be well on the way to fleshing out the finished piece.
Monday, June 22, 2015
Sunday, June 21, 2015
S is for Stuffing
In real life, spanking play often starts with a fully clothed bottom getting slapped with the hand, then a partially clothed one, then a bare one and then the implements are brought into play, to turn an already reddened backside into full glorious technicolor. In order for the partner to withstand repeated hard swats from a paddle, the flesh needs to be warmed up first to get it, and its owners psyche, ready for more stringent attention.
I have not witnessed very many real life discipline sessions, but by all accounts, the penitent does not have a lengthy warm up period before the disciplinarian gets down to business. They tend to be more of a touch your toes, instant agony, punishment over sort of regimen.
So why do video producers and some spanking fiction authors have miscreants go through a series of increasingly painful encounters, all in the name of discipline? In a word - stuffing.
A video producer would like to produce an hour (or so) video in order to maximize sales potential. And to fill a full hour is not easy. Even pain-fest Mood Pictures find that one of their floggings is completed in about five minutes. So - directorial choices. We can have a small cast beaten often, or a large cast each beaten once. The first option is relatively cheaper, the second more fragmented.
Let us make up a theoretical script for a large cast. A dozen "schoolgirls" each get a classroom paddling and two or three of them "confess" and get sent to the headmaster for a caning. Well, allowing some time to get into and out of spanking position, we will have generated about 25 minutes of spanking action. For a one hour film. To make it last an hour, we need about 35 minutes of stuffing to pad it all out. So we need to stuff 25 minutes of non-spanking material into it to bring it up to the required run time.
About the first half of the masterpiece "South American Vacation" is stuffing in which the oddest and really bizarre court case is portrayed in order to set up the whackings to come. It does not particularly add much in quality (a 3 minute edited highlight would have worked just as well) but it gets us to use up enough time to qualify the production as "a full length" work. (Incidentally, rumor as it that the first two recipients of a caning in that film - a mere 10 strokes each - were volunteer vanillas so the producer could show how such discipline affects those not into a pain for pleasure foible).
When we have just one or two victims on the receiving end, it is inevitable that they are going to receive several spankings. First across the knee, in stages as clothing is removed and then bending to get various implements of increasing severity, ending with the cane, Perhaps half an hour of spanking action. In order to fill the rest of the allotted time, directors have the spanker take time out to lecture, to grope. to examine the effects of the beating on the bottom, to tap excessively, to shout abuse between strokes: to do anything, but anything, to wind the clock down a few more minutes. Which is why most discipline videos give the viewer a sense of shocked disbelief that this is how the cast really thinks schoolmasters go about whacking errant schoolgirls.
Since we fiction writers are not recording the action with a camera, we have an easier time of it. When it comes to the written word, there is no expectation for us to provide a minimum number of words for any one piece.
Should we spend a lot of time viewing videos of a spanking nature (aka "conducting research"), we may get beguiled into thinking that the video producers have a deep insight into what a spanko audience wants to watch. And by inference want to read. It is not impossible to think that videos represent the accepted "correct" attitude towards portraying spanking action and try to mimic video scripting within our tales.
Which is why we occasionally come across a short story which has as much stuffing as one of those really bizarre "English" discipline classics. May I offer you counsel? Please leave stuffing to video productions and make your tales, sharp, crisp and a joy to read. I for one would find that to be a better read, and from the chat boards, I am not in the minority.
I have not witnessed very many real life discipline sessions, but by all accounts, the penitent does not have a lengthy warm up period before the disciplinarian gets down to business. They tend to be more of a touch your toes, instant agony, punishment over sort of regimen.
So why do video producers and some spanking fiction authors have miscreants go through a series of increasingly painful encounters, all in the name of discipline? In a word - stuffing.
A video producer would like to produce an hour (or so) video in order to maximize sales potential. And to fill a full hour is not easy. Even pain-fest Mood Pictures find that one of their floggings is completed in about five minutes. So - directorial choices. We can have a small cast beaten often, or a large cast each beaten once. The first option is relatively cheaper, the second more fragmented.
Let us make up a theoretical script for a large cast. A dozen "schoolgirls" each get a classroom paddling and two or three of them "confess" and get sent to the headmaster for a caning. Well, allowing some time to get into and out of spanking position, we will have generated about 25 minutes of spanking action. For a one hour film. To make it last an hour, we need about 35 minutes of stuffing to pad it all out. So we need to stuff 25 minutes of non-spanking material into it to bring it up to the required run time.
About the first half of the masterpiece "South American Vacation" is stuffing in which the oddest and really bizarre court case is portrayed in order to set up the whackings to come. It does not particularly add much in quality (a 3 minute edited highlight would have worked just as well) but it gets us to use up enough time to qualify the production as "a full length" work. (Incidentally, rumor as it that the first two recipients of a caning in that film - a mere 10 strokes each - were volunteer vanillas so the producer could show how such discipline affects those not into a pain for pleasure foible).
When we have just one or two victims on the receiving end, it is inevitable that they are going to receive several spankings. First across the knee, in stages as clothing is removed and then bending to get various implements of increasing severity, ending with the cane, Perhaps half an hour of spanking action. In order to fill the rest of the allotted time, directors have the spanker take time out to lecture, to grope. to examine the effects of the beating on the bottom, to tap excessively, to shout abuse between strokes: to do anything, but anything, to wind the clock down a few more minutes. Which is why most discipline videos give the viewer a sense of shocked disbelief that this is how the cast really thinks schoolmasters go about whacking errant schoolgirls.
Since we fiction writers are not recording the action with a camera, we have an easier time of it. When it comes to the written word, there is no expectation for us to provide a minimum number of words for any one piece.
Should we spend a lot of time viewing videos of a spanking nature (aka "conducting research"), we may get beguiled into thinking that the video producers have a deep insight into what a spanko audience wants to watch. And by inference want to read. It is not impossible to think that videos represent the accepted "correct" attitude towards portraying spanking action and try to mimic video scripting within our tales.
Which is why we occasionally come across a short story which has as much stuffing as one of those really bizarre "English" discipline classics. May I offer you counsel? Please leave stuffing to video productions and make your tales, sharp, crisp and a joy to read. I for one would find that to be a better read, and from the chat boards, I am not in the minority.
Friday, June 19, 2015
R is for Reviews
One of the stocks in trade for all authors are the Reviews their works get. But we spanko authors have an additional handicap when it comes to getting reviews. I shall explain.
The perceived wisdom of the authorship world is that it takes about 750 readers to generate one review. _(Which means that newly minted works that arrive with half a dozen glowing reviews are treated by all with considerable skepticism).
The work of a promotions department at a publishing house is to bring attention to new works by such means as having the author go on a lecture circuit, send promotional copies to professional reviewers and use social media to get the title in front of potential readers' eyes. The more people who read a book, the more likely there will be reviews and the more reviews - even mildly unfavorable ones - the more sales the book will likely get.
For most of us writing spanking fiction, the thought of going on a speaking tour is a double disaster: for not only would you be expected to stand up and speak in front of strangers, you would also reveal to them from the get go your most private and carefully hidden secret - that you are into spanking. While there have been some very brave souls who have outed themselves, none with any sort of set back - but having kept it secret for ten, twenty or even thirty years, few of the rest of us can face the prospect of standing up in a lecture hall brandishing a sign that reads "I am a Spanko!"
For the self same reason - the preservation of our most cherished secret - we never use social media that is likely to get into the hands of our family circle/ Yeah, they have a pretty shrewd idea what makes us tick - but we refrain from shouting it from the roof tops. Discretion and all that.
So we sit and pray that people will review our books of their own accord. But now another snag: our readers are virtually all spankos - and they are afflicted with the same desire to stay in the shadows that we ourselves have. While the average book may take 750 sales to generate a review, I have personal experience that suggest spanking fiction takes four or five times that number to get each review. No matter how unlikely a reverse search may find the author of a review, not making one eliminates any possibility of the real identity of a reviewer being discovered.
So - dear reader - we have yet another solid reason why we should march arm in arm down the high street in the spanko equivalent of a Pride March - so that the world is aware of our foibles, we can also face the world back without feeling that we are doomed to disaster by telling it who we are.
I know deep down that will never happen. So - do tell - what is your rational for keeping your spanking secret hidden from sight?
The perceived wisdom of the authorship world is that it takes about 750 readers to generate one review. _(Which means that newly minted works that arrive with half a dozen glowing reviews are treated by all with considerable skepticism).
The work of a promotions department at a publishing house is to bring attention to new works by such means as having the author go on a lecture circuit, send promotional copies to professional reviewers and use social media to get the title in front of potential readers' eyes. The more people who read a book, the more likely there will be reviews and the more reviews - even mildly unfavorable ones - the more sales the book will likely get.
For most of us writing spanking fiction, the thought of going on a speaking tour is a double disaster: for not only would you be expected to stand up and speak in front of strangers, you would also reveal to them from the get go your most private and carefully hidden secret - that you are into spanking. While there have been some very brave souls who have outed themselves, none with any sort of set back - but having kept it secret for ten, twenty or even thirty years, few of the rest of us can face the prospect of standing up in a lecture hall brandishing a sign that reads "I am a Spanko!"
For the self same reason - the preservation of our most cherished secret - we never use social media that is likely to get into the hands of our family circle/ Yeah, they have a pretty shrewd idea what makes us tick - but we refrain from shouting it from the roof tops. Discretion and all that.
So we sit and pray that people will review our books of their own accord. But now another snag: our readers are virtually all spankos - and they are afflicted with the same desire to stay in the shadows that we ourselves have. While the average book may take 750 sales to generate a review, I have personal experience that suggest spanking fiction takes four or five times that number to get each review. No matter how unlikely a reverse search may find the author of a review, not making one eliminates any possibility of the real identity of a reviewer being discovered.
So - dear reader - we have yet another solid reason why we should march arm in arm down the high street in the spanko equivalent of a Pride March - so that the world is aware of our foibles, we can also face the world back without feeling that we are doomed to disaster by telling it who we are.
I know deep down that will never happen. So - do tell - what is your rational for keeping your spanking secret hidden from sight?
Thursday, June 18, 2015
Q is for Quirt
Having a limited range of motives for a spanking, and a limited range of aftermaths, we spanko authors often look at the spanking itself, to see if new ideas can be explored in that area.
The first notion that might come to mind is to consider an implement that has not been featured in any of our prior tales. Such as the quirt.
The quirt is a two thonged whip with a short handle and is about three feet long. Historically it was used as a riding whip, but ranchers found that by tying the handle to some reigns, the extra length meant it could be used to control cattle - not by slapping them but by making loud cracks close to their ears. And it was also used as a tool of discipline, for its lash could be aimed accurately to deliver a very sharp sting.
While contemplating punishments dished out in the old Wild West, you might come across the term "larruping" (which, counter-intuitively, has a secondary meaning of "exceptionally good"). A larruping would have been no fun for the victim. Dad would have taken his trusty Colt 45 out of its holster, held it by the barrel, and walloped his offspring's backside with the flat side of the handle. A harsh, unyielding implement that would have left extensive bruising.
A third variation on the old Wild West was a buggy whipping. If a young lady broke curfew by an excessive amount, the usual and customary way of atoning for her indiscretion was a formal buggy whipping in front of the rest of the family. The back board of a buggy would be dropped, to turn the cart into a whipping frame. She would go face down across the back, wrists often tied to the top of a wheel exposed on either side of the carriage, skirt up, drawers down. And then get her bottom striped thoroughly with the buggy whip. A deterrence to all, and an end to her attempts to share her charms too freely.
Then there is the multi-thonged knout, favorite of the Cossacks, the rhino-hide sjambok inflicting great havoc in South Africa - and so on, around the world, each region having its own variation of implement designed to administer great pain to the nether regions of the naughty.
Well, unless you are writing a full length novel, and have ample room for long and detailed descriptions, you might want to give a miss to the more exotic instruments of spanking. You have to assume that your average reader has no idea what, say, a quirt is. Having your disciplinarian simply pick one up, and lay into the penitent's backside with it, has gained nothing over using a cane, but complicated matters unduly. So, in order to put the scene into proper context, you have to describe in some detail what a quirt is, how it is used, and what the likely outcome is. Now that might be of great interest in some non-fiction piece you are writing: but in a spanking romp, I think we should avoid having to go into lecture mode, simply to ensure that the reader knows what is going on. It is my own experience that when I am reading fiction, the more time an author has to spend on describing the spanking implement, the more impatient I get with him or her.
I rather fancy that the method of inducing a sting to a rump is of far less importance than the why it is was being imparted, and what the effects and after-effects were.
The first notion that might come to mind is to consider an implement that has not been featured in any of our prior tales. Such as the quirt.
The quirt is a two thonged whip with a short handle and is about three feet long. Historically it was used as a riding whip, but ranchers found that by tying the handle to some reigns, the extra length meant it could be used to control cattle - not by slapping them but by making loud cracks close to their ears. And it was also used as a tool of discipline, for its lash could be aimed accurately to deliver a very sharp sting.
While contemplating punishments dished out in the old Wild West, you might come across the term "larruping" (which, counter-intuitively, has a secondary meaning of "exceptionally good"). A larruping would have been no fun for the victim. Dad would have taken his trusty Colt 45 out of its holster, held it by the barrel, and walloped his offspring's backside with the flat side of the handle. A harsh, unyielding implement that would have left extensive bruising.
A third variation on the old Wild West was a buggy whipping. If a young lady broke curfew by an excessive amount, the usual and customary way of atoning for her indiscretion was a formal buggy whipping in front of the rest of the family. The back board of a buggy would be dropped, to turn the cart into a whipping frame. She would go face down across the back, wrists often tied to the top of a wheel exposed on either side of the carriage, skirt up, drawers down. And then get her bottom striped thoroughly with the buggy whip. A deterrence to all, and an end to her attempts to share her charms too freely.
Then there is the multi-thonged knout, favorite of the Cossacks, the rhino-hide sjambok inflicting great havoc in South Africa - and so on, around the world, each region having its own variation of implement designed to administer great pain to the nether regions of the naughty.
Well, unless you are writing a full length novel, and have ample room for long and detailed descriptions, you might want to give a miss to the more exotic instruments of spanking. You have to assume that your average reader has no idea what, say, a quirt is. Having your disciplinarian simply pick one up, and lay into the penitent's backside with it, has gained nothing over using a cane, but complicated matters unduly. So, in order to put the scene into proper context, you have to describe in some detail what a quirt is, how it is used, and what the likely outcome is. Now that might be of great interest in some non-fiction piece you are writing: but in a spanking romp, I think we should avoid having to go into lecture mode, simply to ensure that the reader knows what is going on. It is my own experience that when I am reading fiction, the more time an author has to spend on describing the spanking implement, the more impatient I get with him or her.
I rather fancy that the method of inducing a sting to a rump is of far less importance than the why it is was being imparted, and what the effects and after-effects were.
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
P is for POV
The very first decision of every author of every genre of fiction is to decide from whose Point of View (POV) the story will be told.
By far, the two most popular POVs are first person, singular ("I picked up the cane and gave it a test swish") and third person, usually singular ("She picked up the cane and gave it a test swish."). Occasionally I have come across a work in second person singular ("You picked up the cane to give it a test swish.") but, for me, that comes across a bit awkward. The narrator is telling us what happened by addressing some third party, or is trying to put us into the tale ourselves. Either way, we the reader may feel disconnected from the action.
First person plural would make little sense, unless we were writing as Queen Victoria over some household incident ("We were not amused at the news from Prussia, so we ordered a cane to be brought to us so that we could give it a test swish.") Possible, I suppose, but so unlikely a scenario that it is one that I have yet to come across. Third person plural happens all the time, but is very temporary before we get back to third person singular ("They all shivered at the swish the cane made.") And second person plural is hard to distinguish from second person singular "You all picked up your canes to give them a swish.") Drop the "all" and make cane singular and the sentence is identical to second person singular - unless you happen to be writing in Spanish, Texan or some other argot that has a distinct term for plural "you".
Rarely, very rarely, the POV is from some inanimate object that is central to the story, An account, say, as seen by a paddle used in some school over a period of several years. This tactic does allow the writer to explore the moment of impact from a fresh angle: but, I think, the author has paid a very high price for that single moment of novelty. Furthermore, it has cropped up enough times to make it difficult for you to bring a fresh angle to this particular gimmick.
So - in all normal circumstances, the choice is between "I did it." and "He did it." from the perspective of a human being taking part in the action, The advantage of "I did it" is that, as the writer, I can sidetrack off all over the place to explain nuances of the plot: such sidetracks can read awkwardly when simply telling the reader what actually happened. The advantage of "He did it" is that you can describe scenes not observed by the I in "I did it." If you are in first person, and your characters go off and do stuff you never saw, it might be difficult for you to describe those activities.
One of the really neat techniques available to the spanking author is that, done properly, you can change the POV from time to time to advance the tale from the perspective of different participants. A very mundane piece ("Abuse of Power" in the Free Stories section) started as routine pot boiler of the class "Schoolgirl caught smoking gets the paddle". By switching the POV between the three main protagonists, the tale was lifted from its somewhat dire fate into a tale rated as OK - which is about all you can hope for when using a plot that hackneyed..
But it does have to be done properly. The different sections should be separated by any filigree you use to show a change in time, place or - in this case - a POV. (A filigree: something like ---oo0oo--- stuck in the middle of the page as a section breaker. If you don't use one, you risk confusing the reader about what is going on if the scene completely changes without warning).
The second thing is to put some very clear verbal clues that the switch has happened. The trap of having speakers name the listener as a device to tell the reader who is talking to whom has been discussed before. But a similar device on the switch of POV is fair game.
An example: I took the cane, gave it a practice swish and put it down on Jack's desk.
The text prior to that ---oo0oo--- was from Jane's POV, and that after it was from Jack's. The switch in POV has been made, and the reader should have accepted the change without pausing in their mad-cap chase to get to the end of your epic.
Finally, a quick segue - in the preceding piece I used the term "pot boiler". It originally meant a work so good, people got totally enraptured in it, allowing untended pots to boil over. Over time, the meaning has deteriorated so that today, it is used to describe a mediocre work churned out purely to make some quick cash. A few years ago, calling 50 Shades a potboiler would have been seen as high praise, but, in the main, nowadays the identical term would be quite derogatory. (Just another gem from my stockpile of useless trivia).
By far, the two most popular POVs are first person, singular ("I picked up the cane and gave it a test swish") and third person, usually singular ("She picked up the cane and gave it a test swish."). Occasionally I have come across a work in second person singular ("You picked up the cane to give it a test swish.") but, for me, that comes across a bit awkward. The narrator is telling us what happened by addressing some third party, or is trying to put us into the tale ourselves. Either way, we the reader may feel disconnected from the action.
First person plural would make little sense, unless we were writing as Queen Victoria over some household incident ("We were not amused at the news from Prussia, so we ordered a cane to be brought to us so that we could give it a test swish.") Possible, I suppose, but so unlikely a scenario that it is one that I have yet to come across. Third person plural happens all the time, but is very temporary before we get back to third person singular ("They all shivered at the swish the cane made.") And second person plural is hard to distinguish from second person singular "You all picked up your canes to give them a swish.") Drop the "all" and make cane singular and the sentence is identical to second person singular - unless you happen to be writing in Spanish, Texan or some other argot that has a distinct term for plural "you".
Rarely, very rarely, the POV is from some inanimate object that is central to the story, An account, say, as seen by a paddle used in some school over a period of several years. This tactic does allow the writer to explore the moment of impact from a fresh angle: but, I think, the author has paid a very high price for that single moment of novelty. Furthermore, it has cropped up enough times to make it difficult for you to bring a fresh angle to this particular gimmick.
So - in all normal circumstances, the choice is between "I did it." and "He did it." from the perspective of a human being taking part in the action, The advantage of "I did it" is that, as the writer, I can sidetrack off all over the place to explain nuances of the plot: such sidetracks can read awkwardly when simply telling the reader what actually happened. The advantage of "He did it" is that you can describe scenes not observed by the I in "I did it." If you are in first person, and your characters go off and do stuff you never saw, it might be difficult for you to describe those activities.
One of the really neat techniques available to the spanking author is that, done properly, you can change the POV from time to time to advance the tale from the perspective of different participants. A very mundane piece ("Abuse of Power" in the Free Stories section) started as routine pot boiler of the class "Schoolgirl caught smoking gets the paddle". By switching the POV between the three main protagonists, the tale was lifted from its somewhat dire fate into a tale rated as OK - which is about all you can hope for when using a plot that hackneyed..
But it does have to be done properly. The different sections should be separated by any filigree you use to show a change in time, place or - in this case - a POV. (A filigree: something like ---oo0oo--- stuck in the middle of the page as a section breaker. If you don't use one, you risk confusing the reader about what is going on if the scene completely changes without warning).
The second thing is to put some very clear verbal clues that the switch has happened. The trap of having speakers name the listener as a device to tell the reader who is talking to whom has been discussed before. But a similar device on the switch of POV is fair game.
An example: I took the cane, gave it a practice swish and put it down on Jack's desk.
---oo0oo---
I picked up the cane that Jane had placed on my desk, and used thumb and forefinger to feel how sharp and mean it was.The text prior to that ---oo0oo--- was from Jane's POV, and that after it was from Jack's. The switch in POV has been made, and the reader should have accepted the change without pausing in their mad-cap chase to get to the end of your epic.
Finally, a quick segue - in the preceding piece I used the term "pot boiler". It originally meant a work so good, people got totally enraptured in it, allowing untended pots to boil over. Over time, the meaning has deteriorated so that today, it is used to describe a mediocre work churned out purely to make some quick cash. A few years ago, calling 50 Shades a potboiler would have been seen as high praise, but, in the main, nowadays the identical term would be quite derogatory. (Just another gem from my stockpile of useless trivia).
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
O is for Older
In my view, ageism is rampant in spanking fiction. Cheerleaders and girls dubbed as tomboys regularly are subjected to fictional whackings of a long and sometimes excessively severe nature. It always seems to be a young housewife who abuses a credit card or bends the family vehicle in order to be subjected to domestic discipline that may, or may not, be followed by more erotic sorts of romp around the bedroom.
I have yet to come across a work in which a granny gets her backside whacked with any degree of vigor. Full disclosure - if I did, I would probably tip toe past it on the other side of the street while pretending to be fascinated by roof tops and distant clouds. For I admit it - when I write fiction imagining the act taking place on a firm, young pair of buttocks is far easier on the mind and on the typing fingers than if the bottom was old, flabby and - how shall one say? - a bit past its prime.
But in real life? That is very different. I have not spanked a schoolgirl since I was a schoolboy - and if one presented herself to me today to get a walloping, I would probably be so embarrassed by the whole thing as to make a right royal mess of it all. Moreover, the number of more mature backsides that have felt a swat or so from me - in jest, flirt or outright spankings - are suitably numerous. In real life, all bottoms (regardless of the age of their owners) are made for an occasional, yet thorough, working over of a somewhat disciplinary nature. There are ladies who are free from the threat of a slippering - but not because of age, but because of some other factor.
In real life spankos are not ageist. It is in fiction that almost all authors and almost all readers get more out of some nubile teenager having her bottom thrashed than any description of a rotund matron receiving the same treatment.
There are exceptions. Some of your fellow readers of this blog really do like to see older ladies get their comeuppance, and the bigger and more wobbly the hindquarters, the greater the fun. But from the number of you who, like me, enjoy the firm white flesh that is the inherent right of the young, the conclusion must be that ageism is rampant in our way when it comes to fiction
But I think that may be part and parcel of spanking fiction. Spanking fiction is ofter far, far darker than anything we would condone or endure in real life, taking place in situations and settings that would never really happen and with implements that can only result in unbridled abuse. In a genre where the spankings themselves are distorted from reality, it should be no surprise that the same sort of distortion also happens to the recipient. I would wage a sizable bet that very, very few of us experience real life spankings of young girls: but just about all of us have no problem in reading about it happening in a work of fiction.
We can cope with totally unreal spanking situations: it should be no surprise that the ideal spankee is at the younger and firmer end of the scale.
I have yet to come across a work in which a granny gets her backside whacked with any degree of vigor. Full disclosure - if I did, I would probably tip toe past it on the other side of the street while pretending to be fascinated by roof tops and distant clouds. For I admit it - when I write fiction imagining the act taking place on a firm, young pair of buttocks is far easier on the mind and on the typing fingers than if the bottom was old, flabby and - how shall one say? - a bit past its prime.
But in real life? That is very different. I have not spanked a schoolgirl since I was a schoolboy - and if one presented herself to me today to get a walloping, I would probably be so embarrassed by the whole thing as to make a right royal mess of it all. Moreover, the number of more mature backsides that have felt a swat or so from me - in jest, flirt or outright spankings - are suitably numerous. In real life, all bottoms (regardless of the age of their owners) are made for an occasional, yet thorough, working over of a somewhat disciplinary nature. There are ladies who are free from the threat of a slippering - but not because of age, but because of some other factor.
In real life spankos are not ageist. It is in fiction that almost all authors and almost all readers get more out of some nubile teenager having her bottom thrashed than any description of a rotund matron receiving the same treatment.
There are exceptions. Some of your fellow readers of this blog really do like to see older ladies get their comeuppance, and the bigger and more wobbly the hindquarters, the greater the fun. But from the number of you who, like me, enjoy the firm white flesh that is the inherent right of the young, the conclusion must be that ageism is rampant in our way when it comes to fiction
But I think that may be part and parcel of spanking fiction. Spanking fiction is ofter far, far darker than anything we would condone or endure in real life, taking place in situations and settings that would never really happen and with implements that can only result in unbridled abuse. In a genre where the spankings themselves are distorted from reality, it should be no surprise that the same sort of distortion also happens to the recipient. I would wage a sizable bet that very, very few of us experience real life spankings of young girls: but just about all of us have no problem in reading about it happening in a work of fiction.
We can cope with totally unreal spanking situations: it should be no surprise that the ideal spankee is at the younger and firmer end of the scale.
Monday, June 15, 2015
N is for New Free Tale
I have added a new tale to the Free Stories section. Not only that, it comes with a competition.
Those readers who have lasted throughout the last year of posts from me will have had dozens of nuggets of wisdom about how to craft good spanking fiction.
For the competition, you have to spot ALL the rules that I broke while composing this story. If you do get to make out a full list, then you can enter it to win a near totally worthless prize. Partial lists, and those that contain rules that were not broken, will be eliminated from the drawing.
May the best nit-picker win!
Those readers who have lasted throughout the last year of posts from me will have had dozens of nuggets of wisdom about how to craft good spanking fiction.
For the competition, you have to spot ALL the rules that I broke while composing this story. If you do get to make out a full list, then you can enter it to win a near totally worthless prize. Partial lists, and those that contain rules that were not broken, will be eliminated from the drawing.
May the best nit-picker win!
Sunday, June 14, 2015
M is for Metaphors
All authors use metaphor, and its twin simile, to enrich the reading experience. We spanko authors use it, and its partners-in-crime allusion and euphemism to try to describe the same old scene, the same old consequences and the same old reactions in ways that are fresh, and stimulating, to our readers. Also, if you only use factual - and thereby clinical - descriptions all the time, your readership audience is surely going to dwindle.
So instead of describing in detail each action that tells the reader how he reacted angrily to the news, you might use the metaphor "he flew off the handle.". But don't. Most metaphors that have become part of everyday speech are so hackneyed that they should only be used in everyday speech, and not your next masterpiece of spanking docudrama.
The mark of a competent wordsmith is an ability to coin new phrases - particularly when it comes to metaphors, similes and their kin. If your first thought at the description of her spanked bottom was "her butt was as red as a beet" - well, no, that is the way a word hack would go about it. You need to come up with something like "as scarlet at a Maiden Aunt's blush" or "as red as sun dried tomatoes sizzling in olive oil in a fry pan." The choice does not have to be spectacular - just fresh.
You can get away with using well worn phrases if you mix them up in an original manner: "He plowed into her butt like a rottweiler going at a fresh steak." OK - not prize winning, but putting two old ones together in this way gives the illusion of crafting something new. And in writing, as in all other things, perception is 99% of the game.
There is one group of wordsmiths who spend all their lives searching for new ways to say old things. They are called "poets" and if you have not tried it recently, do read some of their works to pick up inspiration. If Ronald Reagan could borrow "and touched the face of God" from an aviator's poem to use in an eulogy, then it is fair game for you to be inspired enough by "The fog comes on little cat feet" to pen "she entered his study as light footed as a kitten stealing through a meadow." I am not suggesting that you plagiarize - but you should see how others do it, and try to copy their techniques (and not their words).
And another technique in your armory is to start off with some old hackneyed cliche and do a rewrite to change it into a factual description. "He was a bull in a china shop when dealing with her excuses." (Bad) "When she made any excuse, he would roar with rage and stamp around his desk as he yelled rebuttals, threats and arguments until her eyes filled with tears and her shoulders slumped." (Better - but needs another rewrite: an exercise I shall set as your homework for today).
Pithy turns of phrase should be one of your standard targets. But there is a caveat (there always is with my posts). Take care you don't overdo it. You can end up with mixed metaphors that give a hopelessly wrong impression of what is going on: "He smelt a rat and decided to nip it in the bud" is one famed example. "He saw it was only a storm in a tea cup so decided to pour oil on troubled waters". You could get away with those if you were writing a farce, but in serious spankerotica, you should avoid them as much as you can.
So instead of describing in detail each action that tells the reader how he reacted angrily to the news, you might use the metaphor "he flew off the handle.". But don't. Most metaphors that have become part of everyday speech are so hackneyed that they should only be used in everyday speech, and not your next masterpiece of spanking docudrama.
The mark of a competent wordsmith is an ability to coin new phrases - particularly when it comes to metaphors, similes and their kin. If your first thought at the description of her spanked bottom was "her butt was as red as a beet" - well, no, that is the way a word hack would go about it. You need to come up with something like "as scarlet at a Maiden Aunt's blush" or "as red as sun dried tomatoes sizzling in olive oil in a fry pan." The choice does not have to be spectacular - just fresh.
You can get away with using well worn phrases if you mix them up in an original manner: "He plowed into her butt like a rottweiler going at a fresh steak." OK - not prize winning, but putting two old ones together in this way gives the illusion of crafting something new. And in writing, as in all other things, perception is 99% of the game.
There is one group of wordsmiths who spend all their lives searching for new ways to say old things. They are called "poets" and if you have not tried it recently, do read some of their works to pick up inspiration. If Ronald Reagan could borrow "and touched the face of God" from an aviator's poem to use in an eulogy, then it is fair game for you to be inspired enough by "The fog comes on little cat feet" to pen "she entered his study as light footed as a kitten stealing through a meadow." I am not suggesting that you plagiarize - but you should see how others do it, and try to copy their techniques (and not their words).
And another technique in your armory is to start off with some old hackneyed cliche and do a rewrite to change it into a factual description. "He was a bull in a china shop when dealing with her excuses." (Bad) "When she made any excuse, he would roar with rage and stamp around his desk as he yelled rebuttals, threats and arguments until her eyes filled with tears and her shoulders slumped." (Better - but needs another rewrite: an exercise I shall set as your homework for today).
Pithy turns of phrase should be one of your standard targets. But there is a caveat (there always is with my posts). Take care you don't overdo it. You can end up with mixed metaphors that give a hopelessly wrong impression of what is going on: "He smelt a rat and decided to nip it in the bud" is one famed example. "He saw it was only a storm in a tea cup so decided to pour oil on troubled waters". You could get away with those if you were writing a farce, but in serious spankerotica, you should avoid them as much as you can.
Friday, June 12, 2015
L is for Limitations, Responsibilities and Expectations
There is a moment when the flirtation is not enough, and it is time to move on to more satisfactory ways of enjoying each others company.
With a "vanilla" relationship, the time tested method works reasonably well, most of the time. One partner makes some sort of move that suggests and upping of the ante, and is encouraged or discouraged by the other partner's response.
But for spankos it is not that simple. The stronger the spanko urge, the less simple it gets.
Which leads us to "The Chat". A time when all defenses are lowered, in order that a meeting of minds takes place, to avoid unexpected and extremely embarrassing situations farther down the road.
I suspect the BDSM community have it slightly easier than us spankos, for their initial flirtations will have been heavily flavored with dominant and submissive themes. Should they get to The Chat stage, personal foibles may be so clear as to let them sit down with drafted contracts of behavior already written, as the basis for detailed negotiation.
The first problem we spankos have is that really do not know if our intended new close friend is one of us, or not. The extremely light pats that can happen during light flirtation may be seen as nothing more than harmless "slap-and-tickle" by those of the vanilla persuasion, and not as an invitation to unleash some hard wallops to an backside quivering in suppressed anticipation.
Which is why The Chat for us often starts by some variation of the simple question "Are you into spanking?" A negative reply is as eagerly accepted as a positive one by the person asking - on the grounds that such a major disappointment should not ruin what might otherwise prove to be some very enjoyable bedroom romps. Even to the extent, on hearing a no, to saying "Thank heavens for that - but I really needed to get that one out of the way." Followed by some lame alibi as to why, if pressed for more information.
But a positive answer means that we are now into a full-blown Limitations, Responsibilities and Expectations negotiation. Those three can be talked about in any order, but the sequence given indicates the relative importance of each.
The most important is Limitations, for we really, really must establish what is off-limits. We each hope that the two off limit boundaries are an identical match. If one party hopes to be able to do some particular act, and the other vetoes it - the disconnect could be fatal to the relationship. Not necessarily, but it is in the back of our minds. And two people with identical limits may convince themselves that they are a pair of soul mates.
When it comes to limitations, it is quite common in spanko relationships (less so in BDSM ones I am told) that bodily fluids should be safely kept in the body. It is extremely rare for blood to be drawn as a result of a safe, sane and consensual spanking - so reinforcing that limit has a side effect of iterating the SSC nature of the budding relationship.
Responsibilities part of The Chat revolve around the active part of spankings themselves - such as whether rules need to be broken prior to a whacking, and if so, what those rules are. It attempts to answer the questions "When will spankings take place?" And it is often the case that it is entirely up to the spanker, whether as part of foreplay or part of role-play.
Expectations is the tricky part - for, in essence, it is an attempt to answer "Why do we actually want spankings take place?" : moreover, how hard should they be and for how long should they last. Even if this part is skipped over (for a Chat on expectations is entirely optional), it would still be a good idea to establish if any safe words are to come into play. Perhaps even the "Green, Yellow, Red" conditional safe words to indicate how enjoyable (or not) the buttocks are feeling towards the current onslaught.
The Chat can be a light-hearted session of banter, or a serious detailed setting out of precisely who does what to whom with which. Either way, it should always be part and parcel of engaging in activities with an as yet unknown partner. For it is the only recognized way of ensuring that everything that happens afterwards is safe, sane and consensual.
With a "vanilla" relationship, the time tested method works reasonably well, most of the time. One partner makes some sort of move that suggests and upping of the ante, and is encouraged or discouraged by the other partner's response.
But for spankos it is not that simple. The stronger the spanko urge, the less simple it gets.
Which leads us to "The Chat". A time when all defenses are lowered, in order that a meeting of minds takes place, to avoid unexpected and extremely embarrassing situations farther down the road.
I suspect the BDSM community have it slightly easier than us spankos, for their initial flirtations will have been heavily flavored with dominant and submissive themes. Should they get to The Chat stage, personal foibles may be so clear as to let them sit down with drafted contracts of behavior already written, as the basis for detailed negotiation.
The first problem we spankos have is that really do not know if our intended new close friend is one of us, or not. The extremely light pats that can happen during light flirtation may be seen as nothing more than harmless "slap-and-tickle" by those of the vanilla persuasion, and not as an invitation to unleash some hard wallops to an backside quivering in suppressed anticipation.
Which is why The Chat for us often starts by some variation of the simple question "Are you into spanking?" A negative reply is as eagerly accepted as a positive one by the person asking - on the grounds that such a major disappointment should not ruin what might otherwise prove to be some very enjoyable bedroom romps. Even to the extent, on hearing a no, to saying "Thank heavens for that - but I really needed to get that one out of the way." Followed by some lame alibi as to why, if pressed for more information.
But a positive answer means that we are now into a full-blown Limitations, Responsibilities and Expectations negotiation. Those three can be talked about in any order, but the sequence given indicates the relative importance of each.
The most important is Limitations, for we really, really must establish what is off-limits. We each hope that the two off limit boundaries are an identical match. If one party hopes to be able to do some particular act, and the other vetoes it - the disconnect could be fatal to the relationship. Not necessarily, but it is in the back of our minds. And two people with identical limits may convince themselves that they are a pair of soul mates.
When it comes to limitations, it is quite common in spanko relationships (less so in BDSM ones I am told) that bodily fluids should be safely kept in the body. It is extremely rare for blood to be drawn as a result of a safe, sane and consensual spanking - so reinforcing that limit has a side effect of iterating the SSC nature of the budding relationship.
Responsibilities part of The Chat revolve around the active part of spankings themselves - such as whether rules need to be broken prior to a whacking, and if so, what those rules are. It attempts to answer the questions "When will spankings take place?" And it is often the case that it is entirely up to the spanker, whether as part of foreplay or part of role-play.
Expectations is the tricky part - for, in essence, it is an attempt to answer "Why do we actually want spankings take place?" : moreover, how hard should they be and for how long should they last. Even if this part is skipped over (for a Chat on expectations is entirely optional), it would still be a good idea to establish if any safe words are to come into play. Perhaps even the "Green, Yellow, Red" conditional safe words to indicate how enjoyable (or not) the buttocks are feeling towards the current onslaught.
The Chat can be a light-hearted session of banter, or a serious detailed setting out of precisely who does what to whom with which. Either way, it should always be part and parcel of engaging in activities with an as yet unknown partner. For it is the only recognized way of ensuring that everything that happens afterwards is safe, sane and consensual.
Thursday, June 11, 2015
K is for Kindle Unlimited
If you self publish your works as e-books, then making it available to the public at large is relatively simple. Download it on or all of many publisher's sites, push the "I agree" button to their terms and conditions, and away it goes. (Print is slightly more complicated - we shall talk about that anon).
But even with the simplicity of e-publishing, you do have to make tough decisions. The price you set could possibly kill potential sales if it is set too high, or lose you a lot of missed income if set too low. And you can never be sure what level is too high, and what is too low.
A further consideration is that if you give Kindle an exclusive contract for each work, you get to keep 70% of the sales income from that source - which is very nice. For six months, my books were published with every e-book publisher out there. But virtually all of my sales were through Amazon, and it became a no-brainer to sign up with Kindle to virtually double my income.
Then along came Kindle Unlimited. This marketing ploy gives the reader unlimited access to everything available in the store, for one flat monthly fee. If a KU customer reads more that 10% of one of your works. you get a flat fee regardless of your published price. (The 10% threshold is pretty low - we typically put that amount out as a free preview for all potential customers).
The price you set for a book is irrelevant for a KU customer. The customer is prepaid and you will get the identical amount per sale, come what may.
So the normal economic rule is reversed. For a cash customer, the higher the price, the greater the disincentive to buy. For a KU customer, the higher the price (and therefore the higher the assumed value of the transaction) the greater the incentive to download it. If someone has paid a fee to get to all books, the the higher the price of those books, the more valuable the purchase of the KU membership will seem to be.
So - for a while - I increased the price of my two slowest selling books from $2.99 each to $15 each - and as a result, they did indeed start to be picked up by KU readers. Cash sales for them went to zero, but I rationalized that that was OK on the grounds that they were not very big sellers to start off with.
Then came an epiphany - I have not set out my stall to be a niche author writing exclusively for the KU market. So last month I reduced their prices back to $2.99 each, in line with all my other works. The KU cash flow has dropped significantly, but cash sales have started again. And that is OK - I really do want my books to be available to everyone, and not only to those who have a "free" pass to everything that catches their eye.
But even with the simplicity of e-publishing, you do have to make tough decisions. The price you set could possibly kill potential sales if it is set too high, or lose you a lot of missed income if set too low. And you can never be sure what level is too high, and what is too low.
A further consideration is that if you give Kindle an exclusive contract for each work, you get to keep 70% of the sales income from that source - which is very nice. For six months, my books were published with every e-book publisher out there. But virtually all of my sales were through Amazon, and it became a no-brainer to sign up with Kindle to virtually double my income.
Then along came Kindle Unlimited. This marketing ploy gives the reader unlimited access to everything available in the store, for one flat monthly fee. If a KU customer reads more that 10% of one of your works. you get a flat fee regardless of your published price. (The 10% threshold is pretty low - we typically put that amount out as a free preview for all potential customers).
The price you set for a book is irrelevant for a KU customer. The customer is prepaid and you will get the identical amount per sale, come what may.
So the normal economic rule is reversed. For a cash customer, the higher the price, the greater the disincentive to buy. For a KU customer, the higher the price (and therefore the higher the assumed value of the transaction) the greater the incentive to download it. If someone has paid a fee to get to all books, the the higher the price of those books, the more valuable the purchase of the KU membership will seem to be.
So - for a while - I increased the price of my two slowest selling books from $2.99 each to $15 each - and as a result, they did indeed start to be picked up by KU readers. Cash sales for them went to zero, but I rationalized that that was OK on the grounds that they were not very big sellers to start off with.
Then came an epiphany - I have not set out my stall to be a niche author writing exclusively for the KU market. So last month I reduced their prices back to $2.99 each, in line with all my other works. The KU cash flow has dropped significantly, but cash sales have started again. And that is OK - I really do want my books to be available to everyone, and not only to those who have a "free" pass to everything that catches their eye.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)