A new story
UKLionheart:
Hey guys. I am shit! I have been away for a long time and I know that I have GOT to finish two of my older stories. I think they are from 6 years ago. I promise I will do this.
HOWEVER, the reason for this post is that I have just completed a draft of a new story. It was supposed to be about a realistic gaining over time, but it sort of grew (as we do! haha!) into pretty much a Novella. So before I post it, I would like some feedback. There is no rush as it needs tidying up.
Points I would like feedback on:
1. Size - The story is currently 87 pages long! Is this too much?
2. I know some people want to read weight gain stories for "gratification" but this story is not written in that way. There are some references to stuffing and overfeeding, but as the story has evolved, they have become background scenes as I explored the main character's arc. I don't really think I can honestly say that this is a weight gain story as much as a story of somebody who got fat. If that makes sense?
3. It follows the main protagonist for about 12 years, I am going to say again that this is not a "gratification" story as when it starts, she is 11 years old, but the real weight gain does not start until she is about 14 and the main story takes place between 16 - 18 with a couple of "epilogue" chapters aged 21 and 23. I don't want to cross any lines regarding minors here, and I repeat, there is nothing sexual or fetishised about her gain especially when she is younger. It is more about a few chapters setting the scene.
(I did read a story on Deviant Art where the protagonist was 10 and it was weird and not enjoyable! I have purposely avoided going into details in her younger years.)
4. I have actually sort of fallen in love with my own main character. Haha. Have other writers had this experience? I am not sure if it is a good or bad thing because on one side, I want to give her a story that she deserves, but on the other hand, I don't know if it weakens my writing as I want to "protect" her. (I hope that makes sense to other writers and I am not having some sort of breakdown!)
All responses are appreciated.
Thank you
Hey guys. I am shit! I have been away for a long time and I know that I have GOT to finish two of my older stories. I think they are from 6 years ago. I promise I will do this.
HOWEVER, the reason for this post is that I have just completed a draft of a new story. It was supposed to be about a realistic gaining over time, but it sort of grew (as we do! haha!) into pretty much a Novella. So before I post it, I would like some feedback. There is no rush as it needs tidying up.
Points I would like feedback on:
1. Size - The story is currently 87 pages long! Is this too much?
2. I know some people want to read weight gain stories for "gratification" but this story is not written in that way. There are some references to stuffing and overfeeding, but as the story has evolved, they have become background scenes as I explored the main character's arc. I don't really think I can honestly say that this is a weight gain story as much as a story of somebody who got fat. If that makes sense?
3. It follows the main protagonist for about 12 years, I am going to say again that this is not a "gratification" story as when it starts, she is 11 years old, but the real weight gain does not start until she is about 14 and the main story takes place between 16 - 18 with a couple of "epilogue" chapters aged 21 and 23. I don't want to cross any lines regarding minors here, and I repeat, there is nothing sexual or fetishised about her gain especially when she is younger. It is more about a few chapters setting the scene.
(I did read a story on Deviant Art where the protagonist was 10 and it was weird and not enjoyable! I have purposely avoided going into details in her younger years.)
4. I have actually sort of fallen in love with my own main character. Haha. Have other writers had this experience? I am not sure if it is a good or bad thing because on one side, I want to give her a story that she deserves, but on the other hand, I don't know if it weakens my writing as I want to "protect" her. (I hope that makes sense to other writers and I am not having some sort of breakdown!)
All responses are appreciated.
Thank you
Congrats on writing something you’re proud of!
1. I don’t know what the word count is but 87 pages typed is probably solidly in novella territory. I think longer stories get traction here, so I wouldn’t be afraid to share it because of length. The site itself sucks to read longer stuff on, though, so you might want to think About releasing it episodically? Or dump it, I honestly don’t know what works best. If you’re only 40,000 words or something though, that’s not that long for stories on here.
2. I think that’s great and it’s the kind of story I like to read and write also, when it’s done well.
3. Not sure what to say about this one. I’m not an admin, but I don’t think stories that focus on characters under 18 are acceptable on this site. Maybe in other settings a non-erotic story about a minor who deals with weight gain is more than fine, but on a website that eroticizes weight gain it’s going to be a big red flag. Haven’t read your story and maybe you do it in such an expert way that it’s ok, but that seems like something you need to really review closely. Feels like you might have a problem here.
4. I get very emotionally attached to my characters when i’m writing emotional segments. I think that’s normal. We put a lot of ourselves and people we love into our characters. You get to live inside them and feel what they’re feeling. Writing is very cathartic that way.
1 year
Ai images
Munchies:
That said, Photoshop isn't inherently theft, unlike AI art. It's gotten so bad that artists - some of whom use Photoshop - are turning to programs like Glaze to prevent art theft.
Letters And Numbers:
I didn’t say anything about Photoshop being theft. You should reread the conversation. You were talking about artificial beauty standards and I said that Photoshop gets used interchangeably with airbrush when you’re talking about how pictures (mostly of women) online and in magazines are doctored. Which is not the software’s fault, it’s the magazine editor, etc. it’s a human problem, the software is just software. A paintbrush is just a paintbrush. They’re tools.
Munchies:
Earlier in the conversation, people, including myself, said that AI art is theft. This is why I brought it up, and why I am making the distinction.
The theft is baked into the software's programming. To talk about AI art without the theft is to paint an incomplete picture. The only way for the software to work is by scraping data - mostly without consent. The program cannot exist without it.
This is different from airbrushing (which isn't inherently Photoshop, but for the sake of arguement, we'll say that it is). The software isn't inherently one thing or another. It's a tool that humans control to achieve whatever outcome they want.
AI art software is 2 years old, commercially, right? If there was AI software that only scraped Getty images, for example, and had a license to do that, it would not be theft (really copyright infringement or violations of fair use statutes), correct? The fact that it doesn’t currently work this way today doesn’t mean that’s not where it’s headed. Cars in 1910 didn’t have seatbelts. They all do now, and it’s because people were damaged and standards were set. Fair use is probably the most immediate problem with AI, but also the easiest to solve. But it’s a real problem! And the current Supreme Court is very on the side of the original copyright holder as seen in the Prince/Warhol case this year. Only Kagen and Roberts dissented. There’s a 1st amendment case on the other side, too, though. If scraping scans of magazines to get images for AI is theft (it’s not, legally, it might be copyright infringement or violations of fair use statutes), so is the the kid in her bedroom cutting up magazines to make a collage. It’s just a different application, but I don’t get my blood pressure up about people making collages, even with very famous images. I don’t get upset about samples in hip hop. If the record company wants to pay to clear them, that’s great, but ultimately as the listener, I kinda don’t care about a 2 second sample. I think it’s transforming the sample into something new. I don’t think a bar band should have to pay Creedence Clearwater Revival every time they play a cover of Proud Mary. But if they’re going to commercially release an album of cover songs they probably need the mechanical rights to do so. I think Negativland is great and they made art and I don’t care that they pissed off U2’s publishing company. But they’re complicated questions. I think, at least. It’s a good discussion here, sincerely!
1 year
Ai images
Munchies:
That said, Photoshop isn't inherently theft, unlike AI art. It's gotten so bad that artists - some of whom use Photoshop - are turning to programs like Glaze to prevent art theft.
I didn’t say anything about Photoshop being theft. You should reread the conversation. You were talking about artificial beauty standards and I said that Photoshop gets used interchangeably with airbrush when you’re talking about how pictures (mostly of women) online and in magazines are doctored. Which is not the software’s fault, it’s the magazine editor, etc. it’s a human problem, the software is just software. A paintbrush is just a paintbrush. They’re tools.
1 year
Ai images
As for number two, it's been scientifically proven that unrealistic, idealized beauty standards warp people's body expectations. It's the same reason why people get mad at the Kardashians for their heavily edited and airbrushed photoshoots. Or how some men feel anxiety about their penis size because they think men should have 10 in penises.
[b]Letters And Numbers:
But that’s hardly a problem exclusive to AI art. Before AI, photoshop was the boogie man for that, and it was still just shorthand for society pushing unrealistic beauty standards. I mean half the time when I make people with AI they look like terrifying monsters with fucked up faces and limbs bending the wrong way.
Munchies:
I mean ... I drew a parallel to Photoshop.
Letters And Numbers:
Do you think the Photoshop software is a bad thing? Or is it just a tool that can be used for good things and for bad things, like any other tool?
Munchies:
I have no idea why you are focusing on this. Two people made a comment. Another person didn't understand it. I explained.
That said, Photoshop isn't inherently theft, unlike AI art. It's gotten so bad that artists - some of whom use Photoshop - are turning to programs like Glaze to prevent art theft.
aimeecozza.com/what-is-glaze-and-how-can-it-help-protect-against-ai-scraping/
I’m focusing on the important stuff, if you want a real answer. There are a lot of legitimate questions about an emerging technology that will probably take years to be settled. But I’m not smart enough to say that I’m the final judge on what’s artistic self expression or not. It’s subjective and always will be, in my mind. I think 3 Feet High and Rising was art before the samples cleared. It’s nice that it got worked out, it’s a shame it took 35 years for everyone involved, the album was always art. Is that a 1:1 parallel? No, but arguments about fair use and freedom of expression are as old as time.
1 year
Ai images
As for number two, it's been scientifically proven that unrealistic, idealized beauty standards warp people's body expectations. It's the same reason why people get mad at the Kardashians for their heavily edited and airbrushed photoshoots. Or how some men feel anxiety about their penis size because they think men should have 10 in penises.
[b]Letters And Numbers:
But that’s hardly a problem exclusive to AI art. Before AI, photoshop was the boogie man for that, and it was still just shorthand for society pushing unrealistic beauty standards. I mean half the time when I make people with AI they look like terrifying monsters with fucked up faces and limbs bending the wrong way.
Munchies:
I mean ... I drew a parallel to Photoshop.
Do you think the Photoshop software is a bad thing? Or is it just a tool that can be used for good things and for bad things, like any other tool?
1 year
Ai images
Letters And Numbers:
If I have neuropathy and can’t draw the way I want to, but can use AI to express myself visually, I might think it’s very democratizing. It’s a tool, which isn’t inherently bad or inherently good. If people are using it to fuck over other people, that’s a human problem with human solutions.
Munchies:
Um ...
What?
This has never been an issue. Tons of artists have been making art for generations with all sorts of medical issues.
[img]https://www.brainandlife.org/articles/four-artists-talk-about-how-their-neurologic-conditions-affect-their[/img]
There's a famous illustrator, Tom Yendell, who was born without arms. So he paints with his toes. He paints better than I, an able-bodied person, could hope.
There are scores of different ways of making art spanning cultures, centuries, and mediums. And people are trailblazing new stuff all the time. There's always a way to express yourself other than "the computer made it for me."[/quote]
100 years ago there wasn’t indoor plumbing most places. This is a new tool. Times change. Something will come along after AI art, too, and people will get upset about it and then things will normalize.
If I have neuropathy and can’t draw the way I want to, but can use AI to express myself visually, I might think it’s very democratizing. It’s a tool, which isn’t inherently bad or inherently good. If people are using it to fuck over other people, that’s a human problem with human solutions.
Munchies:
Um ...
What?
This has never been an issue. Tons of artists have been making art for generations with all sorts of medical issues.
[img]https://www.brainandlife.org/articles/four-artists-talk-about-how-their-neurologic-conditions-affect-their[/img]
There's a famous illustrator, Tom Yendell, who was born without arms. So he paints with his toes. He paints better than I, an able-bodied person, could hope.
There are scores of different ways of making art spanning cultures, centuries, and mediums. And people are trailblazing new stuff all the time. There's always a way to express yourself other than "the computer made it for me."[/quote]
100 years ago there wasn’t indoor plumbing most places. This is a new tool. Times change. Something will come along after AI art, too, and people will get upset about it and then things will normalize.
1 year
Ai images
[b]
As for number two, it's been scientifically proven that unrealistic, idealized beauty standards warp people's body expectations. It's the same reason why people get mad at the Kardashians for their heavily edited and airbrushed photoshoots. Or how some men feel anxiety about their penis size because they think men should have 10 in penises.
As for number two, it's been scientifically proven that unrealistic, idealized beauty standards warp people's body expectations. It's the same reason why people get mad at the Kardashians for their heavily edited and airbrushed photoshoots. Or how some men feel anxiety about their penis size because they think men should have 10 in penises.
But that’s hardly a problem exclusive to AI art. Before AI, photoshop was the boogie man for that, and it was still just shorthand for society pushing unrealistic beauty standards. I mean half the time when I make people with AI they look like terrifying monsters with fucked up faces and limbs bending the wrong way.
You could argue that in the 17thC, Reubens’ portraits of women promoted unrealistic body standards. Less wealthy women couldn’t afford to eat enough food to be plump.
1 year
Ai images
And why is it theft? If I "order" a generic, realistic pucture of a horse in a meadow, who did not get paid? I could take a photo myself.
On the other hand, creating and publishing pictures with ie landmarks, people or buildings, then someone could have sold that pic.
There are a million fair use and copyright questions that AI brings up, they’re being argued over in courtrooms as we speak, and artists have organized to protect the rights of creators. It will be interesting to see how things adapt over the next few years. At least in the US, when you look at the Supreme Court case from this year with the estate of Prince suing the Warhol estate over fair use questions, the court wants to side with the original image holders. It will be interesting to see.
1 year
Ai images
FAMGM:
Is it just me, or is anyone else getting sick of seeing AI images of fat people?
I’ve enjoyed a few when I first saw them, because it’s fun to imagine an actual human having those proportions, but my objections are:
(1) from the point ot view of feedist discourse: it’s getting really repetitive, it’s already unoriginal, and some forums are just awash with it like it’s actually worth something.
(2) from the point of view of feedist culture: I can see that some feedists, who’ve discovered a love for their shape after years of feeling inadequate, are going to feel that even as feedes/gainers/bb-whatevers that they’ll never attain the unrealistic proportions of AI;
(3) purely aesthetically: it ignores the subtle things that can be appreciated in a fat body, like the way overhang just starts at the hip, in a softly forming bulge that spills over itself, in favour of overt disproportion.
LoraDayton:
Thank you especially for #2. As a non-gaining feedee, I am constantly reminded how my body isn't good enough by both feedists and vanilla people. I'm too fat or not fat enough. Of course as someone who also adores FA/feedist and inflation/expansion artwork, of course there are things I like to see visualized that simply can't happen IRL. But especially the traditional portrait model style of AI images that can easily be done IRL, yeah, those bother me big time.
But more importantly, AI "art" is theft, pure and simple. There is no ethical application of AI "art" if you are not the original artist regenerating/revisualizing your own work. Die mad about it, my mind will never be changed on this. There are practical applications for AI in other mediums, but art and writing ain't it.
I have used some AI generators for visualizing ideas for reference (eg having something to look at so I can write and describe it) but only when I couldn't find another reference image. And I would never pass it off as "art" I created.
Is it just me, or is anyone else getting sick of seeing AI images of fat people?
I’ve enjoyed a few when I first saw them, because it’s fun to imagine an actual human having those proportions, but my objections are:
(1) from the point ot view of feedist discourse: it’s getting really repetitive, it’s already unoriginal, and some forums are just awash with it like it’s actually worth something.
(2) from the point of view of feedist culture: I can see that some feedists, who’ve discovered a love for their shape after years of feeling inadequate, are going to feel that even as feedes/gainers/bb-whatevers that they’ll never attain the unrealistic proportions of AI;
(3) purely aesthetically: it ignores the subtle things that can be appreciated in a fat body, like the way overhang just starts at the hip, in a softly forming bulge that spills over itself, in favour of overt disproportion.
LoraDayton:
Thank you especially for #2. As a non-gaining feedee, I am constantly reminded how my body isn't good enough by both feedists and vanilla people. I'm too fat or not fat enough. Of course as someone who also adores FA/feedist and inflation/expansion artwork, of course there are things I like to see visualized that simply can't happen IRL. But especially the traditional portrait model style of AI images that can easily be done IRL, yeah, those bother me big time.
But more importantly, AI "art" is theft, pure and simple. There is no ethical application of AI "art" if you are not the original artist regenerating/revisualizing your own work. Die mad about it, my mind will never be changed on this. There are practical applications for AI in other mediums, but art and writing ain't it.
I have used some AI generators for visualizing ideas for reference (eg having something to look at so I can write and describe it) but only when I couldn't find another reference image. And I would never pass it off as "art" I created.
The definition of art is subjective. I wouldn’t call anything I make art either, but I also don’t make all the rules. Critics said Warhol wasn’t an artist at first, now there are museums dedicated to him. People still say he isn’t an artist! Mostly silly people, imo, but there it is! Art is subjective. Andy would be fascinated with AI art if he was still alive. And he’d probably be first in line to say that it’s in its infancy and there are still big questions to answer, and that it’s important to answer those questions.
The barrier to entry to be a photographer is the lowest it’s ever been in human history. At one point only the wealthy could afford cameras, and now nearly everyone has one and takes dozens of pictures a day, almost none of which are art. But there are still artists who make art with cameras, even with iPhones. Even with Polaroids. Even with Game Boy Cameras. It’s just a tool. It doesn’t mean that everything made with a camera is art, but art can be made with a camera. I don’t think AI is any different. And again, I would never call myself an artist, no matter what medium I’m using.
For the record, I’m not sure if I would call most pornography art. Maybe some is, maybe a lot of it is, but it’s not an automatic for me (unless everything is art, which twist my arm…). So the idea of soulless AI fetish images that try to be photorealistic and fail … I wouldn’t call that art in every context either. But I could come up with some ideas to make art out of uncanny valley AI creepy people, maybe. It just wouldn’t necessarily be the same way those images were intended to be seen. Does that make sense?
1 year
Ai images
X_Larsson:
The thing is, that right now, AI has usable and effective ways of processing illumination, skin texture, human skin tones, outlines typical structures if object s common around us, but it does not undesrstand context. Proportions AND details get distorted or misconfigured.
Then the whole creation is spoiled. Many (most?) of the AI pictures that I have seen, and that contain humans, have some sort of eerie feeling of "wrong" about them.
I could write more here, but I will refrain from it.
Letters And Numbers:
Well, it’s new and evolving fast and the barrier to entry is super low (none of those are bad things. Democratizing self expression is a great thing), so we end up seeing a LOT of bad art made with it. The better stuff - made with newer, more expensive software, by more sophisticated users - doesn’t have the messed up hands and uncanny valley stuff. You can still ask the question of whether it’s art or not. I don’t have that answer.
Another part of the AI problem is how easy it is to share mistakes. A traditional artist who messes up the proportions on a figure or fucks up the hands might not share that one. Some artists are self conscious about sharing any of their work. The stakes with AI are low.
Photoshop came out 30 years ago and it’s still controversial (sometimes for good reason, but as more of a stand-in for fights about beauty standards. It’s not photoshop’s fault that pictures get airbrushed).
Munchies:
Hot take. Self-expression is already democratized. Not knocking on anyone who likes to use AI art programs, but um ...
There are tons of art mediums and styles to choose from - most of which are quite accessible. So AI art doesn't contribute much other than making pretty pictures with low effort.
I have some friends who are professional artists. They can't stand AI art. Makes them froth at the mouth. Some of it is the quality or the people who pretend they made it themselves instead of putting in a prompt, but most of it comes down to ethical issues. In addition to the scraping and copyright issues we spoke about earlier, some businesses are shafting artists in favor of AI art.
In fact, a lot of AI is marketed on not paying artists. It's one thing if you, for example, want to use AI art for the cover of your latest fat kink story. It's another when a business lays off its creatives in favor of AI. Ironically, the tool that democratizes self-expression is easily .
The thing is, that right now, AI has usable and effective ways of processing illumination, skin texture, human skin tones, outlines typical structures if object s common around us, but it does not undesrstand context. Proportions AND details get distorted or misconfigured.
Then the whole creation is spoiled. Many (most?) of the AI pictures that I have seen, and that contain humans, have some sort of eerie feeling of "wrong" about them.
I could write more here, but I will refrain from it.
Letters And Numbers:
Well, it’s new and evolving fast and the barrier to entry is super low (none of those are bad things. Democratizing self expression is a great thing), so we end up seeing a LOT of bad art made with it. The better stuff - made with newer, more expensive software, by more sophisticated users - doesn’t have the messed up hands and uncanny valley stuff. You can still ask the question of whether it’s art or not. I don’t have that answer.
Another part of the AI problem is how easy it is to share mistakes. A traditional artist who messes up the proportions on a figure or fucks up the hands might not share that one. Some artists are self conscious about sharing any of their work. The stakes with AI are low.
Photoshop came out 30 years ago and it’s still controversial (sometimes for good reason, but as more of a stand-in for fights about beauty standards. It’s not photoshop’s fault that pictures get airbrushed).
Munchies:
Hot take. Self-expression is already democratized. Not knocking on anyone who likes to use AI art programs, but um ...
There are tons of art mediums and styles to choose from - most of which are quite accessible. So AI art doesn't contribute much other than making pretty pictures with low effort.
I have some friends who are professional artists. They can't stand AI art. Makes them froth at the mouth. Some of it is the quality or the people who pretend they made it themselves instead of putting in a prompt, but most of it comes down to ethical issues. In addition to the scraping and copyright issues we spoke about earlier, some businesses are shafting artists in favor of AI art.
In fact, a lot of AI is marketed on not paying artists. It's one thing if you, for example, want to use AI art for the cover of your latest fat kink story. It's another when a business lays off its creatives in favor of AI. Ironically, the tool that democratizes self-expression is easily .
If I have neuropathy and can’t draw the way I want to, but can use AI to express myself visually, I might think it’s very democratizing. It’s a tool, which isn’t inherently bad or inherently good. If people are using it to fuck over other people, that’s a human problem with human solutions.
1 year
