g s fur art 3dcg f rp req p2p dis lit kaki lg
[Home] [Search] [RSS feed] [Thread List] [Catalog] [Admin]
[Return]
Posting mode: Reply
[]
(Use , to separate)
(for deletion, 8 chars max)
  • Allowed file types are: GIF, JPG, JPEG, PNG, BMP, SWF, WEBM, MP4
  • Maximum file size allowed is 10000 KB.
  • Images greater than 125 * 125 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Current storage usage: 168044 KB / 10000000 KB
  • Read the rules
  • Read the faq
  • ALWAYS tag and title your threads.

  • 05/20/21 - NO MORE CAPTCHA... FOR NOW
  • 04/28/21 - /p2p/ is back!
  • 04/27/21 - Please check out our new board, /kaki/!
  • 04/20/21 - New style, "Guro Dark".

日本国内の方はこちらから画像を投稿できます。
Japanese may post here.
File: question-mark.jpg (15 KB, 400x400) [EXIF]
15 KB
Might as well have a thread for writing questions and advise of all kinds.
>>
Okay, so here's the thing. I have a passage that goes like this:

... if [condition], they would have made a bet that [lots of text here]. They would have bet on it with such confidence that they would have accepted [punishment] in case of their loss. [then the paragraph goes on about what they'd like to receive in case of winning]

The problem is that "they would have accepted [punishment]" sounds like they would be okay with suffering that punishment, but the idea I'm trying to convey is a bit different: it's that they would be okay with the conditions of the bet including such an insufferable punishment in case of their loss, because they're so much confident they won't lose. And in the first place this line only goes in the separate second sentence because I couldn't figure how to fit it properly in the beginning, where it would feel more organic in my opinion.

So I imagine it being something like that:

... if [condition], they would have confidently [phrase I'm looking for] [punishment] in a bet that [the rest of the text].

Actually, my first thought was even more laconic:

... if [condition], they would have confidently bet [punishment] on [the rest of the text].

But I immediately realized that "to bet X" means that in case of loss you lose X, not receive it.

So then I considered "to risk X in a bet". I've looked up "to risk" in dictionaries, and it seems like it can work both ways: you can "risk your life" (in this example you lose your life in case of failure), but you can also "risk falling in climbing" (in this example you receive the falling as punishment for failure in climbing). But I don't like how it works both ways, isn't there anything more unambiguous? And also when I tried looking for examples of "to risk X in a bet" specifically (and not just "to risk" separately from bets), it only gives me "to risk money in a bet" which clearly implies that in case of losing the bet you lose the money, not receive them as a punishment.

Another option that I have found while I was typing this is "to run the risk of".
However the dictionaries give me mixed signals about it. The definitions they provide go along the lines of "to do something although something bad might happen because of it". The way they put it sounds like in the phrase "to run the risks of X" the X would be the thing you do although some other bad thing might happen because of it (so it should be used like "to run the risk of climbing, knowing you can fall"). However then right under that same definition they provide examples like "If you tell him the truth, you run the risk of hurting his feelings" and "You run the risk of being misunderstood if you don't explain your purpose carefully", which clearly imply the opposite: that the X is the bad thing that might happen because of some other thing you do.
Who the hell writes those dictionaries?
And I also can't find any examples of this used like "to run the risk of ... in a bet".
>>
I have also looked into expressions like "to put X at stake" or "to put X on the line", but came to a conclusion that they work the same as "to bet X", that is you lose X in case of losing the bet. So you can "put your life at stake", not "put your death at stake", which is what I'm looking for: an expression where if you say it about death it means you die if you lose the bet.
>>
>>14319
The phrase is 'betting your life'.
As in 'I'm betting my life on this horse, it'd better not lose'.
>>
I'm not a native English speaker, but I'd like to try anyway...

If I'm so confident to win a bet and not to lose it, I'cant imagine that [punishment] will happen to me. That the [punishment] would happen for real (so I put at stake physical integrity).

How about if you write something like:
... to be so confident to win / not to lose... ... that they did not believe / did not expect / did not fear / did (or could) not imagine that the punishment could/would/will ever take place / happen to them?


Or maybe:
... they thought it would be impossible that ... [to lose / to get the punishment / the loss of physical integrity, which they put at stake]

Cheers!
Can't you p
>>
> The phrase is 'betting your life'.
I have mentioned such a phrase a couple of times, so maybe I know it. The problem is the punishment in question is not as simple as death, where an obvious antonym of 'life' could be used.

>>>14322
These lines sound like they would only make sense after the conditions of the bet were already established, and what I'm looking for is a way to establish them.

Okay, maybe I'm too focused on trying to fit it all in one sentence. But maybe a better direction would be not to combine the two sentences, but to distance them even more, so that the first sentence says they could bet, which sounds like just an expression without actual stakes, and then the second sentence says they would actually accepted such a bet even if the conditions included the punishment. So like this:

... they could have bet that [lots of text here]. And it wasn't just an expression: they were so confident they would have actually accepted such a bet even if the punishment for losing was [punishment].

That should work, I think?
>>
Hello, I plan to post new content on this board for so long as the site exists.

Because of that I'd like to feel out what people's preferences are for when a new thread is created vs. an existing thread being used.

Should a writer:
A) Contain all of their works in a single thread (like /art/ does)
B) Contain all works of a single series in a single thread (So if I have 3 series running I'd have 3 threads)
C) Make a new thread for every story they write (If I write 5 stories I make 5 threads, even if 3 of the five were part of one series.)
D) Something else; Explain.

I'm leaning towards a single thread, and to keep things quick and easy to scroll through and pick up on updates I would use external links to my writing where it is published on AO3. Let me know what you think, I have some more works to finish up before I begin the process of posting everything here.
>>
Seperate for easier search and archival
>>
I keep my stories all in one thread for following reasons:

- It feels more neat that way instead of a bunch of thread all over the place mixed with all the other people's threads.
- Since most of my stories involve similar themes of casual guro, there's a good chance that a person who likes one of my stories would enjoy others too, and this way they can immediately see them all in one place instead of having to look through all the threads. Indeed if each story was in their own thread there would be a chance that after reading one story it could happen not to occur at all to the reader that this author might have other stories. Also even if the reader didn't enjoy the theme of the story, but found it well written, if they stories all in one place they can quickly check if this author happens to have stories on themes closer to their preference.
- Having it all in one thread also means that it gets bumped more often, not only creating more visibility for me as an author, but also helping the older stories not to sink into oblivion. Not only new readers are made aware I have those older stories too, but also it helps if someone wants to re-read one of my older stories, but only remembers the author but not the exact title. Of course, keeping each story in a separate thread would help in the opposite case: if one remembers the title, but not the author. But I imagine with how similar many of my stories are the former scenario is probably more likely, although it's of course just a guess.
- It also allows to have discussions in the thread that aren't necessarily about any particular story, but about my writing in general, like I used to post ideas, although now I made a dedicated thread for that for everyone.
>>
I do the series thing, it just kind of feels right. Older works are older works, to me they should feel free to disappear into oblivion.


Delete Post: []
Password:
First[0] Last