All Comments on 'Mother's Web'

Good story telling.

And it looks like you left enough rope dangling for a follow up. Very few typos. Good structure. In a word. Awesome

Most of sr's tales are about gay sex, not my particular cup of tea. But he's got some terrific stories of family fucking, most definitely my favorite. I like the hero in this one, young Boyd. Get this: "There's no way he'd leave Brenda, his sister, for Amelia, his mother. And Brenda was pregnant with his child." So the guy's been fucking his mother as well as his kid sister, and he's actually fucked a baby up his sis's sweet little slit. Good show, guy. Now how about fucking a baby up where you were a baby? Making your mom a mother again and a grandma for the first time. You've sure got the balls to do it.

a good start to a series if you choose. it stands on its own though. i gave it 5*

Sorry, I really was interested in reading this story but I couldn't get by the first ten paragraphs. Too many careless errors. Please PROOFREAD. When I need to sort out the meaning of every few sentences I lose interest. I read the other reviews and I may come back later to see if you have made corrections.

Please back up your claim, Mr. Anonymous--cite the proofreading problems you think are in the first ten paragraphs (and, be more honest and do this in future such criticism as well when you are making the criticism). As a professional editor I only found one proofreading mistake in the first ten paragraphs--not capping a "He" at the beginning of a sentence. (I found two more in going on several paragraphs, but you claimed not to have read any further than paragraph ten--apparently because to do so would render you impotent and end the world as we know it,) But it's also possible, given that you don't cite examples, that you never made it past elementary school English and thus don't know the license in writing given to commercial fiction and think you are seeing mistakes because you are reading through elementary school English eyes. That said, there's no such thing as perfect copy, and this is a free-read site, and if the mistakes you think you see in this one are so egregious that you can't possibly read on, then, by all means don't. And don't try reading much of anything else in print either. Two other mistakes I found in some following paragraphs are more in need of fixing than the one I see in the first ten paragraphs. But I'm not going to fix them. I'm interested in readers who are reading on a free-use site for content rather than in "assuming they are right without actually pointing out what they think are problems" nitpicking. Or perhaps this is just a case of forum detractor harassment/backbiting? ;)