"Fucking Celeste" by Mike Hunt (mrm1ke@aol.com). Like this author's stories themselves, my reviews of them should be read out loud, or at least very loudly in silence, in order to get full impact from them. With that in mind, I ask you, which would be a more clever title "Fucking Celeste by Mike Hunt" or "Fucking Mike Hunt by Celeste"?

The title is deliberately ambiguous. My Unabridged Random House dictionary gives the accurate definition of the first word of the title, which would properly be paraphrased as the mumbled phrase "Confounded Celeste!" This title takes on a second meaning when Mike visits his nephew's teacher and is forced into a compromising position that cannot be resolved without full vaginal penetration of a person alleged to be Yours Truly. As if that pun is not enough, the author adduces a theory that the Blowjob Principle is a misspelling for an activity that Celeste performs for the person who administers her school.

This is a very good story, but the disclaimer is not as creative as some that I have seen. In addition, I should point out that Mike has been spearheading an attempt to improve my system of guest reviewers. {This may sound like matter for a "note," but stay with me on this one.} Mike's fundamental assertion is that he feels the authors should use their regular pseudonyms when writing their guest reviews, because this will enable both readers and the persons whose stories are being reviewed to make better use of any criticism contained in the reviews. Mike's point is well taken, and I have adopted a policy of allowing authors to stick with their regular names if they insist, even though I continue to advise an "alternate pseudonym."

My reason for advising this practice is that I seriously believe that using the same name would _for many authors_ cause undesirable pressures that would weaken either their reviews or their stories.

Indeed, I'm not sure how much can be gained by knowing that So-and-So is the author of both a specific story and a specific review. As someone else has pointed out to me, it is by no means true that the best authors are likely to be the best reviewers. Authors tend to be specialists who are intensely involved in an area of expertise, whereas reviewing requires a more generalized interest or expertise and an ability to look at a story more objectively. {As I said, stay with me.... There's a punchline coming up.} I'll grant that some people can be both good reviewers and good authors, but I wouldn't count on it; and I think that for many of us the absence of anonymity would reduce our objectivity. I think it makes more sense to look at, say, Piper's reviews for several weeks and to form an opinion about his/her insight than to start from the assumption that because Piper writes good stories his/her reviews must be good.

Let me use myself as an example. I think I write good reviews, and I think I am CAPABLE of writing good stories. I have posted only one story ("Virtuous Reality"), and I really felt uncomfortable doing so. I had such thoughts as these: How can I expect people to continue listening to my advice when I am probably going to screw this story up? Won't people be extremely harsh in evaluating my story, since I have been critical of so many stories myself? Won't people have less respect for my reviews if my story really sucks? Etc. I guess I could "just get over it," but these were real concerns to me, and I think numerous other potential reviewers would have similar reactions. This is why I recommend the alternate pseudonym.

Of course, it should be obvious to you that I could solve this problem simply by posting my stories under a different name. Indeed, perhaps I have already done so! One correspondent has suggested that the anonymity of AOL would make it possible for Danielle Steele to act out her fantasies by pretending to be an English teacher who writes reviews for this newsgroup. How can anyone really prove this is not the case? Well, actually Danielle does not write or think very much like me. Who does? There's only one person that I can think of.

The only reasonable answer is that I am really Mike Hunt. {In case you missed it, the previous sentence was the punchline.}

Think about it. On a.s.s.d. I was recently accused of having a sophomoric sense of humor. What more need I say? I have just reviewed a story by Mike Hunt entitled "Fucking Celeste" in which Mike Hunt is pressed up against a sexy teacher in a closet at the Sadley Virgin School. Hmmm.... Maybe I have overstated the case a little. As I said earlier in this review, I can write better puns than those. But if I were Mike Hunt or were Mike Hunt I, then this story could be entitled "Fucking Myself!" That's the sort of humor that both Mike and I would be proud of.

Here's further evidence - I claim that both my husband and I are heterosexual and monogamous, but I admit that my husband regularly fucks my cunt. {Get it? Mike Hunt - my cunt! See the pattern yet?}

And besides, I can't be Plainman, because he writes much better than either Mike or I.

Here are two of my favorite excerpts from the story:

"I lowered my fly and withdrew my cock. Sticking straight out, it made closing the door impossible." {Ouch! He must have really wanted to keep that door open!}

"He {the nephew who has been boinking the girl in the supply closet} needs a little help. His technique is very amateurish." {It would have been more fun to say "His technique is ALSO very amateurish." You have to read this in context, I guess; but the ALSO would be intended to mean that both the kid's technique and his knowledge were amateurish or that both the kid's and Mike's techniques were amateurish. In fact, this line PROVES that this story is a fraud. The real Celeste would never miss an opportunity for an enigmatic provocation of Mike Hunt.}

All goofy remarks aside, this is another very good story. I appreciate the tribute and accept it in the spirit in which it was intended.

"Fucking Celeste" by Mike Hunt (mrm1ke@aol.com). Guest Review by Fiddler. This story has two Mike Hunts. M1ke Hunt is an author who complains about "fucking Celeste" because he thinks her reviews have been insufficiently laudatory. He fears that she might even assign his next story to a guest reviewer. To work off his frustration, he writes a story about a character named Mike Hunt who visits his nephew's teacher in lieu of the boy's mother who has been unavoidably delayed.

Since the identity of the teacher was telegraphed in the title, I'll let you read the story to find how Mike gets from the present participle to the gerund. You definitely should read it. If you are already a M*ke Hunt fan, you'll be pleased that he no longer uses those weird high-ascii marks.

He should learn, however, that the Bureau of Labor Statistics collects unemployment data from the Current Population Survey of households, rather than from unemployment insurance records. {Good Point! - Celeste; Fucking Fiddler - Mike Hunt.}