Your Stories That Few People Read

I've read the first page of the story, and what jumps out at me is that there's a lot of telling rather than showing, and a lot of detail that isn't necessarily germane to the story. You also don't get much of a feel for who the protagonist is, beyond that he's a striking miner. That could be why it's not getting more attention. The sex scenes could be fantastic, but you need to hold the reader's attention along the way.

NicoleZ said:

Just like real life, excellence does not sell. Take a look at the following list and pay attention to the number of Nobel Laureates amongst the books that have sold in excess of 10 million copies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books

Pay special attention to the "List of best-selling book series" topped by J.K Rowling (500+ million), R.L. Stine (350+ million) and Erle Stanley Gardner (300+ million). Did you observe that seventh on this list is Enid Blyton's "Noddy"? Did you notice that while J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Hobbit", a book that he rued having written as a children's book, has sold 100+ million copies whereas the entire epic and genre-creating "The Lord of the Rings", arguably the greatest piece of literary creativity of the 20th Century, has only managed 150+ million the three parts combined, half that of the Hobbit as seen as a series?

It's the same with Literotics. Stories that score high on the "Hall of Fame" are simple escapism with little or no foundation in reality - they pander to the readers' need for escapism (and more power to the writers who realise this). It is very rare for a complex story that actually could be true to even make it to the "Hot" list so if you want Lit success, make it simple! Write what in essence is a story for adolescents with as few sub-plots and embellishments as possible. Bottom line - readers are (as a body) simple. Don't ask too much of them.

The question you have to answer is: Do you want to write the best possible story you can, or, will you prostitute yourself in order to write what the vast majority of readers want?

Click to expand...

I agree with most of this post, though I would spin the last part of it differently. I find zero shame with writing for an audience. Ultimately, isn't that our job as an author? If we're writing solely for ourselves, it feels too much like masturbation. Sure, it's fun, but so what?

With the stories I submit to Literotica.com, I try to keep in mind what I believe is true for most readers - they want a hot story. They want a reason to escape and perhaps some extra motivation to enjoy themselves. Therefore, I try to make the description of sex integral to the story itself. Just knowing the characters had sex doesn't work unless the reader gets to "see" the kind of sex they had - by describing the sex, I hope to illuminate something about the characters.

The best tales pretty nearly share the same form. Neither Dickens nor Twain nor Chandler nor Fleming not Uhnak keep the reader waiting for whazzup. Their stories all make sense, all their stories are entertaining, and all are nailed together adequately. LIT fare quality varies as much as army cooking. After 9 years I resist beta reading, and rarely forage LIT for reading matter. Almost anywhere else has better. But the basics are timeless and universal, just not common at LIT.

Silkess said:

I took a look at the story and found it to be a really slow start which lost my interest. I think maybe the pacing needs to be changed. I got bored of the family dynamic and the fathers endless bloody this and bloody that and drifted away. I see you're trying to write more literature than fluffy erotica, but I see why people on this site may have started it and then wandered off. Perhaps the story is starting in the wrong place?

Also yes the title is kind of drab. I think a better title and a faster start would help. Not to say jump right into sex, but titillate the reader early and move faster through the whole 'setting up the blue collar family dynamic' part. We all get the gist of what working people are like so no need to belabor it and risk losing the reader. That father character had nothing interesting to bring to the scene, he was more a caricature of a blue collar guy without much personality. So another way to make it interesting is to give him something real to say that isn't just complaining. Or minimize him in the scene.

Click to expand...

Hi Silkess - thanks for your reply. It is interesting to read your opinions on the father character Mr. Carter. When I wrote the story, I thought the character Mr. Carter - a gruff, grumpy Yorkshireman - was an amusing character who would hold readers interest so I was a little surprised that you found the opposite. In any case, the character is shown to be a good man with more depth to his personality as the story progresses. I guess readers can interpret characters quite differently from how you intended them to be perceived, and this is one good example.

While in this story it takes some time for the female lead character Felicity to appear, there are sexual references and situations before this to hold readers' attention (Gary visits his ex-girlfriend and her rude delinquent younger sister makes out with her boyfriend in front of the uncomfortable Gary), but I maybe this did not work as well as I hoped.

RetroFan said:

I guess readers can interpret characters quite differently from how you intended them to be perceived, and this is one good example.

Click to expand...

They can and do--often. Readers can interpret entire stories in ways that surprise you. Sometimes it's best to smile and nod.

In a sense readers what LIT writers wont produce. Iys like LIT writers work for CNN and MSNBC and crank out shit few want.

NicoleZ is from the Naoko school of thought.

How do you know you're a deep, great writer?

Post on Literotica and do miserably.

NicoleZ said:

Just like real life, excellence does not sell. Take a look at the following list and pay attention to the number of Nobel Laureates amongst the books that have sold in excess of 10 million copies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books

Pay special attention to the "List of best-selling book series" topped by J.K Rowling (500+ million), R.L. Stine (350+ million) and Erle Stanley Gardner (300+ million). Did you observe that seventh on this list is Enid Blyton's "Noddy"? Did you notice that while J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Hobbit", a book that he rued having written as a children's book, has sold 100+ million copies whereas the entire epic and genre-creating "The Lord of the Rings", arguably the greatest piece of literary creativity of the 20th Century, has only managed 150+ million the three parts combined, half that of the Hobbit as seen as a series?

It's the same with Literotics. Stories that score high on the "Hall of Fame" are simple escapism with little or no foundation in reality - they pander to the readers' need for escapism (and more power to the writers who realise this). It is very rare for a complex story that actually could be true to even make it to the "Hot" list so if you want Lit success, make it simple! Write what in essence is a story for adolescents with as few sub-plots and embellishments as possible. Bottom line - readers are (as a body) simple. Don't ask too much of them.

The question you have to answer is: Do you want to write the best possible story you can, or, will you prostitute yourself in order to write what the vast majority of readers want?

Click to expand...

What a load of generalizing, ignorant, snobby blather.

You're like a person who wanders into McDonalds and starts ranting and raving that no one wants to buy your filet mignon.

"They're eating cheeseburgers here!"

Ok, perhaps you'd be better served taking your wares to the 5 Star restaurant down the street, eh? Then when it still does poorly, you at least can't complain about the clientale.

Lit is what it is. I happen to think it's a bit more varied than Mickey D's, then again I love Chicken McNuggets.

As for "escapism?" There's a difference between fantasy and escapism. If you don't know the difference, perhaps you shouldn't be writing erotica.

The Hall of Fame includes a lot of crap, but to say it's all full of pandering fluff with no integrity is a.) ignorant, b.) wrong and c.) sour grapes because your deep, profound masterpieces aren't on there.

NicoleZ said:

Just like real life, excellence does not sell. Take a look at the following list and pay attention to the number of Nobel Laureates amongst the books that have sold in excess of 10 million copies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books

Pay special attention to the "List of best-selling book series" topped by J.K Rowling (500+ million), R.L. Stine (350+ million) and Erle Stanley Gardner (300+ million). Did you observe that seventh on this list is Enid Blyton's "Noddy"? Did you notice that while J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Hobbit", a book that he rued having written as a children's book, has sold 100+ million copies whereas the entire epic and genre-creating "The Lord of the Rings", arguably the greatest piece of literary creativity of the 20th Century, has only managed 150+ million the three parts combined, half that of the Hobbit as seen as a series?

It's the same with Literotics. Stories that score high on the "Hall of Fame" are simple escapism with little or no foundation in reality - they pander to the readers' need for escapism (and more power to the writers who realise this). It is very rare for a complex story that actually could be true to even make it to the "Hot" list so if you want Lit success, make it simple! Write what in essence is a story for adolescents with as few sub-plots and embellishments as possible. Bottom line - readers are (as a body) simple. Don't ask too much of them.

The question you have to answer is: Do you want to write the best possible story you can, or, will you prostitute yourself in order to write what the vast majority of readers want?

Click to expand...

Carnal_Flower said:

...the Naoko school of thought.

How do you know you're a deep, great writer?

Post on Literotica and do miserably.

Click to expand...

That, IMHO, was uncalled for. It seems unnecessarily antagonistic to single out somebody who hasn't even been posting in this thread.

(Also quite at odds with my experience in editing for her.)

Naoko has stated many times the exact same sentiment.

Lit readers cannot and do not reward [some variation of her definition of "good writing."]

I feel perfectly comfortable paraphrasing her. Of course, she means it (like NicoleZ) as a kind of snobby put-down of lit readers. I see it as a twisted way of understanding why her preferred stories don't score high.


QUOTE=Bramblethorn;82193344]That, IMHO, was uncalled for. It seems unnecessarily antagonistic to single out somebody who hasn't even been posting in this thread.

(Also quite at odds with my experience in editing for her.)[/QUOTE]

I agree with NicoleZ, at least in part, and I find it annoying that you're trying to pull Naoko into something she has nothing to do with. Quality of writing by itself isn't really a standard here and writing that challenges the readers is unlikely to be popular. But that isn't unique to Lit.

I like to think that I write fairly well, and I find that readers do reward me for the effort. But writing well alone isn't enough. It shouldn't be surprising that when you're writing for a site that is specific to erotica, most of what you write needs to be arousing for your audience.

NicoleZ wrote this:

"It is very rare for a complex story that actually could be true to even make it to the "Hot" list so if you want Lit success, make it simple! Write what in essence is a story for adolescents with as few sub-plots and embellishments as possible. Bottom line - readers are (as a body) simple,"

and I find that odd.

Most erotica is fantasy. A complex story that could be true has little place in erotica outside of Romance, and many of the categories we have here are explicitly fantasy. She seems to have invented a standard that is unrelated to the genre.

The other thing that I think has been missed, not just by NicoleZ but by others responding on this thread, is that the number of views (the OP's original issue) probably has little to do with the quality of the story.

Readers have little to go on before they view your story. The site gives the title, short description, author's name, number of comments, number of favorites, score, and number of votes. That's what they have to go on. If they found your stories with a tag search then they have that to go on too, but there seems to be few readers that come by that route.

Of those things, the title, short description and author's names are the only things that the author can manipulate to get readers to view their story. They can also choose to post in a popular category, or to post early to a contest

If the title and short description or your name don't pull readers in then you may not get many views. Then there are the things that the writer can't control. How many other stories are posted at the same time? Who wrote them? Is your story high on the list, or low on the list? How long does it stay visible to casual readers? I imagine there are other factors.

The only way that the quality of writing might factor in is if the site uses something like the time the document is open to determine whether it's been viewed. Then quality of writing might have some effect, but I think it's more likely that a quick-and-dirty start will get people to linger than it is that people will pick up on the quality of writing and hang around for a well-written story.

NotWise said:

The other thing that I think has been missed, not just by NicoleZ but by others responding on this thread, is that the number of views (the OP's original issue) probably has little to do with the quality of the story.

Click to expand...

First off, "quality" is in the eye of the specific reader. Each has a different notion of what that means to her/him (beyond the fact that "quality," used alone, is a neutral word. It can be either high quality or low quality and many who use the word are making assumptions that it has to mean high quality).

Specifically to your point, though, the authors here who rack up high view numbers are more likely doing it from repeat readers, ones who are following the author, not going after stories blind. And those readers are repeating opening an author's subsequent stories because, in their terms of what high quality is to them, they have decided that that author meets their expectations from having read earlier stories. In that sense, "quality" has a great deal to do with the views an author's stories get.

So, I guess I think you're missing a point as well.

I don't have much sympathy for you guys going after CF's slam at Naoka. Under the same circumstances, you just let her slam away at me willy-nilly. Her mention of Naoka was comparatively mild. Both CF and Naoka have posted far nastier things about me out of the blue than I've posted about either one of them.

Threads that few Op's read.

I find it slightly amusing that the OP asked a question in his first post, got some 23 responses and hasn't even bothered, or had the ordinary good manners to reply to the last 20 or so.

Maybe he/she is just a whinger?

From 7/22/16 (Naoko)

I think whether the red H means something depends on
a) does your story have one? (in which case, Yes!!! of course it does)
b) do you want to write erotica which Literotica readers can get off on, or fine literature of a delicate nature which is admired by readers of fine writing.


Readers tend to hit the voting button without thinking much (if you've really done your job well, they may not even have the energy to lift a finger and press to give you five stars ). If they go back after reflecting on your poetic descriptions of seckshual activities, their vote sometimes gets taken off in the sweeps as they don't stay on the page long enough for the system to believe they really read it and voted.

So a lot of stories that just hit the right button for readers rather than being flawless prose which exposes a deep understanding of human relations (readers may actually be uncomfortable with such indecent exposure), score more highly.

If your story has a red H and you are happy to give readers a little pleasure in an often dull and difficult world, then yes, it means a lot.

If it doesn't have a red H, but has lots of comments saying what a fine and moving piece of writing it is, and furthermore people on Authors' Hangout and Story Feedback say it's well written, then no, it doesn't mean anything that you didn't have a red H. Most people know of several stories they deeply admire (I mean other than their own stories), which haven't scored that highly.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, to single her out, but these are the views she expresses, and it's something I strongly disagree with.

I don't like the polarization of stories which "just get you off" [or are merely "escapist"] vs. "fine literature."

I don't like the outright claim that the highly rated stories here are merely strokers ("hit the right buttons") vs. "flawless prose" and a "deep understanding of human nature."

Naturally, you would want to believe that, if your stories don't do well with the little people of lit. They just need a little bit of "escapism" in their lives, or a little joy in a "dull world." It's quite condescending.

I don't agree with the binarism between "great literature" and stories which "just push the right buttons." That to me is snobbery and rationalization.

Readers who "don't think" will give you high scores. Really? Well if that's the case, then what I said is accurate: the true test of deep, thoughtful "literature" on this site is if it does crappy.

Obviously, anyone is perfectly free to disagree.

Then you need to read the whole thing instead of picking out just what you want to highlight. If you did, you would find a whole different meaning to the post than what you are trying to show.

So I definitely disagree with you.

By all means, disagree.

I would argue that MY reading is present; perhaps there's another, and that's perfectly fine.

TxRad said:

Then you need to read the whole thing instead of picking out just what you want to highlight. If you did, you would find a whole different meaning to the post than what you are trying to show.

So I definitely disagree with you.

Click to expand...

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Carnal_Flower said:

From 7/22/16 (Naoko)

I'm sorry, to single her out, but these are the views she expresses, and it's something I strongly disagree with.

I don't like the polarization of stories which "just get you off" [or are merely "escapist"] vs. "fine literature."

Click to expand...

...ah, I think I see the problem here.

Naoko is British. One of the things that's more common in British English than American is "tongue in cheek" speech - exaggerating a position, laying it on ridiculously thick, as a way of poking fun. (Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal is a particularly famous example: Swift wrote a pamphlet proposing that poor people be allowed to sell their children to the rich as food, but he didn't expect anybody to believe that he actually supported that idea.)

I'd suggest re-reading the passages you've highlighted with that possibility in mind.

I don't like the outright claim that the highly rated stories here are merely strokers ("hit the right buttons") vs. "flawless prose" and a "deep understanding of human nature."

Click to expand...

Naturally, you would want to believe that, if your stories don't do well with the little people of lit. They just need a little bit of "escapism" in their lives, or a little joy in a "dull world." It's quite condescending.[/quote]

You might want to consider that those remarks came from an author who has quite a few highly-rated stories, which should perhaps be a hint that they had more to do with humour than sour grapes.

I don't agree with the binarism between "great literature" and stories which "just push the right buttons." That to me is snobbery and rationalization.

Readers who "don't think" will give you high scores. Really? Well if that's the case, then what I said is accurate: the true test of deep, thoughtful "literature" on this site is if it does crappy.

Obviously, anyone is perfectly free to disagree.

Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of what you've said here. I just think that you've misjudged by taking comments literally which were heavily tongue-in-cheek.

sr71plt said:

I don't have much sympathy for you guys going after CF's slam at Naoka. Under the same circumstances, you just let her slam away at me willy-nilly. Her mention of Naoka was comparatively mild. Both CF and Naoka have posted far nastier things about me out of the blue than I've posted about either one of them.

Click to expand...

I am not the designated Righter of Wrongs for this board. I don't hang out here 24/7 scanning every thread to ensure that every transgression is duly chastised; that's more of a job for Batman.

Sometimes I notice objectionable behaviour; some of those occasions, I also have the time and spoons to say something about it. Other times I don't. If you're looking for somebody who will be here to defend you every time somebody treats you badly - well, I'm sorry, but I can't be that person.

The point being, there are plenty of reasons good stories don't gain the audience they may deserve than excoriating the taste of lit readers.

I've never tasted a Lit reader. What is the etiquette? Do you lick first or just chomp away?

colddiesel said:

I find it slightly amusing that the OP asked a question in his first post, got some 23 responses and hasn't even bothered, or had the ordinary good manners to reply to the last 20 or so.

Maybe he/she is just a whinger?

Click to expand...

I put non responder OPs on IGGY.

TxRad said:

I've never tasted a Lit reader. What is the etiquette? Do you lick first or just chomp away?

Click to expand...

A little salsa verde can't hurt. Nom nom... But I digress.

Why stories aren't read:

* Wrong title
* Wring subtitle
* Wrong category
* Wrong celeb author
* Wrong word assemblage

I gave a story a snappy title and a snarky description. Its my most-read but lowest-rated. Just because people read it, doesn't mean they like it.

BuckyDuckman said:

I agree with most of this post, though I would spin the last part of it differently. I find zero shame with writing for an audience. Ultimately, isn't that our job as an author? If we're writing solely for ourselves, it feels too much like masturbation. Sure, it's fun, but so what?

With the stories I submit to Literotica.com, I try to keep in mind what I believe is true for most readers - they want a hot story. They want a reason to escape and perhaps some extra motivation to enjoy themselves. Therefore, I try to make the description of sex integral to the story itself. Just knowing the characters had sex doesn't work unless the reader gets to "see" the kind of sex they had - by describing the sex, I hope to illuminate something about the characters.

Click to expand...

You’re absolutely correct. Of course it is more complex than my over-simplified, one-sentence statement could possibly ever fully cover! Especially since sex is the favourite pastime of the human species (shading intoxication and sports) and “quality literature” cannot incorporate it if it is to retain credibility, both varieties are consequently handicapped and neither paint a perfectly accurate picture of human interactions!

Carnal_Flower said:

What a load of generalizing, ignorant, snobby blather.

You're like a person who wanders into McDonalds and starts ranting and raving that no one wants to buy your filet mignon.

"They're eating cheeseburgers here!"

Ok, perhaps you'd be better served taking your wares to the 5 Star restaurant down the street, eh? Then when it still does poorly, you at least can't complain about the clientale.

Lit is what it is. I happen to think it's a bit more varied than Mickey D's, then again I love Chicken McNuggets.

As for "escapism?" There's a difference between fantasy and escapism. If you don't know the difference, perhaps you shouldn't be writing erotica.

The Hall of Fame includes a lot of crap, but to say it's all full of pandering fluff with no integrity is a.) ignorant, b.) wrong and c.) sour grapes because your deep, profound masterpieces aren't on there.

AND:

Naoko has stated many times the exact same sentiment.

Lit readers cannot and do not reward [some variation of her definition of "good writing."]

I feel perfectly comfortable paraphrasing her. Of course, she means it (like NicoleZ) as a kind of snobby put-down of lit readers. I see it as a twisted way of understanding why her preferred stories don't score high.

Click to expand...

Since you obviously did not understand my posts and have chosen to deliberately misrepresent what I wrote, I shall explain it to you again, very carefully and in excruciating detail, something for which I apologise to other AH readers but definitely not to you:

There are four main reasons why we write, but pay attention to the fact that more than one of these may apply to any single writer:

1. We write because we feel we have a story to tell or have a need to put down what’s on our mind on paper. Call it writing for our own amusement if you will
2. We desire to make money from our writing
3. We crave the adulation
4. We wish to improve our skills; our “Bow of burning gold” and our “Arrows of desire” as Blake put it, in the service of a cause greater than ourselves (Émile Zola’s “J’accuse”, or Orwell’s “Animal Farm” plus "1984” are excellent examples of this)

It all comes down to what our ultimate goals are and what we are satisfied with. Some are happy to achieve Literotica success. Fair enough! To other’s, Literotica is no more than a way-station and not the ultimate be and all of their writing ambitions. That should be respected too!

Are you with me this far, Carnal Flower?

Now, let’s turn our attention to the readership. It is a fact that series like Harry Potter, Goosebumps, Perry Mason, Berenstein Bears, Choose Your Own Adventure, Sweet Valley High, Noddy and Nancy Drew, the top eight all-time best selling series, each and everyone of them have outsold the combined literary production of the Nobel Laureates of at least the past 50 years, yet no-one in their right mind would suggest that these series are “great literature” or that their authors are some the greatest writers/authors of all time. Successful, oh yes! Definitely! But great literature? Definitely not! Actually, what these series all have in common is that they are “easy” or “light” reads or in other words, they are simple. What the Nobel Laureates have in common is that they are not simple, but rather very complex and as a consequence inaccessible to the vast majority of readers. Thus in order to achieve popular success, stories have to be simple because the average reader is “simple”.

Did you understand this Carnal Flower?

Now, Literotica is little different from the mainstream except for the subject matter and if you might possibly recall, there was a lot said on the “Official Author’s Halloween 2016 Contest Support Thread” about writing to a formula so don’t you DARE pretend that people do not prostitute themselves in order to appeal to the readership! This is what I referred to; a lot of people, not everyone though, far from it, do not write the best possible story they are able to. They write what they know, think or believe will appeal to as many as possible in order to win – and more power to them!

There are two fact that both of us, you and I need to realise: I will never achieve the same Literotica success as you (and others) have and will. You will never be able to attain the wider success outside of Literotica that I already have.

There is one more thing you really do need to understand and that is that what I did object to was the bombing and attacks on my stories. That you hate me is just as obvious as the fact that I can remain polite and answer civilly in the face of the abusive insults you’ve heaped on me.

PS. Thank you for the latest vote-bomb! It only shows what a pitiful, pathetic, childish and sorry excuse for a human being you are.