AG31
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2021
- Posts
- 1,504
A few weeks ago I launched a thread in Authors' Hangout about authenticity. The responses helped refine my thinking. Here are my thoughts as they stand now. I had wanted to post this as an essay over on the story side, but it's not long enough. :-(
Note: This essay is about a quality that I have labeled authenticity. I'm perfectly aware that there are many other legitimate definitions for authenticity (e.g., verisimilitude, true to life). I'm just using it to talk about a quality in writing that I find interesting.
For the purposes of this essay, authenticity is a quality in a story such that it seems as if the author were writing from within, from the heart or from the viscera. It sounds like a story the writer had to tell. For that reason, it can be compelling even if it is far away from the reader's preferred erotic categories. Perhaps this characteristic is associated with a pouring out of the story. Some stories, like Pleasure and Pain and some sections of @madelinemasoch's writing tumble forth like water over rocks. Some, like Oz Beach Boy & Allesandra Rampolla, by @MyBareTorso, stream forth steadily. Others, like much of @ElectricBlue's writing, flow gracefully.
I'm open to the idea that stories without that pouring forth quality can be authentic, but the two stories that I've liked the best, The Story of O, by Pauline Reage, and Enslaving Eli, by Billierosie, don't pour forth. They are more static, formal, as my own writing has been characterized. Of course an author probably can't identify authenticity in their own work, but I'm pretty sure mine doesn't have it, even though I know for an absolute fact that every sentence, with a few notable exceptions, has come from my viscera. They are all directed toward arousal, my own.
There are a number of things that authenticity is not:
It is not a quality of the relationship between the author and the work. It's a quality of what that relationship seems like to the reader. I expect a talented writer could generate that quality while remaining completely detached. Here I have to include a quote posted by @SyleusSnow: "The most important thing is authenticity. Once you can fake that, you’ve got it made."
It is not a quality required for "good" writing. In my experience most good books don't have it. Although I think it is more commonly found in first books.
Not all stories that sound authentic are "good" stories. Most of the writing is otherwise unremarkable, and some is just plain bad.
Authenticity has nothing to do with verisimilitude. It can be found in the wildest Sci Fi or whatever.
It has nothing to do with believable characters. It can be found in the simplest of simple erotica, with no attention at all to plot and character.
Note: This essay is about a quality that I have labeled authenticity. I'm perfectly aware that there are many other legitimate definitions for authenticity (e.g., verisimilitude, true to life). I'm just using it to talk about a quality in writing that I find interesting.
For the purposes of this essay, authenticity is a quality in a story such that it seems as if the author were writing from within, from the heart or from the viscera. It sounds like a story the writer had to tell. For that reason, it can be compelling even if it is far away from the reader's preferred erotic categories. Perhaps this characteristic is associated with a pouring out of the story. Some stories, like Pleasure and Pain and some sections of @madelinemasoch's writing tumble forth like water over rocks. Some, like Oz Beach Boy & Allesandra Rampolla, by @MyBareTorso, stream forth steadily. Others, like much of @ElectricBlue's writing, flow gracefully.
I'm open to the idea that stories without that pouring forth quality can be authentic, but the two stories that I've liked the best, The Story of O, by Pauline Reage, and Enslaving Eli, by Billierosie, don't pour forth. They are more static, formal, as my own writing has been characterized. Of course an author probably can't identify authenticity in their own work, but I'm pretty sure mine doesn't have it, even though I know for an absolute fact that every sentence, with a few notable exceptions, has come from my viscera. They are all directed toward arousal, my own.
There are a number of things that authenticity is not:
It is not a quality of the relationship between the author and the work. It's a quality of what that relationship seems like to the reader. I expect a talented writer could generate that quality while remaining completely detached. Here I have to include a quote posted by @SyleusSnow: "The most important thing is authenticity. Once you can fake that, you’ve got it made."
It is not a quality required for "good" writing. In my experience most good books don't have it. Although I think it is more commonly found in first books.
Not all stories that sound authentic are "good" stories. Most of the writing is otherwise unremarkable, and some is just plain bad.
Authenticity has nothing to do with verisimilitude. It can be found in the wildest Sci Fi or whatever.
It has nothing to do with believable characters. It can be found in the simplest of simple erotica, with no attention at all to plot and character.
