How obvious!!!!

[Paul_Chance]

I'm thinking that "establishing" character and personality are not in "direct service." Doesn't mean they're bad or wrong, just that they don't qualify as "simple erotica."

I'd disagree with this part of your statement. I think character and personality can be, and often are, in direct and simple service of erotica. Getting beyond a simple Tab-A into Slot-B description, it's character and personality that make even erotic vignettes rise to the top.

If an author can show and develop personality and character within the size constraints of a vignette, then you can generally be assured that skill with carry over into longer pieces. I've certainly read more than a few novella length stories on Lit that have zero character personality or development - and they suffer for it.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I'm thinking that "establishing" character and personality are not in "direct service." Doesn't mean they're bad or wrong, just that they don't qualify as "simple erotica."

I think the trick is to establish character without back story, and make that immediate.

Ruby, for example, in Garter Belts and Cigarettes, never gets much of a back-story, but I think you'll admit she's alive. That story, BTW, I've always thought was my best attempt at "Stroke", which of course, it isn't.

 

[M_K_Babalon]

I think the trick is to establish character without back story, and make that immediate.

Ruby, for example, in Garter Belts and Cigarettes, never gets much of a back-story, but I think you'll admit she's alive. That story, BTW, I've always thought was my best attempt at "Stroke", which of course, it isn't.

A well developed character doesn't need a backstory, I think.

 

[Britva415]

I'm thinking that "establishing" character and personality are not in "direct service." Doesn't mean they're bad or wrong, just that they don't qualify as "simple erotica."

Speaking for myself, I disagree.

I consider most of my stories "simple erotica," fully in the vein which @M_K_Babalon described above:

simple eroticas plots are like most non-softcore(even those aren't always excused) porn plots; a contrived excuse for two people to fuck. Now you get it.

In the stories I'm talking about, there is no other plot than the people getting together as the result of the set-up.

But I like the set-up. The set-up is what makes it erotic/erotica instead of just sex/smut. The setting and the plot, establishing character and personality, are in direct service of the sex and nothing else, which is what makes it "simple erotica" to me.

Setting and circumstance make better erotica. Saying "but they make it erotica plus something extra" is a statement which doesn't in fact match the reality of a lot of my favorite Lit stories.

I get that what you're calling "simple erotica" is different from what I'm calling "simple erotica," what I really want to express is that I just don't think that establishing character, personality, setting, circumstances and an interesting and evocative situation can't be in direct service of the eroticism. I think they absolutely can be - especially when there's absolutely nothing else which they're in service of.

I guess you could handwave an argument like "well, then, they're in service of nothing and shouldn't be in the story," but

 

[M_K_Babalon]

Speaking for myself, I disagree.

I consider most of my stories "simple erotica," fully in the vein which @M_K_Babalon described above:


In the stories I'm talking about, there is no other plot than the people getting together as the result of the set-up.

But I like the set-up. The set-up is what makes it erotic/erotica instead of just sex/smut. The setting and the plot, establishing character and personality, are in direct service of the sex and nothing else, which is what makes it "simple erotica" to me.

I get that what you're calling "simple erotica" is different from what I'm calling "simple erotica," what I really want to express is that I just don't think that establishing character, personality, setting, circumstances and an interesting and evocative situation can't be in direct service of the eroticism. I think they absolutely can be - especially when there's absolutely nothing else which they're in service of.

I guess you could handwave an argument like "well, then, they're in service of nothing and shouldn't be in the story," but

I think what makes it simple is that it isn't that deep. It can be more than "Mister Plumber, do you take pussy as payment," but going into building a serious connection is going too far. Or can be. Not to say it can't work, but you wanna get them fucking. And maybe even simple erotica doesn't need to be, or just doesn't hafta be a basic ass stroker, it could possibly have a little substance. I would almost consider my story Subway Ride, simple erotica. It's not very deep at all, there's no real emotion in it. The first sex scene could be omitted, but the second happens because the first did. And in the middle is just a reason to keep them together, it's that softcore plot device.

 

[AG31]

I'd disagree with this part of your statement. I think character and personality can be, and often are, in direct and simple service of erotica.

Yes, for sure. But it's the taking the time out in a few paragraphs, often at the beginning to "establish" these things that takes me out of the erotic moment. It's clear that for some people it is absolutely necessary for the eroticism to work. But then it's not "simple erotica."

 

[AG31]

I just don't think that establishing character, personality, setting, circumstances and an interesting and evocative situation can't be in direct service of the eroticism. I think they absolutely can be - especially when there's absolutely nothing else which they're in service of.

I totally agree. Read some of the EB stories I cited. There's oodles of setting and evocation. Beautiful, enchanting and all in the direct service of eroticism.

 

[samhasstories]

I've seen several writers interviewed, or writers youtubers say that characters are the plot, without them, there's no plot, thus no story. So whatever the characters are doing creates the story, it's not that eroticisn drives the plot, it's them being erotic that creates the plot, even if it seemingly is hardly there. This makes sense to me. Nobody's going to read about a empty bedroom.

I actually just had a good laugh, I was just reminded of a story I wrote years ago about a literal fly on the wall, watching two people have sex.

Yeah, so I guess a better way of wording my post would be that in a 'stroker' (i.e. in my stories) the eroticism is the plot: character A takes his pants off, characters B-K dive in hungrily. As opposed to one where maybe eroticism is just one of many elements in the plot: character A inherits his father's estate, has to sell off parcels of land, character B wants to buy, they negotiate, pants come off etc., everyone learns something about themselves.

 

[SimonDoom]

I'd disagree with this part of your statement. I think character and personality can be, and often are, in direct and simple service of erotica. Getting beyond a simple Tab-A into Slot-B description, it's character and personality that make even erotic vignettes rise to the top.

If an author can show and develop personality and character within the size constraints of a vignette, then you can generally be assured that skill with carry over into longer pieces. I've certainly read more than a few novella length stories on Lit that have zero character personality or development - and they suffer for it.

I concur totally with this. It's why I waffle on trying to lump stories into different kinds of categories.

You can establish a good chunk of a character in a single paragraph by artfully describing how he smokes a cigarette, or answers another character's question. With a few words you can allude to his background and give the reader all the reader really needs to know to get a sense of the character's motivation. These are things that can be done in very short stories, and if they're done right they can make a short story more erotic at the same time as they enrich the characters and plot.

And at the same time, there are stories where I feel the author is padding things too much, making the story longer than it has to be out of a perceived belief that length corresponds to quality. That's a falsehood. I see too much of that, IMO, at Literotica.

Published short stories tend to be shorter than Literotica stories, usually well under 5,000 words. Shirley Jackson's famous short story The Lottery, published in the New Yorker decades ago, clocked in at about 3700 words, but in that short space the author amply establishes setting, several characters, plot, foreshadowing, and a horrifying resolution. It's a complete horror story. It wouldn't be any better if she had stretched it out to 10,000 words; it would be worse.

 

[AG31]

The first 500 words establish the FMC's background and personality, there's another 500 words before her future sex partner makes an appearance, and there's another 500 words after the sex scene. Even so, I wouldn't describe it as anything other than a stroker.

I'm thinking that "establishing" character and personality are not in "direct service." Doesn't mean they're bad or wrong, just that they don't qualify as "simple erotica."

I think I got diverted from defining "simple erotica" in favor of discussing "simple erotica that I like a lot." I'm afraid I'm going to have to drop my beloved "all paragraphs are in direct service" to "the whole point of the story is eroticism." I like the former a lot, but the latter is a better definition. It's clear that a majority of people on Lit. really need that fleshed out (sic) picture of an MC for the erotica to work. But, yeah, it remains "simple erotica."

 

[Paul_Chance]

I think I got diverted from defining "simple erotica" to discussing "simple erotica that I like a lot." I'm afraid I'm going to have to drop my beloved "all paragraphs are in direct service" to "the whole point of the story is eroticism." I like the former a lot, but the latter is a better definition. It's clear that a majority of people on Lit. really need that fleshed out (sic) picture of an MC for the erotica to work. But, yeah, it remains "simple erotica."

Yeah, that is the subjective nature of art. It'll arise anytime you're developing a concept and trying to convince other people to either use the concept or that the concept is accurate and definable.

Have you tried googling "Simple Erotica" and seeing if there is a generally accepted definition?

 

[Paul_Chance]

I concur totally with this. It's why I waffle on trying to lump stories into different kinds of categories.

You can establish a good chunk of a character in a single paragraph by artfully describing how he smokes a cigarette, or answers another character's question. With a few words you can allude to his background and give the reader all the reader really needs to know to get a sense of the character's motivation. These are things that can be done in very short stories, and if they're done right they can make a short story more erotic at the same time as they enrich the characters and plot.

And at the same time, there are stories where I feel the author is padding things too much, making the story longer than it has to be out of a perceived belief that length corresponds to quality. That's a falsehood. I see too much of that, IMO, at Literotica.

Published short stories tend to be shorter than Literotica stories, usually well under 5,000 words. Shirley Jackson's famous short story The Lottery, published in the New Yorker decades ago, clocked in at about 3700 words, but in that short space the author amply establishes setting, several characters, plot, foreshadowing, and a horrifying resolution. It's a complete horror story. It wouldn't be any better if she had stretched it out to 10,000 words; it would be worse.

Yeah, that's the general lack of editorial control here on Lit. When writing for pay, there is editorial control over length. The overall quality of stories benefits from it. For example, read a few issues of Narrative magazine.

Whether you like the story or not, all the stories that are published in it are well-crafted, both by the author and through the editing process. A lot of what appears on Lit is disposable fiction. It's read once and then forgotten. Every now and then a story manages to rise above that.

Lit is the telenovela of the written word. There might be a plot. There might be a story. I'll be fucked if I know what it is. That doesn't stop me from enjoying the pretty pictures.

 

[AG31]

Have you tried googling "Simple Erotica" and seeing if there is a generally accepted definition?

I hadn't. But now I have. Just got hits on "short erotic stories" and stuff like that.

 

[AG31]

I don't know if I mentioned it anywhere in this thread, but I don't think "simple erotica" has anything to do with length. The premier example I know of is The Story of O, by Pauline Reage, and it's a full length novel.

 

[UnquietDreams]

I have been a reader here for decades, and a writer here for...two weeks, more or less, so this has been my first foray into the forums here. What this reminds me of is the whole argument within the speculative fiction community on "what is science fiction and what is fantasy." There is a lot of blood and sweat, metaphorically speaking, spent on trying to define (and in some cases enforce those definitions) on, say, whether Star Wars is fantasy as it has very little science and a lot of magic, or whether it is science fiction because of spaceships and aliens rather than elves and goblins. (I land deeply in the "it just doesn't matter, just read/write/enjoy it" camp.)

I see parallel arguments in the "Eroticism vs Stroker" discussions. Often with the modifier, by both authors and readers, of "just a stroker." I find it interesting because I get defensive of my own work, as I am both arrogant and used to criticism, while at the same time scared and thin-skinned when it comes to others reading my work. I can be both, heh.

In my "mainstream" writing, I am very much in the "less is more" style when it comes to intimate scenes. I fade to black, for the most part, and it works well in context. Here, I indulge, partially because these are the first sex scenes I have ever written, and I am having fun with it. But the writer in me rebels at the "just a stroker" description, though I have used it to describe my own work here as well. I am mindful of what I write here -- sex-scene focused fiction. However, I do so with a purpose of using those scenes to pursue both plot and character development. I choreograph them specifically for that purpose. They are engines of change for the characters. And if someone thinks they are arousing, so much the better. As I said, I indulge myself.

Maybe I am self-deluded, which I fully admit I am capable of as well, but I rebel at the terminology while at the same time attempting to defend my work from them. But at the same time, I enjoy reading how other authors see their work as well, so I don't avoid the discussions either. I am consistently inconstant.

 

[AG31]

I have been a reader here for decades, and a writer here for...two weeks, more or less, so this has been my first foray into the forums here. What this reminds me of is the whole argument within the speculative fiction community on "what is science fiction and what is fantasy." There is a lot of blood and sweat, metaphorically speaking, spent on trying to define (and in some cases enforce those definitions) on, say, whether Star Wars is fantasy as it has very little science and a lot of magic, or whether it is science fiction because of spaceships and aliens rather than elves and goblins. (I land deeply in the "it just doesn't matter, just read/write/enjoy it" camp.)

I see parallel arguments in the "Eroticism vs Stroker" discussions. Often with the modifier, by both authors and readers, of "just a stroker." I find it interesting because I get defensive of my own work, as I am both arrogant and used to criticism, while at the same time scared and thin-skinned when it comes to others reading my work. I can be both, heh.

In my "mainstream" writing, I am very much in the "less is more" style when it comes to intimate scenes. I fade to black, for the most part, and it works well in context. Here, I indulge, partially because these are the first sex scenes I have ever written, and I am having fun with it. But the writer in me rebels at the "just a stroker" description, though I have used it to describe my own work here as well. I am mindful of what I write here -- sex-scene focused fiction. However, I do so with a purpose of using those scenes to pursue both plot and character development. I choreograph them specifically for that purpose. They are engines of change for the characters. And if someone thinks they are arousing, so much the better. As I said, I indulge myself.

Maybe I am self-deluded, which I fully admit I am capable of as well, but I rebel at the terminology while at the same time attempting to defend my work from them. But at the same time, I enjoy reading how other authors see their work as well, so I don't avoid the discussions either. I am consistently inconstant.

My original campaign (some threads ago) was not to define stroker/simple erotica, but to simply encourage the use of the latter term instead of the former. But I have enjoyed the discussions, as we have in this thread, that try to define that kind of erotica.

 

[Paul_Chance]

My original campaign (some threads ago) was not to define stroker/simple erotica, but to simply encourage the use of the latter term instead of the former. But I have enjoyed the discussions, as we have in this thread, that try to define that kind of erotica.

I think there is almost always value in trying to define things, even if it's only for ourselves at the end of that day. Definitions are one of the ways we can come to a better understanding of something.

This is the collective wisdom of Wikipedia's definition:

Erotic literature comprises fictional and factual stories and accounts of eros (passionate, romantic or sexual relationships) intended to arouse similar feelings in readers.[1] This contrasts erotica, which focuses more specifically on sexual feelings.

 

[AG31]

I think there is almost always value in trying to define things, even if it's only for ourselves at the end of that day. Definitions are one of the ways we can come to a better understanding of something.

This is the collective wisdom of Wikipedia's definition:

Erotic literature comprises fictional and factual stories and accounts of eros (passionate, romantic or sexual relationships) intended to arouse similar feelings in readers.[1] This contrasts erotica, which focuses more specifically on sexual feelings.

Huh. No one ever talks about "eros," in my experience. Unless they're into Greek mythology.
But I agree with you about trying to define things.

 

[ElectricBlue]

This is the collective wisdom of Wikipedia's definition:

Erotic literature comprises fictional and factual stories and accounts of eros (passionate, romantic or sexual relationships) intended to arouse similar feelings in readers.[1] This contrasts erotica, which focuses more specifically on sexual feelings.

That's an interesting subtlety, erotic versus erotica (with its more specific sexual focus). I wonder who wrote the wiki article, though...

 

[M_K_Babalon]

I don't know if I mentioned it anywhere in this thread, but I don't think "simple erotica" has anything to do with length. The premier example I know of is The Story of O, by Pauline Reage, and it's a full length novel.

I don't think it has anything to do with length either. I'd say it's the [lack of] depth and gratuitus amounts of sex and attempt to arouse. Actually one of the things that seperates my erotica and romance novels is the amount of sex. I don't write a lot of simple erotica, mine has just as much dept and sex with a purpose as my romance novels do. But still...

 

[bestkeptsecret678]

For almost three years I've been wrestling with the notion that erotica without plot or character (simple erotica) can be deserving of artistic respect. More respect than is connoted by the term "stroker." Then it finally hit me!

Simple erotica stories aren't stories about people.

They are stories about the experience of eroticism. That's all.

It's no more appropriate to criticize simple erotica for lacking plot and character than it would be to levy the same criticism on a literary depiction of the Grand Canyon, or an essay on Bach's Goldberg Variations, or a paean to the physical sensations of yoga or surfing. Just because the human body is the locus for the writing doesn't mean the story has to be about a person in their wholeness.

Does this make sense?

Visit this thread if you're confused about the term "simple erotica."

It’s all art.

And It ALL warrants our consideration. If a story focuses only on sex, then it is still about people (usually) just oriented to their activities, or experiences as noted . If the author chooses not to elaborate more about those “people,” so what, that’s a creative decision.

 

[AG31]

gratuitus amounts of sex

"uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted." I don't think you can apply "gratuitous" to the sex in simple erotica, since it is the only reason for the story.

 

[Paul_Chance]

That's an interesting subtlety, erotic versus erotica (with its more specific sexual focus). I wonder who wrote the wiki article, though...

Probably people just like us, trying to figure out how to define things.

 

[AG31]

To assert that there is 'no cardboard at all in stroke stories' is well ... straight up preposterous.

There's a serious error here. I said "there is no carboard at all in simple erotica." I'm making a distinction between two kinds of stories that do not attend to plot and character. There are "strokers," that make no attempt at quality (or maybe just don't achieve it) and stories that are worthy of admiration. I've moved our conversation over from "pet-peeves," so I ask you to please read the OP in this thread to understand what I'm trying to say.

 

[AG31]

To be fair, they actually said "in the simple erotica [stroke stories] I'm supporting." It wasn't a sweeping argument for all so-called 'stroke stories.'

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!!
Note that I've moved this interchange to a different thread. I'm getting more and more conscious of the harm that long back-and-forths can do to a thread. This thread seems more on topic.