Well, maybe not completely obvious. I need help, foks!

[AG31]

Over the years I've made a case for the artistic respectability of erotica that pays no significant attention to plot or character. I started out by asking that we call such stories that aimed for artistic merit "pure erotica," instead of "stroker." Link here.

Thanks to people in that first thread in AH, I changed my term to "simple erotica," but I maintained the criterion of paying "no significant attention to plot or character."

I had to make a small detour to get some of @ElectricBlue's simple (but powerful) stories under my umbrella. And I did it this way: "EB tossed a small monkey wrench into my neat definition of "pure erotica", i.e., "stories that attend to arousal without paying much attention to plot or character." Because his notion of eroticism is inextricably tied up with intimacy, it's hard not to end up depicting vivid characters. After standing on my head, coming up with definitions that would accomodate his stories, I'm just leaving him as the exception that proves the rule."

The next step was what I thought was the final one. I claimed that artistically worthy simple erotica should be judged in the same way that we judge essays on the joys of surfing, or books of jokes. Just because they feature humans doesn't mean they need to be about humans. They can be about sensuality or danger or humor. That is, no need to judge based on plot or character. I titled the thread How Obvious! I still do think that artistically worthy stories can be written absent attention to plot or character.But...


Edit: The word "extraneous" keeps coming to my mind. But that's not fair to the stories that legitimately pay lots of attention to plot and character. Just trying to prime the pump here.
But today, thanks to the contributers to my thread about impersonality I had an epiphany. All my stories are what I now call simple erotica, BUT!! They are all fundamentally grounded in a particular character trait exhibited by the MC. That trait is self acceptance, self containment, dignity. I don't address this explicitly, and maybe it doesn't come across to my readers (I'd have to fix that), but I can no longer just consign EB's stories to the exception that proves the rule. All my stories are exceptions. Now I have to really revise my definition of "simple erotica," to be something like "Erotica that doesn't pay significant attention to plot or <this particular kind of attention> to character. That's where I need help from those of you who got it in the first place. How do I say this elegantly????

 

[orangecurious]

My current project has plot and character and, possibly, very little sex.

I may have to rethink it

Saying that, the 27 pager I wrote had a lot of plot... an awful lot of it and someone commented there was too much sex! I do prefer good characters, it makes you all the more 'invested' in what they do.

 

[Bazzle]

Pleasure Fiction

Plotless Fuck Fiction

As much plot as clothing fiction

 

[KeithD]

Plot is uppermost in my stories (I'm a mystery writer in the mainstream), followed by where the protagonist is "at" as the story progresses. Motivations of the protagonist and the other characters, I guess, follow that. Then setting is important to me too. Totally developing the characters or providing a definitive resolution? Not so much. I like to leave some room for the reader to fill in the blanks as they wish them to be. That, of course, leads to a lot of "and then what?" comments, to which I just shake my head on what I see as reader laziness/shallowness. I did a lot of work in writing the story; the reader should be engaged enough to do some work with it themselves.

 

[Paul_Chance]

How about this:

"Erotica that doesn't pay significant attention to plot or non-sexual character traits."

 

[AG31]

How about this:

"Erotica that doesn't pay significant attention to plot or non-sexual character traits."

This definitely has possibilities. Thanks!

Edit: Although, do intimacy (ElectricBlue) and self-acceptance/dignity (my MCs) qualify as sexual character traits? I feel like they do, but I'm not sure I can sell it.

 

[Paul_Chance]

This definitely has possibilities. Thanks!

Edit: Although, do intimacy (ElectricBlue) and self-acceptance/dignity (my MCs) qualify as sexual character traits? I feel like they do, but I'm not sure I can sell it.

I would say yes, they are important elements of one's sexual identity.

 

[AG31]

I would say yes, they are important elements of one's sexual identity.

I just now logged on again to edit my message above to say, Yes, I think they are sexual character traits. Great minds!!!

 

[MillieDynamite]

The 750-word stories are perfect examples of erotica that have no need for a plot. It's a moment in time, nothing more, but perhaps can be made more by good writing.

 

[mildlyaroused]

I'd also defend 'simple erotica' to my last breath. Sometimes that's what I want to read, and sometimes that's what I want to write. I genuinely believe that strong prose, imagery and command of language can carry the reader through quite successfully for shorter stories.

As for a definition, it's tricky, because like all things it's probably a spectrum. You can inject an incredible amount of characterisation into one sex scene and a shockingly little amount into 20k words if you want to. Also, all the emotions associated with sex are a spectrum too.

Maybe "stories grounded in the eroticism of the moment, not the eroticism of the characters and their lives."

 

[shakna]

The 750-word stories are perfect examples of erotica that have no need for a plot. It's a moment in time, nothing more, but perhaps can be made more by good writing.

I've had people applaud the plot in my 750s. A moment in time can be a beautiful thing, with the right attention to the right places.

 

[MillieDynamite]

But it is plot-light, not plot-heavy. It's limited in the number of characters and situations. You just can't do War and Peace in 750 words if you can, WOW!

 

[Rob_Royale]

I'm not sure if I should admire @AG31 for her dedication to the analysis of what she's doing, or feel sorry for her. I've been enjoying the simplicity of writing compared to other artistic pursuits I've done in the past.

 

[KeithD]

I'm not sure if I should admire @AG31 for her dedication to the analysis of what she's doing, or feel sorry for her. I've been enjoying the simplicity of writing compared to other artistic pursuits I've done in the past.

Yep, can't say I do a lot of deep thinking--or agonizing--about my writing.

 

[AG31]

I'm not sure if I should admire @AG31 for her dedication to the analysis of what she's doing, or feel sorry for her. I've been enjoying the simplicity of writing compared to other artistic pursuits I've done in the past.

No need to feel sorry. I delight in analysis. AH is a real find!

 

[TarnishedPenny]

No need to feel sorry. I delight in analysis. AH is a real find!

Like deliberately putting yourself between two mirrors…

First to catch that one wins a free cup of coffee at Tex’s café.

 

[ElectricBlue]

This definitely has possibilities. Thanks!

Edit: Although, do intimacy (ElectricBlue) and self-acceptance/dignity (my MCs) qualify as sexual character traits? I feel like they do, but I'm not sure I can sell it.

Both are character traits, yes.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I'd also defend 'simple erotica' to my last breath. Sometimes that's what I want to read, and sometimes that's what I want to write. I genuinely believe that strong prose, imagery and command of language can carry the reader through quite successfully for shorter stories.

I agree. Some of my most focused erotica is in my 750 word stories. I have one story which contains a "sub plot" vignette that's maybe four-hundred words. Someone commented - that's so intimate. Was it true? Answer: yes, it was.

As for a definition, it's tricky, because like all things it's probably a spectrum. You can inject an incredible amount of characterisation into one sex scene and a shockingly little amount into 20k words if you want to. Also, all the emotions associated with sex are a spectrum too.

I've been alongside @AG31 from the beginning, as she tries to nail her definitions down (as you might have gathered, because I'm always confounding her). You're right though, it's all one very wide spectrum.

Maybe "stories grounded in the eroticism of the moment, not the eroticism of the characters and their lives."

I'm not convinced that erotica, in all its forms, needs all these definitions, but it helps articulate what I'm not.

 

[gunhilltrain]

No need to feel sorry. I delight in analysis. AH is a real find!

I thought I'd mention that I finally read your biography, and I surprised to find out that you are close to ten years older than I am. Does that make us of the same "generation?" I suppose that means that we remember certain things that the majority of people on here have no living memory of, or may not know about at all. It certainly varies a lot, and I'm not trying to knock anybody, but I've sometimes found that people I know have no idea of what I'm talking about.

I'm not sure that helps answer your question, but I have to ponder it more. There was something else in your biography that I also have to ponder for a while.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Holy shit, I know a lot about music, but had no idea who Phoebe Snow even was. Now I'll have to listen to her music. Thanks @gunhilltrain.

I thought I'd mention that I finally read your biography, and I surprised to find out that you are close to ten years older than I am. Does that make us of the same "generation?" I suppose that means that we remember certain things that the majority of people on here have no living memory of, or may not know about at all. It certainly varies a lot, and I'm not trying to knock anybody, but I've sometimes found that people I know have no idea of what I'm talking about.

I'm not sure that helps answer your question, but I have to ponder it more. There was something else in your biography that I also have to ponder for a while.

 

[gunhilltrain]

Holy shit, I know a lot about music, but had no idea who Phoebe Snow even was. Now I'll have to listen to her music. Thanks @gunhilltrain.

Hah, I just edited it and took Phoebe out. I realized that AG31 was talking about AH, not Lit itself. But you can still find the essay in my list. It is not about her music, but how she got her stage name. Now I forgot the title and I can't find it.

P.S.: It's called Phoebe Snow's Gown of White. Her real name is Phoebe Ann Laub.

 

[AG31]

Plot is uppermost in my stories (I'm a mystery writer in the mainstream), followed by where the protagonist is "at" as the story progresses. Motivations of the protagonist and the other characters, I guess, follow that. Then setting is important to me too. Totally developing the characters or providing a definitive resolution? Not so much. I like to leave some room for the reader to fill in the blanks as they wish them to be. That, of course, leads to a lot of "and then what?" comments, to which I just shake my head on what I see as reader laziness/shallowness. I did a lot of work in writing the story; the reader should be engaged enough to do some work with it themselves.

I've liked a lot of your stories, and I thought of them when I started the "impersonality" thread. But I think another quality that appeals to me is the frequency with which your characters demonstrate self acceptance. And, of course, the plain old attention to masculine bodies. That's nice too.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Are you sure that you're not just writing stroke smut and just don't want to call it stroke smut?

I know that there is a stigma around stroke smut that it often poorly written, but plot stories can be poorly written too. Perhaps you are just trying to distance yourself from that stigma so badly that you need to invent a new genre?

If a story is good, it's good. If a story stinks, it stinks. It doesn't necessarily matter how much plot is in it (although adding motive and plot does make it easier to write something good). Does it really matter how it is labelled?

And since labels are really only for searching, the best labels come from the searchers anyways, not the creators.

 

[AG31]

Are you sure that you're not just writing stroke smut and just don't want to call it stroke smut?

I know that there is a stigma around stroke smut that it often poorly written, but plot stories can be poorly written too. Perhaps you are just trying to distance yourself from that stigma so badly that you need to invent a new genre?

If a story is good, it's good. If a story stinks, it stinks. It doesn't necessarily matter how much plot is in it (although adding motive and plot does make it easier to write something good). Does it really matter how it is labelled?

And since labels are really only for searching, the best labels come from the searchers anyways, not the creators.

It's not a new genre. It's just a new, not loaded name for an existing genre. Erotica that pays little attention (I'm working on refining that) to plot and character, but aspires to meritorious writing. If you call it "smut" you're pre-judging it as not artistically worthy.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

It's not a new genre. It's just a new, not loaded name for an existing genre. Erotica that pays little attention (I'm working on refining that) to plot and character, but aspires to meritorious writing. If you call it "smut" you're pre-judging it as not artistically worthy.

Yes, this confirms to me that you seem to be writing stroke smut but just hate the stigma of stroke smut. Personally I wouldn't worry about it. The masses out there looking to read stroke smut do not give a shit that it is called stroke smut, so if I wrote it I wouldn't care neither. Your readers won't be looking down on you for it so why would you look down on your own genre yourself?