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

[AG31]

Absolutely. I wrote a 750-worder chock full of sexual imagery and innuendo, but no actual sex whatsoever. It couldn't go in EC because there was no coupling, but it also couldn't go in non-E because of all the imagery. The readers hated it. I figured that they would.

Did you post it? Can you give us a link?

 

[gunhilltrain]

I think I'm going to declare this the winner.

I don't agree with him, but that's my opinion. I still can't figure out why you brought this up. It may change over time (how long a story has been out), but in the end, it's your call for the ultimate view of your own work and what it means. Other people can give you feedback, but there's only so far we can take that. The final arbiter of that is you; if you like it or if you think you are getting better at it, that's the most important issue. That's something we (or at least I) can't help you with.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Would it be smut if they weren't sweaty? or lascivious? Just curious. Not that it speaks directly to the thread.

Are we not fading to black here? Explicitly described sex, certainly yes is smut.

 

[jomar]

Well, I guess I can relate. Character development and plot sometimes leaks through the seams of my stroke smut despite my best efforts.

 

[AG31]

I don't agree with him, but that's my opinion. I still can't figure out why you brought this up. It may change over time (how long a story has been out), but in the end, it's your call for the ultimate view of your own work and what it means. Other people can give you feedback, but there's only so far we can take that. The final arbiter of that is you; if you like it or if you think you are getting better at it, that's the most important issue. That's something we (or at least I) can't help you with.

I didn't bring it up in connection with my stories exactly. I brought it up in my quest to make a case for the possible artistic merit of anyone's stories in any genre where there is little attention to plot or character. What some people insist on calling "strokers." I brought it up because it dawned on me that some "simple erotica" stories are inextricably grounded in a character trait. In @ElectricBlue's case, intimacy and whatever traits are revealed thereby. In my own case, self-acceptance, although I'm not claiming that any reader would pick that up. I never thought of myself as trying to portray it. SO... I needed a more nuanced description than "pay little attention to..."

Does that help?

 

[KeithD]

Can something centered only, or almost entirely, on the sex act that's posted to Literotica have "artistic merit"? That's the essential question? Yes, it can. I've done that here myself, I think.

 

[VerbalAbuse]

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 suppose masturbation stories would fit the bill nicely. Self acceptance? Check. Self containment? Check. Dignity? Check.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Can something centered only, or almost entirely, on the sex act that's posted to Literotica have "artistic merit"? That's the essential question? Yes, it can. I've done that here myself, I think.

Certainly it can. Just when you remove motive, character development, immersive setting and any theme besides carnal lust, you basically empty your gun to just one bullet so you have to make that shot really count. Difficult but still possible, absolutely.

 

[AG31]

Can something centered only, or almost entirely, on the sex act that's posted to Literotica have "artistic merit"? That's the essential question? Yes, it can. I've done that here myself, I think.

Yes, that's the underlying question. And you gave us a good link in my first foray into the case for "simple erotica" a few months ago. But this thread is focused on how to articulate the fact that "paying little attention" to character is inaccurate. And a quest for a better phrasing.

 

[AG31]

you basically empty your gun to just one bullet so you have to make that shot really count. Difficult but still possible, absolutely.

Too true.

 

[gunhilltrain]

I didn't bring it up in connection with my stories exactly. I brought it up in my quest to make a case for the possible artistic merit of anyone's stories in any genre where there is little attention to plot or character. What some people insist on calling "strokers." I brought it up because it dawned on me that some "simple erotica" stories are inextricably grounded in a character trait. In @ElectricBlue's case, intimacy and whatever traits are revealed thereby. In my own case, self-acceptance, although I'm not claiming that any reader would pick that up. I never thought of myself as trying to portray it. SO... I needed a more nuanced description than "pay little attention to..."

Does that help?

I guess not. Forgive me, but I don't care if people call it "strokers" or "simple erotica" or even smut. They can write whatever they wish and call it whatever they want.

I know from your biography that you first starting writing over five decades ago, probably when I was still in high school or college. If I may ask, why do you care and feel that you have to advocate for a certain genre style? If you like it, just write it as you see fit. No justification or definitions are necessary.

 

[AG31]

I guess not. Forgive me, but I don't care if people call it "strokers" or "simple erotica" or even smut. They can write whatever they wish and call it whatever they want.

I know from your biography that you first starting writing over five decades ago, probably when I was still in high school or college. If I may ask, why do you care and feel that you have to advocate for a certain genre style? If you like it, just write it as you see fit. No justification or definitions are necessary.

I don't get where you think I started writing 5 decades ago. I started almost exactly three years ago. Never wrote any fiction before then. I started fantasizing before latency, about 75 years ago. I'm NOT advocating for a style. People can write any style they wish. I'm advocating for respect for the possible artistic qualities of what people call "strokers," a term that is loaded with pre-judgement.

 

[gunhilltrain]

I don't get where you think I started writing 5 decades ago. I started almost exactly three years ago. Never wrote any fiction before then. I started fantasizing before latency, about 75 years ago. I'm NOT advocating for a style. People can write any style they wish. I'm advocating for respect for the possible artistic qualities of what people call "strokers," a term that is loaded with pre-judgement.

Okay, sorry, I did get your biography wrong. I didn't interpret "re-engage with erotica after some fifty years" and "introduced to erotica in the late 60's" correctly. (I do have some medical/dental/family/financial distractions beyond AH that have been pretty intense this season.)

Anyway, I have no problem respecting "strokers" or whatever one wishes to call them.

 

[TheRedChamber]

Works that make us cry are considered the highest of all art.
Works that make us laugh are considered much lower.
Works that make us come aren't considered art at all.

Deep, but alas too long to put on a T-shirt.

 

[SimonDoom]

Works that make us cry are considered the highest of all art.
Works that make us laugh are considered much lower.
Works that make us come aren't considered art at all.

It might have something to do with the expense of cleaning up the theater after the show.

 

[gunhilltrain]

It might have something to do with the expense of cleaning up the theater after the show.

I forgot which novel it's in, but Philip Roth describes going as a kid going to a burlesque show in Newark and masturbating into his baseball glove. Still better than the guy a few seats down who did it into his hat. I can't confirm it, but it feels like autobiographical truth.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I forgot which novel it's in, but Philip Roth describes going as a kid going to a burlesque show in Newark and masturbating into his baseball glove. Still better than the guy a few seats down who did it into his hat. I can't confirm it, but it feels like autobiographical truth.

I vaguely recall a similar scene using meatloaf in the fridge - Portnoy's Complaint. Some family meal, anyway.

 

[gunhilltrain]

I vaguely recall a similar scene using meatloaf in the fridge - Portnoy's Complaint. Some family meal, anyway.

I'm trying to keep this thread from drifting. I read Portnoy's Complaint a long time ago, but the first half is vivid enough that I remember a lot of it. Roth uses exaggeration for satire, and does a fairly good job with that. So yeah, Portnoy copulates with a piece of liver and also a cored apple. In one scene he ejaculates and hits the light fixture above him. Improbable but amusing.

 

[bejjinks]

I only just discovered this thread but to me, it seems backwards. To me, the artistic merit stories are those that do focus on plot and characters while the strokers are the ones that don't pay attention to plot or characters.

When I'm looking for stroking material, I often skim through the story ignoring most of the story until I get to the juicy bits. When I'm looking for stroking material, I couldn't care less about who or why.

However, when I'm looking for "simple erotica", that is when I pay attention to who and why and that is when I will read the whole story instead of skimming over it.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I only just discovered this thread but to me, it seems backwards. To me, the artistic merit stories are those that do focus on plot and characters while the strokers are the ones that don't pay attention to plot or characters.

When I'm looking for stroking material, I often skim through the story ignoring most of the story until I get to the juicy bits. When I'm looking for stroking material, I couldn't care less about who or why.

However, when I'm looking for "simple erotica", that is when I pay attention to who and why and that is when I will read the whole story instead of skimming over it.

First, all the folks who get angry with me when I assert that there are a lot of folks out there scrolling over your plot, take note.

But really, the poster's confusion over the terminology shows that all this 'simple' and 'pure' erotica is just AG's crusade for pushing personal euphemisms onto stuff that we already have terms for. AG writes stroke and feels the need to rename stroke so that they don't feel like they're looking down on their own work. It's much easier for everyone involved to just call it stroke and not feel ashamed since there is nothing wrong with stroke in the first place.