Wish fulfillment?

[lustychimera]

With erotica, when you guys are writing a main character, do you make them the everyman, as in someone who the reader can interject themselves into to experience the eroticism vicariously, or do you write the main character as someone with a distinct voice and characteristics who the reader isn't necessarily meant to insert themselves into but finds engaging enough to watch from afar?

 

[EmilyMiller]

I try to give my MCs a voice, not to just be someone the reader can project on to.

Emily

 

[StillStunned]

It depends on the story, and what I'm trying to achieve. In my series My Little Sister Sal, the narrator is largely a blank, and the same with my series Flesh for Fantasy: they're mostly about the female characters, who are the driving force.

On the other hand, Fairytale of New York, The Walled Garden and The Code are more character studies. The main characters require some depth to make the story more than a stroker.

 

[KeithD]

My characters are their own, unique selves. I'm not giving any thoughts to the "needs" of the reader when I bring my characters onto the scene.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

All of my characters are distinct. They are never meant for reader-insertion. If I want insertion I will probably just write second person. However, any good (main) character will be relatable in some way so that the reader can hopefully connect to them and share their emotions.

Yes, one can write a character who is meant to be a mere vessel for reader-insertion, but it usually makes that character very bland. Very very few writers can pull it off. Most who do write an insertion vessel do it as a cop out, an excuse not to have to flesh out the character (lazy), or they just assume that all the readers see the world/story/fantasy exactly like they do and don't bother.

 

[samhasstories]

I don't set out with the plan to make my main character an empty vessel or an 'everyman' for any particular audience experience. But a function of what turns me on is that it's the other characters, the women, that interest me. They drive the action. The result is that I think the main male character often probably does come through as relatively voiceless. I don't think he's completely devoid of character or personality, but I don't spend a ton of time delving into his psyche. So I suppose a reader could insert themselves into his role and live vicariously through him, if they felt so inclined.

 

[lustychimera]

The main characters require some depth to make the story more than a stroker.

That's a good point. I wonder if the reverse is true, though. Like if a quick stroker works best the less voice you give the main character.

 

[Paul_Chance]

For me, it depends on the story (and often the POV). Sometimes the story calls for a character who is very amorphous, which allows the reader to inhabit the character. Other times the character is very distinct and the reader is one-step-removed, along as an observer and emotional participant.

 

[THBGato]

With erotica, when you guys are writing a main character, do you make them the everyman, as in someone who the reader can interject themselves into to experience the eroticism vicariously, or do you write the main character as someone with a distinct voice and characteristics who the reader isn't necessarily meant to insert themselves into but finds engaging enough to watch from afar?

Definitely the latter, though until you'd posted this I had never really thought about it. I guess I just did it automatically.

 

[SyleusSnow]

However, any good (main) character will be relatable in some way so that the reader can hopefully connect to them and share their emotions.

Well put. I don't set out to make my main characters an everyperson, but for readers to engage with the story, characters have to be relatable in some way.

 

[lustychimera]

All of my characters are distinct. They are never meant for reader-insertion. If I want insertion I will probably just write second person. However, any good (main) character will be relatable in some way so that the reader can hopefully connect to them and share their emotions.

Yes, one can write a character who is meant to be a mere vessel for reader-insertion, but it usually makes that character very bland. Very very few writers can pull it off. Most who do write an insertion vessel do it as a cop out, an excuse not to have to flesh out the character (lazy), or they just assume that all the readers see the world/story/fantasy exactly like they do and don't bother.

It's a bit of topic, but a while back, I saw a review of Inside Lewin Davis, and they made the point that the Cohen brothers purposefully made the main character bland to ground all the wacky side characters, so they could really shine.

Its filmmaking, but that little tidbit really stuck with me. I always liked writing absurd irreverant stories, and I had a real tendency to make every character super unique, which always made the whole thing go of the rails.

I don't think that necessarily translates into that character being a self insert, but it is a case for how a bland MC can work in a story, which would apply if someone did want to write a self insert.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

It's a bit of topic, but a while back, I saw a review of Inside Lewin Davis, and they made the point that the Cohen brothers purposefully made the main character bland to ground all the wacky side characters, so they could really shine.

That's a different technique, but also something that requires skill and something that we will never ever see in a stroke story. It also requires a more ensemble cast.

A similar thing, in the TV series Arrested Development, Jason Bateman is the main character and is the only sane person in the family and acts as the grounding point for the insanity by providing that sane point of view.

Even in Seinfeld, Jerry (not always but in many episodes, or at least side plots) ends up as the 'straight man' to George's or Kramer's or Newman's or George's parents' crazy antics, and as the main character he gives us that grounded focal point. The irony of it all is that the comedian ends up being the straight man.

But we don't see this high level stuff on lit.

 

[StillStunned]

It's a bit of topic, but a while back, I saw a review of Inside Lewin Davis, and they made the point that the Cohen brothers purposefully made the main character bland to ground all the wacky side characters, so they could really shine.

That was something of a staple of 1970s and 1980s sitcoms. They'd have a setting, and the main character was bland, but the rest of the cast were quirky and weird. And then they'd have to force some form of personality on the main character to give them a reason to be in the show.

 

[intim8]

for readers to engage with the story, characters have to be relatable in some way.

Yes, and specifically not in every way.

It's like horoscopes, you can find certain things that are universal without making them bland. For instance, everybody occasionally worries about losing their job. If your character does, readers can relate to him. If you're character's job is really unusual in some way, readers can still relate to him throught the basic concept of worrying about losing a job.

I don't think there is as much of a dichotomy here as OP thinks.

 

[RetroFan]

In a way, whenever we write and publish a story on this website we are creating an act of wish fulfilment for the readers whom we are writing the story for.

For example, I often write erotic stories about tall girls. There are readers on the site who love tall girls, so by writing and posting these erotic stories about women who are taller than average I am fulfilling their wishes.

 

[Bazzle]

I try to have some realism in my mad stories, something relatable.

 

[RetroFan]

I try to have some realism in my mad stories, something relatable.

That's something essential from my perspective. For example in one of my stories 'The Pervert Ghost' the 18-year-old male narrator is hit by lightning and killed during a thunderstorm, becoming an invisible ghost nobody can see, hear or sense. He spends his time roaming the streets of Adelaide, South Australia where the story is set, spying on attractive young women who are having sex or in other private situations such as undressing, showering, using the toilet etc.

The story is of course Grade A wish fulfilment for voyeurs - not the getting struck by lightning part obviously - but the notion of being able to do whatever you want, go wherever you want and see whatever you want with no danger of being caught and facing consequences for your actions. However, the voyeurism does not happen straight away. Initially the young narrator does not realize he is dead, and when he does he goes through denial, anger, bargaining and wishes he was still alive. He is upset seeing the effect of his death upon his family, friends and colleagues; and wishes to 'cross over', trying in vain to meet other ghosts stuck between the worlds of the living and the dead to seek advice. When this doesn't happen he becomes bored, and spends his time in cinemas, going to tourist attractions and watching soap operas with elderly residents at a nursing home. He doesn't do anything wrong until the day of his 19th birthday when he is feeling downcast at dying so young that he sees three attractive young women in a department store heading for the change room to try on clothes, realizes what he can do and from there the voyeurism picks up.

It was important to me that there was some realism to the young man's reaction to dying at such a young age in such freak circumstances. If he had immediately upon dying said, "Oh good, I'm dead and an invisible ghost, I'll go and spy on attractive young women in their most private moments' despite this story being a fantasy I would have lost my audience immediately due to the unrealistic reaction of the narrator to a serious situation.

 

[Dark_Logan_]

My characters are ‘Bipedal Cancerous Tumours’ according to one recent anonymous reader/commenter

I couldn’t be happier with that description (obviously meant as an insult). It is single handedly the best comment I’ve ever received in feedback. Especially as that’s the persona I often set out to achieve with many of my protagonists

Every reader will interpret a character differently from the next man/woman. As someone far wiser than myself once said…

“What you see is not what others see. We inhabit parallel worlds of perception, bounded by our interests and experience. What is obvious to some is invisible to others.”

 

[ElectricBlue]

My readers say it better than I can:

@DeLaFaye about 1 year ago
Props be damned, I could use a cigarette after that. (And I haven't smoked since college!)

I love these two. They feel so desperately human. I'm very jealous of them. I can't wait to explore more of their sumptuous relationship. Although I will, because your stories have a lovely way of filling the mind for a good long while.

@thewinedarksea about 1 year ago
A little bit of magic in this one. You have the gift. I read your stories and everything is there, real-life, breathing. Great work as always.

 

[HeyAll]

My all time favorite quote on writing is from Hemmingway: "The only thing worth writing about is the conflict in the heart."

I saw that quote on twitter and think about it often. When I'm working on a story, and it's not that good, i think about that quote.

So i think the character doesn't matter, if it's relatable or not. I like making diverse characters. Gives people something new. But what makes it more interesting is if the character struggles.