First stories - Looking for Feedback

[HighFly]

Hi, all. I am a long time reader but new writer. Two stories are posted now, Fast Beginning is in the Erotic Couplings area http://www.literotica.com/s/fast-beginning and Catherine and Charles (and Nick!) is in the Group Sex category http://www.literotica.com/s/catherine-and-charles-and-nick

Currently, I am beginning work on a third. My hope is that they eventually become a series showing the growth in the relationship between Catherine and Charles. The second story might actually become something close to Chapter 10 in that series, but I couldn't resist the urge to jump ahead.

Your thoughts and suggestions would be very helpful as I try to improve my skills and better connect with the readers.

Thank you.

 

[HighFly]

Voting and Comments

I have read with interest some of the recent posts on 'voting', and have learned from the suggestions there. Unfortunately, for my two stories, there have only been a handful of comments. They have been encouraging, but not critically helpful. Is there another way to solicit writing feedback?

Thank you.

HF

 

[CWatson]

Well, here's an uncomfortable truth: I started reading "Fast Beginning" and... got bored and gave up.

The good news is, you're keeping your technicals in place. You know how to construct sentences correctly, and that puts you above at least 50% of the peole who wander through here. (You have no idea how often I have to explain to people how to punctuate correctly. Well, maybe you do, if you've looked around this board.) But what's getting me is the lack of characterization. Right now Catherine and Charles are just names; there's no emotion behind them. You need to make me care about them as people. I mean, who cares if two strangers are fucking?--that's happening right this very instant, somewhere in this wide world, and it doesn't bother me. (I kinda envy them, but it has been three months, and that's my own problem anyhow.) Anyhow, that's your problem: Charles and Catherine are strangers to me. If they get it on, I'm happy for them, but I don't care much; I'm not emotionally invested.

So: some of the stuff you saved for their first meeting?, where you finally start talking about who they are as people? That needs to go after their first e-mail instead, or even preferably before it. And if not, you can spend some time in Catherine's mind: talk about her fantasies, talk about her dreary actual marriage, talk about her desperation. Make her more than mannequin upon which hangs a name and a set of clothes. Same with Charles, if you want to switch to his POV, but if you don't that's fine. But get me under Catherine's skin. The heart of a character is never their physicality; the heart of a character is their heart.

Hope some of this helps. =)

 

[HighFly]

Thank you.

Well, here's an uncomfortable truth: I started reading "Fast Beginning" and... got bored and gave up.

The good news is, you're keeping your technicals in place. You know how to construct sentences correctly, and that puts you above at least 50% of the peole who wander through here. (You have no idea how often I have to explain to people how to punctuate correctly. Well, maybe you do, if you've looked around this board.) But what's getting me is the lack of characterization. Right now Catherine and Charles are just names; there's no emotion behind them. You need to make me care about them as people. I mean, who cares if two strangers are fucking?--that's happening right this very instant, somewhere in this wide world, and it doesn't bother me. (I kinda envy them, but it has been three months, and that's my own problem anyhow.) Anyhow, that's your problem: Charles and Catherine are strangers to me. If they get it on, I'm happy for them, but I don't care much; I'm not emotionally invested.

So: some of the stuff you saved for their first meeting?, where you finally start talking about who they are as people? That needs to go after their first e-mail instead, or even preferably before it. And if not, you can spend some time in Catherine's mind: talk about her fantasies, talk about her dreary actual marriage, talk about her desperation. Make her more than mannequin upon which hangs a name and a set of clothes. Same with Charles, if you want to switch to his POV, but if you don't that's fine. But get me under Catherine's skin. The heart of a character is never their physicality; the heart of a character is their heart.

Hope some of this helps. =)

I'm very grateful for your suggestions. I'll have to give some thought to the question of whether to revise the first story before proceeding with the second, or to save that edit for the time I try to draw them together as a series. Thanks, again, for taking the time to look at the stories provide these worthwhile suggestions.

HF

 

[CWatson]

I'll have to give some thought to the question of whether to revise the first story before proceeding with the second, or to save that edit for the time I try to draw them together as a series.

Do it later. Keep writing. I say this from first-hand experience: "editing" is just a shorter way of spelling "procrastination." So don't do either. Just forge ahead. You'll incorporate the lessons you learned and produce a better second story, and nobody will think twice about it.

Remember: there's nothing wrong with "Fast Beginning," particularly by the standards of this site. It is by no means bad. It just could stand to be more good too.

 

[HighFly]

"editing" is just a shorter way of spelling "procrastination."

Thanks for the encouragement. I'll press on.

HF

 

[elfin_odalisque]

HighFly, hi,

I totally agree with CW's comments - especially plow on and don't go back to gestate over earlier efforts.

You write well technically but I think you lack a tad of emotion. What gets us all steamy - stroke or erotica - is when we want the coupling to happen. The 'will they, won't they' puts a tension into the narrative. What you describe is a little too hospital physical. More dialogue, false steps, the uncertainties that first meetings create. For me, others may disagree, after the first mail exchange I would put it all her head. Good stories need a strong POV that can bring all the tension/fears/emotions to a head

 

[HighFly]

Thank You!

For me, others may disagree, after the first mail exchange I would put it all her head. Good stories need a strong POV that can bring all the tension/fears/emotions to a head

Thanks so much for your thoughts. To clarify, are you saying that in this genre all stories should be written in the 'first person'? Or, as CWatson suggested, spending time in both of their heads, somehow, would be worthwhile in this 'third person' protrayal?

HF

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Thanks so much for your thoughts. To clarify, are you saying that in this genre all stories should be written in the 'first person'? Or, as CWatson suggested, spending time in both of their heads, somehow, would be worthwhile in this 'third person' protrayal?

HF

sr would be giggling if he was reading this. I'm not a great fan of new creative writers starting in first person. It's a bit like a driver who's just got her licence jumping into a Ferrari - difficult to handle. First person can be very personal and emotional but often writers fall into the school essay style, 'I went to the cabin, I took my clothes off and then I had sex with my boyfriend'. Doh!

No I meant tell it from the girl's point of view in third person limited. She can tell us how she reads her paramour's reaction. She can build up erotic tension. When you look at IM, email messages in fiction they put the reader out of the loop. Some character has to draw us in with their thoughts/emotions. CW's point is fine. You could just stay in her head or both.

I think we would both argue that you need to be in someone's head to express feeling.

 

[HighFly]

Thanks.

No I meant tell it from the girl's point of view in third person limited. She can tell us how she reads her paramour's reaction. She can build up erotic tension. When you look at IM, email messages in fiction they put the reader out of the loop. Some character has to draw us in with their thoughts/emotions. CW's point is fine. You could just stay in her head or both.

I think we would both argue that you need to be in someone's head to express feeling.

I wanted to make sure I understood. The further thoughts you provide here are also helpful. My second story may be slightly better in this regard than Fast Beginning. I'll make a greater effort to concentrate exploring the characters' mindset and emotional responses in the next.

HF

 

[elfin_odalisque]

The advice is given because you're good. I would hope others would chip in their 2¢ to give you their take.

Get some friends to read your next story and tell you what they think.

 

[sr71plt]

More like groaning. First person isn't any more difficult to write than third person is. Perhaps Elfin could quote a writer who actually writes who will say that first person is more difficult.

 

[PennLady]

I don't write in first person and haven't wanted to. I much prefer third person, and part of the reason -- probably -- is that it gives me a little distance. Also I like being able to go from person to person and share POVs on situations, which you can't do in first person, since everything has to be from the narrator's POV.

Some have also mentioned that first person is more intimate, and I think that's true and perhaps that's why I don't use it.

So in that sense, first person would be more difficult for me.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't write in first person and haven't wanted to. I much prefer third person, and part of the reason -- probably -- is that it gives me a little distance. Also I like being able to go from person to person and share POVs on situations, which you can't do in first person, since everything has to be from the narrator's POV.

Some have also mentioned that first person is more intimate, and I think that's true and perhaps that's why I don't use it.

So in that sense, first person would be more difficult for me.

Sure you can handle multiple perspective in third person. You just sectionalize it. (I might also note that the third person style you mention--third-person omniscient--is only popular in British writing currently. In the U.S. market, third-person specific is preferred if you are writing in third person. Staying in the perspective of one character only in addition to the narrator's observations.)

And choosing not to use first person (which is fine) is different from it being difficult for you to write it. You've commented on why you choose not to do it, not why it's difficult beyond suggesting (which isn't really true) that you can't include different perspectives in third person.

I don't say not to use third person if it suits you; I argue against the inanity that it's either more difficult to do than third person or less appropriate for erotica than third person. (By your own statement, it would seem to be MORE appropriate. Erotica is about coming together, not maintaining distance. It's those who have trouble with intimacy who need distance.)

As from childhood we move from the I to the you/they, it's pretty much a scientific reality that first person should be easier for a new writer to write than third person.

Methinks some folks are thinking too hard about this.

 

[PennLady]

I don't think first person is inherently harder to write than third person or even second. I'm just saying I find first person difficult for personal reasons. It could be argued that first person is more appropriate not just for erotica, but for any work where the writer wants to achieve a certain level of intimacy. I think it could be argued that 3d person gives a different kind of intimacy but I'd say it's more of a voyeuristic thing.

I think I'm more of the third person specific, at least scene by scene. I occasionally do switch POVs during a scene, but usually between only two characters, and I admit it's something I've picked up from reading other authors, including (and especially) Nora Roberts. I do try to keep each scene to one character's POV. I wasn't as knowledgeable or careful about that when I started, but I pay more attention to it now.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't think first person is inherently harder to write than third person or even second.

Thank you. That was the primary point. It seems to crop up every month or so.

(I think second person is very hard to write, though--and certainly to maintain. Mainly because very few understand what second persons is. They seem to think they are in second person anytime they use "you." But they aren't. The whole perspective has to be "you.")

 

[elfin_odalisque]

As from childhood we move from the I to the you/they, it's pretty much a scientific reality that first person should be easier for a new writer to write than third person.

Isn't this a logical fallacy. We progress from first person to third so why should first person suddenly become 'easier' if we've matured away from it?

I don't think first person is inherently harder to write than third person or even second.

Thank you. That was the primary point. It seems to crop up every month or so.

(I think second person is very hard to write, though--and certainly to maintain. Mainly because very few understand what second persons is. They seem to think they are in second person anytime they use "you." But they aren't. The whole perspective has to be "you.")

sr, as always you fight a different battle. The key word in PennLady's post was 'inherently' and I agree. 1st and 3rd limited/specific POV should be equally 'difficult/easy' and 1st can be more emotional.

My view is that for those who haven't done some research/study on creative writing they should, in their earlier efforts, avoid the elephant traps that exist in first person for neophytes. Briefly;

- first person is the narrator but not the writer. The often found relapse into talking directly to the reader works well in OpEd pieces but is a killer in fiction.

- a bit like the problem of personal pronouns in same sex or group sex stories, is the difficulty of getting away from the 'I' construct.

"X walked across. She took Y in her arms." works for me much better than, "I walked across. I took Y in my arms." This brings the pressure for more complex sentence construction to avoid reverting to junior school writing.

- new writers sometimes think that 1st person means they are writing a true-life or autobiographical piece. "First, let me tell you about myself." Ugh.

Live and let live, sure. I haven't got a vendetta against 1st person, just a 101 view that the obvious discipline of 3rd person is a way to learn the ropes and probably get better reactions for your early stories. Something about not running before you can walk, perhaps.

 

[sr71plt]

Bullshit, Elfin.

Those reading this thread should be aware that Elfin only has four pieces of fiction posted to Lit., the latest written six years ago. Her last posting--five years ago--was an essay on bra sizes. There's no evidence there or in what she writes here that she knows squat about writing perspective in erotica.

And she certainly could have fooled me about not have vendettas (read into some of her other posts in the last couple of years).

Fact is that first and third person are equally easy to write--which you choose is which seems to flow the particular story for you better. Second person is hard to maintain--and much harder for the reader to read.

Do some research into a poster's demonstrated expertise before walking down a garden path with what they claim to know.

 

[HighFly]

Thank you, one and all.

This has been a fascinating discussion, reminding me of the holes in my memory from the classroom and encouraging me to think more carefully about the structure as I plan a new story. While I don't know the origin or destination of the drama here, and don't care to interfere, I simply would like to express my gratitude for those who have taken the time to look at my early work. Your comments and suggestions are deeply appreciated.

HF

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Bullshit, Elfin.

Those reading this thread should be aware that Elfin only has four pieces of fiction posted to Lit., the latest written six years ago. Her last posting--five years ago--was an essay on bra sizes. There's no evidence there or in what she writes here that she knows squat about writing perspective in erotica.

And she certainly could have fooled me about not have vendettas (read into some of her other posts in the last couple of years).

Fact is that first and third person are equally easy to write--which you choose is which seems to flow the particular story for you better. Second person is hard to maintain--and much harder for the reader to read.

Do some research into a poster's demonstrated expertise before walking down a garden path with what they claim to know.

Your erudition and self-importance seem to make you immune to both the difficulties of starting to write fiction and the modesty to accept that others have valid points.

As always, you don't try to answer my points but just launch a scouries style ad hominem attack.

Just explain candidly why my reservations are misplaced.

 

[sr71plt]

Your erudition and self-importance seem to make you immune to both the difficulties of starting to write fiction and the modesty to accept that others have valid points.

As always, you don't try to answer my points but just launch a scouries style ad hominem attack.

Just explain candidly why my reservations are misplaced.

Because you utter complete nonsense. You merely stated undemonstrated, unsupported assertions. Why should I have to answer such assertions beyond pointing out that they are nonsense?

In first person, the narrator is as much the writer as the narrator is in third person (more so in perspective and in emotional investment, actually).

The I construction is no more difficult or troublesome than the he/she construction.

What new writers do when they go into the "let me tell you about me" mode has nothing to do with writing in first person rather than third person. If they are going to fall into this trap, they'll do it in whatever person they are writing in.

You don't demonstrate that you are a fiction writer either in what you make available for scrutiny or in some of the truly idiotic fiction "rules" and "best practices" that you come up with.

The major "elephant trap" that new writers should avoid here are your ideas of how they should write.

Stop telling and start showing--because much of your telling is a bunch of hooey--which you will find out when you actually start writing regularly. If you have more trouble writing in first person than third, that's your lack of writing talent/training, not ipso facto everyone else's too.

You're not being the least bit helpful to developing writers in spouting such off-the-wall personal quirks such as this one about 1st and 3rd person. One is neither easier nor more acceptable to write over the other. A writer should use whichever one comes the most natural for him/her in that story. I write in both.

 

[favoritesgoddess]

I find first and third person equally easy to write. Which one I use depends entirely on the story. Third does have a voyeuristic quality to it, I think. And sometimes a story needs the intimacy of first person. I've done second a couple of times, but they were very directed pieces and wouldn't have worked any other way.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

sr, do calm down. It is much more enjoyable debating with you when you are being coolly logical.

For a long time mainstream publishers have been very reluctant to accept 1st person novels, though that does seem to be slowly changing. Even accepting the 'more emotional' point why does Harlequin insist on 3rd person?

Deliberately or otherwise, you miss the point about narration. The POV that is selected becomes the narrative voice for the story. Like a film director, the author must sit unseen behind the camera. That is one mistake newbies to fiction often make when starting with 1st person.

The author talking to the reader as an aside loses the narrative voice and is a good reason to click back. Using a form of dialogue can be brilliant. Narrating first person is neither as easy as some have said or often conducive to high regard on Lit.

Salinger started 'Catcher in the Rye' with,

"If you really want to hear about it, the first thing you'll probably want to know is where I was born, and what my lousy childhood was like . . . and all that David Copperfield kind of crap, but I don't feel like going into it, if you want to know the truth."

We only find out later that the narrator is institutionalized and the whole story is flashback. Is that a sensible start for a neophyte?

In the film, 'The Red Violin' 1st person was effectively used for 5 1st person POVs. I saw it but I think I was in a minority.

The argument that using 3rd person POV makes writers just as likely to 'address the readers' is banal. The discipline protects against that.

Patricia Cornwell switched from 1st person to 3rd with her Scarpetta novels because she found it increasingly restrictive. Dr Watson is an amanuensis not Conan Doyle in recounting Sherlock Holmes.

I will insist, despite disparagement, that new fiction writers should see a sign, 'There be dragons out there', when wanting to pop their Lit cherry with a 1st person story.

sr, I think perhaps your expertise blinds you to the problems of newcomers. You brilliantly took us all 'supposed' experts to the cleaners over 2nd person POV. Why can't you accept that there is a learning curve in creative writing?

 

[Darkniciad]

The major trap new writers fall into writing in 1st person is writing it in present tense. I think that's more the problem than the perspective.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

The major trap new writers fall into writing in 1st person is writing it in present tense. I think that's more the problem than the perspective.

You have a good point.