Plausibility?

[LaRascasse]

As a VE, I have had this debate on a few occasions with my writers.

When editing a story, I first weed out the grammatical mishaps and then any serious plot inconsistencies. Then comes the elephant in the room or the dreaded P.

95% of the stories I get are seriously lacking in realism or plausibility. They become strange sexual fantasies where the sequence of events fails to make sense. Real world principles take a flight out the window.

When I point this out, some authors reply with "well it's erotica, so the sex is all that matters" or "it's just fantasy, no need to impose realism". Others, though, improve it based on my suggestions.

So I ask the more experienced editors, readers and writers here- am I putting too much emphasis on "a real story"? Should I limit my editing to the point where I don't try to make rational sense out of it?

 

[lazyhobo]

As a VE, I have had this debate on a few occasions with my writers.

When editing a story, I first weed out the grammatical mishaps and then any serious plot inconsistencies. Then comes the elephant in the room or the dreaded P.

95% of the stories I get are seriously lacking in realism or plausibility. They become strange sexual fantasies where the sequence of events fails to make sense. Real world principles take a flight out the window.

When I point this out, some authors reply with "well it's erotica, so the sex is all that matters" or "it's just fantasy, no need to impose realism". Others, though, improve it based on my suggestions.

So I ask the more experienced editors, readers and writers here- am I putting too much emphasis on "a real story"? Should I limit my editing to the point where I don't try to make rational sense out of it?

I would personally say, Keep it up, if it generally is improving stories, and at least one writer takes it on board, then we have at least one better story.

If one decides not to listen, then you may keep offering suggestions or stop for that writer. Not all authors will appreciate an Editors suggestion, as some do see Editors as "Failed Writers, that are here to correct our spelling and grammer" and thus, are not really enthusiastic about listening.

(Side note - Not saying all authors are like this, the ones I met are more responsive to feedback, But a few are, especially some newer ones. Not meant to offend anyone with this comment)

 

[sr71plt]

It depends on the story, of course, but generally, with erotica, I'll take fantasy over the clinical and literal any day of the week. Erotica is about evoking emotion and arousal, not providing a procedural manual.

It depends on the specific story.

The premier rule of the editor is "first do no harm." It's not your story. It's not your voice. It's not your vision. It's not your message. It's not your walk around the park.

Perhaps you should specify to prospective authors seeking an edit that you only edit realism.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

I also prefer to read stories that have a high degree of plausibility. I prefer to fantasize what is achievable, rather than the incredible. When I write stories, I aim for a level of realism that is believable. Sometimes I miss the mark, but that is what I try to achieve.

That being said, I agree with sr71 re: the role of the editor. The editor's job is to make the story readable. It is the author's job to make the story more or less plausible. Unless the author specifically asks for input from the editor on that issue, it's not the editor's job to make the story more lifelike.

 

[_Lynn_]

It depends on the story, of course, but generally, with erotica, I'll take fantasy over the clinical and literal any day of the week. Erotica is about evoking emotion and arousal, not providing a procedural manual.

It depends on the specific story.

The premier rule of the editor is "first do no harm." It's not your story. It's not your voice. It's not your vision. It's not your message. It's not your walk around the park.

Perhaps you should specify to prospective authors seeking an edit that you only edit realism.

Ditto.

 

[sr71plt]

I also prefer to read stories that have a high degree of plausibility. I prefer to fantasize what is achievable, rather than the incredible. When I write stories, I aim for a level of realism that is believable. Sometimes I miss the mark, but that is what I try to achieve.

That being said, I agree with sr71 re: the role of the editor. The editor's job is to make the story readable. It is the author's job to make the story more or less plausible. Unless the author specifically asks for input from the editor on that issue, it's not the editor's job to make the story more lifelike.

I think the need for clinical plausibility depends on the specific story. If it's clearly a reality-based story on all other points of sex and the author has the spines of the two rubbing together and they also are in full-penetration coitus, yeah, I'll point out the physical impossibility of this (for the author to decide what, if anything, he/she wants to change). But if an author wants to have his girl be a four-foot-nothing whisp of a woman and his guy to have a three-foot dong the width of a salami (as in a James Bond film that made much to do with the questionable plausibility of this pairing) and the two enjoy having full-penetration sex, that's the author's choice. (And there will be readers who get off on that.) And if the author wants to have them both fire off every fifteen minutes for two hours to exhibit the height of lust and arousal, that's just fine for erotica, I think (as a story editor).

 

[PennLady]

I find that what I want is the story to make sense, whether it's real or plausible or a total fantasy. I don't like it when the author has characters act in inconsistent ways or the situations don't flow in a logical manner. I want the author to follow their own rules, no matter what the rules are.

 

[palisa]

Yep, I agree it really depends on the individual story. But even if the intention is to write a full-bore stroke story, the author has to avoid a jar that would...errr...soften the experience for the reader.

A lot of the stuff here is implausible and that doesn't mean people don't enjoy it. If things get too far out of hand, the ratings and comments will reflect that.

 

[sr71plt]

Yep, I agree it really depends on the individual story. But even if the intention is to write a full-bore stroke story, the author has to avoid a jar that would...errr...soften the experience for the reader.

A lot of the stuff here is implausible and that doesn't mean people don't enjoy it. If things get too far out of hand, the ratings and comments will reflect that.

Sure if you are shallow enough to be writing erotica just for ratings and comments. Some writers write and post it because they personally enjoy writing and posting it--the way they want to write it.

 

[snoopercharmbrights]

... So I ask the more experienced editors, readers and writers here- am I putting too much emphasis on "a real story"? Should I limit my editing to the point where I don't try to make rational sense out of it?

I only do this where literally impossible descriptions have been written, for example: carrying a woman through a locked door with one hand in her knickers and the other caressing a nipple. What I don't do is offer suggested alterations; that is the author's job.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I only do this where literally impossible descriptions have been written, for example: carrying a woman through a locked door with one hand in her knickers and the other caressing a nipple. What I don't do is offer suggested alterations; that is the author's job.

"He picked the lock with his penis, you say?"

My take on it: implausible/impossible story elements need to earn their keep. If I write a realistic story, readers don't have to put much effort into understanding the setting. But if I throw in a wizard, that's a big distraction - every single time that character faces an obstacle, readers are going to be asking themselves "can he just magic it away?" so there needs to be a payoff to make up for that distraction.

Accidentally-implausible stuff is unlikely to have a payoff, so I try to avoid it; it might not matter to most readers, but some will notice and find it jarring.

 

[sr71plt]

This thread, set against a rare response I’ve given to comments on my current posted Lit. story, caused me to give some renewed thought to the fantasy worlds I construct and then write multiple stories in. Perhaps others here can give a little discussion too of the fantasy worlds they create. I agree that such constructed worlds need to be plausible, but, as someone else here notes, I believe they only need to be “real” on the basis of the limits and “rules” they set for themselves. Thus, if the author has created a world where all of the women have three tits, in order to read in that world, a reader needs to accept this as one of the realities of that world—to free their attention to focus on what the author does with that changed “reality.”

In the fantasy world I’ve created for most of my gay male stories (and, no, I don’t just write GM or even just this fantasy world—I’ve written and published several millions of words worth of nonerotic mainstream and m/f, m/m/f, and f/f erotica as well), being actively gay is a norm. And male prostitution is not a sordid, last-ditch safety net from starvation; it’s a shortcutted signal of loving sex and enjoying having the control over men wanting you so badly that they’ll pay to have you. Actively gay life may not be a prevalent form of sexuality in the greater world of the story, but it’s its own microcosm that’s pretty much self-contained in the world of the story. It’s a given that other men in the story are actively gay unless a point is made that they aren’t. It’s also a given (most of the time) that the sexual preference signaling within the fantasy world is clear—that tops readily recognize bottoms and bottoms recognize tops. And, yes, that most of the men are desirable—at least to the tastes of some others—and that most men are hung, know how to fuck, and have unreal stamina.

Much of the story wordage that would have to go into preparing characters for encounters and relationship in a world not constructed on fantasy model can be dispensed with in my GM stories. The stories are either constructed with the characters being inside this world and understanding it or a character entering this world and being (mostly happily) indoctrinated into it. It’s not reality. But it’s a convenient fantasy world in which to write a streamlined/focused story without having to reinvent the wheel each time.

As a reader, your enjoyment and understanding of the stories just isn’t going to complete if you can’t buy into the “realities” of the fantasy world. And, really, is up to you to move on to stories providing worlds you can buy into; it's not the responsibility of the author to ditch his/her fantasy world.

So, what’s at the “reality” base of some of your fantasy worlds?

 

[lance gt]

This thread, set against a rare response I’ve given to comments on my current posted Lit. story, caused me to give some renewed thought to the fantasy worlds I construct and then write multiple stories in. Perhaps others here can give a little discussion too of the fantasy worlds they create. I agree that such constructed worlds need to be plausible, but, as someone else here notes, I believe they only need to be “real” on the basis of the limits and “rules” they set for themselves. Thus, if the author has created a world where all of the women have three tits, in order to read in that world, a reader needs to accept this as one of the realities of that world—to free their attention to focus on what the author does with that changed “reality.”

In the fantasy world I’ve created for most of my gay male stories (and, no, I don’t just write GM or even just this fantasy world—I’ve written and published several millions of words worth of nonerotic mainstream and m/f, m/m/f, and f/f erotica as well), being actively gay is a norm. And male prostitution is not a sordid, last-ditch safety net from starvation; it’s a shortcutted signal of loving sex and enjoying having the control over men wanting you so badly that they’ll pay to have you. Actively gay life may not be a prevalent form of sexuality in the greater world of the story, but it’s its own microcosm that’s pretty much self-contained in the world of the story. It’s a given that other men in the story are actively gay unless a point is made that they aren’t. It’s also a given (most of the time) that the sexual preference signaling within the fantasy world is clear—that tops readily recognize bottoms and bottoms recognize tops. And, yes, that most of the men are desirable—at least to the tastes of some others—and that most men are hung, know how to fuck, and have unreal stamina.

Much of the story wordage that would have to go into preparing characters for encounters and relationship in a world not constructed on fantasy model can be dispensed with in my GM stories. The stories are either constructed with the characters being inside this world and understanding it or a character entering this world and being (mostly happily) indoctrinated into it. It’s not reality. But it’s a convenient fantasy world in which to write a streamlined/focused story without having to reinvent the wheel each time.

As a reader, your enjoyment and understanding of the stories just isn’t going to complete if you can’t buy into the “realities” of the fantasy world. And, really, is up to you to move on to stories providing worlds you can buy into; it's not the responsibility of the author to ditch his/her fantasy world.

So, what’s at the “reality” base of some of your fantasy worlds?

One of these days, you're going to write something in a post that makes sense and people can understand what you're talking about. This makes no sense at all, in whatever it is you'e trying to get across.

 

[sr71plt]

I can happily wait to see what others say about that.

I'm not expecting any high level of intellectual capability from you, lance. lance. lance. (just love the images that name gives me. It fits soooo well into that fantasy world I've just described. )

(And boy you moved fast from slapping that last comment on my latest story and rushing back here to show me how much you care.)

 

[lazyhobo]

One of these days, you're going to write something in a post that makes sense and people can understand what you're talking about. This makes no sense at all, in whatever it is you'e trying to get across.

Cant help but say, I understood what he said, and I actually agree with it.

Bottom line : The world of the story (Fantasy or Reality) Is in itself a fantasy conjured by the author. The authors "world" WILL have rules, like the real world. For example, In the Real world, Gravity makes things fall DOWN. But if the author had set a fantasy Opposite world, gravity would make things fall UP, or there would be no gravity at all.

What he was basically saying is, The world of a story, is what the Authors make it. Readers and Editors should see his rules, and accept them instead of saying "thats not realistic". The author should not have to change his story's world because we dont want anything but "total reality".

I assume thats the point he was making anyway....

 

[sr71plt]

Right. Although the discussion had evolved. I wasn't claiming that the OP was neccesarily calling "unreal" what was a foundational aspect of a created fantasy world. It still pretty much depends on what's going on in the specific story, I think.

 

[lazyhobo]

Right. Although the discussion had evolved. I wasn't claiming that the OP was neccesarily calling "unreal" what was a foundational aspect of a created fantasy world. It still pretty much depends on what's going on in the specific story, I think.

I think that for this topics starters original question.

We cant just say do it or dont do it, this decision is made based on the Story in question, the author and what the author wants out of his story.

I'd say, do it when you think is necessary, even if they dont listen. At the very least, you tried and if they dont, no skin off your bones.

 

[talismania]

There are all kinds of plausibility. Physical plausibility, emotional plausibility, historical plausibility. All of these come into play when creating the world of the story.

Stories set in this world have a default set of rules, those of accepted physics or psychology, etc., unless the writer establishes otherwise. A romance that takes place in contemporary Seattle is expected to have characters and actions consistent with the setting.

Urban fantasy, on the other hand, establishes that werewolves exist, or vampires, and creates alternate history or psychology to fit that world. This world's rules but with a twist. If the story is set in Seattle, the writer is still responsible for making sure the details about Seattle are consistent, but has more leeway with the characters.

Fantasy and science fiction involve even more elaborate world-building. It's important for the writer to establish every aspect of the world. A lot is left to the reader's imagination or interpretation, because to describe every aspect of the world would be encyclopedic and boring. What's vital is that the writer establish the rules that matter to the story. Take Tolkein's world: there are different races, powerful artifacts and beings, some important grudges, and a reason it all matters. His world is so complete people are still moving in and discussing the particulars. Just like folk would talk about Seattle.

I guess I view plausibility as something it falls on the writer to nail into place so the story can make sense. That said, some readers can't or won't wrap their minds around certain contexts. I knew a man once who simply would not, could not accept anything that didn't have both feet firmly planted on this world as he knew it. Star Wars drove him nuts. Couldn't watch Terminator. Forget Buffy or the Simpsons. Loved the Sopranos, though, and The Godfather movies. Point being, there's no such thing as one size fits all when it comes to plausibility.

 

[sr71plt]

I must admit that not having seat belts in the control room in Star Trek did drive me batty. They obviously needed them.

(I'm thinking because of the subsequent sentence that you left a "not" out of this sentence: It's [not?] important for the writer to establish every aspect of the world.)

 

[BONNIEBREA]

As a VE, I have had this debate on a few occasions with my writers.

When editing a story, I first weed out the grammatical mishaps and then any serious plot inconsistencies. Then comes the elephant in the room or the dreaded P.

95% of the stories I get are seriously lacking in realism or plausibility. They become strange sexual fantasies where the sequence of events fails to make sense. Real world principles take a flight out the window.

When I point this out, some authors reply with "well it's erotica, so the sex is all that matters" or "it's just fantasy, no need to impose realism". Others, though, improve it based on my suggestions.

So I ask the more experienced editors, readers and writers here- am I putting too much emphasis on "a real story"? Should I limit my editing to the point where I don't try to make rational sense out of it?

I find that real characters operating in the real world are essential to the premise of my stories, and my readers like that aspect of the stories. I'm sure there are other writers and readers who have the exact opposite preference. So it's really a matter of writing what you like for the reasons you like to write in that way. Readers who like your premise will enjoy your stories and others won't, and there's really nothing to be done about that.

Some writers try to straddle the two worlds. The Lord of the Rings is clearly a fantasy, with many characters that can only exist as fantasy characters. But Tolkein rooted the stories in a world we recognize. The premise is that we are reading human pre-history (the overall idea that elves once occupied Middle Earth, but now they are leaving to return to Valinor and that 'the age of men' has come with the final downfall of Sauron).

But when I read the books years ago I enjoyed the familiarity. Middle Earth is clearly designed to roughly approximate Europe. English-type place and family names in the Shire, and French-type place and family names in Bree to the east. The frozen areas to the north (Scandinavia). Warmer areas to the south suggesting south/central Europe or North Africa. The Moon running in its normal cycle of phases. Constellations we would recognize today ('Menelvagor' clearly being Orion). Plants and trees we can relate to or know. I think that familiarity is a strength of the stories, and draws the reader into them.

 

[lance gt]

Cant help but say, I understood what he said, and I actually agree with it.

Bottom line : The world of the story (Fantasy or Reality) Is in itself a fantasy conjured by the author. The authors "world" WILL have rules, like the real world. For example, In the Real world, Gravity makes things fall DOWN. But if the author had set a fantasy Opposite world, gravity would make things fall UP, or there would be no gravity at all.

What he was basically saying is, The world of a story, is what the Authors make it. Readers and Editors should see his rules, and accept them instead of saying "thats not realistic". The author should not have to change his story's world because we dont want anything but "total reality".

I assume thats the point he was making anyway....

There's that old 'assume' word again. Not as clear as you think it is, if you have to assume. Clarity and brevity are sorely lacking and that's clearly evident.

 

[lance gt]

I can happily wait to see what others say about that.

I'm not expecting any high level of intellectual capability from you, lance. lance. lance. (just love the images that name gives me. It fits soooo well into that fantasy world I've just described. )

(And boy you moved fast from slapping that last comment on my latest story and rushing back here to show me how much you care.)

I don't read GM and if I did, I wouldn't be reading your shit. Where you figure I make comments on your story is beyond me, but you are known for making assumptions and false accusations about people. Have fun writing your fantasy about me, I do hope you find it worthwhile, because in the end, it'll suck like all the rest of the shit you write.

 

[lance gt]

Plausible, is not the same as realitisic. It only has to be believeable that it could happen, whether it's actions or speech. Readers want something that's beyond normal and smacks of fantasy, but it has to be plausible fantasy, unless it's just a thought, then it can be as far-fetched as you want. Sci-fi gives the most leeway in creating a 'plausibile' world of existence, but certain things still apply, to be taken as a realistic world.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't read GM and if I did, I wouldn't be reading your shit.

I agree, you didn't actually read the story you posted a comment to this morning--didn't even try to claim you had.

But you have given slamming critiques of my stories here on the forum (shall I cite some threads? You, in fact, claim to "know" they are shit even in the quote above) So, were you lying about having read them then or are you lying about not having read any of them now? You really have trouble keeping your lies in line, lance. Speaking of plausibility, you seem to have a real problem with that yourself.

You're just being an asshole here--and doing a sterling job of it.

Your little "nobody understands what you posted" worked a real charm, didn't it?

 

[lazyhobo]

There's that old 'assume' word again. Not as clear as you think it is, if you have to assume. Clarity and brevity are sorely lacking and that's clearly evident.

He made a point, he illustrated a point. I am not about to go around saying "THIS IS WHAT HE MEANT" I used the I assume phrase to let him say "Not completely right" or "no your wrong" and if you read the afterpost, I was not. So Since you saw that he accepted what I posted, There was no need to comment on the use of the word assume, since at that point, it was rendered pointless.