Modern vs Period

[JrCross]

Was wondering what everyones thoughts were on period vs modern erotica? Not talking when it was written but when the story takes place. A Lot of "period erotica" isnt truly erotica but more dirty romance. Generally I prefer the modern stuff but read a great piece today about a fifteen year old very innocent bride on her wedding night during the 1800's. The girl was totally clueless and completely taken advantage of but made for a great read. Thoughts?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Absurd.

Girls in the 19th Century were quite familiar with sex, from observing it in the home and on their farms.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Was wondering what everyones thoughts were on period vs modern erotica? Not talking when it was written but when the story takes place. A Lot of "period erotica" isnt truly erotica but more dirty romance. Generally I prefer the modern stuff but read a great piece today about a fifteen year old very innocent bride on her wedding night during the 1800's. The girl was totally clueless and completely taken advantage of but made for a great read. Thoughts?

Was that on Literotica? I'd be surprised if a story with a fifteen-year-old got through moderation here.

Well-written period stories can be great, but a lot of them feel like the author did all their research at a renn faire.

 

[JaxRhapsody]

Not a fan of period anything. Unless it is done modernly like that Romeo & Juliet that DiCaprio was in. Generalky if it's before the automobile, I dont care.

 

[SecondCircle]

I like period stories (though I have yet to read an erotic period story that did much for me), but I guess period stories can be a bit more difficult to pull off, or appeal to this reader.

When you write a modern story, everyone is familiar with here and now, so it's easier to immerse a reader into the world. Any sights or sounds or events seem recognizable and plausible. We accept them almost instantly (in most cases).

In a period tale, it has to fit perfectly. Everything from customs or culture, clothing, the way people talked, how everyday life was... all has to be not only incredibly accurate, but like any modern story be a set for an interesting story.

For me, personally, when I read a story, I want to be pulled into the world or setting. I wanna feel what the characters feel, see what they see... immersion I guess. So no matter what the period, everything has to feel alive, real, and plausible. Suspension of disbelief and all that fun shit.

Then add erotic elements to that and it gets increasingly difficult. You can't often crop out modern sex scenes and drop them in the middle of the period you're writing. People may have acted differently when approaching sex. Don't get me wrong, people still knew how to throw down (I'd be interested to read an erotic tale from the Italian Renaissance when the Borgia family were in power) but the sex in a period story has to feel natural. I don't wanna read about a redcoat and a native american where he says "Suck my cock baby" and she replies "Cum all over my face you stud!"

The sex has to feel natural to the story and the period you put it in. Often times people fail at this. But the many times it's been done right yields the same "hawtness" and sometimes can be even more rewarding. Sex is a universal language, throughout time, and sometimes it can be shocking and intriguing to see some of the customs involving the knocking of boots.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I like period stories (though I have yet to read an erotic period story that did much for me), but I guess period stories can be a bit more difficult to pull off, or appeal to this reader.

When you write a modern story, everyone is familiar with here and now, so it's easier to immerse a reader into the world. Any sights or sounds or events seem recognizable and plausible. We accept them almost instantly (in most cases).

In a period tale, it has to fit perfectly. Everything from customs or culture, clothing, the way people talked, how everyday life was... all has to be not only incredibly accurate, but like any modern story be a set for an interesting story.

For me, personally, when I read a story, I want to be pulled into the world or setting. I wanna feel what the characters feel, see what they see... immersion I guess. So no matter what the period, everything has to feel alive, real, and plausible. Suspension of disbelief and all that fun shit.

Then add erotic elements to that and it gets increasingly difficult. You can't often crop out modern sex scenes and drop them in the middle of the period you're writing. People may have acted differently when approaching sex. Don't get me wrong, people still knew how to throw down (I'd be interested to read an erotic tale from the Italian Renaissance when the Borgia family were in power) but the sex in a period story has to feel natural. I don't wanna read about a redcoat and a native american where he says "Suck my cock baby" and she replies "Cum all over my face you stud!"

The sex has to feel natural to the story and the period you put it in. Often times people fail at this. But the many times it's been done right yields the same "hawtness" and sometimes can be even more rewarding. Sex is a universal language, throughout time, and sometimes it can be shocking and intriguing to see some of the customs involving the knocking of boots.

I write them.

One on the drawing board culminates is a gunfight when the husband returns to town and discovers his wife is pregnant by his nephew.

Another tale involves a mulatto daughter who travels to Tallahassee to collect her share of her white fathers estate. She then marries a black farmer, and is raped murdered by a Yankee transplant.

Both stories are set in the 1870s. Both are real tales from my family records.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

I can't read anything erotic that takes place before my own adolescence. I see that it takes place in the 80s or earlier and I zone out and hit the back button.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Depends on the period. I was very into Age of Sail for a bit-- I had a lot of fun learning the technical details of wooden ships, and the dialects and slang that went along with them.

Modern age birth control, civil rights, sex toys and really good lube make storytelling a little easier for me.

And then there are all the possibilities of a future dystopia.

 

[sr71plt]

Presume you didn't read that story on Lit., OP. I like and write stories of all periods and locations.

 

[Hypoxia]

Not a fan of period anything. Unless it is done modernly like that Romeo & Juliet that DiCaprio was in. Generalky if it's before the automobile, I dont care.

I can't read anything erotic that takes place before my own adolescence. I see that it takes place in the 80s or earlier and I zone out and hit the back button.

When does modernity begin? Most of my pieces are set pre-2000. I'm sketching out some now that will be pre-1900, mostly historical, but some steampunk, and maybe even a time-travel bit. So I guess that JaxRhapsody and TheeGoatPig will just skip over those. Sorry, I won't pander. But I have my own prejudices. When I see a story where all the characters are un-named, referred to only by pronouns, I skip right over. The lesson: authors' and readers' preferences don't always match. Tsk.

 

[oggbashan]

I have written several set in historical periods.

My two entries in the Winter Holiday Contest are set in past eras - Cleaner Christmas in the 1960s (but comments have noticed that I included a DVD which will be edited out after the contest) and Christmas Truce set in the early 1920s.

Jeanne D'Artois' Laundry Tales are set in a variety of historical periods.

I try to keep everything correct for the period. The DVD was an error! But Shakespeare introduced a striking clock in his play Julius Caesar.

 

[oggbashan]

When I write stories set in the 1960s, I sometimes get PCs and feedback that states 'the 1960s weren't like that'.

Maybe not for you, but I was in London and part of the scene in Soho and Chelsea then, when London was 'Swinging'. I met many of the people who were part of the pop music and fashion industries at the time. With a group of friends we even hired The Yardbirds including Eric Clapton to play for a private party. We had considered The Rolling Stones and The Beatles but their diaries were too full at the time we wanted them (and they were more expensive!).

What someone else experienced of the 1960s in Scunthorpe, or Boston, Mass, or small town Middle America would be very different.

 

[49greg]

Well written erotica, like general fiction, is good no matter what era the story takes place in. But it's harder to do it right in past times. Too often I've read a story set in the past and the writer just transplanted modern life-styles, opinions and society into another era and it doesn't work.

I've tried to do erotica in a historical setting and have never been satisfied with it. There's a lot of research to be done to make it true to the time period. Of course one could do an alternate universe thing were someone from now gets tossed back to an alternate universe that looks like our past, but is different LOL. Like in the movie "Army of Darkness" where Bruce Campbell gets sent back to an alternate past. That could easily have been made into a porno.

 

[A_Little_Show]

[deleted]

 

[AzUp4fun]

Not a fan of period anything. Unless it is done modernly like Romeo & Juliet that DiCaprio was in. Generaly if it's before the automobile, I dont care.

I'm 180 degrees on that point. I prefer productions staged and costume to the period they were writen to represent. Particularly it comes to Shakespeare. I fully understand the ecconomic desire to appeal to a wider audience but it is very disjointed to watch something so set.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I'm 180 degrees on that point. I prefer productions staged and costume to the period they were writen to represent. Particularly it comes to Shakespeare.

A few years back I saw Ian McKellen's "Richard III", which sets the story in alternate-history 1930s England - about 450 years later than the real-life Richard III. That seems like quite a shift.

But then... Shakespeare's "Macbeth" was written around 1606 and the early performances would have been mostly in contemporary clothing, often the actors' street clothes. Since the real King Macbeth died in 1057, that puts it about 550 years out of date when first performed. "Hamlet" is based on a legend that was in circulation around 400 years before Shakespeare's time; many other plays are set more than a thousand years in Shakespeare's past.

So there's nothing new in the idea of modernised productions ;-)

I do get bored by modernisations that amount to "hey I bet nobody has ever thought of making Julius Caesar a business executive as a commentary on how people are still ambitious and treacherous today". But I like the ones that put some creativity into the process.

 

[oggbashan]

I recently saw Othello staged as if it was in a modern Army camp in Iraq after the fighting had ended.

At first it jarred, but the production worked because it produced the enclosed and heated atmosphere of a group of bored soldiers with nothing to do. Iago's manipulation of Othello worked better because Othello trusted him with his life, as he would have done on a battlefield.

Then I saw Hamlet, staged in a 20th Century East-Bloc Tyrant's court, with men in black everywhere, talking into hand held radios. Everything was watched, recorded, and reported. When the Queen instructed that Ophelia was to be looked after, the implication was clear - Ophelia was bundled out of the room by the Men in Black.

When the report of Ophelia's death was given, the circumstantial detail was suspicious. If so much had been seen, why hadn't anyone pulled her from the stream? It was acted as if this 'was the story for public consumption' and Ophelia's death was another crime committed by the King.

Both productions worked because the premise of a modern setting enhanced the play as presented.

By contrast, I saw the Manchester Festival production of Macbeth with Kenneth Branagh. That was set in Macbeth's time, in traditional Scottish costume, with dirt and blood. The witches and Banquo's ghost were very effectively portrayed as something unnatural and unnerving. The only quibble was that the Scots were wearing tartan - not appropriate for that era.

 

[Bramblethorn]

By contrast, I saw the Manchester Festival production of Macbeth with Kenneth Branagh. That was set in Macbeth's time, in traditional Scottish costume, with dirt and blood. The witches and Banquo's ghost were very effectively portrayed as something unnatural and unnerving. The only quibble was that the Scots were wearing tartan - not appropriate for that era.

I saw a very odd version of Macbeth: modern-day setting, Duncan as owner of a restaurant that's just been awarded its third Michelin star. The three witches were garbage men who show up on the back of a garbage truck, deliver prophecies, and then the truck roars off again.

The Birnam Wood prophecy became "Pigs will fly before Macbeth comes to harm". I thought that would've been a great opportunity for a twist involving a police helicopter, but sadly they chose something more mundane.

Not sure it really worked, but it was memorable.

 

[3113]

"True" erotica? Got a definition of that?

A Lot of "period erotica" isnt truly erotica but more dirty romance.

Ditto with a lot of modern "erotica." Setting—be it time period and/or place—doesn't decide if the piece will be whatever you think is "true erotica" (exactly what does that mean? And why the dirty romance not true erotica? What is dirty romance? ).

What I'll say about period is that I, myself, get annoyed by period stories of *any* sort that are just modern people dressed up in costume romping in front of a period background. i.e. they talk and act like moderns and if you replaced their pen and ink messages with a texting on a cellphone you'd get the same story. So why bother setting it in 1823? My thought is that if you're going to write a period story, you should do the research, be somewhat accurate, and make it important for the story to take place then and there.

But I'm in the minority both as a writer and a reader. TV shows like "Reign" seem to indicate that pretty "modern" young men and women having sex, drama and romance in fantasy-history clothes and settings (i.e. riding horses and such) are what most folk want. And that goes for all sorts of stories, be they erotica or adventure. People want to read a fantasy, not a history lesson.

But I guess this is nothing new. Myth is usually more fun, more easy to connect to and far more neat and tidy than reality, however fascinating the reality.

 

[Darkniciad]

Whenever I write something period, it's idealized. I do the research, but I don't kill myself doing it.

The average reader on Lit is fine with the idealized version. So long as you don't go too far afield with dialogue or set pieces that are out of sync, you can maintain the illusion.

Reality in most time periods you might choose isn't exactly conductive to an erotic story, if you think about it. There's no deodorant. Bathing frequency is sketchy at best. Women's feelings and their pleasure weren't exactly high priorities in a lot of settings. There's a lot of things forcing you toward the "Hollywood" version when you think about it.

One of my favorite comments on "Finding Karen" was that it made the reader think of a naughty episode of "Little House on the Prairie", which was exactly the inspiration I drew on for the setting. That really tickled me.

It's pure Hollywood, but for the purposes of Lit, it works just fine.

Another one was on Ch. 10 of Laresa. Someone commented on the phrase "good dogs, with good feet" and how it really cemented the character. It was a line from an interview with Iditarod musher from the time period that I built my character around.

I like writing them, and they generate a lot of feedback above the average for me.

 

[Bramblethorn]

What I'll say about period is that I, myself, get annoyed by period stories of *any* sort that are just modern people dressed up in costume romping in front of a period background. i.e. they talk and act like moderns and if you replaced their pen and ink messages with a texting on a cellphone you'd get the same story. So why bother setting it in 1823?

Irritating variant on this: fic where the author has some idea of how people talked and thought in period, but their heroes have a 21st-century mindset because the author can't see how else to make them sympathetic.

 

[3113]

True that!

Irritating variant on this: fic where the author has some idea of how people talked and thought in period, but their heroes have a 21st-century mindset because the author can't see how else to make them sympathetic.

100% with you on that one! The 18th century revolutionary who happens to also be an abolitionist or for women's rights. Implication being that he's ahead of his time, misunderstood in his own era—but we understand him. He's one of us.

Blah!

It's not only a lazy cheat (what? you haven't the courage or ability or time to write—or read about--a character who thinks different?), but is always inaccurate. However advanced and seemingly ahead of their time, a non-modern person is still non-modern. They can be close in some views to our modern views, but they can't be on target in all aspects.

I think we can go back to Shakespeare here and his ability to be translated into different time periods: this works because his plays revolve around a lot of human commonality no matter when or where. Like young love in Romeo and Juliet. Any time, any place, we understand that first powerful dramatic love one young person can feel for another of either sex. We can also understand the way we root for teams and old grudges, etc.

But Shakespeare's understanding that a Jewish person bleeds and laughs, etc.—an advanced view that they're human which not everyone of his time thought, doesn't stop him from believing that Jewish person naturally a greedy villain. or that said Jewish person must convert to Christianity at the end. In his cultural mindset, there is no freedom of religion. Christianity is the one and only true religion and no one "good" can be of any other religion. Forcing a non-Christian into it is doing them a favor. This was a given in his time period.

However "ahead" of his time Shakespeare was, he was also of his time. But most writers would rather forget that when they create period characters, and readers don't want it either. Lazy, lazy.

 

[oggbashan]

Irritating variant on this: fic where the author has some idea of how people talked and thought in period, but their heroes have a 21st-century mindset because the author can't see how else to make them sympathetic.

That reminds me of the difficulty for writers of stories set in the past:

You have to strike a balance between being authentic for the period, and being understandable for the present. For example Ellis Peters Cadfael stories are set in the 12th Century, and he has the flavour of the beliefs and ideas of that period, but his words and thoughts are intelligible today.

If Ellis Peters had written wholly in period, it would have needed translations not just of language but of belief, thought, action and understanding.

Too much authenticity can kill the story.

 

[49greg]

By contrast, I saw the Manchester Festival production of Macbeth with Kenneth Branagh. That was set in Macbeth's time, in traditional Scottish costume, with dirt and blood. The witches and Banquo's ghost were very effectively portrayed as something unnatural and unnerving. The only quibble was that the Scots were wearing tartan - not appropriate for that era.

Your comment about tartan is interesting, I read an article a while back about how the current patterns, and even the concept that each clan has their own specific pattern all happened some time in the 19th century after the ban on tartan and kilts was lifted. An English woolen mill saw an opportunity and sent salesmen North - the patterns were developed by English mills. And that when a 19th century researcher tried to find 'authentic' pre ban tartan patterns he/she couldn't. Even the kilt as we know it today might be something invented in Victorian times. I don't know how true it all is, but I guess England did a pretty good job of eliminating Scottish culture, then substituting a new one. However the article was in Wiki so a grain of salt may be in order.

 

[oggbashan]

Your comment about tartan is interesting, I read an article a while back about how the current patterns, and even the concept that each clan has their own specific pattern all happened some time in the 19th century after the ban on tartan and kilts was lifted. An English woolen mill saw an opportunity and sent salesmen North - the patterns were developed by English mills. And that when a 19th century researcher tried to find 'authentic' pre ban tartan patterns he/she couldn't. Even the kilt as we know it today might be something invented in Victorian times. I don't know how true it all is, but I guess England did a pretty good job of eliminating Scottish culture, then substituting a new one. However the article was in Wiki so a grain of salt may be in order.

The kilt is generally accepted as pre-1745, for Highlanders. Early tartan patterns were made with organic dyes and were generally dark and dull, which made them good pattern-disruptive clothing. Later brighter colours were introduced and there was more distinction between the various clan tartans.

Sir Walter Scott, and his friends, were responsible for the reintroduction of much Scottish mythology and the revival of tartan. But much of their 'reintroduction' was pure invention on their part. Queen Victoria's love for Scotland made tartan popular in England even if only worn as a tartan petticoat under a crinolined skirt.

Scotland does have a proud and distinguished history as a nation, but it also has some very dubious mythology - as of course, do England, Wales and Ireland.

From Wikipedia:

Until the middle of the nineteenth century, the highland tartans were only associated with either regions or districts, rather than any specific clan. This was because like other materials tartan designs were produced by local weavers for local tastes and would usually only use the natural dyes available in that area, as chemical dye production was non-existent and transportation of other dye materials across long distances was prohibitively expensive.

The patterns were simply different regional checked-cloth patterns, chosen by the wearer's preference – in the same way as people nowadays choose what colours and patterns they like in their clothing, without particular reference to propriety. It was not until the mid-nineteenth century that many patterns were created and artificially associated with Scottish clans, families, or institutions who were (or wished to be seen as) associated in some way with a Scottish heritage. The Victorians' penchant for ordered taxonomy and the new chemical dyes then available meant that the idea of specific patterns of bright colours, or 'dress' tartans could be created and applied to a faux-nostalgic view of Scottish history.