Erotica as a legitimate literature genre

[Stella_Omega]

So, you don't believe in the concept of innate talent? (Not being smug. I'm serious -- and about more than just sex.)

Well, all talent is innate, really.
There are certainly some talented people that need less practice to develop than others, but even so- someone has to be around to say "Suck don't blow" at least once...

 

[Recidiva]

Well, all talent is innate, really.
There are certainly some talented people that need less practice to develop than others, but even so- someone has to be around to say "Suck don't blow" at least once...

*takes notes*

 

[impressive]

Well, all talent is innate, really.
There are certainly some talented people that need less practice to develop than others, but even so- someone has to be around to say "Suck don't blow" at least once...

Well, that's assuming that the newb had even heard the term "blow job"

Mal -- yes, reminiscent of another thread. (Nothing new in the AH, eh?)

 

[gauchecritic]

Well, all talent is innate, really.
There are certainly some talented people that need less practice to develop than others, but even so- someone has to be around to say "Suck don't blow" at least once...

See, that's what's confusing me. I thought it was called a 'blow job' for obvious reasons. But then I've only ever been a recipient and the partners seemed to be doing quite well without my interference.

"WHAT ARE YOU DOING? IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A BLOW JOB!"

 

[Aurora Black]

What do you think about the place of erotica in fiction, in general? More and more I'm starting to think, the stories I want to write aren't just random "quick and easy tittilation without substance" - I want to write actual stories, where sex plays an important part in them. And the sex would be arousing, it would make one, well, horny. But it would have real meaning, there would be consequences, the sex would serve a purpose to the story.

So am I just living a pipe-dream?

Welcome to the AH, Kappisto. And no, it's not a pipe dream. I feel exactly the same way.

 

[3113]

But of course!

Erotica as legitimate literature....

D.H. Lawrence comes to mind. And Henry Miller. And, of course, Anais Nin.

And a good many erotic tales and stories from a good many lands around the world where the subject was not banned and, thus, is considered in our minds less legitimate as literature.

Fantasy was like that. In the 19th century it got relegated to children's stories. If you wrote fantasy, people would say, "Oh, that's for kids." And it wasn't taken seriously. Yet a great deal of past literature was fantasy...and as it re-emerged, and writers like Tolkien wrote it seriously, rather than just as a wild tale for kids, it became clear, once again, that it could be literature. Not merely for kids.

Of course, Erotica can be legitimate literature, and certainly, there are a lot of stories here that aren't just wank stories (I like that term, too). I don't think I've written a single story, myself, that was just for strokes. I get too caught up in writing characters, plot, etc. Sometimes, I even have to remind myself..."Oh, yeah, I gotta put in some sex...."

 

[3113]

Well, all talent is innate, really.
There are certainly some talented people that need less practice to develop than others, but even so- someone has to be around to say "Suck don't blow" at least once...

There was someone in Aurora's recent thread about writers with tragic lives who argued quite vehemently that there was NO SUCH THING as talent! It was all just hard work. Which, suggests a button pushed on that topic. And of course, begs the question of what is talent?

It's pretty easy to define yourself to victory on this one. People who succeed worked hard--they didn't have talent. OR, people who succeeded had talent. How can you prove one over the other? On the one hand, Musicians, for example, do work on music, practicing, practicing. On the other hand, there are people who work their asses off, and want it MORE than others, but end up as Salieri rather than Mozart. Their music just does not stand out, or is just not very good. They don't seem to have the "talent" to make it transend.

Personally, I agree that the son of a farmer, who had talent, might have ended up picking up a fiddle, teaching himself, and becoming the best fiddler in the county...but he wouldn't have been Mozart. Talent needs work and the right soil to grow in if it's going to blossom into it's full potential. It needs work.

Talent, in my definition, is that ear which draws the musician to music. The one which, once trained, knows exactly what's needed to make it "perfect" rather than just servicable.

To keep on topic, the one who knows how to make that erotic scene not just erotic, but right for the entire story. You can write a wank story that turns people on, but the trick is writing one that not only turns people on, but goes with the theme, plot, characters you've created. And that takes not only work, but some talent for writing.

IMHO.

 

[Stella_Omega]

*takes notes*

Would you mind moving up to the front, so the teacher can see you better...

3113- Your post is cogent, and about what I would say, too. Talent is a quality of potential, but you have to develop the potential.
My son has an extraordinary visual talent, and his best buddy has an excellent musical talent. I give them both art lessons, and my son can take the instructions and run with them- the other boy works harder and has developed more skill. Even though the other boy's technichal profience is greater, everyone who looks at their output points to my son's work and says "That's a REAl artist"
At the same time, the two of them take guitar lessons together. My son has less talent- and, also, will not work as hard at his practice. You can imagine how brightly his friend shines- talented AND hard working. When you hear him, you know- "That's a REAL musician!"

 

[Recidiva]

Would you mind moving up to the front, so the teacher can see you better...

*blinks and has STEL LA written on her eyelids, hopeful she'll catch her attention by having a grammatically correct break in syllable*

 

[Aurora Black]

*blinks and has STEL LA written on her eyelids, hopeful she'll catch her attention by having a grammatically correct break in syllable*

*chuckles*

 

[S-Des]

There was someone in Aurora's recent thread about writers with tragic lives who argued quite vehemently that there was NO SUCH THING as talent! It was all just hard work. Which, suggests a button pushed on that topic. And of course, begs the question of what is talent?

IMHO.

In the immortal words of a fine author (I believe you know her), poppycock. I teach music for a living and there's an enormous difference between hard work and talent. Steve Vai and Paul Gilbert (two great contemporary guitar players) both became well respected artists in just a few years after picking up their instruments. Even with musical talent running very strongly in my family, after 5 years of 6-8 hours a day practice, I wasn't close to their league. Not enough talent.

Hard work is important, but talent is essential to success.

 

[Stella_Omega]

*blinks and has STEL LA written on her eyelids, hopeful she'll catch her attention by having a grammatically correct break in syllable*

*finds herself humming an old Police song...*

"Don't stand so
Don't stand so..."

 

[Guest]

In the immortal words of a fine author (I believe you know her), poppycock. I teach music for a living and there's an enormous difference between hard work and talent. Steve Vai and Paul Gilbert (two great contemporary guitar players) both became well respected artists in just a few years after picking up their instruments. Even with musical talent running very strongly in my family, after 5 years of 6-8 hours a day practice, I wasn't close to their league. Not enough talent.

Hard work is important, but talent is essential to success.

And yet a lot of very talented people never do diddly with their talent because they won't work at it. There are a lot of factors that can prevent a talented person from getting anywhere. I'm not a teacher of music, but I've worked as a performer for many years, and I've seen many people who seemed to have all kinds of talent go nowhere. There are other factors equally important.

There are also some fairly mediocre talents making a good living at what they do because they worked hard to market themselves. I would not call them artists as *I* define it, but if we use money, power and popularity as markers for succes, they are successful. Sometimes their talent isn't so much their performance as their ability to sell themselves, to attract attention and make the most of it. Maybe what takes the hard work isn't the particular skill, but associated skills.

I've heard it said that sometimes what makes a writer a success isn't so much a talent for writing, but a talent for not giving up.

 

[S-Des]

And yet a lot of very talented people never do diddly with their talent because they won't work at it. There are a lot of factors that can prevent a talented person from getting anywhere. I'm not a teacher of music, but I've worked as a performer for many years, and I've seen many people who seemed to have all kinds of talent go nowhere. There are other factors equally important.

There are also some fairly mediocre talents making a good living at what they do because they worked hard to market themselves. I would not call them artists as *I* define it, but if we use money, power and popularity as markers for succes, they are successful. Sometimes their talent isn't so much their performance as their ability to sell themselves, to attract attention and make the most of it. Maybe what takes the hard work isn't the particular skill, but associated skills.

I've heard it said that sometimes what makes a writer a success isn't so much a talent for writing, but a talent for not giving up.

Actually, I was going to repost and say that my argument doesn't explain why the band Poison was so successful in the 80's . You're completely correct, hard work is necessary as well (and can sometimes overcome a lack of talent). The two musicians I mentioned were notorious for how hard they worked on their craft. At the same time, there is a level that you can't surpass without enough talent, no matter how hard you work. It's easier to see in music because it seems like an art that lends itself to be easier to measure.

60 Minutes did a story on a composer prodigy (I believe he was 14). He was at one of the big music colleges and although his professors had more experience and knew more than he did, none of them could do what he could. He actually took a complicated music piece (it was Mozart or Beethoven), turned the sheet upside down, then played it, inverting the left and right hands. That is absolutely impossible, but I watched him do it. His private teacher was a touring classical pianist and said she had never seen anyone be able to do it. He had also composed numerous pieces that no one in the school could match (I'm rusty on my classical composition or I'd explain it better).

Talent is important. Hard work is necessary. The combination of the two is magical.

 

[Recidiva]

And yet a lot of very talented people never do diddly with their talent because they won't work at it. There are a lot of factors that can prevent a talented person from getting anywhere. I'm not a teacher of music, but I've worked as a performer for many years, and I've seen many people who seemed to have all kinds of talent go nowhere. There are other factors equally important.

There are also some fairly mediocre talents making a good living at what they do because they worked hard to market themselves. I would not call them artists as *I* define it, but if we use money, power and popularity as markers for succes, they are successful. Sometimes their talent isn't so much their performance as their ability to sell themselves, to attract attention and make the most of it. Maybe what takes the hard work isn't the particular skill, but associated skills.

I've heard it said that sometimes what makes a writer a success isn't so much a talent for writing, but a talent for not giving up.

There's clearly talent, or you would never notice the lack of it.

There are some people that enjoy a raw talent, though, instead of a cultured style.

I resist some things in my art. When I was learning how to sing, I don't like vibrato, and I completely resisted being counseled to cultivate what I consider a distracting (to me) vibrato. Distracting. Hate it. I didn't like certain ways people sing in the back of their throat, although it improved control, it ruined tone.

So I seem to like things a little more raw.

Some things I resist in writing, that I'm counseled to do: If I think a word, but I've used the word before, and I use the word a lot, I'll use it again.

Some people hate this, resist it, avoid it, and consider it a poor artistic choice.

One of my favorite authors did this when I was a kid, Madeleine L'Engle used the word "palpable" over and over, and I loved it. "She really likes this word" Still can't hear this word without thinking of her, usually.

Flaws and quirks, I like preserving character.

So I'm not a technically good author. But I like what I write. I'm not a technically good singer. But I like hearing myself sing. I like authors and singers that sound like themselves.

So I've considered the choices and occasionally make the less cultured, less approved choice, rather like choosing whether or not to cook rustic or cook nouvelle cuisine. But a good rustic chef knows rustic doesn't mean lazy or sloppy.

Maybe the only justification for me is that I did actually think about this stuff before going my way anyway. As long as someone makes reasoned choices, and takes responsibility for them working or not working, that's good.

 

[3113]

There are also some fairly mediocre talents making a good living at what they do because they worked hard to market themselves.

True, and some with absolutely no talent--just a pretty face. In writing, there's sometimes those who have one great idea in them...and nothing more. I remember one author, wrote a remarkable little book. All her other books were AWFUL. Just AWFUL. But that one book....

Talent? Luck? Can a person have a bit of talent that, if they're lucky, nets them one good book or movie or performance...but nothing more?

I've heard it said that sometimes what makes a writer a success isn't so much a talent for writing, but a talent for not giving up.

It's a nice quote. But not necessarily true, I know people who never stop writing...and who are awful writers. Even though they write tons of material, I sincerely doubt that they'll ever be published, let alone be a success...of course, one never knows. There are a lot of awful things published, and awful things become successes.

On the other side, there have been writers with only one book in them. Or, perhaps, they had many books and stories in them, but something did make them give up. For example, Harper Lee. She only wrote To Kill a Mockingbird. From what we know, the enormous success of that book is what killed future books for her. Ditto with Ralph Ellison, who wrote The Invisible Man. Which made such a huge mark on American Literature that he had difficulty writing a second book. He wrote some short stories, and worked and worked for years on another book--the manuscript got burned in a fire, and he never ended up with a second novel.

These two authors are known for one book. Yet I wouldn't say they're not writers, nor that in "giving up" they stopped being writers--and the most amazingly successful ones at that.

 

[Guest]

True, and some with absolutely no talent--just a pretty face. In writing, there's sometimes those who have one great idea in them...and nothing more. I remember one author, wrote a remarkable little book. All her other books were AWFUL. Just AWFUL. But that one book....

I can think of someone who's pretty damned famous, about whom I could say that. I wonder if we are thinking of the same person?

Talent? Luck? Can a person have a bit of talent that, if they're lucky, nets them one good book or movie or performance...but nothing more?

It's a nice quote. But not necessarily true, I know people who never stop writing...and who are awful writers.

I didn't mean so much the writing as the marketing and trying to publish. Sometimes I think that published writing is published because the author kept sending it out until it found the right market, or some other magic happened There's an art, I think, in simply not giving up on submitting. That's always been my largest hurdle, and whether or not I have any talent as a writer, not having the "talent" or gift or whatever it is to withstand the rejection a writer seems to automatically have to take gets in the way of publishing.

 

[Oblimo]

I am shocked and dismayed that Cleland's Fanny Hill, the very first erotic novel ever published, has not been uploaded to Project Gutenberg.

But I found a free online version anyway!

 

[3113]

I didn't mean so much the writing as the marketing and trying to publish. Sometimes I think that published writing is published because the author kept sending it out until it found the right market, or some other magic happened There's an art, I think, in simply not giving up on submitting. That's always been my largest hurdle, and whether or not I have any talent as a writer, not having the "talent" or gift or whatever it is to withstand the rejection a writer seems to automatically have to take gets in the way of publishing.

In that case, you're absolutely right. I know some folks who keep themselves afloat through sheer persistence--but they certainly don't deserve it. And I know others who have the most wonderful stuff hidden away in a closet...and it's never going to go out there because they just don't have the guts to submit or accept rejection and submit again.

And it's certainly a hard thing for artists, especially writers, who aren't always the most friendly or charismatic folk (I'd say "present company accepted" but we're all connecting though the written word, now, aren't we?). If we knew how to sell ourselves, and liked being social butterflies, we wouldn't spend so much time alone writing

Which is why God created agents....

 

[S-Des]

Which is why God created agents....

"And then came the inevitable afterbirth . . . The critique." Mel Brooks, History Of The World Pt.1

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Of course I beleive there are innate talents. I don't believe they stand alone, or that they show up fully developed all by themselves.

Mozart comes to mind. He was doing incredible things at a very early age -- I think we could safely claim he was an innate musical talent. However, his father was also a musician. He had rigorous musical training from an extremely early age. Would Mozart have been the musical genius we know recognize just on talent alone? If he'd been born to, say, a dairy farmer, would his talents have developed so early or at all?

By "study" I don't mean going to school or taking lessons exclusively. We study when we observe, when we listen, when we think and try to understand something. When we give something attention in order to improve our ability to do it, we are studying it.

I'll go along with the idea that sex for procreation and masturbation are usually "self discovery" items -- but I maintain that exeptional lovers come about as a matter of study. I'm not talking "technique" so much as the thousands of other details that make one thing better than another.

This came up on another thread a few months ago. I'm of the opinion that study without talent, or talent without study, are neither really strong enough. Having the talent to be a great writer is useless if one never learns to write.

I'm a fan of the notion that talent doesn't mean anything without execution, and execution is rarely brilliant without practice.

 

[kappisto]

At first I thought the topic was running away with the subject a little.. but actually I think it's closer than ever to what I was thinking - overcoming the mediocre to create art.

As for hard work vs talent, it seems an unfortunate habit of people to try and pin down the defining reason for something - ie, what is the most important quality in an artist, which is something hardly quantifiable.

Then again, most of you have already come to the consensus that it's like trying to argue which is better, your left leg or your right? Either way it's the paralympics for you, dear.

 

[Recidiva]

At first I thought the topic was running away with the subject a little.. but actually I think it's closer than ever to what I was thinking - overcoming the mediocre to create art.

As for hard work vs talent, it seems an unfortunate habit of people to try and pin down the defining reason for something - ie, what is the most important quality in an artist, which is something hardly quantifiable.

Then again, most of you have already come to the consensus that it's like trying to argue which is better, your left leg or your right? Either way it's the paralympics for you, dear.

I may not have all the aces in the deck. I'll never win at poker.

But I can play a mean hand of Old Maid.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Even though the dictionaries treat them as equivalent, I've been trying for a long time now to establish a distinction between "pornography" and "erotica". It would be like this:

The term "pornography" would be confined to literature whose sole intent is to sexually arouse and titilate.

"Erotica" would be used to describe literature that explores what sex and sexuality mean in our lives; how we express them, how we experience them, how we use them. It's the literature of sex.

The terms overlap and blur, but I think the distinction is a very useful one.

When Boxlicker (bless his heart) boasts of his stories being unredeemed, unapologetic porn, that's what he means: that they're sexual fantasies deigned to get you hot and that's it. No morals, no consequences to the sex, no changes to the characters, no plot outside of what happens when the clothes come off. They're sexual fantasy--"pure smut" to use his term--sex the way we might dream it could be.

A story that explores how a couple learns to express their feelings through sex, or one that looks to understand a character's love of sexual domination, say, or pedophilia, or the social dynamics of a 3-way, would fall more towards the erotica end of the spectrum. It's trying to show us what the sex means, how and where it fits into the characters' lives and how the sexual experience changes them.

Someone said that Romance was the fastest growing segment of publishing today. Well, "Romantica" is the fastest grwoing segment of romance writing, and Romantica is simply romance with graphic sex. It's the old bodice-ripper genre, only this time we get to see what happens once the bodice is ripped. Whether that makes it porn or erotica under my definition depends on the skill and the intent of the author.

 

[Stella_Omega]

At first I thought the topic was running away with the subject a little.. but actually I think it's closer than ever to what I was thinking - overcoming the mediocre to create art.

As for hard work vs talent, it seems an unfortunate habit of people to try and pin down the defining reason for something - ie, what is the most important quality in an artist, which is something hardly quantifiable.

Then again, most of you have already come to the consensus that it's like trying to argue which is better, your left leg or your right? Either way it's the paralympics for you, dear.

You are going to do quite well around here!