smy3th
Guy in the Background
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2004
- Posts
- 4,046
I notice that many commentators here object to first and second person stories. Personally, I find them appealing, so I have been thinking about the pros and cons. I'm interested in comment on my thoughts here.
One objection to first person is that "no great literature" uses first person. I'm not sure this is true, though first person fictional literature is certainly unusual. Autobiographical non-fiction however is common, and can be as involving as fiction. One of the most gripping books I ever read was "Farthest North" by Fridjtof Nansen, which tells the true story of a three year expedition in the 1890's attempting to reach the North Pole. It is autobiographical and in the first person, much of it the diary of Nansen, captain of the expedition. (and talk about non-erotic - 13 men, three years, no sex). Although it is a true story, it has elements of a heroic yarn, and was as much of a page-turner for me as most fiction.
However, to some extent, I question the relevance of the rules of "great literature" to erotic short stories. They are two entirely different genres. Erotic short stories are a class of writing by themselves. They are not necessarily ruled by the same guidelines that would apply to literary novels. Also, erotica fits into "escape" fiction, not "Literature," (despite what pretensions a site by the name of "Literotica" might have to some higher status).
In any case, great literature or not, first person past tense writing creates verisimilitude. It gives the impression that the story could be true, might be true, maybe it really did happen. As long as the story is reasonably plausible (no 14 inch cocks, horny dragons, or just obviously unrealistic elements) and as long as the tale teller doesn't die in the end, the reader can be left wondering: "Was this just fiction, or was it autobiographical?" I find it highly erotic to read a story and think that the writer could actually be telling me about a real experience. It doesn't matter whether it really is true or not. One of the most fascinating things about fiction in general, and erotic fiction in particular, is to be able to get inside someone else's head and read their thoughts. To read of an incident that could just possibly have actually happened, while the author tells us what he was thinking and feeling, is the extreme of voyeurism. I had enquiries about my (first person) story as to whether it was real (no it isn't). But it felt great to have written something that a reader would wonder that about.
First person present tense is nearly the opposite: It simulates a daydream. It says: "I am having this daydream fantasy." Present tense is obviously not true. It is the dream-sequence stream of consciousness story. There is still a form of verisimilitude, in that the writer speaks as if he/she is telling it live - as the daydream unfolds in their mind. In reality, the story may have been carefully outlined, and then composed, re-drafted, and edited over a long period of time, but the reader gets the impression of being spoken to, of the writer just talking out their fantasy. The reader is given the impression that this fantasy just unreeled in the mind of the writer, as if their thoughts and dreams were just recorded in real time. Again, the idea that we can actually get inside someone else's head and read their dreams is fantastically erotic and the ultimate voyeurism.
Second person writing: ("You slowly remove your clothes for me. You begin touching yourself") is a unique perspective, more typical of erotic fiction than of most other genres. It makes the reader the main character. In third person, the reader is a voyeur, watching what someone else does, as if through a one-way mirror or something. Second person writing puts the reader directly into the story. In second person, the reader is asked to pretend to be the main character. You, the reader, are asked to feel as if it is you yourself doing and feeling what is described.
One second person story I found particularly fascinating is called "Painful Loving," (http://english.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=200334). It is said by the author to spring directly from an on-line conversation, and if felt as if the author were speaking directly to me. It was like getting hot e-mail addressed personally to me. What I noticed was that "Painful Loving" spoke directly to me as a man. I felt like it was me in the action. It pulled me in and absorbed me, mind and body. It felt as if it was MY hand spanking her bottom. It was MY cock inside her. It was MY face between her legs. I found this extremely arousing. It is seems to me that particular story would work primarily for a male audience. A woman might well have difficulty putting herself into that picture, though perhaps a woman reading "Painful Loving" might put herself in the role of the woman writing the story, rather than in the role of the man to whom it is addressed. The second person PoV requires that the story actually appeal to the particular "kinks" of the reader, or they might not be able to get into it. The reader has to be able to picture themselves doing those things. But then, that seems to me to be true of all erotica: It has to appeal to one's desires, or it won't be all that exciting. For that matter, isn't that true of most fiction, especially escape fiction?
By the way, the author of "Painful Loving" also has some first person stories, which I found to be good examples of the "I wonder if it's true" category.
I think the first and second person points of view have a very important and useful function in erotica. The "third person only" opinion seems to me to reflect a certain degree of intellectual snobbery, which might be appropriate to a serious writers workshop, but not for erotic stories. In other words, isn't this whole POV thing just a personal preference, like whether or not you like spanking stories or incest stories? Isn't it just a matter of whether it strikes your particular fancy?
One objection to first person is that "no great literature" uses first person. I'm not sure this is true, though first person fictional literature is certainly unusual. Autobiographical non-fiction however is common, and can be as involving as fiction. One of the most gripping books I ever read was "Farthest North" by Fridjtof Nansen, which tells the true story of a three year expedition in the 1890's attempting to reach the North Pole. It is autobiographical and in the first person, much of it the diary of Nansen, captain of the expedition. (and talk about non-erotic - 13 men, three years, no sex). Although it is a true story, it has elements of a heroic yarn, and was as much of a page-turner for me as most fiction.
However, to some extent, I question the relevance of the rules of "great literature" to erotic short stories. They are two entirely different genres. Erotic short stories are a class of writing by themselves. They are not necessarily ruled by the same guidelines that would apply to literary novels. Also, erotica fits into "escape" fiction, not "Literature," (despite what pretensions a site by the name of "Literotica" might have to some higher status).
In any case, great literature or not, first person past tense writing creates verisimilitude. It gives the impression that the story could be true, might be true, maybe it really did happen. As long as the story is reasonably plausible (no 14 inch cocks, horny dragons, or just obviously unrealistic elements) and as long as the tale teller doesn't die in the end, the reader can be left wondering: "Was this just fiction, or was it autobiographical?" I find it highly erotic to read a story and think that the writer could actually be telling me about a real experience. It doesn't matter whether it really is true or not. One of the most fascinating things about fiction in general, and erotic fiction in particular, is to be able to get inside someone else's head and read their thoughts. To read of an incident that could just possibly have actually happened, while the author tells us what he was thinking and feeling, is the extreme of voyeurism. I had enquiries about my (first person) story as to whether it was real (no it isn't). But it felt great to have written something that a reader would wonder that about.
First person present tense is nearly the opposite: It simulates a daydream. It says: "I am having this daydream fantasy." Present tense is obviously not true. It is the dream-sequence stream of consciousness story. There is still a form of verisimilitude, in that the writer speaks as if he/she is telling it live - as the daydream unfolds in their mind. In reality, the story may have been carefully outlined, and then composed, re-drafted, and edited over a long period of time, but the reader gets the impression of being spoken to, of the writer just talking out their fantasy. The reader is given the impression that this fantasy just unreeled in the mind of the writer, as if their thoughts and dreams were just recorded in real time. Again, the idea that we can actually get inside someone else's head and read their dreams is fantastically erotic and the ultimate voyeurism.
Second person writing: ("You slowly remove your clothes for me. You begin touching yourself") is a unique perspective, more typical of erotic fiction than of most other genres. It makes the reader the main character. In third person, the reader is a voyeur, watching what someone else does, as if through a one-way mirror or something. Second person writing puts the reader directly into the story. In second person, the reader is asked to pretend to be the main character. You, the reader, are asked to feel as if it is you yourself doing and feeling what is described.
One second person story I found particularly fascinating is called "Painful Loving," (http://english.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=200334). It is said by the author to spring directly from an on-line conversation, and if felt as if the author were speaking directly to me. It was like getting hot e-mail addressed personally to me. What I noticed was that "Painful Loving" spoke directly to me as a man. I felt like it was me in the action. It pulled me in and absorbed me, mind and body. It felt as if it was MY hand spanking her bottom. It was MY cock inside her. It was MY face between her legs. I found this extremely arousing. It is seems to me that particular story would work primarily for a male audience. A woman might well have difficulty putting herself into that picture, though perhaps a woman reading "Painful Loving" might put herself in the role of the woman writing the story, rather than in the role of the man to whom it is addressed. The second person PoV requires that the story actually appeal to the particular "kinks" of the reader, or they might not be able to get into it. The reader has to be able to picture themselves doing those things. But then, that seems to me to be true of all erotica: It has to appeal to one's desires, or it won't be all that exciting. For that matter, isn't that true of most fiction, especially escape fiction?
By the way, the author of "Painful Loving" also has some first person stories, which I found to be good examples of the "I wonder if it's true" category.
I think the first and second person points of view have a very important and useful function in erotica. The "third person only" opinion seems to me to reflect a certain degree of intellectual snobbery, which might be appropriate to a serious writers workshop, but not for erotic stories. In other words, isn't this whole POV thing just a personal preference, like whether or not you like spanking stories or incest stories? Isn't it just a matter of whether it strikes your particular fancy?
