It Isn't "Porn"

[sr71plt]

Sensuality is nuthin more than another way of saying perception or awareness.

I think it is the sensuality, yes, the mental/emotional aspect of perception/awareness, that makes a work erotica.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Box is exasperatingly stupid on almost any topic except porn writing. As Stella posts later on this thread, by the third exchange, it's time to just say "Oh, gawd" and walk away. If you don't like me doing that, tough. I'll take rude over "pleasant pablum" and stupid any day.

Do you always call somebody stupid because they disagree with you? In this case, I said if you are referring to a story, you can call it "literature" or "a literary story" and use the two terms interchangeably, and I proved it by showing the dictionary definition of "literature."

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I think it is the sensuality, yes, the mental/emotional aspect of perception/awareness, that makes a work erotica.

The package that creates appeal and arousal is maybe what people mean by sensual. If Lady Gaga wouldnt move she'd express 'sensuality,' but the instant she ambulates the spell is broken. She moves like her body expects to morph into Hillary Clinton in about 2 years.

 

[sr71plt]

Do you always call somebody stupid because they disagree with you? In this case, I said if you are referring to a story, you can call it "literature" or "a literary story" and use the two terms interchangeably, and I proved it by showing the dictionary definition of "literature."

What you proved is that you haven't a clue what literary fiction is. That's all you proved.

 

[sr71plt]

The package that creates appeal and arousal is maybe what people mean by sensual. If Lady Gaga wouldnt move she'd express 'sensuality,' but the instant she ambulates the spell is broken. She moves like her body expects to morph into Hillary Clinton in about 2 years.

I don't see the relevance. But then I don't watch Lady Gaga all that much.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Do you always call somebody stupid because they disagree with you? In this case, I said if you are referring to a story, you can call it "literature" or "a literary story" and use the two terms interchangeably, and I proved it by showing the dictionary definition of "literature."

What you proved is that you haven't a clue what literary fiction is. That's all you proved.

So, what's the difference between "Literary Fiction" and "a literary story?"

ETA: You didn't even use the term "Literary Fiction: until Post 23.

 

[estragon]

You Know, I'm Sorry I Even Started This Thread

It was rather like walking into a nice restaurant, anticipating a pleasant dinner, and a squad of drunken trolls marches in, overturns the tables, and barfs on the floor. I really shouldn't give a damn, but I do. Ex-fucking-peliarmus! *brandishes wand and turns round thrice, hoping the boggarts will GTFO*

 

[Stella_Omega]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Do you always call somebody stupid because they disagree with you? In this case, I said if you are referring to a story, you can call it "literature" or "a literary story" and use the two terms interchangeably, and I proved it by showing the dictionary definition of "literature."




So, what's the difference between "Literary Fiction" and "a literary story?"

ETA: You didn't even use the term "Literary Fiction: until Post 23.

Off the top of my head;

Literary Fiction is a genre, characterised by a lack of the characterisations that generally characterise other genres. It might feature a love story without a happy ending. It might end badly for the hero. It might switch focus-- change main characters-- in the middle. It might have subtle science fiction details without ever calling attention to them. The main character might be a disgusting drooling slob. The entire story might take place within ten mintues-- for ten chapters.

The function of Literary Fiction is, putatively, to inspire thought, over and above the goals of amusement, entertainment, emotional satisfaction.

A literary story is one that has some wit and erudition, (admittedly subjective values there) shows some thought and a more than basic grasp of grammar. In a nutshell, it's the opposite of an illiterate story.

Of which there are plenty, let's not kid ourselves.

 

[Verdad]

It was rather like walking into a nice restaurant, anticipating a pleasant dinner, and a squad of drunken trolls marches in, overturns the tables, and barfs on the floor. I really shouldn't give a damn, but I do. Ex-fucking-peliarmus! *brandishes wand and turns round thrice, hoping the boggarts will GTFO*

Well, at the risk of appearing like a barfing troll, I’ll tell you just one of the things that were hilarious about your OP.

You seem to understand erotica as better than, smarter than, more exalted than, etc. But “erotica” connotes, or used to connote, a certain aesthetic, not just an evaluation of quality. You could write explicit stories with great skill without their being erotica, and you could write euphemistic impressionist meandearings that disappear up their own butt and qualify perfectly for the title.

Admittedly, there is some rebranding going on; to a lecherous yet timid consumer, erotica sounds less intimidating than porn; to the guilt-ridden, it provides the assurance they’re not doing anything really dirty; and to quality obsessed it evokes pedigree and something vaguely French.

But it’s not all cynical either. Words change content all the time, and perhaps this one will too. Because there’s never been so much of explicit sex written before, the old categories may need to change and expand in order to describe the gamut of available writings.

For the time being, though, I like to call it all smut and think of the merits on individual basis.

 

[estragon]

My only point was that "calling it all smut" gives those who want to abolish any sexual expression whatsoever a perfect excuse. It is an own-goal. I was trying to point out that there is some very good sexually-explicit writing, and "calling it all smut" denigrates that work. That's all. All y'all can go on with the name-calling, posturing and self-advertising you like. The Bible-thumpers and the Wowsers have you in their sights, and all y'all are doing is drawing a target on your own backs. I'm out.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

estragon, I agree with you and can sympathize with your frustration.

'Erotica' was a neologism coined by a British publisher 150 years ago to create a classification in his genres for 'naughty stories' - of all types. Based on 'erotic' - pertaining to sexual love and sexual desire - it seems perfectly applicable to the entire lit site.

The only problem is that nowadays explicit erotic scenes are commonplace in most other genres, so where do you draw the line?

To my mind, authors who refer to their (or other's) work as 'porn', 'smut, or 'stroke' are revealing more about themselves than their writing. Erotica is written here, whether sensual or graphical - the writing quality is irrelevant. If you want to argue that a detailed description of a copulation is 'not a story', aren't you saying it is literary and not mainstream erotica?

In any case, porn is a back derivation from pornography that relates to prostitutes and obscenity, neither an issue on lit but a perfect term for videos where performers sell sexual activity for payment. No judgement intended.

The term, 'literary fiction' has been around for half a century or so to classify writing that is abstract, innovative, pyschological - dare I say 'writerly', from commercial/mainstream fiction that is solidly based in narrative, dialogue and plot. I recall a college essay; 'Did Jane Austen write literary chick-lit?' - WTF? To my mind it has become elitist as only so-called 'literary fiction' is considered for the glittering prizes. The harder you are to read has no correlation with ability

To say, 'literary porn' seems to admit it's not a genre but a writing style. Genres are things like horror, fantasy, historic, romance etc. All of which can be prefaced by a 'literary' or a 'mainstream'.

 

[sr71plt]

I agree that what I often strive for and call "literary porn" isn't a genre. It's a style. It's (attempting to be) literary fiction, where the "point" of the story is something other than the sex but that the sex is graphically described. Of course the "point"--an emotion or a situation; often an misunderstanding or a character flaw/characteristic--is often based in the characters' sex lives, so the sex scenes aren't "add ons"; they are key to whatever dilemma is being examined.

I don't have a hangup with calling the explicit scenes pornographic, though. Not taken with guilty feelings of scooting across any sort of edge--certainly not enough to want to say that what I write is erotica and couldn't, "god forgive," possibly be considered porn.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

If The Sex Is Ancilliary To The Story, Its Erotica; If Its The Destination Of The Story Its Porn.

 

[Verdad]

My only point was that "calling it all smut" gives those who want to abolish any sexual expression whatsoever a perfect excuse. It is an own-goal. I was trying to point out that there is some very good sexually-explicit writing, and "calling it all smut" denigrates that work. That's all. All y'all can go on with the name-calling, posturing and self-advertising you like. The Bible-thumpers and the Wowsers have you in their sights, and all y'all are doing is drawing a target on your own backs. I'm out.

Right, roll out the ole scarecrow and I’ll fall right back in line. “Be a well behaved kid, Verdad, or the Bible thumpers will get you!”

However, if I may offer a well-meaning word: Meh. Does it matter to you what I call it? Some disagreements are spiteful but most are not. They’re one of the things that make a discussion board unlike a Sunday school class—and I’ll bet you agree that’s a good thing.

 

[Verdad]

estragon, I agree with you and can sympathize with your frustration.

'Erotica' was a neologism coined by a British publisher 150 years ago to create a classification in his genres for 'naughty stories' - of all types. Based on 'erotic' - pertaining to sexual love and sexual desire - it seems perfectly applicable to the entire lit site.

The only problem is that nowadays explicit erotic scenes are commonplace in most other genres, so where do you draw the line?

To my mind, authors who refer to their (or other's) work as 'porn', 'smut, or 'stroke' are revealing more about themselves than their writing. Erotica is written here, whether sensual or graphical - the writing quality is irrelevant. If you want to argue that a detailed description of a copulation is 'not a story', aren't you saying it is literary and not mainstream erotica?

In any case, porn is a back derivation from pornography that relates to prostitutes and obscenity, neither an issue on lit but a perfect term for videos where performers sell sexual activity for payment. No judgement intended.

The term, 'literary fiction' has been around for half a century or so to classify writing that is abstract, innovative, pyschological - dare I say 'writerly', from commercial/mainstream fiction that is solidly based in narrative, dialogue and plot. I recall a college essay; 'Did Jane Austen write literary chick-lit?' - WTF? To my mind it has become elitist as only so-called 'literary fiction' is considered for the glittering prizes. The harder you are to read has no correlation with ability

To say, 'literary porn' seems to admit it's not a genre but a writing style. Genres are things like horror, fantasy, historic, romance etc. All of which can be prefaced by a 'literary' or a 'mainstream'.

That’s what it meant 150 years ago but not 50 years ago, and as I said, who knows what it might come to mean? In our ever-shifting semantic maps, porn and erotica are not entirely interchangeable and both carry more meaning than just “pertaining to sex.” I realize I’m being a bit cute by using smut, but it is precisely in order to sidestep the issues of whitewashing and pretension and in-built valuation. The meanings, I feel, should settle through usage, not a by decree.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

I agree that what I often strive for and call "literary porn" isn't a genre. It's a style. It's (attempting to be) literary fiction, where the "point" of the story is something other than the sex but that the sex is graphically described. Of course the "point"--an emotion or a situation; often an misunderstanding or a character flaw/characteristic--is often based in the characters' sex lives, so the sex scenes aren't "add ons"; they are key to whatever dilemma is being examined.

I don't have a hangup with calling the explicit scenes pornographic, though. Not taken with guilty feelings of scooting across any sort of edge--certainly not enough to want to say that what I write is erotica and couldn't, "god forgive," possibly be considered porn.

sr, thank you, I agree with you. I'd just split that literary is a style and 'porn' is no kind of genre, but erotica is.

Also, your argument that graphic sex is a core ingredient to drive the literary take makes perfect sense to me. Often, I wouldn't tease, poor fiction writers enjoy making their writing almost inaccessible to (supposedly) prove their erudite credentials. You don't do that.

Can we lose 'porn' and 'smut' from the site?

 

[Stella_Omega]

That’s what it meant 150 years ago but not 50 years ago, and as I said, who knows what it might come to mean? In our ever-shifting semantic maps, porn and erotica are not entirely interchangeable and both carry more meaning than just “pertaining to sex.” I realize I’m being a bit cute by using smut, but it is precisely in order to sidestep the issues of whitewashing and pretension and in-built valuation. The meanings, I feel, should settle through usage, not a by decree.

I call my writing "smut" for the same reason, just as I call myself "queer" in order to sidestep the social valuations.

Can we lose 'porn' and 'smut' from the site?

Nope, "we" have no way to enforce anything of that nature.

 

[bronzeage]

My only point was that "calling it all smut" gives those who want to abolish any sexual expression whatsoever a perfect excuse. It is an own-goal. I was trying to point out that there is some very good sexually-explicit writing, and "calling it all smut" denigrates that work. That's all. All y'all can go on with the name-calling, posturing and self-advertising you like. The Bible-thumpers and the Wowsers have you in their sights, and all y'all are doing is drawing a target on your own backs. I'm out.

I have an easy response to that, "fuck'em".

Smut, porn, erotica and sexually explicit are in the eye of the beholder. There is nothing so pure that someone can't find something wrong with it. It has been said proper Victorian ladies put pants legs on ornately curved piano legs to avoid giving gentlemen visitors the wrong idea.

I'll put the target on the front of my shirt and tell them to take their best shot. I am much better at this than they are.

 

[PennLady]

I have an easy response to that, "fuck'em".

Smut, porn, erotica and sexually explicit are in the eye of the beholder. There is nothing so pure that someone can't find something wrong with it. It has been said proper Victorian ladies put pants legs on ornately curved piano legs to avoid giving gentlemen visitors the wrong idea.

I'll put the target on the front of my shirt and tell them to take their best shot. I am much better at this than they are.

See, now I believe the thing about the piano legs. And I think it says so much more about the people who do things like that, than about the people they are allegedly protecting.

 

[sr71plt]

See, now I believe the thing about the piano legs. And I think it says so much more about the people who do things like that, than about the people they are allegedly protecting.

Except that the ladies who did that were also having it off with the gardener--fully knowing their husbands were spending the time with their mistresses.

 

[PennLady]

Except that the ladies who did that were also having it off with the gardener--fully knowing their husbands were spending the time with their mistresses.

Well yes, but if no one admitted it, I guess they could still go on being prudish and disapproving, right?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I have an easy response to that, "fuck'em".

Smut, porn, erotica and sexually explicit are in the eye of the beholder. There is nothing so pure that someone can't find something wrong with it. It has been said proper Victorian ladies put pants legs on ornately curved piano legs to avoid giving gentlemen visitors the wrong idea.

I'll put the target on the front of my shirt and tell them to take their best shot. I am much better at this than they are.

Idiota, the pant legs are bumpers to reduce damage to the legs.

 

[sr71plt]

Idiota, the pant legs are bumpers to reduce damage to the legs.

As the Victorian lady and the gardener roll aound on the parlor floor.

 

[bronzeage]

Idiota, the pant legs are bumpers to reduce damage to the legs.

What was likely to damage a Victorian piano leg in a Victorian parlor?

We wouldn't want to deflower a piano. Imagine the shame. Decent people would never visit again.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

What was likely to damage a Victorian piano leg in a Victorian parlor?

We wouldn't want to deflower a piano. Imagine the shame. Decent people would never visit again.

Children. Dogs. Maids.