Making a case for the use of the term "simple erotica."

[AG31]

I'm not trying to actually start a new thread here. I just hope everyone who participated in the thread about "pure erotica" will see how helpful it was to me and that I changed my proposal from the also value laden "pure" to the more neutral (I hope) "simple." Thanks to all!!!

 

[AchtungNight]

I appreciate your term modification. Good luck.

 

[intim8]

I changed my proposal from the also value laden "pure" to the more neutral (I hope) "simple."

I still kinda disagree. To me, the term itself, "erotica" always implied a more "literary" kind of thing, or at least something that had aspirations to go beyond porn or smut. Something that was a genre of, I guess, regular mainstream fiction, (since now in the mainstream "literature" is itself just a genre).

That's pretty old-fashioned, I know. And not to demean "stroke stories", or "simple" erotica, it's just that there's a different purpose to it. It's meant for a fast thrill, not a contemplative read. Other genres have them too, pulp fiction comes to mind.

There's erotic stories that are meant for a thrill, and those meant to have some meaning. I guess that's still putting "simple erotica" into a lesser status, but I don't think that can be helped. That does not translate it into being of less worth, or to say anything negative about people who read it and write it. It jsut serves a smaller, more transient, less sophisticated but still legitimate purpose.

If I had my way, what you call "simple erotica" wouldn't have the word "erotica" in it, but I know that horse is long out of the barn, irretreivable. I do appreciate your effort to find a more neutral term. I might even suggest "Pulp Erotica", though that already has baggage of "lesser" at least. But in addition to finding a term that doesn't demean it, I'd like to see the idea of it elevated, like Tarantino somewhat did with the movie "Pulp Fiction".

 

[AG31]

It's meant for a fast thrill, not a contemplative read. Other genres have them too, pulp fiction comes to mind.

That's a wide spectrum. Stories that have nothing in them but "heat," can be admired for their literary qualities without prompting "contemplation." Indeed, there are lots of very literate stories that don't prompt "contemplation." Did you look at any of the stories I listed in my OP?

 

[samhasstories]

That's a wide spectrum. Stories that have nothing in them but "heat," can be admired for their literary qualities without prompting "contemplation." Indeed, there are lots of very literate stories that don't prompt "contemplation." Did you look at any of the stories I listed in my OP?

I think therein lies the issue with trying to split things into such categories. Whether simple, pure, stroke, wank, smut, whatever, you're going to be hard pressed not having it read as a value judgment. And there will always be some beautifully written smut standing proud over hackneyed and pretentious "literary" erotica*.

* not pointing any fingers, just, you know - hypothetically.

 

[AG31]

There's erotic stories that are meant for a thrill, and those meant to have some meaning.

Yes, I'd be happy to put "meaning" along with "plot" and "character," but to make my point another way. Simple erotica can have greater and lesser quality by virtue of its language being pleasurable apart from its content (just as any literature can). The language can be novel, clever, melodious, vivid, idiosyncratic, insightful, humorous, etc., etc., etc. "Stroke story" and "smut" don't evoke that kind of quality for me and, I'm guessing, for a lot of people.

 

[Duleigh]

"Simple Erotica"

Ummm.... ahhhh.... Oh! I got it - it's easier to spell than Undemanding Erotogenic Exemplum

There, THAT'S why we say Simple Erotica. As for me, simple erotica is fine, but I don't have any of that fluttering around my head at the moment so I write what comes out.

 

[AG31]

it's easier to spell than Undemanding Erotogenic Exemplum

Oh! Hey!! I'd never heard of Undemanding Erotogenic Exemplum. That's pretty good. Maybe I'll shift my campaign for a second time!

 

[intim8]

Yes, I'd be happy to put "meaning" along with "plot" and "character," but to make my point another way. Simple erotica can have greater and lesser quality by virtue of its language being pleasurable apart from its content (just as any literature can). The language can be novel, clever, melodious, vivid, idiosyncratic, insightful, humorous, etc., etc., etc. "Stroke story" and "smut" don't evoke that kind of quality for me and, I'm guessing, for a lot of people.

No, they don't. Again, I'm on board with the idea of having a more neutral term, one that doesn't just automatically imply 'garbage'. But there is a real distinction here between the two kinds of works. There's no term that both makes the distinction and doesn't imply that one is different than the other, as well as the quality of the distinction.

My brain keeps coming back to "Pulp Erotica". And if you look at the history of pulp fiction, there was some work classified as that that has very rich and evocative language. Think Raymond Chandler and Mickey Spillaine. Those are considered Art now. Some of the pulp sci-fi as well.

I'll admit, part of this is my old-fashioned desire to have "erotica" be the distinguishing term. Like, there's erotica, stories that at least aspire to a literary level, and there's sex stories, those that aspire to be read with one hand. So I'm not really arguing against "simple", I just don't think it gets at the fundmanental distiinction that I see. YMMV.

OTOH, maybe the distinction does not need to be made so explicity. It's probably more of a spectrum, and literary erotica can and does have stroke scenes, while even the thinnest plot and characterizations are still plots and characters.

I remember porn in the 80s, when they still operated under that Suprme Court ruling that amounted to, if it had a plot, it was legal. So all the porno movies bent over backward to have one. Some of them were actually good, most were comically stupid. Now, anything goes. It's good and bad, but you don't really see plot driven porno any more, at least I don't.

BTW, I like the old term for those romance novels with the pink covers: "bodice rippers". Apparently, the covers contained a coded signal about what level of erotica they would be, how far they would go and how graphic, conveyed in subtle differences in the state of dress of the couple on the cover. Particularly the guy. If he had his shirt open, it meant a bit tamer, if he had his shirt off, it would be more hard-core, that kind of thing. I never read any of them, so I don't know. Maybe I should.

 

[Comshaw]

The problem as I see it is that it comes down to individual interpretation.
Erotica is defined in Merriam-Webster dictionary as:
depictions of things erotic
while "smut" is defined as:
obscene language or matter
As far as those definitions being analogies of each other, there have been ongoing court cases for years trying to define and separate them. Needless to say, most people still consider them to mean the same. So, it comes down to interpretation: how do YOU want to view it?

Me, I take a pragmatic view of things. I worked for a refuse company in my younger days. One of the other drivers insisted on being called a "Sanitation Engineer". I didn't mind the common title "garbageman", not because I like denigrating myself, but because things are what they are. There is an old saying my grandfather used, "you can put lipstick on pig, but that doesn't change what they are."

And as far as the amount of sexually graphic content tipping it one way or the other, it's like an alcoholic drink: you can have a splash or a couple of jiggers in it, but it's still considered alcoholic in nature. So you can have a fabulous story, rife with emotion, action and suspense, but give it a little splash of sex and you got yourself an erotic tale.

What I'm trying to get to is if it makes you feel better to call it erotica rather than smut, if that's what you want to do then do it. It ain't mine or anyone else's business how you see yourself and what you do. As far as my view, I'll just call it what it is.

Comshaw

 

[Gamblnluck]

I still kinda disagree. To me, the term itself, "erotica" always implied a more "literary" kind of thing, or at least something that had aspirations to go beyond porn or smut. Something that was a genre of, I guess, regular mainstream fiction, (since now in the mainstream "literature" is itself just a genre).

That's pretty old-fashioned, I know. And not to demean "stroke stories", or "simple" erotica, it's just that there's a different purpose to it. It's meant for a fast thrill, not a contemplative read. Other genres have them too, pulp fiction comes to mind.

I tend to agree. Erotica is telling a story. I think of your simple or pure erotica as 'jerk off fodder', verbal porn. If that is your intention, fine.

I became an avid reader because of pulp fiction. Used to have a whole set of the old Doc Savage series that were written in the 30's. Some said Superman in the comments was loosely modeled or at least it gave those comic book authors the idea. All the stories were formulaic, and certainly not 'high brow' literature. My early English teachers seemed to despise pulp fiction.

 

[Gamblnluck]

BTW, I like the old term for those romance novels with the pink covers: "bodice rippers". Apparently, the covers contained a coded signal about what level of erotica they would be, how far they would go and how graphic, conveyed in subtle differences in the state of dress of the couple on the cover. Particularly the guy. If he had his shirt open, it meant a bit tamer, if he had his shirt off, it would be more hard-core, that kind of thing. I never read any of them, so I don't know. Maybe I should.

When I was just joining the Army there was guy who berated those early romance novels when he saw a female soldier with one. He had a line like "Arrrgh she cried as I pounded my pulsating python of passion in to her....." You get the idea.
On a side note, I see AUTHORS are far more enthusiastic about 'well written descriptive sex scenes' than readers. Many a 'story' gets downgraded when it has 3 pages of hot sex and three paragraphs of plot. Then the authors complain how they just cannot get a high score and it must be because of the stupidity of the audience. Some categories like erotic coupling is I assume geared for those stories. LW is not. Even in BDSM or fetish, I like to see a plot. Just look at the higher rated stories.
And especially if there are a LOT of reads and votes there is a big difference between a 4.1 and a 4.3 in terms of audience appreciation.