Passive Partners in Erotic Writing?

[3113]

Just a short rant: I read a well written story. I mean, really, the writing itself was quite masterful. There was one problem, however, one that tends to pop up in erotica: a passive partner.

By passive, I don't mean inactive. In this story, the partner moaned and screamed and orgasmed. But there was no personality to them. At best, they were generic. They said almost nothing and the whole story was about what the protagonist was doing to this passive partner (licking, stroking, fucking).

It can go the other way as well. I've read some BDSM stories, in particular, where the Dom might as well be an automaton. They do the usual things to their sub (spank, demand a blow job, etc), but the story, from the pov of the sub, gives the Dom no real character or personality. They're just there to DO things to the sub. As in the opposite situation, the passive partner is just there to receive sex from the active partner.

I don't know about other readers, but this really annoys me. The writer might as well put the story in "toys and masterbation" as the partner is little more than a blow-up doll or some other kind of toy.

I guess the reason I felt the need to rant about this is because the writer's talent was pretty much wasted. They worked incredibly hard to give the protagonist a strong personality, create some tension, ambience, toss in all the senses (smell, taste, touch), use eloquent language in describing the sensations of the sex. They *tried* to make us feel what the passive partner was feeling, but because they failed to give that partner a personality, it was totally wasted.

Other opinions on this? Do you feel that you fill in the personality no matter how much is left out, enough to enjoy sex scenes in such stories, or do you get frustrated, when writers put so much effort into one partner, than leave it almost entirely out of the other sexual partner?

 

[Darkniciad]

I haven't really thought about this much until I saw this thread. I lean protagonist heavy, now that I think about it. I trend toward more connection in a g/g scene with both partners, but it still focuses on the thoughts, emotions, and sensations from one point of view more than the other.

Certainly something I'm going to think about the next time this comes up - the next time I touch the keyboard to write, actually. I'm right up to the final sex scene in what I'm writing now.

 

[wishfulthinking]

I believe that given time most can master the written techniques to create a story, but it is the few that can make the characters and story come alive like pictures in your head.

But you must remember, a lot on lit is the written equivalent of fucking a blow-up doll - and is exactly what a lot of readers want.

 

[wishfulthinking]

I forgot to own up and say that I'm a visual writer - I write what I see in my head, so I seem to focus more on the partner.

 

[Aurora Black]

Previous Post Deleted

(I don't need you to plug my stuff, sweetheart. If they want to read, they will. )

I've written passive male characters in the past because I focused mainly on my heroine's point of view. However, I'm working to capture the other side as well. I want to tell his side of the story as well as hers. Hopefully I will succeed.

 

[angela146]

In my case, it's deliberate. As an author, I want readers to be able to map their own fantasies onto the "partner".

As a reader, nothing annoys me more than reading an erotic story and having the lover described in detail. It robs me of my private enjoyment of the story. Don't tell me what he looks like, sounds like, smells like. That's none of your business.

Beyond that, there is an archtypical female fantasy of the faceless lover. Deep down, we all know who he is but we can't admit it to ourselves.

 

[impressive]

In my case, it's deliberate. As an author, I want readers to be able to map their own fantasies onto the "partner".

Interesting. I tend to view my readers as the DO-ers as opposed to the DO-ees in my prose (with the exception of a couple of targeted readers). Naturally, I'm more likely to develop the other character(s) from the perspective of the POV character ... and my POV character is almost always a top. (Wonder why?)

Hrm. Perhaps that's why I'm struggling with my current WIP. The POV character is not a top ... not with this particular woman, anyway. Further, the vast majority of stories when my POV character is not a top coincide with the instances when my POV character is male.

I must ponder this.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Yes, interesting. Many possible angles to this. My first thought was that the writer was expressing a fantasy in which the other person is mostly objectified. My second thought, given your description of the writer's talent, was that he should be informed of this, which triggered something from that recent Heinlein thread, about taking on the challenge of imagining a character completely different from oneself and writing from that person's POV. I hadn't even considered Angela's point: That is how I write, too - for the porn reading public, not "for the ages." They come here for a certain thing, and I want to give it to them, in spades. I can see how a blank slate partner could contribute to that, but I can also see it going the other way, too.

 

[angela146]

Interesting. I tend to view my readers as the DO-ers as opposed to the DO-ees in my prose (with the exception of a couple of targeted readers). Naturally, I'm more likely to develop the other character(s) from the perspective of the POV character ... and my POV character is almost always a top. (Wonder why?)

For me, the effect is the same regarless of whether the POV character is top or bottom.

If my POV character is riding/screwing/paddling someone, I still don't physically characterize the receipient too much. In other words, I try to only flesh out the part that is necessary to the story. I want the reader to be able to paint their own picture.

Actually, I also don't do too much *physical* characterization of the POV character, thus allowing the reader to see him/herself in that role.

Emotional/psychological/spiritual characterization is another matter. That's all fair game for me. For the POV character, I try to bring the reader to the point where she/he feels what the POV character is feeling.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Slight threadjack: Related to Angela's point about leaving blanks into which the reader can fill in her own fantasy details, I had a "fan" who wrote a very kind letter in which he described how he and his partner have a mild fur fetish - they like to do it on fur. In my next story I had the characters do the deed on a fur rug in front of a fireplace. What color was that rug in my story? Any color the reader wanted it to be! I deliberately didn't specify, because that is exactly the sort of thing about which someone out there will have a specific fantasy, and I would hate to disappoint.

 

[angela146]

That is how I write, too - for the porn reading public, not "for the ages." They come here for a certain thing, and I want to give it to them, in spades. I can see how a blank slate partner could contribute to that, but I can also see it going the other way, too.

I suppose a lot of it depends on what the author's goal is in writing the story. In my case, I'm usually trying to seduce, maniuplate and mind-fuck the reader.

By leaving more to the reader's imagination, I'm able to bring the reader into the story, have him/her open up more and thus have deeper access to his/her soul.

 

[impressive]

By leaving more to the reader's imagination, I'm able to bring the reader into the story, have him/her open up more and thus have deeper access to his/her soul.

Which is precisely where I butt heads with the romance-reading audience. It seems that the average romance reader wants to be spoon-fed a hero ... down to that list of physical attributes that most of us smut writers avoid like the plague.

It's funny, really, because I see many entrenched romance writers (and readers) looking down their noses at erotica as the "black sheep" in the family. They seem to think that erotica is just slobbering, grunting tab-A-in-slot-B sex.

There's a raging debate ongoing over in the Romantic Times forum about whether or not the magazine should even be reviewing erotica ... M/M erotica, in particular. It's as if they don't think erotica capable of telling a story.

 

[angela146]

Which is precisely where I butt heads with the romance-reading audience. It seems that the average romance reader wants to be spoon-fed a hero

A lot of romance readers want to be conquered rather than wanting to surrender. They don't want to make it easy for the author any more than they want to make it easy for the ravishing hero.

I much prefer a reader who is complicit in the process: one whom I seduce into opening her blouse rather than ripping it off of her.

Is it getting warm in here or it is just me?

 

[impressive]

A lot of romance readers want to be conquered rather than wanting to surrender.

Not only that. They want to be conquered by a 6'4" rake with a flowing mane of raven hair, sculpted man titty and washboard abs, bulging thighs, and a golden tongue.

And ... then there's the hot, throbbing love muscle ...

 

[Equinoxe]

I don't often read stories here and I cannot think of a specific occasion in which I have read a story with such a personality-less character, but I'm quite certain I've read several, as well as too many with stock personalities. In a sense, I do understand the reasoning and thought behind that, assuming it is not a technical fault, from several perspectives. Firstly, I'm quite certain that for a percentage of the audience a sort of human sex toy is very much to their interest and hence stories of that nature will be written. Secondly, as several have suggested here, there is the deliberate technique of leaving elements of the story open, to allow the reader to place themselves within the story.

From an authorly perspective rather than a readerly one, I am not fond of either of those, to be honest -- and to take the contrary position of that which has been espoused by others. I have no interest in the former and while I understand the latter and can appreciate the technique, it does not generally suit my literary interests, and I have some misgivings about it: I am decidedly not in the "no description is good description" crowd. I've never written an erotic story in my life, and this may perhaps be another indication of just why that is (in addition to my general loathing of the existing erotic vocabulary), but I tend towards a view of the arts -- graciously including erotica in the arts -- which centres on the artist. Subsequently, I have little interest in writing erotic fiction [possibly the most out-of-place statement ever made on the author's section of the forum of an erotica site], which is perhaps interesting when juxtaposed with the opposing view point.

 

[Oblimo]

And ... then there's the hot, throbbing love muscle ...

The...heart? Aw, Imp, you're such a sappy romantic!

 

[TriggerHippie]

I understand your point, Three, and it is certainly valid; however, personally, I’m much more irritated when a story is told in the first person and then the protagonist starts telling me what the other person is thinking. That drives me nuts! Show me, or have that character tell me via conversation! Don’t have “I” telling me. Pick your POV and stay true. /rant

 

[rgraham666]

I often describe my characters in detail. Especially in my longer works. Perhaps it's because I visualize the stories in my mind.

On the other hand, my characters are rarely 'stock'. My women are rarely blonde. The few times I have it was because I borrowed someone else's characters, or something else made them different, quite petite in one instance and quite lush in the other.

The men are even less 'stock'.

Shrugs. Seems to work for me, so I'll keep on doing it.

 

[Oblimo]

How passive is passive? Just passive during sex, or passive in the development toward the sex too? Is a passive partner in erotic fiction just as bad as the passive tense?

I think passivity in a sex scene can work if the character isn't passive in the development toward the scene. Passion, after all, is passive -- both stem from the Latin patī, to suffer or submit -- in the sense that it's something that happens to you, that is brought upon or descends upon you. If, before the sex itself, I am given enough of the character to understand his/her motivation, why s/he has gotten hot and bothered enough to just take and take and take what the active (and presumably POV) partner is doing to them, if I know enough to imagine the inner world of the passive partner's passion and not just the physiology, I think I could be turned on by reading it.

3113, I'm really intrigued by the idea of the "passive dom" (that is, as a misstep of erotic fiction, something that would be a Don't in a "How To" of D&S fiction, not as a character I want to see in a story) It's almost an oxymoron. Many years ago, I once read a D&S scifi story on alt.sex.stories. The protagonist was the lonely pilot of a freight spaceship. She goes through her manifest and discovers a male pleasurebot being returned to the manufacturer because it's programming is stick in an "recursive Ds loop." She's so lonely (and apparently naive) that she turns it on and the story turns into Alien, except when she's caught, she's truly fucked, and then he lets her go so he can chase her down again. Repeat ad naseum.

So here was a story that literally contained a "dom automaton," and probably did so intentionally as a wink to the reader. It was very well written, but it didn't turn me on at all, and now I know why.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Not only that. They want to be conquered by a 6'4" rake with a flowing mane of raven hair, sculpted man titty and washboard abs, bulging thighs, and a golden tongue.

And ... then there's the hot, throbbing love muscle ...

Don't forget the limpid pools. Must have limpid pools . . .



(I'm just playing - I know nothing about the genre, so don't have a platform from which to tease.)

 

[dr_mabeuse]

It can go the other way as well. I've read some BDSM stories, in particular, where the Dom might as well be an automaton. They do the usual things to their sub (spank, demand a blow job, etc), but the story, from the pov of the sub, gives the Dom no real character or personality. They're just there to DO things to the sub. As in the opposite situation, the passive partner is just there to receive sex from the active partner.

Yeah. This is especially true of BDSM, which is such a cliched and stereotyped literary form that you're usually dealing with caricatures rather than characters. The dom is actrive in terms of what he does, but totaly passive in terms of having a personality or showing any feelings at all. The stoic, unemotional, highly disciplined dom is straight from central casting, totally two-dimensional. Subs are usually more expressive, at least.

I thought for a while that maybe the typical fictional dom's lack of personality and affect might be part of the appeal of BDSM porn, kind of like the way some people get off on the idea of being fucked by machines, so I asked some people on a BDSM board, and the answer came back pretty firmly negative. There were some subs who got off on a dom's coldness and emotional detachment, but not many. Most wanted to see some personality and some feeling and arousal, some interaction, and even some tenderness. I think a lot of dom authors are averse to showing any kind of emotion other than cruelty because they take that as a sign of weakness.

I think the main problem is the difficulty both doms and subs have in describing their emotions during a BDSM session. I've noticed that most D/s stories seem to be very externalized - a simple recounting of things done - without much attention paid to the characters' internal states. They'll mention fear and maybe excitement and basic emotions like that, but that's about the range of their emotional repetoire. That makes the characters seem flat and transparent, with no personality and no character.

 

[3113]

A human handle

I understand your point, Three, and it is certainly valid; however, personally, I’m much more irritated when a story is told in the first person and then the protagonist starts telling me what the other person is thinking. That drives me nuts! Show me, or have that character tell me via conversation!

Oh, I agree. If it's first person, it's first person. But that doesn't mean that the other character has to simply be pretty and sexy and lay there moaning and orgasaming while the protagonist pounds away and talks about how stiff his cock his.

I wrote several stories in first person and I was able to imply what the other character was feeling simply by having my protagoinist use his imagination. *He* imagines what they must be feeling as he gives them pleasure and they moan, etc. But for that to work, I had to give them a personality. It wasn't just saying, "She feels the pain of my pinches on her nipples," it was 'I know how shy she is, how it makes her blush to feel my hand fondling her nipples, pinching them, keeping her from hiding them."

See? Personality. In this I disagree with Angela. I can understand the generic, blow-up doll if all I want to do is masterbate. But if the writer is giving me something that says, "this is a story," not just a stroke, then, as a reader, I want a handle to help me sink into both characters.

The handle need not include every tiny detail. I don't need to know the guy (or girl) has a dimple on his ass, likes rocky-road ice cream, learned to read at age three. But I do need to know that he (or she) is more than just a warm body. They're shy or bold or spiritual or earthy. They love to go wild and get down and dirty, or they like things neat and orderly.

That's what I connect with, that human quality which I have as well. So I say, "I can identify with being shy. Sometimes, I'm shy, too..." and when the characters have sex, I'm not just the bold protagonist seducing that shy character, I'm the shy character enjoying that boldness.

As a writer, and IMHO, giving both characters a personality allows the reader of erotica to experience both sides rather than just one. And personality simply means a human handle for a reader to grab. I, personally, can't imagine myself as a blow-up doll (generic nothing) and I can't imagine having fun fucking a blow-up doll. I want to know that the protagoinist is fucking a human being.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I think that this is something I could be guilty of, now that you mention it!

I hope not, though.
Hmm, have to go back and take a look at some things...

 

[3113]

Yeah. This is especially true of BDSM, which is such a cliched and stereotyped literary form that you're usually dealing with caricatures rather than characters. The dom is actrive in terms of what he does, but totaly passive in terms of having a personality or showing any feelings at all. The stoic, unemotional, highly disciplined dom is straight from central casting, totally two-dimensional. Subs are usually more expressive, at least.

Thanks, Dr. M! That's exactly what I was seeing, and you explained it perfectly. It's really odd that the "active" character (as the sub is usually bound and just reacting) is the one that is "passive" in personality.

And yes, it does come right back down to that generic or central casting problem. Such characters might as well have a bar code on them.

I think the main problem is the difficulty both doms and subs have in describing their emotions during a BDSM session.

That's a very interesting point. I think you may be right. From my experience, there is a habit in the BDSM community to close ranks and not discuss such things. It may be that they like to maintain the mystery, or it might just be, as is common in communities, that they understand it on viseral level and don't feel it needs to be explained. If one is reading the BDSM, than one fills in the blanks as it were.

 

[rgraham666]

That's been one of my problems with reading BDSM. It's what I refer to as 'ritual'.

Too many BDSM stories, in my opinion, are too caught up in the 'ritual'. The way the people dress, the way they act, the implements they use, it all comes across as automatic. A is followed by B which is followed by C.

And like all ritual, the emotion gets sublimated into the ritual, lost somewhere along the way.

The 'filling in the blanks' happens in all porn, not just BDSM. It's kind of assumed by the writer that a line like 'I licked her pussy' contains all the elements of the act. But a lot more goes on. I wish more authours worked on that.