Romance novel jargon

[pink_silk_glove]

btw it’s called discussion right? The only attacks seem to be from a pack of aged hyenas. Please read all you want between those lines. Or focus on the discussion at hand.

We were discussing it ... and then you came along.

 

[KeithD]

Shhhh.

It's entertaining. Let him keep it up.

I think "him" is a "her" posting stories here under the name of DaniellaDonatiTabooErotica. At least that's what a reading of the tea leaves tells me (to the limited extent I'm interested).

What I think she's missing that has everyone else's eyes bugging out is seeing me defending any aspect of LC.

 

[mildlyaroused]

 

[Voboy]

and added to the discussion.

I mean, I guess? It certainly added posts. But I've gotten nothing constructive out of what you've "added," so there's that.

Welcome to Lit. We don't mind people being edgy, but not usually just for the sake of being edgy.

 

[KeithD]

That is definitely incorrect. But please feel free to offer food for thought as relates the actual topic.

As often happens on the board, threads spin off threads. One here has become about you. We'll see how much you feed it.

I posted my take on "core" as well. When I use the word, the story is really getting serious on satisfaction and mastery.

 

[Voboy]

The particular discussion point was the use of the word core in the romance genre. I provided my opinion. And have been attacked without reference to the core discussion.

Okay. So just... let it go. If you're being "attacked," and you feel you're being misrepresented, it's fine to withdraw. Or? Choose to double down and go off the rails; it's certainly an option, I suppose.

The business of understanding is in equal parts the business of the listener. That’s how discussion works.

It's hard to listen to people who don't express themselves well, though, and that's the business of the person who allegedly wants to be listened to.

I have no doubt you think you're a great communicator. But there are quite a few long-term posters here, many of whom have tangled vociferously in the past (and some of whom probably don't like each other very much), who are miraculously united in one opinion: that you are not a great communicator.

I dunno. Smoke and fire, and all that. You choose how to proceed. Again, welcome to Literotica.

 

[lovecraft68]

Ah the big fish in a little pond makes up a point of something I didn’t say. Well done. When you are done pontificating try getting published for real. Then come at me. Until then, you are no Georgie Hawes.

You did say it, very clearly, and with the haughty attitude you're doubling down on here.

As for being published for real? You'd be surprised how many people on lit are.

 

[KeithD]

Agreed. I think a skilled author’s selection of words reflects intended audience within a particular genre. That being said; I also enjoy reading something sloppily written. Especially when said sloppiness drips with the authors level of personal arousal. I find those stories equally attractive.

In that vein, I find the repetitive and highly emotional and intense passage cited up the line as being bad from Lady Chatterly's Lover to be perfectly fine in conveying the passion of the scene.

 

[lovecraft68]

Not at all. I know several editors on here. And have met many published writers. The sad thing is you still miss my point. Eagles don’t talk to flies. They talk to other eagles. In the language of eagles.

Of a certainty you are a writer. What would happen if you broadened the range of your chosen vocabulary?

New York times best seller’s list?

That is my point.

I choose to write in the KISS method, especially for erotica because I want the stories to read the way actual people speak, and not send readers to a thesaurus because I want to do a vocab flex and look super smart. If you want to talk about skill and craft, well a good storyteller wants to engage a reader on a common level, not try to write above them.

 

[lovecraft68]

As in someone other than himself is publishing him in the marketplace? Beyond self-publishing?

Under one pen name, yes, and not erotica-at least not solely erotica-but its not a major publisher as in big six, a smaller niche type publisher I was put in contact with during my time in ARIA (Association of Rhode Island Authors.) Not really making much, but I'm not really doing any work either, they are. I don't talk about it here because something TX Rad taught me was to not divulge the 'real stuff." so I don't.

 

[lovecraft68]

It's certainly an achievement to get your writing in print. I'm proud of doing so myself. But if you think published writers automatically have more credibility in literary discussions, I would tentatively suggest that you have a very narrow view on the industry. 90% of fiction is not very good, just like 90% of movies are not very good. There are probably more great writers who aren't published than great writers who are published. That's just how entertainment goes in our world. Frankly, coming at someone for not being published "for real" is bad taste, unproductive, and smells like insecurity.

Actually, and @KeithD could probably speak to the truth of this, I've heard that on the past few years authors previously published by large publishing houses are beginning to shift to self-publishing because they have more control, and the self-pub market is more reputable than it was back in the early days of kindle.

 

[mildlyaroused]

Actually, and @KeithD could probably speak to the truth of this, I've heard that on the past few years authors previously published by large publishing houses are beginning to shift to self-publishing because they have more control, and the self-pub market is more reputable than it was back in the early days of kindle.

Probably he could. I'm encapsulating traditionally published books in that 90% too, though. Writing well and being published are too different things, with some overlap. Just like writing well and scoring well.

 

[Voboy]

Actually, and @KeithD could probably speak to the truth of this, I've heard that on the past few years authors previously published by large publishing houses are beginning to shift to self-publishing because they have more control, and the self-pub market is more reputable than it was back in the early days of kindle.

Same thing happened in music about 15 years back. It was revolutionary in that field; I'm sure it'll eventually be seen in this one as similarly revolutionary.

Democratization of creativity is a double-edged sword, but in general I think it helps more than it hurts. Though I've never self-published, so I don't know firsthand.

If the trend eventually banishes "core" in favor of "pussy," it'll at least get more people like me to read the eventual books.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

New York times best seller’s list?

Best seller lists are full of shitty books.

Not at all. I know several editors on here. And have met many published writers. The sad thing is you still miss my point. Eagles don’t talk to flies. They talk to other eagles. In the language of eagles.

Squawk, squawk, squawk. : P

 

[Abbafan]

Mao burnt all the books in a break with the past.

Language is one of humanity’s greatest inventions.

Everything had to go or be changed if it didn't promote good communist values.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Actually, and @KeithD could probably speak to the truth of this, I've heard that on the past few years authors previously published by large publishing houses are beginning to shift to self-publishing because they have more control, and the self-pub market is more reputable than it was back in the early days of kindle.

This is particularly common in romance; trad-pub vs. self-pub isn't the litmus test of a professional author that it used to be. Quite a few big romance authors self-publish these days, partly for creative freedom and partly because trad-pub royalties are poor.

I know I plug Courtney Milan a lot here, but she has some good discussion on why she dropped Harlequin to go self-pub:

https://www.courtneymilan.com/ramblings/2011/05/31/on-the-self-publishing-horizon/
https://smartbitchestrashybooks.com...ourtney-milan-self-publishing-her-next-novel/

Some of her other posts are also worth reading for people interested in the business side of writing.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I noticed that was written in 2011. I imagine her points are even more true now.

She's still self-publishing, so I guess she thinks so! Though she does mention in one of her posts that she's not trying to evangelise self-publishing as something everybody should do; it means taking on a lot of functions besides writing, and while she has the background to do that, some people may be better off just focussing on the writing.

 

[XerXesXu]

Eagles don’t talk to flies. They talk to other eagles. In the language of eagles.

Which reminds me, wrens don't talk to eagles, they're above that sort of discourse. They prefer intelligent conversation.

 

[THBGato]

Which reminds me, wrens don't talk to eagles, they're above that sort of discourse.

"For the poor wren, / The most diminutive of birds, will fight, / Her young ones in her nest, against the owl."

Sorry, I didn't really have a point. Your comment just made me think of those lines from Macbeth suddenly.

 

[Voboy]

MomTabu vs XerXesXu?

 

[lovecraft68]

Not interested today but Momtabu verses pop corn looks like a better proposition.

It's a mismatch. There's a kernel of truth in popcorn.

 

[XerXesXu]

Then by all means offer intelligent discourse on the language of romance.

'Mom, you're not my type of bird, you're taboo.'

 

[Bramblethorn]

Entomology 101

1. The origin and historical development of a linguistic form as shown by determining its basic elements, earliest known use, and changes in form and meaning, tracing its transmission from one language to another, identifying its cognates in other languages, and reconstructing its ancestral form where possible.

The confusion between entomology and etymology bugs me beyond words.

 

[Voboy]

Beyond words; and yet you join the herd still not writing a word on the language of romance. Preferring instead to continue the personal attacks on a woman for offering a differing view of it?

I applaud your cowardice.

Prime Dunning-Kruger right here. Epic.

This thread does not disappoint.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Beyond words; and yet you join the herd still not writing a word on the language of romance. Preferring instead to continue the personal attacks on a woman for offering a differing view of it?

I applaud your cowardice.

Oh I get it. We're not allowed to rebut you because you're a woman.

I don't hide behind my gender. You sling your mud but when someone else talks back you cry 'not fair!' Talk about cowardice.