Romance

[PennLady]

To a certain degree this is still the prevailing view of women. Not because they have house work to do all day every day, because their mom had the same view on what is important, along with grandma and great gram. I see in articles about relationships that women view having a good paying job as needed. Bullshit, men don't have to make more than a gal, it is better if they do because most of us want to be the stay at home mom, because mom was.

I'll disagree here on the last point; I am the stay at home mom, but it's more because of circumstances than a desire to be so. I desire it to the degree that getting a job will cause a lot of logistical issues that we are not sure we need or want to deal with right now. But quite honestly I never saw myself in this position. So I don't know if "most" women want that.

However, I agree with most of the rest of what you said.

 

[oggbashan]

...

If you are going to play with the conventions of any genre, you run the risk of not being in the popular group. This doesn't mean you may not find a niche with a group of like-minded people, but it may take longer to come together.

It can also mean that some or all of your stories are consistently low-rated because they have limited appeal. The majority of readers will either avoid you, or give lower votes because you haven't met their preconceptions of what an 'erotic' story in that category should be.

Many of my stories get a WTF! reaction.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

It can also mean that some or all of your stories are consistently low-rated because they have limited appeal. The majority of readers will either avoid you, or give lower votes because you haven't met their preconceptions of what an 'erotic' story in that category should be.

Many of my stories get a WTF! reaction.

Here is a good summary of one author's ideas as to what readers in each category like. I'm not sure how accurate it is in all categories, but it would be easy enough to test by comparing it to the toplists. Also, it is from 2007, and reader preferences may have changed since then. Nonetheless, if improving your scores is your main focus, then it's worth a look.

And btw, Ogg was referenced as a role model in the Fetish category.

 

[Bramblethorn]

If you are going to play with the conventions of any genre, you run the risk of not being in the popular group. This doesn't mean you may not find a niche with a group of like-minded people, but it may take longer to come together.

IMHO there are actually two sets of conventions in play. There's "what authors write about in genre X" and there's "what readers are looking for in genre X". There's a lot of overlap between the two but they're not identical...

Here is a good summary of one author's ideas as to what readers in each category like. I'm not sure how accurate it is in all categories, but it would be easy enough to test by comparing it to the toplists.

...case in point. Re. Lesbian Sex: "The majority of the readers in this category are male, followed by bi-curious females, with actual lesbians bringing up the rear... the majority of readers will be looking for stories of (legal, of course!) teen girls having gentle, exploratory sex with their friends. If you want to make the toplist, I wouldn't write about rough sex, fist fucking, dykes, butches or ass play. To write a popular story in this category, think about male-oriented fantasy porn, and you've pretty much got it."

I think this is an accurate description of what's common in the category. But the stories in the toplist are more likely to be romance/drama with grown-up women who have jobs (usually one established lesbian and one thought-she-was-straight), people building relationships and lives together.

Part of that may be the serial filtering effect - anybody who's still reading by chapter 3 probably likes whatever it is that you're writing, and a girl-on-girl stroke story isn't likely to run to that length. But the top two stories in the category are one-shots.

For myself, a lot of the positive feedback I get comes from gay women (at least according to their profiles) but I hear from straight guys too; there's quite a bit of "this is what I like and it's hard to find".

 

[carlieplum]

I would say to write what you want to write and try to get a thicker skin. (This is advice I am giving to myself at the same time, so don't take it as lecturing, please.) When you go outside the tropes you are going to get fewer readers and lower scores. The tropes exist because people want them. It's a feedback loop. A smaller group of people will follow you outside the loop and you'll get some flak from readers because you didn't deliver exactly what they were expecting.

 

[sr71plt]

I would say to write what you want to write and try to get a thicker skin. (This is advice I am giving to myself at the same time, so don't take it as lecturing, please.) When you go outside the tropes you are going to get fewer readers and lower scores. The tropes exist because people want them. It's a feedback loop. A smaller group of people will follow you outside the loop and you'll get some flak from readers because you didn't deliver exactly what they were expecting.

I agree. It apparently is much too easy for many folks to make something out of this Web site that it's not. It's here for fun and arousal. This isn't arms and legs or a stepping stone to a Pulitzer.

 

[carlieplum]

You're right. It's referred to as the lifestyle for a reason and it vaires per individual

But...

go drift over to the BDSM forums where the reigning experts will tell you all about how anyone not doing it their way is doing it the wrong way.

The biggest disappointment for me here was seeing that forum when I first came here and thinking it would be fun.

Its the GB with bondage.

I'll attest to this. I've got a BDSM multi-parter going (I posted about this before) and I'm getting comments on the site and off the site (to my email) about how I "can't" do this with my story or I "have to" do that with my story. Yeah, I'll get right on that.

 

[emap]

Hey it is possible to go from here to a Pulitzer, as soon as they add an erotic story section anyway.

I get plenty of positive comments back on my only lesbian series, there are two of them. It is about a robot that is made to do secret agent stuff and is a lesbian. Doesn't really fit in the supposed tropes of the section, not top list either but then I wasn't trying to do a lesbian stroke story either.

The tropes are effective at getting readers, but really that is all it is. You get readers but they don't pay for the story so what does it matter?

 

[Bramblethorn]

The tropes exist because people want them.

That's one of the reasons. It's not the only one.

At my place, we have satay chicken for dinner once a week. It's not because we really really love satay chicken, it's because that's when the boy has dinner duty and satay-out-of-a-jar is one of the few things he knows how to make. I suspect some of the Lit tropes work along the same lines.

 

[sr71plt]

I think I would have responded, OK who are these "people"? You have interviewed them all and can name them by name?

Or are you just assuming?

 

[SecondCircle]

The fact that tropes are tropes is evidence enough. Something that has been overdone has happened because people liked it. Thought it was good enough, so it became popular. A trope in writing wouldn't have become a trope if people didn't keep reading it.

But we grow tired of things when they become an institution. We crave the new, the fresh, the original.

And usually, the popular original becomes a trope. And the circle continues.

 

[Tx Tall Tales]

I want to read/write a "Romance" about equals who are perceived to be equals as opposed to equals where one is more equal than the other until demonstrating some pointless heroics.

For example, I read the current NUMBER ONE "Romance" story. It made me cry. It produced an emotional roller coaster. http://www.literotica.com/s/charity-begins-next-door
I loved it - at first.

Thank you. That seems to be the general response. It is designed as an emotional roller-coaster, with two people who are emotionally crippled, finding help, and NOT from just each other. I believe you missed the point of the story if you see this as a Romance between the man who lost his family, and the woman who lost her husband.

The female protagonist is a proud angry unpleasant recluse who doesn't deserve to be "won". The male protagonist is a sentimental fool. The whole "see through my rude ingratitude and love me anyway therefore proving you're worthy of the honor" bullshit makes me rage. The man proves his utility to the woman who callously rejects his help multiple times. She later takes him into her bed so he can prove one more aspect of his utility to her, and then she tries to throw him out. Where is her utility to him? Why should he be attracted to her at all - oh, right - she has a vagina. That entitles her to demand over-the-top proof of his utility before he's worthy of respect let alone love. The story mixes two evil tropes: "someday my prince will come" and "she's too proud to be with him until he proves himself to be the prince she doesn't deserve".

A man who continues to inject himself into a woman's life after she has angrily told him to stay away multiple times is called a STALKER. The male protagonist should be in jail. Instead, he wins her heart and they live happily ever after. If he had been uglier - then he'd be in jail.

I'm rather surprised at your interpretation of the main characters. If this is how you really feel, you are absolutely correct. You shouldn't be writing Romance at all. If you have no empathy for loss, and no desire to help someone else, and see everything as a way of getting what you want, you better stick to other categories. As you might notice, your feelings on the subject are in a distinct minority. 99% of the readers of that story 'get it'.

Virtually every line in your description of them and their 'utility' to each other is totally false, and not reflective of the story at all. If you're trying to prove a point, may I suggest you use material that actually supports it, and not distort what you use.

With all this 'rage', you probably should stick to writing Loving Wives and NonConsent. That and incest where the only 'utility' is common blood lines.

 

[A_Little_Show]

I am impressed by Tx Tall Tales's writing. He is a far better writer than me in every dimension.

I think I am a romantic at heart. I just don't see why Superman is so hung-up on a Lois Lane who is angry after being saved and tells him to stay away. What is so special about her that Superman can't resist?

A romance story doesn't need to explain why the man wants the woman. It's assumed that she is irresistible without any detailed justification. OK. The reader wants Superman and doesn't want to be reminded that she doesn't have much to offer him.

How is such a romance different from the opposite extreme where the blond bimbo can't resist impaling herself on a cock just because he whipped it out? The reader wants beautiful wet women to hop on his cock without being reminded that he has nothing to offer other than a cock.

The difference in my mind is that Superman has to demonstrate super ability and want the woman no matter how many times she rejects him irrationally. The beautiful wet women has to be beautiful and wet and need not necessarily consent.

I'm bothered by the standard that the man must prove worth IN SPITE OF HER RESISTANCE while the woman just is. Her existence is assumed to be enough to warrant Superman's affection just like being beautiful and wet warrants the man's affection. Bah!

Follow her repeated rejections with a spontaneous rough sex scene, and ... It explicitly isn't rape because the female protagonist "wanted it", but how was the male protagonist supposed to know he wouldn't be in jail in the morning accused incontrovertibly of rape after the way she has treated him and he has bruised her?

 

[PennLady]

I am impressed by Tx Tall Tales's writing. He is a far better writer than me in every dimension.

I think I am a romantic at heart. I just don't see why Superman is so hung-up on a Lois Lane who is angry after being saved and tells him to stay away. What is so special about her that Superman can't resist?

But that can't be the whole story. What else does Lois have going on? Did Superman's actions shock her? Scare her?

A romance story doesn't need to explain why the man wants the woman. It's assumed that she is irresistible without any detailed justification. OK. The reader wants Superman and doesn't want to be reminded that she doesn't have much to offer him.

I have to say that's untrue, at least in most cases that I've read. The woman does need to have or be something that the man wants, that compliments him somehow, I suppose you'd say. The woman must at least be able to return the affection, otherwise the reader has no vested interest.

And relationships aren't always exactly 50/50. Maybe Lois doesn't have super powers, but that doesn't mean she can't offer Superman love, or whatever other emotional support he might need.

How is such a romance different from the opposite extreme where the blond bimbo can't resist impaling herself on a cock just because he whipped it out? The reader wants beautiful wet women to hop on his cock without being reminded that he has nothing to offer other than a cock.

I'd say because that's porn, which is not (or rarely) interested in the emotional connections between the characters. Romance is pretty much all about the emotion. If you're looking for emotions that aren't there, that could contribute to your dislike.

I'm bothered by the standard that the man must prove worth IN SPITE OF HER RESISTANCE while the woman just is. Her existence is assumed to be enough to warrant Superman's affection just like being beautiful and wet warrants the man's affection. Bah!

No, I don't think so. Superman -- not that I'm a devoted reader of the comics, or viewer of shows or whatever -- likes Lois because she is smart, tough, and other things. As Clark Kent, he works with her and comes to know her that way, how she thinks and reacts to different situations. That's appealing on an emotional level.

For porn, yeah, being beautiful and wet is enough for the guy. Turn it around and as long as the guy is big and hard, that's enough for the woman. But porn isn't about the emotions, like I said earlier. So to me you're comparing apples and oranges.

Follow her repeated rejections with a spontaneous rough sex scene, and ... It explicitly isn't rape because the female protagonist "wanted it", but how was the male protagonist supposed to know he wouldn't be in jail in the morning accused incontrovertibly of rape after the way she has treated him and he has bruised her?

Lord knows. But that kind of thing has been around since at least "Gone with the Wind." But not every romance has that -- mine certainly don't, nor do most of the ones I've read. And yes some people, men and women, find the idea of being desired so much that the person would act aggressively quite appealing, in fantasy. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[A_Little_Show]

I agree with you, PennLady. I have read erotica where the appeal of the female lead is described beyond the size of her breasts. I have also read porn where the male protagonist's only described virtue is the size of his cock.

I also understand when people just click for no special reason. Two ordinary people can fall madly in love. I think it's romantic when people fit together like puzzle pieces.

I'm trying to understand my own objections and concede they may be irrational and result from my own emotional baggage. What I don't find romantic is the trope that she rejects her suitor for whatever reason but particularly because he hasn't proved his worth. He is persistent until she awakes to the realization that he is worth her love. In my opinion, when the woman rejects the man, he is morally and legally bound to move-on and leaver her the hell alone. Persisting is stalking. Too bad she missed her chance when she later realizes he was worthy after all.

Why must the conflict be that she mistakenly believes he is unworthy until he proves he is? Are there no other conflicts?

How about the "romance" where the woman falls in love with her boss, but he can't admit his reciprocal affection because of company and legal prohibitions. She quits her job to make romance possible. He is then free to confess his love. They live happily ever after.

I think it's equally romantic if he falls in love with his boss and quits so she is free to confess her love for him.

I guess my only point is that having the female protagonist reject the male suitor multiple times until he proves his worth to her is not romantic to me. No means no and it means no forever. Persistence does not win the girl.

 

[SecondCircle]

The romances I've read are a bit different (as few though they may be), and they don't always contain the elements you've described.

Now, maybe that just means I'm exactly like you, in that I seek out those stories that don't tread the beaten path.

I will say that I don't think any generalization really accurately describes any category. Tropes (bleh) became what they are because they were a very popular idea at one point. You can sorta look at anything and peel away the decades and see how people's tastes have changed. Movies, music, fashion, romance stories.... All trends, if you will. I think a trope is a trend in disguise. It was the thing that was fresh and new and exciting. That resistance to a male as you say, may have been at a time the new edgy thing that took place in romance stories.

Now we've kinda seen it too much. So I don't think you're wrong in your observations. Its just that sometimes we gotta peel away the flesh and look at the grisly details. PL gave you some with Lois and Kent (repeat bleh here). There is a bit more going on past the surface.

Romances I've read are more along the lines of some sort of initial attraction followed swiftly by the throes of an irresistible pull of two people toward one another. That kind of love that gets the juices flowing, but more importantly, damns all else in its path. Rather than the tug and pull of "should I, shouldn't I" resistance you speak of, I like the POWER of the emotion.

You know. When someone who is cool calm and collective suddenly acts stupid and nervous. When someone can't fucking breathe right because they are standing next to THAT person. When the world can go to hell, when I'll murder someone for you, set an atom bomb off if I can't have you, keep the cure that's in you hidden to save your life and let the world rot.

Rage makes us do stupid inconsiderate crap. Fear makes us strong, but impulsive and unreasonably insensible. Joy makes the world fly by and dulls every other sense. Love has that power to, and we should see it in romance. Love is one of those powerful powerful emotions, like the ones above, that make us act strangely uncharacteristic. Uncomfortable.

As long as Romance demonstrates this incredibly potent toxin we know as "love" then trope or not its fine. And that falls back to "is it written well?"

...crap my dog just ate a mole, I think.

 

[PennLady]

I'm trying to understand my own objections and concede they may be irrational and result from my own emotional baggage. What I don't find romantic is the trope that she rejects her suitor for whatever reason but particularly because he hasn't proved his worth. He is persistent until she awakes to the realization that he is worth her love. In my opinion, when the woman rejects the man, he is morally and legally bound to move-on and leaver her the hell alone. Persisting is stalking. Too bad she missed her chance when she later realizes he was worthy after all.

Why must the conflict be that she mistakenly believes he is unworthy until he proves he is? Are there no other conflicts?

Let me say this -- if I was reading a story where the female lead rejected her suitor for those reasons, I wouldn't like it either. BUT, there's usually more to it than that. In a historical romance, she may be forced to reject him by her family, or his. Or because of those reasons, she may at first really think he is not worthy. Then the story is often how she comes to realize she's wrong, and often he'll act to try to show her she's wrong. And again, to me so much depends on the setting; in a Jane Austen-type world, social circles were small and people were forced to interact even if they were feuding or didn't like each other.

And there are plenty of romances that work the other way as well, so even if you don't care for that situation, it's at least somewhat equal opportunity.

How about the "romance" where the woman falls in love with her boss, but he can't admit his reciprocal affection because of company and legal prohibitions. She quits her job to make romance possible. He is then free to confess his love. They live happily ever after.

I think it's equally romantic if he falls in love with his boss and quits so she is free to confess her love for him.

Indeed it is. I myself have said I get tired of the woman always making the big change for the guy, whether it's changing jobs, moving, whatever.

I guess my only point is that having the female protagonist reject the male suitor multiple times until he proves his worth to her is not romantic to me. No means no and it means no forever. Persistence does not win the girl.

No means no, but it doesn't have to mean no forever. People, times and circumstances change. And to me there are degrees. If a guy and a woman are crossing paths, and he says hello and she observes him doing things that change her mind about him, that's different than a guy constantly calling or stopping by or whatever.

At any rate, if it's not romantic to you, then it's not, and that's fine. But it is romantic to some people, and what's romantic to you won't be romantic to others.