Slow Burn or Fast Paced?

[EmperorKhagan]

Which do you prefer?

A story that is slowly building to an explosive climax?

Or a story that has action all the time but tends to become watered down over time?

 

[HeyAll]

I generally prefer fast past. And I write faster pace stories, too.

It's an art to make erotica that moves fast, but has strong characters, plot, and builds eroticism.

I've also felt that erotica works best if it's tightly written; no unecessary details or unecessary sentences. Everything should serve a purpose. It's different than being a literature novel. Great erotica should read like a crime thriller, in my opinion.

 

[KeithD]

I prefer a variety, so both--and everything in between.

 

[PennameWombat]

Why only the two mutually-incompatible options? It depends on the story and my mood, but either option is acceptable. It just... depends.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

As long as the slow burn is interesting, then it's getting more story for your (lack of) money.

In the words of the late unlamented British Rail "Make getting there more like being there."

I like having my characters at least talking or thinking about sex within a few paragraphs, to keep the reader thinking about it until the characters get it on.

 

[Jackie.Hikaru]

I get hesitant whenever I see the disclaimer that the story is a 'slow burner'. I've come to expect that to mean it's just not a compelling story at all.
Not that it doesn't work. I love a slow burn that's well-crafted. The payoff can be tremendous eroticism.

 

[SimonDoom]

I have no preference. I like both types of stories if they are well done.

 

[TadOverdon]

Depends on the story and scenario.

But most of what I write is "slam/bam."