Story Discussion 08/04/10: Simplicity (v2)

[coldsteel]

Greetings.

The story I ask your comment on is the first I submitted to Lit. Got a fair number of views (36K) and readers seemed to like it.

As with most first-timers, I built the story from personal experiences and composites. I'll leave it to your imagination where fact segues into fiction.

Here are a handful of questions to start off the discussion.

1. I tried to tell something of the personality of each character through speech and thought. Does it work?

2. Is there a point where you as a reader/critic say to yourself that you are immediately suspending disbelief, or was it gradual enough to pass unnoticed?

3. Did each of the central characters have enough depth that you thought you knew or could know them?

4. I learned that writing sex is easy, writing believable sex is more difficult, and writing sex that is interesting, believable, engaging and meaningful to a reader is quite difficult. What could I have done differently/better?

The piece in question is

http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=483656

If the piece engages you, there's also a prequel.

http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=483981

Critique solicited and welcome.

Thanks for your time and thoughts.

 

[nerk]

Let me take your questions starting at the end:

4. I think the difficulty in writing interesting, believable, engaging and meaningful sex scenes is not so much a difficulty with the sex scenes as the lead in. If you turn on the TV and see a battle scene in a movie, you might admire the special effects and the artistry, but you won't particularly give a rat's ass about it. If the movie is good, watching the whole thing, you'll be more inclined to care about who wins. Likewise with a sex scene, what makes it engaging and meaningful is having the reader engaged with the characters, and having the sex mean something to them.

1 & 3. I have to say that on a first read, the characters did not leap out as being very distinct. Particularly when Terri calls Simplicity for the first time, I am lost. There is an Emily, then an Erica, then an Amy who might actually be Emily having slipped out for a name change while Erica was on the phone. I had to go back and reread the scene to sort out who was saying what, and I think it could have been avoided by taking a bit more time to characterize the voices. Likewise in the orgy sequence, I found myself checking back with the imaginary chart in my head of who was who.

Oddly, Rick was the character that stood out for me, and I really couldn't tell you much about him except that he's hung. That, and all the other characters are sort of defined by why and how they are in awe of Pat. I'd like to have a stronger sense of who they are aside from that, and I think it could be easily done with just a couple of brushstrokes to give each one a bit of added depth. Once they start to seem fully rounded, everything else will fall into place.

2. I had a hard time suspending disbelief on this, and I think in large part that has to do with my own prejudices, so take the following with as many grains of salt as you see fit. I am a born skeptic, and I am deeply suspicious of perfection and the ideal. Pat is, from the beginning, the surgeon-as-God. His only flaw is an excess of dedication to his work. In all other ways, he is practically superhuman in his perfection. This is compounded by the setting of Simplicity. It is Ideal for these people. Exactly what they need. It works too well. They drink the kool-aid without question, and whatever fleeting doubts Pat might have had are never expressed, even to the reader, because Terri won't let him say anything at the crucial moments.

Overall, I think you've got a draft here with a lot of possibility. Most of my criticisms really boil down to wanting a bit more. A bit more fleshing out of the side characters, a bit more complexity in Pat, and his reaction to what is happening, and possibly an just a shadow of a doubt in someone's mind about Simplicity.

 

[coldsteel]

Thanks for the very thoughtful and helpful comments, nerk. Your proposed edits and revisions would make for a better narrative. Your critique is valuable and appreciated. More after I see/hear from a few others...

 

[PacoFear]

1. I tried to tell something of the personality of each character through speech and thought. Does it work?

In an otherwise solidly interesting piece, I’d say this is the weakest part. Everyone sounds alike to me. Worse, your narrator sounds similar too. A very clipped, hyperefficient voice predominates. The upside is that it moves your story along quickly.

2. Is there a point where you as a reader/critic say to yourself that you are immediately suspending disbelief, or was it gradual enough to pass unnoticed?

For my part, yours was one of the more credible setups. You invested a substantial amount of time in the lead-up and it got me to the group scene without the feeling of consciously engaging the disbelief-o-matic frequently required.

3. Did each of the central characters have enough depth that you thought you knew or could know them?

As nerk already noted, the cast seems a bit like Pat and the Pat-o-philes. On Pat, I’m sympathetic to your plight in trying to present a character like him. There are people out there like Pat and they’re the ones who are most likely to inspire the folks around them to strive for something like Simplicity. But at some point, sadly, western readers seem to have grown too jaded for these clean cut protagonists. (If you speak comic book, folks have been observing for awhile that Superman, if launched now, wouldn’t sell worth shit. We’re more attracted to the flawed anti-heroes, the Wolverine types.)

You might nerf superhero Pat by giving him a flaw or two. A small drinking problem might scuff him up in a satisfying way and fit his workaholic situation. Teetering on the edge of a booze addiction might provide Terri with additional motivation to try something so dramatic as calling Simplicity. For my money, it would also make for a more heartwarming conclusion – giving it more the flavor of Pat’s friends returning the favor by rescuing him from a bad path.

Plan B, if you just can’t bring yourself to give Pat a flaw (in which case you might need to consider that he’s your Mary Sue), might be to try a slightly more gentle softening of Pat’s abundant awesomeness. Simply tone down the amazement of his fan club. For example, at the point where he’s ‘deducing’ the setup at Simplicity, you might have one of the other characters get in a friendly dig along the lines of, “Sherlock, dial the brain down a little. We’re on vacation.” That seems an equally plausible, if not more plausible, reaction to Pat’s dialogue and it takes a bit of shine off him.

4. I learned that writing sex is easy, writing believable sex is more difficult, and writing sex that is interesting, believable, engaging and meaningful to a reader is quite difficult. What could I have done differently/better?

I’ll agree with nerk again here, because IMHO 70% of a good sex scene is getting the readers invested in the participants. For me, you achieved believable. Kudos there. Erotically speaking though, this thing kinda fell flat for me. There’s a substantial amount of work to get to that group sex scene and there wasn’t anything especially tantalizing to it.

Again, I can sympathize here. Pound for pound, I think a group scene is the hardest one to make erotic without it sounding shallow and hectic. It once took me six months to write a five-way scene I didn’t completely hate.

Here’s my takeaway, you need a naughty hook or two. Your group sex is fairly vanilla intercourse. In a bedroom filled with six people you’re telling me there isn’t one inveterate toe sucker, boob humper, deepthroater, or anal junkie? Even a bit of dirty talk might have spiced things up a bit. The one naughty hook you brought to the carnal party, Rick’s size, was only partly exploited. You could have lingered over Terri’s fascination with his size and the fear/anticipation that comes right before she has sex with him. I vote for more kink.

Overall, I liked this thing insofar as you made a legitimate effort at a plotline and successfully pulled off an interesting setup for a group sex scene. We’re nitpicking over the details because you’ve done the big-picture things nicely. Well done.

 

[coldsteel]

Paco, thanks so much for taking the time to write thoughtful critique. Helpful.

You make a strong point about the importance of flaws in characters to make the storyline interesting. I'll do a better job next time.

The clipped thought and dialogue on Pat's part was meant to convey something about him, they way he thinks and functions. Part of the point was that getting so focused on the 'destination' and not stopping to smell the roses along the way is ultimately destructive.

 

[LingerieRobot]

I really like the concept and the fantasy of this story, and it was a good idea to tie the sexual exploration of your main character to solving a character flaw. The execution wasn't as good, although the story was still enjoyable. Here are some coments/ideas:

-I really liked the beginning, but the juxtaposition of the grisly hospital and the sex scene threw me for a minute. I'm not sure whether the flashback sex scene and even the past relationship with Kat is necessary -- it seems kind of extraneous to the main plot. If you want a sex scene there for pacing reasons, why not have a scene where Terry masturbates, wishing her husband was there? That would kind of drive home the problem in their relationship and nicely build up the eroticism.

-Speaking of which, the sex is okay, but a bit porn-y. I think this is mainly something you'll have to learn with time, but taking out the exact measurements of your characters would help a lot.

-There have been a lot of comments about your dialogue being the same, and while I sort of agree with them, I think the main problem is not sameness but unnaturalness. Your characters have a habit of talking like flyers.

-I think you should have had more of an internal struggle for Pat to accept the open nature of Simplicity. Most people would have a pretty strong reaction to being dropped in a swinging nudist camp, and you could get some good stuff out of it. I think it would also add to the conflict of your story if Pat was a bit square sexually and had to have his mind opened.

-As others have said, the characters that weren't Pat and Terry were a little hard to distinguish, but I think that's okay, as they weren't the focus and I didn't have any difficulty keeping track of who was who.

-Take out the chapter/scene identifiers, they're not necessary, especially in a fairly short story like this.

On the whole, I enjoyed this piece, and I think you have a lot of promise. The issues I pointed out above are mainly technical, not conceptual, and I think with a bit tighter writing this would be a really great story. Good job, and I hope to see more of your stuff in the future.

 

[coldsteel]

LingerieRobot...

Thanks so much for taking the time to provide such thoughtful critique. Longer response a little later. Your point about opportunities to develop and resolve conflict around Pat is especially well taken...

 

[Penelope Street]

Hi CS,

I read the first scene and really liked it. Then I started reading the second scene and lost interest in a hurry.

I enjoyed the crisp action in the hospital and that moment at the end when Paul takes the picture is the cherry on top for me. It says so much in such a simple manner. I'm not sure you really needed that last line explaining why he takes the picture, but it works either way. One could argue that this scene is a complete short story by itself; it features a character who experiences an event and is changed by it.

The downside of this resolution is that the tension dissolves. A new source of tension needs to be introduced right away in the following scene- and that just didn't happen for me.

Even though I enjoyed the hospital scene, there may be some issues with it.

There's a bit of head-hopping between the doctor, the nurse, and the patient. Since Paul is the one really changed by these events, I'd have leaned toward not being in anyone else's head except his and maybe giving him a little more time in the spotlight too.

Consider this moment when we're in the nurse's head:
Kat, the trauma nurse, simply nodded. No longer surprised by Patterson's diagnostic brilliance, she still marveled at it. Every other doc in the place needed blood tests, xrays and thirty minutes to figure stuff out. Patterson's brain was always ahead of the world.

I don't think we want to be in her head at all in this scene, let alone in this manner. I couldn't tell how much of this paragraph is supposed to be Kat's opinion and how much is a pronouncement of absolute fact from the narrator.

The doctor being a medical superman seems to be a major theme revisited throughout this opening, and I found it a little overdone. Would the scene still work if he was just an ordinary doctor who simply saved a life the same way thousands of doctors do everyday? I think it would work just fine.

Would a responsible doctor really leave a patient in dire peril to take care of paperwork? That seems like it should be anyone else's job at that point.

When Kat yells "We're gonna lose this lady!" I thought it an unprofessional thing to do in that situation. Yelling about the blood pressure dropping pretty much covers the situation. If nothing else, I want to see Paul's reaction to her words.

Finally, this moment struck me as odd:
A red geyser erupted where Patterson's scalpel sliced into her belly.

"Keep pumping blood into her," he shouted to the anesthesiologist.

As if anyone would see blood spraying everywhere and suddenly decide it was a good time to cut off the supply? I'm sure some doctors behave just like this, but I picture the best doctors remaining super calm no matter the situation, so I thought he was not only arrogant for shouting, but inept too.

And is pumping blood an anesthesiologist's job? That's a question rather than a criticism- I really don't know.

After trudging through my detailed comments, I hope you didn't forget I really liked your scene. Especially that ending!

The second scene seems totally gratuitous to me; like you thought, ok, it's a sex story, time to throw in some sex. Not that it isn't totally believable, I just don't see it advancing the plot any more than their drive home. So is there any reason I can't skip it and go right to the next scene?

Take Care,
Penny

 

[D_K_Moon]

I had a lot of problems with the opening scene, probably because my wife is an RN in an ER. It simply wasn't believable to me.

I don't care for stories where the protagonist is perfect. How do I indentify with someone like that? I like characters that are like me, flawed.

I have also had the dubious experience of being in the ER as a patient. Rather than the almost confusion you describe, watching them is almost like viewing a choreographed ballet. Everyone has a job, and they know it, and at least in my case, they did it well.

The characters all seemed to blend together, Kat and Pat seemed interchangeable.

I thought the sex scenes were fine, I think if I would have been able to identify better with the characters, I would have liked it even more.

Take my opinions with a grain of salt, the medical drama "House" is roaring success, so I imagine there'll be quite a few readers that will enjoy your story.

I like the fact that you opened the story with a plot in mind. I think that was a good move.

My only other suggestion is to lose the measurements. Use your talent as writer to tell the reader, don't give them numbers. The females don't need to have breasts the size of watermelons, and the males don't need to be hung like John Holmes for the story to be erotic.

Overall, I'd give the story a well done! Thanks for sharing with us.

 

[coldsteel]

All...

Thank you SO much for your thoughtful comments.

The literary critique about scene structure, dialog and so forth are all helpful and reflect ways that the story could be improved. If I ever expand and rewrite this, I will take nearly all of your suggestions. As I have mentioned previously, the piece that cannot benefit from a thoughtful rewrite has yet to be written.

Some comments about the opening scene from Pat's perspective. He's a young surgeon at this point, exhausted from the prior trauma and trying to get the clinical priorities right. The slight overreactions were intentional and intended to convey that he had the moves right but not the nuances. Similarly with Kat, the trauma nurse--more adrenaline than style at this point in their lives. The scene was meant to be at once human yet a little dehumanizing. It was meant to convey a bit of the characters' flaws in keeping themselves, the patients and the emotions aligned and in check-- as opposed to flawed writing.

D_K is correct stating that well-oiled trauma/emergency team is poetry in motion. But such fluidity comes from experience, and that experience can take years, even decades to develop. Newly formed teams, or even experienced teams with a new member or two, fray around the edges

"House" works better than "Trauma:Life in the ER" I think because "House" is more about flawed heroes, whereas the old TLITER series was about patients and their problems. Have to agree with D_K: it is the flaws that makes the characters interesting.

 

[Cinner]

Found you at last!

Hello Coldsteel

I don't yet have a comment about your work, but you were kind enough to read something of mine and give an opinion. I wanted to read something of yours and so have tracked you down. I'm at work now and so can't do so at the moment, but I'll be back!

Take care of yourself and thanks again for your kindness.

-Cin