The old debate

[sweetnpetite]

To add to the age old debate about which is which- I think porn is repetative of itself (not necessarily bad), a little variety to be sure but you know a litltle of column a alittle of column b- erotica to really be erotica has to have something truly original (not just be 'acedemic') then it gets copied over and over until it filters down to being porn. Same thing happens with all art. There's the inovators, then there are the sincere 'students' and those who want to bring the style or form or whatever to the masses, and then eventurally it become product (ie cliche, porn)

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Don't buy it. Originality isn't enough. "His cock sank into her like a banana falling into a bowl of strawberry custard" may be original enough, but it sure ain't erotica.

Porn to me just seeks to arouse. Erotica is sexual literature, or tries to be.

---dr.M.

 

[Guest]

Don't buy it. Originality isn't enough. "His cock sank into her like a banana falling into a bowl of strawberry custard" may be original enough, but it sure ain't erotica.

Porn to me just seeks to arouse. Erotica is sexual literature, or tries to be.

---dr.M.

It might be, if the person reading it had a clinically certifiable food fetish.

Lou

 

[NoJo]

Don't buy it. Originality isn't enough. "His cock sank into her like a banana falling into a bowl of strawberry custard" may be original enough, but it sure ain't erotica.
---dr.M.

Well, smarty-pants, in that case explain the hard-on I got reading it

 

[minsue]

It might be, if the person reading it had a clinically certifiable food fetish.

Lou

Where does one go to get fetish certifications? Are they hiring?

 

[Guest]

Well, smarty-pants, in that case explain the hard-on I got reading it

Point proven.

Lou

 

[sweetnpetite]

LOL, the peice must be original, not just one line. and I think I meant something different by original- as in 'innovative' not just different. Subtle distinction. ONe sentance cant be or define erotica anyway, dr. M. Love that one thoug. Can I put that in my sigline???

Don't buy it. Originality isn't enough. "His cock sank into her like a banana falling into a bowl of strawberry custard" may be original enough, but it sure ain't erotica.

Porn to me just seeks to arouse. Erotica is sexual literature, or tries to be.

---dr.M.

 

[Guest]

Well, smarty-pants, in that case explain the hard-on I got reading it

What would I do without this man. Frightening to think on.

 

[SlickTony]

Porn is when it's still up in my head and I'm stroking my clit to it. By the time it appears in Literotica, it's erotica.

 

[Weird Harold]

LOL, the peice must be original, not just one line. and I think I meant something different by original- as in 'innovative' not just different. Subtle distinction.

I don't think your definition is really possible -- there are only 36(?) different stories that are possible. (Some places say 36, some as many as 45, and some as low as 6.) That's ALL kinds of stories whether they're about Sex or not.

Erotic == From Eros, God of Love.

Pornography == From the same root as Pornae (common Prositutes in ancient Rome.)

Erotica is about feelings and Love. Porn is about sex.

 

[smartnsassy]

Innovations in art are always possible. It doesn't mean telling a *new* story, anymore than innovations in sculpure or painting mean renering a subject never before used.

 

[Weird Harold]

Innovations in art are always possible. It doesn't mean telling a *new* story, anymore than innovations in sculpure or painting mean renering a subject never before used.

Innovations in art are possible, but finding a new story, or a new way to write it has been an ongoing search since Ancient Greece.

Innovations in story-telling since then have gone in the direction of improving the story-telling technology -- NOT in the stories that are told. The latest innovation in story-telling is CGI, but it's worthless without a well crafted story to take advantage of the innovation.

Innovations in story-telling are all about presentation and details. There is near infinte variation in presentation and detail in those 36 possible stories or combinations thereof. But variation isn't "innovation" -- there simply isn't much innovation possible in putting words to paper (or phosphors) to tell your story.

 

[lewdandlicentious]

I think it's all in the eye of the beholder, the reader.

It's how they perceive it that defines it.

In the end, is a story of sex in a porn mag any different to a story of sex here on lit or a story of sex that's been published in book form??

In a porn mag, it's called porn, because the mag is blatantly that; a porn mag with pictures of women etc, etc.

Here on lit, it's professed to be erotica because most here who write, don't like to be referred to as writers of porn.

If it's published in book form, as literature, without pictures, is it really any different??

Does the use of the word "fuck" make it porn??

Who gets to decide this stuff??

Who made them the gods of decision??

 

[Weird Harold]

I think it's all in the eye of the beholder, the reader.

It's how they perceive it that defines it.

Yo've essentially explained why there is a continuing debate about the difference between Porn an Erotica.

In the end, is a story of sex in a porn mag any different to a story of sex here on lit or a story of sex that's been published in book form??

I think any given story can be identified as Porn or Erotica and that identification doesn't change with the venue or format as long as the story doesn't change.

Who gets to decide this stuff??

Who made them the gods of decision??

Usually the people who get to "decide this stuff" are the "Executive Editors" and "Publishers" who choose what gets published and what doesn't and their bankers made them the Gods of Decision.

Anyone can write anything they want, with or without the word "Fuck" or other "anglo-saxon words" but it's the "Publishers" who decide whether it ever gets read by more than close friends.

Some "publishers have no restrictions on what they'll publish and they get a lot of poorly written pure porn as result.

Others, like Lit have standards on both content and structure and they generally get well-crafted Porn as well as true "Erotica."

It doesn't have to be poorly written to be Porn and good writing doesn't automatically make it "Erotica."

 

[Pure]

Hi Lewd,

I agree with dr. m,

When you say,
//In a porn mag, it's called porn, because the mag is blatantly that; a porn mag with pictures of women etc, etc.

Here on lit, it's professed to be erotica because most here who write, don't like to be referred to as writers of porn.//

Most stuff here is porn, imo, or pornish erotica(gray area in between). The more honest of us call it that.

The site title gives, perhaps, an unduly lofty air to it, though another way to see it, is that the site encourages the 1/100 aspirants to erotic writing.

Pieces of good erotica are uncommon, like Lauren H, "Letters from Pohjola." And even passable erotica is, imo less than 5% of the pieces here.

J.

 

[lewdandlicentious]

Yep, understood. Thank you both for your comments.

However, in my opinion, what you think is good erotica, might be plain boring to me, or on the other hand, I might think is pure filth.

Like wine, the proof and the preference is in the taste.

 

[Weird Harold]

Like wine, the proof and the preference is in the taste.

For a subjective definition of Fine Wine or "Erotic" you're correct, but there are Objective differences between Porn and Erotica in the way Pure and I view the issue -- or at least the way I view it.

There are several stories here at Lit that I would put decisively in the "Erotica" classification that I don't particularly like or find particularly arousing.

Some people have a tase for Porn and some have a taste for Erotica, but either might find individual examples of the other class interesting and/or arousing.

 

[gauchecritic]

Except as a publishing for money reference I can see no point in distinguishing between the two. A piece of writing, if it turns you on is erotic. Pornographic in my book is a legal nicety for when local town councils are having a slow day.

Take a story, any story and make sex a part of the plot, or to make it easier, a sub-plot does this make it erotica? I don't think so. Take a sex story and as part of that story there are scenes where sex isn't taking place is that porn?

I'm getting a bit philosophical about this question, mainly because it's been discussed so often but I will say that there is too much confusion about the word and the thing.

When something has a label then it is open to comparison with things of the same label, when it's something created then this comparison is invariably false.

Maybe that's the difference, erotica is created and pornography is manufactured.

Gauche

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I tend to believe that porn and erotica are not so much in the eye of the beholder as in the intent of the writer. I think erotica tends to aim for an emotional response in your head or your heart. Porn aims to provoke a physical response a tad farther south.

-Colly

 

[Pure]

I think Colly has the intent issues pretty clear. Porn aims at the crotch, not much else (except visual imaging and reptilian brain).

But a point raised by some is "Is this an objective judgment?"

Well, one issue is the amount (as well as quality, freshness) of sexual detail.

A number of censors, as well as our g'parents, thought ANY sexual detail inappropriate, and clearly intended to 'corrupt.'

Now, the 'rule' is "In a story, the law says you may put as much sexual detail as you like, down to the pubic hair, level."

Then there is the sometimes unclear judgment: Is this great amount of sexual detail, done so unimaginatively, evidence of simple 'intent to arouse'? (After all, maybe the writer is limited!) Usually the answer is 'yes'

One looks also and necessarily at other material besides the 'hot' parts, something the Supreme Ct justices began to see clearly in the last half century. The idea of 'redeeming social value', or 'art' comes in. Also the concept of 'the work as a whole.'

In the case of Colly, I'm sure the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s judges would deem her better stories raunchy porn (just as they did D H Lawrence). Yet I'm pretty sure that outside of Crawford Texas, in view of the rich stories, she'd be seen, in the present time, as a fine writer of 'erotica' (the stuff that's now in public shelves at Barnes and Noble, etc.).

 

[CharleyH]

music video killed the avant gardist, not the radio star

 

[ABSTRUSE]

music video killed the avant gardist, not the radio star

I miss the 80's too.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Maybe that's the difference, erotica is created and pornography is manufactured.

Gauche

Hmm, yes. I think that's sort of what I was trying to say.

One is art, the other is product. It's not always easy or possible to distinguish, and even tallent is not the deciding factor, nor necessarily is comercial viablity or lack thereof. Porn, however, is essentially 'all the same' (Yeah, that sells, lets do get some more like that) A writer can be extremely tallented and still put out pure product. Yet some can write a very comercial, and even pornographic story/novel, and it has something different that sets it apart.

Weird Harrold said:
Innovations in story-telling are all about presentation and details. There is near infinte variation in presentation and detail in those 36 possible stories or combinations thereof. But variation isn't "innovation" -- there simply isn't much innovation possible in putting words to paper (or phosphors) to tell your story.


I already stated that variation isn't innovation. And I certainly don't agree that there isn't much innovation possible in puting words to paper. Obviously innovations are few and far between- and you can't see that they are there until they've been made. Look at the innovations of the past, and you will see there have been many. Usually by the writers we studied back in Lit class in High School.

 

[Pure]

Weird Harold said:
//Innovations in story-telling are all about presentation and details. There is near infinte variation in presentation and detail in those 36 possible stories or combinations thereof. But variation isn't "innovation" -- there simply isn't much innovation possible in putting words to paper (or phosphors) to tell your story.//


SnP replied I already stated that variation isn't innovation. And I certainly don't agree that there isn't much innovation possible in puting words to paper. Obviously innovations are few and far between- and you can't see that they are there until they've been made.

I think that's a good point Sweet. I can't tell exactly what WH had in mind, but I think the 'variation' of porn is like the 'variation' of popular romance novels. You simply change the time period, physical setting, the physical description of the parties: have it be a peasant maid, instead of a co-ed etc. The minor--almost rote-- variations capture new readers, and in the case of porn, get them off expeditiously.

While it's true there may be only 36, or 50 or 100 plots or stories of human undertakings, joy, and suffering, *creative* variation makes actual literature. The formula of Boy meets Girl and their families don't approve and put virtually insuperable obstacles in the way, makiing death the lovers' only way out, is old. Romeo and Juliet, however, adds something vital and hard to define. Hence both characters live, just a do Jane and Rochester in the happier version of the boy-meets-girl story.

 

[Weird Harold]

Look at the innovations of the past, and you will see there have been many. Usually by the writers we studied back in Lit class in High School.

The writers I studied in High School had been dead for at least a hundred years for the most part. That dosn't argue for a very frequent interval of "innovations" in writing -- quite aside from the point that those old classics weren't all that "innovative" in the stories they told, only in the format they told them in.

I did study "Modern Lit" and books like Lord Of The Flies and One Flew Over TheCuckoo's Nest -- but one of the main points made in that class, was that the "innovations" in those modern novels were part of along tradition of political commentary disguised as fiction -- including Swift's Gilliver's Travels but not even beginning there.

I think that's a good point Sweet. I can't tell exactly what WH had in mind, but I think the 'variation' of porn is like the 'variation' of popular romance novels. You simply change the time period, physical setting, the physical description of the parties: have it be a peasant maid, instead of a co-ed etc. The minor--almost rote-- variations capture new readers, and in the case of porn, get them off expeditiously.

What I had in mind is that your example of the "variation in popular romance novels" can be extended to all writing -- and to some extent to all "story-telling" in any media.

IMHO, "popular Romance Novels" are "erotica" because while Sex is a large part of the Romance formula, it isn't the "Main Focus" of a typical Romance story.

Distinguishing Erotica from Porn doesn't require any judgements about innovation or originality, it only requires determing the "main focus" of the story -- If the main focus is on the Sex, it Porn; If the main focus is on emotions and motivations, then it's Erotica.

The "Main Focus" can be objectively determined by comparing the number of words devoted to describing the mechanics and physical sensations of sex and the number of words devoted to establishing motivations for and emotional responses to the sexual acts.

Erotica can be as formulaic and cliche ridden as a typical romance or mystery novel and Porn can be as innovative and original as any story ever written, but that doesn't change the main focus of the story that determines "which is which" for me.