The old debate

[sweetnpetite]

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.



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.

IMO, popular romance novels are porn, albeit higher class porn. It's sorta like the difference between a streat walker, and a call girl- they are both still prostitutes, even if one wants to call herself an 'escort.'

Well now- I didn't say innovations would be frequent- simply that they were possible. I also didn't say that they couldn't be inovatioins in form or areas other than the story told.

I think that true *erotica* is few and far between. (Just as is true art of any kind) Nothing wrong with that either, as far as I'm concerned. My oppinion is not a judgement on porn- I love porn.

For legal perposes, I can see the point of defining erotica as something with 'redeaming value' or having to do with emotions or whatever. But for me, regardless of the focus on the story, no matter how emotional the writing is, if it's just a copy of what's already out there it's still porn. It's still written according to a formula to get people aroused -weather in the body or in the mind-- makes no difference to me.

Erotica requires- if not innovation- at least some creative risk.

But of course we are all free to make the distinction as we see fit.