the story's the thing

[Mickie]

I've been absent for a while, taking care of business. But, I've been learning as well, constantly trying to figure out what this writing thing is all about.

Once again, I'm going to share my thoughts as I learn and hope that other writers will gain something valuable from them.

In my travels I've heard from more than one reader who says -- I don't give a damn what the writing is like. I can skip bits that are boring and uninteresting (like expositional beginnings and description that makes them yawn). The STORY is the interesting bit. What happens to whatever character in the story is the part that interests them the most.

Historically, stories have been about 'events'. This usually led to writing in third person omnicient so the reader would be able to grasp ALL the characters in one gulp. The largest change in writing style over the last fifty years or so is the switch to third person limited as a prevelant style. This aids the reader in identifying with a single character, which seems to be the main focus of story telling in this day and age.

Publishers look for stories (both novels and shorts) that have a high reader identification factor. This is following through into the erotica field, although the porn industry doesn't seem to give a damn how the scene is told, just that the wording is full of odd euphemisms and adjectives (hard pole, hot hole).

The combination of a good, action packed story and a single protagonist that the reader can identify with seems to be the criteria for any publisher. After that comes style, grammar, voice, and all of those things we 'literary' types crit about ad nauseum.

Mickie

 

[Weird Harold]

In my travels I've heard from more than one reader who says -- I don't give a damn what the writing is like. I can skip bits that are boring and uninteresting (like expositional beginnings and description that makes them yawn). The STORY is the interesting bit. What happens to whatever character in the story is the part that interests them the most.

The part I left in bold is oxymoronic. If they didn't care about the writing, they'd read the boring parts too.

I think the message here is that exposition and description need be written as well or better than the "action" part of the story.

Another point to consider is that if the exposition and/or description is all in one lump that can be skipped over, the author is probably not taking the time to develop the characters a bit at a time -- they way people get to know each other in real life.

 

[wildsweetone]

Once again, I'm going to share my thoughts as I learn and hope that other writers will gain something valuable from them.

In my travels I've heard from more than one reader who says -- I don't give a damn what the writing is like. I can skip bits that are boring and uninteresting (like expositional beginnings and description that makes them yawn). The STORY is the interesting bit. What happens to whatever character in the story is the part that interests them the most.
Mickie [/B]

Mickie, i don't know you, but welcome back anyway

i have to say though i find your comment actually quite odd. if a reader finds the beginning of the story boring or uninteresting, why would he/she bother to continue to the end?

where is the incentive? who in their right mind would force themselves to continue reading when they've discovered the beginning to be boring or uninteresting?

you are right in saying that events which happen to our characters have become very important to our readers. if they are able to relate to the event or the character the story has comes to life for the reader.

i'm all for anything that moves the reader into some other sphere away from lack of interest or boredom.

maybe it needs to be broken down a little more, what exactly are the bits which are boring and uninteresting? could it be the listy/measurmenty phase some of us go through?

i agree Weird Harold, the character development needs to 'develop'. a show, not tell, method.

quote: 'The largest change in writing style over the last fifty years or so is the switch to third person limited as a prevelant style. This aids the reader in identifying with a single character, which seems to be the main focus of story telling in this day and age.'

i wonder why such a change? maybe it's a growth of our language; or perhaps a growth in ourselves that has us seeking similar events/people. why do we as readers have such a need to identify with fiction characters?

 

[DVS]

why do we as readers have such a need to identify with fiction characters?

My guess is some readers like to read true stories, or at least fiction set in real places. Maybe they love to travel, and this allows them to travel without really going there.

And maybe people love to identify with fictional characters because they can lose themselves in the story. Something like traveling into a fantasy for the fun, without coming out with the red marks and bruises.

[UNABASHED DISCLAIMER]
AHem...
And, I am only happy to be there to help them in their fantasy pursuit.

 

[Axeltheswede]

Welcome back, Mickie. Your post raises some points to consider.

I usually view statements about general trends with a skeptical attitude. When you qualify an assertion by saying "you heard from more than one reader" it makes me wonder. Did two people claim this view? A hundred?

When I balance your skimming readers against my last fifty feedback emails, it makes me wonder who you were talking to. I keep hearing things like "the story pulled me in on many levels", or "I liked the way you built the anticipation". I have to think they read the whole thing.

I don't agree with your conclusion that stories in the past were about "events". I think stories have always been about people. Readers enjoy Grisham's lawyers as much as Twain's boys on the Mississippi. We see events through the eyes of people.

As for publishing, if it looks like it will sell it will get published. An author judged good enough to build a readership will get the chance to prove it. Witness the success of any book with Tom Clancy's name on it. Lately, he doesn't even have to be the author. It is enough that he "approved the manuscript" with his "Op Center Novels".

Thank you for starting this discussion. I hope to hear more from you in the near future.

 

[Omni]

In my travels I've heard from more than one reader who says -- I don't give a damn what the writing is like. I can skip bits that are boring and uninteresting (like expositional beginnings and description that makes them yawn). The STORY is the interesting bit. What happens to whatever character in the story is the part that interests them the most.

Well this/these opinions would blow to heck the prevalent theroy that a writer MUST grab the reader in the first paragraph of a story.
So, I therefore must disagree and assume these readers are a small percentage and also not taking the time to form a well thought out answer.
Think of what anyone of us do when we buy that newest paperback. Now even if it is a favorite author of mine, I still find myself flipping through to the first page to read a bit. It is alot to pay 7 and 8 dollars for a book that I might not enjoy! Besides the fact it is a tease on how much I might enjoy the book and be excited and can anticipate going home to read it.
Furthering this, how many books have each one of us put down through loss of interest after the first few pages?
However, I will agree on the lengthily over done blocks of descriptions. I am a loyal enough reader that I can and do skip these blocks to arrive at the story.
I bless them for putting them in tight blocks that can be easily skipped, and forgive them their creative need to do so. <laughs> However, never at the beginning of a story, and I much prefer a writer with creativity enough to intersperse the descritions that I need to understand the plot and so forth, throughout the story.

Omni

 

[Mickie]

Actually, what I was thinking about were the stories on this site. The amatuer stories that serve a ... ahem ... purpose. How many of us skip the 'I am six foot seven inches tall and my dick is a little under a foot long. My partner is a 44DDD breast size and her pussy is shaved.' bits? Scrolling down seems to be more and more common for me to do every time I click into the stories. Don't do it that often anymore for precisely that reason. But these kinds of openings (maybe not as badly done as the example, but still...) still end up in the 'hot' or the top lists. I shake my head in wonder, but the readers, and yes, I communicate with a lot of people via the net and in person (usually at a bar with a really good beertender ), say it doesn't matter as long as the story serves the purpose for which they read it.

I haven't bothered to count the readers I talk to, it's just part of marketing other things I'm working on right now. I need opinions, and not just my own highly over-rated (by myself) thoughts.

The real point is that readers don't really give a damn about it. It's subliminal and they don't notice if the writing truly is good or not. They want the message of the story. If they agree with the message, or, in the case of porn, it's arousing, they think it's a wonderful story.

Us writers on the other hand, see the tricks of the trade full out in front of us. We know that opening with a boring descriptive passage or pure expositional bullshit will start a scrolling epidemic. We're critical of people who don't 'follow the rules' and we roll our eyes at the amateur who doesn't want to learn the rules. Why should they? They get good feedback just the way it is, maybe not from the writers, but from the readers, because the readers don't mind scrolling or flipping through some pages to get to the good bits.

Yes, I do read the first page before I buy a book. But seriously, I'm a writer and I'm extremely picky. Someone who doesn't write, and reads ONLY for pleasure might not do that. They might even buy a book simply because of the title and maybe the blurb on the back. Then, once they get it home, they've spent money on it so they read it, skipping the boring bits. In fact, this is the way most of the people I talk to do it. The title is what gets them, and that pretty picture on the front of the book. The blurb is even secondary. Go figure.

Mickie

 

[SexyChele]

Mickie, we've never met but it is a pleasure to do so now.

I can relate to most of what is being stated here. How many of us back in junior high would pass around books that were considered "naughty" or "provacative", and only read the pages our friends had dog-eared? I know I did it with "The Exorcist". (I really did eventually read the book all the way through) And there have been others.

As I grew up, and learned to appreciate the writing craft, I no longer skim a book. But I know of people who do. Yes, people will fork out the money to buy a book, and maybe read 40% of it - only the parts they consider to be "interesting" or "inticing". These are people who care less about character development, plot, or even grammar. They only want "the action".

And I think that is very evident in almost all aspects of the entertainment industry around us. Truly, how many action movies really have characters you give a damn about? And how many have plots that are so paper-thin you can practically see the smoke and mirrors behind them? BUT! They are "block-busters" because of the fantastic special effects. In other words: the interesting stuff.

In the items that are written here, I've seen the same thing. I will write out a story - granted I'm not the best writer, by far - but I will try to develop characters, build a plot. And what is my response from the feedback? "I'm hard as a helmet as I'm writing this to you." I know what parts they are talking about, and it's cool. At least they've read it. *grin* But, more importantly, I have friends who truly do appreciate what I try to put together, so it makes it worthwhile.

Where I have seen a shift in the feedback is in the series I'm writing involving one character, Cassie. I've discovered there are quite a few people who are concerned about Cassie. They like her, and they want her to be happy. They were concerned when I wrote a non-consent story with her character - they really felt she deserved to be treated better.

I think there is a percentage of people who do read a story or book, and are interested in the entire experience the author is trying to present. But, there are those who will bypass the opening, the ending, and everything else just to read "the good parts". Just like we did when we were 13.

 

[wildsweetone]

uniqueness

in my opinion, we cannot generalise when we are discussing 'readers', nor 'writers'.

i would have a guess and assume that it is rare that any two authors on literotica write identical stories. okay the plot line may be similar, or perhaps some features of a character may appear the same. but on a whole, no two of us write exactly the same.

i believe it is wrong to assume readers can be lumped into a general category too.

think about the last fiction book you picked up. it doesn't matter if it were written by a popular trendy author, or a classic from way back. my suggestion is that each of us read into a book whatever we want to get out of it.

a character's physical description may be vague enough for each one of us to picture in our own mind what the look of the character is.

a character's continuous development through a story will be enough for us each to see the similarities of events we ourselves have been or are going through. hence - the realism factor.

when we are looking at a site like literotica, we can assume, in a general sense, a couple of things. firstly, a lit reader probably wants to be able to masturbate, or at least be turned on, while reading a decent story (otherwise why go for a sex site?). secondly a reader is entitled to skip the bits of a story that he or she finds dull or pointless.

however the third thing we can also assume, is that there are readers of our work who are looking for something they can relate to.

i have had feedback from several overseas readers begging me to write more because my New Zealand snippets have brought back many memories for them. so no matter what my storyline, no matter what happenes to my characters, they want kiwi detail and will continuously hunt out my work.

some readers follow historical stories, some fantasy, sci fi etc. my point is this. the reader is as diverse as the writer. they will read whatever they 'feel' like reading in the moment, just as we will write whatever we 'feel' like writing.

there is nothing wrong with being different.

it is wrong to generalise and say that 'readers don't give a damn' about what our stories are like. compare the statistics on the worst author and the best author to see the difference in who's work is more sought after. mind you, any statistic is open to different interpretations.

simply my opinion.

 

[Quasimodem]

I met an "average reader" once.

Did he ever look stupid, standing there with his wife and 2.6 kids.

 

[DVS]

weren't they also divorced, or at least separated? Maybe I am just a confirmed bachelor.

 

[Quasimodem]

You are asking (usually at a bar with a really good beertender [sic] ) about literature?

No wonder you are confused, a bartender's job is to dispense sedatives. A writer's job is quite the opposite.

To say about good writing, that: "It's subliminal and they (readers, or do you refer to bartenders?) don't notice if the writing is truly good or not." suggests that you have never gone further into "literature" than the 'Assembly Book' school or writing.

Eg. "Put flange B into slot 3X and bend to a 90-degree angle."

Good writing is NEVER subliminal, only the FACT that it IS good writing may APPEAR subliminal, due to the EFFORTLESSNESS with which it can be read.

The largest change in writing style over the last fifty years or so is the switch to third person limited as a prevalent style. This aids the reader in identifying with a single character, which seems to be the main focus of story telling in this day and age.

This statement suggests that your reading of classical works on both sides of the arbitrary fifty year border has also been conducted under the tutelage of bartenders.

You are correct, it does not matter how good the technique, if a story strikes the reader as boring. One person's nauseating mess is another person's hottest fetish. This is a fact etched deeply in the consciousness of any writer attempting erotica.

But, a truly badly-written story-- even about your hottest wet dream -- can still read like a recipe for making bulk tapioca.

There are quite a few writers publishing here, who habitually try to write stories on topics and fetishes that hold no personal reward for them. They attempt this, for no other reason than to stretch their writing abilities, and to entertain a larger circle of readers.

( I am not one of those writers. There are fetishes that I do not understand, and therefor will not attempt. If I were to become the pattern, you would be forced to write those stories for yourself, or do without.)

In My Opinion: To denounce as pointless ( which is what you have done) the efforts of those writers of experimental erotica, because they might occasionally miss the triggers of your particular obsession, is a degree of thanklessness seldom seen exhibited, even in this anonymous forum.

 

[Mickie]

I ask wherever I go, Quasi (hi, glad to meet ya, btw ), not about literature, but about what people read, why they read it, and what they expect to get out of it. The bartender might read, you know. So might the patrons. Church is another good place to get people talking. The 'beertender' phrase was tongue in cheek.

The thing that strikes me the most about your post is that you seem to believe that subliminal means 'not there at all'. In fact, it means that, just like anything well done, the work that's put into it disappears to the conscious mind. Subconsciously, the reader reacts to the 'good writing' far more emotionally than to the other stuff.

I say (IMO) that good writing must ALWAYS be subliminal in order to be good writing. If the reader can pick out the ways and means of how it's written, that means it isn't seamless enough to be good. The words should disappear in the readers mind, and a picture of what's happening should take it's place.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I think experimental erotica is pointless, or the efforts of those who write it. I'm not even sure what you mean by my 'particular obsession'. It's writing in general, actually. Writing isn't pointless to me, or I wouldn't spend most of my waking hours dreaming up new and different ways to express myself with words.

Actually, I'm one of those writers that lecture about pov consistency, dialogue unbelievability, and a host of other things only writers worry about. Experimental? Hmmm. I really have to think about that one. No, I don't think a newbie writer should try the experimental range until they've learned and used the rules. Gotta know 'em before you break 'em. Does that make it pointless? Perhaps to a newbie writer (or a 'hobbyist' writer, which is a whole other thread )

Don't take it so seriously. My opinion matters only to me. I generalize for the sake of marketing. Some people agree with me, others don't. I'm open to changes in thinking, although it takes a good argument, rather than blatant insults, for me to change my perspective.

Mickie

 

[spankableBelle]

i'm curious...

...as to how many of us write as readers and read as writers?

belle

http://www.literotica.com/stories/memberpage.php?uid=72711

 

[ronde]

Re: I'm curious

I write mostly as a writer when I initially set my thoughts to words, but when I edit, I look for things that read "funny", things that seem inconsistent with the story, and things that don't appear to have a purpose relative to the plot and setting. I also look for grammar, spelling and other technical errors. My editing time is usually at least as long as my writing time, because I need to have the story feel right.

If the story is in first person, the writing, which is really the thought of the main character, has to read consistently. Real people tend to use the same wording to express thoughts in any situation, and if the names for things, or if the character's normally classical speech suddenly becomes filled with slang and contractions, the character's personality will change. If this is what I want the reader to perceive, then the wording is fine, but usually this is not the case.

In the third person, one has a bit more freedom, because the narrator can "interpret" the thoughts of the characters, but the dialogue still has to be consistent.

I also check to make sure the characters haven't moved from one location to another without some verbage to let the reader know how they got there. This sounds silly, but I have committed this error upon occasion, and I have also read stories where the author put the characters were in one room, and in the next paragraph, "He threw her on the bed and ...". I believe this to be confusing, and will cause the reader to re-read to determine what happened. The reader should be able to flow with the story without thinking how the characterer (and he/she) got to a particular place or situation.

Other things I look for from the perspective of a reader:

Copulatory positions that are physically impossible or at least uncomfortable. I defy any man to "gently caress her breasts" if she's lying flat on her stomach. It's also usually good to keep track of where arms and legs are likely to be just so nobody gets kicked unless I want the reader to have that vision.

Statements that no true character would be likely to say. Dialogue has to fit the period, status of the character, and a host of other criteria to be believable. No sixteenth century princess would ever use the word "fart". This word would be acceptable for a sixteenth century peasant.

Time passage that is reasonable.

Correct conditions for the season. It seldom is warm during winter, and the characters should be dressed accordingly. Usually one would not have a fire crackling in the fireplace in the middle of July unless the fire was used for cooking.

Names that change mid-story. I sometimes rename characters as I write because a name can partially define a character's personality. I always verify that I have changed all occurrences of the name.

The point is to let the story flow to the reader with a logical progression of events, and with dialogue or narration that reads consistently. I know that some authors don't feel this detail necessary, but it pleases me to read through a story and have everything transpire in a logical and consistent manner. The reader's task is to apply imagination to make the words come to life, and the writer should attempt to make this effort one of ease and pleasure rather than one of conscious thought.

 

[DVS]

Re: Re: I'm curious

I write mostly as a writer... My editing time is usually at least as long as my writing time, because I need to have the story feel right...

...The point is to let the story flow to the reader with a logical progression of events, and with dialogue or narration that reads consistently. I know that some authors don't feel this detail necessary, but it pleases me to read through a story and have everything transpire in a logical and consistent manner. The reader's task is to apply imagination to make the words come to life, and the writer should attempt to make this effort one of ease and pleasure rather than one of conscious thought.

I think all writers do this to one degree or another, or at least we all should. As you mentioned, it really helps the flow of the story and then leaves it up to the reader's imagination to take over.

The more detail we can input, the less the reader has to work to see it. The seemingly simple movements of people from place to place, and how their bodies are positioned during certain acts can mean a lot.

Like you said, making the reader wonder how a character got from point A to point B takes away from their involvement in the story. Telling them how this happened can mean a lot more. The reader sees this happen in the story, instead of wondering how they simply POOFED from room to room. I think this is a very important addition to story writing.

Story flow is one of the most difficult things for some writers to think about. But, there are also some who can use the words to tell a wonderfully detailed story.

Simple textures and smells of the atmosphere can add to good writing. If the morning sun shines into the window, say it. If the humidity is so thick you can taste it, include that. That will give the reader more to attach to. The more detail you include, the more the reader can be involved.

Giving details about the surroundings can always be good. The reader is your partner. What you tell them can allow them to get more involved, and then they will enjoy your story that much more.

Also, when to give such details can be important. You can describe a room like you can a character, at the beginning of the story or scene. But, as it is sometimes best to slowly tell more about the character, I think this works the same with details. The reader will experience it at the same time as the character, and be even more involved.

It is also important to remember there is a level at which the detail can be too much. Too much detail can also ruin a good story. Don't overtake your nouns with adjectives or your verbs with adverbs. A simple description of each is enough to get the reader's juices flowing.

Yes, you can spend as much time editing a story, if not more. And sometimes, it is difficult for the writer to do the editing. Sometimes the obvious will go unnoticed by the person who wrote it but it stand out to another person. Better if this is an editor than the reader.

Some writers can edit their own stories quite well. But it is always good to have a few others read your story, and point out things they notice. It is then up to you to decide if you take their advice.

 

[toffeegyrl]

Where I have seen a shift in the feedback is in the series I'm writing involving one character, Cassie. I've discovered there are quite a few people who are concerned about Cassie. They like her, and they want her to be happy. They were concerned when I wrote a non-consent story with her character - they really felt she deserved to be treated better.

I have to admit, this really made me jealous.

That said, I'm all over 'character' for some reason, as a driving force in the fight against scrollability. If I run into someone I can't/don't give a rat tax about, then why bother? But inherent in making someone care is action, as well (or so I've always thought). Tension= intresting. conflict = caring, etc.

Then again, I'm still learning.

 

[Quasimodem]

Mickie

First I wrote:
Good writing is NEVER subliminal, only the FACT that it IS good writing may APPEAR subliminal, due to the EFFORTLESSNESS with which it can be read

From THAT you got THIS?

You wrote:
The thing that strikes me the most about your post is that you seem to believe that subliminal means 'not there at all'.

Try reading it again, before the third round.

Then you wrote,again:
I say (IMO) that good writing must ALWAYS be subliminal in order to be good writing. If the reader can pick out the ways and means of how it's written, that means it isn't seamless enough to be good.

Let's see now: In your opinion, if a reader notices that the writing is good, and is competent enough to see why the writing excels, the writing must not be good, because the writing was noticeably superior enough to be seen to be good?

WHAT!

Give your head a shake!

There's more to object to in your post, but I gotta stop reading it, now!
I just got back from a vacation, and already my head hurts.

 

[DVS]

Re: Mickie

Give your head a shake!

I find it also seems to clear the head when shaking if you say the same thing cartoon characters say, when shaking their heads.

"IEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIE"

LOL, it seems to help me.
Sorry, I just had to add my 2 pennies to this. Sorry your head hurts Quasi. Maybe you should take another vacation.