To fuck or to intelligently fuck . . .

[CharleyH]

Spinning off a Shanglan thread, and at the urging of a certain should be transplanted to Europe, chica guapa . . .

Why is it that literary erotica takes more of a bashing than smut?

 

[Guest]

 

[impressive]

Why is it that literary smut takes more of a bashing than non-literary smut?

I'm not sure it does. However, those who do bash probably do so because it makes them feel stoooopid. Rather than simply back clicking or Googling, they lash out at the author.

EDITED TO ADD: Of course, there might just be a few who prefer not to mix pleasure with purpose. How DARE she get literary all over my sheets?

 

[CharleyH]

Re: Re: To fuck or to intelligently fuck . . .

Hokey smokes Charley, I don't know what you mean by the difference between literary smut and non-literary smut.

Pictures?
Multisyllabic words?
Punctuation?
Plot?

To paraphrase "I know a good story when I read one." Whether I break a sweat reading it or not.

Ok. Hm. mean literary erotica, rather than smut. Will edit

 

[LadyJeanne]

I'll guess it's because the reader was expecting plain smut, something to provoke an immediate physical reaction, and instead found something s/he had to ponder.

None of my smut is literary, though, so I can't compare the reader reactions to the genres from personal experience.

Edited to add: It's a mismatch in expectations, much like the Loving Wives category.

 

[CharleyH]

Re: Re: To fuck or to intelligently fuck . . .

I'm not sure it does. However, those who do bash probably do so because it makes them feel stoooopid. Rather than simply back clicking or Googling, they lash out at the author.

EDITED TO ADD: Of course, there might just be a few who prefer not to mix pleasure with purpose. How DARE she get literary all over my sheets?

LOL, would rather get literally all over your sheets (bed sheets, not printer sheets :| )

I think not just in PC, but ratings, lets say. Many exceptionally well written pieces, and I have always been of mind to say the best written Literotica stories hover in the 4.6 - 4.75 range, why do these stories take a beating (hm I detect irony) more so than say pure get to it Hustler sex?

 

[impressive]

Re: Re: Re: To fuck or to intelligently fuck . . .

I think not just in PC, but ratings, lets say. Many exceptionally well written pieces, and I have always been of mind to say the best written Literotica stories hover in the 4.6 - 4.75 range, why do these stories take a beating (hm I detect irony) more so than say pure get to it Hustler sex?

To answer that, you have to ask why the reader comes (no pun intended) to Literotica. I'd venture that the majority just expect to find wank fodder.

 

[CharleyH]

I'll guess it's because the reader was expecting plain smut, something to provoke an immediate physical reaction, and instead found something s/he had to ponder.

None of my smut is literary, though, so I can't compare the reader reactions to the genres from personal experience.

Hm. But the site is LitEROTICA, not Litsmut, so the question still begs But what makes a well thought out, planned, detailed story worthy of a bash? Getting pointed here.

 

[CharleyH]

Re: Re: Re: Re: To fuck or to intelligently fuck . . .

To answer that, you have to ask why the reader comes (no pun intended) to Literotica. I'd venture that the majority just expect to find wank fodder.

Oh the pigs! Hm I did not come here for that, I came first for poetry (lol) Well just a discussion. I am off to actually write. Question: Does or should sex take a front seat or backseat to a story?

 

[impressive]

Hm. But the site is LitEROTICA, not Litsmut, so the question still begs

True -- but (BUT!) Lit has published the smut, too. (If you build it, they will come ... and get it all over their sheets, too!)

 

[carsonshepherd]

Hm. But the site is LitEROTICA, not Litsmut, so the question still begs But what makes a well thought out, planned, detailed story worthy of a bash? Getting pointed here.

Only the reader's expectations like everyone else said. To those of us who like that kind of thing and are pleasantly surprised when we find it here on LitSmut, it's like a jewel.

 

[LadyJeanne]

Hm. But the site is LitEROTICA, not Litsmut, so the question still begs But what makes a well thought out, planned, detailed story worthy of a bash? Getting pointed here.

Probably the same urge that always seems to infect Anonymous. Bashing is bashing, whether it be on content, style, or genre. Anon gets a perverse pleasure in bashing regardless of quality of the story, more so if he's thwarted in mid-stroke by a literary reference or wimpy, cuckholded husband.

 

[impressive]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To fuck or to intelligently fuck . . .

Question: Does or should sex take a front seat or backseat to a story?

Depends (tee hee)

Literary erotica: back seat

Smut: front seat

(The back seat's more comfortable, IMO.)

 

[gauchecritic]

I really really want to answer this question but...

Take more of a bashing? Do you mean why is erotica literarialy criticised? That is; is smut one dimensional? Is literary erotica more like real writing?

Ah gots ta know.

Well... punk?

ok ignore this while I edit again.

 

[Guest]

I thought Charley's question on the other thread worthy of discussion (and thanks, Ch., for supporting my desire to leave Yanquilandia).

I suppose there might be some discussion of the natures of 'erotica' and 'smut', but we've done that often here and most of us know what the labels mean. As for 'literary', that requires some definition too but to simplify things I'd suggest the stories here that read as if the author was as, or more, concerned with the writing than those 95-99% concerned mostly with what we all recognize as 'stroke'.

Off the top (and I am not making a list), I'd mention Gauche, Dom/SubJoe and Shanglan as more literary than others (and they each have distinctive styles/voices). Yet, they provide stroke (and often real wit and humour). I do too.

I've only received praiseful feedback for my literariness, and presume those who read to get to the meat of things simply back-click on me. Off hand, given many discussions on 'literariness' on this forum, I think there are a number of people who are threatened or fearful of the literary. Sometimes they call me names, sometimes they are polite and talk about the importance of "the story" and its purpose or nature.

Well, this is just a start. I need to put aside more time for further response but I hope this discussion proves fruitful.

Perdita

 

[impressive]

... I think there are a number of people who are threatened or fearful of the literary.

I agree.

What (if anything) can/should be done to assuage that fear? (I'm not talking "dumbing down," either.)

 

[dreampilot79]

Those who wish to bash find well done erotica to be more of a threat ... it is easy to find nothing of value in pure wank pieces.

it is too hard to attack well done erotica.

therefore to the purient... erotica is the bigger threat than crass porn.

for those who come for the cum.... erotica takes too long to develope porn...

we lose both ways

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To fuck or to intelligently fuck . . .

 

[CharleyH]

Only the reader's expectations like everyone else said. To those of us who like that kind of thing and are pleasantly surprised when we find it here on LitSmut, it's like a jewel.

Well, I know what kind of jewel you think

Not so much - now that I see some answers - a question of smut versus erotic, as it is a question of why those who strive to add their own literary worth to a story (and I do mean historic, literary, pop culture, what have you) why is adding an element of well-thought-out plot or metaphor a bad thing when speaking in terms of smut?

If it is well written, and gets you off? . . . Though I do see your point . . . it is a reader preference. I am not saying smut is not good. I think I am asking why certain stories, that we may well revere in the non-erotic/smut world, get chastised more oft' than not in the smut world, even if they do, in fact, get you off? (hope this makes sense)

Well, maybe this is not a point to be discussed afterall. It has weighed on my thought, though.

I think of certain authors who are excellent writers . . . they make you think, elicit very flavours in your mouth, make your body all . . . well, you know, and so it boggles me, at times, that such writers do not get the rewards that they so deserve. But they do write things close to their heart, and they do take both time and care . . . must they write to the common denominator to be recognized, their worth, not as smut writers, which is easy (yes it is!), but rather as literary authors?

 

[Guest]

Ok, here's something of what I was getting at. In Shanglan's 'too obscure' thread I posted a response to the first quote. - Perdita

Originally posted by elfin_odalisque
... The key point surely is telling a story. ...to keep me reading you have to follow the basic rules of interest in the characters, plot development, reaction between the main protagonists and 'denouement'. That's what the ending is.
...
Let's not get above ourselves. We are not writing Hemingway here, we're writing good, well-crafted erotic fiction that satisfies our creative juices and, hopefully, connects with people.

Originally posted by perdita
See, this is what I was getting at in Charley's 'intelligently fucking' thread. What is with this "not get above ourselves" attitude. Why shouldn't erotica writers seek more than well-crafted fiction?

I love the prose fiction of Samuel Beckett. He has great stories and characters, but they're not set out like Hemingway's or TV sitcom plots.

 

[EnglishMuffin]

all hale the new puritans!

 

[Guest]

all hale the new puritans!

You are really one of the most annoyingly obnoxious people I've seen here in some time. Done with you.

Perdita

 

[CharleyH]

all hale the new puritans!

Like yourself, I dare say, Miss one-sentance poster!

Edit: I meant, our resident one-sentance poster

 

[gauchecritic]

Right. The smut get as good (more often better) marks than the 'stories'.

I have no idea.

A story in my view, has standards outside of Lit that it has to hit to qualify for good marks.

Smut has to have factors other than literary (usually, I'd guess) standards which only obtain at Lit. (or similar sites which are few and far between if you take Lit. as a standard) Add to this that these nebulous 'standards' are purely to do with sex (or fetishes thereof) and the entire body of work is massively constrained and delineated by its own paradigm.

But that very boundary is what defines smut and attracts attention (and high marks)

So, in a very real sense, 'stories' are ten a penny and smut can only ever be smut.

 

[CharleyH]

Ok, here's something of what I was getting at. In Shanglan's 'too obscure' thread I posted a response to the first quote. - Perdita

And yes, this is the attitude I was trying hard to get too, but couldn't explain self. (How unusual is that ) Thanks for saving my ass from major pain!

Edit: I do think we should also start an English Muffin thread. Who can make her post more than a line, and who will toast her or eat her alive? chuckle