When writers get sloppy

[BlackShanglan]

I forgot the lube in one of my early stories and my editor was NOT happy with me. For me, when it happened, it wasn't that I didn't know any better. It was more that I found the appication of lube to be totally un-sexy.

Yes, that is a tricky one. Lubing, like condom usage, is not always the most erotic thing in the world; it takes some effort to work it in without breaking the erotic flow.

Of course, I'm usually working pre-1900, so for me I think it's actually easier. Possibly it's a matter of personal predilection, but I find lube much more interesting and sensual when it's something like sweet almond oil - pleasant scent, interesting taste, non-clinical/non-pragmatic associations. It gives a little luxury to the feel of it. But then, I'm one of those people for whom food and sex are very close to the same pleasure.

Shanglan

 

[oggbashan]

It is easy to have a half-baked idea that takes you beyond your knowledge.

I have one story set in 19th century India and I do not know enough about the time and place so I had to set the story in the main character's drunken dream of what he thinks India might have been like then... A cop-out.

As a secondhand bookdealer I threw out (OK gave to charity shops) dozens of cheap paperbacks that had stories set in locations that the author didn't know. I don't know how they were selected for publication. Perhaps they were all vanity publishing. Most had the same cheap publisher in East London.

There were Westerns that seemed to be written by authors that had never been on a horse, nor fired a gun, nor left Central London.

There were Sci Fi books that were the bad Westerns transferred to spaceships instead of horses and laser beams instead of guns.

There were Fantasy/Faery books that were the bad Westerns using dragons instead of horses and magical wands instead of the guns.

There were Detective stories that ignored evidence, proof, and logic and the Private Eye was Superman disguised as Kojak...

Common to all were cardboard characters, staged co-incidences, characters appearing out of nowhere to be the villain, fall-guy, romantic interest or deus-ex-machina to solve the hero's impossible dilemma.

They were, and are, unsaleable.

Og

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yes, that is a tricky one. Lubing, like condom usage, is not always the most erotic thing in the world; it takes some effort to work it in without breaking the erotic flow.

Of course, I'm usually working pre-1900, so for me I think it's actually easier. Possibly it's a matter of personal predilection, but I find lube much more interesting and sensual when it's something like sweet almond oil - pleasant scent, interesting taste, non-clinical/non-pragmatic associations. It gives a little luxury to the feel of it. But then, I'm one of those people for whom food and sex are very close to the same pleasure.

Shanglan

Yes, the problem is the breaking of the rhythm. I avoid it by ignoring the problems of getting the bottle open, finding an extra hand to deal with the stuff when both of mine are already busy- I'm not interested in absolute mundane accuracy, after all, there is still a fantasy going here!
So, lube (or oil) bottles magically materialise, and open themselves- and, probably, aim themselves, too- in my stories... Condom packs never have to be opened, no one ever argues about putting one on, or tries to unroll one the wrong way at first...
Magic!

 

[Guest]

I don't usually make it far enough into a Literotica story that has such fatal errors to remember it. I do know that one particular well known writer, who started writing paranormal mystery/horror and has now moved into sorta-erotic/mytery horror is famous for her continuity errors -- things like having cars that were totaled one night show up in pristine order the next morning long enough to drive the heroine to work, only to be all wrecked and unuseable for her to get home...and groups of character designated by hair/skin color combinations that keep changing so that even with a score card, you aren't sure who is who.

I won't even wander into the repetitive descriptive tags. I've only continued reading one series, and I ACTUALLY SKIP THE SEX SCENES to follow the pretty damned interesting plot, which means, because the sex scenes are hours and chapters long, means I'm reading a condensed version of the novel.

I'm big on the factual information front myself, which means I collect oddball reference books when I run across them on the discount table, and I question people I know about things where their knowledge extends beyond mine. While sometimes I can do enough research and use my imagination enough to get by (and there is always the magical cliches of fantasy, when I can use them), I prefer to get SOMETHING factual.

For the average reader, as long as MOST of your facts are in line and you don't pull some amazing mistake from the ether, they'll accept what you say and keep reading. Readers can be amazingly forgiving, especially when they have no more idea what you are talking about than you do.

 

[Guest]

I had someone complain in my latest story that I wasn't consistent with the sexual scene (the characters wound up in positions the reader didn't feel would work, for example).

They chastized me for my lack of continuity in the sex scenes because they didn't feel it was possible.

I remember thinking, "My husband and I can get into those positions that I put in the story. It's just too damn bad you cannot!"

 

[3113]

I remember thinking, "My husband and I can get into those positions that I put in the story. It's just too damn bad you cannot!"

Well, truth is stranger than fiction

Those of us who don't do our yoga are likely to doubt certain positions however technically possible.

 

[Guest]

Well, truth is stranger than fiction

Those of us who don't do our yoga are likely to doubt certain positions however technically possible.

It wasn't even that amazing a position.

It had to do with the female arching her back, and the trickling of sweat into that hollow when the back arches.



(Foolish reader!!)

 

[oggbashan]

My errors

1. Changing the name of the main character in the last few paragraphs (Thanks Black Tulip for noticing. I still haven't edited it. I must get around to it soon)

2. Submitting an early draft instead of the final because I messed up the file names. The story ended halfway.

3. Completely messing up the names of the characters. I often write early drafts with vanilla names and do 'Search and Replace' when the characters develop. Search and Replace didn't find the possessives e.g. Judy had Jane's pussy and Alan had Andrew's erection.

4. Losing the plot in sub-plots despite the diagram.

And so on...

Og

 

[Lisa Denton]

e.g. Judy had Jane's pussy and Alan had Andrew's erection.

And so on...

Og

But what was the problem?

 

[Lisa Denton]

I think sloppiness is a occupational hazard, and nice side effect, of erotic writing. The author is working with a favorite fantasy, sorta letting the creative juices flow, and luckily here on Lit its a monitor screen or all the pages would be wrickled up and splattered and hard to read.

While I would applaud a writer who got all the lubes and condoms into a story, with sutry smokin sexiness, I think a lot of erotica would bomb, and get even sloppier, with too much lube and everbody slidin off the bed.

The other stuff, like sendin e-mails from computers that aren't there and stuff, I notice lots in non-erotic stories, and don't like. And sometimes hate it when Evil Edward, who died way back in chapter 3, comes back and dies again, in chapter 57.

I think alot of the erotica we write, lets the reader use thier own images to fill in the small stuff, and often some of the larger stuff, and just wouldn't work tryin to fill in everything.

I will demostrate, everbody stand back.


"Cute lil innocent Tina, a virgin who had never had any sex, let alone anal fistin, looked very afraid as she reached into her nightstand and pulled out the huge jar of anal lube. As Wicked Wanda wrapped a makeshift condom of a plastic garbage sack around her arm up past the elbow."


I dunno, it just seems to lose something, with the additions.

Just my opinion.

 

[MercyMia]

An anal scene where the guy switches FROM her ass TO her pussy

Oh gawd the horror!

or the gigabytes of "slash" being written where an ass-fucking seems to need only "He relaxed his muscles" and lube is never mentioned...

The horror! The horror!

*collapses, sobbing, to the carpet*

Double Amen to that. And in addition, after anal penetration, the penetrator makes the penetratee suck his cock...um, ecoli anyone? There are bacteria in the lower intestinal tract that just don't belong in the oral cavity.

 

[BlackShanglan]

There were Westerns that seemed to be written by authors that had never been on a horse, nor fired a gun, nor left Central London.

There were Sci Fi books that were the bad Westerns transferred to spaceships instead of horses and laser beams instead of guns.

There were Fantasy/Faery books that were the bad Westerns using dragons instead of horses and magical wands instead of the guns.

*laugh*

Ah, you've captured it perfectly. The story where nothing is an actual object, place, or person, just a plot device. Nice one, Og.

Shanglan

 

[Stella_Omega]

I think sloppiness is a occupational hazard, and nice side effect, of erotic writing. The author is working with a favorite fantasy, sorta letting the creative juices flow, and luckily here on Lit its a monitor screen or all the pages would be wrickled up and splattered and hard to read.

While I would applaud a writer who got all the lubes and condoms into a story, with sutry smokin sexiness, I think a lot of erotica would bomb, and get even sloppier, with too much lube and everbody slidin off the bed.

The other stuff, like sendin e-mails from computers that aren't there and stuff, I notice lots in non-erotic stories, and don't like. And sometimes hate it when Evil Edward, who died way back in chapter 3, comes back and dies again, in chapter 57.

I think alot of the erotica we write, lets the reader use thier own images to fill in the small stuff, and often some of the larger stuff, and just wouldn't work tryin to fill in everything.

I will demostrate, everbody stand back.


"Cute lil innocent Tina, a virgin who had never had any sex, let alone anal fistin, looked very afraid as she reached into her nightstand and pulled out the huge jar of anal lube. As Wicked Wanda wrapped a makeshift condom of a plastic garbage sack around her arm up past the elbow."


I dunno, it just seems to lose something, with the additions.

Just my opinion.

yes, but you're deliberately writing it badly, to make your point, aren't you?
And a lot of erotica bombs from bad writing, period.
How about this instead- from WIP;

“A glove?” she moaned as I caught the one that fluttered through the air. “Do you have to, Quinn?
“You won’t notice, I promise.” I would, more’s the pity, but a glove is slipperier than a hand. And Charlie had obtained the thinnest and best, of course.
I took a look at her, as I put it on. She was beautiful, a classic American girl, youth in her skin, wisdom in her eyes. I could look at her for a long long time. Laying back in the arms of the blond man, his hand caressing her breasts, neck, mouth. His eyes caressing me. He tossed me a bottle of lubricant, as well- Alegra’s eyes followed its arc in fascination as it flew. And widened as I poured it into the palm of my hand.

My heart began to hammer, I don’t mind telling you, as I began the delicate slow process of introducing my whole hand into her cunt...

In Mad Moll there's an encounter between Moll, who is easy-going about these things, and a younger girl who is very strict about her safe sex. Moll makes it clear that she doesn't feel completely fulfilled with all the strictures, but also that she doesn't mind that much...

In another story, I use the lack of a condom as a plot device- one that makes the characters very happy. And in that same story, the passive partner does take the penetrating cock into his mouth- which actually shocks the active partner, and turns her on all over again. Even bad sex practices have their uses!

 

[3113]

I recall a wonderful gay, erotic story that takes place during the push in the late 80's for safe sex. The first person protagonist is deeply into latex and always has been, but has had a hard time, up till then, getting his partners to agree to condoms. And so when he meets a young, conscientious gay man who insists on "safe sex" our protagoinst sighs wistfully and agrees...even as he gleefully jumps for joy inside because he's gonna get latex, latex, latex!

It was a great little story--I'd never read one that made condoms, including rolling them on down a penis, sound so sexy.

 

[Stella_Omega]

and, an update on my Anal friend She wrote back to me, saying that she personally ALWAYS has enough natural lubrication to make it through an ass-fucking. (She didn't say it like that)
So, there you go. I expressed admiration of her natural bounty

 

[Guest]

and, an update on my Anal friend She wrote back to me, saying that she personally ALWAYS has enough natural lubrication to make it through an ass-fucking. (She didn't say it like that)
So, there you go. I expressed admiration of her natural bounty

Bounty.

*snicker*

 

[3113]

and, an update on my Anal friend She wrote back to me, saying that she personally ALWAYS has enough natural lubrication to make it through an ass-fucking.

*sigh*! When will they ever learn? And the mantra of the day, "Truth is stranger than fiction...truth is stranger than fiction...."

 

[BlackShanglan]

I expressed admiration of her natural bounty

I love you with a depth and passion beyond all words.

 

[Guest]

Ok, then here's a question.

In a situation where a particular condition is more of an exception thana rule (like anal self-lubrication), should an author err on the side of more common experience, or provide a line or phrase expressing that the situation is rare but possible? I can picture a number of ways to do this while still keeping the story going -- someone can just remark on it in a lustful voice, for that matter.

Or are the rules of fantasy -- the willing suspension of disbelief by the reader -- the real rule here? If you have the reader firmly believing in your story, won't they just skip over those details (I'm thinking of Stephen Spielberg and the exploding shark in Jaws -- the physics aren't real but the scene is effective and many people believed it). So, if a reader balks at a detail, does that mean the author really didn't have them firmly in hand and believing in the story enough to maintain their suspension of disbelief?

Good gracious, it takes me a long time to ask a simple question!

 

[Guest]

Ok, then here's a question.

In a situation where a particular condition is more of an exception thana rule (like anal self-lubrication), should an author err on the side of more common experience, or provide a line or phrase expressing that the situation is rare but possible? I can picture a number of ways to do this while still keeping the story going -- someone can just remark on it in a lustful voice, for that matter.

Or are the rules of fantasy -- the willing suspension of disbelief by the reader -- the real rule here? If you have the reader firmly believing in your story, won't they just skip over those details (I'm thinking of Stephen Spielberg and the exploding shark in Jaws -- the physics aren't real but the scene is effective and many people believed it). So, if a reader balks at a detail, does that mean the author really didn't have them firmly in hand and believing in the story enough to maintain their suspension of disbelief?

Good gracious, it takes me a long time to ask a simple question!

Well, first we should come up with an appropriate term for excessive anal lubrication.

How about - butt juice?

 

[CharleyH]

The "What makes you stop" thread--about what makes a reader (namely us picky writer/readers) stop reading a story--was getting a little long. Rather than extend it with my question, I thought I'd better start up a new thread.

One point in the "stop" thread kept coming up and grabbing my attention: sloppiness. Sloppiness in punctuation, spelling, grammar, certainly. But, most especially, sloppiness in knowing the subject. Like writing a sex scene when it's clear ones never participated in that kind of sex. Or, as a.b. guye pointed out:



So, now I'm curious. What was one of the most ergrarious errors (lack of knowledge) in a story that you ever found annoying or laughable or just exasperating? Either on-line or in a book? Including common errors that a lot of writers seem to make, pointing to laziness/sloppiness.

I dunno - maybe the narrating character knows nothing about Wicca and never cares to and that's the point and that's the character As for sex, everyone has probably had it, they simply do not know how to describe it. Lit is not like the academia of erotic writing. Those particular beautiful stories always garner 4.5 - 4.7. What stories make me laugh in bad writing? Nohing if I can't laugh at in my own. I appreciate all writers attempts. I just might not think they are good writers'. Although the word nubins in place of tits does make me ... chuckle? LOL

 

[BlackShanglan]

Ok, then here's a question.

In a situation where a particular condition is more of an exception thana rule (like anal self-lubrication), should an author err on the side of more common experience, or provide a line or phrase expressing that the situation is rare but possible?

Depends on how clunky the work-in is, but I do think on the whole one must try to write for the majority of one's anticipated readers. Of course, writing about sex in explicit details raises all sorts of fascinating new issues there; it's quite intriguing to me how differently some people experience the same physical actions.

Or are the rules of fantasy -- the willing suspension of disbelief by the reader -- the real rule here? If you have the reader firmly believing in your story, won't they just skip over those details (I'm thinking of Stephen Spielberg and the exploding shark in Jaws -- the physics aren't real but the scene is effective and many people believed it). So, if a reader balks at a detail, does that mean the author really didn't have them firmly in hand and believing in the story enough to maintain their suspension of disbelief?

I think that's it. I can think of one story in which one specific element of gay male sex seemed "off" - not physically impossible, but just an unlikely assumption about some results. I know a couple of other writers who read it and also thought it was a little off. And we also all loved it, because it had us so enthralled by that point that no one gave a damn.

 

[Guest]

Well, first we should come up with an appropriate term for excessive anal lubrication.

How about - butt juice?

Yer a sick and twisted individual, Sarah. I REALLY respect that

 

[Guest]

Yer a sick and twisted individual, Sarah. I REALLY respect that

 

[CharleyH]

Depends on how clunky the work-in is, but I do think on the whole one must try to write for the majority of one's anticipated readers.

Intriguing, Shanglan. . Submitting to the common denominator? Why? How does it serve one as a growing writer?

Of course, writing about sex in explicit details raises all sorts of fascinating new issues there; it's quite intriguing to me how differently some people experience the same physical actions.

Ageed.

I think that's it. I can think of one story in which one specific element of gay male sex seemed "off" - not physically impossible, but just an unlikely assumption about some results.

What was it? You suspend us! (Okay - me).