Writer thread: Form vs. content

[elsol]

That's exactly it, Shang. I cannot begin to understand people who write, as Rob put it, without stopping to thinking about it. Every word we put down on paper, every structural element, should be a deliberate choice with a deliberate purpose. Otherwise, it's not writing. It's only a step up from monkeys typing randomly.

The average paperback novel contains 400 words per page... a 500 page novel means the writer must deliberately choose 200,000 pieces of the story and treat them as distinct elements to their work.

200,000 deliberate choices to produce a novel before we even get to the non-mechanical elements of a story?

I think I can paint with a brush and use strokes and still achieve something non-representative of a monkey just slapping paint onto a canvas.

 

[S-Des]

The average paperback novel contains 400 words per page... a 500 page novel means the writer must deliberately choose 200,000 pieces of the story and treat them as distinct elements to their work.

200,000 deliberate choices to produce a novel before we even get to the non-mechanical elements of a story?

I think I can paint with a brush and use strokes and still achieve something non-representative of a monkey just slapping paint onto a canvas.

Exactly. Rob nailed it, some people can just tell a story without resorting to analyzing it. People who are unable to do it that way often attack others as a way of feeling superior. Since I am not nearly as educated as some of the others here in literature, I'll compare it to something I am well versed in...music.

There are two camps in music. Those who insist on structure, modal concepts, and strict form. There are others who don't know shit about any of that, but somehow manage to write songs that will last for decades, possibly centuries. Neither is right, neither is wrong. Some of us have an innate ability to artistically put down what our unconscious mind is able to structure for us. Others depend on that structure in order to write (or even form their own performances of existing music).

Listening to these two sides argue about what is "right" is often hilarious. Me personally, I'm much more of the type to ignore concepts and focus on telling a story. I could deconstruct how I do it to a point, but am not educated enough to do it on an intellectual level with others here. I hope that doesn't make me seem like a monkey.

But I am all for the intellectual discussion. I think we should always strive to improve ourselves. Just please try to be courteous to those who look at it differently than yourself. Their way may not be yours because they are more talented at a different aspect of writing than you are. No one will ever convince me that Stevie Ray Vaughn would have been a better guitar player or song writer if he had just gone to college and studied music theory. He simply could perform all the things that are taught there at an unconscious level. Does that make him inferior or superior to someone who needs form just to be able to do the same thing?

 

[cantdog]

I'm still hearing a lot of what form ain't, and damn all of what form is. gauche asked directly in the form of a yes-no question with one guess. Is anyone with a spare moment going to answer it?

If that's too highbrow for ya, how bout one more shot at it.

A hint on what? I said that if farce were a term reducing enough to describe all structural, formal options, then yes, you'd have form right there. But when you set out to write farce, and from there go to character, you still have all the formal choices to make. Exactly as you said: you could write not only one, but two, fifty, a thousand farces with those exact same characters.

Honestly! A hint on What the fuck are you talking about? I've asked for a definition of this term a couple times already. What are you talking about? What do you mean by form when you say form?

Because I'll tell you right now, I am not, repeat not, writing any of my stuff with my gut alone, although I am convinced that it is valueless if gutless. I make many thousands of decisions just within my vocabulary, choosing the next word, and Thousands within my interior generative grammar choosing my sentence structures. I polish a farce to have at least one witty turn in every two lines of text, or rewrite to get there. I sweat over the surface, what they call "mere narrative" in this thread. Mere narrative is what people are reading, if you can withstand the reminder.

I know where I'm going, and I know what I'm doing to the reader as I go. My every move is deliberate, especially in farce, which is a very damn exacting sort of story to write. I scarcely pay more attention to each word in poetry.

This is not the result of some primitive instinct.

What I lack is any background whatsoever in literature courses. I am dead sure that if you condescended to define your terms to us mere writers, we could competently manage to use them, along with the hundreds of thousands of other words we use.

We're alreayd pretty deeply into the thread here considering that the central term has so far remained undefined. Well?

 

[MonkeyTony]

You know, with all the intellectual pissing contests, ass kissing and mutual masturbation that goes on in these writing threads it's amazing that ANYONE here gets any actual writing done.

When was the last time any of you came up with something new, hmmm? And when's the next bestseller due out? I thought so.

You people need to get over yourselves ASAP. You can have the whole alphabet next to your writings but your attitudes stink. You eat, sleep and shit like the rest of us. Quit acting like you're God's gift to literature, and maybe you'll go far. Oh, and I forgot: Ooo ooo, ahh ahh.

Cordially,
Monkey Tony

https://asp.hori-ep.co.jp/shop/images/kipling/ki00767_l.jpg

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I knew there was a reason I don't read these threads.

That's a bit harsh Laur.

200,000 deliberate choices to produce a novel before we even get to the non-mechanical elements of a story?

Exactly. Rob nailed it, some people can just tell a story without resorting to analyzing it. People who are unable to do it that way often attack others as a way of feeling superior.

Oh, thank God! When I left last night, I thought no one had noticed the random-typing monkeys. I was hoping for the whole forum to feel insulted. Some people really do need a slap in the face from time to time to wake up, and if this is what it takes to make you think about what you're doing, I'll be thrilled. You make a mistake to think I say these things as a way of "feeling superior" or to "attack" anyone. Why would I do that? I say them because when I see people wasting their potential, I want to help them.

If you write by instinct alone, without stopping to consider the implications of your choices, you may very well end up with a worthwhile story. It means you have some talent. And then you'll write another, and you'll end up with a worthwhile story. And then you'll write another, and another, and another, and the evolution between each of them will be none. Until you stop to consider what elements in your story work and which don't, why some work and some don't, which of them drive the story forward and which of them harm it, until you understand why your instinct pushes you in one direction or another and whether your instinct is right on every occasion, your writing isn't going to evolve. You'll still have lots of fun writing and imagine yourself the greatest storyteller in the world, you can even put out a paperback best-seller and earn millions, but I can tell you right now: in terms of quality of writing, any improvement over that first story will be a statistical anomaly. Consider that another slap in the face.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

You know, with all the intellectual pissing contests, ass kissing and mutual masturbation that goes on in these writing threads it's amazing that ANYONE here gets any actual writing done.

Oh, good. This one got so offended that a new registration was needed.

I sincerely hope this thread is going to make YOU do some actual writing today. That would make it all worth it. Even one person.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Which is why every writer has a different opinion, n'est ce-qui pas?

Thanks, Stella.

I keep forgetting to add "In my opinion" before each sentence I write. No wonder people think I'm condescending and attacking those more talented in other areas of writing.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

That's a bit harsh Laur. (I can call you Laur right?)

I know, but love hurts. (Yes, you can )

I've edited a few people's work (I think I've mentioned this elsewhere) and pointed out to them maybe a recurring theme or place mention of an object used later in the story. They had no idea that they'd actually included that. They wrote without consciously thinking about it and still managed to include form as they wrote the content.

That's hardly surprising. A person can't write a word without form - it is an intrinsic part of writing. The trick is knowing why you choose one element over another, and what does that choice do to the story.

As my alter-ego I posted a very short piece on a Lit thread in a Checkovian stylee, straight off the top of my head. At another writing group I posted it as an example of a complete short story with plot, character development, tension, resolution and denoument. Someone argued with me that it wasn't a 'whole' story (mainly because it was about a hundred words) and in answer to his criticism, for the very first time I analysed (appreciated) it and pointed out the various elements that did make it a 'story' rather than a scene.

When I actually wrote it I didn't once stop and consider the form or the content. When I was forced to look at it later it was all there. (so much for subconscious attention)

Again, hardly surprising. When a person is aware of the importance of the different elements of writing (or of any another area of activity), when you regularly and properly exercise your muscles, you can easily rely on instinct to reach your usual performance in short bursts.

That's what elsol forgot in his post about writing 500-page novels. 200,000 deliberate choices are easy and natural, once you're aware of them.

As to the main question. Form v. content. I have very little idea about what 'form' actually is except that:

You can describe a milk bottle and you can describe milk but those two don't describe a bottle of milk.

I can't see how form can affect content or vice versa (and no, the bottle of milk doesn't extend to assignation) excepting that you're talking about plays versus poems versus stories. Is that what form means? (serious question)

Serious answer. I don't think that in the context of this thread, "form" has much to do with plays vs. poems vs. stories. I believe that what Charley originally asked and what most everyone answered refers to the formal elements of writing. Quite simply, the shape of things.

The "content" of this thread's title refers, I believe, to the plot. The story that is to be told: a boy meets a girl, they fall in love, their families disapprove, there's a tragedy, they get separated, they struggle, they get reunited. Add as much detail as you want.

The "form" is how you're going to tell that story. From what point of view, in which verbal time, at what level of language, dialogue-driven or with an unreliable narrator, will you play with the fourth wall, will you split it in chapters, will you split it in paragraphs, will you use the word "pussy" or "cunt"? These are the formal choices you will have to make. One can make them without thinking, obviously, but what I defend is that one's writing will not evolve beyond one's current instinctive level, unless these choices are given thought to. To go with the girl's POV instead of a 3rd-person omniscient to tell this same plot is not an inconsequential decision; it will affect the entire story. If the author doesn't consider how that one decision will affect the story, then I am sorry, but it is little better than monkeys typing randomly. The outcome might be great. And the next time he or she sits down and does the same thing, it might not be.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Honestly! A hint on What the fuck are you talking about? I've asked for a definition of this term a couple times already. What are you talking about? What do you mean by form when you say form?

Fuck, you could have asked outward instead of just in your head! I didn't see that question in any of your posts. Anyway, responded above to Gauche.

Because I'll tell you right now, I am not, repeat not, writing any of my stuff with my gut alone, although I am convinced that it is valueless if gutless. I make many thousands of decisions just within my vocabulary, choosing the next word, and Thousands within my interior generative grammar choosing my sentence structures. I polish a farce to have at least one witty turn in every two lines of text, or rewrite to get there. I sweat over the surface, what they call "mere narrative" in this thread. Mere narrative is what people are reading, if you can withstand the reminder.

I know where I'm going, and I know what I'm doing to the reader as I go. My every move is deliberate, especially in farce, which is a very damn exacting sort of story to write. I scarcely pay more attention to each word in poetry.

This is not the result of some primitive instinct.

Of course it is not, and literary background or education has nothing to do with any of this. The one-step-above-monkeys-typing-randomly provocation wasn't directed at you. If everyone put as much thought into plot, vocabulary, and structural choices as you do, the qualitative jump in the writing of AH authors would be astonishing.

Unfortunately, those who have more to gain are unaware and more hung up on courtesies or lack thereof than on really striving to improve themselves.

 

[Liar]

Your monkey analogy is interresting, Lauren. That a writer should consider the implication and exact function of every word and phrase they write. And in a way, I agree with you. I just think there's no real difference between that and the writing-by-ear that is used by the 'I must be a monkey then'-repliers from your post.

Ftsota, does a runner have to stop and weigh the pros and cons of left vs right foot on every step? Does a musician have to consider every note he plays? No, because they get it right anyway? How? By habit. Knowing is doing, and writing can be as much a practical knowledge, a techne as playing an instrument can. It is a constant desicion making. Just not in the front of your head. A violinist knows when he's about to play an off note even before he hears the sound of it, knows when he hits the cadence of a passage just right. Just like some writers do and only stops to ponder words when in doubt, while others approach the art thru other methods.

But it's really the same thing, just employing different parts of the mind.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Ftsota, does a runner have to stop and weigh the pros and cons of left vs right foot on every step? Does a musician have to consider every note he plays? No, because they get it right anyway? How? By habit. Knowing is doing, and writing can be as much a practical knowledge, a techne as playing an instrument can. It is a constant desicion making. Just not in the front of your head. A violinist knows when he's about to play an off note even before he hears the sound of it, knows when he hits the cadence of a passage just right. Just like some writers do and only stops to ponder words when in doubt, while others approach the art thru other methods.

Hi, Liar. I agree. That's what I meant in the first part of my reply to Gauche. When he gets to the Olympics, that athlete will just shut down and let his muscles run by instinct. But consider this: without the thousands of hours of training, without the thousands of extensively thought-out, studied, considered, and tested advices of coaches on left vs. right foot, on breathing, on momentum, on how to leave the blocks at the exact time, would that athlete ever make it to the Olympics? Would he ever make it to the point where he can just shut down everything and let his muscles do what they have been conditioned to do instinctively? He could start out as an incredibly talented runner already, fast as the wind, but would he ever get better?

 

[Decayed Angel]

The only other thing I have to contribute is that my poem "Rochester" was nominated for poem of the year here at Lit, and I am completely convinced that was because it is a Sonnet, and most everything else is Vers Libre. I do think it's a decent poem, don't get me wrong, but it's the formal structure that made everyone look at it twice.

I think the placement of your sonnet among the top poems at Lit had more to do with the dynamics of the voting here at lit than the specific form of your poem. You got the votes not so much because you posted a sonnet, but because Stella Omega posted a poem. Most of the poets posting in only poetry will usually pull between four and eight votes, with only the most poplular poets perhaps getting ten to twelve. So a fiction writer, who has accumulated fifteen to twenty dedicated fans can easily step over and post in poetry and dominate.

Now, of course, the poem will need to be reasonably good to avoid getting gutted by the four to six votes you'll get from poetry readers, but I think that a Triolet, or a Villanelle or a free verse poem written by Stella Omega, provided that it is a good poem would had done as well.

There are some who think a good sonnet is more difficult to write than good free verse and those folks may have rewarded you for writing a sonnet, but I still think a good free verse poem from Stella Omega would have also made the yearly poem list based more on the voting dynamics than the form of the poem.

 

[cantdog]

Your monkey analogy is interresting, Lauren. That a writer should consider the implication and exact function of every word and phrase they write. And in a way, I agree with you. I just think there's no real difference between that and the writing-by-ear that is used by the 'I must be a monkey then'-repliers from your post.

Ftsota, does a runner have to stop and weigh the pros and cons of left vs right foot on every step? Does a musician have to consider every note he plays? No, because they get it right anyway? How? By habit. Knowing is doing, and writing can be as much a practical knowledge, a techne as playing an instrument can. It is a constant desicion making. Just not in the front of your head. A violinist knows when he's about to play an off note even before he hears the sound of it, knows when he hits the cadence of a passage just right. Just like some writers do and only stops to ponder words when in doubt, while others approach the art thru other methods.

But it's really the same thing, just employing different parts of the mind.

I think those analogies are always going to be strained pretty taut, and snap easily. Me and say, van Gogh, do not get asked to do what we do hundreds of times a year on a tour or a circuit. There's no "Hey, do "Starry Night" again, man!" Musicians have to do that, and runners. There's no reason why van Gogh or I can't be doing the whole thing in the front of the head.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Because I can't answer.

I get an idea, sit down, write it out, spell-check and it's done.

According to Lauren, that's not writing, so I don't get to voice an opinion here.

Shutting up now,

The same monkey.

I'm gonna go get some monkey-lovin' over there with Jammies, because I write intuitively. It is not a calculated process. It doesn't involve much planning.

One of the books we talk about here on the forum, Stephen King's "On Writing" depicts writing as more of an unearthing, a discovering, a revealing of a story a bit at a time. Sometimes, when things are really flying, I feel like I'm channeling, not writing.

There is no room for this kind of writer/writing in Lauren's view, it seems to me.

We might as well just apply the Prichard scale to it all and see what is "real" literature?



as for this:

Some people really do need a slap in the face from time to time to wake up, and if this is what it takes to make you think about what you're doing, I'll be thrilled.

And it's your job to show writers the errors of their ways, Lauren? You assume that those writers who are enjoying telling their tales and turning out their mass of paperbacks are doing something they shouldn't... if that isn't a superior position, I don't know what is.

If a writer is meant to develop, a writer WILL develop. In his/her own way and time. If you have the opportunity PRESENTED to you to mentor a fellow writer, I say, take it! It sounds like you would be fantastic at it... but preaching this stuff to the masses?? It doesn't seem like it helps anyone, including you...

soapboxes are ok for a while, but eventually, you just gotta step off and actually practice what you preach, kwim?

 

[Guest]

 

[rgraham666]

Oh, HORSESHIT.

My god, woman, that is the most pretentious thing I've heard since I got out of college.

Where, by the way, are your oh-so-wonderful stories? Not here at Lit, where people can read them, I see. You're just a glorified accountant for the Survivor contest, i.e. the contest where people are rewarded for quantity over quality.

I'm done bothering about your snarky collegiate dreams of what "writing" is. I write the way I do, and damn well, and you can take your patronizing attitude and try to write a story that is one-half as good as the ones I've written.

Charley, my sincere apologies for the outburst in your thread.

I love Jammies.

 

[oggbashan]

Enforced form

I sometimes write 50-word stories.

Those have a very definite and restricted form. Yet I don't think that the form restricts the content. It might focus the mind into avoiding longer clauses but the content is infinitely variable.

Structured poetry such as a sonnet, a triolet, a haiku or any other form can be used to convey a multitude of ideas and images. Is the form restrictive of content? I think not. The choice of form is the poet's.

My Jonathan Swift pastiches had to follow the form and style of Gulliver's Travels. Fan-fic has to build on what is already known of the characters and setting. Beyond that the imagination of the author is unrestricted.

Choosing a form in which to write is just one of many choices an author makes, consciously or unconsciously. Varying the form might change the impact of the story e.g. rewriting from 3rd person to 1st.

My take: Form is part of the content.

Og

 

[Liar]

I think those analogies are always going to be strained pretty taut, and snap easily. Me and say, van Gogh, do not get asked to do what we do hundreds of times a year on a tour or a circuit. There's no "Hey, do "Starry Night" again, man!" Musicians have to do that, and runners. There's no reason why van Gogh or I can't be doing the whole thing in the front of the head.

And you should. If that's the way you produce the best result and that gives you the most satisfaction. I can't see where I said that deliberate consideration of everything as a method doesn't work. Just that it's not the one and only way to either good performance or good improvement.

 

[Liar]

Hi, Liar. I agree. That's what I meant in the first part of my reply to Gauche. When he gets to the Olympics, that athlete will just shut down and let his muscles run by instinct. But consider this: without the thousands of hours of training, without the thousands of extensively thought-out, studied, considered, and tested advices of coaches on left vs. right foot, on breathing, on momentum, on how to leave the blocks at the exact time, would that athlete ever make it to the Olympics? Would he ever make it to the point where he can just shut down everything and let his muscles do what they have been conditioned to do instinctively? He could start out as an incredibly talented runner already, fast as the wind, but would he ever get better?

Thing is here, you seem to equate thousand hours of training with thousand ours on analyzing. it's not the same thing. For instance, the long distance runners from Ethiopia and Kenya that ace every race in the olympics, the base of their superiority is not in exact calculation of step efficiency or medical analysis of oxygen transport in theor blood. It's running for miles and miles. And then running some more. It's knowledge that sits in the limbs and not in the head. Of course you might be able to apply a theory of running to your actual steps and rub it in until it's habit, but you may also perfect the steps by, yes, running and letting the efficiency of it develop through evolution in repetition.

It's inevitable for a writer to reflect on what they write. Everyone does it, some extensively through deliberate analysis and concious experimentation. Others through the continous growth of your arsenal that just writing, reading and living will inevitably provide you with. Most people probably do a little of both, even if they have a hard time reflecting on theor own methods and doesn't seeit. But to claim that ether of the extremes leads nowhere and doesn't develop you as a writer...eh, I wouldn't go that far.

 

[cantdog]

I can agree with that, Liar. And I find myself dubious when someone, like, say, for example, my dear sister who was an English major, begins to talk lit crit. There are ideologies in lit crit, I think.

People learn stuff all the time without having to externalize it, but I think on the whole that sort of learning proceeds slowly, if it's all one does. I don't advocate the kind of nightmare novel el sol spoke of, with every word placed just so after agonies of analysis, either.

But if you never stop to introspect or analyze, you will want to live a lot longer to get where you're going. Give it a look once in a while, whatever it is.

As for writing, for me it's a duel with the reader. I'm bobbin and weavin, man, workin him, workin him, then pow! pow! You can do it best integrated and whole, you know, writing is also zen, all that. But then what you have is a rough draft. A good start. For me. I want to go back and tighten, think about it, polish. A rant I can leave whole, but a restrictive form (or content) like farce or noir needs slick surfaces and seamlessness in attack.

Each to his own.

 

[oggbashan]

Inconsistency

Analysis of my output:

Not all story ideas are good.

Not all stories are good.

Not all writing is good.

Some are bad, some are mediocre, some are good, a few come close to the intention.

I am a better writer than I was. That doesn't stop me making mistakes, writing a bad story, using a hackneyed plot, writing the same story again or refusing to experiment and develop.

Although I learn by my mistakes, that won't stop me occasionally repeating them or making new ones. I hope that my general trend is towards better writing but there are some deviations from the upward line of improvement.

I leave all my stories still posted on Literotica to remind myself that I am not the writer I was when I started. Should I rewrite my earlier work? I'm inclined not to because those stories demonstrate to me, if to no one else, what progress I am making.

Will I ever be satisfied that I have written the perfect story? No. Creation is like that. The created work is always less than the intended work. However close you get to what you want to say there is always room for improvement, for polishing, editing, revising, reviewing - but that detracts from creating new work.

I could consider recasting many of my stories in a different form, presenting the ideas in a new and original way. Why should I? I have so many more stories waiting to be written that I cannot afford the time to revise earlier work except for gross errors such as changing a character's name in the middle of a story.

I am always conscious that my time is limited in two senses - limited because I have other things to do in real life, and limited because I am not immortal but ageing and eventually my existence will end.

I write to amuse and entertain. The person I amuse most is myself.

Og

 

[NoJo]

The golden rule of writing: Write What You Know.

(My latest story is about C++ programming in the Microsoft .NET environment)

 

[Lauren Hynde]

It's inevitable for a writer to reflect on what they write. Everyone does it, some extensively through deliberate analysis and concious experimentation. Others through the continous growth of your arsenal that just writing, reading and living will inevitably provide you with. Most people probably do a little of both, even if they have a hard time reflecting on theor own methods and doesn't seeit. But to claim that ether of the extremes leads nowhere and doesn't develop you as a writer...eh, I wouldn't go that far.

You know that in actuality, I wouldn't go that far either. Exaggeration is an effective shock tactic, though.

 

[S-Des]

Hi, Liar. I agree. That's what I meant in the first part of my reply to Gauche. When he gets to the Olympics, that athlete will just shut down and let his muscles run by instinct. But consider this: without the thousands of hours of training, without the thousands of extensively thought-out, studied, considered, and tested advices of coaches on left vs. right foot, on breathing, on momentum, on how to leave the blocks at the exact time, would that athlete ever make it to the Olympics? Would he ever make it to the point where he can just shut down everything and let his muscles do what they have been conditioned to do instinctively? He could start out as an incredibly talented runner already, fast as the wind, but would he ever get better?

This comment shows a lack of understanding that is just staggering. Would they "get better" by practicing...DUH! Is coaching on some level necessary to become a world champion...usually (although it's only been the last 20-30 years that everyone has signed on to this philosophy).

Again, I go back to my point on musicians (because athletics is too different from art to be a good analogy), we have THE SAME argument daily. It is neither clever, nor original. There are people who play for 40 years, become the best at their profession, yet know nothing about form. I'm sure they'll be crushed to know an anonymous person posting on a porn board doesn't respect what they've accomplished. I'll bet this "slap in the face" will suddenly wake them up and make them much better musicians.

As for writing, you get better by practicing. You write, do different types of stories, get feedback from editors or prereaders, make corrections and try to improve (not to mention reading other's stories). It touches on a more structured approach, but is certainly not the mind-numbing exercise in intellectualism you propose. If you want to write that way, feel free. If you're going to attack my friends (and in some ways, me) for not ascribing to your particular approach...well, that's what the ignore button is for.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Oh, HORSESHIT.

My god, woman, that is the most pretentious thing I've heard since I got out of college.

That's an excellent defence. I sincerely hope you go on to prove my pretentiousness wrong.

Where, by the way, are your oh-so-wonderful stories? Not here at Lit, where people can read them, I see.

"By the way"? By the way of what? You say I am pretentious and then come out with something like that? Are you implying that for someone to have an opinion on writing, one has to write better, or even write at all? I was under the impression that to have valid opinions on writing, all it took was being a reader and having common sense, but I guess you're right. That's why the works of Nobel Prize winners are never ever studied, commented or reviewed by anyone. Who would be competent enough to risk a comment on Saramago's work? Maybe Günter Grass could share some thoughts, but I doubt he'd listen.

And "by the way" - not that it matters one iota to anything said in this thread - but maybe you should look better. My stories at Lit are where all the stories at Lit are.

You're just a glorified accountant for the Survivor contest, i.e. the contest where people are rewarded for quantity over quality.

No, I'm just a regular member of Literotica, exactly like you. In addition to that, and because I enjoy giving to Literotica something in return for letting me be a member for free, I help out Laurel by organising a contest. If there's any glory in it, I'm still to discover what it is. As I am still to discover what was your point with bringing this up, but not surprised.