Discussion topic stuck in my head: Writing for the story vs writing for the reader

[Boxlicker101]

As I said, I write smut, and I intend to continue writing smut. However, I do a certain amount of editing and polishing, and sometimes I try to use some imagination in describing the scenario. In other words, I want to do a good job of writing the smut.

There have been times when I have tried to be a bit more literary in writing smut, trying to establish characters, and create tension and spin a plot. Such efforts have been generally not well-received in terms of veiws or votes or feedback. Even in these, about two thirds of the story will be detailed descriptions of fucking and sucking and eating pussy. In my others, it's between 80 and 90%. My story in the Winter Holiday contest, if I ever get it done, will be even more than that.

 

[caramelgirl_2]

I make a disctinction between pornography and erotica that the dictionary doesn't make. To me, porn is writing intended to do nothing more than sexually arouse and titillate....
Erotica (for me) is different. It's the literature of sex. It tries to say something about the human experience of erotic love, the way we feel it and what it means and does to us.

Thank you for this post. It is what I figured in my head but never really saw in print before.
There is a difference between porn and erotica, and I think that-- although other writing forums might consider my writing to be porn-- I am aiming more for erotica.

I find that some people who read my stories want more sex-- they don't like the "thinking" in between the sex. But I'm very interested in the thought and motivations behind sex...it IS a way that human beings communicate with each other and part of "the human condition". So when people complain about the non-sexual parts in my stories, I just shrug and say to myself, "they need to read someone else's stories". 'Cuz what I write is what I write.

Although they are two authors I can only aspire to, I think of Henry Miller and V. Nabakov. Nabakov in particular really focuses on the human condition in relation to desire in "Lolita". Miller, if I can get past wanking (in the female version) to the sexy parts, is the same. I admire both of them for not taking sex OUT of literature, and maybe using sex to focus on things people are afraid to look at.

Okay. I'm done being philosophical. Back to wanking...lol.
Thanks again, Dr. M.