Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi ML,
First, by all means do not be discouraged. You have flare and good ideas, and editors will be happy to do some chores. I think it's good to see how really excellent people write (that's why i gave you the url), but OTOH, I don't think you need to be down on yourself through comparison, and thinking writing is pointless if you're not in the top 1%.
Also please note the comment of another poster, about the efforts he believes speechmaster made. Most writers write only a couple drafts, and that can't compare with those who do 10 or 20.
There's a two pronged sword there, though. In one sense I write what turns me on. There's no sense in doing anything less in my mind. One of the things I like is very strong pornographic language when it comes to sex--which is partially what you objected to.
No, not at all. It was the predictability of the language, the stock phrases. Get as pornographic --detailed--as you like!
I was certainly aware that many Lit. readers would not like that, but now that I read your comments, perhaps it wasn't the language itself, but simply the fact that I tend to like to POUND it into people's heads what's happening--to rehash, and re-describe every detail in the most vivid way that I can. Perhaps that language isn't the problem as much as is my overindulgence in describing every pornographic nuance. Is that a correct assessment?
Well, that attention to nuance is what makes good porn. Fantasy doesn't want "He shot his wad inside her." One wants the spewings, liquids, scents, drips, etc. BUT told fresh. AND without overloadings: His salty, gooey, fragrant, sticky jism ran down her supple, white, well muscled, curvaceous leg.
What I find the MOST fascinating when it comes to your thoughts, Pure, is that when I set about writing Cindy, specifically for the more sophisticated Lit. audience,
It's immensely varied. I don't think it can be characterized, and the people here or in forums are not a representative sample. Looking at the top-read stories, 'sophisticated', even relatively, is NOT what comes to mind, for readers. Try 'incest fixated'!
I didn't abandon my affinity for detailed description or strong modifiers. What I DID do, however, was soften up the dark side of my writing--to NOT degrade or humiliate so much as explore degredation and humiliation as a game. I thought it wise to take away some of the hard bite and one-sidedness of my stories and examine a more mutual enjoyment through sexual power games. That's what I thought the Lit. audience WANTED, and to be sure, it was an aspect of myself that I was anxious to explore. Based on your comments, it seems that perhaps I should have made the opposite choices: kept the bite of the stories, and "pruned" the writing as you say. Is that correct?
No, there are no 'shoulds.' I simply told of my taste, which is mostly for dark and harsh action, told in spare prose. There are all kinds of power games explored in the light and more serious bdsm lit. I'd still classify the Cindy scenes as playful, and more about appearance than real subordination. As you stated, he gets what he wants. But 'lite' is not wrong, any more than 'lite' mayonaisse is wrong.
I don't think you should just think "what does this audience want?" It doesn't lead far. I tried writing one story that way--literotica whoring to the nth degree-- and got the 100,000 reads (as lit counts them) but that's not really saying a lot. Writing to specifications is not really writing.
When I speculated that there would be appeal of your story, I was serious. Lite bdsm has an immense following. Curvy coeds that deliciously humiliate, and let you smell their pussy.... What else would more reach a young (or maybe old) straight ('vanilla') male fan?
I'd say for most 99% writers here, write what YOU like. The audience is somewhere in the millions of lit folks. They will respond. Even if it's only ten of them.
For the other 1%, you[they] do have to look at the market in different areas. I haven't succeeded yet, but I'd say that to get into Suzie Brights anthology or other 'best erotica', you should know the tastes of sophisticated readers, who want, besides polish, freshness, and imagination.
Even if you want just Penthouse, look at the stories, as see how it's done. We had one writer here, "Tawny T" iirc, who did very well, in that subgenre.
I hope this clarifies. It's good you can deal with all manner of comments, and it appears you'll learn from them; I hope some lessons are useful in relation to your own goals. Which you might reach even if every reviewer here is negative.
best regards
J.
First, by all means do not be discouraged. You have flare and good ideas, and editors will be happy to do some chores. I think it's good to see how really excellent people write (that's why i gave you the url), but OTOH, I don't think you need to be down on yourself through comparison, and thinking writing is pointless if you're not in the top 1%.
Also please note the comment of another poster, about the efforts he believes speechmaster made. Most writers write only a couple drafts, and that can't compare with those who do 10 or 20.
There's a two pronged sword there, though. In one sense I write what turns me on. There's no sense in doing anything less in my mind. One of the things I like is very strong pornographic language when it comes to sex--which is partially what you objected to.
No, not at all. It was the predictability of the language, the stock phrases. Get as pornographic --detailed--as you like!
I was certainly aware that many Lit. readers would not like that, but now that I read your comments, perhaps it wasn't the language itself, but simply the fact that I tend to like to POUND it into people's heads what's happening--to rehash, and re-describe every detail in the most vivid way that I can. Perhaps that language isn't the problem as much as is my overindulgence in describing every pornographic nuance. Is that a correct assessment?
Well, that attention to nuance is what makes good porn. Fantasy doesn't want "He shot his wad inside her." One wants the spewings, liquids, scents, drips, etc. BUT told fresh. AND without overloadings: His salty, gooey, fragrant, sticky jism ran down her supple, white, well muscled, curvaceous leg.
What I find the MOST fascinating when it comes to your thoughts, Pure, is that when I set about writing Cindy, specifically for the more sophisticated Lit. audience,
It's immensely varied. I don't think it can be characterized, and the people here or in forums are not a representative sample. Looking at the top-read stories, 'sophisticated', even relatively, is NOT what comes to mind, for readers. Try 'incest fixated'!
I didn't abandon my affinity for detailed description or strong modifiers. What I DID do, however, was soften up the dark side of my writing--to NOT degrade or humiliate so much as explore degredation and humiliation as a game. I thought it wise to take away some of the hard bite and one-sidedness of my stories and examine a more mutual enjoyment through sexual power games. That's what I thought the Lit. audience WANTED, and to be sure, it was an aspect of myself that I was anxious to explore. Based on your comments, it seems that perhaps I should have made the opposite choices: kept the bite of the stories, and "pruned" the writing as you say. Is that correct?
No, there are no 'shoulds.' I simply told of my taste, which is mostly for dark and harsh action, told in spare prose. There are all kinds of power games explored in the light and more serious bdsm lit. I'd still classify the Cindy scenes as playful, and more about appearance than real subordination. As you stated, he gets what he wants. But 'lite' is not wrong, any more than 'lite' mayonaisse is wrong.
I don't think you should just think "what does this audience want?" It doesn't lead far. I tried writing one story that way--literotica whoring to the nth degree-- and got the 100,000 reads (as lit counts them) but that's not really saying a lot. Writing to specifications is not really writing.
When I speculated that there would be appeal of your story, I was serious. Lite bdsm has an immense following. Curvy coeds that deliciously humiliate, and let you smell their pussy.... What else would more reach a young (or maybe old) straight ('vanilla') male fan?
I'd say for most 99% writers here, write what YOU like. The audience is somewhere in the millions of lit folks. They will respond. Even if it's only ten of them.
For the other 1%, you[they] do have to look at the market in different areas. I haven't succeeded yet, but I'd say that to get into Suzie Brights anthology or other 'best erotica', you should know the tastes of sophisticated readers, who want, besides polish, freshness, and imagination.
Even if you want just Penthouse, look at the stories, as see how it's done. We had one writer here, "Tawny T" iirc, who did very well, in that subgenre.
I hope this clarifies. It's good you can deal with all manner of comments, and it appears you'll learn from them; I hope some lessons are useful in relation to your own goals. Which you might reach even if every reviewer here is negative.
best regards
J.
Last edited:
