Has erotic literature improved over the years? (Long thoughtful rant)

[lexdepenny]

I’m not a visitor to the forum normally, but…

I came upon this thread by accident, while trying to find out whether my latest contributions have been languishing as drafts for the past three weeks.
However, having landed here, I thought I’d add my two penny worth of perception from having published here and on other sites ( mostly because I write in French, too and French sites don’t publish anything but French. Surprised? Moi non plus…) All we can do is winnow the offerings and pick out the good bits. I doubt if that has changed a lot over time, it’s just that there’s a lot more chaff though which to sift.
The internet has removed quality control from writing. We may all have a novel in us, but for many, it could probably stay there without losing a masterpiece. (Me, too? I try but still…)
There seems to be an army of trolls out there, reading stories so they can be offended. It’s rare that they appear anything other than anonymously. Their conflation of author and content appears to be total, and their confusion between fiction and life must make their experience of living rather complex, I imagine.
Loving Wives is a section that appears to be especially targeted. One can only speculate why, and it ain’t very flattering to these poor souls.
My apologies. I’m rabbiting.
I just wanted to say how much I’ve enjoyed reading the thoughts of fellow-contributors and realising that there are others out there who actually do some thinking and reflection about what and how they write. Thank you all.

Francis aka lexdepenny

 

[ElectricBlue]

To Simon and EB:

Since 1964 (or was it 1965?) I have paid the grocer and the wine merchant (when I was permitted to drink wine) with the product of my pen. (Well, the product of my typewriter and then the product of my keyboard, but you know what I mean.)

If I had had to rely on a bunch of sometimes mean-spirited readers to decide which books and articles would be published, and which plays would be produced, I don’t think that I would have eaten anywhere near as well as I have. Fortunately, those decisions were made by educated and experienced publishers and editors.

Just sayin' (as they say).

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying there's comparable quality to the mainstream, because, other than (let's be adventurous and say) maybe five percent of writers here at Lit, there's obviously no comparison.

But within itself, in isolation, the Lit ranking system provides some kind of a quality indicator - but, within itself, as a microcosm. A very big microcosm. That's all I'm saying, here.

But don't try to convince me that publication with "editors" and "agents" and all of these additional screening processes guarantees quality writing, because it doesn't. There is a shit-ton of appallingly written writing "out there", just as there is "in here". The difference is, some stupid bastard is paying good money for it.

It's possibly a smaller shit-ton, but you know what I mean .

 

[TadOverdon]

I quickly learned that I had a LOT to learn. It was in those first couple weeks that I first stumbled in here to the AH.

I have gotten loads of help to improve my stuff, here in Authors' Hangout. My prose may be slightly better than it was a year ago. Maybe. So, this is a good thing to bring up and point out. Thanks.

I've not found ratings and reader feedback at all useful, other than to learn that if I don't want a lot of nastiness from people then I shouldn't have cuckolding in my work. And I'm just not going to write to that kind of feedback.

 

[yowser]

There seems to be an army of trolls out there, reading stories so they can be offended. It’s rare that they appear anything other than anonymously. Their conflation of author and content appears to be total, and their confusion between fiction and life must make their experience of living rather complex, I imagine.

Francis aka lexdepenny

Well said.

 

[astuffedshirt_perv]

I've been thinking much of the same question for awhile. IMHO, back before USENET, actually getting erotica published meant review, and that seriously raised the quality of writing. USENET removed all filters, and a vast deluge of crap poured out. Further, writing tools in the 80-90's were poor at best. Then ASSTR introduced moderated sections, and better stories pooled there. Still, there was no rating system or way to follow authors. The world also was tiny, as most authors could only view the world through their own lens. Here at Lit today, we have filtered stories (via Laurel), great writing tools, user feedback and can easily exchange writing tips. We also have a nearly global culture, so Indian writers can write Indian stories that still resonate with people from other cultures.

A fascinating question is will the quality of erotica fall in the next decades as new authors, raised on text/IG grammar, try to tick every possible box to avoid offending anyone and leave story telling to wither?

 

[SamScribble]

But don't try to convince me that publication with "editors" and "agents" and all of these additional screening processes guarantees quality writing, because it doesn't. There is a shit-ton of appallingly written writing "out there", just as there is "in here". The difference is, some stupid bastard is paying good money for it.

It's possibly a smaller shit-ton, but you know what I mean .

I do know what you mean, EB. And I don't disagree.

 

[ElectricBlue]

A fascinating question is will the quality of erotica fall in the next decades as new authors, raised on text/IG grammar, try to tick every possible box to avoid offending anyone and leave story telling to wither?

Gotta kill all us lot off first, then the next lot are on their own. And if their erotica is crap, they've only got themselves to blame .

 

[Spinoza]

No true gems

My feel is it's worse with the general quality maybe better but you never find the real gems I remember finding in A.S.S.M. I have never found anything here as creative as some of the greats from back then.

My opinion might be skewed by 35 years of nostalgia though. Some stand outs I remember was X-men submission agenda, Orgasm Club, Dulcinea series. Probably right that quality writers stopped writing here and moved on to paid sites like amazon and smash.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I've been thinking much of the same question for awhile. IMHO, back before USENET, actually getting erotica published meant review, and that seriously raised the quality of writing.

Tijuana Bibles. Just sayin'.

 

[TadOverdon]

Tremendous amounts of porn were published in the 80s and 90s with minimal editorial review. 30,000 word books were written in a day or two on typewriters, if you can imagine such a thing. I've found testimony online to the effect that Beeline employed copy editors, but nothing similar for the Oakmore/Greenleaf/Liverpool Press group who appeared to have been responsible for the majority of still-extant paperback porn. I guess you have to assume that someone reviewed spelling, though. Style, content, logic? Forget it.

 

[KeithD]

I don't think tremendous amounts of porn were being published in the 80s and 90s. (I was there). Maybe starting about a third of the way through the 2000s. (I was there too. My first erotica got published in 2001, and there were very, very, very few publishers and distributors for the material then.)

 

[TadOverdon]

I won't post a link, but Googling "Triple X Books" is educational.

 

[SimonDoom]

I think there is a "rose-colored glasses" phenomenon that exists for some people, including me, when recalling the erotica we read a long time ago.

Every once in a while I will revisit a story I read 20 years ago, and I'm struck sometimes by how rough the writing quality is. Way back when, I think my standards were lower, and I was so captivated by the ability effortlessly to read erotica stories of every type on the Internet, for free, that I didn't care. I care more now, and I look at things with a more demanding eye.

My middle-aged Boomer biases sometimes tempt me to think otherwise, but I don't really believe in the "good old days" or the "bad old days." Things change, and some things get better and some things get worse. Generally, I think things get better. In the case of erotica, I don't think things are better, but I think the online environment is not nearly as much the Wild West as it used to be.

 

[windar]

I think there is a "rose-colored glasses" phenomenon that exists for some people, including me, when recalling the erotica we read a long time ago.

Every once in a while I will revisit a story I read 20 years ago, and I'm struck sometimes by how rough the writing quality is. Way back when, I think my standards were lower, and I was so captivated by the ability effortlessly to read erotica stories of every type on the Internet, for free, that I didn't care. I care more now, and I look at things with a more demanding eye.

My middle-aged Boomer biases sometimes tempt me to think otherwise, but I don't really believe in the "good old days" or the "bad old days." Things change, and some things get better and some things get worse. Generally, I think things get better. In the case of erotica, I don't think things are better, but I think the online environment is not nearly as much the Wild West as it used to be.

There often is the rose-colored glasses effect, because often only the best of a previous era survives. In certain areas, I think things really were better in earlier times. Look at the movies-the 40s when you had films with real dialog and plots. Or the great innovative films of the 70s, by people like Coppola and Scorcese and Sidney Lumet. Watch those now and they stand up awfully well compared to the 5th in some superhero comic book saga which is all they seem to make these days.

So, I don't know. The quantity and ease of access is certainly greater now. Literally every flavor is catered to. But is the quality better? I don't really know because I read much less since I started writing, because I find myself overloaded...

 

[SimonDoom]

There often is the rose-colored glasses effect, because often only the best of a previous era survives. In certain areas, I think things really were better in earlier times. Look at the movies-the 40s when you had films with real dialog and plots. Or the great innovative films of the 70s, by people like Coppola and Scorcese and Sidney Lumet. Watch those now and they stand up awfully well compared to the 5th in some superhero comic book saga which is all they seem to make these days.

So, I don't know. The quantity and ease of access is certainly greater now. Literally every flavor is catered to. But is the quality better? I don't really know because I read much less since I started writing, because I find myself overloaded...

I agree with some of this. Scorcese is still making films, but he's not making films like Mean Streets any more. And I'm sick of godawful superhero movie reboots. What dreck. I'm old enough and geezierish enough to think, "They don't make rap like they did in my day." I don't think hard rock is as good as it used to be.

A good thing about erotica is it's an area of art and literature where there is still plenty of opportunity to do things that are novel and interesting, because it is still held back by societal restraints in ways that other areas aren't.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I'm old enough and geezierish enough to think, "They don't make rap like they did in my day." I don't think hard rock is as good as it used to be.

A good thing about erotica is it's an area of art and literature where there is still plenty of opportunity to do things that are novel and interesting, because it is still held back by societal restraints in ways that other areas aren't.

You never struck me as the kind of guy who'd be into rap. Who knew?!

You'd better check your definition of "hard rock" with BlindJustice and the guys in the music thread. Somehow I don't think The Bay City Rollers ever counted as hard anything .

Agree your other statement, though, about erotica.

 

[SimonDoom]

You never struck me as the kind of guy who'd be into rap. Who knew?!

You'd better check your definition of "hard rock" with BlindJustice and the guys in the music thread. Somehow I don't think The Bay City Rollers ever counted as hard anything .

Agree your other statement, though, about erotica.

I'm not a rap aficionado. I don't pretend to be. I'm not that cool. I like some of it, but most of what I like is rather old now. I liked Tupac and Public Enemy. Most of the stuff I hear my kids play does nothing for me.

I had a high school friend who liked to regale us by rapping Rapper's Delight during recess. I go back a ways.

The Bay City Rollers weren't "hard" anything. I thought they were wimpy when I was 10. I'm thinking more Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath and The Who and Metallica. Or The Clash. Does anything like The Clash exist now? Maybe, and I just don't know it. That sort of thing.

 

[SimonDoom]

Speaking of The Clash (and this has nothing to do with this thread, I admit), one of my all-time favorite things is this misheard lyrics video of their song Complete Control:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kluV2ieirr4

 

[ElectricBlue]

The Bay City Rollers weren't "hard" anything. I thought they were wimpy when I was 10. I'm thinking more Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath and The Who and Metallica. Or The Clash. Does anything like The Clash exist now? Maybe, and I just don't know it. That sort of thing.

You didn't spot the piss-take with the Rollers. Suzie told me what you've got in your old record collection .

I reckon the only current act that comes close to channeling the classic rockers you mention would be the various band incarnations of Jack White. He's the only current day guitarist where I think - yep, he's doing a Jimmy Page.

Pete Townshend, of course, is still doing Pete. The Who's most recent is pretty good 'oo, and he and Rog still kick on live (with pretty much the same band line-up they've used since Entwhistle died - Pino Palladino on bass, Zak Starkey on drums, and Rabbit on keys).