Stories

[Closet Desire]

you might be surprised...

...I actually agree with you on most of your comments.

I don't think "rules" are any more relaxed on erotica than on any other form of literature. It's more about who you are targeting. As you point out, literature intended for a broad audience like Literotica is best written with that in mind. If, however, there is a a specific library for "alternative" (I hate that description) literature then that would be the place for it in the same way that some threads on the forums love incest, others BDSM, and you get the idea. I think you're absolutely right about the need for common rules so that enough overlap exists for most people to understand what has been written (IRS forms come into mind for some reason!) I think you identified this rather well in your example of Ebonics.

On the other hand, in the same way that film and paper can be used to produce snapshots of a birthday party the same tools can be used to produce a work of art which may be appreciated by only a select few with similar tastes. Same tools...different effect. A stroll through the National Gallery in London has the same effect. Paint on canvas...some you like...some you loathe...some you're indifferent about. I hate impressionism...my wife loves it. She understands it...I don't. Not an insult to intelligence just a different sensory response.

It's funny that we keep coming back to Huck Finn, perhaps because it is one piece of literature that most Americans who survived school have read. I'm often asked to discuss it with classes here in the UK because it is literally (no pun intended) unintelligible to most of the readers. They can't get their mouths around the words and even if they do their comprehension of what is being said is so low that the story loses impact. Sort of the same effect Eliot's The Wasteland had on one of my English profs in the states who didn't know what it meant when the pub landlord kept saying "hurry up gentlemen, it's time". No cultural connection so no comprehension.

Rather than selling erotica short (and heck...I earn quite a lot of my living from writing it and editing it), I think it is a difficult art form to master. Whereas I personally think porn is literature which is only about sex, I think erotica combines, as you say, arousal with the human element. This can be humour, adventure, disappointment, sadness, happiness, etc. I notice that women are often very good at combining arousal with a good story line (as you probably enjoy from your favourites). In particular, they write some really good macabre/sex stories (I always suspected women had a truly "dark" side...my wife says I'm right about this...with a wink). Disappointingly a lot of what I have read by men amounts to a "one-handed read" as Virgin Publishing calls it in their guidelines (they have separate publishing houses for male and female erotica writers).

What might surprise you and others about erotica is how it actually ranks in sales volume compared with the run-of-the-mill top ten stuff. Anne Rice's Beauty trilogy and Susie Bright's Herotica anthologies are constantly in the top 5,000 ranking which, out of 4.5 million books in print is pretty mind boggling especially when you consider that they stay there for years and years (Beauty was written twenty years ago if I remember correctly). So I certainly wouldn't be the one to suggest that erotica aspires to lower standards than other forms of literature. The odds are that if you're more likely to meet someone who has read the same erotica book as you than you are one of the best sellers. Hmmmm...something to think about!

On being selfish...I wouldn't dare suggest what drives another writer, but for my wife and I, who both write erotica, professional non-fiction, and fiction, writing is done for personal pleasure. In the end we may edit to make it more appealing or understandable, but those first drafts are for selfish reasons. In the end we seek to share it with others either because it pleases us or because we think we can sell it. Of course, we hope to hear lots of compliments on what we write because heaven knows we never get paid enough!!!

With that I must say thank you very much for a stimulating session...I truly enjoyed it.

Regards,

Closet Desire
London

 

[SeXy ReDHeD]

About writing being selfish...

I just wanted to clarify what I think you both are talking about...

Understanding.

Most of what I write at first comes out in jumbled, mixed up thoughts and phrases... they mean nothing to anyone, except to me. At this stage I am writing merely to get my thoughts out of my head and onto paper, where *I* will be able to understand them better... this is the "selfish" stage.

If I decide to go further and organize those thoughts into a literary piece, I am doing it so that *you* may understand them better. But I can never skip that first step, the part where I gain understanding. Because if I can't understand what I am feeling, what I want to express, then you sure as Hell won't be able to, either... this is the "unselfish", sharing stage.

I won't comment on Cheryl's story specifically as I haven't actually read it, but I do think that anything submitted for others' reading pleasure should be a pleasure to read, in whatever particular style it is written in. If it is not readable, or understandable to only a few, then you have failed as an author.

 

[Closet Desire]

No such thing as failing...

Hello Red...fancy meeting you here!

I don't think you fail as an author as long as the words have meaning to you. I think many writers who consider themselves "artists" could care less whether a reader understands what is written or not. Indeed, this is what makes the study of literature so exciting. Take a piece of literature of your choice, search out the work of scholars who have studied the work, and you will find that although the work is written in a language all understand, not everybody agrees what it means.

This doesn't necessarily apply to "popular" or "vernacular" literature which seldom if ever has hidden meanings. It's easy to compare it to music. Bach, Mozart and so forth have survived for years while Billy Idol (who was quite popular many years ago) is all but forgotten. It lacks depth.

Let's talk about Dracula (Bram Stoker 1895). It's been done to death in the movies, but how many people really understand what it was about? It's Victorian pornography. This become more evident whey you realise that Stoker wasn't the first the write a vampire story (Polidori, Byron's personal doctor, wrote the first one about 1819 although the stories prevailed over Europe earlier in the 1700s. Funny thing is, many if not most of the vampires were women, not men, and it was powerfully sexual in nature. BTW, this doesn't come as a surprise to most English scholars who study the Gothic or Romantic literary tradition. I won't bore you with all the gory details (pun intended). Anne Rice had it right with Interview with a Vampire...the stage scene with the woman who is devoured by vampires? It's no coincidence the scene is in France or that it was the French who coined the term "le petit mort" (the little death) as a euphamism for orgasm. Consumption, abandonment, and the little death. Sex wasn't openly talked about in Victorian England but it was still right out in front of you in the literature. Why? For the same reason that sex is the most frequently sought after commodity on the internet. People haven't changed. Most people don't see it in literature because they are expecting to see something else and because they think they know what the words mean.

You'll find it everywhere. Shakespeare is bawdy as hell, full of sexual innuendo, incest, and laughter at the whole affair.

How about this:

"As if I asked a common Alms,
And in my wondering hand
A Stranger pressed a kingdom,
And I, bewildered, stand--
As if I asked the Orient
Had it for me a Morn--
And it should lift its purple dikes,
And shatter me with the Dawn!"

I ask only this...has the author failed? Do you know what he or she is saying? I won't give it away at the moment because that would take all the fun out of it! Is it erotic or spiritual or both?

It gets even more fun when you read the Puritan writings of early America, particularly that of the women. One piece in particular can be read as either a tribute to God or a description of torrid sex and blinding orgasm. Which was the proper meaning? Did the author fail because her words could be taken either way or did she intend it this way?

Ahhh...this is such great fun, but it's awfully late and I must get to bed.

Now...where's my garlic...

Closet Desire

 

[Guest]

Picasso

 

[Whispersecret]

I don't know that you can compare visual art to writing. Writing is meant to communicate something. While visual art may indeed communicate something, many times that is not its real purpose.

 

[Guest]

Imagine for a moment

 

[SeXy ReDHeD]

I would love to debate this at length, but alas there is no time! Sooo...

I do think that anything submitted for others' reading pleasure should be a pleasure to read, in whatever particular style it is written in. If it is not readable, or understandable to only a few, then you have failed as an author.

As you'll read, I did include the words, "anything submitted for others' reading pleasure..."

If you're writing for yourself, then incoherent writing is fine. But if you're writing for others, then the ideas expressed should be suitable to your audience.
Here is a quote that I love from E.A. Mares... he states this point better than I ever could:

"[Writing] challenge me to use those content-laden abstractions we call 'words' to construct an aesthetic and deeply personal reality."

Notice the word "aesthetic"...

anything submitted for others' reading pleasure should be a pleasure to read, in whatever particular style it is written in.

"...in whatever style it is written."


As for Picasso, well, how can I argue that? His art is subjective. Even though I'm not particularly fond of Picasso, I still consider it art because that was his way of expressing his reality... I think

To me, the word "art" entails creation, a certain human element, and of course, beauty. Anything can be considered art... but if you're a writer and you've chosen to take that second step to organize your own personal "art", your thoughts and ideas, into a literary piece FOR OTHERS TO READ, well then it should communicate with the audience... a certain voice or dialect is fine... as long as it is discernable to the reader! If it isn't, then you have failed as an author!!

As for the quote Mr. Closet Desire... I have no clue! Too tired at this time of night to analyze (though truthfully I probably wouldn't have made sense of it anyway!)...


***I think this came out a little harsher than I intended, but I'm tired... sorry if it seems mean!

[Edited by SeXy ReDHeD on 10-15-2000 at 11:10 PM]

 

[Closet Desire]

loved it...

Aye…she is a feisty lass with a rapier wit and nettles for a tongue!

Aren’t you s’posed to be studying? For shame.

I didn’t think you were at all harsh…I love a spirited debate and because I don’t see it as a “right vs wrong” affair it’s all in the guise of good clean fun.

I think we are closer to agreement that it seems. If I hadn’t been so tired (eight hours ahead of you) at the time I might have phrased it a bit more effectively because you’ve actually stated my point, but not yet associated it with literature. Between “incoherent” language and language appropriate to the masses (as opposed to a sub-group we’ll call the “intended audience) is a tremendous gulf.

My point is that there are many writers who write for a general audience, ie the masses. Stepping away from lit, you could consider Hollywood which produces films for the broadest possible commercial market. Don’t get me wrong, films like that are great fun, but I seldom end up buying them and putting them on my shelf nor am I likely to watch them more than once. I’m more inclined to buy something produced by Krzysztof Kieslowski (Three Colours) or Gilles Mimouni (L’Appartement) or Yolande Zauberman (Clubbed to Death) because of the language (I know, they’re in French but I’m talking about the visual language). Hollywood films have a clinical, almost sterile feel. Sometimes you get to compare this as in Luc Besson’s Nikita compared with the American version (copied) titled Point of No Return (Bridget Fonda). American films lack the “grittiness” that many of us associate with real life. You’ve seen it before…war movies where the soldiers are wearing clean uniforms, women who go to bed with their clubbing makeup on…have torrid sex, and wake up with neat hair, smooth foundation, and fresh mascara, lovers stranded for weeks on an island with clean clothes, no bug bites, and well-fed.

Maybe it is fairer to say that the writer decides the audience she or he will court, if indeed any audience is targeted. Most serious poets I’ve met will say they could care less what the audience thinks…poets don’t make a very good living because of that. If you want it to be widely read then you take that into account and write appropriately. If you are expressing your own artistic merit then you will have a smaller audience (and less commercial success) and less concern about whether the reader can fully comprehend what you have written.

My family criticized me for years for devoting my life to the study of literature and writing because, in their mind, anybody who can read could do that. It was nothing special. But, as you know, it is special and different. It requires a talent.

It comes down to language, not just dialects, but language, and language embodies everything that you are. This becomes painfully obvious if you move away from where you call home. You think that because English is spoken all over America and in the UK that you will understand the language if you go somewhere else. Or, you find yourself suddenly in a different social situation. To prevent bruising any American cultures let’s say that you grew up in a working class neighborhood in Birmingham (England) and a young man from London took a fancy to you. He’s privately educated, his family lives in a large private estate, they ride horses, and have pedigrees they can trace way back. True, they speak English, but will you understand their language, be able to fit in and blend? The answer is quite bluntly no.

When you go clubbing or out to eat are there places you frequent and others you avoid? Did you ever ask yourself why? I watch Americans in London who are terribly uncomfortable with certain parts of the experience because they suddenly find themselves completely out of the familiar. They end up seeking out the familiar and complaining about the differences. They go all the way to England for an experience and then search out a Pizza Hut or Mcdonalds because it is familiar…and safe.

Writing often comes down to this social experience and it is reflected in the writer’s choice of and use of language.

Lord David Cecil (New College, Oxford) is a favourite critic of mine. In 1942 he gave a lecture about Hardy, but discussed points which could be applied to any literature. Since he was discussing what were novels of the day it seems particularly appropriate. He chose Hardy because he had died and the problems of Hardy’s life and times had passed allowing us to “discriminate his essential quality with …impartial clarity” without the interference of having shared personal experiences of Hardy’s time.

He goes on to say, and I think you will enjoy this, the following:

“Even so, of course, our minds will need a little readjustment before they are ready for the task. First of all, we must acquaint ourselves with his creative range. We have to do this before making a judgement on any novelist. A novel is a work of art in so far as it introduces us into a living world; in some respects resembling the world we live in, but with an individuality of its own. Now this world owes its character to the fact that it is begotten by the artist’s creative faculty on his experience. His imagination apprehends reality in such a way as to present us with a new vision of it. But in any one artist only some aspects of his experience fertilise his imagination, strike sufficiently deep down into the fundamentals of his personality to kindle his creative spark. His achievement, therefore, is limited to that part of his work which deals with these aspects of his experience. Only in so far as it stays within their limits does his work have creative life. It is therefore the first duty of the critic to realize this range. Otherwise he will always be looking for something in a book that it does not profess to provide. Many critics, who should know better, do not seem to realize this obligation. They condemn Emily Bronte for not showing us the brighter side of life; or Henry James for only writing about the rich. But the brighter side of life did not stimulate Emily Bronte’s imagination. Nor was Henry James inspired by the contemplation of impoverished persons. They were therefore quite right to pass them by. If they had tried to write about them, they would have made a dreadful hash of it. For they would have been going outside their range. And to blame a novelist for staying staying inside his range is as silly as to blame a portrait-painter for not giving us any pictures of trees.” (Hardy the Novelist, An Essay in Criticism, David Cecil, given at Cambridge in 1942)

This brings me back to Cheryl’s story. Cheryl wrote inside her experience, complete with her perceptions, her language, and her understandings. It would have been a mistake for her to write any other way. To me, that made it a work of art to be studied and appreciated. Rather than repulse me by the use of language, I was drawn to try and understand her language, to share vicariously her experience of life and, in this case, sex and sensuality. I have the same fascination for diaries where we can get an intimate glimpse of the writer’s life.

Well, this has been a stimulating start to the day…enjoyed it thoroughly…must do some paid work!

As an afterthought (had to edit this in) it will be curious to see what you think of my dare since I will be writing on something that should be outside my personal experience...don't you think?

Closet Desire


[Edited by Closet Desire on 10-16-2000 at 03:51 AM]

 

[KillerMuffin]

Re: loved it...

This brings me back to Cheryl’s story. Cheryl wrote inside her experience, complete with her perceptions, her language, and her understandings. It would have been a mistake for her to write any other way. To me, that made it a work of art to be studied and appreciated. Rather than repulse me by the use of language, I was drawn to try and understand her language, to share vicariously her experience of life and, in this case, sex and sensuality. I have the same fascination for diaries where we can get an intimate glimpse of the writer’s life.

This is where my opinion on the matter seems to vastly disagree with yours. Cheryl's story was hard for me to read, it was unclear in places, and I found it didn't flow very well. Ideas weren't necessary undefined, they just weren't clearly related. There is a reason grammar exists, and that isn't to get in the way of a person's language or writing or literature. It is to provide a structure so that a communicated idea will be communicated clearly, as opposed to being widely open to interpretation.

I'm not talking about petty grammatical differences such as the late and unlamented split infinitive controversy begun so richly by Byron. I am talking about misplaced punctuation and phrases placed in such a way that it leaves the reader confused as to what is actually going on. This is known as poor writing.

There is a reason that literature isn't called art, but literature. That is because it is not art. People should read a good literary work and get something out of it, something unique to themselves, but there should not be an interpretation for every piece for as many people as there are in existence. A good piece of art can be viewed by a hundred different people and one hundred different people will have one hundred and ten interpretations of what it means. One hundred different people can read A Tale of Two Cities and you will only find one interpretation of the basic story, though many different ideals as to what it means.

Prose, though occassionally poetic, is not poetry. Merely writing in one's own way with one's own vernacular does not make a story artistic, good, or worth studying. It would be like equating one of the many books in Don Pendleton's Executioner series with Beowulf. There has to me more criteria otherwise everything, even that ridiculous little thing I wrote, would be literature worthy of study. I don't think that Cheryl's story was very good because it was so hard to read. The effort wasn't worth it in the end. It had no depth, as Indy stated, the turns of phrase she used on occassion got in the way of the overall story, and the grammar errors she made disrupted the story rather than added to it. I didn't like it.

Just in case you want to see the bad writing I did that I was referring to:

"Theyre oncet was this gurul namd Ferd. Shee lahked to et kokonutz. An then theyre was this boei namd Joe Billy. An hee lahked Ferd cuz shee lahked to et hiz kokonutz. An then Joe Billy oncet mayd Ferd et hiz kokonutz an shee din lahke that nun! An then Ferd halld off n kikd Joe Billy raht in th kokonutz! Butt Joe Billy dun saed hee was sorry butt Ferd dint hav no mynd 2 fergv Joe Billy nun! An then Ferd's cuzn Bobby Tom Lee cam an hee wontd Ferd to et hiz kokonutz! Butt Ferds momma dun cot em an now Ferd n Bobby Tom dun haf 2 jump th brume ore Ferds pa iz gunna tayk th scattrgun 2 Bobby Tom!"

Yes, it hurts to read it.

[Edited by KillerMuffin on 10-16-2000 at 12:39 PM]

 

[Closet Desire]

agree to disagree...

Actually it looks a bit like Welsh to me!

Seriously though...plenty of scholars accept literature as art, including my referenced critic Sir David Cecil.

I'm not a scholar on Dickens (personally found him more tedious than Cheryl's story) so I wouldn't feel comfortable pretending to be academic about Tale of Two Cities. I do know that my shelves are lined with the work of scholars dating back to 1850 on the many different basic interpretations of Wuthering Heights. Even the critics who wrote about it from 1847-1850 couldn't agree on the basics of the story. (you probably don't even want to know what mine is!)

More recently I have published a reinterpretation of Edgar Allan Poe's Black Cat in an American journal which bears no resemblance to what most readers would walk away from the story with. Coming to that analysis required demonstrating that Poe had done similar things with other stories or was at least aware of the phenomena I suggest he used in the story. I won't bore you with the details because literary criticism, even one's own, is something only a mother could love!

My lack of love for Dickens contrasted with its appeal to you (assuming it wasn't a random choice) demonstrates that it is always subjective, never a science. If it was it would be terribly boring and I'd go back to engineering! I can appreciate that Cheryl's lack of reverence for "rules" makes for difficult reading although I honestly have more trouble with some 18th century English literature.

I truly enjoy your comments and ideas. It helps keep my perspective on things. Do email if you're ever bored and want to "disagree" about something (closetdesire@aol.com) in literature! Hee Hee!

Bye for now...

Closet Desire

 

[Mark Singer]

Yeah, well...

Myohmyohmyohmy....Or should that be: My, oh, my! Oh, my! Oh, my...!

Sorry y'all, but I had to toss in my own three cents (allowing for inflation) worth. The last set of posts and replies was quite enlightening and VERY enjoyable from the viewpoint of a novice smut-writer. So many wonderfully enlightening viewpoints... Different, argumentative (run THAT through your spell-checker...),sharing, argreeing, dis-agreeing... Good stuff.

One thing that can give Cheryl thanks for is opening up a lively discussion, yes?

I read her initial post and, although there have been MANY good and valid opinions offered in the threads, I have to agree with KillerMuffin, overall. When I begin to read a new story, the very first thing that grabs me is it's inherent descriptive ability. If I'm unable to place myself inside the story, it just doesn't work for me and I begin to lose interest. Regardless of the nature of the story, and regardless of the fact that it might be a major fantasy in my own mind. If it's not written 'correctly', I will usually step away from it.


Of course, Closet Desire has an excellent take on 'correctness'. But, although I agree with her in theory, I have to disagree in my own (and only my own) reality. I need for the structure to be there to make a story believable. I need 'proper' punctuation, or a reasonable facsimile, to be a part of the story in order to
keep my attention focused on the characters. Otherwise, I'm subconsciously editing and red-lining as I read and that takes away from the fantasy.

Of course, you have to understand that this comes from a smut writing hack who is continually wrestling with his own punctuation gods and who takes many liberties with his own writing and possibly uses entirely too many "....'s" in his conversations and tends to space out sometimes as his fingers are still dancing and may, or may not, have a bit of a problem with the occasional, but hopefully not too often, run-on sentence, but still, as Closet Desire pointed out, hopes that his readers are too caught up in his concept and fantasy to let those little grammatical errors disrupt their train of fantasy, and because of that, forgive him for the occasional literary hiccups and/or possible run-on sentence, although I don't think I've ever presented such a thing, and hopefully I hope I've never let a redundancy slip.

Ouch... Okay, so I rambled. Why else do you think my stories run into ten and twelve chapters...

Bottom line: I tend to agree with KM, although I thank everyone for a wonderful and thoughtful thread.

Peace...

-Mark Singer-

(I havent figured out how to do that cool 'quote at the bottom thing..."

 

[Closet Desire]

Rules abound...

Welcome to the string Mark…you’re absolutely right…Cheryl has sparked one of the more interesting discussions (for me anyway).

In all fairness I must say that if I seem passionate about this it’s because I am passionate about this. Decades ago I chose literature as my way of life in the same way that others choose accounting, engineering, computers, and whatever. So it isn’t a hobby or a sideline for me. My days are filled with writing, reading, research, lecturing, publishing, and so forth. It’s difficult not to get too serious about it but I try to keep it light because then it becomes too much like work.

There’s been a lot of talk about rules so I’m going to jump back in with one particular rule that is pretty universally accepted and not merely arbitrary. Literature is art. This isn’t one of those open to interpretation sort of things. Literature is one of the seven classical arts to come out of the Italian Renaissance or Artes Liberales…the liberal arts. That’s why the English departments at universities are part of the humanities department and why degrees in English and literature are granted as BA, MA, etc. (although I never fully understood why my PhD in English is a philosophy degree!). Still…sorry…literature is art in the same way that physics is science.

There’s a saying that rules were meant to be broken. There is a perverse sense of logic to that in that progress tends to leap when the rules are changed. It applies to any field of study. Up until 1958 progress in trans-Atlantic travel was measured by who could build the fastest ship. The SS United States was built to be the fastest on the crossing and, I think, may still hold the record, but she only made a few trips because the rules suddenly changed with passenger planes capable of making the crossing non-stop and in hours instead of days. We progress when we accept that rules are never certain. Even though we still teach Newtonian physics because they apply to certain basic movements where speed and energy is modest, but the realm of nuclear physics taught us that our rules were off the mark because of invalid assumptions regarding the movement of small particles and energy.

The same progress in rules applies to art (including literature). The novel that so many take for granted today only came into existence 200 years ago. Many English scholars will agree that Defoe’s Moll Flanders scratched a line in the sand where the modern, English novel began. Prior to that books were expected, indeed required, to serve a moral purpose and so while more and more books were being published they were didactic in nature. Even Defoe didn’t completely flaunt the “rules” as he included an apology to the reader for choosing to write about prostitution and thievery (a capital offense in England at the time), but he qualified it by suggesting that this book would serve as a warning about the dangers of immorality and crime. Defoe, Richardson, and Fielding pushed the envelope of the rules and with each push progress in literature nudged forward. The point is that many of the so-called classics which are now in the literary canon are there because they broke the rules of their time. Many were harshly criticized for this, but there you are. (A good general book about the history of the novel is Ian Watt’s The Rise of the Novel and which has been described as a major contribution to the subject, in some respects the most brilliant that has appeared.)

A perfect case in point for the 20th century (sorry…the 21st is still too young!) is James Joyce. He actually eschewed many of the “rules” I’ve heard embraced here with the result that his work was censored by the government, refused by printers, confiscated by customs, and generally criticized to such an extent he left Ireland and moved to the Continent. If you wanted to read him, like Lawrence in England, you had to smuggle him in. Yet, in spite of this and in his lifetime (a rarity for a writer) he came to be acknowledged as perhaps the greatest writer to come out of Ireland and is a concrete part of any undergraduate English literature programme.

That said, Joyce doesn’t meet the requirements that language must flow or that ideas must be in some sort of order, or even that the rules of punctuation are hard and fast. I believe the term that came into play is “stream of consciousness”. For an American this is further hampered (as it often is with other English writers) by the fact that the rhythm and tempo of the language is different from the American. I have often described reading English literature (especially aloud) as an American as similar to walking down a wooded trail littered with stumps, rocks, and hole in the dark. Stumble is the short word for it. Read by a native it takes on a smooth lilt. (Not to worry, listening to a Brit read Huck Finn is agony). So even this idea of something “flowing” is a bit misleading and certainly not universal. Sometimes reading literature is work.

Joyce, like other literature, can be read in a casual way but after more than just a casual reading other interesting things start to flare up in his work such as cliches’, universal themes, unavowed ironies, and other symbolic germs. More than a casual read of Ulysses (a parody of Homer’s work) starts to uncover what has been called the pornographic undertones of the piece (erotica is the oldest form of literature around).

Well, there we have it…another unintended essay on the criticism of Cheryl…as I’ve decided to call it.

Ultimately, read what you enjoy, write what you will, and treasure the freedom to do it.

Closet Desire (masculine by the way)

 

[Mark Singer]

cha...well...

Yeah well....

C.D., I am torn between admiration and anger. Not so much anger, it's just that the word seemed to fit.... I used to have an angry bone in my body, but I had it removed. At a considerable expense, mind you...
But I digress....

You make so many good points about the true nature of literature that it boggles the mind of a smut-writer such as myself. What you say is very true about the "flexibility" of literature and the desire to keep 'pushing the envelope' as it were. If the envelope is pushed too far, you lose your audience. If you ignore the 'envelope' and don't push at all, you lose your audience. Hmmmm....

Joyce, Defoe, Richardson, Fielding, Singer -))....
They've all pushed the envelope, and they have all taken serious liberties with the way things "should be" written.
Certainly, Singer. What a hack. But still, they all have been able to convey a message to their target audience.

As you say, Closet Desire, and you say so very well:

"Ultimately, read what you enjoy. Write what you will... and treasure the freedom to do it."
Well put.

When you begin to compare Newtonian physics vs. Nuclear physics, and touting your Masters degree and such, I tend to get a little pissed. Not that you don't deserve the recognition for your accomplishment. You do. My own MBA didn't come cheaply or easilly. But in your own responses, you've said that the accepted rules and lines don't necessarilly (?) apply to literature, especially erotica, and I couldn't agree with you more. It's what happens to turn on the audience that matters...

Newtonian physics may be off the mark but are certainly understood by the masses. (Apple fall...oohh..hit head...oohh..is gravity, yes? Gravity GOOD...)

Nuclear physics, on the other hand, are mostly enjoyed and only trulely understood by a select few like Stephen Hawkings, a few other folks and, of course...me.

Bottom line is this, I guess... I write mostly for me. Sad and somewhat close-minded, I know, but it helps things flow. Much like my song writing, I just wait for the words and then begin to type. I'll think-type for a few days, let it ferment, then return to it to edit and spell check, etc. The editing process may very well not happen for a number of months after writing it, but I find that this helps the process.

I know that you may be thinking "Yeah...well... it shows...", but it works for me and a number of other (bless their hearts) readers on the site.

Ah...I'm rambling too much. Just quit smoking on Tues. and am making up for it by using the keyboard.
(Tobacco esta muy malo. Tobacco esta muy malo.)

Love your stuff Closet... and what you said bears repeating:

Ultimately, read what you enjoy, write what you will, and treasure the freedom to do it.

Thanks.

-M-

 

[Weird Harold]

FYI

For those not aware of it, this thread has been moved/extended to the general forum for a wider audience.

It can be found at:
http://www.literotica.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=16360

 

[Closet Desire]

For Mark

Point well taken and I can appreciate you being a little pissed, but maybe this will help. I know that lots of people see university degrees as accomplishments and I think for many people they are. For me, it isn't or wasn't. It wasn't a way to get a job, earn a living, or qualify for a profession. It was to me like tinkering with cars, hacking with computers, playing judo, or collecting stamps. My own professional occupation would benefit more from the coveted MBA (truthfully...not a dig) than from what I chose to pursue. Since I'm not in academics and have no ambitions that way, my studies are of only personal value.

I certainly wouldn't want to offend or even annoy anybody on this forum...I have nothing to gain by it...and apologise if I have.

My past and my passions are very matter-of-fact and something that I generally take for granted.

As for the physics comparisons...I chose it because it was a profession much earlier in life and seemed isolated enough from literature to not be clouded by creative interpretations. And truthfully, it was a magic moment in my young life when my nuc physics instructor walked into the room for the first time, waved his hand at Sir I. Newton's equations scribbled on the board and said "see this?...it's all bullshit." Just what I needed to hear when I was nineteen! It taught me never to take anything too seriously because if you do...it's bound to change.

Oh...and thanks for the nice comments too! I wouldn't be here if I didn't really hearing what everyone has to say.

One more thing...I couldn't agree more with you about writing for one's self. I know lots disagree...and that's okay...but writing is the most selfish thing I do. It's the most satisfying and rewarding thing as well.

Cheers!

[Edited by Closet Desire on 10-21-2000 at 09:11 AM]