What We Owe The Readers

[NoTalentHack]

What you owe to your readers is to be true to yourself. That doesn’t mean you can’t write things that are easier to digest or enjoy, but gutting your work to hit a series of arbitrary points on a list isn’t going to help anyone.

 

[ThatNewGuy]

Sure, but if there's anything valid in the criticism to be gleaned, why would the tone matter?

Tone matters because we're human beings with feelings.

Much of your focus seems to be on the writer's responsibility to their craft. If I'm a writer, I should be able to set aside my feelings and glean what I can from criticism, even if it is rude and unkind.

But let's also consider the critic's responsibility. If your goal in offering criticism is to help the writer improve their craft, and if you agree that most writers respond best to positive, constructive criticism, then why would you choose to offer rude, unkind criticism? To what end?

You might counter that writers SHOULDN'T respond best to positive, constructive criticism. They should respond best to helpful criticism in whatever form. But I think that is unrealistic and ignores human nature. As writers, we've spent time and effort creating our stories. We care about them. If someone shits on them, it's going to hurt.

When I offer criticism to other writers, I try to be direct but kind. I don't believe those are mutually exclusive.

More importantly, I think that approach makes me more helpful as a critic. Most authors are more likely to take criticism to heart if they feel that it's offered in good faith by someone who sees value in their work and wants to help them improve it.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I think there's also an issue that's probably Lit-specific: a lot of the stories here aren't intended to engage the reader on the "story" level. We're not writing books, we're amateurs providing the readers with a brief moment of entertainment or escapism. Some stories are single moments in time, or monologues, or (perhaps most frequently) stand-alone sex scenes. So those five elements aren't necessary, or even wanted, in everything we write.

How many times have I stated this on this forum and got shit on for it?

 

[samhasstories]

“Owe” is an odd word to use. I don’t owe readers anything, and they don’t owe me anything, except perhaps the most fundamental decency and respect. I haven’t been hired to do this, the readers are not my employers. I’m a hobbyist, I do this for fun, and I’m pleased to see people seem to enjoy what I do. But for those who don’t, I’m not in breach of some agreement; I haven’t wronged them in some way.

On the other hand, I do think the way a story is set up serves as a promise of a sort. In the opening paragraphs I’m telling readers what they can expect from what’s to come. Those who aren’t interested can move on, those who are can reasonably hope for something they’ll enjoy. If I don’t deliver on that promise, I should expect some disappointment, some negative reactions. I think that would constitute a failure of sorts. But it’s a failure of craft, not a breach of some kind of debt or contract.

 

[AG31]

Here's my question, who sits down to write a story without trying to make these things happen? Admittedly, writers' abilities to do these things will vary with their writing skills, but my question remains - who's seriously writing and NOT trying to do these things?

Me! I don't try to make all those things happen. Check this reply to this thread.
@Paul_Chance, @djmac1310

 

[LilyWaters]

Two on the "nothing side" - do you think you at a minimum owe them a good tale?

Put me on the "nothing" side too. It's a free site that they benefit from.

Having said that, all of the varieties of writing I do are important to ME. There are a lot of things that I feel that I owe myself as a writer. I want to continue to improve and stretch and grow. So I'm not going to just throw something up here that I feel is inherently not good or worth somebody's time at all.

 

[RetroFan]

Here's my question, who sits down to write a story without trying to make these things happen? Admittedly, writers' abilities to do these things will vary with their writing skills, but my question remains - who's seriously writing and NOT trying to do these things?

By my own admission, I have thrown themes into Loving Wives stories knowing that the readers would hate them to amuse myself with the comments when it gets published, but regardless I did write these stories to the best of my ability. In any case, it's a win-win situation because many of the readers there are misanthropic and actively want to read stories they hate and leave angry comments. And when they do or I get negative feedback in any genre, I don't bite back and if I do respond I'll thank them for taking the time to comment.

However, its one thing for me as an amateur online writer to post stories such as this on a free website. It's quite another thing if my writing involved the aim of making a profit. I most certainly wouldn't be writing themes that viewers have previously demonstrated that they dislike if I was writing/producing/directing big-budget Hollywood movies in existing franchises worth many millions of dollars and with large fan-bases who are going to spend large sums of money to see the movie when released. And I definitely wouldn't spit the dummy and insult fans and reviewers who don't like the movie or who stay away causing a financial loss by calling them 'toxic' among other terms.

Yet how many times have we seen this scenario play out in the past seven years or so, frequently with new movies in existing franchises or with remakes?

 

[Britva415]

who sits down to write a story without trying to make these things happen?

Some Lit writers are that naïve.

I'm not saying that in a "lol fuk them" kind of way. Just recognizing that there are people who decide to give a try to doing what they see hundreds of other apparent amateurs on Lit doing, and not knowing what they don't know.

Like: Some aren't amateurs. Many read books every day. Many have had classes in creative writing. Many have had classes in literature appreciation. Some have thought about or been exposed to the idea of writing as a craft.

Someone who doesn't even know about any of those things is exactly the kind of person who is the answer to your question. They don't even know that it's a thing. They're just putting words on the screen until they get to an ending, and don't expect to be taken seriously.

 

[Britva415]

A common term is "stroker." I reject that because it connotes a situation where the reader brings their own energy to the situation and the writer can get away with some pretty slap dash narratives.

I'm not sure I get it. Are you rejecting the term, or are you rejecting the writing itself?

The reason I'm confused is because you immediately follow what I quoted with a description of "simple erotica," which is clearly your preferred type of work, but you seem to argue that the nicer term should be used even for the cruder work.

If that's the right way to read what you meant to say, then I guess it just sounds like you're saying we shouldn't call crude work by a name that connotes crudity, but should instead call it by the same name as the kind of work which isn't getting away with slap dash narratives.

I used to think you were saying we just shouldn't call crude work by a crude name, because it doesn't deserve to be belittled, but now I'm not sure that was ever what you were saying, because I see you conceding the existence of works which don't live up to your description of "simple erotica."

 

[AG31]

I'm not sure I get it. Are you rejecting the term, or are you rejecting the writing itself?

The reason I'm confused is because you immediately follow what I quoted with a description of "simple erotica," which is clearly your preferred type of work, but you seem to argue that the nicer term should be used even for the cruder work.

I'm rejecting the term. I'm rejecting its use for ALL erotic writing that doesn't spend attention on character or plot or setting. There is some writing like that that depends on the reader's pre-disposition. There is other writing like that (simple erotica) that spends attention on good, evocative, praiseworthy description of the human experience of eroticism.

Yes, there are "works that don't live up to <my> description of simple erotica."
Thanks for asking!! I'm happy to try to clarify.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I'm rejecting the term. I'm rejecting its use for ALL erotic writing that doesn't spend attention on character or plot or setting. There is some writing like that that depends on the reader's pre-disposition. There is other writing like that (simple erotica) that spends attention on good, evocative, praiseworthy description of the human experience of eroticism.

Yes, there are "works that don't live up to <my> description of simple erotica."
Thanks for asking!! I'm happy to try to clarify.

Clarify? This confuses even more. Your simple erotica encompasses "ALL erotic writing that doesn't spend attention on character or plot or setting" yet "there are works that don't live up to [it]." These two statements contradict each other, so is it all stroke or not?

You've been on this horse for like ... a year? ... and I've been trying to figure out if you're upset at being labelled a stroke writer or just defending stroke writing in general. Now with this post I finally get it. You are upset at being labelled stroke and want to be seen as above average common stroke, all the while pretending to defend all stroke writing even though you look down on it.

You look down on your own genre so you try to force this label on the entire community of erotica so that you can validate your own work.

Even the folks who love to read their stroke don't care what it's called. One person tossing about their own euphemism that no one else uses just because they're offended that their stuff is called stroke only confuses people.

Just write your stroke and enjoy. Everyone else does. It's nothing to be ashamed of.

 

[Britva415]

There is some writing like that that depends on the reader's pre-disposition.

I had some thoughts about this idea too, but previously I had kept them to myself. Now that it's been brought up again:

First, on the subject of how a reader's perceptions or reactions determine the nature of the work:
* Do you posit that a reader's intentions somehow percolate back up to the work overall and establish its status as "one kind" or "the other kind" globally?
* Including for the author, regardless of what they might have intended, originally?
* Can something be a stroker for one reader but not for another reader?
* Can a reader who approaches it like a stroker redefine the author's intended or perceived classification?
* How does that work, does the reader send a note?
* What if that reader isn't reacting like another reader does? Who wins?

Second, alternatively, if my perceived confusion about "different reader reactions" and "how does it affect the author's intentions" is the wrong perception:
* Do you posit that the author can always reliably curate the reader's approach to the work?
* Does the author know ahead of time how they want the reader to react and whether the reader will cooperate with that?
* As above, what about different readers who react differently? Does the author's intention win?
* How does that work? The author wrote their piece but the reader didn't get the message, so, which one of them failed?

The fact that I still have this many questions about your concept probably means I'm not getting it. It could also mean you're not presenting it effectively enough (at least for me), or that it's not a very sound concept to begin with.

I'll be honest, I didn't read the entirety of your previous manifestos on this subject. Now that it has come up again, I don't quite know what about it has stimulated me to engage, and I recognize that I'm responding to a highly abbreviated version of your idea. But since I'm at a major fork in the road regarding which of the above two alternatives is closer to it, here's hoping you're willing to work with this particular reader's pre-disposition, and wrench it into alignment with your intentions so that I know better what to think about that.

I'd hate to get into a discussion on the internet and spend all my effort reacting to something the person didn't say and doesn't mean

 

[AG31]

Clarify? This confuses even more. Your simple erotica encompasses "ALL erotic writing that doesn't spend attention on character or plot or setting" yet "there are works that don't live up to [it]." These two statements contradict each other, so is it all stroke or not?

Your problem here is that you're not able to conceive of quality writing which attends only to eroticism and not to character, plot or setting. Try reading some of my examples.

 

[AG31]

I had some thoughts about this idea too, but previously I had kept them to myself. Now that it's been brought up again:

First, on the subject of how a reader's perceptions or reactions determine the nature of the work:
* Do you posit that a reader's intentions somehow percolate back up to the work overall and establish its status as "one kind" or "the other kind" globally?

No. It doesn't percolate back. I'm just trying to define a "stroker". I was pretty happy with this idea, that a "stroker" is a story that provides a scaffolding on which the reader can pin his or her (their) potential for sexual arousal.

* Including for the author, regardless of what they might have intended, originally?

ditto

* Can something be a stroker for one reader but not for another reader?

Well, in my mind, no. But it's not an issue that draws my attention. It can certainly WORK for one reader by not for another.

* Can a reader who approaches it like a stroker redefine the author's intended or perceived classification?

Interesting question... I think whether a story is a "stroker" or "simple erotica," depends on its quality, at a somewhat objective level.

* How does that work, does the reader send a note?

I wish they'd send more notes, for sure!

* What if that reader isn't reacting like another reader does? Who wins?

See above. Whether something is a "stroker" depends on the quality of the work, not the reader's reaction. But "strokers" survive because there are lots of readers looking for something other than quality.

Second, alternatively, if my perceived confusion about "different reader reactions" and "how does it affect the author's intentions" is the wrong perception:
* Do you posit that the author can always reliably curate the reader's approach to the work?

Nope.

* Does the author know ahead of time how they want the reader to react and whether the reader will cooperate with that?

Nope.

* As above, what about different readers who react differently? Does the author's intention win?

Stroker vs simple erotica is not defined by the reader's reaction, but by the quality of the work.

* How does that work? The author wrote their piece but the reader didn't get the message, so, which one of them failed?

Ditto

The fact that I still have this many questions about your concept probably means I'm not getting it. It could also mean you're not presenting it effectively enough (at least for me), or that it's not a very sound concept to begin with.

The idea that strokers are written to provide a scaffolding for the reader's erotic anticipation is brand new for me. I thought it was rather illuminating, but apparently not for everyone.

Strokers and simple erotica are alike in focusing solely on the erotic experience. The are different in that one lacks quality and the other at least shows evidence of striving for quality. Read some of my examples.

I'll be honest, I didn't read the entirety of your previous manifestos on this subject. Now that it has come up again, I don't quite know what about it has stimulated me to engage, and I recognize that I'm responding to a highly abbreviated version of your idea. But since I'm at a major fork in the road regarding which of the above two alternatives is closer to it, here's hoping you're willing to work with this particular reader's pre-disposition, and wrench it into alignment with your intentions so that I know better what to think about that.

Very happy to talk about it as much as you want!

I'd hate to get into a discussion on the internet and spend all my effort reacting to something the person didn't say and doesn't mean

 

[MrHereWriting]

What We Owe The Readers

'Owe' is one of those buzz words that invites healthy debate.

• Put into your story what you hope to get out of it (but never except an equal return).
• Never promise something you can't fulfill. (I'm guilty of that.)
• Never get mad at your fans for wanting (or demanding) you to finish a work that they were willing to invest their time & money in. Anyone can write a story, but you can't do it for a living unless people put their faith in you.
• If you're a professional writer, act like one, do your job or start issuing refunds.
• If you expect nothing from your readers, then you owe nothing to them.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Your problem here is that you're not able to conceive of quality writing which attends only to eroticism and not to character, plot or setting. Try reading some of my examples.

It's not my problem.

 

[AG31]

I had some thoughts about this idea too, but previously I had kept them to myself. Now that it's been brought up again:

First, on the subject of how a reader's perceptions or reactions determine the nature of the work:
* Do you posit that a reader's intentions somehow percolate back up to the work overall and establish its status as "one kind" or "the other kind" globally?
* Including for the author, regardless of what they might have intended, originally?
* Can something be a stroker for one reader but not for another reader?
* Can a reader who approaches it like a stroker redefine the author's intended or perceived classification?
* How does that work, does the reader send a note?
* What if that reader isn't reacting like another reader does? Who wins?

Second, alternatively, if my perceived confusion about "different reader reactions" and "how does it affect the author's intentions" is the wrong perception:
* Do you posit that the author can always reliably curate the reader's approach to the work?
* Does the author know ahead of time how they want the reader to react and whether the reader will cooperate with that?
* As above, what about different readers who react differently? Does the author's intention win?
* How does that work? The author wrote their piece but the reader didn't get the message, so, which one of them failed?

The fact that I still have this many questions about your concept probably means I'm not getting it. It could also mean you're not presenting it effectively enough (at least for me), or that it's not a very sound concept to begin with.

I'll be honest, I didn't read the entirety of your previous manifestos on this subject. Now that it has come up again, I don't quite know what about it has stimulated me to engage, and I recognize that I'm responding to a highly abbreviated version of your idea. But since I'm at a major fork in the road regarding which of the above two alternatives is closer to it, here's hoping you're willing to work with this particular reader's pre-disposition, and wrench it into alignment with your intentions so that I know better what to think about that.

I'd hate to get into a discussion on the internet and spend all my effort reacting to something the person didn't say and doesn't mean

I mentioned the idea of the reader's bringing energy to the story as a way to explain the high popularity of SOME stories that are low quality, as well as not focusing on character or plot.

And it explains the basis of the label "stroker." The name implies a certain sort of expectation on the part of the reader that doesn't relate to quality or the lack of it.

 

[Bramblethorn]

* Can something be a stroker for one reader but not for another reader?

I think yes?

e.g. if the author writes a story with strong characterisation and storyline, and lavish descriptions of shoes and feet, that might be a stroker for somebody with a foot fetish, but for me it's Literature (TM) (C) (Patent Pending).

 

[Britva415]

I mentioned the idea of the reader's bringing energy to the story as a way to explain the high popularity of SOME stories that are low quality, as well as not focusing on character or plot.

And it explains the basis of the label "stroker." The name implies a certain sort of expectation on the part of the reader that doesn't relate to quality or the lack of it.

I see. No wonder this has been confusing. You've been saying two different things: That "stroker" is objectively about writing quality, and, that "stroker" status subjectively depends on reader's expectations.

 

[AG31]

Clarify? This confuses even more. Your simple erotica encompasses "ALL erotic writing that doesn't spend attention on character or plot or setting" yet "there are works that don't live up to [it]." These two statements contradict each other, so is it all stroke or not?

I'm rejecting its use for ALL erotic writing that doesn't spend attention on character or plot or setting.

My "simple erotica" does NOT encompass "ALL erotic writing..." I reject the use of "stroker" for "ALL erotic writing....". It's quite the opposite of your reading. My term is meant for just SOME writing that doesn't focus on plot or character. Stories of quality, as contrasted with stories meant to facilitate stroking. (All though stroking is fine if it happens.)

You've been on this horse for like ... a year? ... and I've been trying to figure out if you're upset at being labelled a stroke writer

No one has ever labeled me a stroke writer.

or just defending stroke writing in general.

I'm definitely not defending it in general. See my first comments in this post. You've got me all backwards.

Now with this post I finally get it. You are upset at being labelled stroke and want to be seen as above average common stroke, all the while pretending to defend all stroke writing even though you look down on it.

As far as I know very few people see me as anything at all. I occupy a pretty narrow niche. But I have been impressed by others' writing that, I think, deserves not to be labeled as a "stroker" with all its negative conotations of lack of quality. Have you read any of the examples I've posted?

You look down on your own genre so you try to force this label on the entire community of erotica so that you can validate your own work.

See above.

Even the folks who love to read their stroke don't care what it's called. One person tossing about their own euphemism that no one else uses just because they're offended that their stuff is called stroke only confuses people.

Just write your stroke and enjoy. Everyone else does. It's nothing to be ashamed of.

Believe me, I'm not ashamed.

 

[KeithD]

Stories of quality, as contrasted with stories meant to facilitate stroking.

For me, there's no ipso facto contrast between quality and "stroker." Stroker is the effect it has on at least some readers. An author can certainly structure her/his story to have that effect on the reader. That doesn't have any necessary relationship at all to story quality, though.

 

[ChuckWolf]

Specific to Literotica, I think we owe our readers a story that they have a good chance of masturbating to.

Also, we owe them that it be posted in the correct genre with the correct keywords/tags. Found that out the hard way.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I'm definitely not defending it in general. See my first comments in this post. You've got me all backwards.

I believe that you are.

I'm rejecting the term [stroke]. I'm rejecting its use for ALL erotic writing that doesn't spend attention on character or plot or setting.

 

[AG31]

For me, there's no ipso facto contrast between quality and "stroker." Stroker is the effect it has on at least some readers. An author can certainly structure her/his story to have that effect on the reader. That doesn't have any necessary relationship at all to story quality, though.

I don't mean to draw a contrast between quality and those stories that have the effect of arousing the reader. The unspoken assumption is that all the stories I talk about deal with eroticism. I had once assumed that all literotica stories were meant to arouse, but I'm no longer sure.

I'm talking about those that don't focus on character and plot, two aspects that the OP listed as being "owed" to the reader. (I don't mean to revisit the word "owed" here.) My point is that stories that don't focus on character and plot (as well as eroticism) can be praiseworthy at an artistic level, whereas the word "stroker", which is usually applied to non character/plot stories connotes slap-dash writing.

 

[KeithD]

I believe that a story can focus only on the arousal and still be of a high writing quality.