What's the minimum amount of sex you expect from a story?

[andromon]

it's not just about non-stop action in an action story or horror in a horror story

Two points.

1. Novels must have different content, because otherwise they'd be unbearable. But if it's a genre, say, action short story, is must be mostly that, or it isn't an action short story. If it's mostly a character drama, then it's a character drama, regardless of whether they shoot in the end or no. If they make love, it still isn't erotica. It's a character drama or a slice of life.

2. Build-up can not be longer than genre content itself. I maintain that if you have more build-up than content, you're wasting the reader's time. Look at any Stephen King novel with supernatural elements. That guy can be slow. And even in his work, at which percent of the story does the horror strike, say, in the Shining? Somewhere around 10% in? And the supernatural - telepathy - appears almost immediately. If it was a short story, it would have been the middle of the first page.

 

[andromon]

The word with the past tense of "paid" and the word with the past tense of "payed" have two different meanings.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/payed

We must remember that those people were payed to act in a certain way.
Because the majority of the people long for a full belly, heated homes and guaranteed payed jobs and healthcare.
Evidently, this taxation must be payed by all the financial firms, onshore or offshore.
These people gladly payed ten or so thousand dollars in their life-time to they could keep what was theirs.
Look, any penalty to the utility will be payed by the consumer anyway, so don't dance around it.
The line is payed out from and retrieved on the reel electrically or hydraulically.
Payments should either apply equally to all balances, or should be payed off by date incurred, regardless of the interest rate.
The net is payed out from the stern or the bow of the fishing vessel, usually from a power-operated drum.
If you pay it before midnight that day it is payed that day.
Driver's license can be payed using cash or personal check.

Matching Quote
"In reality, the world have payed too great a compliment to critics, and have imagined them men of much greater profundity than they really are."
-Henry Fielding

 

[lovecraft68]

Two points.

1. Novels must have different content, because otherwise they'd be unbearable. But if it's a genre, say, action short story, is must be mostly that, or it isn't an action short story. If it's mostly a character drama, then it's a character drama, regardless of whether they shoot in the end or no. If they make love, it still isn't erotica. It's a character drama or a slice of life.

2. Build-up can not be longer than genre content itself. I maintain that if you have more build-up than content, you're wasting the reader's time. Look at any Stephen King novel with supernatural elements. That guy can be slow. And even in his work, at which percent of the story does the horror strike, say, in the Shining? Somewhere around 10% in? And the supernatural - telepathy - appears almost immediately. If it was a short story, it would have been the middle of the first page.

Yet "That guy" has sold untold millions of books.

Want to talk slow and downright self serving? Look at Anne Rice, yet again millions of books sold.

You can present your case and try to back it, but the reader/ consumer is what counts and it seems they don;t care about the point you're trying to make.

Rule is, if someone is that good, rules don't apply

 

[lovecraft68]

Two points.

1. Novels must have different content, because otherwise they'd be unbearable. But if it's a genre, say, action short story, is must be mostly that, or it isn't an action short story. If it's mostly a character drama, then it's a character drama, regardless of whether they shoot in the end or no. If they make love, it still isn't erotica. It's a character drama or a slice of life.

2. Build-up can not be longer than genre content itself. I maintain that if you have more build-up than content, you're wasting the reader's time. Look at any Stephen King novel with supernatural elements. That guy can be slow. And even in his work, at which percent of the story does the horror strike, say, in the Shining? Somewhere around 10% in? And the supernatural - telepathy - appears almost immediately. If it was a short story, it would have been the middle of the first page.

I agree on King. In fact his book Insomnia is the cure for that disease. Yet "That guy" has sold untold millions of books.

Want to talk slow and downright self serving? Look at Anne Rice, yet again millions of books sold.

You can present your case and try to back it, but the reader/ consumer is what counts and it seems they don;t care about the point you're trying to make.

Rule is, if someone is that good, rules don't apply

 

[oggbashan]

I don't think anyone can really say they have more right to contribute to a discussion like this because they have written more stories, or been given higher scores. Everyone's a reader and everyone's got as much of a valid opinion on what they, as a reader, want.

...

This could lead to a discussion about the role of critics who can't produce the art they are commenting about.

It is valid to say about a particular piece: "This works; that doesn't." if it is your personal opinion. Or to say: "This piece works better than that one." or "I can't see the point of this art."

It isn't justified for a critic to lay down rules about what is valid or not. Also it isn't justified for an author to be prescriptive about what should or should not be done for a particular genre.

We can suggest ways that work for us, or themes that authors can choose to follow. We can't say "This is the ONLY way and everything else is wrong."

I find andromon's views irritating because they are "You must; you mustn't; What I say is the only way."

Even if andromon is the world's best author, or the most influential critic, I would still find those statements worth challenging as nonsense.

 

[andromon]

I find andromon's views irritating because they are "You must; you mustn't; What I say is the only way."

OP asked for opinions. I provided mine, and explained why I think so.

You could argue with you, or you could go write more according to the formula you consider correct, but why the irritation?

If my concept of directness in genre fiction is wrong, it is toothless. I could not honestly see how it could irritate someone who apparently considers thelselves both right and successful. All things considered, it's not like I'm likely to lobby a bill that would prohibit backstories in porn.

The only reason I could imagine is that you feel inclined to somewhat agree, but it goes against the agenda. I have no adequate proof that this is what's happening, though.

 

[sr71plt]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/payed

Suggest you need to find a more trustworthy source.

But this one seems to go with most the rest of what you're posting to this thread.

 

[Derroreaper]

OP asked for opinions. I provided mine, and explained why I think so.

And you haven't shut up since. You derailed this thread with baseless opinions you think we should all take as great wisdom. You even go so far as to call us immature?

Yeah, you irritate me as well...

 

[Bramblethorn]

In any case, since you resorted to personal attacks, I will have to disregard your future posts.

Let's see how long that -

@Bramblethorn
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/payed
See example sentences to the right.

"We must remember that those people WERE PAYED TO ACT in a certain way.

Evidently, this taxation MUST BE PAYED BY ALL the financial firms, onshore or ...

These PEOPLE GLADLY PAYED ten or so thousand dollars in their life-time to they ..."
etc.

So you invoke thefreedictionary.com, and then when I point out that it actually contradicts your usage, you want to try another dictionary? Okay then.

Did you read the first line of that page you just cited? The line which states that "payed" is obsolete except for a couple of minor definitions? "Payed" would have been quite acceptable if you were writing in the 1850s or so, but it's not correct in modern English.

Granted, the dictionary.reference.com page isn't consistent on this: it mentions a non-existent "24c" (I would guess that's a numbering error and it's meant to be 30c?) and it provides usage examples that conflict with its own stated rules. Clearly something on that page is in error; it might be wise to check another dictionary.

I hear thefreedictionary.com is pretty good. Or was, until yesterday...

It's not incorrect. Also, mind: it passed moderation. The editor didn't think it was wrong either, and it was in the tagline.

Yep, errors get past the moderator sometimes, even in the tagline. Laurel screens dozens of stories a day. She's said herself, repeatedly, that she doesn't catch everything. "It got past the editor" does not override multiple dictionaries telling you that this usage is incorrect/obsolete.

I do wish, though, that you provided equally articulated, reasonable arguments against my actual points instead of mounting personal attacks like your "who the heck are you, anyway" line.

If a naturopath claims to have the perfect diet to prevent diseases, it's not a "personal attack" when I point out that his kids all have measles.

If an engineer starts telling people how to build bridges, it's not a "personal attack" when I point out that she's only built one bridge herself, and that one fell over.

If a writer starts telling us what readers want, it's not a "personal attack" when I point out that their own readers don't seem to want it.

I sure am opening myself to even further flaming with this, but I believe the people that go to Literotica for "literature" are somewhat misguided.

Yep, when reality conflicts with your theories, reality is in error!

You do realise that the SITE NAME is a portmanteau of "literature" and "erotica", right?

 

[GaspingDarkness]

42...

 

[Bramblethorn]

I don't think anyone can really say they have more right to contribute to a discussion like this because they have written more stories, or been given higher scores. Everyone's a reader and everyone's got as much of a valid opinion on what they, as a reader, want.

Absolutely. If andromon had restricted his comments to "here's what I want", I'd have had no beef with it. But when somebody starts making sweeping statements about what other readers want, it becomes appropriate to check that against reality.

 

[British Filth]

It's a question that doesn't make much sense to me. A good erotic story is erotic in *nature*, not just in explicit content. In fact, some of the best authors are skilled at the art of build-up, which itself acts as a kind of foreplay, a fun part of the entire process, I'm sure we'd all agree.

'The minimum amount of sex' is secondary to the maximum amount of enjoyment.

 

[PennLady]

It's a question that doesn't make much sense to me. A good erotic story is erotic in *nature*, not just in explicit content. In fact, some of the best authors are skilled at the art of build-up, which itself acts as a kind of foreplay, a fun part of the entire process, I'm sure we'd all agree.

'The minimum amount of sex' is secondary to the maximum amount of enjoyment.

Very true. There's more to "erotic" than the sexual act. The build up, the tension and desire and chemistry between the participants, etc., all add to the erotic nature of a story. To me, a story about two rather faceless, anonymous characters having sex isn't interesting. But build those characters a bit and it's a different story (so to speak).

 

[lovecraft68]

It's a question that doesn't make much sense to me. A good erotic story is erotic in *nature*, not just in explicit content. In fact, some of the best authors are skilled at the art of build-up, which itself acts as a kind of foreplay, a fun part of the entire process, I'm sure we'd all agree.

'The minimum amount of sex' is secondary to the maximum amount of enjoyment.

Great post!

The build up is like foreplay.

Excellent way to say it.

 

[lovecraft68]

Very true. There's more to "erotic" than the sexual act. The build up, the tension and desire and chemistry between the participants, etc., all add to the erotic nature of a story. To me, a story about two rather faceless, anonymous characters having sex isn't interesting. But build those characters a bit and it's a different story (so to speak).

I would imagine in the Romance Genre there are probably very good examples of this. Its the category that really thrives on some type of build up/conflict in the characters.

There are times when I read a good one, I wish I could write them, but I'm too rough around the edges to pull one off.

 

[oggbashan]

One of the delights of Literotica is the range of stories available.

Whether they are just a series of sex scenes, or a tightly woven plot, doesn't really matter as long as they are entertaining and worth reading.

A reader can pick and choose, follow an author or genre he/she finds interesting, or just sample at random.

There is dross but also wonderful stories here. But what one thinks is dross, another might see as exactly what they want. Why not?

But I wouldn't dare to say that what I write, or what I like, is the only way to go. What is erotic is what works for you.

 

[andromon]

@Bramblethorn

My personal qualities or acheivements have no bearing on the strength or weakness of my objective argumentation. I have not used my own work as proof, and you can not use it to disprove my claims. You are committing a most basic fallacy. Get yourself together.

As for me using Dickensian spelling, sounds about right.


@spurious
Good. Let me use the foreplay - backstory analogy to explain my point further.

Imagine that in bed, as foreplay, you're launching in telling your life story. It would tremendously humanize you if your partner manages to sit through. Maybe they'll even fall in love with you. Since it leads to the sex act eventually, everything is foreplay, including whatever nonsexual things happened to both throughout the day, and the retelling of the personal history.

Which is all good in most fiction, but:

Equations I consider correct:
1. Meet + fall in love + have sex + resolve plot = love story.
2a. Have sex = erotica.
2b. Have graphic sex = pornography.
If we reshape definitions, we're still talking about the same things, but with different names. So, for you, if it deals with sexual love, it's already erotica first and foremost? I disagree - it'll be mixing the terms, but the argument, then, is merely etymological.

Have fun foaming at the mouth, ladies and gentlemen. Just make sure you don't try to refute my anonymous person instead of my claims or arguments, like Brambleton keeps doing.

 

[Bramblethorn]

In any case, since you resorted to personal attacks, I will have to disregard your future posts.

Just leaving that up there in case you'd forgotten it.

@Bramblethorn

My personal qualities or acheivements have no bearing on the strength or weakness of my objective argumentation. I have not used my own work as proof, and you can not use it to disprove my claims.

Well, yes, I can. You claim to have The One True Formula for writing erotica that will satisfy "the reader". Your story follows that formula (mostly), and yet it clearly doesn't do very well at satisfying the reader. Meanwhile, other stories ignore your formula and yet do far far better with the readers.

This is what we in the business call "disproof by example". If your theory fails to fit with observed facts, it's wrong.

 

[andromon]

If your theory fails to fit with observed facts, it's wrong.

You mean to say there isn't an endless amount of bare-bones porn stories here on literotica with 4.5+ ratings?

This is what we in the business call "disproof by example".

From appealing to popularity, to personal attacks, to this, your posts are outright made of logical fallacies. Arguing with you is like arguing with a schoolchild. My personal barely-month-long achievements on the amateur porn lit scene can not prove or disprove anything whatsoever.

 

[oggbashan]

You mean to say there isn't an endless amount of bare-bones porn stories here on literotica with 4.5+ ratings?

And if there is, what is wrong about that? Underestimating the public's taste can be popular.

From appealing to popularity, to personal attacks, to this, your posts are outright made of logical fallacies. Arguing with you is like arguing with a schoolchild. My personal barely-month-long achievements on the amateur porn lit scene can not prove or disprove anything whatsoever.

Your unsupported statements are also fallacious. They do not prove or disprove anything except that logic is foreign to you, and that you are an irritating bore.

 

[andromon]

Your unsupported statements are also fallacious.

This is in itself a fallacy. The supposed "also" does not excuse you from following logic. Point out the flaws in my judgement if you see any.

How to properly argue, dear oggbashan:
+ Counter my arguments, not my person.
+ If you think my claims lack argumentation, point that out.
+ If you think my arguments are inadequate, prove them wrong.
Meanwhile,
- launching ad hominems,
- appealing ad populum and
- the "but so are you" false argument you're resorting to now
is childish.

You don't have to follow the rules of logic, of course. You can scream "but who the heck are you?" and "wow, your one porn story isn't even all that popular" if you want to. But then you are not a person worth arguing with, and your opinions are irrelevant to the argument.

Anyway, even allowing the argumentum ad populum for a second, as a side note, is a 70/100 rating with exclusively positive comments (I do not moderate them) really so terrible, that it automatically proves me wrong, period?

 

[Bramblethorn]

In any case, since you resorted to personal attacks, I will have to disregard your future posts.

Still having difficulty with that, I see.

You mean to say there isn't an endless amount of bare-bones porn stories here on literotica with 4.5+ ratings?

Feel free to link a few, if you've got 'em.

From appealing to popularity, to personal attacks, to this, your posts are outright made of logical fallacies.

...and yet, rather than actually identify the "logical fallacy" in what I just posted, all you can do is assert that there is one.

- appealing ad populum and
- the "but so are you" false argument you're resorting to now
is childish.

If you want to impress with Latin phrases, you need to know what they mean.

Argument ad populum (aka "appealing to popularity") is a very specific form of fallacy: "Many people like/believe X; therefore X is true."

In this case, the argument Ogg and I have made is "Many people like X; therefore your claim about the popularity of X is false."

See the difference? The former is a statement about the truth of X itself; the latter is not.

Anyway, even allowing the argumentum ad populum for a second, as a side note, is a 70/100 rating with exclusively positive comments (I do not moderate them) really so terrible, that it automatically proves me wrong, period?

Let's put it this way: Your story currently has an average rating of 3.33. Looking at the page where it appears, I count exactly one hundred stories that scored higher... and three that scored lower.

 

[oggbashan]

This is in itself a fallacy. The supposed "also" does not excuse you from following logic. Point out the flaws in my judgement if you see any.

How to properly argue, dear oggbashan:
+ Counter my arguments, not my person.
+ If you think my claims lack argumentation, point that out.
+ If you think my arguments are inadequate, prove them wrong.
Meanwhile,
- launching ad hominems,
- appealing ad populum and
- the "but so are you" false argument you're resorting to now
is childish.

You don't have to follow the rules of logic, of course. You can scream "but who the heck are you?" and "wow, your one porn story isn't even all that popular" if you want to. But then you are not a person worth arguing with, and your opinions are irrelevant to the argument.

Anyway, even allowing the argumentum ad populum for a second, as a side note, is a 70/100 rating with exclusively positive comments (I do not moderate them) really so terrible, that it automatically proves me wrong, period?

1. + Counter my arguments, not my person.

Since you offer no proof for your statements, disproving them is impossible. It is up to you to prove them first. I could state that the moon is made of cheese. That would be easy to disprove, but even then some people would continue to think that it is made of cheese.

2. + If you think my claims lack argumentation, point that out.

You put forward arguments and argue with almost every poster who responds, but those arguments are just your unsupported assertions.

3. + If you think my arguments are inadequate, prove them wrong.

See answer 1 above.

4. You can scream "but who the heck are you?" and "wow, your one porn story isn't even all that popular" if you want to.

I haven't done that. I have said (post #55 above) It is valid to say about a particular piece: "This works; that doesn't." if it is your personal opinion. Or to say: "This piece works better than that one." or "I can't see the point of this art."

5. your opinions are irrelevant to the argument

I can claim over 200 stories posted on Literotica and a presence here for more than 10 years. My opinions have some backing from participation but what I have been saying in this thread can be summed up as "If it works it is good". That is not what you have been saying. Your message is that there is only one way, your way. Sorry. I disagree.

If you had said "This works for me" that would have been acceptable. But to say "Everything and everyone else is wrong" is not.

 

[andromon]

@oggbashan

but those arguments are just your unsupported assertions.

Why didn't you say so? Why'd you start trying to attack my person instead of my supposedly faulty argumentation? That's the point.

My arguments, incase you missed them:

1. In genre fiction, if you keep the genre material away from me for too long, you as a genre author have failed me as a genre enthusiast.

2. Build-up at the expense of genre material is to the detriment of the piece through dilution. Positive sides as may be, there are obvious negative sides to the practice: if the reader is after genre material and gets something else, their patience is stretched.

I can claim over 200 stories posted on Literotica and a presence here for more than 10 years.

So? How is it an argument? You think it's impossible to have worked for ten years and be absolutely wrong? Are we into appealing to authority now? Your keyboard is a cornucopia of bad logic.

_________________
@Bramblethorn

...and yet, rather than actually identify the "logical fallacy" in what I just posted, all you can do is assert that there is one.

Is this some form of joke? I listed personal attacks, appeals to popularity and more.

Popularity can not serve as proof of quality or lack thereof. Personal qualities can not be a factor in an objective argument. Example: "Killeng ppl is rong" is still a correct statement, even though the spelling is off.

If you want to impress with Latin phrases, you need to know what they mean.

My use was correct, your assumption about my Latin is baseless, so it's yet another ad hominem.

Anyway, what's up with begging to be ignored? I have nothing.

 

[Derroreaper]

1. In genre fiction, if you keep the genre material away from me for too long, you as a genre author have failed me as a genre enthusiast.

2. Build-up at the expense of genre material is to the detriment of the piece through dilution. Positive sides as may be, there are obvious negative sides to the practice: if the reader is after genre material and gets something else, their patience is stretched.

How about you back this up, or move on already? You can't actually think this nonsense is taken seriously, can you? Back it up with some facts, or get over it already.

You act like you're debating your point, but all you keep doing is saying the exact same dribble over and over. I think your turn is over, can we move on now?