A request for thoughts about a small bit of my writing.

[AG31]

Over the years several people have commented on my writing style in ways that struck a chord. One compared it to "classic French erotica." Another said "You like a tableaux, a freeze frame, it's quite static." I liked those descriptions. They pleased me, if not most readers.

In a review of my Twelve Maxbridge Street, Yowser made a suggestion that I thought was very helpful for a paragraph that I'd had a lot of trouble with. I complicated contraption is involved. He said, "(One suggestion, when complex apparatus is introduced, instead of trying for a clinical third-person narration, perhaps frame it all from the MC’s perspective. You won’t need to get all the shiny bits of detail right and the physics of it all, and ambiguity can be understood in the natural way that the MC is experiencing the new tools of torture. This will heighten reader attention and draw them into the MC’s head, making a clearer picture in general. The reader will appreciate this.)"

Below are my original paragraph, and the re-write in response to Yowser's suggestion. My question is, would I be sacrificing a signature style to make the change?



BEFORE


“OK, Mike. Time’s up,” said the woman in black.

“Now we’d like you to mount this frame,” she said. The handlers were rolling up a metal contraption that had a cross bar at the end closest to the table, a leather strap about a foot wide across the middle, and in back two fiber glass structures which were obviously for his knees, if they were spread apart as far as possible. The handlers helped him get his knees in place and to lay his forearms across the bar in front. It was padded and covered in leather and there was a depression in the middle that reminded him of the head rest at the ophthalmologist’s office. When he rested his ribs on the leather strap he could rest his forehead on the depression in the front bar or on his hands. The frame had him angled up enough so that if he tipped his head just a little downward he had the same view of his naked, splayed body as the people at the table. He closed his eyes momentarily to savor his exposure. The people at the sides and end of the table got up and gathered around so they could watch what was happening in the back. He could feel the beat of his heart in his penis.

AFTER

There seemed to be no more people armed with phalluses approaching. Faranger let his arms drop and stood relaxed, passive, but his flesh was alight with anticipation for the next touch, whatever it might be. He remained erect.

Presently an apparatus made of shiny stainless steel parts was rolled next to him. At first Faranger could make no sense of it, but then its use became clearer. He acquiesced to the unspoken command and grasped the side bars so he could place his knees in the obvious shapes. He shifted his hands to a bar closest to the table, and let his forehead and torso rest on the places provided. All of the points where he rested were padded, thus allowing him to focus on his exposure without the distraction of discomfort.

His thighs were pulled apart just short of pain and his genitals hung heavy and free, his erection declaring his willing participation to the onlookers.

He was angled to give the people at the table an unobstructed view and his body was flooded with an erotic flush, both humiliating and welcome.

The people at the sides and end of the table got up and gathered around so they could watch what was happening in the back. He could feel the beat of his heart in his penis.

 

[PrimalDual]

I'm glad you posted your request for others to chime on in your work. I hope your message gathers an audience in this forum, and maybe those readers will post similar invitations for examining their own works.

To answer the question you posed, personally I prefer the second version you offered here. I don't need detailed specifications on the apparatus, as I don't intend to build one, nor do I expect to ever encounter one in the wild. The intent and purpose of the device is more important than how it is constructed, for me at least. The orientation of his body or its individual parts only matters if it affects the description of what happens.

I smiled to see the description of his throbbing member highlighted in both versions, despite an almost total rewrite - the image clearly speaks to you, and that's what a writer should write, at the end of the day, isn't it?

You didn't explicitly invite discussion of the Maxbridge story as a whole, but I'll still go on to say that your ideal of "pure erotica" carries a certain risk that more conventional sex stories do not: namely, much depends on the reader being fully engaged by the action, because if the particular kink isn't shared by that reader then there are fewer chances to still entertain through the secondary pleasures you may embed in the story. I don't happen to feel a shiver of excitement at male submission, not to mention the somewhat ineffable corollary of surrender, and this makes it much more difficult going for me to get through paragraph after paragraph of degradation that I personally can't grok and which the recipient of the action is keeping to himself as to his fictional inner monologue. The ending seems to suggest that going through the ordeal opened him up to the potential for real love in the aftermath, which is a nice idea, but this "twist" (if that is what it is) came kind of un-foreshadowed as far as I could recall. Maybe I read it too quickly, especially after the first page or so. The writing is clear and is evocative, but it still pertains to experiences far outside of my own.

But I also confess that I never made it all the way through Story of O, despite trying the book a couple of times over the years. You'd think the reversal of gender might work for me, but it didn't. The Claiming of Sleeping Beauty likewise didn't click, and I think one or two others in the genre that I don't even remember the names of now - something by Anne Rice? (edit: oops, author pseudonym.) Almost as difficult for me to parse as Finnegan's Wake - okay I exaggerate, but the struggle to understand was constant.

Conversely, the movie "Secretary," while silly at times and not a perfect plot, very much did work for me - maybe I needed to see the portrayal on film, and Maggie Gyllenhaal is cute as a button. I could be reacting to the difference between submission and surrender, but I'm fuzzy on the distinction - wanting to please versus wanting to be used, I dunno. Or I could be reacting simply to the difference of the printed word versus a movie - the movie leads me more by the hand? Take all that for what it's worth.

Oh, one last (I think) thing: freeze-frame is a good description for what I like too. Focusing on moments of sexual crisis, rewinding and playing again with perhaps a slight variation - that's something that occasionally shows up in my own writing, and once or twice I've leaned into it on purpose but I'm not sure with really satisfactory results - a commenter asked what kind of drugs I had taken, LOL.

 

[AG31]

your ideal of "pure erotica" carries a certain risk that more conventional sex stories do not: namely, much depends on the reader being fully engaged by the action, because if the particular kink isn't shared by that reader then there are fewer chances to still entertain through the secondary pleasures you may embed in the story.

You hit it on the noggin. Some time ago I reconciled myself to a small readership. I'm always on the lookout for like-minded people, but they are few and far between. Thanks very much for your insightful review.

To answer the question you posed, personally I prefer the second version you offered here. I don't need detailed specifications on the apparatus, as I don't intend to build one, nor do I expect to ever encounter one in the wild

Excellent point. Setting the style aside, why does anyone (me included) really care how the contraption is put together?

As for the future of this forum, I think, probably, that very few people have it on Watch and so just don't notice when conversations get going. That gives me an idea.

 

[PrimalDual]

You hit it on the noggin. Some time ago I reconciled myself to a small readership. I'm always on the lookout for like-minded people, but they are few and far between. Thanks very much for your insightful review.

Excellent point. Setting the style aside, why does anyone (me included) really care how the contraption is put together?

As for the future of this forum, I think, probably, that very few people have it on Watch and so just don't notice when conversations get going. That gives me an idea.

I care very much about infinite little details such as you wrote. When it's my own story. On my better days, perhaps, I decide that it was important - in order to make sure the story hangs together without any embarrassing glitches or discontinuities - but that the reader will trust me if I leave them all out except the end-result of those details that cause the scene to function. I operate on the assumption that few if any of my (already vanishingly few) readers will want to understand, for example, the weird electronics behind some device that can modulate a woman's orgasm to the exact degree her Dom wants; they just want a mind-control story to wank to. (N.B., none of the stories I have put on here use this particular angle, probably because I'm still not convinced I have it quite right, or maybe because it's common as dirt and I'm still looking for the unique spin I want.) Eh, now I'm coming across like I'm some kind of experienced writer, which I ain't. Go back to just the first two sentences.

Moar comments from others to come, I hope!

 

[StillStunned]

I agree with @PrimalDual about the contraption: your first version might as well be a patent application, for all the eroticism it contains (unless you're a product designer for IKEA or something). It might be very useful for you to have it clear in your head how it works, but the reader just needs the basics: how it's going to affect the character.

In fact, making it too complicated even if it's only in your own head could cause problems, if - as the scene continues - you try to describe functions and features that the reader hasn't imagined.

My personal theory is that readers form their impressions within the first few seconds. Anything that doesn't match that description will be ignored, meaning that the writer has wasted effort and is losing the reader's attention, or it will require the reader to stop, reimagine whatever is being described, and then start over. Their submersion in the story is broken.

So keep it simple. Add details as they become clear to the POV character - and always with that character's perceptions and responses at the forefront - and let the reader form a picture in their own mind.

Another trick I find useful, one which I learned back in my uni days when we were covering Renaissance poetry, is to keep a smooth flow in your descriptions. In those poems, this means describing a beautiful woman from her hair to her brow to her eyes to her nose, her lips, her chin, her neck, her chest. When I'm describing a room, I imagine a camera panning across. In your original description of the contraption, you go from knees to forearms to head to chest to forehead to body. This makes the reader go back and forth, which takes them more effort and concentration. Make it as easy as possible for them, and they're more likely to keep reading.

 

[AG31]

Thanks for all your observations, but this one made me smile out loud. I don't think this is the first time that one of your not-really-clever quips has delighted me.

(unless you're a product designer for IKEA or something).

 

[StillStunned]

Thanks for all your observations, but this one made me smile out loud. I don't think this is the first time that one of your not-really-clever quips has delighted me.

Thanks! I was particularly tickled by the thought of someone breathing heavily over a sheet of abstract IKEA assembly instructions.

 

[PrimalDual]

Thanks for all your observations, but this one made me smile out loud. I don't think this is the first time that one of your not-really-clever quips has delighted me.

Ditto. I think I shall take "The Horny Ikea Designer" as a challenge for my next Novel Without A Readership.

"Flat packed furniture." Ungh, ungh, ungh. "Recycled materials." Ungh, ungh, ungh. "Two dozen hot little hex screws, one overworked Allen wrench." Ungh, ungh, ungh, ungh, ungh. "Made-up Scandinavian name, ya youbetcha." Ungh, ungh, ungh, ohhhhhhhhhh!

 

[AG31]

Thanks! I was particularly tickled by the thought of someone breathing heavily over a sheet of abstract IKEA assembly instructions.

You did it again. Cut it out!

 

[Britva415]

would I be sacrificing a signature style to make the change?

On one hand, I personally don't think the style was sacrificed.

On another hand, what if it was, for that particular paragraph? Would it spoil the style for the whole rest of the piece? Of course not.

 

[RedFeather2025]

Over the years several people have commented on my writing style in ways that struck a chord. One compared it to "classic French erotica." Another said "You like a tableaux, a freeze frame, it's quite static." I liked those descriptions. They pleased me, if not most readers.

In a review of my Twelve Maxbridge Street, Yowser made a suggestion that I thought was very helpful for a paragraph that I'd had a lot of trouble with. I complicated contraption is involved. He said, "(One suggestion, when complex apparatus is introduced, instead of trying for a clinical third-person narration, perhaps frame it all from the MC’s perspective. You won’t need to get all the shiny bits of detail right and the physics of it all, and ambiguity can be understood in the natural way that the MC is experiencing the new tools of torture. This will heighten reader attention and draw them into the MC’s head, making a clearer picture in general. The reader will appreciate this.)"

Below are my original paragraph, and the re-write in response to Yowser's suggestion. My question is, would I be sacrificing a signature style to make the change?



BEFORE


“OK, Mike. Time’s up,” said the woman in black.

“Now we’d like you to mount this frame,” she said. The handlers were rolling up a metal contraption that had a cross bar at the end closest to the table, a leather strap about a foot wide across the middle, and in back two fiber glass structures which were obviously for his knees, if they were spread apart as far as possible. The handlers helped him get his knees in place and to lay his forearms across the bar in front. It was padded and covered in leather and there was a depression in the middle that reminded him of the head rest at the ophthalmologist’s office. When he rested his ribs on the leather strap he could rest his forehead on the depression in the front bar or on his hands. The frame had him angled up enough so that if he tipped his head just a little downward he had the same view of his naked, splayed body as the people at the table. He closed his eyes momentarily to savor his exposure. The people at the sides and end of the table got up and gathered around so they could watch what was happening in the back. He could feel the beat of his heart in his penis.

AFTER

There seemed to be no more people armed with phalluses approaching. Faranger let his arms drop and stood relaxed, passive, but his flesh was alight with anticipation for the next touch, whatever it might be. He remained erect.

Presently an apparatus made of shiny stainless steel parts was rolled next to him. At first Faranger could make no sense of it, but then its use became clearer. He acquiesced to the unspoken command and grasped the side bars so he could place his knees in the obvious shapes. He shifted his hands to a bar closest to the table, and let his forehead and torso rest on the places provided. All of the points where he rested were padded, thus allowing him to focus on his exposure without the distraction of discomfort.

His thighs were pulled apart just short of pain and his genitals hung heavy and free, his erection declaring his willing participation to the onlookers.

He was angled to give the people at the table an unobstructed view and his body was flooded with an erotic flush, both humiliating and welcome.

The people at the sides and end of the table got up and gathered around so they could watch what was happening in the back. He could feel the beat of his heart in his penis.

The second version is the best in my opinion which does not surprise me because I find that when I rewrite things, the result is always somewhat better than the first inspiration. Your presentation seems to me to be a very well-polished literary style of a higher order. My own style is more ordinary street level punkery.