Do people really want to read slowburns?

[StillStunned]

Personally I prefer stories where the spice is ramped up a little in successive encounters. This lets you establish the characters and their motivations and flaws even as you move the story forward.

For example, "The Walled Garden" takes place over three successive Fridays. The first time the narrator and her friend talk on the phone while watching the hot gardener, with a bit of self-rubbing as the mood heats up. The second time, the narrator watches her friend approach the gardener and seduce him. The third time, it's the narrator who seduces the gardener.

"Annie's Inhibition Removal Therapy" has the narrator overcome her inhibitions over the course of three therapy sessions, from touching her nipple to masturbating to full-on sex.

I use parallel descriptions to open each section. This establishes a pattern in the reader's mind, so they expect the scene to build on what went before and take it to a new level. The result, I think, is very satisfying from a story perspective.

 

[SmilingLez]

Depends on how skilled the author is. If I'm captivated by the author's words, a slow burn is fine. If the story is just meh, I'd rather it be sexually intense from the get-go

 

[WaxPhilosophic]

This is what I think of as slow-burn: A story where the characters take time to make an emotional connection, usually with plenty of missteps and life getting in their way, so by the time they actually do the deed, you're cheering for them.

If it's drawn out, because the writer has us traipsing through the garden as each individual hue of the setting sun is described in excruciating, flowery detail, that's not slow-burn, that's just slow.

I tend to write slow-burn without a thesaurus, so I'm probably biased.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Depends on how skilled the author is. If I'm captivated by the author's words, a slow burn is fine. If the story is just meh, I'd rather it be sexually intense from the get-go

Precisely, although a meh author can take the sparkle off even that.

 

[Zootonius]

My two-cents is that a slow burn can work, but it takes a good writer, one who can create a story line that could keep the reader interested without the sex. And there are a few writers who have that skill. Now for us mere mortal writers, get to the steamy part before the reader looses interest.

I will add there is an intermediate type, one where it's obvious to the reader who will be in bed by the end of the story, but there can be other sex along the way, sometimes with the protagonists taking wrong turns in their love life. If done right, the reader is eager to see the protagonists get down and dirty, and are titillated enough to turn the page.

 

[Britva415]

Whether a slow burn is successful or not probably depends on intention.

I mean, there are other things it depends on, too, but here's what I mean with regard to intention:

If an author has a sexy story and is for some reason motivated to make it longer, make it slower, make it take longer, delay the reader's sexual gratification, that might become a story which doesn't work as a slow burn unless that author is really good at igniting it early and keeping the burn going until the denouement.

On the other hand, some stories are about the smoldering, maybe even more than they're about the sex. The motivation behind a story like this includes the slow burn natively. The slow burn isn't a contrivance. This kind of slow burn is more likely to be successful, even (or maybe especially) in the hands of an author who's merely OK and not one of those really-good ones with the kind of outstanding talent and/or skill.

 

[redgarters]

I write slow-burns because I enjoy it. To me, writing/reading slow-burns is more about immersion in the characters emotions, and writing/reading strokers is more about sexual gratification. Neither is better than the other, they're just two different approaches. It's not about length either. You can write a 750 worder that reads like a slow-burn and vice versa.

To answer OP's question, yes, people do want to read slow burns, but their success varies somewhat between categories.

 

[TheNovelist2000]

Really? I find strokers to be easy, low hanging fruit; it's what I've almost exclusively written up until recently; incredibly hard to break away from actually. The premise of a stroker doesn't have to be complicated, or even realistic, you can almost make it as preposterous as you want because the stroke reader isn't concerned, they just want the sex to be hot and the focus. Like a porn movie. Sure it's better if the premise is realistic/ relatable, but the jump from an everyday situation to unrealistic sex doesn't have to have a realistic, semi rational build up.

Anybody can hurl themselves in a long jump, and they get very far. But strokers are like vertical jumps. It takes raw power to do them, and if they are good, they hit you like a tonne of bricks.

They are akin to impromptu sale pitches. You have to get everything right. You have to hook right, maintain the buyer's attention, convince them to go through the hassle of opening their wallet and buying something they don't probably need. Try selling a refrigerator to a random stranger in the streets. If you can make people listen to you each and every time, my friend, you are a few years away from becoming a millionaire.

 

[TheNovelist2000]

When they're only there to "make the story richer" but aren't actual story happenings, that's no-burn.

I'd say the crux of this thread is to learn to differentiate 'slowburn' from 'no-burn'. When I say strokers, I don't necessarily mean stories that go straight to sex. I mean stories that go straight to the premise. If it's a cuckold story, the narration in strokers only or mostly talks about cuckolding or any necessary details that would be interesting for someone with that kink. If the author starts meandering into other territories, that becomes a 'slowburn' for me. I myself enjoy stories that don't go straight to sex and, as you said, stories that build up tension and stakes that the main part of the story will tackle with later. But how do you cut the rot out of the flesh? That’s what I want to learn from you all.

 

[Statius]

Anybody can hurl themselves in a long jump, and they get very far. But strokers are like vertical jumps. It takes raw power to do them, and if they are good, they hit you like a tonne of bricks.

They are akin to impromptu sale pitches. You have to get everything right. You have to hook right, maintain the buyer's attention, convince them to go through the hassle of opening their wallet and buying something they don't probably need. Try selling a refrigerator to a random stranger in the streets. If you can make people listen to you each and every time, my friend, you are a few years away from becoming a millionaire.

It's interesting what different people struggle with when it comes to writing. I can do a delay, and have in one series, but I'm nowhere near capable of pulling off a slow burn love story; the amount of story one needs, and the depth of character- I don't have the patience for a slow burn love story/ romance. But setting up a fun sex romp? No problem. Don't get me wrong, it's work coming up with an interesting premise, or at least a relatable one but to me a slow burn takes far more caution and attention to tiny details that I'm just not very good at; you are also talking to someone who, when I first started, had no issue whatsoever with info dumping- rookie mistake, but also a hard habit to get out of.

 

[Britva415]

how do you cut the rot out of the flesh? That’s what I want to learn from you all.

Chekhov's Gun is a start. Stuff that doesn't have a job to do with regard to advancing things along the inexorable trajectory toward lift-off can probably go.

Maybe not all of it, but look at every sentence, every paragraph, every scene through the lens of "does this make anything happen."

Now - it could be that something happens which isn't a direct railroad-track toward the denouement. Maybe it introduces an obstacle, and that obstacle is part of slowing the burn. That's fine. What's important is, did something happen. Or was it just a static throwaway bit which does nothing but retard the story's progress. Does nothing to amplify or resolve any tension.

 

[Britva415]

Oh, and another comment is: Everything doesn't have to be about the kink. People have other feelings and motivations and impediments and stuff happening in their lives, too, besides just "how's the kink coming along." Maybe the slow burn is about not getting to do the kink until tension about entirely different stuff gets resolved.

 

[TheNovelist2000]

Chekhov's Gun is a start. Stuff that doesn't have a job to do with regard to advancing things along the inexorable trajectory toward lift-off can probably go.

Maybe not all of it, but look at every sentence, every paragraph, every scene through the lens of "does this make anything happen."

Now - it could be that something happens which isn't a direct railroad-track toward the denouement. Maybe it introduces an obstacle, and that obstacle is part of slowing the burn. That's fine. What's important is, did something happen. Or was it just a static throwaway bit which does nothing but retard the story's progress. Does nothing to amplify or resolve any tension.

Thank you!

 

[Jackie.Hikaru]

When I have time to read, I want it to be something thought-provoking, something that touches me deeply. ( Shut up @Jackie.Hikaru )

mm deep strokes.
ok, shutting up.