Oh My God!

[BlackShanglan]

My thoughts, for the nickel that they are worth:

1. There are only certain numbers of plots – whether 3 or 7 or 20, the number is limited

Get this woman on the structuralist narratology thread!

I tend to agree. That is, much of the action is internal, and can, in the end, be distilled to a few essential conflicts and results - greater or fewer in number depending on how broadly or narrowly one draws the categories. Language and setting work for me as the means by which we vary and give color to these plots; I would add imagery (if it's not under language), genre, structure, and "incident" as well to the list of ways to tell these basic stories in different fashions. By "incident" I mean the small "color" actions and events that are not part of the main movement of the plot, but which instead amuse, draw out character, help work in setting/time frame, etc. In "MacBeth" I'd say that the plot is about ambition, greed, fate, and evil, and that an incident that gives it color and amuses the audience is the gatekeeper's speech about how wine mans and unmans the drinker.

2. There are only so many character types. I know that view is a bit of a heresy, but really, when you take away the bric-a-brac of personal details, there are not that many distinct personalities.

Oooh. That is so ... enticing. I hate it and love it. I can't decide what to make of it. I think it's your point about personal details that works. Yes, we are all individuals and have unique points, but character types aren't really about that, and the extent to which a character is wholly about that, s/he becomes incomprehensible to the reader. We empathize and "feel" characters when we feel something ... Sophia must be right. Even with the Romantic/individualist side of me kicking up a fuss.

Reminds me of Yeats, actually. He said that individuality and uniqueness work well enough in comedy, which is about emphasizing how people are different, but that tragedy and powerful emotion come from tearing down distinctions and talking about how we are the same - those "great universal passions" Arnold was so fond of. I suppose sex is a pretty universal one?

But, there are two almost inexhaustible elements: Language and settings. The latter can engage the mind; new places, new times – things that you can give the reader as an added patina to the story. The former, the use of language for its own sake, to enhance the sensuality, to stir, like good music, the mental ear and heart is what I think can make what would otherwise be just another replay of the same old story into something that is fresh, vibrant.
That turns you on, in all the meaningful ways.

Hmmm. That I think I will have to disagree with. I think that some character types or plots or situations are in themselves sexy - not just the manner of their description. I think that good description can make many things sexy or more sexy than they were, and that other forms of description can make once-sexy things unappealing, but I think that the abstracts can also have power in themselves - although admittedly, once gotten into writing, they need the language to work with them to at least some degree.

But then, "what turns you on" I generally think better phrased as "what turns me on." I don't think that everyone works the same way. I remember Rhinoguy arguing that everyone had to have physical things about something that were triggers to excitement, and others arguing that no, nothing physical was what really did it. I suspect that they were both right about themselves, and perhaps Sophia and I are equally right about ourselves here. No?

Shanglan

 

[LadyJeanne]

I'm in the midst of an erotic story now, though I'm not sure where it will go. The characters are driving the sex, though they'd say the sex is driving them. The plot is in their hands.

 

[SlickTony]

I'm working on a couple of stories--one of them is basically finished and in the tweaking stage, and the other I just began.

Actually, that's really four stories, if you count the two-parter, of which I've written the first part, as two stories.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

IMHO.

No matter how good the description, sex w/o character or plot is a vignette, a scene, a slice-of-life, not a story.

Why? It seems like a hollywood movie to me

Agreed. That's just one of the many differences between a novel and a movie script.

Rumple "oughtta be in pictures" Foreskin

 

[ABSTRUSE]

I have read everything tonight ... so who in the AH is actually interested in writing again?

For the writers: Does character, sex or plot make an erotic narrative?

Christ you're such a bitch lately.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Christ you're such a bitch lately.

Careful, Abs. This is a pretty tough crowd. Cowgirl has already called CharleyH a "Thespian." I mean, how much rougher can it get?

Rumple Foreskin

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Careful, Abs. This is a pretty tough crowd. Cowgirl has already called CharleyH a "Thespian." I mean, how much rougher can it get?

Rumple Foreskin

Oh she just needs an enema.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Hm, I cant argue, so lets move on. Lets discuss shitty writers for a moment ... what does a shitty writer look like on paper?

There's so many ways to be bad.

Lately I've been concentrating on the way writers screw themselves by lying. It works like this:

Everyone of us is different. Therefore, everyone of us should have our own take on matters of sex and have something interesting to say about it, so Lit should be filled with interesting stories. But it's not. Why is that?

I think it's because we lie. We don't tell the truth about ourselves, what we like and what we want, instead we copy what we've already read and retell the same stories over and over again.

I don't think we have the courage to hang our real feelings and desires out there for others to see, so you get phony feelings and phony stories.

 

[Alessia Brio]

I don't think we have the courage to hang our real feelings and desires out there for others to see, so you get phony feelings and phony stories.

You mean our CHARACTERS' real feelings and desires, don't you?

 

[rikaaim]

Lately I've been concentrating on the way writers screw themselves by lying.

I don't think we have the courage to hang our real feelings and desires out there for others to see, so you get phony feelings and phony stories.

I tend to agree. I haven't been reading much lately because I want to keep my ideas "my" ideas. Meaning, when I go to write a new story I don't want to be influenced by someone else's voice. I want to know that what I'm saying is mine. Of course that means that it may already be done, but at least I'm doing what I want to do. I have an idea for a story that I really want to do, but am worried about the response. I have more motivation to do it now than ever. We'll just see what kind of madness erupts afterwards, if it even gets accepted.

 

[yui]

You mean our CHARACTERS' real feelings and desires, don't you?

No, I don’t think so, Imp. The characters and situations are fiction, but the emotions themselves--pain, want, desolation, need, fear, love, etc; that well that you draw on when you write from your bones--those have to be real, or they ring false.

 

[carsonshepherd]

No, I don’t think so, Imp. The characters and situations are fiction, but the emotions themselves--pain, want, desolation, need, fear, love, etc; that well that you draw on when you write from your bones--those have to be real, or they ring false.

absolutely, and the more honest you are, the harder it can be to write something.

I have one story on Lit with a bullshit ending. It's a "happy" ending that did not ring true to the situation. I didn't think anyone would catch it, but two people have called me on it, separately. They impressed me.

 

[Alessia Brio]

No, I don’t think so, Imp. The characters and situations are fiction, but the emotions themselves--pain, want, desolation, need, fear, love, etc; that well that you draw on when you write from your bones--those have to be real, or they ring false.

Twas sarcasm, sweetie. (Hence the wink.) Definitely the most well-received work is that which was drawn from the depths. It's also why some folks are so wounded when a piece is not well-received. This is especially true, I believe, of poetry.

 

[yui]

absolutely, and the more honest you are, the harder it can be to write something.

I have one story on Lit with a bullshit ending. It's a "happy" ending that did not ring true to the situation. I didn't think anyone would catch it, but two people have called me on it, separately. They impressed me.

Absolutely.

And you only have one happy ending, don’t you? The one that you put your *cough* whole heart into?

Twas sarcasm, sweetie. (Hence the wink.) Definitely the most well-received work is that which was drawn from the depths. It's also why some folks are so wounded when a piece is not well-received. This is especially true, I believe, of poetry.

Ooohhh. So sorry! I thought the wink was softening your rebuke of Dr. M’s statement! Very sorry!

Winks are a sarcasm indicator?! And no one told me this?! Good god, I’ve been using it in a completely incorrect manner since I arrived. Oh, god …

I agree with you regarding poetry; poetry is sometime so personal, so abstruse, that it is difficult for a broad audience to relate to any aspect of it.

 

[carsonshepherd]

Absolutely.

And you only have one happy ending, don’t you? The one that you put your *cough* whole heart into?

No, all my stuff has a happy ending, but only one of them has a spark of dishonesty.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I thought the wink was softening your rebuke of Dr. M’s statement! Very sorry!

I like my rebukes stiff and penetratiing, if you don't mind.

 

[carsonshepherd]

I like my rebukes stiff and penetratiing, if you don't mind.

Oh! me too! me too!

 

[BlackShanglan]

absolutely, and the more honest you are, the harder it can be to write something.

I have one story on Lit with a bullshit ending. It's a "happy" ending that did not ring true to the situation. I didn't think anyone would catch it, but two people have called me on it, separately. They impressed me.

Someone once told me that the problem with one of my stories was that I kept writing with a safety net. I was telegraphing "it's all going to come out ok!" from the first sentence. That was some of the best advice I've gotten. It helped me write the best thing I've written, and gave me the ending.

I'm trying to make up my mind on Dr. M's comment. I'm not sure whether I agree. That is, I have seen stories that failed because they tried to be too "pat" and show what they thought other people wanted. Then again, I've seen stories that failed (in my opinion) precisely because they were so self-obsessed and focused on the writer's own desire and needs. I suppose it's the old dater's dilemma. People really want you to be yourself, be sincere, and be utterly honest. That is, sincerely amazing, honestly remarkable, exciting, witty, clever, sensual, generous, charming, and kind. They want you to be that when you're being yourself. In that sense, I think Dr. M is right - it would be nice to see someone expressing sincere desires in Lit writing, but it would be rather anticlimactic if they just sincerely desired to bang the big-titted twins at Hooters when they are dead drunk.

Shanglan

 

[Stella_Omega]

I've been writing solely and only for masturbatory pleasure lately- and Joey, Angel, and Jett have been lovely helpers
(edited to add-) My own pleasure, that is. In fact, I don't remember ever writing such selfish sex!

 

[carsonshepherd]

People really want you to be yourself, be sincere, and be utterly honest. That is, sincerely amazing, honestly remarkable, exciting, witty, clever, sensual, generous, charming, and kind. They want you to be that when you're being yourself. In that sense, I think Dr. M is right - it would be nice to see someone expressing sincere desires in Lit writing, but it would be rather anticlimactic if they just sincerely desired to bang the big-titted twins at Hooters when they are dead drunk.

Shanglan

You just need to find the person who thinks that whatever you are, when you're being yourself, is unbelievably fascinating and exciting.

Same way with a story I suppose... your fantasy matches the reader's fantasy.

 

[Rhys]

*stalk*

 

[BlackShanglan]

You just need to find the person who thinks that whatever you are, when you're being yourself, is unbelievably fascinating and exciting.

Same way with a story I suppose... your fantasy matches the reader's fantasy.

Mmm agreed.

You know, you're unbelievably fascinating and exciting.



Shanglan

 

[carsonshepherd]

*stalk*

MMmmmm the sexiest stalker ever....

Mmm agreed.

You know, you're unbelievably fascinating and exciting.



Shanglan

Two in one night! *swoons*

 

[Stella_Omega]

You just need to find the person who thinks that whatever you are, when you're being yourself, is unbelievably fascinating and exciting.

Same way with a story I suppose... your fantasy matches the reader's fantasy.

*Nods*If you write only what turns you on, your readership will find itself, I think.
I know, for myself, I can't make what bores me- exciting. I'm just not that good a writer.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Someone once told me that the problem with one of my stories was that I kept writing with a safety net. I was telegraphing "it's all going to come out ok!" from the first sentence. That was some of the best advice I've gotten. It helped me write the best thing I've written, and gave me the ending.

I'm trying to make up my mind on Dr. M's comment. I'm not sure whether I agree. That is, I have seen stories that failed because they tried to be too "pat" and show what they thought other people wanted. Then again, I've seen stories that failed (in my opinion) precisely because they were so self-obsessed and focused on the writer's own desire and needs. I suppose it's the old dater's dilemma. People really want you to be yourself, be sincere, and be utterly honest. That is, sincerely amazing, honestly remarkable, exciting, witty, clever, sensual, generous, charming, and kind. They want you to be that when you're being yourself. In that sense, I think Dr. M is right - it would be nice to see someone expressing sincere desires in Lit writing, but it would be rather anticlimactic if they just sincerely desired to bang the big-titted twins at Hooters when they are dead drunk.

Shanglan

You're right. It all depends on whether you're trying to write pornopgraphy or erotica.

For all its trangressiveness, porn is probably the most conservative and restricting kind of writing there is, and the form is very fragile. It just doesn't stand up to many human emotions aside from the sexual ones, and if you're trying to excite your readers, the last thing they want to read about are the very things that most literature usually deals with. Porn demands happy people having happy sex, for the most part. Even in the darkest BDSM, people are suffering quite happily.

Pornography is fantasy, and we really don't want reality intruding too much. And we certainly don't want have to deal with things like death and loss, which are about as anti-erotic as you can get. (True, death and loss can be milked for sentimentality, but sentimentality by definition is false and contrived emotionalism.)

But still, you'd like to see the protagonists in some of these Lit stories feeling something a little more profound than "It was great!" or "It was the best thing I'd ever felt in my life!" I mean, there must be some of us who wonder about the nature of desire and the uses of sex.