Smut Sales are Booming

[Kelliezgirl]

Your group finds certain literature unworthy of tax dollars, and leads an effort to have books that they don't like, removed from libraries.

Huh?
Isn't your group trying to do this very thing?

I don't think we're going to agree on this subject. I'm for smaller, less intrusive government. And I'm definitely not for small groups groups using political power to dictate the rules.

You haven't provided any evidence that these are "small groups". I suspect if we polled the country and asked "Should we provide porn in libraries" a pretty strong majority would say "no".

Then we get to argue over what constitutes "porn". Which is why the courts recognize things like community standards.

One group wants something, the other doesn't.
That's just a part of democracy.

You want a "smaller less intrusive government" that will provide you with porn?
Doesn't sound like small government to me.

 

[Dodola]

You haven't provided any evidence that these are "small groups". I suspect if we polled the country and asked "Should we provide porn in libraries" a pretty strong majority would say "no".

Then we get to argue over what constitutes "porn". Which is why the courts recognize things like community standards.

One group wants something, the other doesn't.
That's just a part of democracy.

You want a "smaller less intrusive government" that will provide you with porn?
Doesn't sound like small government to me.

 

[Dodola]

You haven't provided any evidence that these are "small groups". I suspect if we polled the country and asked "Should we provide porn in libraries" a pretty strong majority would say "no".

Then we get to argue over what constitutes "porn". Which is why the courts recognize things like community standards.

One group wants something, the other doesn't.
That's just a part of democracy.

You want a "smaller less intrusive government" that will provide you with porn?
Doesn't sound like small government to me.

The government doesn't provide porn.

This conversation is too close to political at this point.

 

[crookedletter]

I find it a little amusing the people concerned about the dilution of fantasy as a genre. Or, really any genre. I would like to direct you to any bookstore or library with a decent collection. Behold the decades worth of derivative schlock by hack writers chasing what's popular.

Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap.

Romantasy isn't ruining anything. Anything that gets people reading is a good thing. Good for the world, good for readers, good for writers.

Also, helpful link for those of you who know who you are, maybe you haven't seen it - https://forum.literotica.com/forums/politics-board.67/. Go play in traffic.

 

[Dodola]

Also, helpful link for those of you who know who you are, maybe you haven't seen it - https://forum.literotica.com/forums/politics-board.67/. Go play in traffic.

Guilty as charged. My apologies to all.

 

[forgotmyantidepressants]

It's not like their publication is being prevented. It's just a classification thing.

To me, there's a distinction between romantic fantasy and romantasy. For better or for worse, in my (limited) experience, romantasy is basically YA fantasy writing plus standard genre-romance levels of sexual content. It's like light novels for 20somethings rather than teens. People who are looking for non-romantic fantasy aren't (again generally and again in my experience only) going to get much out of romantasy.

That's fair.

 

[forgotmyantidepressants]

But I don't think teenagers enjoying fourth wing are keeping someone else from enjoying Robert Jordan or Joe Abercrombie.

 

[StillStunned]

There was a time, probably about twenty years ago, when there were new fantasy books for sale everywhere, but I was constantly disappointed because they were all about mopey girls. It reached the point where I didn't even bother buying any fantasy written by a woman. It was the precursor of what's now called romantasy, and I hated it.

Not that it was necessarily bad - although plenty was really awful - but it just didn't offer what I wanted from fantasy. I wanted to read about adventures and excitement, not about lovesick teenagers who burst into tears at the slightest upset. I wasn't the intended reader of those books, though, and realising that made me feel a lot less frustrated.

 

[crookedletter]

There was a time, probably about twenty years ago, when there were new fantasy books for sale everywhere, but I was constantly disappointed because they were all about mopey girls. It reached the point where I didn't even bother buying any fantasy written by a woman. It was the precursor of what's now called romantasy, and I hated it.

Not that it was necessarily bad - although plenty was really awful - but it just didn't offer what I wanted from fantasy. I wanted to read about adventures and excitement, not about lovesick teenagers who burst into tears at the slightest upset. I wasn't the intended reader of those books, though, and realising that made me feel a lot less frustrated.

It's possible that trend was a counterpoint to something:

(borrowed from the funny memes thread c/o @YmaOHyd )

 

[forgotmyantidepressants]

It's possible that trend was a counterpoint to something:

(borrowed from the funny memes thread c/o @YmaOHyd )

Sounds like a good idea for MM romantasy

 

[AwkwardlySet]

There was a time, probably about twenty years ago, when there were new fantasy books for sale everywhere, but I was constantly disappointed because they were all about mopey girls. It reached the point where I didn't even bother buying any fantasy written by a woman. It was the precursor of what's now called romantasy, and I hated it.

Not that it was necessarily bad - although plenty was really awful - but it just didn't offer what I wanted from fantasy. I wanted to read about adventures and excitement, not about lovesick teenagers who burst into tears at the slightest upset. I wasn't the intended reader of those books, though, and realising that made me feel a lot less frustrated.

I agree with everything you said.

I see this as an issue of classification, mostly. I think Romantasy is somewhat pushing out regular Fantasy. There's a large readership interested in Romantasy. It's very popular, and it's not easy to resist its pull. You can see even big names beginning to stray into it. It's like the pull of mother-son stories on Lit. Everyone wants a bite of that readership.

And that's all fine. Readers want what they want. But at least make it a completely separate genre. The way it is now, the most complex Fantasy series with great worldbuilding and plot are being displayed in the same shelves as the mopey YA novels with just a sprinkle of fantasy in them. And they often take up most of the shelves.

Just separate those two genres. They have so little in common anyway.

 

[Bramblethorn]

There was a time, probably about twenty years ago, when there were new fantasy books for sale everywhere, but I was constantly disappointed because they were all about mopey girls.

Okay, but, fantasy books of 2005 - to pick just one year - included GRRM's "A Feast For Crows", JKR's "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince", Niven & Pournelle's "Burning Tower", Turtledove's "Every Inch A King", Gaiman's "Anansi Boys", Pratchett's "Thud", Rick Riordan's "The Lightning Thief", Duane's "Wizards at War", Jacques' "High Rhulain", Maguire's "Son of a Witch", and Jordan's "The Knife of Dreams", along with many others that couldn't reasonably be characterised as mopey girl books.

(and yes, also Meyer's "Twilight" (vol. 1) which I am willing to characterise as a mopey girl book.)

Not that it was necessarily bad - although plenty was really awful - but it just didn't offer what I wanted from fantasy. I wanted to read about adventures and excitement, not about lovesick teenagers who burst into tears at the slightest upset. I wasn't the intended reader of those books, though, and realising that made me feel a lot less frustrated.

Yep. There are a lot of stories on Lit that aren't my cup of tea, and sometimes I get frustrated trying to wade through all of that to find things that are what I'm after, but it doesn't mean those other stories are ruining Lit. Just means that the world does not revolve solely around me.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

I wouldn't be at all surprised that there's been an increase in people buying smutty fiction, simply because you can do it privately on your phone or home computer, rather than have to try to reach the top shelf of WH Smiths in a railway station or motorway services.

Other Smiths and bookshops did offer a few such books, but over 90% of all Black Lace novels and their competitors were sold on transport networks, because people didn't want their neighbours to see. Take that factor away, and bingo. Not nearly as many dirty books on offer on journeys, but the demand won't have shrunk.

 

[Britva415]

You want a "smaller less intrusive government" that will provide you with porn?
Doesn't sound like small government to me.

By that yardstick, there shouldn't be libraries at all.

Do you support public libraries or not?

If so, then sure, some of what's in it is going to be considered "porny" by some. Most of that material is not going to be stuff the majority is interested in censoring/banning/gatekeeping/moral-panicking/etc.

I'm not a fan of equating libraries with "the government," either, but I'll let that go.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

By that yardstick, there shouldn't be libraries at all.

Do you support public libraries or not?

If so, then sure, some of what's in it is going to be considered "porny" by some. Most of that material is not going to be stuff the majority is interested in censoring/banning/gatekeeping/moral-panicking/etc.

I'm not a fan of equating libraries with "the government," either, but I'll let that go.

Actually, I'd be totally OK with getting rid of public libraries.
They are a vestige of a time when books were expensive and hard to come by.

And if the majority wants certain material in the library, we're a democracy, they can let their elected officials know that. And if they don't want it they can let their elected officials know that too. That's how it's supposed to work.
That isn't "censoring/banning/gatekeeping/moral-panicking/etc" it's just having community standards.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

The government doesn't provide porn.

This conversation is too close to political at this point.

The government SHOULDN'T provide porn... yet here you are arguing that we can't restrict what's in a library.

 

[Theatreslut]

You haven't provided any evidence that these are "small groups". I suspect if we polled the country and asked "Should we provide porn in libraries" a pretty strong majority would say "no".

Then we get to argue over what constitutes "porn". Which is why the courts recognize things like community standards.

One group wants something, the other doesn't.
That's just a part of democracy.

You want a "smaller less intrusive government" that will provide you with porn?
Doesn't sound like small government to me.

Can they use my tax dollars to buy the porn for the libraries?

 

[Theatreslut]

From what I’ve seen, I don’t think it’s prohibition or the fear of prohibition that is increasing smut sales. I think the increase is being driven by women being more comfortable with their own sexuality. There are large groups on social media, that are almost entirely female, discussing spicy books. It is socially acceptable to openly discuss it

 

[YmaOHyd]

From what I’ve seen, I don’t think it’s prohibition or the fear of prohibition that is increasing smut sales. I think the increase is being driven by women being more comfortable with their own sexuality. There are large groups on social media, that are almost entirely female, discussing spicy books. It is socially acceptable to openly discuss it

And what's acceptable has expanded horizontally as well as vertically, if that makes sense. It's not just people being more comfortable talking about p-in-v sex. Kink is in in a big way. More people are having spicy food and the average spice level has gone up. And, interestingly, in film and TV you see the opposite effect. Younger adults seem way more comfortable reading sex than they do seeing it, because the amount of pushback to sex scenes in film and TV is kind of crazy right now.

 

[Theatreslut]

And what's acceptable has expanded horizontally as well as vertically, if that makes sense. It's not just people being more comfortable talking about p-in-v sex. Kink is in in a big way. More people are having spicy food and the average spice level has gone up. And, interestingly, in film and TV you see the opposite effect. Younger adults seem way more comfortable reading sex than they do seeing it, because the amount of pushback to sex scenes in film and TV is kind of crazy right now.

And queer sex has become mainstream, allowing more people to find what they want

 

[YmaOHyd]

And queer sex has become mainstream, allowing more people to find what they want

Yup yup. Plus the anime and manga boom helping normalize monsterfuckery.

 

[Theatreslut]

And what's acceptable has expanded horizontally as well as vertically, if that makes sense. It's not just people being more comfortable talking about p-in-v sex. Kink is in in a big way. More people are having spicy food and the average spice level has gone up. And, interestingly, in film and TV you see the opposite effect. Younger adults seem way more comfortable reading sex than they do seeing it, because the amount of pushback to sex scenes in film and TV is kind of crazy right now.

I wonder if younger people are more concerned with the potential ethical issues of sex scenes, because you need actors to perform them, which can be exploitative. We have become more aware of impact surrounding the way scenes are filmed and the pressure people have felt to do more than they want to.

Note that in no way am I saying that porn is inherently exploitation. Just that the potential is there and some of it is

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Can they use my tax dollars to buy the porn for the libraries?

That's between you and your elected officials.
Good luck!

 

[Nynah]

There was a time, probably about twenty years ago, when there were new fantasy books for sale everywhere, but I was constantly disappointed because they were all about mopey girls. It reached the point where I didn't even bother buying any fantasy written by a woman. It was the precursor of what's now called romantasy, and I hated it.

I don't think you were looking hard enough. Women have been contributing to the fantasy genre for years with more than just tropey (and mopey) romances. Ursula K. Le Guin, Anne McCaffrey, Diana Wynne Jones, Octavia E. Butler had all written books well before 2005 and they were full of "adventure" and "excitement". There are several newer authors today still writing amazing fantasy like Rebecca Roanhorse, N.K. Jemisin, Nnedi Okorafor, R.F. Kuang, Naomi Novik, Tamsin Muir, V.E. Schwab and many, many more.

Good (mopey girl-free) fantasy is out there. You just have to be willing to do a little research.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I don't think you were looking hard enough. Women have been contributing to the fantasy genre for years with more than just tropey (and mopey) romances. Ursula K. Le Guin, Anne McCaffrey, Diana Wynne Jones, Octavia E. Butler had all written books well before 2005 and they were full of "adventure" and "excitement". There are several newer authors today still writing amazing fantasy like Rebecca Roanhorse, N.K. Jemisin, Nnedi Okorafor, R.F. Kuang, Naomi Novik, Tamsin Muir, V.E. Schwab and many, many more.

Good (mopey girl-free) fantasy is out there. You just have to be willing to do a little research.

Harrowhark does do a fair bit of moping, but then she balances that out with a lot of exploding skeletons and whatnot.