What do you like to read?

[SpecterNecter]

I mean do you read your own or others when you feel the need? I prefer my own, although my choices are limited because I just can't read some of it anymore for whatever reason. I'm sure there is a perfectly reasonable reason. What it is I have no idea.

 

[AG31]

My erotica niche is very small. Smaller than I'd ever expected, so I've got to say I get the most pleasure from revisiting my own works.

 

[Writer61]

These days, I listen to audiobooks more than I read. A lot of thriller/mysteries, some spy stuff.

 

[StillStunned]

The more I write, the more I struggle to enjoy the works of others. They don't write what I want to read, and reading my own stories has spoiled me.

 

[peregrinecat]

The more I write, the more I struggle to enjoy the works of others. They don't write what I want to read, and reading my own stories has spoiled me.

That's where I've been at since I started writing my own. My stories are exactly what I'm into and no aspects that I don't like! I am still checking out other new stories to mix things up, but it's rare for me to find something I thoroughly enjoy.

 

[BeechLeaf]

This is what the 'follow' button is for. I have a list of about thirty writers who write much better than I do, and if I'm feeling fraught I can examine my 'following' list and select one - like a fine wine or a jacuzzi or a liqueur chocolate - and luxuriate in someone who consistently gives me pleasure.

 

[Erozetta]

I prefer the works of others.

It's difficult for me to find new writers to enjoy, but I have a core group I gravitate towards when I want to read something.

 

[JordynRose]

I am not sophisticated in authors, just the recommended trashy, bodice ripping romance novels for lesbians.

 

[KittyOfSteele]

It depends.

If erotica, most of what Lit offers isn't what I seek for, whether it is a stroker or something more complex. It doesn't mean I never find anything good, but to this day, Indecency still remains as my number one for a multiple number of factors: it's short, it's solo, it knows words cost money so it doesn't waste any time pretending to be something that it isn't with all that purple prose and the need for making things so inflated with words and words and more words, like the Kitty is doing right now, and it's a fun read. Out of Lit, well, anything Henry Miller will get me glued to the page because at least his rants didn't waste time being pretty.

If non-erotica, well, I mostly read pulp fiction, though I dabble around some high brow from time to time if it keeps me interested. Noir, sci-fi, and fantasy are what I like the most, and lately I've been taking interest into hero pulps like Zorro, the Shadow, Doc Savage, the Domino Lady, the Spider...

Basically if it doesn't read fast, and doesn't get my interest, it immediately goes to the trash. Don't get me started on the amount of times I wanted to throw The Hound of the Baskervilles to a bonfire due to how tedious it was to read.

 

[ColtonWrites]

Interesting to hear so many folks say they re-read their own stuff.

I have to agree that I'm a little spoiled by my own stuff. Its exactly my niche because I wrote it, and its well done.

I try to read other stuff on this site and AO3 and most of it is just...bad. Or at least not enjoyably readable by my standards. I think probably 1:20 of the stories I open do I get past the first couple of paragraphs.


Offline I read sci-fi and low fantasy (Pratchett etc). I was on an audiobook kick for a while - I find non-fiction difficult to focus on normally but the audiobooks are easier.

And the audiobook for Projdct Hail Mary is a work of art in its own right. Give it a listen if you have a chance.

 

[UnexpectedLuggage]

The more I write, the more I struggle to enjoy the works of others. They don't write what I want to read, and reading my own stories has spoiled me.

I feel that. I still find some stories that excite me, though. More often than not, I find a story that's well written and interesting until the actual sex starts and then it's kinda lacking in detail.

So I alternate between my own works (especially because I know the real women that inspire my stories), and the handful of favorites stories I have here.

 

[BobbyBrandt]

These days, I listen to audiobooks more than I read. A lot of thriller/mysteries, some spy stuff.

Same.

Especially because I can do it while driving and leave myself with more spare time for writing.

I currently have ten of my own audio books that I can cycle through to inspire me with my current writing.

 

[Duil2]

I do like to read my own stories, I'll admit for the same reasons of them being what I like.
I also will read on Literotica some contest winners more out of curiosity and this broadens my horizons with regards category.
I'm easily bored, however, and so a story has to catch me early with something that makes me read on.
Outside of erotica I tend towards audio autobiography of famous people I admire.

 

[JuicyLittleKitty]

It depends.

If erotica, most of what Lit offers isn't what I seek for, whether it is a stroker or something more complex. It doesn't mean I never find anything good, but to this day, Indecency still remains as my number one for a multiple number of factors: it's short, it's solo, it knows words cost money so it doesn't waste any time pretending to be something that it isn't with all that purple prose and the need for making things so inflated with words and words and more words, like the Kitty is doing right now, and it's a fun read. Out of Lit, well, anything Henry Miller will get me glued to the page because at least his rants didn't waste time being pretty.

If non-erotica, well, I mostly read pulp fiction, though I dabble around some high brow from time to time if it keeps me interested. Noir, sci-fi, and fantasy are what I like the most, and lately I've been taking interest into hero pulps like Zorro, the Shadow, Doc Savage, the Domino Lady, the Spider...

Basically if it doesn't read fast, and doesn't get my interest, it immediately goes to the trash. Don't get me started on the amount of times I wanted to throw The Hound of the Baskervilles to a bonfire due to how tedious it was to read.

Conan Doyle, he of the House of the Baskervilles, often published his works in monthly instalments. Dickens did the same. It makes sense in context. The Victorians had no television, radio or movies. Their sole way of communication was the written word. They had to paint pictures with words. Lots of words. Stories by instalments were cheaper for the ordinary person than whole books and kept the purchaser buying. Besides much of the literature of that period would try the patience of a saint.

 

[RustyRedheadSpitfire]

It depends on my mood.

If I want to disappear into another world, I’ll happily lose myself in a good novel. Literary fiction, historical fiction, a well-written mystery… anything with characters who feel like real people.

I also have a weakness for history. The older I get, the more I realize people haven’t changed nearly as much as we like to think. Give them different clothes and no Wi-Fi, and we’re still recognisably human.

I read a fair bit of non-fiction too, usually whatever has captured my curiosity that week. Art, psychology, language, architecture… I’m one of those annoying people who can disappear down a rabbit hole because I wanted to know why something was painted blue in the fifteenth century.

What I don’t read much of is anything that feels like it was assembled from a recipe. I don’t mind a slow book if it’s interesting. I do mind a predictable one.

 

[JuicyLittleKitty]

I read all sorts of things. History especially social history, literature - usually 19th/20th century English but some authors translated into English and some children's books, biographies. I like erotic literature. Fanny Hill, Venus in India, and some of the work on Jack Horntip's site are entertaining.

 

[KittyOfSteele]

Conan Doyle, he of the House of the Baskervilles, often published his works in monthly instalments. Dickens did the same. It makes sense in context. The Victorians had no television, radio or movies. Their sole way of communication was the written word. They had to paint pictures with words. Lots of words. Stories by instalments were cheaper for the ordinary person than whole books and kept the purchaser buying. Besides much of the literature of that period would try the patience of a saint.

I know that. Yet it isn't an excuse. Treasure Island was from the same time, and it was a nice, fast, and engaging read, from start to finish. The Hound of the Baskervilles was an absolute slog, plus Holmes vanished for a huge chunk of the book.

Just because something was the norm during a time doesn't mean I have to tolerate it. If anyone likes their stories like that, more power to them, but I don't. I hate them because they are painful to read.

 

[ColtonWrites]

I'm easily bored, however, and so a story has to catch me early with something that makes me read on.

Well then I am flattered you liked my stuff.

 

[JuicyLittleKitty]

I know that. Yet it isn't an excuse. Treasure Island was from the same time, and it was a nice, fast, and engaging read, from start to finish. The Hound of the Baskervilles was an absolute slog, plus Holmes vanished for a huge chunk of the book.

Just because something was the norm during a time doesn't mean I have to tolerate it. If anyone likes their stories like that, more power to them, but I don't. I hate them because they are painful to read.

Oh well. At least you won't fall down that particular rabbit hole again.

 

[Booboobear84]

I know that. Yet it isn't an excuse. Treasure Island was from the same time, and it was a nice, fast, and engaging read, from start to finish. The Hound of the Baskervilles was an absolute slog, plus Holmes vanished for a huge chunk of the book.

Just because something was the norm during a time doesn't mean I have to tolerate it. If anyone likes their stories like that, more power to them, but I don't. I hate them because they are painful to read.

In fairness Treasure Island was a young adult book (though it was rather good and more sophisticated on some leadership and tactical issues), which would tend to be more fast paced and less descriptive. Also Baskerville was two decades later.

 

[KittyOfSteele]

In fairness Treasure Island was a young adult book (though it was rather good and more sophisticated on some leadership and tactical issues), which would tend to be more fast paced and less descriptive. Also Baskerville was two decades later.

It's still Victorian ages. We can argue all about it being a YA, or Baskerville being two decades later, but it ultimately doesn't mean anything. As I stated, just because that's how things were done doesn't mean I have to tolerate it. If you like that type of prose, then good for you, but don't shove it down when I already said how much I hate that. It's a very easy way for me to hate an author if all they do is everything but move the story forward. I want plot, damnit! I want to be left breathless, sweaty, and my heart beating like I ran a marathon four times. If I'm not flipping pages or moving my thumb upwards, then it's a quick fail for me, because if my eyes go more horizontal than vertical, then it fails to engage me.

Amadis of Gaul knew how to do that centuries before; so good it was that it was the only book that didn't get destroyed in Don Quixote. I've read it several times already because it is quite fast for being very thick, and it focuses on what matters the most: Amadis being a hero and his heroic deeds, not the way Europe looked like back then.

 

[Booboobear84]

It's still Victorian ages. We can argue all about it being a YA, or Baskerville being two decades later, but it ultimately doesn't mean anything. As I stated, just because that's how things were done doesn't mean I have to tolerate it. If you like that type of prose, then good for you, but don't shove it down when I already said how much I hate that. It's a very easy way for me to hate an author if all they do is everything but move the story forward. I want plot, damnit! I want to be left breathless, sweaty, and my heart beating like I ran a marathon four times. If I'm not flipping pages or moving my thumb upwards, then it's a quick fail for me, because if my eyes go more horizontal than vertical, then it fails to engage me.

Amadis of Gaul knew how to do that centuries before; so good it was that it was the only book that didn't get destroyed in Don Quixote. I've read it several times already because it is quite fast for being very thick, and it focuses on what matters the most: Amadis being a hero and his heroic deeds, not the way Europe looked like back then.

I don't think you should have to like it (one of my least favorite Holmes stores), but condemning it is also inappropriate (I remember loving Ivanhoe in High School and most of the class not being able to read it). Technically people born in the late 40s and the early 60s are all baby boomers. I can assure you (as being one of those) that they are worlds apart.

 

[KittyOfSteele]

I don't think you should have to like it (one of my least favorite Holmes stores), but condemning it is also inappropriate (I remember loving Ivanhoe in High School and most of the class not being able to read it). Technically people born in the late 40s and the early 60s are all baby boomers. I can assure you (as being one of those) that they are worlds apart.

Honey, I'm being nice about wanting to toss Baskervilles into the fire because it took me months to read something that should've taken me a week at most. As a reader, I deserve the right to have an opinion on what I consume and choose what I want to read, and I don't know why do you feel the need to explain me how much I am wrong for not wanting to read something that makes me scream due to how slow it is in a thread that is literally named "What do you like to read?" and I already said I like to read works that are fast-paced and engaging, so they don't waste time (and words, because words cost money) in making things pretty.

If you want to talk about how condemning a work is inappropiate, talk to Stacnash instead of me.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Both reading and writing eortica were big deals when I was young. Not so much these days.