Emotional Attachment & Smutty Fic

[ithildin]

We discussed this on IM last night, and thought it was worth throwing out for conversation.  My musing is such: I've bought and read some of those 'erotica anthologies', and for the most part, they bore me to tears. So I've been wondering if there's a component of having an attachment to a character that adds to the enjoyment of such fic. As in: I find I enjoy 'adult' fanfic with a character I know and care about more than the 'professional' sorts of stories found in published anthologies. With many of those, it's virtually nameless and faceless and I just don't care enough about the participants for the story to be satisfying on any level.  Obviously, there are exceptions. but generally speaking that seems to be the pattern.

Thoughts?

And here's hoping the other participants of last night's conversation share their thoughts.

Comments

[ithildyn.livejournal.com]

It's a complicated topic, which was why I brought it up last night, and why it seemed like something that would be interesting to delve a little deeper into. I think both context and substance play into it in varying degrees.

[mischief5.livejournal.com]

If this helps, "context" is the framework within which the writer operates. It's the information the reader needs in order to make a connection with the characters. Backstory, setting, descriptions, mood, etc. "Substance" is information that gives context weight and depth. This may be the author's "voice", the characters' "voices", suggestions of moral values (or lack thereof), actions, reactions, and the reasons for them.

The more context and substance the writer provides, the more satisfied the reader will be. And vice versa. The best writers are those who can provide text, subtext, context and substance with as few words as possible, making every word count. Never underestimate your readers' imaginations; they are more than capable of filling in the blanks. *grin*

[beccadg.livejournal.com]

If this helps...

I'm not sure if it does. It sounds as if, with those definitions of those terms, when I say, "I can enjoy plot-less romantic sex between characters I care about, and I can enjoy thoroughly unromantic sex between characters I don't much care for if I can see a point to the sex that doesn't totally squick me," that with the characters I care about it's the context that's the important thing while with the characters I don't much care for it's the substance that's the important thing to me.

Never underestimate your readers' imaginations

I would think if it's up to the reader to fill out a story with their imagination then "virtually nameless and faceless" erotica simply leaves the reader lots of space to fill.

[mischief5.livejournal.com]

Part one: Yes, that's it exactly.

Part two: That statement only applies to good writing. As I said, if you have text, subtext, context and substance, you have the basics of good writing. If any of that is lacking, you'll leave your readers dissatisfied and/or bored. Tab A + Slot B = WTF? Lazy writing is lazy writing whether it's "nameless and faceless erotica" or "The DaVinci Code".

[beccadg.livejournal.com]

Part one: Yes, that's it exactly.

Hmm, I wonder then if the "hollowness" of the the sex in the later books is a matter not only of a complete lack of substance, I'd say they have no substance, but also a matter of the context being "damaged." *Ponders.*

That statement only applies to good writing.

My point was that "good writing" is in the eye of the beholder. The professional erotica that doesn't satisfy Ith sells so someone is enjoying it. And, the DaVinci Code, I haven't read it but the fact that it isn't "good writing" to some hasn't kept it from being great writing to others.