![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
itsallovernowThe beautiful and fabulous ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
haphazardmethod had a dream that I was dancing around a bookstore, ecstatic that my favorite porn novelist's new work had come out.
This makes me giggle for a variety of reasons. Also, it's weirdly appropriate because I've been on a hunt to find published porn that's as good as the kind of ficcy porn I can find online. And I have to say that the online community is winning. Now, obviously there are advantages to porn in fic because the characters are established, the scene set, and all of the buttons are set up, ready to be pushed.
However, there are many, many things I dislike about the conventions of romance novels that may be influencing my preferences here (and I dislike these same conventions when they show up in fic). Be forewarned, this entry contains many, many expletives, including a repeated use of the word fuck.
1. The experienced - and frighteningly virile - older man and the virgin. Real life, a 35 year old boinking a 17 year old is a lot closer to statuatory rape then the sexy. And it catches me up, pisses me off.
2. See above, and then add the required scene where the heroine loses her virginity. It's either far too fabulous, or far too clean, or just a weird mix of things in the middle. I'd think that for the heroines of novels set in a time without washing machines, that blood on the sheets would be a little mortifying, a little bit frustrating, because dude, who has to wash those things?
3. Being saved. God help me from this one - hero or heroine needing to be redeemed through sex, through unexpected love. It could be good, could be compelling, and often, it's just stupid. The heroines end up needing to go all vulnerable and squooshy, relying on this new man to make them womanly, to show them that they have feelings, or to protect them from the evil Snively Whiplash in their lives. Or he hero, damaged by another woman, being redeemed by the virginal - yet really, really good in bed - heroine who teaches him to wuv again.
4. Dumb writing. Not bad writing, but dumb writing. I've also seen this mentioned before (most recently, I think, on Sara Donati's blog), but throbbing member sounds like a disease, not a dick. And portal of womanhood. Call them what they are, or don't call them anything if you can't bear to break the flow of the prose to say cock or cunt. Again, conventions not withstanding, just using the word sex. It's far less distracting.
5. And to counter those words. To those novelists who consider themselves a little edgier, particularly Thea Devine, whose book I was suckered into buying this weekend because the cover had a picture of a peach that was really a very nicely shaped ass. Bite me. Just because you're not afraid to call it fucking instead of using a euphamism does not mean you're describing good sex, that you're writing with an eye to the erotic, to turning on your reader. Because the idea of this rock hard man being repeatedly mounted - and getting it up every time - just makes me laugh. You fooled me initially by the diction, and shame on me for not reading more than a few sentences.
6. The softness of the heroines. They just don't ever seem capable of finding their ass with both hands, let alone surviving on their own for more than 30 seconds. And they cry. A lot. See earlier posts on crying. There's no crying in baseball, there should be no crying in porn.
7. If you're going to use the word pussy - and I say this to the writers of "erotica" as Romance Novelists rarely use it - be sure it isn't going to make me laugh. Or wince. Whenrubberneck uses the word pussy in porn, I buy it. But then, she's an extraordinary writer and can do things with diction and alliteration that very few people can. "Parsing her first taste of pussy" will always be one of my favorite lines, and one of the best uses ever of that word.
I need to think about how to articulate the other conventions that bug me. So, there'll be a Part II. Now, keep in mind that there are fabulous writers out there who fall into the Romance genre. Jennifer Crusie writes damn good novels, and the heroines have sex that's funny and real and hot. Bertrice Small writes good sex, and often has compelling heroines, but I have to wade through 500 pages of historical detail to get to those places. I should be more, um, interested in the storyline, but as she tends to use the same storyline repeatedly, I am justifiable impatient. I've read two of Judith Ivory's books that I liked, and one that bored me, and I have to say that she's one of the few historical romance writers that has made me want to actually read the book all the way through. I like Amanda Quick's writing, and I like that her heroines are interesting, usually a little spinsterish, a little daring. But again, she tends to recycle her plots, leaving me looking for something new.
And all of this makes it sound like I read far more Romance than I do. And also, neglects to metion the book I bought by someone, Susan Johnson? maybe, that I decided to take back to the bookstore and get a refund because it sucked so completely and was sold in a trade paperback!
haphazardmethod had a dream that I was dancing around a bookstore, ecstatic that my favorite porn novelist's new work had come out.This makes me giggle for a variety of reasons. Also, it's weirdly appropriate because I've been on a hunt to find published porn that's as good as the kind of ficcy porn I can find online. And I have to say that the online community is winning. Now, obviously there are advantages to porn in fic because the characters are established, the scene set, and all of the buttons are set up, ready to be pushed.
However, there are many, many things I dislike about the conventions of romance novels that may be influencing my preferences here (and I dislike these same conventions when they show up in fic). Be forewarned, this entry contains many, many expletives, including a repeated use of the word fuck.
1. The experienced - and frighteningly virile - older man and the virgin. Real life, a 35 year old boinking a 17 year old is a lot closer to statuatory rape then the sexy. And it catches me up, pisses me off.
2. See above, and then add the required scene where the heroine loses her virginity. It's either far too fabulous, or far too clean, or just a weird mix of things in the middle. I'd think that for the heroines of novels set in a time without washing machines, that blood on the sheets would be a little mortifying, a little bit frustrating, because dude, who has to wash those things?
3. Being saved. God help me from this one - hero or heroine needing to be redeemed through sex, through unexpected love. It could be good, could be compelling, and often, it's just stupid. The heroines end up needing to go all vulnerable and squooshy, relying on this new man to make them womanly, to show them that they have feelings, or to protect them from the evil Snively Whiplash in their lives. Or he hero, damaged by another woman, being redeemed by the virginal - yet really, really good in bed - heroine who teaches him to wuv again.
4. Dumb writing. Not bad writing, but dumb writing. I've also seen this mentioned before (most recently, I think, on Sara Donati's blog), but throbbing member sounds like a disease, not a dick. And portal of womanhood. Call them what they are, or don't call them anything if you can't bear to break the flow of the prose to say cock or cunt. Again, conventions not withstanding, just using the word sex. It's far less distracting.
5. And to counter those words. To those novelists who consider themselves a little edgier, particularly Thea Devine, whose book I was suckered into buying this weekend because the cover had a picture of a peach that was really a very nicely shaped ass. Bite me. Just because you're not afraid to call it fucking instead of using a euphamism does not mean you're describing good sex, that you're writing with an eye to the erotic, to turning on your reader. Because the idea of this rock hard man being repeatedly mounted - and getting it up every time - just makes me laugh. You fooled me initially by the diction, and shame on me for not reading more than a few sentences.
6. The softness of the heroines. They just don't ever seem capable of finding their ass with both hands, let alone surviving on their own for more than 30 seconds. And they cry. A lot. See earlier posts on crying. There's no crying in baseball, there should be no crying in porn.
7. If you're going to use the word pussy - and I say this to the writers of "erotica" as Romance Novelists rarely use it - be sure it isn't going to make me laugh. Or wince. When
rubberneck uses the word pussy in porn, I buy it. But then, she's an extraordinary writer and can do things with diction and alliteration that very few people can. "Parsing her first taste of pussy" will always be one of my favorite lines, and one of the best uses ever of that word.I need to think about how to articulate the other conventions that bug me. So, there'll be a Part II. Now, keep in mind that there are fabulous writers out there who fall into the Romance genre. Jennifer Crusie writes damn good novels, and the heroines have sex that's funny and real and hot. Bertrice Small writes good sex, and often has compelling heroines, but I have to wade through 500 pages of historical detail to get to those places. I should be more, um, interested in the storyline, but as she tends to use the same storyline repeatedly, I am justifiable impatient. I've read two of Judith Ivory's books that I liked, and one that bored me, and I have to say that she's one of the few historical romance writers that has made me want to actually read the book all the way through. I like Amanda Quick's writing, and I like that her heroines are interesting, usually a little spinsterish, a little daring. But again, she tends to recycle her plots, leaving me looking for something new.
And all of this makes it sound like I read far more Romance than I do. And also, neglects to metion the book I bought by someone, Susan Johnson? maybe, that I decided to take back to the bookstore and get a refund because it sucked so completely and was sold in a trade paperback!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-12-13 09:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-13 09:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-13 09:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-13 10:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-13 10:02 pm (UTC)Sometimes I can slip my brain into neutral and coast through any porn scene. Other times I have to wonder about males with no worries about premature ejaculation or flagging erections. (Who are these creatures in the text? My sympathies for real men, here.) And no woman ever shifts and makes the guy go, "Ouch! Ease up there."
Last thought: I'm always stunned at how agile folks in text can be with their lower legs and ankles hampered by clothing. Kick. The Pants. Off.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-13 10:05 pm (UTC)Funny, I was talking to ELL this weekend about how amazed I was by romance writers' ability not to get tired of their own tropes. There was also some discussion about calling an erect penis a cock and how the words "garden of her feminity" should probably be banned in that combination from the English language.
Thea Devine is scary and Susan Johnson once named a character "Sinjin St. John." Anyone who doesn't understand why that's wrong (if hysterical) shouldn't be reading, let alone writing romances set in the Regency. My fav Regency writer at the moment is Eloisa James. She does a fairly good job of quasi-realistic (at least, y'know, people get tired) sex and historical detail.
Mostly, online is hands down over published. BTW, ask ELL about Angel-sex in Sharon Shinn's novels, she was talking about being thisclose to wanting to write fanfic and I want to push her over the edge. 8D
no subject
Date: 2004-12-13 10:08 pm (UTC)I've yet to read her? Is this something I should rectify?
And dude, exactly!! I go into the books wanting to enjoy the porn, wanting to like the characters and be pleased that they're getting lucky, but sometimes, argh. I'm all for the fantasy element, it's not that so much as the stereotypes and conventions that go along with those fantasies.
And hee - the pants!! All of those clothes were complicated, and just take the time to get 'em off:) All clothes are complicated:) If I read porn with the pants around the ankles, I want the ramifications, the struggling and lurching and the fleeting "this was a really bad idea" thoughts!
no subject
Date: 2004-12-13 10:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-13 10:12 pm (UTC)And Eloisa James, huh? Okay. I'll try her. And Angel- sex as in Angel the vampire, or as in angels with flappy wings?
no subject
Date: 2004-12-13 10:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-13 10:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-13 10:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-13 10:18 pm (UTC)Why can't someone come up with a christmas show that's different? Although I heard the Virgina ballet did a Nascar ballet (seriously) and it was the funniest thing ever.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-13 10:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-13 10:21 pm (UTC)We're supposed to do Cinderella next year, at least, but there's not a lot for the corps to do in that. The other choice was Swan Lake, but oy, the part for the corps is wretched!!
no subject
Date: 2004-12-13 10:30 pm (UTC)P.S. -- Should I just give you a call Wednesday when I finally find my way to my hotel?
no subject
Date: 2004-12-13 10:40 pm (UTC)Yep, absolutely! I'll e-mail you my cell number!
no subject
Date: 2004-12-13 10:45 pm (UTC)Try to survive the rest of the run and merde.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-13 10:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-13 10:47 pm (UTC)The underlying theme in many, in the end, cracks me up:
"Boy and girl meet; they piss each other off or cannot be togther for some major reason; they get the serious electric hots for each other; then put off doing the deed as long as poss; DO IT; have an awful misunderstanding and split up; get back togther forever with a cherry on top."
Alot of it I don't mind, it's the set up, it's the trade off, and it gets me my serotonin filled happy ending but a couple of things do grate:
1. "cannot be together for some major reason"
Half the time this reason is so contrived that the fact it's purely a plot point screams from the room tops and wants you to tell 'em to get over it already. You know why it's there, and it doesn't convince you at all. In fact you're waiting on the exposition before you finish the first chapter.
2.When the language does dance about a bit.
Call it a cock or a dick and I'm happy. It doesn't happen THAT often, and so I get ridiculously appreciative when it does. Call it a throbbing member and I think of Thea. No, really! I think you mentioned it a while back in this same context and every time I read it I think "What? Really throbbing? As in pulsating? Gee, I gotta see me one of those, does it glow as well??" And the word penis just makes me laugh, sorry.
I'm totally with you on point number 7. And I wish there was a good decent word I could work with as a euphamism for female genetalia, but apart from the general *sex* term, I've yet to find one that doesn't trip me up and make me stub my brain. The word pussy makes no sense to me at all, and the *c* word my psyche processes as a curse word.
By the way, I used to read these books back when I was in my teens. Then started reading again a few years ago. And may I say, BOY have they changed in terms of sexual content. Before, the literary equivelant of crashing waves or a sunset used to happen. Now every one of these books that I have snacked on has relatively graphic sex. I'm hardly objecting (although I sometimes wonder if any old grannies have been shocked!) but does it illustrate how times change.(Unless I was reading the wrong books back then...or the right ones when you think of the age I was!)
no subject
Date: 2004-12-13 10:52 pm (UTC)::nudge:: Her sex scenes are supposed to be the hawtness. Maybe the library has a copy of one of her books?
Oh, just go ahead and trust me. (Since you're on the other side of the country.)
no subject
Date: 2004-12-13 10:56 pm (UTC)They are fun books, although much on the fluffy side -- nicely thought-out world, good characters, angst! passion! woe! followed by happy endings.
sometimes I need this. ;)
no subject
Date: 2004-12-13 11:11 pm (UTC)I'd have a hell of a time getting past the angels though:) Of course, people have said the same thing about Muppets.
And I've been ordered to poke you into succumbing to the lure of writing fic. An order I'm very, very happy to follow:) Even if the results do involve Angels:)
no subject
Date: 2004-12-13 11:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-13 11:20 pm (UTC)I didn't much read the Regencies or the Harlequin's, though, so I don't feel like the sex has gotten more graphic or more risque (or maybe I'm not reading the right novels:)
I've yet to find one that doesn't trip me up and make me stub my brain. The word pussy makes no sense to me at all, and the *c* word my psyche processes as a curse word.
It's a tough one, although, I do feel like coopting both of those words has been rewarding for me personally as a writer. It was liberating to use cunt in the sexual sense, to reread the passage and feel the impact of the word. But, no, it's not a given, and vagina is worse than penis in terms of something you want to write down in an erotic setting:) The only appropriate place for that word is in the Gyno's office and in sex ed:)