Not writing porn

[valarltd]

"Most works of literature have a beginning, middle, and an end. Most works of pornography do not. A typical piece of pornographic fiction will usually have some kind of crude excuse for a beginning, but having once begun, it goes on and on and ends nowhere. This impulse or compulsion to repeat, to repeat endlessly, is one of pornography’s most striking qualities. A pornographic work of fiction characteristically develops by unremitting repetition and minute mechanical variation—the words that may describe the process are again, again, again, and more, more, more. We also observed that although pornography is obsessed with the idea of pleasure, of infinite pleasure, the idea of gratification, of an end to pleasure (pleasure being here an endless experience of retentiveness, without release) cannot develop. If form in art consists in the arousal in the reader of certain expectations and the fulfillment of those expectations, then in this context too pornography is resistant to form and opposed to art. For fulfillment implies completion, gratification, an end; and it is as an end, a conclusion of any kind, that pornography most resists. The ideal pornographic novel, I should repeat, would go on forever."

ATTRIBUTION: Steven Marcus (b. 1928), U.S. critic, educator. “Conclusion: Pornotopia,” The Other Victorians: A Study of Sexuality and Pornography in Mid-Nineteenth-Century England, Basic Books (1966).



I like this structural definition better than the "Treats characters like objects as opposed to people" definition that the Erotica vs Porn panel came up with.

Or:
"She read porn.
You like erotica.
I like love stories with some physical aspects."

Comments

Part 69 of ?

[executrix.livejournal.com]

Sounds like Marcus is in sour-grapes mode about individuals physiologically equipped to have multiple orgasms.

Re: Part 69 of ?

[valarltd.livejournal.com]

I didn't get that at all.
I read it as a condemnation of the "every gasp and moan" style of bad porn, where they do it on the chair, and on the rug, and on the couch, and break the coffee table, then bang along the walls to the bed.

Also as a note on why stories should have ends! That always drove me nuts about all the smut: it didn't end, it just stopped. (Anne Rice was the exception to this, but even she fell victim to the repetitive nature. I mean how many spankings are erotic after the first?)

[manna]

A pornographic work of fiction characteristically develops by unremitting repetition and minute mechanical variation...

That sounds like a pretty good definition of bad, boring porn.

[valarltd.livejournal.com]

Sounds like most of the porn I've read, and that includes Anne Rice's Beauty books.

The thing of slash is there is a story, and the sex fits into the story, just as sex fits into life.

[manna]

The thing of slash is there is a story, and the sex fits into the story, just as sex fits into life.

Although there is a lot of slash out there with in and of itself has zero plot at all. Or had plots which are, as the man said, a mere perfunctory setup for a slash staple like The First Time. PWPs are not generally novel length though, it's true. I'll happily concede that good novel-length porn of any kind would be incredibly difficult to write without *some* kind of plot. But so would good novel-length anything.

So, yes, one of the advantages of fanfic is that even the shortest PWP has a weight of canon behind it to give the story and characters depth. (Random thought -- I wonder if this is why celebrity porn is so popular?).