Dear Ginny,
I'm not quite sure how to interpret your post. If you've read my work before - and I assume you have - then you should know that providing a lot of detail to the actual events - as well, I hope, as providing a lot of corresponding detail to what the characters feel as they are doing it - is, indeed, my "thing." So, if you're suggesting that I'm becoming "bogged down in the minutiae" then, while I appreciate the criticism, that is not how I feel about the writing. I know from feedback that what a lot of readers like about my writing is the detail, so I'm pretty sure this is an approach that has its followers. However, most important is that this is the way I need to write. When I'm doing these stories, I'm not trying to be subtle. I am trying to create a picture in my mind that I see and then describe on the page. That's a big part of the reason for the detail and a big part of why I write.
Having said this, let me attach a few caveats. (I have addressed a lot of this before in other posts, but I'll repeat myself a bit here). First, I really do appreciate the benefits and advantages of much more suggestive and minimalist writing. I sometimes do this myself - after all, it does become tiring to provide excruciating detail all the time, it becomes repetitive, and it is also unnecessary. If you look at most of my stories, there comes a point where I describe what is happening in basic ways, having already provided a lot of detail earlier in the story. Second, there are writers who do this kind of writing to amazing effect. As I've said before, one of my favorite stories on the board is "Homewrecker" by Catharsis. It is a model of minimalism when it comes to the sexfight between its two protagonists. But Catharsis does something really interesting in that story: he/she provides a huge amount of detail up to the point of the actual sex. He provides a clear description of the context of the story, then a really detailed description of the physical battle between the two women, which destroys a house and leads to them being naked, covered in oil, in the backseat of a SUV. This leads, as you might expect, to a sexfight; the sex lacks a lot of details, though enough is provided to tell us what happens. But, by that point, the physical antagonism of the earlier fight has primed the reader for what to expect; it is not necessary to provide detail because the reader's mind can fill in the blanks. More important, who the women are and why they are fighting is crystal clear. In some of Catharsis' other work, he provides a lot more detail and the stories work very well (especially "Marrying Jim") but "Homewrecker" (in my view) works better than any of his other stories and a lot of that has to do with creating an erotic mood that then does not require a payoff with detailed sex. (That being said, I have sometimes considered writing a short addendum to the story that does detail exactly what happens between the women in the 20 minutes at the end of the story).
I think that stories that allow the reader to engage his/her imagination are powerful and I appreciate them. I see my stories, however, as being the culmination of exactly that kind of process, except I am describing to the reader what is happening in that imaginative space. Thus, one of the reasons that I rewrote most of Whistler's stories is because they were great scenarios and highly successful as suggestive depictions of sex. My contribution was to take what was suggested - which took the reader to certain places anyway - and make it a lot more explicit. Any reader could have done this and, arguably, was doing this on first reading of his stories. I just made explicit what I was thinking when I read those suggestive parts.
One other point is that I find that the scenario wherein the characters are fighting is the most important part of any story. The sex itself becomes fairly standard. It is who the characters are, what motivates them, what kind of world they are in, what their relationships are, that make any story interesting and worth reading to get to the point where the actual sexual combat becomes the payoff. A story that is about nothing but sexual combat, without context, is boring and impossible to engage.
In the particular story idea that led to your note, I don't think that simply saying "Inge, Martina, Conchita and Domino engage in a four-way orgy" is going to excite the reader. If I can't figure out how they can do it (i.e., the specific act of all four rubbing their clits together at the same time) then it cannot engage me. Again, this comes back to being able to paint the word picture. It's one thing to be subtle in your writing when the reader has a clear idea of what you are suggesting; it is different when the word picture is muddled. I realize that you seem to be suggesting that just saying the women are having an orgy should be enough to engage the reader's imagination. However, I don't see it that way. Without some level of detail, the writer may be leaving too much to the mind of the reader or require the reader to do too much work. I think that defeats the purpose of this kind of erotic writing.
This is an over-long response to your comment but I hope it makes sense. Thanks for your critique.
JB57
Bookmarks