Bad Hobbit's Erotic Writing 101

The problems often start when the narrator or protagonist describes actions or memories that had been completed BEFORE the events being described. These will usually be in the PLUPERFECT tense, which describes an action that had been completed BEFORE the events currently being described were happening. So the PERFECT would be "The Germans bombed the city of Coventry", whereas the PLUPERFECT would be "The Germans had bombed the city of Coventry the night before" -- an action completed before the events currently being described. A lot of people get this wrong, simply describing everything in one of the past tenses, even when their characters are reporting (in the past) something they remember from further in the past.

The narrator may be remembering something that occurred before the events he or she is describing, such as: "He had been walking along the road and had stopped by the baker's shop." (Note: a single baker. If there were more than one baker, it would be "the bakers' shop"). However, reported dialog happening at the time will mostly be in the PRESENT tense, & may include people talking about the FUTURE. So we might have:

"Hi. Are you enjoying your walk?" I had asked.

(NOTE 'had asked', because it's an action that was in the past at the time the narrator is remembering it.)

"Yes. I'm heading up to the Post Office. I'm going to post a letter," he'd replied.

At the time -- which is in the past -- the walker is planning to do something in their future. As this is being remembered by the narrator, the letter will probably, by now, have been posted and delivered. But the narrator, who is talking from some time in the past, is remembering this exchange as having happened before the events being described. Yeah, it's complex. Welcome to English.

The occasional lapse here is excusable, but please, please don't pepper your past tense passages with lapses into the present tense. This gets very, very irritating, and destroys any sense of time. If your character is saying or thinking something at a time in the past, put it in quotes.

They locked me in the room. I heard the key turn in the lock. Why am I here? What have I done to deserve this? If only I'd put all of that present-tense stuff in quotes, then perhaps they wouldn't be treating me this way.

Alternatively:

They locked me in the room. I heard the key turn in the lock. 'Why am I here? What have I done to deserve this?' I thought. If only I'd put all of that present-tense stuff in quotes, then perhaps they wouldn't have been treating me this way.

That last bit doesn't have to be in quotes, as it's not thoughts or dialog.

I hope this is now clear -- or, at least, clearer.

Repeated Words

These come in two kinds:

• Basic typos where someone has had a mental aberration (it happens to all of us) and simply types the same word twice, or gets an edit wrong, leaving a duplicate word behind. "I come across these errors errors all the time". "I will will get my contractions right eventually." Or sometimes "I'll will get my contractions right eventually," when you don't quite fix something with an edit. A good spell-checker (Word's is fairly good at this) will spot most of these for you, but a proper read-through should also pick them up.
• Words or phrases that recur in the same or adjacent sentences. These are harder to spot, but those read-throughs are essential to pick them up. (Note that I've deliberately used 'pick them up' twice in close proximity to illustrate the point). Take a look at this:

"...again wondered why I was here. Following Sister Clare out of the bedroom, we went back down the stairs, then along the hallway, but in the opposite direction to before. From here, we went through a larger brown door into another big room. To my surprise, there were lots of girls in here, as well as more grey and white Sisters, who were already sat around long tables, eating their meal. It seemed bright in here..."

I don't know about you, but the regular repetition of 'here' or 'in here' becomes jarring. With a paragraph like this, you need to go through, finding different ways of saying similar things -- or simply removing the unnecessary repetition. So it could be:

"...again wondered why I was here. Following Sister Clare, we went back down the stairs, along the hallway in the opposite direction, then through a larger brown door into another big room. To my surprise, there were many girls, as well as more grey-and-white Sisters, already sat around long tables, eating their meal. It seemed brighter here..."

OK, so I cheated a little and removed not just the excess 'heres', but also a lot of other superfluous words. (I also hyphenated 'grey-and-white Sisters', as without the hyphens it could have a different meaning). Hopefully, you can see how to both get rid of annoying repetition and also tighten the narrative. A little later I'll touch on self-editing, which is not a crime against nature but an essential tool to improve the pace and flow of your work.

'Person' and 'Point of View'

I mentioned first-person and third-person points-of-view (PoV) earlier. First-person means that everything is described from the perspective of the person narrating:

I was hurrying to catch the bus when I saw Mr. Reynolds, riding a water-buffalo. 'Hello', I said. 'Why are you riding a water-buffalo?'

'Because it's quicker than walking,' he replied.

Third-person narrative usually adopts the 'eye of God' perspective, looking down on and reporting the action:

As the young major drove away, Frances could only fume. She summoned her housekeeper -- the one remaining member of her household staff -- and told her to make up the smallest bedroom for their visitor. She was damned if she would show any real hospitality to some crusty old colonel -- an American one at that -- who had been foisted on her.

Now the interesting thing about third-person narrative is that, whilst observing 'external' events, it often tells us what one of the characters -- the main protagonist -- is thinking or feeling. (Hence the 'eye of God', or 'drone that can read minds' reference). More on this later.

Some people try to get either clever (like Salman Rushdie) or sloppy (like several people for whom I've edited) and use second person. For example:

You arrive outside your house. It's dark, but you notice what seems to be a flashlight beam crossing the window. You get out and hurry to your front door. When you open it, you see Bad Hobbit, waiting inside. He asks you "Why the fuck are you writing like this? It sounds horrible and forces you into some very difficult writing corners."

This sounds to me like kids playing a make-believe game. Try writing a 20-page story like this and see just how much it sucks. You could make it work, but I really wouldn't want to be the editor trying to sort it out when you'd finished. One of my examples near the start shows how this turns out at the hands of someone who doesn't know what they're doing. Don't do it. Just -- just don't.

So let's assume you stick with convention and go with either first- or third-person PoV, in past tense. Now, an important convention is to retain that PoV. Everything should be described through the eyes of the main protagonist, in either form of narrative. In the first-person example above, if you then go on to say. "Mr. Reynolds felt quite uncomfortable on the back of the buffalo, and he could smell the animal quite strongly," I would quite reasonably ask "how do you know?" In first-person stories, everything should be described as observed by the person narrating it. You can say "It seemed to me that Mr. Reynolds felt quite uncomfortable... His nose was wrinkled, as if the smell of the animal was unpleasant," because this is how the narrator observes it. I've seen stories in which the narrator suddenly tells me how his girlfriend, or the dog, feels about something. As always, my response is "how do you know?" Don't do it. Maintain a consistent PoV.

With third-person narrative, it's still important to maintain consistency of PoV, and very poor practice to change it in the middle of a chapter. Even if it's the 'eye of God' describing what Laura is thinking as she's talking to Angelo, cutting to what Angelo is thinking in the same scene is clunky and amateurish. If you want to change PoV, do it in different chapters, or at least stick a line of asterisks across the page so you can show the reader the deliberate change. In 'Success' by Martin Amis, he tells the same story from the points of view of two stepbrothers, who describe the same events in very different ways. It's a device that works (very well) because he clearly signals the change of PoV in alternate chapters, and both descriptions are in first-person. In Sebastian Faulkes's 'Birdsong', he describes how multiple characters, in several different periods, interact with the story. But each chapter or section has a principal character whose thoughts and actions are described, and any other characters' thoughts or motivations are inferred by the main protagonist in each section.

It's much harder when you have a lot of characters, especially if there are scenes that don't include your main, focal, protagonist. In 'The Lord of the Rings', Tolkien gives himself quite a task, as he has a cast of thousands, and at least twenty main characters. The PoV is almost always that of the hobbits, whenever they're in the scene. He tries to keep the character of Aragorn aloof and 'kingly', so he's typically only observed by others -- again, usually the hobbits. Then, when the Fellowship is broken, and the hobbits disappear in opposite directions, Tolkien is forced to tell us what the trio of Aragorn, Legolas & Gimli are doing, so he selects Aragorn's PoV. This makes Aragorn more human, and undermines the 'aura' around this mysterious and noble character, which has its advantages and disadvantages. If it were me, I'd have told it from Gimli's PoV and kept the air of mystery around Aragorn that's present in the rest of the book.

But if you're writing a short story -- or even a novel -- with just two or three main characters, ensure that you describe everything as observed by one main protagonist, regardless of whether you're using first- or third-person. If Angelo is sad, then Laura should observe (in first person) that he looks or seems sad. If it's in third person, you could say "Laura looked at Angelo. She'd never seen him look so unhappy." But if you report that "Angelo felt heartbroken that Laura was going away," I, and your readers, will ask "How do you know?" So make sure you retain that single PoV by looking at things only through the eyes of the main protagonist, whether you're using first- or third-person narrative.

Anachronisms and local expressions

Make sure that the language of your story matches its period and place. If it's set in the 1950s, don't have your characters saying "no way!" Expressions like "24/7", "knee-jerk reaction", "thinking outside the box", "sussed", "and stuff", "made up" (as in "pleased"), "gay" (to mean homosexual), "awesome" and "whatever" (to mean 'I don't care'), "bottled it" (as in chickened-out of something) have all appeared in the last 50 years, and most in the last 10-20, so don't use them, even in narrative, if your story is set earlier. Expressions such as "okay/OK", "I'd have to answer that with a no", "figure out", etc, have no place in most historical fiction, unless it's very recent history. Conversely, using 'for' to mean 'because' or 'as' is archaic, and you won't find it much used in 20^th or 21^st Century contemporary literature.

Slang expressions and general usage also change a lot over time. If you're striving for authenticity, try to research and keep to the vernacular -- the everyday speech -- used at the time of the story. "Fuck" seems to be the one universal expletive today. It's used in almost every story, movie and on TV. (I'm surprised that there isn't a children's book called "Where's my fucking cow?") The standard American derogatory expression seems to be 'asshole', and to a large extent, these words have crept across the Atlantic and now pepper even French and German conversation -- in their English form. However, people swore much less in the past than they do today, and the swear words tended to be 'softer' and more colorful. In the UK even twenty or thirty years ago, words like bugger, sod, git, ponce and, of course, bloody and bleeding were in much more common usage. For those who didn't want to say something considered obscene, 'blimey', 'flipping' and 'damned' were used a lot.

If you're American and trying to write something based outside your native land or involving non-Americans, please be aware that English-speaking people outside the USA -- even as close as Canada -- don't always use American words or expressions. It may surprise you to know that there are many more non-American English speakers globally than those who use American spellings, expressions and slang. (My essay 'Local is as Local Does' offers further insights on this topic). Most Brits will know, from countless American TV and cinema imports, that American usage is quite different from British usage.

Sometimes the same word can mean two very different things, depending on which side of the Atlantic (or even Pacific) you're on. Words like 'fag' and 'fanny' can be hilariously misused, and in the UK, we're more likely to say 'bum' than 'butt'. Brits would say that something obviously wrong or untrue -- eg Trump suggesting injecting disinfectant -- was 'bollocks' rather than 'bullshit'. Brits know the American words associated with cars, but maybe Americans are less familiar with words like bumper, boot, bonnet, gear lever, tyre (with a 'y'), car park, petrol and windscreen. I often have trouble with simple expressions like '(a)round the block' and 'different from/to/than'. It's always a good idea to have the story edited by someone who is familiar with the place -- and time -- of your story before you try to publish. (Difficult if it's set in Mediaeval France). If I write something set in the US, I try to get it looked over by some friendly, capable American-based writers (typically good writers for whom I've edited) before I put it onto Literotica; it's saved me from several silly and embarrassing errors.

It's also important to be aware of things that have happened in society and to the story's setting since the time when it was set. Someone in Georgian London wouldn't look up at 'Big Ben', as the structure containing the bell called Big Ben -- the Elizabeth Tower, as it's currently called -- wasn't constructed until 1859. Most Victorians would never have crossed Tower Bridge, as it wasn't completed until 1894, and people in San Francisco couldn't have crossed the Golden Gate Bridge before 1937. Don't have someone watching "Gone With the Wind" before 1939, or a 'talkie' before 1927, discussing Darwin or natural selection before 1860 or black holes much before 1960. I saw a TV drama on the BBC, set in the early 1960s, in which a character said to another "I saw you coming out of Embankment station". He couldn't have done; up until September 1976, it was called Charing Cross, and only became Embankment when the merged Strand and Trafalgar Square stations were renamed Charing Cross. Cellphones only really started to become ubiquitous during the mid-1990s (though they were beginning to be used in business from around 1990 in the UK). Universal air travel probably began in the 1960s in Europe -- before then, only a wealthy elite could afford it. Many everyday diseases could prove fatal before WWII and the advent of antibiotics. (This is particularly true of sexually-transmitted infections and tuberculosis -- or consumption, as it used to be known).

Writing sex scenes

OK, now we get to the fun part! (Except, very often, we don't).

Sex scenes are not easy to write. They can be really hot and exciting, or they can clunk like a pebble in a hubcap. I've written sex scenes in over 50 short stories or chapters of longer pieces that have so far found their way onto Literotica, and probably in another 50 that are in various stages of development. Almost all of these have at least one sex scene -- often three or four -- and it can be tough to write something that many times and make it fresh and non-repetitive. There are only so many times a guy can stick his cock into a maximum of three holes in a woman, and only so many times he can lick a pussy or suck a nipple, before repetition creeps in.

Repeating yourself isn't the only trap. The vocabulary is also finite, so by the time you've used cock/dick/penis and pussy/cunt/vagina a few times, you really have run out of options. Of course, you could start using metaphors and euphemisms, BUT BEWARE: if you start to get too colorful, you're in very real danger of lurching into 'Purple Prose'. For example:

With legs spread, the Queen's surprisingly-light weight settled onto his hips. The rigid length of Logan's desire lay between their bodies. A roll of her hips kissed his length with the first touch of her sex, warm and wet.

Or:

I withdrew my finger inducing a whimper from my needy muse, and bringing it to my mouth, relished the musky nectar

I don't know about you, but 'the rigid length of Logan's desire' doesn't do much for me, and it may not have done much for the Queen. I'm not sure about 'musky nectar' either. Purple Prose occurred a lot in semi-erotic fiction a few decades ago when words like 'fuck', 'cock' and 'pussy' were frowned upon by publishers. Yes, you can use metaphors and euphemisms for these words, but do so extremely sparingly, or they'll become unintentionally funny. Phrases like "I was balls-deep inside her" avoids both the need to use words like cock and pussy, which you've probably used a lot already, and stops you lurching into horrible things like "my stalk was deeply embedded in her honeypot", which kinda make me gag.

The other problem I've found with a number of authors is that, as they get into a sex scene, their sentences get shorter. And shorter. Sometimes only four words. Often only three. And no verb. They read. Jerkily. As if. The protagonists are. Short of. Breath. Sure, shorter, punchy sentences can improve the pace but, in many cases, the author doesn't really understand how to do this, so the effect can be unintentionally comic. Just try to keep the text flowing. Once you develop a real competence and feel for the way you describe something, then you can start playing with sentence length to get a particular effect. Frankly, with around 100 stories or long chapters under my belt, I still don't think I can always do this reliably.

Next -- realism. OK, I get that this is Literotica, so we're not going for a Nobel Prize for Literature here, but I try to keep my stories within the bounds of possibility. Yes, you can push those bounds if you're going for science fiction or erotic horror; there are some superbly wacky ideas that the brilliant Hollis Chester uses in his "Captain Terdy's First Week", which is still one of my favorite stories on Literotica. (Not only is the story inventive, fun and in places very funny, but the illustrations are some of the hottest I've seen on here, and he still keeps it believable). However, if your story is set in (say) present-day America, please try to be aware of the limits of the human body, male and female. If your hero has a 14-inch cock, don't have him spit on it and then ram it up a girl's ass; she's more likely to have a prolapse or a ruptured bowel than an orgasm. Don't have someone repeatedly have a long and complicated texting dialog while they're fucking -- I have actually seen this in a 'story' I was sent. (Try it, guys. I'm sure it's fun, though your partner may get a little pissed and you could struggle to keep your erection). Sure, guys can come several times in a night, but rarely more than three or four and then only if they're young and/or have taken the appropriate drugs, and they usually need at least a short break between. Women usually only lactate for a period after they've given birth, and bearing a child will stretch a girl out of shape in a number of ways. Teenage girls with huge tits and an insatiable lust for hung older men are everywhere -- at least in stories on Literotica. I've not found too many myself in real life, but I do keep looking.