# Is the difference between smut and literature only wit?



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

[With apologies for the delay in connecting the example to the hypothesis]

Is the difference between smut and literature only wit? Try this on for size:




_Sorry, Andre--linking to erotica is no longer allowed per Forum Decorum. Let me know if you can continue with the discussion without the sample or if you want the thread removed. --Betsy_


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

That's the point, Betsy: The piece I linked isn't pornographic in either the text or the cover, it's humorous; you can discover that for yourself by reading the last handful of paragraphs. I'd be obliged if you would reinstate the link and image that you cut in the post above.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

I'm not Betsy but:

Followed the link. Link went to Smashwords. Smashwords has it classified as 'erotica'. So . . sorry, no link allowed.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Exactly.  Like Ann said, on Smashwords it is classified as erotica.  No links to erotica, per Forum Decorum. However, it's an interesting topic.  If you can discuss it without links, that would be fine.

Betsy


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

I think the difference between *anything* potentially derogatory and literature is really in one's own opinion of it...which may or may not in turn be judged historically by how the masses as a whole have judged it.


----------



## Daniel A. Roberts (Jul 1, 2012)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> I think the difference between *anything* potentially derogatory and literature is really in one's own opinion of it...which may or may not in turn be judged historically by how the masses as a whole have judged it.


Rick, if personal opinions defines what is and isn't literature, derogatory or not, then some twisted psycho could argue the case by loading a highly pornographic story as a Children's Book. BISAC codes aren't as well regulated as most people would hope they are. I even have an issue with general consensus, so it's not personal towards you or any other writer / reader. I feel it's an issue that's worth some careful consideration, as I would gladly champion a process, or some type of evaluation, that would define a work as having literary value or not. There are some novels out there with a 7th grade reading level that some claim are literary works of wonder, which makes me want to cry on the inside, if you know what I mean. ^_^

Not one of my Valinthia novels has any erotic sex in it, or even remotely suggesting any kind of sex, but if I had listed it as Erotica, it wouldn't be permissible on Kindle Boards. I'm not dismissing the Moderators, I respect their rules and I will abide by them, but I would point out that Smashwords doesn't list any story as Erotica. The author/publisher does that by selecting the genre from the BISAC list. So the moderators are forbidding the entire genre, not necessarily the book itself.

Don't go spilling those beans to the Erotica publishers, or we'll be seeing naughty covers pop up as Westerns or Urban Fantasy, arguing it's not erotica, until of course, the content makes our eyes bleed.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Did you have anything to do with the publishing of this story, Andre?


----------



## meh (Apr 18, 2013)

TOS.


----------



## beccaprice (Oct 1, 2011)

I think the difference is whether it has a plot, how much of a plot it has, and what the emotional arc of the characters is.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Daniel A. Roberts said:


> I feel it's an issue that's worth some careful consideration, as I would gladly champion a process, or some type of evaluation, that would define a work as having literary value or not.


I'm open for suggestions. 

The problem there is just about any process that has to do with such classification is subjective in nature.

I personally think a truly objective process would either fail quickly, as there are plenty of stories that would fall outside whatever narrow confines it used, or would need to be so tediously long to account for exceptions as to make sure that nobody used it. Conversely, the problem here is that one could easily make the argument that so called objective criteria completely ignores the "heart" of the story, which many would probably consider of prime importance toward classification as literature


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Exactly. Like Ann said, on Smashwords it is classified as erotica. No links to erotica, per Forum Decorum. However, it's an interesting topic. If you can discuss it without links, that would be fine.
> 
> Betsy


Sure. The management must manage.

But the hypothesis and the sample go hand in hand; they are carefully tailored to limit the discussion to useful particularities rather than vague generalities.

Since your objection is to its classification rather than the content, I'll ask the author to reclassify the story into something more appropriate to its content.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Can someone pm me the title?


----------



## Hudson Owen (May 18, 2012)

Broadly speaking, I think the answer to the question is "yes."  Or, one could say, passion on friendly terms with wit.  After the publication and success of "Lady Chatterley's Lover," men approached Lawrence with sex magazines with pictures of naked women having sex with men.  This disgusted Lawrence, who tried to signal to the men that that sort of thing was not what his writing was about.


----------



## Daniel A. Roberts (Jul 1, 2012)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> I'm open for suggestions.
> 
> The problem there is just about any process that has to do with such classification is subjective in nature.
> 
> I personally think a truly objective process would either fail quickly, as there are plenty of stories that would fall outside whatever narrow confines it used, or would need to be so tediously long to account for exceptions as to make sure that nobody used it. Conversely, the problem here is that one could easily make the argument that so called objective criteria completely ignores the "heart" of the story, which many would probably consider of prime importance toward classification as literature


You're right in that if we build a set of walls that are too narrow, we lose something in the process. If we build walls of definition that are too wide, we only invite another text-ridden landfill. I don't think it's about a list of restrictive rules, but more along the lines of why we put pen to paper since the beginning. It should be about knowledge. Not just educational, mind you.

Literary value, like the term 'respect' should be earned through virtues gained, be they knowledge, wit, humor or even good common sense. The qualifications can be - but not limited to: Does it expand the mind? Conceptual Science versus Physical Science can't thrive without each other, as we need to formulate the concept before proving the theory as a fact. As much as we love the idea of Warp Drive in Science Fiction, it's not real, and thus isn't proven Physical Science. If this was applied to Conceptual Literature versus Physical Literature, the concept is always proposed when the book is written, but the actual, Physical Literature must stand a litmus test.

Expand the Mind. Entertain the Soul. Educate the Prepared. To prepare the unprepared for all three previous requirements.

Conceptual, like theories, work on paper only, but has no growth value to those departments, but focuses on a physical reaction rather than a mental reaction.

Expand the Pants. Entertain the Libedo. Propagandize rather than Educate. No preparation required and promotes unpreparedness.

If we start out along those lines, I think we could come a touch closer to what could be defined as having Literary value. But then again, I'm usually one of the few lone people on such a subject, where wishing in one hand while writing with the other is the only fate I can truly accept. At least for now.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Andre Jute said:


> Since your objection is to its classification rather than the content, I'll ask the author to reclassify the story into something more appropriate to its content.


Well, it's a matter of the rules. Another rule is against promotion outside the Book Bazaar. After reviewing the thread and the book in question again, if a requirement for discussion is that someone has to download the book (and it doesn't look like it's a sample, it looks like the full book being offered), the proper place for this is the Book Bazaar. Whether or not you have a formal connection to the book, Andre, it seems like you do know the author--I see the category has been changed--and it appears promotional to me at this point.

So, your choice--discuss without the link or I can move to the Book Bazaar.

Thanks,

Betsy


----------



## SBJones (Jun 13, 2011)

Literature by itself is undefined.  Smut is a category of literature.  The act of writing, regardless of its content is literature.  Applying a moral filter to a work or group of literature by calling it smut does not eliminate it from being literature.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Often smut, much like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

Daniel A. Roberts said:


> I would gladly champion a process, or some type of evaluation, that would define a work as having literary value or not.


We already have that. They call themselves publishers, and they have given themselves the task of defining literature and deciding what is suitable for readers to read. I'd rather let the individual reader decide what has literary value and what doesn't.

To me, anything can be "literature", but it will likely be a century before that status is determined. "Literature" are works that strike a cord with readers which defines a story in their minds even many years later. It doesn't matter what genre it is, but if someone is talking about it 50 or 100 years from now, then it's a good bet it's considered literary. Think Shakespeare, Dickens and so on.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

> we could come a touch closer to what could be defined as having Literary value


Why do you think _you_ should tell me what has literary value to me? What makes _you_ the judge of whether a work has literary value or not? Who gets to decide who sits on the vaulted throne and says this book has literary value, and this doesn't? Aren't we tired of being told what to read and what not to?


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Well, it's a matter of the rules. Another rule is against promotion outside the Book Bazaar. After reviewing the thread and the book in question again, if a requirement for discussion is that someone has to download the book (and it doesn't look like it's a sample, it looks like the full book being offered), the proper place for this is the Book Bazaar. Whether or not you have a formal connection to the book, Andre, it seems like you do know the author--I see the category has been changed--and it appears promotional to me at this point.
> 
> So, your choice--discuss without the link or I can move to the Book Bazaar.
> 
> ...


Okay, move the thread. Thanks.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

OK, moving now!  Feel free to re-add the link to the first post.

Betsy


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

cinisajoy said:


> Can someone pm me the title?


[With apologies for the delay in connecting the example to the hypothesis]

Is the difference between smut and literature only wit? Try this on for size:


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

This is so perverse (no pun intended!) that it almost serves as a definition of what literature is not:



SBJones said:


> Literature by itself is undefined.


Literature is traditionally defined by taste and morality.

A pernicious modern definition is that literature is writing which defines itself by being capable of being criticized (by academics, not by critics people actually want to read). I call this the Oooh-Aaah Definition of Literature, because it has its head so deep up its fundament that it operates in total darkness.

There are other recognized definitions, of varying utility.

The one thing that literature is not is "undefined". It is not the place for writing which doesn't fit any genre. It is not the place for writing so bad that no-one wants to read it. It is certainly not the place for pornography which has failed all tests of good writing.



SBJones said:


> Smut is a category of literature.


In a mirror world or a negative world, this could be true. But smut is precisely the opposite of good taste and morality, so in the real world it needs something else to be literature. That's what I'm trying to discuss.



SBJones said:


> The act of writing, regardless of its content is literature.


Give enough monkeys enough typewriters and a century or two to bang them, and they will produce a few pages of Shakespeare. That doesn't make the monkeys creators of literature; it makes them a statistical oddity. The ability to operate a keyboard doesn't even make a writer, never mind good writing.

Talent isn't a random statistical outcome, and talent cannot be excepted from literature.



SBJones said:


> The act of writing, regardless of its content is literature.


Mmm. So you're claiming that a self-published writer of pornograhpy on Amazon, Henry Miller, and Fyodor Dostoyevsky, are all equal creators of literature? Pull the other one!



SBJones said:


> Applying a moral filter to a work or group of literature by calling it smut does not eliminate it from being literature.


That depends on what the filter is. If the filter is social (family-centred, religous etc) morality, smut is excluded at the moment the filter is chosen. If the filter is good writing, the Story of O may be included despite being manifestly smut. If the filter is compassion for those in the grip of an obsession possibly even badly written smut may be included, though there could be so many of these claims of caring-sharing pornography that it may on logistical grounds be smarter to exclude them.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

There's a valuable division implied in two words:

_*Erotica*_ rises above mere copulation and has, by fine perception and finer writing, the potential to be included in literature.

_*Pornography*_ is merely repetitive copulation, usually crudely described. But even fine writing cannot elevate it above its base origins. It is not part of literature.

The reaction of D H Lawrence described further up this thread is to those who in their lack of sophistication failed to understand this distinction.

It is a shame that Amazon has permitted the fine word Erotica to be misappropriated by pornographers who're in it only for the money.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Welcome to KBoards, Or Welcome Back  OR Hi, glad you're still here.  Congratulations on the book! 

Much of what follows you should already be aware of, as it was included in the information you agreed to when you signed up. So please consider this to be just a friendly reminder.  (The posting of this 'welcome letter' doesn't mean you've done anything wrong; we just want you to have a ready reference, so we post this note in every thread.  )

KBoards is a Fan forum for Readers, Writers and Kindle Lovers. Authors are always welcome to post anywhere but, as you browse the 'boards, please keep in mind that self-promotion, of any sort, is ONLY allowed here in the Book Bazaar.

A brief recap of our rules follows:

--*Please bookmark this thread (using your browser's bookmark/favorite function or the Kboards bookmark tool available on each thread) so you can update it as we ask that authors have only one thread per book and add to it when there is more information.* You may start a separate thread for each book (or you may have one thread per series of books, or one thread for all of your books, it's your choice).

--We invite you to use your book cover as your avatar and have links to your book and website in your signature. Instructions are posted here

--While you may respond to member posts to your thread at any time, *you may only bump your thread (back-to-back posts by you) once every seven days.* Once you've responded to a member, that resets the clock to zero and you must wait seven days to post, unless another member posts before then.

--We ask that Amazon reviews not be repeated here as they are easy to find at your book link. Also, full reviews from other sites should not be posted here, but you may post a short blurb and a link to the full review instead.

--Although *self-promotion is limited to the Book Bazaar*, our most successful authors have found the best way to promote their books is to be as active throughout KBoards as time allows. This is your target audience--book lovers with Kindles! Please note that putting link information in the body of your posts outside the Book Bazaar constitutes self promotion; please leave your links for your profile signature that will automatically appear on each post. For information on more ways to promote here on KBoards, be sure to check out this thread:
Authors: KBoards Tips & FAQ.

All this, and more, is included in our  Forum Decorum. Be sure to check it from time to time for the current guidelines and rules.

Thanks for being part of KBoards! Feel free to send us a PM if you have any questions.

Betsy & Ann
Book Bazaar Moderators


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

_"A pernicious modern definition is that literature is writing which defines itself by being capable of being criticized (by academics, not by critics people actually want to read)." _

This definition has some merit. If the author has done their job, then the work should stand on it's own. It should hold up to criticism by reviewers and critics. As no work is without flaws, there will be weak spots, room for improvement and so forth.

Still - there has to be something in the work that resonates with the reader, to be called literature.

_"I call this the Oooh-Aaah Definition of Literature, because it has its head so deep up its fundament that it operates in total darkness."_

I agree, there are better definitions, but this is a starting place.

Sadly, I think it is often the author who isn't capable of being criticized. Too many authors are thin-skinned - they loose the opportunity to improve by their very fear of criticism.


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

Daniel A. Roberts said:


> Literary value, like the term 'respect' should be earned through virtues gained, be they knowledge, wit, humor or even good common sense...
> 
> Expand the Mind. Entertain the Soul. Educate the Prepared. To prepare the unprepared for all three previous requirements.


There's nothing common about common sense. It requires a certain detachment and pragmatic outlook that is actively discouraged in our age and culture.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

To a very large degree the appraisal of what is literature and art in general, and what isn't, depends on the times and the culture in which the verdict is given.

There was a time and a culture in which people thought the paintings of Michelangelo on the walls and ceiling of the Sistine Chapel were smut and needed a braghettone. There was a time and a culture — the Victorian age — that thought Shakespeare had smutty scenes that needed bowdlerizing. And they didn't even know half of it.

For the majority, it's rather difficult to rise above the times and the culture one is born in. Let alone that the Czars of Culture tend to have an abject reverence for "how it was done in the past."


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

It's not my book. I didn't write it. I'm just using it as an example. It was placed in the Book Bazaar by a moderator, not by me.



Ann in Arlington said:


> Welcome to KBoards, Or Welcome Back  OR Hi, glad you're still here.  Congratulations on the book!


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

Andrew Ashling said:


> There was a time and a culture in which people thought the paintings of Michelangelo on the walls and ceiling of the Sistine Chapel were smut and needed a braghettone. There was a time and a culture -- the Victorian age -- that thought Shakespeare had smutty scenes that needed bowdlerizing.


Aah! The benefits of an expensive education...

Some Victorians were so prudish, they covered the legs of pianos lest people entertain lascivious thoughts about these "limbs".


----------



## meh (Apr 18, 2013)

TOS.


----------



## Daniel A. Roberts (Jul 1, 2012)

she-la-ti-da said:


> Why do you think _you_ should tell me what has literary value to me? What makes _you_ the judge of whether a work has literary value or not? Who gets to decide who sits on the vaulted throne and says this book has literary value, and this doesn't? Aren't we tired of being told what to read and what not to?


It's obvious you didn't read the full post, or if you did, missed the context. I didn't say anybody should be a judge, least of all me. Nor did I say you or anyone else should be told what to do. Now I could get all offended just to decry your hostility, but I won't go down that path. I will however, hold a candle up to drive the darkness back with the light. I will share, once again, the so-called 'start' of a litmus test that would help define what should be considered Literary value.

Read closely. I don't want you to miss it this time.



> Literary value, like the term 'respect' should be earned through virtues gained, be they knowledge, wit, humor or even good common sense. The qualifications can be - but not limited to: Does it expand the mind? Conceptual Science versus Physical Science can't thrive without each other, as we need to formulate the concept before proving the theory as a fact. As much as we love the idea of Warp Drive in Science Fiction, it's not real, and thus isn't proven Physical Science. If this was applied to Conceptual Literature versus Physical Literature, the concept is always proposed when the book is written, but the actual, Physical Literature must stand a litmus test.
> 
> Expand the Mind. Entertain the Soul. Educate the Prepared. To prepare the unprepared for all three previous requirements.
> 
> ...


So let us visit the point one more time. I feel that any work of writing that expands your mind, entertains the soul, educates the prepared, and if unprepared for any of those three, it gets you prepared, is something with literary value.

So many people focus on the technical term for 'Literary' these days, rather than the heart of the matter. If the book teaches you something worth knowing, especially if the message is so strong it changes who you are as a person, that is something of literary value. If folks want to cheapen the classification, by all means, let them do so. Their loss, and their own downfall. Frugality within ones own mental theater isn't anything to be proud about.

Of course, that may as well be misunderstood as well and land me another hostile response. I suppose anything can happen at Macy's when folks somehow takes a mind boggling step to mistake the place for a Walmart.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

judygoodwin said:


> Define "literature."


Apologies for taking so long to answer you, Judy. I was occupied with correspondence with the moderators in the time I could have discussed something useful. I'll take up your points on hand of your second post.



judygoodwin said:


> This is why I said literature is undefined--because the definition varies by individual, by time period, by culture. So many definitions, in the end it equates to undefined. Or infinite. Your pick.


Literature is easy to define. It is good writing that people want to reread after they know the outcome of the story, and that future generations want to read.

"Good writing" becomes easier to define the longer the timespan available for passing judgement. It is only contentious when those without talent try to define literature as writing without any merits whatsoever, and by their own total lack of merit demand instant inclusion. The amazing thing is that it happens all the time. I can't give you the link directly without running foul of the moderators again, but if you search on Kissing the Blarney, URL in my sig below, for "Virginia Woolf", without the quotation marks, you'll find four related articles which include examples of writers saying precisely that.



judygoodwin said:


> And this is why I asked for YOUR definition, which you have given. If your definition is good writing, I know quite a few erotica shorts and novels that could be considered literature. Humor and wit would not be required. Then again, if wit is needed to fit your definition of literature, then sure; if it has wit, it's literature. I guess that takes out works like The Red Badge of Courage or E. M. Forrester, but that's no great loss.


I wouldn't call wit either a necessary or sufficient qualification for literature. I put wit in the headline of this thread because I had a sample where what some may consider smut was turned by wit into something else. I really had in mind discussing only that small subject, and perhaps other elements anyone wanted to specify that would turn otherwise distasteful material into art.

It is perfectly obvious to me, to name just one example, that, quite contrary to what Hudson claims above, passion in the form most often seen in pornography, obsession, by definition doesn't include wit. But that doesn't stop a study of obsession from being literature if other elements are favorable.



judygoodwin said:


> Actually I think wit works for most books I consider literature. So that's as good a definition as any.


Yes, I do too, though I realize there are exceptions. If a book isn't written with wit, if the language is dull, I won't read beyond a few paragraphs.

Witty writing is a good indication of a writer who will offer plots and subplots and twists and turns, and the sort of characters, including his baddies, that sophisticated readers (and they're the ones who in the end will determine what is literature and what is not) can relate to.

TO BRING THIS DISCUSSION BACK TO THE MORE LIMITED PRECINCTS OF SMUT

The question is, could erotica be literature?

In the light of this definition I gave above, I don't see why not:


Andre Jute said:


> There's a valuable division implied in two words:
> 
> _*Erotica*_ rises above mere copulation and has, by fine perception and finer writing, the potential to be included in literature.
> 
> ...


----------



## meh (Apr 18, 2013)

TOS.


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

I've been kicking this question around in my own mind since this topic first came up.

I have the answer! The quantifiable answer is: Reading Grade level.

A book that tests grade 6 or under is smut.  If it tests grade 7 to 10 it is erotica. If it tests over grade 10 it is literature.



You're welcome!


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

K. A. Jordan said:


> The quantifiable answer is: Reading Grade level.
> 
> A book that tests grade 6 or under is smut. If it tests grade 7 to 10 it is erotica. If it tests over grade 10 it is literature.


You're so sharp, Kat!


----------

