Ce sujet est actuellement indiqué comme "en sommeil"—le dernier message date de plus de 90 jours. Vous pouvez le réveiller en postant une réponse.
1markhagner
One of my favorite activities on this web page is to hit a group tag to see what books appear. It has provided me books that I would not have considered or didn't know they exist. Recently I entered in on EROTICA while I agree with some of the books listed but Harry Potter and Twilight books also appeared. Does somone consider these books erotica?
2DianeYu
I think you bring up a good point and to answer your question - They shouldn't!
When I built my library just a few weeks ago, I realized I was tagging most of my erotic romance books as erotica and decided to remedy that mistake for this very reason. Books such as Justine of Good Conduct and The Puppy Papers I left with the erotica tag as well as some of the more "hard core" romance books that might be more appropriately termed "soft porn".
In the romance field (on Amazon at least), if love scenes are explicit, naming body parts with words some people might find offensive, or involve subjects such as m/m, multiple partners or bdsm, most people tag the book as erotica. Right or wrong, I'm not sure.
On LT, it might be nice to have some guidelines to more accurately tag books of this nature for search purposes. But I think it would be difficult to come to a consensus. I love the term Ellora's Cave has coined for explicit romance - "Romantica".
When I built my library just a few weeks ago, I realized I was tagging most of my erotic romance books as erotica and decided to remedy that mistake for this very reason. Books such as Justine of Good Conduct and The Puppy Papers I left with the erotica tag as well as some of the more "hard core" romance books that might be more appropriately termed "soft porn".
In the romance field (on Amazon at least), if love scenes are explicit, naming body parts with words some people might find offensive, or involve subjects such as m/m, multiple partners or bdsm, most people tag the book as erotica. Right or wrong, I'm not sure.
On LT, it might be nice to have some guidelines to more accurately tag books of this nature for search purposes. But I think it would be difficult to come to a consensus. I love the term Ellora's Cave has coined for explicit romance - "Romantica".
3Speedicut
Might be a glitch in the system - Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (?!) supposedly gets tagged as erotica nearly 11,000 times, but only 9600 members even list it ...
btw, I like the Romantica tag. Lots of books are occasionally explicit (or at least rude) without seeming to earn - or deserve, depending on your POV - an erotica label.
btw, I like the Romantica tag. Lots of books are occasionally explicit (or at least rude) without seeming to earn - or deserve, depending on your POV - an erotica label.
4VivalaErin
I like the "Romantica" tag, too. I may just have to start using that one. I have quite a few books that are pretty explicit, but still technically romance - so I cannot label them erotica.
I wish I could understand why anyone would ever tag Twilight or Alice in erotica - that just doesn't make any sense.
Erotica is so hard to define sometimes. Does this group even have a definitive definition?
I wish I could understand why anyone would ever tag Twilight or Alice in erotica - that just doesn't make any sense.
Erotica is so hard to define sometimes. Does this group even have a definitive definition?
5CliffordDorset
>4 VivalaErin:
bibliolee8 got close to the definition she seeks, if you rearrange some of her words. Erotica is surely defined as what makes you hard or starts the juices! Because sexual tastes are individual, this makes the definition so 'soft' and personally variable as to be unsuitable for any philosophical argument, even if a majority of individuals agree that some particular thing qualifies as erotic!
I agree on the categorisation as erotica given by bibliolee8 to her 18 examples - I share 15 of these with her amongst my research materials - although I would guess from her selection that her erotic tastes are relatively mild. I hope such deductions of mine are not felt impertinent, although I can see that allowing sight of such personal data is (regrettably) a bold step for many people, and possibly even a step too far.
My listing doesn't use the 'erotica' tag, but it contains nearly 2000 books that could conceivably be so represented, whether fiction or non-fiction. I find questioning of the meaning of erotica, and the distinction between this and (the currently pejorative term) 'pornography' quite fascinating.
I can only assume that inclusion of J K Boring and Twiglet books is a simple consequence of human error, and this probably applies also to Alice, although stories of a pubescent female chasing a white rabbit does raise some intriguing thoughts about the classifier's psyche ...
bibliolee8 got close to the definition she seeks, if you rearrange some of her words. Erotica is surely defined as what makes you hard or starts the juices! Because sexual tastes are individual, this makes the definition so 'soft' and personally variable as to be unsuitable for any philosophical argument, even if a majority of individuals agree that some particular thing qualifies as erotic!
I agree on the categorisation as erotica given by bibliolee8 to her 18 examples - I share 15 of these with her amongst my research materials - although I would guess from her selection that her erotic tastes are relatively mild. I hope such deductions of mine are not felt impertinent, although I can see that allowing sight of such personal data is (regrettably) a bold step for many people, and possibly even a step too far.
My listing doesn't use the 'erotica' tag, but it contains nearly 2000 books that could conceivably be so represented, whether fiction or non-fiction. I find questioning of the meaning of erotica, and the distinction between this and (the currently pejorative term) 'pornography' quite fascinating.
I can only assume that inclusion of J K Boring and Twiglet books is a simple consequence of human error, and this probably applies also to Alice, although stories of a pubescent female chasing a white rabbit does raise some intriguing thoughts about the classifier's psyche ...
6VivalaErin
I have a hard time tagging many of my books, and I think that has to do with the fact that I really need a strict definition for some things.
Although there are many titles I have that will "get the juices going," so to speak, I simply cannot classify them as erotica when the characters get all mushy and lovey at the end. For me, erotica is best when it's hard - pun very intended.
Clifford, I think your thoughts about a pubescent female chasing that white rabbit could make a most interesting discussion! And, on another note, your research looks incredibly interesting - if you find anythng about my 15th-17th century guys I would love to know about it!
Although there are many titles I have that will "get the juices going," so to speak, I simply cannot classify them as erotica when the characters get all mushy and lovey at the end. For me, erotica is best when it's hard - pun very intended.
Clifford, I think your thoughts about a pubescent female chasing that white rabbit could make a most interesting discussion! And, on another note, your research looks incredibly interesting - if you find anythng about my 15th-17th century guys I would love to know about it!
7bergs47
In his judgement of one of his case the US judge, Potter Stewart, noted that "hard-core pornography" was hard to define, but that "I know it when I see it. This may also apply to erotica. I have a few books of Victorian erotica My Secret Life and it's very easy to see in the 1000 or so pages that it is just that, with no definition necessary. Miller’s Under the Roofs of Paris definitely is but his trilogy isn’t really.
8CliffordDorset
>7 bergs47:
To say 'I know it when I see it' is a vivid sign of a closed mind. It denies the possibility that different folks need different motivations for their 'strokes'!
It has always puzzled me that 'Tropic of Cancer' caused such a stir, when 'Sexus' was (for me at least) much more arousing. And 'Opus Pistorum' for me has all the attributes of a book designed to shock, with very few holds barred. I tend to lump Miller in along with Hemingway as writers ... I find both of them irredeemably 'up themselves'.
To say 'I know it when I see it' is a vivid sign of a closed mind. It denies the possibility that different folks need different motivations for their 'strokes'!
It has always puzzled me that 'Tropic of Cancer' caused such a stir, when 'Sexus' was (for me at least) much more arousing. And 'Opus Pistorum' for me has all the attributes of a book designed to shock, with very few holds barred. I tend to lump Miller in along with Hemingway as writers ... I find both of them irredeemably 'up themselves'.
Devenir membre pour poster.
