Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!sunic!uunet!ddsw1!chinet!jorn
From: jorn@chinet.chi.il.us (Jorn Barger)
Subject: Re: Foreplay?
Message-ID: <C4B8q7.Hrv@chinet.chi.il.us>
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
References: <1993Mar22.163734.10167@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> <C4B15q.C81@chinet.chi.il.us>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1993 21:51:42 GMT
Lines: 53

David Whitten writes:
> Romance novels always have a ellipsis at an appropriate part in the 
story.

Whoa, reality-check!  The following was recommended to me as among the 
better-written popular romances, definitely not extraordinarily graphic 
("This Calder Sky" by Janet Dailey, 1981, Pocket Books, *book club 
edition* pp36-37):

**filthy smut alert*** ;^)
[how do you do that control-L thing in emacs?]
















"Wedging her legs apart with his knee, he slid himself between them, 
priming her again with his hand before attempting entry. ...With slow, 
steady strokes, he carved out the opening."  (whew! sorry... ;^)

Where any given author chooses to cut to the ellipses is that author's 
choice.  I don't want to keep the focus here unduly, especially in the 
open forum of r.a.i-f, but I think the 'toolkit' needs that, uh... tool. 
;^)

> What I want to see is some way of having actors in a story that are 
essential
> to the reading of the story. Most adventures that I have seen could have
> been written just as well with automated teller machines that spit out a
> clue when you walked up and 'pushed' the right buttons.
> 
> It seems to me that an interactive romantic novel MUST address the issues
> of actors more than any other type of interactive fiction.

Yes!  But how one behaves during seduction is perfectly important *actor-
psychology*, central to romance IF.  It's fine with me if the group-
project agrees to put our ellipses before any genitalia come into it, but 
surely kiss-ear is permitted, necessary, desirable?


(DW-- i sent you email that bounced, will try again)

