I just got a thoughtful letter from one of the better-known erotic
webzines (okay, actually, I got a totally unhelpful letter, and then,
when I raised a fuss, a much more useful one) rejecting "This is Not a
Story About Andrew." In it, their fiction editor asserts that "if 50%
of the story is devoted to a sexual encounter, that's usually too
much," and says that in general a submitter should write "Story first,
then add the sex. If you don't have a great story without the sex,
then it wouldn't be a good fit for us."

Now, they certainly have every right to run what floats their boat and
reject what doesn't, which is why I'm ranting here on ASSD instead of
replying to them. However, I question the wisdom of their logic, and,
in general, of the sex scenes vs. characterization dichotomy.

Here's why:

On the one hand, I would argue that characterization can, and should,
be done *through* sex scenes (though not necessarily exclusively, of
course). IMHO, if personality can't emerge through the kind of sex
characters have, than the entire notion of erotic stories as any sort
of art form is bunk, useless, intellectually bankrupt.

And, on the other hand, if you've written a story that stands up well
without the sex scenes, then it probably *should*. The sex,
apparently, isn't serving the story, so it's probably just dragging it
down.

This magazine, it seems, does not want stories about sex. It wants
stories about something else, with some sex in them.  The smutty bits
in this scheme seem to become the pornographic chocolate cake with
which one entices readers to eat their expository broccoli.

Don't get me wrong--there's certainly nothing wrong with stories that
are 70% plot and 30% bouncy-bouncy, or what have you. But asserting
that as necessity strikes me as ludicrously narrow minded.

<whew>