writers' tips #1,600,042: "blunt", use of

[cimorene]

i am getting so sick of the "blunt" fingers that are always used for lubing of the ass preparatory to fucking.  blunt cocks too, for that matter. 

it's not that fingers and cocks aren't blunt.  it's that there are 1,600,042 reasons not to use that particular adjective there, starting with "what else would it be--sharp?"/"they aren't that blunt, actually" and going all the way down to "well, THAT'S an image."

smut writers, please--if you're writing a sex scene that's meant to be arousing, if something is entering someone's ass as PART of the sex--think of your poor readers, and consider how the penetratee might actually, in 1,600,042 years, think about the penetrating thing.  then check it against your mental database of words that have already been used in smut scenes 1,600,042 times or more, and if it pops up there, don't use it.

Comments

[lm.livejournal.com]

When I read "blunt" I always picture, like, a non-living object. Not a penis or fingers. I have never even thought of penii in terms of being "blunt" or "sharp." It's very strange imagery, honestly.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

exactly.

[mace-m.livejournal.com]

Every time I see the word 'blunt' I first think of 'blunt force trauma', which is not best of mental images you can have while reading porn ...

[ex-stateline124.livejournal.com]

Hmmm... I'm actually really curious about this, because I suppose I just sort of think of fingers as blunt -- not very soft or malleable. It's definitely not very arousing, though. :) But for the sake of making this constructive, what are more apt adjectives? Can you link to smut that has good description without copping out with "blunt"?

[cimness.livejournal.com]

it doesn't mean 'not soft, not malleable'--it means 'the opposite of sharp.' fingers are NEVER sharp. there was no question of something sharp being in place of your fingers. penii--well, duh.

now, cal raises an interesting point about the particular feeling of the blunt pressing and claims no word can substitute, which is maybe a defensible point.

i wouldn't call 'blunt' a cop-out--a cliche, maybe, or a mistake. but as far as smut, there's plenty that doesn't use blunt on my recs page, i'm sure, as well as quite a bit that does.

in defense!

[ukcalico.livejournal.com]

No, no, it's a good word! Well, one I'm guilty of using and liking <g>, so obviously I think that. But I *do* like it, and I think its only fault is the rampant overuse by writers who haven't made the rest of the scene hot enough, because there are so many places I find that it *works*. For example, to get frank, if sex is happening and a cock's involved, then there *is* that moment that's all pressure and heat and notquitepushingin, and the feeling is of a delicious insistent *bluntness*-- which, even if it's just for a nanosecond, is still (imho!) intense, and still one of those key sensations that I like to read about. And no other word, in that context, will quite do.

That's what I think, anyway. :)

Re: in defense!

[cimness.livejournal.com]

i can go with all of that except the no other word doing thing. i mean, maybe no other single word can convey the same thing, i'll give you that, and that it's hot, but i won't believe there's no other way to evoke the feeling. and i have to say that overuse has decreased its value for me, even as i admit that at times i HAVE found it hot.

[dementordelta.livejournal.com]

MMMmmmmmm Blunt cocks.....

Er, sorry, what were you saying, dear?

[cimness.livejournal.com]

right, so, how do you feel about pointy ones then? are there any cocks that could be called not blunt? i mean... they all have a head.

[dementordelta.livejournal.com]

Still, it's just a reinforcement technique, to put the reader *right* there. Like saying 'white snow'. It just emphasizes the thing we all know, without having to come up with a description that just yanks you out of the story.