Twice-Told Tales

Story Info
In defense of returning to the well.
2k words
4.31
7.8k
0
Share this Story

Font Size

Default Font Size

Font Spacing

Default Font Spacing

Font Face

Default Font Face

Reading Theme

Default Theme (White)
You need to Log In or Sign Up to have your customization saved in your Literotica profile.
PUBLIC BETA

Note: You can change font size, font face, and turn on dark mode by clicking the "A" icon tab in the Story Info Box.

You can temporarily switch back to a Classic Literotica® experience during our ongoing public Beta testing. Please consider leaving feedback on issues you experience or suggest improvements.

Click here

I'm fascinated by the fact of creative repetition; in fact, I envy it and aspire to it. It's a curious thing about art and stories that appeals to me, so I will try to explain.

When I was a kid, I got my first viewings of the James Bond movies "The Spy Who Loved Me" and "Moonraker" one weekend, back-to-back. There was a big snow out, I think either school was out that Friday or the following Monday, and so it was a big long weekend with a spirit of adventure.

So I watched "The Spy Who Loved Me" and I thought it was dazzling. There was a ski chase right at the beginning! (lots of inspiration for when playing outside). And then the whole movie was so colorful and escapist. It all seemed very serious to me, this threat of nuclear annihilation by crazed marineophile billionaires, but still an awful lot of fun.

And so then I watched "Moonraker." And this too was very exciting: I probably sucked all the oxygen out of the room in that moment before the credits when James Bond . . . Well, watch the movie! And I really enjoyed the film, but . . . .

'Didn't they just make "The Spy Who Loved Me" OVER AGAIN?' I thought to myself.

I mean: crazy European billionaire/crazy European billionaire. Deep sea/Outer Space. Russian spy girl/American spy girl. Car becomes submarine/boat becomes "car" (sorta). Nuclear holocaust/ death orchid gas (is that a 'bio' or 'chemical' WMD?) holocaust. Secret fortress-ship/ secret fortress space station. And of course, both times 007 goes flying in the air with no apparent means of escape.

It's the same movie, right?

This was an utterly new idea to me. How could the people who made these movies just-- repeat themselves?

Now of course you'll say, 'Formula for a quick buck,' but that's not my point.

I still LIKED "Moonraker." But I could see it was the same movie as TSWLM, except it was trying to-- if that were possible-- be even MORE over-the-top (I had one of those movie guidebooks in the house, so I was exposed to this great critical concept of "over-the-top"). And part of me kind of liked the way "Moonraker" was so over-the-top, because the way it played upon the previous film and just sort of spun out variations on it fascinated me.

Yet it also made me feel confused and unsatisfied. "The Spy Who Loved Me" was so unadulteratedly great. Watching "Moonraker" was like experiencing "The Spy Who Loved Me" in an echo chamber: strange, distorted, somehow pleasurable in its own right, yet also somehow dirty and saddening almost, like it was abusing this great classic in a cynical, lazy way.

Flash forward to last year. I got this book, an erotic novel called "Cassandra's Conflict" by Fredrica Alleyn. For four or five days I was completely in thrall to this book. The heroine is a prudent young Englishwoman who takes up a job as governess in the household of an aristocratic widower. It is indeed a Gothic scenario, but the subtext of erotic mystery is there on top. The aristocrat breaks her in to his BDSM training regimen. It's not a bows and ribbons kind of romance. The training is intense, and the suspense is pretty unrelenting.

This book has a sequel called "Cassandra's Chateau", which came out perhaps a month or two later [these books are actually reprinted from the Nineties, so I'm speaking of how they came out last year]. So I read it some two or three months later, into the summer. In the sequel Cassandra has won her place as her boss's preferred submissive companion (no surprise in itself) and now she has to participate in another round of erotic gamesmanship as her man inducts a new innocent into his world of decadent games.

Now, the critic in me (who is not a relativist, so I'm not going to hedge here!) knows that "Cassandra's Chateau" is simply not the equal of "Cassandra's Conflict." For one thing, it's impossible to repeat the suspense of the original. And since Cassandra's our girl, it's impossible to care as much about the new girl's experiences and how they change her personality.

Plus, it seems pretty clear that the author just isn't as committed the second time around. It's no "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom", if that's your thing. Alleyn doesn't try to 'surpass' the intensity of the first novel; if anything it's a slower, more diffuse work.

And this somehow utterly intrigues me. I found, to my surprise and something like dismay that, in a few months time, I had been returning to "Cassandra's Chateau" far more often than to "Cassandra's Conflict."

***

But why? When I know in my heart (and with my mind!) that it's the lesser work?

Now in this particular case, it could well be that "Cassandra's Conflict" is just too 'intense' for casual reading. It's very dark and very hot. Perhaps somehow the very fact that the sequel retreads the story makes it more manageable or skimmable. It's that echo chamber (?) effect again. Perhaps it's like reading the first book with oven mittens on!-- I can still feel the heat, but I don't get burned by it?

I really did get 'burned' reading "Cassandra's Conflict"-- that book had me strung out! But I can't really say the same thing about "The Spy Who Loved Me". And, given the choice, I'd probably plunk down for TSWLM over "Moonraker" for spontaneous viewing.

But I feel there's something analogous in my feeling watching "Moonraker" to my experience reading "Cassandra's Chateau."

I could argue that there's something about artistic second-rateness that actually makes these works a kind of cultural "comfort food." Somebody somewhere in a novel I've read (!) comments that he doesn't want 'grand pictures' (I.e. paintings) in his home, they'd be too overwhelming. He just wants good pictures of flora, or watercolors, or whatever it was. Things that are delightful and invigorating, without being ecstatically overwhelming. Could be.

Yet I also think there may be something in the fact of 'repeating oneself' artistically that goes beyond all the familiar stuff about 'pastiche' and 'appropriation' and 'kitsch' and 'post-Modernism' and all that stuff. "Moonraker" isn't quite an Andy Warhol soup can sort of Xerox of "The Spy Who Loved Me"--it's still its own story. You could watch it without seeing the other film and be totally unaware of its derivative aspect. Maybe you'd find it enthralling (or awful) purely on its own terms.

What I'm trying to get at is this: there may be some real merit in 'repeating ourselves' as storytellers-- even if the result is somehow 'derivative' or 'treading water' or (horrors) 'second-rate.'

I'm actually using these James Bond and Black Lace examples as a way of digging at a point I think has application. I simply don't get it why people are so bothered by storytellers that 'repeat themselves.'

For example, Woody Allen. People always say that his new film (which one is it this month? Haha) is just a 'repeat', and of course it's no "Annie Hall", yada yada. As if they are making a brilliant point that must be engraved on his tomb as a final judgment on him: he made this great romantic comedy and then, like, well he did a bunch of other, lesser, romantic comedies.

Now, I don't know if people even believe this when they say it: couldn't "Manhattan" or "Hannah and her Sisters" be (arguably) even greater films? And even if they follow "Annie Hall"s template, is he not allowed to try and improve on his own formula? Are you only allowed to make one great comedy and then, like, you have to go make the greatest cop-buddy movie ever if you want to claim you are Growing As An Artist?

And even if none of the other movies are as good in quite the same, perfect way: why not explore the byways of the same story? I find that utterly fascinating, these little variations on the accepted theme. Maybe this is why I seem to be the only person who loved "Anything Else". I thought that was a scream. And "Vicki Christina Barcelona" really stopped me in my tracks. That film is scary, almost. Maybe to people who grew up with Woody Allen it all seems yawningly familiar. Yet I felt that movie was trying to shake me out of complacency: what do I want out of life? Who the devil am I?

Maybe these are the 'oven mitten' versions of "Annie Hall". Whatever. I'll take them.

***

I want to bring this to bear on erotica, though.

Since I never let a day pass without at least scribbling out the beginnings of a manifesto, let me say this: I would encourage erotica writers to let themselves go when it comes to repeating the variations on their favorite fetishes and themes.

Yes, sometimes when I fantasize about the blessed day when I have forty or fifty stories to my credit (as if!), I wonder to myself, 'Will they all be the same, though?' I guiltily imagine a reader stumbling into my little treasure trove, reading a few of them and then yawning, "Oh god, they're all the same!"

Well, maybe they will be!

Now, it's probably just as true that (sooner or later) I'll make myself compose a few oddballs, just to mix things up! (and I hope that works for people too).

But I really do appreciate it when I find writers who hew to the same select themes. Maybe they find their perfect expression after many efforts; maybe they hit it at first and then embark upon the world of variations.

And maybe, if you're lucky, like Raphael or some such genius, you actually achieve masterpieces over and over again.

But supposing you don't? Well, why not indulge some repetition-compulsions?

I'm not actually arguing for machine-like repetition. What I'm trying to do is to strike a point against 'originality' for it's own sake.

There are artists who thrive on never repeating themselves, on always drawing something new out of the hat (or at least, regularly reinventing themselves): Shakespeare, Bjork, Madonna, Michelangelo, Francis Coppola.

But there are those who toil happily, and fruitfully, over the same familiar turf: Woody Allen, Austen, Poe, Ingres, Block, Burne-Jones.

An artist who repeats stories, or themes, or at least a recognizable 'style', it seems to me, achieves something rich in terms of a dreamlike effect. One approaches a new work with a delicious sense of the familiar, and an eye for the little pieces of the unexpected. It may even be that, all things being equal, the slightest change of names and locations somehow renders a story 'new', if it's the kind of story that one finds beguiling in the first place--more particularly, if it's a story that the teller feels so keenly, it's always repeated with passion.

And, where erotica is concerned, that's quite likely to be the case. Readers often want many, many stories about the same (more or less) thing. They may have a variety of kinks, of course!: but with each of them, they may hunger only for the modest novelty of a new repetition of a familiar pleasurable experience. That it's a new iteration is novelty enough.

Every warm bath you will ever slide into is just another tub full of hot water. Probably it's the same tub even! But still: you step into it a different person, on a different day, maybe the bar of soap is a different brand, the water's a little bit milder or a teeny bit hotter, and-- aaaahhhhh! It's still a pleasure.

Okay, that's banal. And erotica, however lowbrow, still represents a much more creative sort of enterprise than turning the spigot on.

Let us celebrate those creators who have the drive and energy to reexplore their favorite subjects, always returning to their favored, fevered dream. There should be no shame in that for the author. And for the audience, there may always be new nuances to savor, and the thrill of being sucked into the looking-glass again, and yet once more, once again.

Please rate this story
The author would appreciate your feedback.
  • COMMENTS
Anonymous
Our Comments Policy is available in the Lit FAQ
Post as:
Anonymous
3 Comments
fanfarefanfarealmost 10 years ago
great essay

And thoughtful commentaries. Off the top of my head a good example of the repetitious effect would be the influence of John W. Campbell in developing the Golden Age of Science Fiction.

I doubt if less then 80% of sci-fi/fantasy/adventure hollywooded films and television shows are variations of the Campbellian template. Of heroic WASP rugged individualist vanquishes the collectivist (dark-skinned) evil monsters and conquers the galaxy while rescuing the busty blonde bombshell. Though now days, hollywood has the busty heroine as often as the brawny hero. Uh, yeah. We like to look at bouncy tits.

Here on Literotica, especially in the Loving Wives gene, we have authors such as the 'Stang. Whose acclaim is based on the formula of "Saintly Man is almost destroyed by Evil Female" There will be the required hardon when viewing betrayal. There will be the required emotional withdrawal and paralysis. There will be the drunken interlude with either running a drunken marathon in a storm or wildly driving drunk in a souped-up muscle car with cacophonic mufflers.

There will be the smart-mouth wise-beyond-her-years loyal daughter (thereby equating virginity with wisdom instead of ignorance).

There will be the smirking Alpha Bull with a cock at least a foot long and six inches in diameter. Taking advantage of the foolish wife who was too shy to ask her loyal husband to shove his insignificant cock up her ass but she happily takes a pile-driving from the stud lover.

There will be the cliche sisters/girlfriends/workmates/neighbors urging the foolish wife to casually breaking her wedding vows. Cause that is one of the favorite causations by the BTB lynchmob spelunking trolls fulminating against the "conspiracy of women to destroy the innocent male self-image of themselves as victims of evil plots.

The guys who never have the judgement to inspect themselves and wonder why all the adult females in their lives agree that these aggrieved men are basically assholes.

I'm sure that I have failed to include other LW cliches that the trolls worship at the altar of the Perpetual Male Victim. Please feel free to add to this list.

CowboyZGCowboyZGover 11 years ago
Bravo!

Boldly personal and, to my thinking, a logical, incisive argument that gives me a sensible new perspective on all manner of artistic efforts. Even more, it suggests an approach to understanding a wide array of repetitive human behavior, even some self-destructive pursuits.

Loved the bath analogy. Even more apropos on this site, our untiring pursuit of yet another orgasm.

Thanks for taking the time.

AnonymousAnonymousalmost 14 years ago
Nice Observation

The fictional Horace Rumpole kept the same book by his bed for over 50 years because he could pick it up anywhere and start reading. There are certain novels I reread almost annually and still glean something new from them. But I know, you are talking of something different.

In doing research for television and movies studios have found a definite trend. Men prefer the same stories with different characters (e.g., buddy cop films or the spy novels with almost interchangeable leads) whereas women prefer the same characters with different stories (e.g., soap operas and medical dramas where relationships change). These are generalities, and there are exceptions but many people when asked will realize they do favor one type over the other.

Occasionally you get a combination like the "Rocky" films or (to show how broadly this works) the "Alien" or "Lord of the Rings" movies. These combination movies tend to be very popular. As do different directors remaking a story in their own way. (In particular "Avatar" has a very over-used plot that goes back to a 1950 Jimmy Stewart film with a half a dozen remakes - even a musical! - in between.)

As you write, there is comfort in familiarity. Such tales can be entertaining and not taxing. Some prefer the comfort of situation while others the comfort of companions. This spills over into porn movies and erotica, where some prefer graphic coupling on the merest of pretenses (stroke stories) while others like the slow build and growing together (romance). Directors like Candida Royalle tapped a market when they tried to make films more erotic and less graphic at the same time.

The really good authors find new ways to treat old stories and then every once in a while throw in a change-up. I'll admit that I will always click on certain authors because I like to see how they treat things this time.

BTW, when you mentioned Bond movies I expected you'd noticed "Thunderball" was remade as "Never Say Never Again": they didn't even change the name of the villain for that one!

Share this Story

story TAGS

Similar Stories

Writing Together Ch. 01 Two long time colleagues decide to collaborate on a story.in Mature
My Secret Life Musings on Erotica, Writing, Readers, and the Online world.in Reviews & Essays
Literotica Interview with HeyAll Answers to an interview regarding my erotica.in Letters & Transcripts
Elements of Literary Erotica A discussion of writing the best literary story you can.in How To
FAWC 1: Was It Real? Online cybersex leads to something incrediblein Chain Stories
More Stories