I recently read a review (a huge thank you to those of you who are reviewing my books) of "Becoming a Boi" in which the reader criticized the books' descriptions. Particularly, the reviewer pointed out the lack of environmental descriptors, but also noted that the protagonist's background wasn't really emphasized.
I'll confess that I've thought the same thing about my writing. I find that I have to force myself to describe environments, settings, and (what I consider) superfluous details. And when I do, it feels clunky and (in my opinion) breaks up the kinetic flow of the scene. But I definitely recognize the lack.
I think it stems from the reality that, when I read, I sort of glaze over details like that. Oftentimes, I find myself picturing a setting that, if I really compared it to the author's description, would be very, very different. In short, I tend not to care about the *where* so much as the *why, how and who*.
The other reason (and this one's conscious) I don't describe settings very thoroughly is that these stories aren't supposed to be four-hundred page behemoths. They're intended to be fairly short, and if I'm going to tell a full story, some details simply can't make the final cut.
Finally, I have a theory that, when you're writing erotica, it's preferable to leave some things up to the imagination of the reader. It personalizes the story, and allows the reader to engage the narrative in a much more personal way, which, in turn, makes it all the more erotic.
So my question to you all is, "What do you think?" Am I concocting reasons to make writing (admittedly) easier? Or does my reasoning hold water? If you don't want to reply publicly, please feel free to email me at Nikki's Email.