At the outset, I have to announce that this subject is something I know little or nothing about. I am told that there is a considerable body of literature or books at least, that deal with the same or similar material as Little J and Roger. I have not seen any myself, nor do I know of any authors or titles. I hope that one day I’ll get a glimpse of one or more, actually.

The question of category is one of the earliest that one needs to address, whether as a consumer or a producer. Marketing and distribution systems rely on specific category labels to arrange and organize their offerings. When LJR was written and the first volume was ready to be published, the matter of where to place it had to be decided—that had not been predetermined.

There was a problem: nothing on the fiction list seemed to fit very well. Sexual identity and development of adolescent males is the central subject of the series; perhaps that’s a subject for a psychological treatise of some kind, non fiction.

Being the new kid on the block, I asked for advice. I was urged to classify my work as erotic, primarily as a sales strategy. Since there was a significant level of attention given to love and sex, that seemed logical at first glance. I made an assumption about the genre, and I tried that for a month or so. Oops. I did some checking after the fact, and soon discovered the mistake.

I looked up the word erotic in the Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary:

1. of, devoted to, or tending to arouse sexual love or desire; 2: strongly marked or affected by sexual desire. It expands to define erotica: literary or artistic works having an erotic theme or quality, and depictions of things erotic.

When I read this, it was clear to me at once that LJR is none of the above.

It may be that a reader here or there could find something within the book that has that effect on them as an individual. If that is so, it is coincidental.

I did a little research by reviewing some works that were identified as “erotic.” It was an unpleasant task. Those books, allegedly devoted to sexual love, did not arouse—me, at least. Indeed, after reading a few I had to put the research aside. I found them to be grotesque and revolting, more than anything. My book did not belong on the same list.

Besides, I had no intent to arouse anyone. Entertain and educate, yes.

The social paranoia about sex in our society, however, muddies things rather thoroughly. The extremists are in the ascendant it seems, and things get accused and categorized simply because of their subject.

It is fair to say that Little J and Roger has a lot of “sexual” content. And, contrary to contemporary practice evidently, it is open, honest, and thorough, by design. But it is not intended to arouse. If it does, that is a side effect; for some it may be a bonus; for others, a reason to skip over a few pages. (Well, maybe more than a few. I’ll address that in a separate essay.)

I consulted Wikipedia on the matter, hoping for some guidance. Here is what they open with:

Defining Eroticism

Because the nature of what is Erotic is fluid, early definitions of the term attempted to conceive Eroticism as some form sensual or romantic love or the human sex drive (libido) personified by Eros, the Greek god of love: "erotic" is an epithet which is applied to everything with a connection to the love of the sexes; one employs it particularly to characterize a dissoluteness, an excess. However, because Eroticism is wholly dependent on upon the viewer's culture and personal tastes pertaining to what, exactly, defines the Erotic, critics have often confused Eroticism with Pornography...

An awkward sentence, at the least; “sensual or romantic love” fits. Precision eludes the author of that entry. Elsewhere they offer another definition that is somewhat useful:

Homoeroticism refers to the erotic attraction between members of the same sex, either male-male (male homosexuality) or female-female (lesbianism), most especially as it is depicted or manifested in the visual arts and literature. It can also be found in performative forms, from theatre to the theatricality of uniformed movements. According to Oxford English Dictionary, it pertains to or is characterized by a tendency for erotic emotions to be centered on a person of the same sex.

That one is spot on; of course, homoerotic is not a commercially operative category, so the information is only incidental.

The word erotic has become a label that consigns material to the back room or the plain wrappers of old. Material so labeled is prejudged and marginalized automatically. Persons interested in a serious literary treatment of a character or subject are warned off by the very use of the word. Thus, like many words, it has been rendered worse than meaningless.

So the matter of category is not resolved to my satisfaction. There is no definitive definition. The subject of sex is prevalent in the work, and its manifestations are in a relatively taboo area—so no category fits. There is substantial attention given to non-sexual material as well. All I can do is stress that it is written for an adult audience, one that, presumably, can categorize it or not, as they see fit. In any case, I have taken every step possible to distance LJR from the E word.

I have placed it under the categories that do fit: Fiction, Romance, Comedy, and Gay. Those are admittedly vague, but accurate. The thematic locator tags help some, where available. Maybe this is one of a kind work, and no classification is going to suit very well. I have to admit that I’ve not seen anything like it. Nor have I looked.