Alternate History General Discussion

[SpanishSpy]

Which one was it?

IIRC the Jeff/Gretchen one in 1632 is the one Alex has referred to in the past

I discuss this scene in this article.

 

[Coiler]

Writing a sex scene that isn't cringy and uncomfortable to read is clearly a hard skill to master, and a lot of books are written by people who didn't.

In 99% of sex scenes, there's really no reason besides sleaze to not just do a tasteful fade to black, IMO.

 

[Charles EP M.]

I've only seen one good one in all of alternate history.

That many?!

In 99% of sex scenes, there's really no reason besides sleaze to not just do a tasteful fade to black, IMO.

When it comes to sleaze, I was impressed that Sure Bet King feels grimy and nasty in places when our "hero" doesn't even do anything, just thinks about it and that nobody could stop him if he felt like it. That felt worse than if there'd been scenes where he did it.

 

[SpanishSpy]

When it comes to sleaze, I was impressed that Sure Bet King feels grimy and nasty in places when our "hero" doesn't even do anything, just thinks about it and that nobody could stop him if he felt like it. That felt worse than if there'd been scenes where he did it.

Eddie Ross is such a slimy character, all the more so because he feels so real in such an unpleasant way.

 

[Japhy]

I think peoples reactions to sex scenes are as telling as authors writing them.

 

[ChrisNuttall]

My view is quite simple. If a sex scene is relevant to advancing the plot, then fine. If it isn't, then it isn't.

Agreed.

Chris

 

[Gary Oswald]

I don't see why a sex scene is any different from a battle scene or a scene of philosophical discussion. If it's fun to read and write, it justifies itself on that basis.

If the point of a story was just to tell the plot, all books would be the length of their plot summary on wikipedia.

 

[Jared]

I don't see why a sex scene is any different from a battle scene or a scene of philosophical discussion. If it's fun to read and write, it justifies itself on that basis.

If the point of a story was just to tell the plot, all books would be the length of their plot summary on wikipedia.

The bolded portion is the issue. For many people, sex scenes aren't fun to read regardless, and for many other people, it's only fun to read if it's written very well. Arguably the same thing is similar for (say) battle scenes, but in my experience the proportion of writers who can write battle scenes well* is higher, at least in speculative fiction circles.

* That is, well enough to suit the lay reader. I'm well aware that readers with actual military experience or significant military historical knowledge would have a different view of most battle scenes.

 

[Christian]

I know of a few good sex scenes, though they were in a fanfiction and not in alternate history. Also it was between two men.

 

[Gary Oswald]

As someone who reads a lot of romance books, some of which are very steamy. I did find @SpanishSpy's article very sweet.

'Look this is a sex scene where the characters come to important emotional breakthroughs and realisations through the actions. It's used as a way of communicating a relationship progression through actions and thoughts rather than words and thus justifies itself within the story because it actually represents an important character moment.'

And yes, like that's what sex scenes should do and what they do do in genres much more used to them. Not all sex is the same, in the same way not all dances are the same. How and why people fuck tells you about where they are and their relationship to the other person. It's classic show not tell, about relationships in the same way a scene where in two people go shopping or do chores together can tell you a huge amount about their relationship by how they act together.

 

[ChrisNuttall]

I don't see why a sex scene is any different from a battle scene or a scene of philosophical discussion. If it's fun to read and write, it justifies itself on that basis.

If the point of a story was just to tell the plot, all books would be the length of their plot summary on wikipedia.

It runs into the same problem as many other topics. You want to keep the readers you have while hopefully gaining more. If your readers like sex scenes, you can do them; if not, better to stay away.

Chris

 

[Coiler]

If the point of a story was just to tell the plot, all books would be the length of their plot summary on wikipedia.

For cheap thrillers, this is especially true. Since most of them have (which their authors would gladly admit) similar, basic plots, what separates most of them is their execution. I learned this the hard way when I loved Jon Land's goofy concepts, looked at books with similar ones, and then found that a lot of them had silly MacGuffins but bland set pieces, unlike his monster truck chases and minotaur-man showdowns.

 

[Makemakean]

Orwell makes much of this in 'Notes on Nationalism'.

He adds Eamon De Valera, Baron Beaverbrook, Benjamin Disraeli, Houston Chamberlain and Lafcadio Hearne to Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin as examples. And also Henri Poincare, though I have no idea how he fits.

Well, Henri Poincaré was always fundamentally a mathematician, yet he made a significant impact on the development on modern theoretical physics, so I suppose he kind of does fit in.

 

[Gary Oswald]

Well, Henri Poincaré was always fundamentally a mathematician, yet he made a significant impact on the development on modern theoretical physics, so I suppose he kind of does fit in.

It's Raymond, innit? Welcome to today's episode of Gary talking about continental Europe and not knowing anything about it at all.

 

[Coiler]

I'll admit I prefer the term "Soft AH" over "ASB" to describe the same basic thing.

 

[napoleon IV]

The bolded portion is the issue. For many people, sex scenes aren't fun to read regardless, and for many other people, it's only fun to read if it's written very well. Arguably the same thing is similar for (say) battle scenes, but in my experience the proportion of writers who can write battle scenes well* is higher, at least in speculative fiction circles.

* That is, well enough to suit the lay reader. I'm well aware that readers with actual military experience or significant military historical knowledge would have a different view of most battle scenes.

There's also something about a badly-written sex scene that makes your skin crawl in the way that a badly-written battle scene or philosophical discussion just doesn't. And after you read enough bad sex scenes and get the skin crawling feeling it becomes you can develop an almost instinctive aversion to such scenes.

 

[ChrisNuttall]

My understanding, and I admit definitions seem to change, is that Soft AH refers to things which are implausible, even extremely unlikely, but not physically impossible. A Brighton bomb in 1984 killing Thatcher which leads to a dystopian London, for example. Very unlikely, but not impossible.

By contrast, ASB, at least in its original version, meant things that were physically impossible. A Battle of Britain in which the Me109 had infinite fuel and ammunition, so never needed to return to base to refuel and rearm.

Definitions may have shifted over the years, but for obvious reasons, I hold to the original version of ASB.

I’ve always taken it to mean the degree of plausibility and how closely you stick to real history.

Hard AH – Nein, Operation Sealion is not going to work, no matter how much you give the Germans.

Soft AH – Ja, but what would happen if we did it anyway?

Chris

 

[Charles EP M.]

Arguably the same thing is similar for (say) battle scenes, but in my experience the proportion of writers who can write battle scenes well* is higher, at least in speculative fiction circles.

Books with battle scenes will also usually be in specific genres where they're a big part of the plot; sex scenes turn up in multiple genres. I can't complain there's a sex scene if I chose to read Steamy Trains, but it might feel awkward if it pops up in Home Rule, the AH where Douglas-Home won the election. And the person writing that might not be as good at writing sex scenes as the one doing Steamy Trains, who does it a lot, or they can't get it to fit the story, or I got too good a look into what the writer's into and it's not what I am so it lands badly.

 

[Charles EP M.]

My understanding is:

Hard AH: If Britain and America go to war in 30s, it'd require lots of divergence so War Plan Red wouldn't likely be the plan

Soft AH: War Plan Red

ASB: CANADA CONQUERS THE NORTHERN STATES

 

[SpanishSpy]

And yes, like that's what sex scenes should do and what they do do in genres much more used to them. Not all sex is the same, in the same way not all dances are the same. How and why people fuck tells you about where they are and their relationship to the other person. It's classic show not tell, about relationships in the same way a scene where in two people go shopping or do chores together can tell you a huge amount about their relationship by how they act together.

Do you want a thirty-page article explaining this? Because I can certainly furnish another.