- Location
- Arlington, Virginia
Which one was it?
I discuss this scene in this article.IIRC the Jeff/Gretchen one in 1632 is the one Alex has referred to in the past
Which one was it?
I discuss this scene in this article.IIRC the Jeff/Gretchen one in 1632 is the one Alex has referred to in the past
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.
I've only seen one good one in all of alternate history.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
If the point of a story was just to tell the plot, all books would be the length of their plot summary on wikipedia.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
Do you want a thirty-page article explaining this? Because I can certainly furnish another.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.