Yesterday, reading yet another terrible sex scene in an otherwise well-written novel, I got to thinking, not for the first time, why it is that it is so difficult to write about sex well? And I think I finally thought of an answer that makes sense, which is that sex, ultimately, is just another everyday bodily function that doesn't need to be described at length because everybody who's ever done it pretty much knows what it's like. And yet sex scenes have a terrible tendency to go on and on, as if they are describing the experience to somebody who has no idea what it is.Consider eating an apple. As an author, you might just say "I had an apple", and everyone is fairly clear on what that means, because most of your readership will have eaten apples before. If you want to make it clear that it's a particular kind of apple experience, you might give a little more detail, such as "I bit into the apple, and the flesh crumbled in my mouth to a dry heap of powdery disappointment." Again, we've all been there. What is totally unnecessary is the following:
The apple gleamed in the bowl, its shiny red and green skin so inviting. I longed to take it, to sink my teeth into its firm yet yielding flesh. I picked it up, its luscious curves filling my hand to perfection, and carried it over to the sink, where I let the long, cool stream wash over it, my mouth watering like the tap itself. Then I opened my mouth wide, feeling my jaw tense slightly in anticipation. I bit. My teeth pierced the apple's skin and all at once my mouth was filled with juicy wetness. Its sweet, sharp tang was so delicious, better even than I had imagined. I moved my teeth up and down, chewing, chewing that melting apple flesh, my tongue wrapping itself around around its liquid goodness. I swallowed, and peristalsis wafted the apple down to my stomach, which rumbled in appreciation.
Writers: as a rule, if you're giving more information about sex than you would do about a meal, then that is TOO MUCH INFORMATION.

17 comments:
So very true. It should be noted though, that that was probably the most erotic apple consumption I will ever read.
I think that this is probably a good thing.
I always worry - well, I have worries, well, it sort of crosses my mind - that those who have NOT yet had sex, who may never have sex, possibly do want/need to read about sex.
The difficulty is that most sex is badly written about and not only for the reasons you describe and so able echo in your apple piece (btw: not going to eat an apple in public again for quite a while).
So where SHOULD people who have not yet had sex get any ideas about sex, let alone its relationship to love and emotions? I'd sooner they try an otherwise well-written novel which may at least give people some relationship context...
I had to look up "peristalsis", of course. Then listen to both English and American pronunciations. Very un-sexy word. Not very appetizing either. Useful, though...
Come on, what was the book you were reading?
My friend Kelly Sue (whose business card at the time read 'Smut Peddler') used to run a course on writing about sex at her local college. It was called 'Beyond the pink torpedo'.
I agree that there is such a thing as too much detail. But I also think that sex can mean so many different things in so many different ways, so writers may well need to explore those things. The way a couple have sex can tell the reader a great deal about the dynamics of their relationship, their past, how they feel about each other, what is important to them, whether they are going to stay together. But i completely agree that no pink torpedoes need to be involved.
I quite like sex in books.
Depends, don't it? The way a character eats, what they eat, etc, can subtly tell the reader what kind of person they are in a paragraph while the same effect may take a particular scenario to be set up and a large amount of dialogue to be achieved and maybe not as effectively.
Witness say James Bond's meal before he goes gambling in Casino Royale and what that says about him (he's a show-off, a snob, used to a rich lifestyle, likes the good things in life and is a bit of a dick. Although, actually, that was pretty well established in the book before hand so is arguably cuttable).
As for sex, I think it's a little bit more than just a bodily function and what people do during sex can tell you a lot about them. David Lodge's 'Nice Work' is a nice example of the value of literary sex in exploring character, since the heroine is a committed feminist who only has politically correct, non-penetrative sex with her partner. The fact that he goes along with this while simultaneously suggesting that maybe they might want to try something more penetrative (and she ignores him for political reasons) tells you a lot about her character, his character, the direction the relationship is going in - and the reader knows the relationship isn't going to last long.
Similarly, when she then has sex with another, less progressive guy, you can tell a lot about him, her attitude towards him and where she is emotionally in the way they have sex.
So I think you're right: if a sex scene is just there so there's a sex scene, it's as pointless as describing an apple being eaten in explicit detail; but if it's there to serve character in some way, then there's nowt wrong with a literary sex scene.
Completely agree.
I agree that there's room for sex in books, as anyone who has read Gods Behaving Badly will know. (There is sex in the next book too. But none of it is in a toilet). But there's too much tab A went in slot B in most books - most of the time you don't need a blow by blow, as it were. I think it's probably that too much of the description is about bodies, and not enough is about minds.
My word verification is 'stimo'. As in: stimo me, boyo.
Rob's comment just reminded me of a piece of advice that the mother of a friend of mine gave:
Never have sex with a man until you've watched him eat a meal. Seeing him eat will tell you what sort of a lover he is.
So maybe writers need to write more about food and then we could dispense with the sex? (In books.)
Oh my. After Stephanie's friend's mum's advice, my next trip to a restaurant may be a tad uncomfortable. Maybe I'll just stare at my plate...
My rule of thumb is: if I'm distracted from the story by a sex scene (as in "Whaaa-" or "Why?"), it's gratuitous. Actually this applies to anything. If I'm wondering why the author is telling me this, it probably should have been edited out.
What about Yann Martel and his pears?
I did think of that when I was writing the apple scene. But I decided that it's a necessary and well-written pear description and I'd allow a conversation where a monkey was explaining sex to a donkey in a similar vein -
- OK, you know the penis?
- No.
- Well it's - imagine between your legs if there was some kind of - well - have you ever seen a banana?
- The penis is YELLOW?
And so on.
'David Lodge's 'Nice Work' is a nice example of the value of literary sex in exploring character, since the heroine is a committed feminist who only has politically correct, non-penetrative sex with her partner.'
I fear I might want to throw this book against a wall.
As for tab A in tab B books I think I must have learnt how to magically filter out books where sex is written like that because I haven't come across it in ages. I know what you mean though, there should perhaps be less about anatomy and more about hotness and emotion. At the same time Lisa makes an excellent point, as much of sex is still under a mystifying cloud in general society and media (blowy bedroom curtains letting us know people are having sex in films for example) aren't novels a fantastic place to let people know what actually goes on?
"I fear I might want to throw this book against a wall."
1) It's a satire
2) It was written in the 80s when The Hite Report still dominated a lot of orthodox feminist thinking.
The general purpose of the sex scenes in Nice Work – at that point of the narrative – is to suggest that university lecturer Robyn has little understanding of the real world: she does everything, even the most intimate of things, according to whether theory says she should or shouldn't, and ignores her own feelings and the evidence of her own eyes. The result is that her relationship falls apart.
It's only later on that she learns a certain pragmatism and that's reflected in the corresponding sex scenes. In turn, the unreconstructed male character who works in industry learns from her the value of the intellectual and the romantic, which is reflected in the sex scenes he has with his wife and then Robyn.
@Persephone: Agreed. If the text doesn't add something to the character and doesn't further the plot, what's it doing in the story? Gods bless the mighty red pen and the editor.
Very much enjoyed and agreed with most of the post and discussion, to which I don't feel I have much to add, but yegads, woman, where did you get that picture? It's quite to scariest thing I've seen in a long time.
BTW my word is lowsiest which could well be a category of its own in the bad sex awards, as in worst oral sex scene, dontcha think?
It is quarter to two in the morning and I am laughing at your post. Bedtime soon but not before I share my New Blog! with you, II trust your sharp sleuthing mind to recognise who I am... www.mrpeachgoesglobal.blogspot.com
Post a Comment