![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaSpeaking of things I almost never think about... the logistics of writing sex-scenes, specifically in 'mainstream' genre fic (ie, where the point is the plot) so as not to um, scare off or offend those people who get... bothered by such things o_0 I mean, I know that some people skim or are bored with explicit sex-scenes, fine, but I didn't quite realize you can apparently lose readers if you pitch your smut too harsh or make it too disconnected with prior characterization (like in ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
shusu's post). I mean, I don't want to lose readers, though on the other hand, I kind of feel like 'if you don't like my writing, then it's not -for- you'; still, that's probably naive if you're wanting an audience large enough to 'break through'.
The thing is, I'm thinking about Lois McMaster Bujold's guest post oncommodorified's lj from a month back about the smut in her recent book, 'The Sharing Knife'. And actually, the bits of sexual content were really well-handled in that book and in all her writing-- it's just a pleasure to read because of what I feel to be an open, accepting atmosphere for sexuality (and even 'sexualities') rather than the 'pretending it's not there' thing that goes on in most published genre stuff, even by authors I enjoy (George RR Martin being one of the other awesome exceptions). But though I say that about 'acceptance', I never really thought of the stuff in any of Bujold's books as... a sex scene. I mean, there was well-handled sexual content, but that... that does not a sex scene make.
To quote:
I posit that in order for a sex scene to “read” level with the surrounding text (in material not intended to be erotic), to a large audience that may contain a lot of non-desensitized readers, content may have to actually be stopped down, muted, or even fade to black.
See, okay-- if a sex-scene is 'muted', it's probably not about to fulfill its major function of... being erotic. And while you may not be intending to write an erotic scene that may very well (*gasp!*) turn a reader on, that's fine-- you can't really have your cake and eat it too. The scene with the sexy (and therefore the offensive) taken out of it is no longer a sex-scene. It's a scene with sex it it for some non-erotic reason, and that's... that's really something qualitatively different than what a writer who uses erotica for characterization or plot purposes (within the framework of a plot or character-driven story) would do. I think.
In other words, I think Bujold is totally right that what throws some readers out is the fact that "certain subjects -- sex for many readers, violence for a few, other elements for others -- are received more acutely by the psyche." Yes. You can definitely see how that creates a danger for over-emphasis and a possible turn-off for a reader who finds they don't share a given kink with the characters, say. Why not take the easy way out and just write it 'muted', make it a more scholarly, theoretical sort of situation where the reader's not invited into that erotic space themselves. A proper distance is kept, decorum is maintained, some sensitive readers aren't jarred out of the story-- all good, right? Except.
Except that the point of a well-done erotic(!) sex-scene is to jar the reader-- to affect the reader-- to close that distance. The acute reception is (ideally) the point; therefore, the erotic scene's charge allows the possibility of the characterization/feelings/ideas involved to be set afire. The exclamation-point-like nature of an erotic scene can be used rather than avoided; the transgressiveness, the challenging of comfort levels-- this isn't necessarily a bad thing for a writer to go after, is it?
Of course, for one thing, most average writers that do erotica aren't good enough (ie, the sex-scenes in question are just bad and leave less smut-obsessed people less than impressed) and most readers would sooner stop reading or at least skim than be made uncomfortable in a sexual sense, even though people sit through disturbing violent images all the time these days and even seek them out. Still. Even while I understand the point of playing it safe, at some point I have to acknowledge that I'm a sexual writer. I'm not really an erotica writer-- that's not my specialty or anything-- but I write sexually-charged things naturally into all sorts of stories, just because that's how I am. That's how I think.
I think there's a gulf of separation in understanding, perhaps, between writers (and to some extent, readers) for whom sex is extraneous-- an add-on that may or may not be useful or wanted. Clearly, from Bujold's emphasis on desensitization rather than enjoyment, she's mostly of that type. Sexual content -can- be good, these sorts would admit, but to be good it has to be well-done and tasteful and appropriate. Even if they're not squicked by whatever content, they're not on a level where they understand the drive people have to go there and create it for the hell of it. Because it's hot. Because it is meaningful to those other people-- the type of writer that writes sex because it is part and parcel of life. Their life, their characters' lives; in other words, the way they perceive the world is sexual. And that's a good and natural thing to them; it's not 'that thing you do with your lover behind closed doors if the urge strikes'-- it's that thing you think about near-constantly on some level, that informs most of the other aspects of your identity/life in subtle ways.
It's not about desensitization; it's not about finding/fulfilling a fetish-- nothing so precise. It's about desire, and desire is everywhere; in fact, as a reader of erotica, I tend to enjoy a sex-scene no matter what form it takes if that one element is present: I can sense the characters' real desire at play. In fact, ideally, in any story that has a real sex-scene, you would be able to feel bits of the build-up and the 'foreplay', the mounting desire leading up to that scene throughout all the 'normal' non-sexual scenes between those two characters preceding it. We call that UST :D
However, I don't want to make it seem like I have or had any issues with what Bujold did-- I didn't go into the book wanting erotica and was pleasantly surprised at what -was- there. I don't -need- sex-scenes to be happy, but I'm happy if there are sex-scenes (that aren't bad), basically. Still, I get a bit miffed when people (in the comments to that post) say things like, "it's a character-based romance/fantasy, not a nuts and bolts SF novel". o_0 Or "specifics have their place" (and that place is obviously porn and not 'normal' or genre literature). That's pretty "...." to me, but as I said, it's the sort of person, the sort of -writer- I am. To me, life is erotic, erotic is real (if not realistic, I mean the sort of thing that 'feels' real emotionally is what I like). To say there -should- be some hard-and-fast separation between 'specifics' and 'appropriate vagueness' just sets my teeth on edge. I don't write like that. Why should I -have- to write like that, given that others can write on -their- comfort level just as well?
I also notice that the 'other side' gets defensive (too?); lots of people like to pop out of the woodwork to 'defend' non-hardcore or 'romantic' smut and subtly imply that harder erotica is for those horny people who think with their lower brains or whatever. It also kind of amuses me that by 'vague' people really mean something as juvenile as 'naming names', as if the mere word 'cock' or even 'manhood' (depending on one's comfort level, I guess) is enough to take something from romantically appropriate vagueness to omg-oh-noes-PR0N!!1 Seriously. Can we grow up now? :/
And yeah, I realize that's -me- being bitter/defensive, definitely :> I mean, it's okay to be uncomfortable and just not write it if you don't wanna. My issue is merely the projecting of these values onto others and the apparent need for hardcore 'desensitization' before your average non-sex-crazed(??!) reader can read about cock and not go 'oh my!' and overreact, basically. And yet, I did admit that the acuteness of perception (and thus the inherent danger of overreaction) is not only there, it may even be positive & useful... so really, I'm just babbling pointlessly 'cause I have no conclusion or solution :P
shusu's post). I mean, I don't want to lose readers, though on the other hand, I kind of feel like 'if you don't like my writing, then it's not -for- you'; still, that's probably naive if you're wanting an audience large enough to 'break through'.The thing is, I'm thinking about Lois McMaster Bujold's guest post on
commodorified's lj from a month back about the smut in her recent book, 'The Sharing Knife'. And actually, the bits of sexual content were really well-handled in that book and in all her writing-- it's just a pleasure to read because of what I feel to be an open, accepting atmosphere for sexuality (and even 'sexualities') rather than the 'pretending it's not there' thing that goes on in most published genre stuff, even by authors I enjoy (George RR Martin being one of the other awesome exceptions). But though I say that about 'acceptance', I never really thought of the stuff in any of Bujold's books as... a sex scene. I mean, there was well-handled sexual content, but that... that does not a sex scene make.To quote:
I posit that in order for a sex scene to “read” level with the surrounding text (in material not intended to be erotic), to a large audience that may contain a lot of non-desensitized readers, content may have to actually be stopped down, muted, or even fade to black.
See, okay-- if a sex-scene is 'muted', it's probably not about to fulfill its major function of... being erotic. And while you may not be intending to write an erotic scene that may very well (*gasp!*) turn a reader on, that's fine-- you can't really have your cake and eat it too. The scene with the sexy (and therefore the offensive) taken out of it is no longer a sex-scene. It's a scene with sex it it for some non-erotic reason, and that's... that's really something qualitatively different than what a writer who uses erotica for characterization or plot purposes (within the framework of a plot or character-driven story) would do. I think.
In other words, I think Bujold is totally right that what throws some readers out is the fact that "certain subjects -- sex for many readers, violence for a few, other elements for others -- are received more acutely by the psyche." Yes. You can definitely see how that creates a danger for over-emphasis and a possible turn-off for a reader who finds they don't share a given kink with the characters, say. Why not take the easy way out and just write it 'muted', make it a more scholarly, theoretical sort of situation where the reader's not invited into that erotic space themselves. A proper distance is kept, decorum is maintained, some sensitive readers aren't jarred out of the story-- all good, right? Except.
Except that the point of a well-done erotic(!) sex-scene is to jar the reader-- to affect the reader-- to close that distance. The acute reception is (ideally) the point; therefore, the erotic scene's charge allows the possibility of the characterization/feelings/ideas involved to be set afire. The exclamation-point-like nature of an erotic scene can be used rather than avoided; the transgressiveness, the challenging of comfort levels-- this isn't necessarily a bad thing for a writer to go after, is it?
Of course, for one thing, most average writers that do erotica aren't good enough (ie, the sex-scenes in question are just bad and leave less smut-obsessed people less than impressed) and most readers would sooner stop reading or at least skim than be made uncomfortable in a sexual sense, even though people sit through disturbing violent images all the time these days and even seek them out. Still. Even while I understand the point of playing it safe, at some point I have to acknowledge that I'm a sexual writer. I'm not really an erotica writer-- that's not my specialty or anything-- but I write sexually-charged things naturally into all sorts of stories, just because that's how I am. That's how I think.
I think there's a gulf of separation in understanding, perhaps, between writers (and to some extent, readers) for whom sex is extraneous-- an add-on that may or may not be useful or wanted. Clearly, from Bujold's emphasis on desensitization rather than enjoyment, she's mostly of that type. Sexual content -can- be good, these sorts would admit, but to be good it has to be well-done and tasteful and appropriate. Even if they're not squicked by whatever content, they're not on a level where they understand the drive people have to go there and create it for the hell of it. Because it's hot. Because it is meaningful to those other people-- the type of writer that writes sex because it is part and parcel of life. Their life, their characters' lives; in other words, the way they perceive the world is sexual. And that's a good and natural thing to them; it's not 'that thing you do with your lover behind closed doors if the urge strikes'-- it's that thing you think about near-constantly on some level, that informs most of the other aspects of your identity/life in subtle ways.
It's not about desensitization; it's not about finding/fulfilling a fetish-- nothing so precise. It's about desire, and desire is everywhere; in fact, as a reader of erotica, I tend to enjoy a sex-scene no matter what form it takes if that one element is present: I can sense the characters' real desire at play. In fact, ideally, in any story that has a real sex-scene, you would be able to feel bits of the build-up and the 'foreplay', the mounting desire leading up to that scene throughout all the 'normal' non-sexual scenes between those two characters preceding it. We call that UST :D
However, I don't want to make it seem like I have or had any issues with what Bujold did-- I didn't go into the book wanting erotica and was pleasantly surprised at what -was- there. I don't -need- sex-scenes to be happy, but I'm happy if there are sex-scenes (that aren't bad), basically. Still, I get a bit miffed when people (in the comments to that post) say things like, "it's a character-based romance/fantasy, not a nuts and bolts SF novel". o_0 Or "specifics have their place" (and that place is obviously porn and not 'normal' or genre literature). That's pretty "...." to me, but as I said, it's the sort of person, the sort of -writer- I am. To me, life is erotic, erotic is real (if not realistic, I mean the sort of thing that 'feels' real emotionally is what I like). To say there -should- be some hard-and-fast separation between 'specifics' and 'appropriate vagueness' just sets my teeth on edge. I don't write like that. Why should I -have- to write like that, given that others can write on -their- comfort level just as well?
I also notice that the 'other side' gets defensive (too?); lots of people like to pop out of the woodwork to 'defend' non-hardcore or 'romantic' smut and subtly imply that harder erotica is for those horny people who think with their lower brains or whatever. It also kind of amuses me that by 'vague' people really mean something as juvenile as 'naming names', as if the mere word 'cock' or even 'manhood' (depending on one's comfort level, I guess) is enough to take something from romantically appropriate vagueness to omg-oh-noes-PR0N!!1 Seriously. Can we grow up now? :/
And yeah, I realize that's -me- being bitter/defensive, definitely :> I mean, it's okay to be uncomfortable and just not write it if you don't wanna. My issue is merely the projecting of these values onto others and the apparent need for hardcore 'desensitization' before your average non-sex-crazed(??!) reader can read about cock and not go 'oh my!' and overreact, basically. And yet, I did admit that the acuteness of perception (and thus the inherent danger of overreaction) is not only there, it may even be positive & useful... so really, I'm just babbling pointlessly 'cause I have no conclusion or solution :P
