The Reading Vent & Rant Thread

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by ownedbycats

Not about the non-binary character, but about the fact that the author felt the need to put a warning in place for it. Bloody transphobes.

More like someone who is so afraid of being offensive to somebody, they end up being more offensive.

I've read books where the main characters were LGBTQIA2S+ (if that acronym gets any longer, it's going to need a acronym ). Some of the books were good, some were bad with the majority being so-so.

Many of the bad ones made their protagonists' sexuality, the central theme of the story. I prefer approaches such as Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar series where, for the most part, non-binary wasn’t a big deal. It just was. Yes, she had some homophobia in her stories but for the most part, it was a minor secondary element. "I don't hate you because you are homosexual, I hate you because you are an <expletive deleted> who has broken your word far more often than you have kept it."

Admittedly, I also dislike most of my XYL's "porn for mommies" books for the authors' apparent belief that if sex sells, more sex described in excruciating detail sells better.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by ownedbycats

I was a bit disappointed to see this in the summary for a book:

Not about the non-binary character, but about the fact that the author felt the need to put a warning in place for it. Bloody transphobes.

Just put in LGBTQ+ as a genre and if that's not for you, you won't read it. No need for such an obnoxious warning.

[theducks]

It is probably there to reduce (irate) returns to the dealer.

[Sirtel]

I've seen such warnings more than once, almost always from self-published authors. Big publishers don't insert any warnings in their books.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by DNSB

More like someone who is so afraid of being offensive to somebody, they end up being more offensive.

I've read books where the main characters were LGBTQIA2S+ (if that acronym gets any longer, it's going to need a acronym ). Some of the books were good, some were bad with the majority being so-so.

Many of the bad ones made their protagonists' sexuality, the central theme of the story. I prefer approaches such as Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar series where, for the most part, non-binary wasn’t a big deal. It just was. Yes, she had some homophobia in her stories but for the most part, it was a minor secondary element. "I don't hate you because you are homosexual, I hate you because you are an <expletive deleted> who has broken your word far more often than you have kept it."

Admittedly, I also dislike most of my XYL's "porn for mommies" books for the authors' apparent belief that if sex sells, more sex described in excruciating detail sells better.

I don't mind books that do have their characters' sexuality as a main theme, but I prefer knowing that before I buy the book. It might not always be my cup of tea. I also don't mind detailed sex scenes, unless they're there to cover up the lack of any meaningful plot.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

It might not always be my cup of tea. I also don't mind detailed sex scenes, unless they're there to cover up the lack of any meaningful plot.

The sad part is that the books where the sex scenes are used to attempt to cover the lack of any meaningful plot are a lot more common that those where the sex scenes advance the plot.

[ownedbycats]

A book I purchased for $5.74 in 2013 is available in 2023 for... 4.99. I should have waited!!!



edit: oh wait that's the tax

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by DNSB

The sad part is that the books where the sex scenes are used to attempt to cover the lack of any meaningful plot are a lot more common that those where the sex scenes advance the plot.

(coughcoughLaurellKHamiltoncoughcough)

Hitch

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Hitch

(coughcoughLaurellKHamiltoncoughcough)

Hitch

The sex scene in the In Death books do not cover up the lack of a plot nor do they advance the plot. They just are.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The sex scene in the In Death books do not cover up the lack of a plot nor do they advance the plot. They just are.

I'm not sure that's a lot better. That's like the ubiquitous "lecture" scenes, or conversation scenes, where the author forgets that we're there to be entertained and instead, has a character go off on some tangent, talking bout this disaster, or that one, or this cause, this thing to which they want to draw your attention--and it's almost never done well. It's always a big load of Fatberg, sitting in the middle of the plot/story.

With exceedingly few exceptions, sex scenes NEVER advance the plot. I mean, let's not kid ourselves, how could they? You could move the plot ahead with the old-fashioned "fade to black" and then open with them in bed, or whatever. Which says "yes, characters A and B have had sex." There you go, that's the plot moved. All the sweaty body parts do nothing except for pure prurience.

Hitch

[hildea]

Originally Posted by Hitch

With exceedingly few exceptions, sex scenes NEVER advance the plot. I mean, let's not kid ourselves, how could they? You could move the plot ahead with the old-fashioned "fade to black" and then open with them in bed, or whatever. Which says "yes, characters A and B have had sex." There you go, that's the plot moved. All the sweaty body parts do nothing except for pure prurience.

I don't agree -- sex scenes done well can give important characterization, as well as plot. KJ Charles has several examples of advancing the plot in Let's talk about sex scenes. Here are some of her examples (MC = main character):

Originally Posted by KJ Charles

The received wisdom is that in romance (not erotica or erotic romance, which are separate beasts to which this blog post does not apply), every sex scene needs to advance the plot on some level. A sex scene should not be skippable. Remember here that plot is character in action. A sex scene might have any of the following effects:

• MCs who don’t know each other well create a tentative connection, so MC 1 feels able to flee to MC 2’s home when disaster strikes
• MCs who click/laugh/otherwise develop their emotional relationship in a way they have not before now
• MCs reveal insecurities, fears, vulnerabilities, or past trauma
• MCs reveal a quality that hasn’t been apparent before, whether unexpected kindness and consideration, humour, passion, or a more alarming side

She also has examples of characterization in Yes and No: Consent in sex scenes

[ownedbycats]

Originally Posted by Hitch

I'm not sure that's a lot better. That's like the ubiquitous "lecture" scenes, or conversation scenes, where the author forgets that we're there to be entertained and instead, has a character go off on some tangent, talking bout this disaster, or that one, or this cause, this thing to which they want to draw your attention--and it's almost never done well. It's always a big load of Fatberg, sitting in the middle of the plot/story.

There's a TV Tropes page for that!

[DuskyRose]

Originally Posted by hildea

I don't agree -- sex scenes done well can give important characterization, as well as plot.

I agree. Done well, they can add a lot to the plot and character development.

Sex is interaction between characters that can say a lot about them, what they're thinking, feeling, how they see each other... Like any other scene that should be important to the story. Someone who's charming to your face on a first date but a jerk to wait staff, or venders, can be very telling. Selfish sex can as well.

Too many times sex scenes, and eating scenes when it comes to that, just seem to be thrown in, as filler space. In those cases, they're certainly skippable, and not the sign of a really great writer.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by DuskyRose

I agree. Done well, they can add a lot to the plot and character development.

Sex is interaction between characters that can say a lot about them, what they're thinking, feeling, how they see each other... Like any other scene that should be important to the story. Someone who's charming to your face on a first date but a jerk to wait staff, or venders, can be very telling. Selfish sex can as well.

Too many times sex scenes, and eating scenes when it comes to that, just seem to be thrown in, as filler space. In those cases, they're certainly skippable, and not the sign of a really great writer.

I agree with this as well. That's why I read the sex scenes. And it's obvious when the scene is there purely as a filler.

Of course then there is the erotica genre, where the main purpose IS to titillate and satisfy people's prurient interests. Nothing wrong with that, but it's also something I prefer to know beforehand. Not to discover that a book labelled as fantasy or romance is actually mostly erotica. I have nothing against erotica, I've even been known to read some, but let me know before I start to read, please.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by hildea

I don't agree -- sex scenes done well can give important characterization, as well as plot. KJ Charles has several examples of advancing the plot in Let's talk about sex scenes. Here are some of her examples (MC = main character):

Sure--and I can probably count on one hand the number of sex scenes I've read--literally, one hand--that actually moved the PLOT forward. 99% of the time, they don't. We don't get some big character reveal. Or even a small important one.

My attitude toward sex scenes is the same as my attitude toward ANY scene--if it doesn't propel the plot forward, nuke it. There are exceedingly few things in Charles' list that aren't doable if you do the fade-to-black thing, either. For example,

"MC says something stupid in the aftermath and borks everything"

or

"MCs are seen shagging, setting off plot repercussions"

Neither of those and very few of her list, require the actual sex scene. That's the thing, isn't it? That was my kvetch about GOT. It never seemed to really serve the plot--just to titillate a bunch of 13-y.o.'s and use up valuable screen time. Not to mention the one-sidedness of it.

(I got into an argument once with a woman on some chat something, somewhere, or Disqus, don't recall, when she INSISTED that the sex was necessary to "understand the plot." [Maybe it was for her...]. I asked her, "well, if the nudity and sex is so crucial, to undersand the plot, then why is it that it's only women who are naked, episode after episode? Where's all the wedding tackle? The boy bits? What, we don't need THOSE to 'get the plot'?"

People simply don't want to admit that they're prurient, nothing more, nothing less. I mean, with all these arguments for 'sex as plot,' OMG, it's a miracle that we all learned to read and enjoy books for the centuries that it wasn't set out overtly! How'd we ever figure out the plots then???? (/sarcasm)

She also has examples of characterization in Yes and No: Consent in sex scenes

These are two very different scenarios--in this discussion, the consent and how it's obtained, the approach by the more-aggressive partner, etc. can absolutely be part of character development. Now, her take is that "...that plot is character in action," and to some extent, I agree, but that take is also more suited to LitFic than to genre fiction.

God knows, there's plenty of erotica around. It's not like the 50-60's, where you had to search for it. Now you have to work to avoid it.

Nobody here will change their mind about this topic. Those of you that enjoy it, enjoy. Some of us, though...I tend to sample the first sex scene in a book and if it's as tedious or poorly-done as most, I skip it. I don't recall missing any crucial plot elements, thus far. :-) Somehow, I've still managed to read the book, get the gist and all that good stuff.

Hitch