2008 columns
    2007 columns
    2005 columns
  Back to Home
   
a53 12/30/06 - Half the resolution is optimism
a52 12/23/06 - As the solstice turns
a51 12/16/06 - Shopping for Person X
a50 12/09/06 - My dinner with Joni
a49 12/02/06 - Want quirky sex? Turn to fiction
a48 11/25/06 - For whom the biological clock ticketh
a47 11/18/06 - Eviting trouble
a46 11/11/06 - More information, less reading
a45 11/04/06 - Slogans over sentences
a44 10/28/06 - Avid consumers, or just crazy?
a43 10/21/06 - Road Rage on Information Superhighway
a42 10/14/06 - The State of Student Activism
a41 10/07/06 - $4k Cat Is Nothing to Sneeze At
a40 09/30/06 - Housing Party Collapses
a39 09/23/06 - TiVo Tyranny -- The Latest in Self-Loathing
a38 09/16/06 - What's Do-ing in Fashion
a37 09/09/06 - Gentlemen, Start Your Clocks
a36 09/02/06 - Celebrating Labor -- by Working
a35 08/26/06 - JonBenet Wasn't the Only Victim
a34 08/19/06 - Jack FM May Be Annoying, But Jill's an Airhead
a33 08/12/06 - The Upside of Marrying Down
a32 08/05/06 - The Dope In All Of Us
a31 07/29/06 - Sweating Your Way to Enlightenment
a30 07/22/06 - Can't Get Enough Baby Talk
a29 07/15/06 - Behind Batwoman's Gayness
a28 07/08/06 - I'm with Google
a27 07/01/06 - Sadists in stilettoes
a26 06/24/06 - Coulter's a satirist -- really?
a25 06/17/06 - Models hawking model homes
a24 06/10/06 - Eyesores of L.A.
a23 06/03/06 - Lies, damn lies and marriage statistics
a22 05/27/06 - The Madonna diet
a21 05/20/06 - Goodbye to you, Mr. Smiley
a20 05/13/06 - Men with weak chins
a19 05/06/06 - Man of our dreams
a18 04/29/06 - Kaavya's so not happy ending
a17 04/22/06 - Guilty moms, the next generation
a16 04/15/06 - Major decisions for minors
a15 04/08/06 - Surveying the cultural manscape
a14 04/01/06 - Hedgehog nation
a13 03/25/06 - Sticky family values
a12 03/18/06 - Love 'em, hate 'em or clean the house
a11 03/11/06 - Middle school confidential
a10 03/04/06 - Crowding out a right to choose
a9 02/25/06 - Who's the idiot now?
a8 02/18/06 - Zillowing hits you where you live
a7 02/11/06 - The No-Om Zone: Yoga for Winners
a6 02/04/06 - Wrestling with the 'Heidi' effect
a5 01/28/06 - Harassed, or just bummed?
a4 01/21/06 - Public radio, private lives
a3 01/14/06 - Throwing the book at reality
a2 01/07/06 - A breakthrough called 'Brokeback'
a1 01/02/06 - Evolving resolving
 
     
Want quirky sex? Turn to fiction
You can't blame writers for resorting to cliches, since sex has been so thoroughly exploited in pop culture.
December 2, 2006
ON WEDNESDAY in London, the 14th annual Bad Sex in Fiction Award was presented to British author Iain Hollingshead for his debut novel "Twenty Something." Judged by the editors of Literary Review magazine, the prize's mission is to sniff out "the crude, tasteless, often perfunctory use of redundant passages of sexual description in the modern novel."
At 25, Hollingshead is the youngest author to win the award, edging out formidable competition such as the bestselling novelist Mark Haddon and the legendary tome-writer Thomas Pynchon, whose latest novel, "Against the Day," includes a sex scene involving a dog that concludes with the sentence, "Reader, she bit him." Another nominee was Booker Prize finalist David Mitchell, who was recognized for a short story in which a character's breasts are likened to "a pair of Danishes."
Hollingshead, for his part, clinched his victory with passages pertaining to "bulging trousers" and "a commotion of grunts and squeaks." Host Courtney Love presented the prize — a bottle of champagne and, according to British newspaper descriptions, a "semi-abstract" statuette.
Being British and all, the Bad Sex in Fiction Awards — whose past winners and nominees have included Tom Wolfe, Salman Rushdie and Gabriel Garcia Marquez — have an ironic mark of distinction. In a nation that is often believed to be squeamish about sex, proving oneself to be lacking in the erotic writing department may signify a focus on loftier, more chaste concerns.
Besides, a lot of writers — myself included — can't so much as attempt to disrobe their characters without finding themselves either blushing or gagging at the cheesy burlesque of it all.
The Bad Sex in Fiction Award manages not to shame its winners utterly because it recognizes literature as a genre that, while certainly no stranger to sex, is not wholly dependent upon it. Despite the marketing anxieties of modernday editors, many a fine novel has been written that contains no hanky-panky at all.
What's more, it's entirely possible for a book to win a Bad Sex Award and still be a good book, albeit one with a few missteps in the form of bulges, grunts or even Danish comparisons.
That said, I can't help but draw a few connections between the existence of a bad sex fiction prize and the whole state of sexuality in popular culture. Judging from these excerpts, it looks like many of these writers lose their way when they resort to over-the-top language designed to connote high levels of excitement. In other words, they start to trade in hyperbole. From there, you're only a few grunts and bulges away from all-out cliche.
But then again, how do you avoid cliche when writing about a subject that mainstream culture has exploited so thoroughly that it is itself a giant cliche? How do you write about sex without coming across as an imitation of any cable television show, raunchy teen movie or Abercrombie & Fitch billboard that's done us the favor of telling us exactly who and what is sexy (chiseled abs, push-up bras, lips that resemble dual air bags) and what conditions are necessary in order for sex to occur (stalled elevators, out-of-town parents, improbably debris-free beaches).
These stereotypes are not just hackneyed, they've been so over-described that there's almost no room left to try again. That can derail even the best writers, who must choose whether to leave sex out of the equation altogether or attempt to come up with something that neither panders to nor entirely alienates our well-buffed expectations.
Of course, the results are often unintentionally hilarious, which is why the Bad Sex in Fiction Award is so much fun. But perhaps it's no accident that in the 14 years since the contest began, popular definitions of "sexiness" have grown ever narrower. Some of us are old enough to remember (or at least to have been told about) a time when there was actually a range of sex symbols available for our various fantasies. What do Farrah Fawcett, John Travolta and Patti Smith all have in common? Not much, except that they were all celebs who were considered erotic objects in the 1970s (and only Farrah shaved her armpits).
Today, people (celebs and/or not) seem to have — or at least want — more or less the same clothes, the same hair, the same body types and even the same turn-ons. We're all surrounded by and mimicking the same erotic models, shapes, sizes and situations that say that sex is not an esoteric, highly subjective alchemy of mind and body but a factory-assembled object (see: Pamela Anderson) complete with instructions (see: Internet pornography and "American Pie").
In their efforts to transcend these limits, even pretty good authors might find themselves compensating, turning out prose that is so gratuitously quirky (or, in Pynchon's case, bestial) that they end up standing in line for their air kiss from Courtney Love.
When breasts are being compared to Danishes, you can hardly blame readers for turning the page and Bad Sex prize givers from pouncing. On the other hand, compared to much of what's out there, Danishes sound pretty appealing.
© Copyright 2006 Los Angeles Times
 
© 2008, Meghan Daum
 
Meghan Daum Quality of Life Report