Questions from a Brave and Stupid Man to a Panel of Women Writers #3: Men (Mis)Writing Women

NOTE: This post features adult language.

Being a white man, I willingly acknowledge I have blind spots, things that while they don't register to me like they perhaps should are things well worth my time and thought and important for me to know and understand in order to a member of a community of diverse writers.

That said, I've assembled an all-female panel of writers to be my teachers.

This is #3 in a series of articles. The first can be found here, and the second here. 

Today's discussion is this: 

Are there things you find often when men write female leads that drive you crazy? What are they, and how can male writers fix those issues?

       

Emily Leverett

(Most) Women ALWAYS (always, I mean always, no matter what) take serious inventory of their current location--that is, where are the exits? Is this well lit? Are there people around? How fast do I need to walk somewhere, etc. In bars, on the street, anywhere. Women often refuse to stay in motels where the doors open to the outside. Also, as per the Men Write Women Twitter account, women's breasts do not have a mind, emotional set, or physical capacity to move of their own.

And I don't randomly think about my boobs AT ALL unless they are either hurting or as I am dressing and even then only in passing. I don't dwell upon my long soft hair as I twist it up and clip it.

I am thinking "Is today a two cups of coffee day or am I good with one?"

We do frequently have a laundry list of things in our head, planning out day, mental notes for errands, checklist of things done to leave house. (Of course the fewer responsibilities one has the shorter that list)

Women are just as likely as men to be logical and pragmatic, or emotional and impulsive.

Corrina Lawson

They don't write a specific personality. When some male writers create men, they create a specific person, yes? When they create a woman, they create the same type over and over. (See Greg Rucka, frex.) Women are as varied as men, they have all kinds of different interests, body types, and personalities.

Also, women approach a date/encounter with unknown men with the same wary attitude that men approach a possible fistfight. 

I wanted to add even when they write well-drawn and complicated women, men tend to make them also fuckable. Not every woman in your story needs to be fuckable. Put older women in. Make them interesting too.

Ellie Raine

I’ve noticed men writing “strong female characters” as if they have zero flaws and are just amazingly awesome at literally everything without any struggle whatsoever as if they’re robots...

Sometimes they even come off as male character personalities but in a skin that men want to see, so it’s still men writing for men.

Just as often, though, I also see men writing only about an OPPRESSED WOMAN archetype who doesn’t have any actual personality other than being oppressed and being angry about it 24/7 in their sleep, in the shower, on the toilet, in the car, in the morning, etc. Literally, it’s like some authors think they’re not even allowed to give those characters a favorite color or a favorite beverage, because someone must have told them they’re not allowed to write about women unless their entire being and existence is only relevant to how much they’re oppressed... like, for sure, we HAVE and STILL ARE oppressed on too many god damn levels, and while I get angry about that bs a lot when it comes up, I’m still a damn human who thinks and does other things ASIDE from that.

Our purpose in life is not BEING OPPRESSED. Our personalities are not BEING OPPRESSED. Our goals are not BEING OPPRESSED.

Oppression is a viable and accurate OBSTACLE. I personally don’t want it to define who I am as a human being. I decide for myself who I am, as should all characters regardless of gender, sexuality, race, and belief. They. Are. PEOPLE.

        

Ruth de Jauregui

Women are complicated. 

A tough woman working in a man's world can also be caring and sensitive, but she might keep it out of sight of the world. Give us those little moments where we can see that she cares, that a memory is painful. Oh, and we have aches and pains -- it's not all sweetness and light...

Oh, and real women don't have breasts shaped like melons -- especially after kids. Hips spread, knees and back hurt, no more high heels.

Anna Rose

Women being one-note characters constantly in need of “saving”.

Fuck that shit.

My characters of all genders tend far more to fighting back than being passive.

Cynthia Ward

Women should have agency (so avoid female characters who are absolutely, utterly, totally helpless in body, mind, spirit, and imagination. As you would with male characters).

Skip making them damsels in distress. This doesn't mean they cannot need or receive help from a man (or a woman, or a group). What it means is that helplessness and victimhood are not their story function, any more than they are a male character's story function.

(It may be worth noting that Edgar Rice Burroughs, who died in 1950, rarely created females who were damsels in distress. Arguably, he didn't at all, because Jane gained a lot of competence and independence in later books.)

Don't have the women be there for the male lead, or for male characters in general. This is rather subtle and difficult to root out, I suspect. But it's a big part of the reason why I've joked that most fiction is fan-service for men. In the Travis McGee books I've read, excellent as they are, this is definitely the role of women. However much I like them, the women are there to have sex with McGee, comfort him, give him an excuse to demonstrate competence in and/or out of bed, etc.

Along these lines, do you only have one female character in the story or novel? It can make sense in some cases (she's the only character or there are only two characters, or you are recognizing multiple genders in a small cast). But it can often be avoided.

Remember not all women and girls are cisgender.

As a cis woman, I'll note that I don't pay nearly as much attention to my breasts, genitals, or (when I had them) periods as some male writers think.

Cis women also tend not to think about penii nearly as much as many cis men think.

       

Lucy Blue

I’m also very very tired of female characters who prove their worth as action heroes by hating all things stereotypically feminine, whether it’s dating men or nail polish. If I have to read how one more female protagonist has no time to wear makeup or doesn’t realize how beautiful she is or never bothers with a bra for her perky double D boobs (pro tip—double D boobs can be many things but perky ain’t one of them without the assistance of engineering), I’m going to vomit. And why can’t she be susceptible to flirting or romantic commitment without being perceived as weak or silly?

Nikki Nelson-Hicks

Off the top of my head, the thing that always makes me most angry is when a female character is merely there to prop up the male character. She's there to be pretty, to make him feel better, to show him the meaning of life. The Manic Pixie Dream Girl trope is the first thing that comes to mind. (The Bechdel Test also comes to mind. I often use it when I'm watching a movie. BTW, Hamilton completely fails the Bechdel test.) I mean, look at the first Star Wars movie, New Hope. We're supposed to feel so sorry for Luke losing Ben Kenobi, a man he's known for a few days, when Leia has not only endured torture by Empire needle bots, she's lost her entire planet! And who gets comforted? Yeah. That's pretty messed up. If you want to make a character interesting, worry about their humanity. Their goals. Their ambitions. My genitalia has very little to do with my ambitions or personal goals. I like a character that could be gender swapped and not a bit of the character's motivations be lost.

Alexandra Christian

Men often have a tendency to be obsessed with describing women strictly in terms of their physical appearance. I proofed a book where the guy referenced a woman's "shapely legs" 4 times on one page. There also seem to be two kinds of women: sex pots that every man on Earth wants to sleep with or a heinously unattractive bitch.

    

Krystal Rollins

Women writers treat their manuscript like their best friend. She can put it down for a while, come right back to it, and pick up her conversation just where she left off.

Sarah Lucy Beach

I was recently editing something and the female main character was described in one sentence as a "big chunk of a woman." I thought "chunk" a bit heavy handed, but it could mean tall, strong, Junoesque. But then a couple of sentences later, she is also described as "beautiful and sexy," with no other description to it. The other character in the scene is an older woman, a counselor. So the "beautiful and sexy" was totally irrelevant. Sexy to whom? How? Why does it matter if she's sexy or not, especially in such a scene.

Just calling a woman "sexy" doesn't make her so. It's laziness on the part of the male writer. Dude, if you cannot describe why she's turning you on, just drop it. She ain't sexy. But if it's the way her lips turn up, or the long slender column of her neck, or her graceful hands fluttering about, lightly caressing the surface of the table.... Anyway, SHOW us in her behavior (movement, voice, that sort of thing) what makes her attractive, don't just flat out TELL the reader, because that is FLAT.

Mandi M. Lynch

If you want a good female character, think about what makes a good male character. When we hear about male characters we hear about professional accomplishments, we hear about what they do and who they are, we don't hear about sexy rugged shoulders and the bulge in their pants. When a male character achieve something it isn't because he's blond and skinny and pretty with an upturned nose, it's because of how he got there. We don't hear about how their clothes pulled tight in certain spots. And we don't hear about them and association with other people unless there is an important reason for that.

Also, in general I am tired of hearing about strong assertive females being b***** or ugly or sturdy or whatever stupid word you have for the day. There's a strong woman in power somewhere, and she's either a nice princess or screwed her way to the top, or we get a woman that basically is manly and just can't accept her position in life. And that's not how it really is.

 

Susan H. Roddey

My biggest hang-up is when more stock is put on the woman's physical appearance than her abilities. I don't like seeing women treated as hypersexualized eye-candy. She needs to have better motivation than some dude's ass-kicking warrior chick fantasy.

I completely understand that if a male character is seeing the woman for the first time then yeah, he'll likely take stock of her physical appearance and that's fine. Just don't overdo it. Let him appreciate what he sees and move on before it becomes comical and offensive. We don't need to know exactly how the fabric of her dress hangs off her hips or what the outline of her nipples looks like through her top.

Amanda Niehaus-Hard

All of the above and be aware too that women are angry and we live with that anger 24/7.

Women have certain societal expectations put on them to be the care-takers or "mothers." Women are expected to be the peace-makers. Women are expected to respond passively to the violence in the world and in their communities. This weighs on you and affects you from childhood into adulthood. And it's infuriating.

Be aware that your character has a back story of fury over these expectations, over being dismissed, ignored, mansplained, not believed, etc. Be aware that her back story also includes anxiety over being raised to believe she was "asking for" any violence done to her by wearing the wrong clothes or not being vigilant enough in a parking garage. Be aware that she has been sexualized since she was a child, and that her current "worth" in society is based on how closely she still resembles a teenager -- so her confidence in her own sexuality and her own self-worth is constantly under attack by her anxieties.

Be aware that we are intimately acquainted with microaggressions because we've been told since preschool that we need to shrug them off.

Be aware that sometimes our own religious faith fails us, neglecting to protect us or failing to give us support in times of crisis.

Be aware of our history in our culture. We know what year we were finally allowed to have bank accounts without a husband co-owning the account. Do you?

Be aware that we can't ask for help without being called weak, or having that request used against us, as a symptom of our "hysteria."

No matter what your position on birth control, sterilization, or abortion, be aware that we STILL don't have agency over our own health and our own contraception -- and what little control we have is constantly under threat.

My point is not that men don't live with anger or unrealistic societal expectations. Of course they do. But you're aware of yours. Be aware of ours.

Want to write a woman as a villain? She doesn't need to have been raped. She doesn't need to have had her child murdered. She doesn't need to have Stockholm Syndrome. She really just needs to be a woman.

Jen Mulvihill

Oh, my, where to begin, there are so many but let's just talk about the simplest one. Woman do not always sit around and gossip about each other or ogle good looking guys and make sexist remarks about them. We actually do have intelligent and in depth conversations about life, the universe, and everything. I would recommend that you sit and listen to women's conversations before assuming what we talk about and what we care about. Also, also, not all women/girls run screaming when they see something scary or are attacked. Personally my first instinct is to find a weapon, and always double tap, don't hit them once and think they are out cold or dead. A smart woman always makes sure. I find it inspiring to talk to people and ask questions about their gender or even their race or religion. Most people are not offended by this because they rather see a writer get it right then get upset about it being wrong. I think readers appreciate it when you take the time to do proper research especially when it comes to characters written by the opposite sex.

Questions from a Brave and Stupid Man to a Panel of Women Writers #2: Pseudonyms

Being a white man, I willingly acknowledge I have blind spots, things that while they don't register to me like they perhaps should are things well worth my time and thought and important for me to know and understand in order to a member of a community of diverse writers.

That said, I've assembled an all-female panel of writers to be my teachers.

In the previous discussion someone brought up the issue of using a pen name. I figured we could go deeper into that issue this time.

This is #2 in a series of articles. The first can be found here, and the third here. 

So, today's discussion is this:

Do you find using a pseudonym helpful or a waste of time? Does it matter if you choose one that can be vague as to the gender or can a male one still open doors better than a female name? Or is it a genre specific issue?

Nikki Nelson-Hicks: I wrote it. I want my name on it. But that's my decision. I know people who use a pen name because they don't want their families to know about their work or they have a professional reputation to safeguard. I'm lucky that I don't have anything like that to hide from. I wrote it. That's my name. Deal with it.

Alexandra Christian: I started using a pen name because I was writing steamy romance while teaching 2nd grade. Apparently women are still supposed to be sexless schoolmarms. I write across a few genres, but I haven’t felt the need to come up with new pen names just yet. Or maybe all my writing is inherently sexual.

Ellie Raine: I've heard a lot of women use male pen names to get more sales in certain genres (and men using female pen names for romance) and it sucks that it continually gets them results. I choose to use my female name despite the genre I write because I would rather help break society's expectations of which genders "writer better (you name it) books". I don't know if anything will change from it, but I'd rather not feed the poison and keep the cycle of these assumptions going. The only way minds will be changed is if they consistently SEE that any gender can write any genre well.

Alexandra Christian: I’ve never gotten an agent, but I queried one book a lot and was pretty much told that my book was too sexy for sci-fi and too sci-fi for romance. I often wonder if I’d queried as a nonspecific pen name if I’d have had more success.

Ellie Raine: I had one agent tell me mine was too paranormal and not epic fantasy enough, and another tell me it was too epic fantasy and not paranormal enough. Funny how no one can seem to place these things... I never considered it may be because of the female/male dynamic, but it would be interesting to know if that was a factor.

Lucy Blue: My first publication was a collaboration with another writer, so we came up with a pen name together -- Anne Hathaway-Nayne. (And yes, it was a joke, sort of - we were writing a tie-in for Forever Knight, and Shakespeare was a character.) Then for my first solo publication with Pocket Books, I used a version of my real name, Jayel Wylie (my actual birth name is Jessica Leslie Wylie, which got shortened to JL, which my mother spelled out as Jayel), and I did three book with them under that name. Then my editor asked me to go in a slightly steamier and more fang-y direction with my next book and told me going in I was looking at one of those oh-so-popular torso covers. Because I wanted to write that book but I didn't necessarily want to always write that kind of book forever, I started using Lucy Blue. And that has since become a brand for me as a romance writer. But I'm still not sure if I'll use Lucy Blue or my real name if I do a non-romance book - it's an issue that I'm hoping is going to come up sometime in the next year, and I'll be open to input from my publisher about it then. And yeah, the idea has crossed my mind of being "J.L. Glanville" instead of "Jessica Glanville" because it's gender-neutral. But my writing, romantic or not, is so very woman-centric, I don't think I'd be fooling anybody.

Stephanie Osborn: I wrote one pure romance novel under a pen name, years ago. It didn't sell to a traditional publisher (mostly because said publisher lost it), so I threw it up indie, and occasionally it sells a copy or two.

For my SF, mystery, and popular science, I use my own name. Sometimes I kinda wish I'd used initials or something, 'cause then the SF might sell better, I sometimes think. But hey, it is what it is. I might try initials one of these days with a new series or something, just to see what happens.

Anna Grace Carpenter: I originally started using my initials because folks in real life seemed to have so much trouble remembering my given name and I was genuinely worried that folks would not be able to find my books on the shelf because they would be looking for Mary Grace or Sarah Jane instead of Anna Grace. (Of course, a couple years after I'd started selling short stories, I asked someone to look at a story that kept getting to the final round on the editors desks and then rejected. I sent him the submission formatted copy which had my real name and contact info on the first page. In his return comments the first thing he said was "I think you shouldn't use your real name because it's really too sweet for someone writing zombie stories." So the bias is definitely real.) I do introduce myself by my actual name and not my author name because my intention is not to hide anything, but I'm not rebranding my work at this point unless it's in a drastically different genre.

Nancy Hansen: I've always written under my own name because I'm proud of what I do, and so is my very supportive family. I figure an entire legion of women labored in obscurity before me, having to hide their identity to get recognized for their outstanding work in speculative and genre fiction, and I owe it to them to celebrate the freedom to be myself.

Herika Raymer: To be truthful, I am most likely still considered new to the field. Mostly because, as yet, I have not encountered any preconceptions about my name -- possibly because of how it is spelled. No one wants to 'offend' me (LOL).But I have to agree, if I wrote it I would prefer my name on it. Then again, there are times when I have considered a pen name simply because of my mundane life. Sometimes what you write should not cross over with your mundane identity. (wink wink)

Elizabeth Donald: People were always surprised that I wrote fiction under my own name, which is the same name I use for my 21 years of journalism. They acted like it would negatively impact my reputation as a journalist, but I didn't write anything I would be ashamed of, and quite frankly, most of my day-job colleagues and sources were supportive or amused. I got a little light teasing for writing romance, but nothing like the negative reactions I saw in the horror/SF world for writing romance and ebooks.

Yes, ebooks. I'm old, so my first couple of books came out in the infancy of ebooks, even pre-Kindle. People said, "I'll wait for the real book," and I couldn't use the ebooks as credits. One con even rewrote my submitted bio to call me an aspiring author. And I've spoken before about the negative reaction to paranormal romance encroaching in horror and SF, being dismissed as "vamporn," difficulty getting on horror panels and being stuck on the midnight sex panel - and the eternal, "So why are vampires so sexy?" panel. (I've started requesting NOT to be on those panels, because it was so tedious to say the same things at the same panels every single time.)

Eventually I vowed that if I would ever write more romance, it would be under a pen name and it would not be open. I found it sadly ironic that while the expectation was "romance will hurt your journalism career," it was really "writing romance means no one will take you seriously as a horror writer." It was not what I expected. Cynical colleagues said it was purely a gender thing: romance is a "woman's genre," and thus it was acceptable as long as I didn't venture into the boys' club - that the negative response of horror/SF to romance was really a negative response to women authors. I like to think that they're wrong, but I haven't found solid evidence yet.

I liked writing romance. It made me a better writer in ways that I could detail if I wasn't already far afield of Sean's question. I didn't like some of the genre's "rules," and I didn't fit in very well to readers' expectations. But in the end, I needed to jettison it from my own name in order to rebuild my brand - and to this day, 11 years after writing my last romance under my name, people who are even good friends and longtime readers will introduce me as, "This is Elizabeth Donald, she writes vampire smut." Sigh...

Amanda Niehaus-Hard: I wrote under diferent names for accounting purposes and to separate out some sections of my life from others. When I started out, I was told that sometimes a romance or women's fic publishing house will want to keep your romance "name" separate from other fiction you might write, but I'm not sure that's accurate these days. Someone recently pointed out to me that tenure-track teaching positions usually require some kind of regular publishing credentials and using a different name might complicate things. Again, no idea if that's true but I'm rolling out all new work under one of two iterations of my legal name, which is associated with my university and hopefully any future teaching I might do.

Questions from a Brave and Stupid Man to a Panel of Women Writers #1: Because Asking Honest Questions Is the Best Starting Point, I Was Told

Being a white man, I willingly acknowledge I have blind spots, things that while they don't register to me like they perhaps should are things well worth my time and thought and important for me to know and understand in order to a member of a community of diverse writers.

That said, I've assembled an all-female panel of writers to be my teachers.

This is #1 in a series of articles. The second can be found here, and the third here. 

Today's discussion is this: 

Are there issues in the writing and publishing community common to women that aren't typically experienced by men? What are they, and are they merely irksome or downright systemic?

Alexandra Christian

Alexandra Christian: I think all us chick genre writers have experienced the “girls can’t write horror/sci-fi/fantasy/pulp.” Or “girl’s put too much kissy stuff” are “too emotional.”

Lisa Matthews Collins: I could go on ad nauseam about that topic. :/

Alexandra Christian: And I like kissy stuff (obviously) but good stories don’t have to be devoid of relationships (kissy stuff).

Elizabeth Donald: Oh my god yes this. Nowhere was it more obvious than when I switched from writing vampire thrillers - which were dismissed condescendingly as "vamporn" - to writing zombie action-horror. "That's kind of a guy thing," I was told, and while they were half-kidding, in almost every case I was the sole woman on the zombie panel if I could get on the panel at all. The stereotypes of What Women Write and What Men Write persist.

Lucy Blue: I will never understand why a dude, reader or writer, who is perfectly enthusiastic about a detailed description of the bare-handed evisceration of a toddler by a monster, alien, or zombie gets entirely skeeved out by an even remotely realistic love scene. I can see it now, a new trend in splatterpunk - 'this one is REALLY scary - they talk about their FEELINGS!!' ;)

Elizabeth Donald: I've been to cons. I know sffh fans like sex. :) And yet when I did my first Dragoncon, I was with my then-publisher Ellora's Cave handing out cover cards at my booth for my first novel, an erotic vampire thriller about a serial killer tearing out throats near a vampire-run sex club. A man looked at the description on the back of the cover card, looked at me and said, "The only difference between this stuff and Penthouse Forum is the words, 'I never thought this would happen to me.'" Then he walked about five feet away and threw my cover card on the ground, in my full view. I wanted to yell after him, "That shit cost me money, asshole." Or possibly do something antisocial to him. I did neither, because I was mellower then. :)

Stephanie Osborn: I've had that happen a few times. My response is generally, "I try to write realistic characters with realistic relationships. Are you in a long-term relationship?"

(if yes) "Then you get what I mean."
(if no) "Do you WANT to be in one? Then you get what I mean."

Lisa Matthews Collins

Lisa Matthews Collins: I have had this experience twice...told that I needed to go write another genre because as a girl I didn't know enough science and math to write hard science fiction. Both times by 50+ year-old white men.


Elizabeth Donald: Sara Harvey can talk about being on a panel with a male author who opined that women can't write science fiction. He said it outright; I've been on panels where they obfuscated it behind vocabulary: "The language of science fiction is different than the language of romance, they don't blend well."

Stephanie Osborn: I do occasionally encounter people who don't know my background who try to explain the science to me. Until they find out what I used to do. [Editor's note: Stephanie is actually a rocket scientist.] Then they tend to disappear pretty soon quick.

Anna Grace Carpenter: Male characters are seen as the default, so men writing male characters is part of the norm, but when women focus on female characters (or things perceived to be female "interests") it's shunted into niche categories. (I had a dude at a convention back in January try to convince me that I could not possibly have written my books for him because the narrator was a woman, therefore it must be a book for women, not men.) Because men are the default, when a male author writes "outside his lane" so to speak, whether it's writing female characters or in a "woman's genre" it's usually regarded and brave and insightful, while women writing in genres perceived as "men's genres" are chasing trends or playing the gender card or whatever the current phrase is to indicate that women don't really belong in that space. Also, men can write characters that are either completely perfect or so very ordinary they shouldn't succeed in saving the world, and they won't be labeled as "wish-fullfilment" or "self-insertion" but women writing characters that are competent and skilled are frequently damned by accusations of "Mary Sue" characters.

While it would be nice to think these things are really just annoyances, they directly impact access to reviewers (or rather, how many female authors are reviewed each year), general exposure for their work, and ultimately sales numbers. (Let's not forget that a survey of top-market book reviews a couple of years ago revealed that dead male authors still received more critical attention than living female authors.)

Elizabeth Donald

Elizabeth Donald: There's another aspect of that "male character is the default" that I think is going to take at least another generation to work out. The initial experience of the reader is one of identification, of compassion in the original sense, the ability to identify with the main character and empathize with his or her plight. For the vast majority of English-language literature, male characters were the default, as written by male writers. Women grew up reading those stories, and learned to identify with male protagonists and their sideline girlfriends as well. We learned how to relate to a character different from us, because we didn't have much of a choice. I didn't grow up with Buffy or Katniss; I had Nancy Drew, who kept needing to be saved.

Men didn't have the same identification experience, because most of what they read had Someone Like Them at the center of the story. They didn't have to stretch to identify with a female protagonist written by a woman, because that didn't exist all that much. Without that practice as a young person, without learning that empathy and identification with someone Other, their experiences in fiction were different than ours - and I leave it to others to say how much that affected them in real life as well.

Sadly, we're continuing this today. We still have children's movies aimed at girls or boys, separate toy sections where girls are expected to buy girl dolls and boys "action figures." We see children's entertainment retitled because we think boys won't see a movie with a girl as the main character, defying the entire history of Disney. :) There are parents beginning to read stories about girls to their boy children (vice versa has never been a problem), and I think that will make a big difference going forward.

Anna Grace Carpenter: I cried the first time I read "Dealing with Dragons" by Patricia Wrede because it was the first time I'd found a book that really seemed to feature a character I understood at a gut level. (And there are a lot of other "YA" books from my childhood that I love, but there was something deep in finding a character who reacted like I did, who had similar goals. Something I think a lot of men never have to contend with because so much of fiction is about male experiences.)

Lucy Blue

Lucy Blue: If you're a woman, the assumption is ALWAYS that you write "women's fiction," and "women's fiction" is always assumed to either be romance, True-Story/Lifetime-style trauma fiction (usually with a romantic element), or menopausal tales of triumph (usually with an erotic element). But you know who leaps to that conclusion fastest and makes the biggest stink-face about it? Other women writers in horror, science fiction, fantasy, and pulp--not all, of course, but some. I don't know whether they're so bruised and battered from running that gauntlet themselves that it's made them brutal or they feel like they had to go through it so damn it every other woman should have to go through it, too, or that they want to make sure that the other boys in their genre know they ain't no stupid girly-girl--I suspect it's a little bit of all of these, depending on the woman writer in question. And just like with writers of color, female writers are continually being asked by male writers in traditionally dude-centric genres how to write women better. Sometimes it's a genuinely respectful and heartfelt question posed so that the male writer in question can make the female characters in the stories he already writes better--this panel being a shining example. But sometimes it's a dude writer wanting to cash in on what he thinks is that sweet, sweet romance-infused market of chick readers by writing one more urban fantasy novel with a female heroine with her big boobs barely contained in her dirty tank top on the cover. He wants to be able to say when some other woman accuses him of writing a male fantasy of female empowerment, "that's not possible! I asked three different women what women are like!"

Elizabeth Donald: I have no studies to back it up, but when I began, nearly all my acceptances were from female editors and rejections from male editors. This began to change, however, when I got out ini the con circuit and made contacts among male editors and publishers. They got to know me, and my work, and then they came to me with opportunities or were open to my pitches. It's worth noting that "exposure" at cons is often at the whim of con organizers, so if a con is not particularly 'woke,' you'll find all women on the midnight sex panel and "why are vampires so hot?" and all men on "how to kill a zombie: gun or sword?" I know which panel I'd rather be on, but it's taken some doing.

For the record, those male editors have been almost all delights to work with, and I'd consider them all fairly open-minded, cosmopolitan folk. So I don't know how much of it is simply "we publish the people we know" (which is its own problem), and how much is, "A woman wrote zombies? Is it a romance?"

Ellie Raine: There have been a LOT of times when I tell someone I've written a book, they automatically assume it's romance. Even if I say it's fantasy, they think "fantasy romance". I've gotten into an argument with one man who insisted that women writers always use too much "emotions" compared to male writers, even though William Shakespeare, Edgar Allen Poe, Nikolas Sparks, Brandon Sanderson, James Patterson, George RR Martin, Neal Gaiman, and just about EVERY popular/GOOD author focuses on the character's emotions (which is pretty damn crucial to good story telling) and includes either a romance line or (in Martin's case) more sex scenes than 50 shades of Grey.

Stephanie Osborn

Regarding more industry culture, I've stopped going to formal writing conferences as much because I was tired of showing up for workshops just to have random guys initiate conversations to give me unsolicited advice about how to finish my first novel (even though I had three finished, but they didn't bother asking me first), how to get a publisher to notice you (which I'd already done, but they didn't bother asking), and how to find a man who would stay with me for a long time and eventually marry (even though I was already married and was wearing a wedding ring) and--the kicker--how to navigate high school (even though I was well into my twenties, but they didn't bother asking). It was weird how MANY men(usually into their 40s and up, and--for some reason--all wrote Literary and kept telling you how much better It was compared to fantasy and that I should switch to that if I REALLY wanted to improve my writing) gave the exact same theme of advice, and all of them assumed they knew my age, my relationship status, and my writing level without asking a damn thing. Fan Conventions are WAY better than conferences with this, no one has ever assumed they knew anything about me there and even the people who wrote literary there are chill and engaging. Basically, my experience with formal conference culture is that a LOT of people are there to make themselves feel better about how they've been going to these things for decades yet still haven't gotten a book deal with a publisher (all the men in question informed me they weren't published yet or even self published when I asked them). I don't know, I expect people to have actually gone through the publishing experience either trad or self before they feel free to offer advice on it without anyone asking them in the first place.

Lisa Matthews Collins: I was told I needed to go back to writing female lead POVs in my stories because who would want to read a male protagonist written by a girl?!

Elizabeth Donald: Oh lord... my husband writes horror romance, I write action SF and dark horror. Everyone assumes it's the other way around. He writes romantic happy endings; my books end in funerals.

Lisa Matthews Collins: This is an old thing that is still an issue... being judged by your name...not on any merit of storytelling expertise. I took a gamble on writing science fiction and pulp under my name Lisa M. Collins and not going with the safer route of L.M. Collins. Sadly, it took me awhile to make the decision to go with my name because Lisa is a girl's name.

Lucy Blue: And it's a double-edged sword. If you use your real, apparently feminine name, you get pre-judged. If you use your initials or a more apparently gender-neutral pseudonym, then when people find out you're a woman, you cheated.

Nikki Nelson-Hicks: It's the presumption that, because I have a vagina, I must write "girly horror." That I can't get deep and dirty with it. Once, at a writers' critique group, I submitted a piece and this guy kept saying, "You wrote this? YOU did. YOU?" Yeah, fucker. Me. I really never understand this idea that women can't GET horror. Sweetie, our lives are a horror show. We are a walking chemistry experiment that can explode at any moment. Body horror was MADE for us.

Anna Grace Carpenter

Anna Grace Carpenter: I had an editor tell me I really knew how to write action sequences to the point that he was "recommending them to folks I meet". (And, sure, he meant it as a compliment. But it's not the first time I've heard similar and there is *always* an undertone of "You do this really well for a girl.")

Elizabeth Donald:  I got that one once from an editor. "You write action a lot better than I expected." Thanks? 

I got a lot of criticism for my first zombie book, in which my protagonist is a former Marine paramilitary zombie fighter heading a group of ne'er-do-wells fighting paranormal threats. The criticism? "She swears too much." She's a goddamn fucking Marine zombie fighter, is she supposed to say "oh phooey, they're chewing his face off"? And each time I heard it - every single one from a man - I had to breathe deep and NOT say, "If she was played by Jason Statham and directed by Quentin Tarantino, you wouldn't blink at her use of the word 'fuck.'"

Lucy Blue: Oh yeah, I've heard the "she's not ladylike enough!" comment from everybody from my mom to editors to reviewers on Amazon.

Amanda Niehaus-Hard: My experience is different, but I write under different names, in different genres and categories, and for different age-range audiences, so I've seen prejudice of all sorts, but haven't specifically been a target.

I found it interesting to read Ellie's comments, because my personal experience has been pretty much 180 degrees the other way from hers, as I mostly go to book festivals and writers conferences now (as opposed to conventions) and I've felt MORE accepted at those festivals -- but that's of course only my own experience. I really want to respond to some of what she posted because I think there's a LOT of problems in the conference (and convention) culture that is part of why I think they’re failing financially.

Ellie wrote: “Basically, my experience with formal conference culture is that a LOT of people are there to make themselves feel better about how they've been going to these things for decades yet still haven't gotten a book deal with a publisher.”

Ellie Raine

I don’t get into discussions with people like that any more, but I’ve seen them, and I notice the same ones show up for the same conferences every year, and when they workshop, they workshop the SAME DAMN STORY they’ve been workshopping for a decade! This is an issue that conference organizers need to be aware of and need to do something about. The way workshops usually go is first to pay, first on the list, and they REALLY need to be juried or something, if only to keep the approximate “skill level” the same, so all participants are at the same level and are getting (and expect) the same level of critical attention. If you’re a multiple award-winning novelist, you shouldn’t be in a workshop group with short story writers who are just breaking into the paying quarterlies. If you just started writing last week, you shouldn’t be in a workshop with people who are already selling work and looking at crafting a story collection.

Most general conferences, with the exception of the popular fiction conferences like those done by Writers Digest, are focused around literary fiction, so that whole “literary is superior” canard is ever-present. I honestly think SOME of that bias is starting to fade, as so-called literary authors are experimenting with non-realistic fiction, or fantasy/SF situations. The bigger writing programs are turning out more authors who experiment with non-traditional situations, so when the Iowa grads from 2010 to now start getting the high profile university jobs, I suspect we’ll see a shift away from dismissing genre (or they’ll just claim they do it better.) But either way, I see the snark becoming more about the work itself and less about the shelf category.

Nikki Nelson-Hicks

Ellie wrote: “I don't know, I expect people to have actually gone through the publishing experience either traditional or self before they feel free to offer advice on it without anyone asking them in the first place.”

This is essentially why I stopped going to fan conventions except for a select few that I just attend for fun. I’ve been going to conventions since the mid 1980s, when the scene was COMPLETELY different, and cons were both fun AND a way to get into the business of publishing. The panels were either professionally oriented (how to get an agent with people who had actual agents, or science topics with actual scientists) or they were fan-run and fun, discussing stuff like the sociology of Star Trek.

What I’ve seen of conventions lately is a lot of non-experts talking over actual experts (as in people who actually work as scientists for NASA) or people with no experience in “traditional” publishing sitting on panels about agent queries just so they can advertise their books. (I'm certainly not against self-publishing, as I've self-pubbed some educational materials, but that doesn't make me an expert on the industry.)

It’s only in the self-publishing and micro-press arena that I’ve EVER taken any slack over being female and writing horror, SF, thrillers, romance, YA, lit fic, whatever. My experience with so-called “traditional” publishers (and writers who are published that way) has been nothing but stellar and professional. (Again this is just my experience, and I’m sure it doesn’t echo everyone’s experience.) I could have just gotten lucky and surrounded myself with amazing people, but I can say I’ve never been harassed, dismissed, not taken seriously, or had any real negative experience with anybody in the professional horror community, the SF community, the thriller writers, and the pulp writers community. Pulp writers have embraced me and supported me, and people like Phil Athans and Sean and Tommy and the gang over at Pro Se have been incredibly supportive and encouraging. I have no idea what’s said behind my back, but to my face everyone has been professional and respectful.

The small-press horror community is two-sided. One the one side I’ve had wonderful experiences with people and presses whose work I read and enjoy. I have been treated like gold by my small press publishers and those who publish my friends and whose work I read regularly. On the other side are, frankly, people who can’t write well, and throw together anthologies just to publish their own work. Some of those people have been dismissive of me, but I don’t read their work and I dismiss them as well, so it’s even. The only group I’ve seen overt hostility from is a Bizarro press that I will NEVER buy from again and won’t recommend or review any of their work, let alone submit to them.

Amanda Niehaus-Hard

I haven’t had the same issues as other women in genre – probably because I’ve listened to a lot of their stories and avoided the people and groups they’ve warned others about. Cons nowadays take harassment seriously, because women in genre have demanded they do, so I’ve benefited from that and haven’t experienced harassment as a guest or an attendee. I appreciate that it’s people like you, Sean, who have helped create a more supportive and inclusive environment for women in genre fiction and in fandom, by keeping the conversation going.

Ellie Raine: I'm 100 percent behind the jurying idea for workshops. We don't have freshman undergrads mixed in the same advanced classes as grad students (unless certain exceptions apply), so this solution makes way more sense.

==============================

Editor's Note: The panel includes women of various races/sexuality. The authors above were the ones able to respond by the deadline for this discussion.

DEATH MEETS THE PRIVATE EYE! METAPHYSICAL MYSTERY ‘NIGHTINGALE’ DEBUTS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Author Ellie Raine brings her own unique twist to the Private Investigator genre with NIGHTINGALE, now available in print and digital format from Pro Se Productions.

After a lifetime of seeking revenge for his murdered father, Alastor Déus finally has his chance to capture the killer: his mother. She’s come to town and her welcoming present is a bullet through her teeth. But this family reunion isn’t going to be what he expected… Bullets aren’t going to work.

Blending mythologies and reality, focusing on Death and its myriad implications, Ellie Raine takes Deus and her readers on a roller coaster of danger and explosive passions in NIGHTINGALE. From Pro Se Productions.
With a haunting cover, logo design, and print formatting by Marzia Marina and Antonino Lo Iacono, NIGHTINGALE is available now at Amazon and Pro Se’s own store for 9.99.

This unique take on the Private Eye tale is also available as an Ebook, designed and formatted by Lo Iacono and Marina for only $2.99 for the Kindle. This book is also available on Kindle Unlimited, which means Kindle Unlimited Members can read for free.

For more information on this title, interviews with the author, or digital copies to review this book, contact Pro Se Productions’ Director of Corporate Operations, Kristi King-Morgan at directorofcorporateoperations@prose-press.com.

To learn more about Pro Se Productions, go to www.prose-press.com. Like Pro Se on Facebook at www.facebook.com/ProSeProductions.

Natural and Fun: Writers on Sex and Sexuality in Fiction

Okay, gang, we're going to get a little steamy for this week's Writers Roundtable. Let's talk about sex --and not just sex but also sexual characters, or, in other words, characters who have a sex life and inhabit your stories. How do you address it? Where do you draw the line? All right... enough teasing, let's get to the action. 

People are sexual creatures in real life, with a variety of modifiers from hetero- to homo- to a- to poly-. So, as a writer, how do you portray that aspect of characterization in your stories?

Danielle Procter Piper: In my sci-fi series, I have characters that run the gamut aside from pedophiles and necrophiliacs...although in the story I'm getting ready to publish my randiest character--a guy who refuses to be labeled because he does what suits him at the moment, engages in spontaneous intercourse with an alien species...with a fresh corpse involved, although I'm not going to reveal in what way (you'll have to read the story to find out). For the most part, I like to incorporate what's going on with myself at any given moment into my characters to add realism. If one of them suddenly gags and explains, "Backwash," odds are I have just experienced it myself while writing. My characters hiccup, they burp and fart, they lose their train of thought, they get each other's names wrong just like the rest of us. My female characters menstruate, my males experience wet dreams, they may wake up feeling aroused and masturbate--often without forethought from me. I allow moments to happen just as they do in real life. I've even had characters trying to get over colds for no other reason related to the story than the fact that people catch colds. My basic story ideas are loose, and the characters live and breathe and flow around them, so sex does occur. people may call it gratuitous, and to that I say, "You're welcome."

Gordon Dymowski: Part of this is actively cultivating relationships/friendships with queer, poly- and other forms of sexuality. That helps me write more rounded, full-blooded characters with nuance. (Plus, it helps me avoid cliches and create a more diverse range of characters). I also try to discuss the implications/experiences of those characters (great example - look at how Jonathan Kellerman writes Milo Sturgis, a queer cop in Los Angeles).

Bobby Nash: Sex is part of life so it stands to reason that sex is a part of my characters lives as well. That doesn't mean I expose their sex life. As with all writing, step one is get to know your character. That includes knowing if your character is straight, gay, poly, etc. Even though it is not the focus of the story, knowing the character helps define the character's response to questions and situations. As a writer, I want to be as true to the characters as I can.

Bill Craig: I try to not go into too much detail, especially when readers imaginations can make it better for them.

Hilaire Barch: I usually imply sexuality with dialogue and body language, but only if it matters to the story. (Does a character flirt? W/whom? Etc).

Nicholas Ahlhelm: I don't like to hide romantic relationships. I think it's an important part of genre fiction. It's not a feature in every story I've ever written, but I think it's essential to treat human beings like human beings, complete with different backgrounds and choices. Characters come in multiple races, genders, and histories I don't want to shy away from, and the same goes for sexual orientation. I really hate to use terminology however, so I usually let the character's attractions speak for themselves in the story.

John Linwood Grant: I can't say it crops up too often, but not because it bothers me writing about it. It's rarely integral to my tales, and so detailed descriptions would fall into the same category as describing every step of making a meal or going to the toilet - they're also both crucial aspects of life, but if they don't make the story move on or impart something important to the reader, why dwell?

Lucy Blue: Ooh, I may be the wrong writer to ask about this. Because I think the single biggest flaw in alternative worlds writing, science fiction, fantasy, horror, and all their progeny, is the prissy, puritanical, and/or barely-pubescent way these stories handle sexuality and sexual relationships. Writers who can describe the live evisceration of Brownie scouts or the rising of a tentacled moon over a distant planet suddenly turn completely terrified and tone deaf when faced with even the suggestion of physical attraction between their characters. There are exceptions, of course, but by and large, no sex, bad sex, or cartoon sex is so much the norm that most of us who write criticism about these genres dismiss any grown-up, straightforward portrayal of relationships within the story as romance -- the literal kiss of death. And I don't see why this has to be. What are we afraid of? People thrown together in high tension situations make connections; if it makes sense for the characters and there's room in the story, why not? If the relationship isn't the focus of the story, I won't put in a lengthy, explicit sex scene. But I won't half-ass or avoid it either.

Anna Grace Carpenter: With all the sex! Hah. Kidding (sort of). But I always like writing about relationships so I tend to show all of them as much as possible within the framework of the story. I find the more personal the characterization, the more real the story feels. And few things are as personal as who we love and how we express that as humans.

Susan H. Roddey: It depends on the situation in the story. Sex is a natural part of than life (I mean come on...procreation and all), but not all instances require the reader to be under the sheets. If your market is raw erotica, then by all means...let the reader smell it. It's a natural part of life so I don't draw unnecessary attention to it unless it becomes an integral part of the story. People are who they are, and sex doesn't define them.

Where do you fall on the spectrum of actually writing characters engaging, ahem, each other -- keep it subtle and just imply it happens, cut away to rain or fireworks like in 1940s movies, or go full coverage for a play by play? Or does it change from story to story? How do you determine where to draw the line, if at all?

Nicholas Ahlhelm: It depends quite a bit on what market I'm writing for and what characters I'm writing in the story. If I'm writing a superhero story I'm trying to make suitable for most readers, the sex is implied. If I'm writing an urban fantasy novel where one character is an actual succubus, it's anything but implied. Most of my works fall somewhere in between in that spectrum, but it's completely project based for me.

Kristi Morgan: I think it depends a lot on who your targeted audience is. With YA you have to be careful to just hint and leave it up to the imagination for the most part. But I don't think its something that needs to be ignored. Prude doesn't work.

Bobby Nash: For the most part, I show very little active sex in my novels because sex is not the main focus of the story. I will show characters at the beginning and/or the end of sex and let the reader's imagination fill in the blanks, which I've discovered works well and makes the scenes more steamy to the reader because he or she is bringing in their own sexuality to the story. Now, if I were writing a story where sex was the point or a big plot point, I might be inclined to show more. I play it by ear and show what is right for the story.

James P. Nettles III: Depends on the target audience -- and the genre, but most of mine is off-screen. Otherwise, it’s hard to tell the fight scenes from the love scenes- slipping everywhere, the clash of bodies, exotic tools for the job.


Susan H. Roddey: Most of the sex I write is less explicit and meant to help develop characters emotionally. Giving two characters that intimate connection builds a bond between them. In most cases, it also gives them a weakness. If they're emotionally invested, the reader is better able to relate. Sometimes my writing does tend toward the erotic, but only when the situation calls for it, and I choose those situations VERY carefully.

Frank Fradella: I'm a "pan over to the fireplace" kind of guy unless I'm specifically writing erotica.

Anna Grace Carpenter: It depends on the overall tone of the story. My general (and personal) rule is that if the violence is graphic, the sex is explicit/detailed. If the other “adult” aspects of a story (violence, language) are more subdued so are the physical interactions. But sometimes sex is such an integral part of the character arcs that I might spend more time on it. (In addition to being a mostly universal human experience, there is a metaphorical quality about it in fiction that is hard to pass up – especially with characters who are strong, silent types.)

Ellie Raine: For me, I go on a case-by-case basis, as far as "where to draw the line" and "How to address it". I did a story for a Hookerpunk anthology about Succubi, and sex in that, I felt, was better served by adding the steamy details. Though, in my fantasy series, I don't usually show the scenes themselves up front. Usually for those, I make it more romantic and describe the foreplay and amp up the emotions involved, then classily end right at the moment of contact. I'll probably have a different approach with the next story as well, but for some stories, I don't think sex is even necessary to make it a dynamic work. It really just depends on each story individually.

Derrick Ferguson: Like so much else in my writing, I just tend to go with my gut when it comes to writing about sex. I'm not as good at describing sex as I am describing action so when I do have sex scenes I tend to keep them brief and to the point. In my Dillon stories and novels, I give the reader just enough to know that my boy is ready to get it on and then I cut away to the billowing curtains and the fireplace. In my "Madness of Frankenstein" novel and my current "Diamondback" serial running on my Patreon page, the sex scenes are a bit more graphic, nasty and brutal. But that's because I'm writing about nasty, brutal people and the nasty, brutal sex just seemed to fit.

Gordon Dymowski: I tend to focus on the feelings/emotions rather than the mechanics. Having written two relatively steamy scenes (for AKA THE SINNER - COVER OF NIGHT, "Crossing McCausland" for TALL PULP and "Out There In the Night" for LES VAMPS), I find that it's much easier for me to write implicit than explicit sex. (Plus, it allows the reader to create the scene mentally - if they see a softcore-Cinemax-film-at-2:00-am-with-soft-jazz in their heads, that's cool; if they see hardcore pornography, that's cool as well).

Neen Edwards: Just my opinion as both a writer and a reader: I'm not big on stories revolving around sex. I'm okay with the writer insinuating something is about to happen and go on to the next scene or a brief description of what's going on. A good example of what I'm okay with would be work by Sherrilyn Kenyon. As much as I like Laurel K. Hamilton, I actually stopped reading her books because her plots seem to be revolved around sex. As a writer, I'll go where the story takes me. My characters have a mind of their own.

Bill Craig: It really depends on the book. A writer friend told me that the best love scenes got him aroused while writing...

B.C. Bell: I try to show the character's sexual attraction before and after the sex, and through dialogue, but much like a forties director I tend to focus the camera on the wall during the real event. The danger of a sexless character is that they aren't real, and the reader knows that. One reason Conan and Tarzan have a long shelf-life is that they liked women when other characters didn't. P.S. One of the first pulp stories I ever read climaxed (pardon the pun) with the hero touching a breast. Upon growing up I found that to be extremely silly.

Hilaire Barch: I range from implied, fade to black, to the whole detailed play by play. The genre and target audience often are considered on exactly how much I show. In addition, do I WANT the sex to be front and center or simply something that happens.

Ian Totten: It all depends on the story and characters. For some (such as my trilogy) one of the main characters is very sensual by nature and I only have to touch on the subject. Others, it needs to be more in-depth. I have one with teens where they do it as a way to bond to each other. Being that they're teens I have to attempt keeping it "clean" and go into their emotions during the act rather than explicit action. For someone like a serial killer, there's no emotion on their part and it is written fairly black and white with atmosphere and actions. One I'm working on now, because of the subject matter, will be mostly implied.

Allan Kemp: I wrote a lot of explicit sex scenes in my early stories, but then after I got it out of my system (no pun intended) I scaled it back to where I only do sex scenes if they move the story forward. And sex can move the plot forward just as a fight scene or a chase scene. I also like when sex is implied rather than a detailed tab A into slot B explanation. The stuff people imagine will always be wilder than what I write on the page.

Danielle Procter Piper: How graphic I get with sexual encounters depends on the story. In a short humorous horror story I wrote for a collection, the scene is so brief and sanitized I've had readers tell me it's too bad the two main characters didn't have sex... but they did! Not graphic enough! My sci-fi is famous for its graphic sex, violence, and language, so skirting it almost feels like a let-down, but I'll merely imply it if a well-developed, graphic scene would detract too much from the storyline. How characters react to each other in a sexual moment can tell the reader more about who they are. It definitely adds depth. I have a goody-two-shoes type who seems to get swept up in moments once in a great while, but who also exhibits his playful/naughty side, always paired with compassion for his lover. I have a hard-hitting, world-weary bruiser with an exceptional soft side due to the fact he is also telepathic and can feel what his partner feels--so doing everything his partner desires as they think it heightens the experience for him, doubling his own pleasure while marking him one hell of a lover. Then there's the guy who screws anything that isn't nailed down without consent...the character my readers tell me they love to hate. He's just... Mr. Experiment, push everything to its limits, no holds barred... but draws the line at minors. Their sexual identities are as unique as they are, and if the scene calls for some graphic content, I'm going to drag my readers in deep.

John Bruening: Working on the second novel in a series that will probably span five books altogether. So far, it's been nothing more than the suggestion of a mutual attraction between two co-workers. The relationship is going to progress, but exactly how far and in what way is hard to say at the moment. Whatever happens, I'm fairly certain that what generally happens behind closed doors in real life will remain behind closed doors in the stories. (Hey, we're talking about the 1930s and '40s. People were pretty private and discreet about such things in those days.)

Let's talk about the dangers of writing or not writing sex in contemporary novels. What are the potential pitfalls when you turn up the steam and write erotically? What about the other side... what are the risks if you choose to write about a world where sex is practically nonexistent or ignored? Does a happy medium alleviate those risks (from both sides) or not?

Anna Grace Carpenter: One of the first short stories I sold (a contemporary piece of flash fiction) focused on the moments right before a married couple gets down for some “make-up” sex. And although I didn't use any “naughty words” nearly half the comments on the story referred to it as porn. (There may have been a finger in someone's mouth, but… well. It was a story about reuniting.) Anyway. Right then I knew there was always going to be a risk in portraying a relationship realistically. And I also knew that story wouldn't carry the same weight if I had been more subtle. So, for me, it's always a question of “How real do I want to be?” And then, “Am I willing to lose readers over this scene or plot point?”

Gordon Dymowski: I don't worry about writing sex scenes in my stories because most of the time, my stories don't involve sex. Dealing with different sexual orientation, however, is a different matter...and one that I'm still trying to master.

Danielle Procter Piper: The only "danger" I've encountered with writing sex scenes is running into people who like to throw around the phrase "gratuitous sex". Let me let you in on a little secret... some of the most upstanding, beloved, Bible-thumping people you've ever met are likely into some of the weirdest, wildest, freakiest stuff you've ever heard of, but it's often no more than a fondness for particular types of pornography, and is not something they want getting out about them. Call my sex scenes gratuitous and I'll smirk, wondering just how much you really loved them. I suppose another drawback is over-exciting myself. Is that a drawback? I think it just smokes the scene up further. The reverse, writing stories sans sex, is readers coming up to me winking and smirking to tell me which characters they think should hook up. "Oh, I know it's not that kind of a story, but if you could, you know, maybe a little -- "sentence ends in a giggle fit. I think this is exactly why so much fan-fiction seems to involve characters hooking up even if the pairing seems unlikely in its original form. We all like to fantasize. We like to find the character most like ourselves and pair them with the characters we're most sexually attracted to. My fantasy novel is sex-free. It contains flirting and characters teasing each other about liking each other but goes no further. I wanted to write it as a children's book with themes kids encounter without getting too involved in them. To my dismay, younger audiences seem to prefer my sci-fi.

Nicholas Ahlhelm: I think in contemporary fiction it's very strange to pretend it does not. Some of the most popular books on the market today are either erotica or have heavy erotic elements. Sex should at least be a reality. I'm not saying it's essential to every work obviously, just as romance is not. But trying to write in a way where they're ignored completely feels more like science fiction than any story grounded in reality. The question of how detailed to get I think again should be based on the audience in the writer's head or even the writer as his own audience. I do think there are limits based on genre. I think most urban fantasy readers would be pissed if you cut away before anything happens for example. So the happy medium probably must be based on what you're writing rather than a nebulous point for all or most fiction.

Bill Craig: Donald Hamilton was a master getting it started, cutting away and coming back to the damage done to clothing during the throws of passion. Robert Parker, on the other hand, sometimes when over the top is describing Spenser's athletic sexcapades. It depends on both the writer, the book and the characters involved.

Susan H. Roddey: Society seems to be both more open to and more wary of sex. A happy medium is a good place to start, but how I begin will define the audience you collect. You can't please everyone, so I personally don't try. At this point, most people who read my romance know what they're in for going into it.

Hilaire Barch: I've read books w/o sex -- plenty of them. I've written a story or two w/o sex or romance. The stories weren't served by it. Now, larger tales, at least in my opinion, seem to ask for at least an element of attraction or romance even if no sex ever happens. If we look at our world, most living creatures spend an awfully large chunk of time pursuing mating of some sort. So, the more time, so to speak, we spend with characters, the more I as a reader or author, expect a natural response from the character -- i.e experiencing attraction or desire.

I don't worry about whether someone will have apoplexy over my characters getting it on the elevator ( a real scene I wrote LOL), or if the genders or races or sexualities expressed are the norm. That said, there will ALWAYS be people who don't like it, and as a writer, you have to understand that you can't take that sort of criticism personally.

Bobby Nash: There is always a danger of scaring off a potential reader by writing something they find rude or offensive. When my first novel, EVIL WAYS came out, I was terrified that my mother would read it. There's a scene where the killer does something a bit, well let's just call it pervy and inappropriate. I was really worried about my mom reading that. After she read it, she did comment on the scene, but not how I had expected. She said it made perfect sense for the character to have done that and thought I should have done a little bit more with it to amp up his creepiness factor. The lesson is, never underestimate your audience. Tell the best story you can and see what happens.


How can giving your characters a sex life improve your ability to create more authentic characters and tell stories about them? Or is that not necessary for your work?

Bobby Nash: Sex is a part of life. If I want my characters to be alive, then that is part of it. In what I write, it is rarely the focus, but there are times when I feel the need to focus in on it. On those occasions, I let the characters lead me where we need to go and do what's best for the story.

Bill Craig: Unless it propels the story forward, it is not a necessary plot device. However, in my first Mitch Cooper mystery, there is a lot of chemistry between Cooper and the lady he is trying to find and rescue and they discuss his theories on cosmic sex at the end, leading the reader to figure out exactly what the theories were...

Hilaire Barch: The more characters interact in a realistic, human way, the closer to them we feel. Does Jill like Mr. Tall Dark and boring, or the homely but fascinating inventor? Who Jill picks tells us about her. How she treats a paramour gives us more information. Yes, the same can be done w/o sex or romance, but it's fun built-in conflict (Because what two lovers agree on everything all the time forever and always?)

Anna Grace Carpenter: People interacting with each other drives the majority of what I write. When they do it naked the focus on who they are comes into even sharper detail. Do they make jokes? Are they super-serious? Do they cuddle afterward to try and make the connection and the moment last? Or is it really just a momentary distraction? And a sex life is not the only way to reveal these insights, so for some stories, it's not necessary, but it can be very revealing (and not just because the butt cheeks and body hair are all out in the open on the page). So for me, it tends to add that final polish to the character and helps me ground them in a common experience even if the way they behave is not the way my readers do.

Danielle Procter Piper: As I mentioned, how characters behave during sexual encounters adds another layer of depth to them, making them seem more real, therefore easier to relate to. Sex is actually integral to my sci-fi series, but it wouldn't work in my fantasy story because it's simply not a necessary aspect. I have to bring the realism out of my fantasy characters by putting them in other situations where weakness and vulnerability are pitted against cruelty and strength. The closest thing to sex in that story are encounters with a vampire, and those scenes are meant to remind us of moments when we were manipulated by someone more sophisticated into doing things we weren't yet ready for as juveniles.

Gordon Dymowski: Understanding my character's sexuality helps me create better, more well-rounded characters....but sometimes, leaving intimate moments on the cutting-room floor means a better story. Portraying sex in fiction is like portraying violence - if it fits and makes sense, great, but I don't feel the need to force it in order to sell the sizzle over the steak.

Nicholas Ahlhelm: It completely depends on how much I want to flesh out a character. A lead should probably at least have some reference to it in a full-length novel that features any romantic entanglements. It can be used to develop relationships, mindsets or pretty much other character traits. For me, it's another tool in the character development toolbox.