2009 Bad Sex in Fiction Award Nominees Announced

[n2doc]

The nominees for Literary Review's 2009 Bad Sex in Fiction Awards were announced last Friday evening.


The awards were established by the editors to "gently dissuade authors and publishers from including unconvincing, perfunctory, embarrassing or redundant passages of a sexual nature in otherwise sound literary novels." They are annually awarded to the author who produces the worst, most laughable and/or jarring description of a sexual encounter in a modern novel.
In other words, when sex scenes go horribly wrong secondary to punctuation, syntax, or falling off a cliff into a seething, moist cleft of sexual imagination, and penetrating, deeper into the black velvet-painting darkness, with pen and paper meeting as one in a turgid embrace that ends with exhausted stylus squirting its bounty directly upon the face of the laid paper, the defiled page now laying there, humiliated but with a twisted smile. "Did you comma?" the pen asked. "I prefer verso to recto," the paper said, suggestively, "semi-colon."

The award itself is in the form of a "semi-abstract trophy representing sex in the 1950s," which depicts a naked woman draped over an open book.

This year's nominees are (with brief excerpts from offending passages):

The Humbling by Philip Roth
"It was English that Pegeen spoke when she looked over from where she was, now resting on her back beside Tracy, combing the little black cat-o'-nine-tails through Tracy's long hair, and, with that kid-like smile that showed her two front teeth, said to him softly, 'Your turn. Defile her.' She took Tracy by one shoulder, whispered "Time to change masters," and gently rolled the stranger's large, warm body toward his. 'Three children got together,' he said, 'and decided to put on a play,' whereupon his performance began."

more:

http://blog.seattlepi.com/bookpatrol/archives/185927.asp

[Warpy]

1. I prefer the Bulwer-Lytton Awards, myself

One of the 2009 dishonorable mentions: "She had whispered wantonly, "Come to bed, Yul," but was now staring in utter disgust because the green lava lamp was too revealingly bright as he fumbled to adjust his new Merken, a $300 pubic toupee that had looked like a steal on eBay, but now looked just like a wet Tribble that had inexplicably crawled up his crack from an old "Star Trek" episode."

It gets much, much worse. http://www.bulwer-lytton.com/2009.htm

[d_r]

2. THAT SENTENCE IS HILARIOUS!!

"She had whispered wantonly, "Come to bed, Yul," but was now staring in utter disgust because the green lava lamp was too revealingly bright as he fumbled to adjust his new Merken, a $300 pubic toupee that had looked like a steal on eBay, but now looked just like a wet Tribble that had inexplicably crawled up his crack from an old "Star Trek" episode."

[tigereye]

10. curious what the focus of your sigpic is, dr

Most folks think of the area between 85 and 115 as functioning in the average range, 68 percent.

[Warpy]

11. 85-95 is dull normal, 95-105 is normal, >105 is above normal

Since it's a bell curve, the vast majority fall between 95-105, with the greatest concentration at 100 +/- 0.5.

While it might be true that 50% of us are below that golden 100, most are so slightly below it that it is statistically negligible and there is no functional difference.

The main problem is that 100 IQ is just not very smart, although it's capable of most of the mundane jobs that make up work and home life and, if pushed very hard, can accomplish quite a bit.

120 is the average IQ of the PhD candidate.

Anything over that just gets in the way, especially if real opportunity never presents itself.

[tigereye]

12. Most folks don't use those terms anymore -those are all in the Average range

Low Average, High Average, etc. when testing is done. I find your characterizations kind of limited and rather negative, maybe that was the point of the comment by dr. Most folks in the field try to avoid the term "normal" and usually speak in terms of strengths and weaknesses.

You are correct that there are statistical allowances for measurement error, though.


here is a site with more up to date terminology and some history

http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/iqclassifications.htm

on edit, those terms are from the WAIS III, not the WAIS IV, so some classifications may be quite different..

[joeybee12]

4. That's really, really painful to read...n/t

[rurallib]

5. almost split a gut on that one.

what did the Tribbles do to deserve this?
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Tesha]

15. Ate the Quadro Triticale, of course! (NT)

[wtmusic]

3. It's interesting that reviewers who come up with "Worst of..." awards

never provide a corresponding "Best of..." award (Best Sex in Fiction, etc).

Though squeamish about identifying good work, they have no problem with smugly criticizing an easy mark.

[left coaster]

6. Schadenfreude! It's what's for dinner!

[tigereye]

9. good point.

[left coaster]

7. Thanks for posting this.. hilarious!

I also adore the Bulwer-Lytton fiction contest.. where WWW really means, Wretched Writers Welcome! :)

[tigereye]

8. ironic since Roth was well-known at one time for his more realistic sex scenes

I've read much more insipid and poorly worded sex scenes than that....

[pitohui]

13. what the same roth who fucked a piece of liver from mom's fridge???

no no no no no, he has always been sick and disturbed, and worse than that, sick and disturbed in a way that couldn't possibly get a true pervert aroused

it's like he knows there are perverts out there, he dreams of being a pervert and telling the story of their fantasies, but he has not one fucking clue

there are some writers, like oates and rendell, where you can actually believe they've actually met a pervert if not watched one in action but roth...no no no no no

he is a bad writer, has always been a bad writer, and it's a bit amazing to me that he has been so honored down thru the years

the emperor truly has no clothes!

[tigereye]

14. oh, for God's sake

:eyes: