OK, so one of my writing group members starts her novel-in-progress – a police procedural – with a sex scene that’s very much of the raven-tresses-heaving-bosoms-rock-hard-manhood variety. We discussed this in our meeting… and my take was that people who are looking for a police procedural will put the book down because it opens with that scene and that people who want a book that includes that kind of scene will be disappointed when chapter 2 comes and all of a sudden we’re dealing with cops in the precinct house.
Post-meeting, she sent a couple of links to web sites that teach you how to write love scenes. Suite 101 has a section called Writing Erotica that explained the difference between erotica and pornography. It also included helpful examples of words to use…including the following: coarse, decadent, furtive, hunger, innocent, lubricate, mesmerized, organ, pacify, scorching, secluded, shuddered, strip, tantalize, tempt, throbbing, whisper, writhe, and yearn.
So here goes: His coarse, decadent hunger for the innocent was furtive, yet scorching, as her whisper tempted, even tantalized him, with a yearning that made him writhe and his organ throb. To pacify him, she lured him to a secluded place where he shuddered, mesmerized, as she stripped.
Dang. Can’t fit in “lubricate.”
The other link was to a site called enotalone, where there’s an article about erotic talk. Not for writers, this is actually advice on how to have a more satisfying romantic life by spicing it up conversationally. (If I ever said, “Honey, your lips taste so good to me,” my husband would stop mid-smooch to look at me, inquiringly, as in “Who are you and what have you done with my wife?”)
My own view is that character-driven romance in a mystery novel – particularly one with a female protagonist – adds a human dimension to the characters and can be a plus if it’s in keeping with the whole gestalt of it. Think of how much fun Janet Evanovich’s Stephanie Plum has with cop-boyfriend Morelli and dangerous bad boy Ranger. Stephanie has an irreverent attitude and her sex life’s irreverent, too. Oral sex may be had and talked about, but somehow it’s all in keeping with the story. On the other hand, there’s not much hanky-panky for Cabot Cove’s Jessica Fletcher… the very thought’s a little disconcerting! And when I read Lawrence Block’s Small Town, it’s so full of various kinky characters and a wide variety of sexual hijinks that I felt like I was getting maybe a little too much insight into the way the author’s mind works.
I guess that’s what it comes down to. When people shape a story, they shape the story they want to read. And when they shape a love scene/sex scene/romantic encounter… they’re using their own perspective to decide what makes it interesting. And for “interesting,” read “sexy.” When someone writes about illicit sex between nameless people with perfect bodies, it doesn’t do it for me. And I’m a little bit embarrassed that it does it for them.
Still, it sells. So who am I to say?
Janet Evanovich’s seventeenth Stephanie Plum caper – Smokin’ Seventeen – is not currently on the New York Times bestseller list. Not in print hardback or e-reader. But it’s #34 on Amazon’s top 100 list of mysteries and thrillers with an average Amazon 3-star rating.
One for the Money Faithful to Evanovich
So, of course, I went to see it. I’ve blogged about Stephanie Plum before (here and here) and I was curious to see how the Trenton, NJ gal translated to the big screen.
I’m not afraid to say it: folks, it was not that bad. Really. It was actually kind of fun. Katherine Heigl is maybe not quite sassy enough to be Stephanie, but she’s believable. The “no-name” actor who plays Morelli is cute as all get out. The actor playing Ranger is no Benjamin Bratt, but he can’t help it that I had cast Bratt in my head when I read the books. And Debbie Reynolds is not quite ethnic enough to be Grandma Mazur, but she’s still a hoot.
All the minor characters could have been pulled right out of an Evanovich book. The plot (about which the word “convoluted” is usually used) is totally Plum. If it’s not 100% word for word what Evanovich wrote, I can tell you, it is completely in keeping. I gotta say – if you like the books, you’ll probably like the movie. Since the studio is investing approximately $0 in marketing, here’s the trailer.
One last note: it’s pretty clear that the market for Janet Evanovich is women over 45. I’m being generous here, since if the 1:00 movie at the Lake Theater in Oak Park, IL, is any indication, the actual target demographic should be 63.5 years of age. I was definitely on the young side. The ladies loved it. The women’s room was much a-twitter immediately following the show.
2 Comments
Posted in Commentary, Review
Tagged Benjamin Bratt, Janet Evanovich, Katherine Heigl, movie, One for the Money, reviews