OK, I am hereby bringing up a craft issue: the sex scene.

Sara Donati (author of a lengthy meaty historical saga--I've read the first book and keep meaning to get back to it one of these days) has a series of posts on her blog here where she analyzes various sex scenes by other writers from a craft perspective and discusses what works and why. Works discussed include two Crusies and a Farscape fanfic by Robyn Bender, among others. Worth a read, and has got me thinking about the whys and hows of writing anything beyond "and then they had sex."

But my specific issue for the moment is terminology. Since I write historicals, it adds a layer of challenge to the standard advice that you should call the various body parts and acts whatever the characters would call them. For one thing, figuring out what terms were in vogue at the time isn't the easiest research question to answer. I mean, I'm pretty sure Jack, my sergeant hero, would think of himself as having a cock. Even if it turns out not to be 100% perfectly period appropriate, it fits his character. But I have no idea what terms he'd use for female anatomy--and if it's something like pussy or cunt, I'm not sure I could, or would, write it that way. And I'm all but sure there's no way he's ever encountered the word "clitoris." Fortunately, he's familiar with the part in question, but what the hell would he call it?

It's enough to make me a lot more tolerant of purple prose-isms like "her molten core," or "his throbbing manhood," or "his purple-helmeted warrior of love."

Actually, there's no excuse for that last one. But you know what I mean.

(Um, that was a big old crossy crosspost, BTW.)

I missed that subtext, deb. I'm not quite sure if Nutty cares if you like analysis or not, and she didn't seem to be trying to change your opinion on the matter. Just that when you call arrogant something close to her heart and mind, it stings.

Which is perfectly normal, isn't it?

Subtext?

OK, I really do apparently speak an entirely different language.

Which confirms me in the belief that I don't belojng here.

I didn't see Nutty try and change your mind about analysis, Deb, but I'll reread to doublecheck.

I saw her defend her POV, and explain her emotional reaction to yours.

Admittedly it is a fine line, but what author's work were we discussing here? My skim of the discussion was not a dissection of a work offered up for beta, but a meta discussion of HOW we should or should not discuss.

Yvonne Navarro's rant in a blog is the initial discussion point, right? It started off about reviews on Amazon and then went on to reviews more generally. What was seen as useful or not, and repeated iterations of different takes on that, with acompanying hardening feelings.

It's possible I misunderstood, but I don't particularly care for being told I'm being arrogant by having a preference for what I find useful in discussing writing either as a writer or a reader. And that is the impression I got from what I read.

I guess I don't really understand what analysis is. When I get feedback, isn't that analysis? Nutty or Jessica or ita, can you give me a simple explanation of what analysis is?

Thank you, deb, I was thinking that's where you working from, ie, a one-on-one connection with the creator, so as to avoid any guesswork.

Susan, that reminds me of a thought. Is "cock" a Britishism and "dick" an Americanism?

(oh, the questions I never thought I'd ask)

And, though Deb didn't set out to speak for me, she actually does pretty well.

Hmm, I dunno. It wouldn't surprise me, since "dick" seems like the default American term. I like "cock" better, though. Just has a nicer sound to it.

t somewhere in Alabama, a Baptist grandmother is spinning in her grave