28 April 2017 | 5.5 °C

Bad Sex Book Prize: Less of a Sauce, More of a Glaze

By London_Drew Last edited 136 months ago
Bad Sex Book Prize: Less of a Sauce, More of a Glaze
horizontal secretary.jpg

Last night, the Literary Review presented the award which “draws attention to the crude, tasteless, often perfunctory use of redundant passages of sexual description in the modern novel".

This year there was stiff competition from some very big players, but at the end of the day the best man retrieved the ham midget - so to speak - and to celebrate this accolade, Londonist has included extracts from the 2005 shortlist for you to play “Guess That Bad Sex Writer”. Hint: the final extract is from this year’s winner. (Answers after the jump).

Authors: Paul Theroux, Giles Coran, Ben Elton, John Updike, Salman Rushdie

1. (She) pulled her phiran and shirt off over her head and stood before him naked except for the little pot of fire hanging low, below her belly, heating further what was already hot.

2. "Ooh-la-la!" she breathed as he smelt the clean aroma of her short bobbed hair and the rain-sodden grass around it. 'Oooh-la-jolly well-la!". And so they made love together in the pouring rain, with Nurse Murray emitting a stream of girlish exclamations which seemed to indicate that she was enjoying herself.

3 ....not juice at all but a demon eel thrashing in his loins and swimming swiftly up his cock, one whole creature of live slime fighting the stiffness as it rose and bulged at the tip and darted into her mouth.

4. (It) did not feel like Phyllis's (vagina). Smoother, somehow simpler, its wetness less thick, less of a sauce, more of a glaze.

5. (The penis was) leaping around like a shower dropped in an empty bath.

1: Rushdie

2: Elton

3: Theroux

4: Updike

5: Giles Conran

Last Updated 02 December 2005

Hazel

Aaaauugggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

russell cole

That is the most horrible bit of writing I have had the displeasure of reading for a while. Not only is latent with a series of mixed metaphors, it is mildly disturbing. I, first of all, do not like the contrast of eels with an allusion involving a reference to food. Especially, if that reference includes any type of mentioning of sauce, which makes me, simultaneously, conceive of both sperm and the mucous covering eels, which, as I think of it, might have been the intention of the author. So he is either a literary genius with a peculiar sense of humor, or he is simply really bad,and I am reading way too much into it.

russell