The point of taking out a scene, in one viewpoint, is that every scene must develop character, setting, or plot - the three basic ingredients of every story.
It's a very utilitarian view. Putting in stuff just because it gives pleasure is BAD. Many will label a sex scene - OR ANY SCENE - that has no other purpose than pleasure as "gratuitous" - "being without apparent reason, cause, or justification" according to dictionaries.
That's fine for the taker-outers. Every artist must decide what standards they choose for creating their art. But I see the utilitarian view as almost Puritanical. A judgment that sex for pleasure's sake is somehow bad. As is a fight scene just because our readers will enjoy it, enjoy the grim art of the violence, or enjoy the triumph over an enemy. As is a description of a lyrically lovely forest, or dank back alley full of shadows and menace.
Another view is that just-for-fun scenes take away from the flow of the story from beginning to end. In this view there's only so much text available to tell a story, and it's wasteful to spend that text on gratuitous sex or violence or touristy lingering on setting. Including "gratuitous" scenes risks alienating the readers who want a quick read that sweeps them toward a resolution.
I take another view, developed over all-too-many decades of reading many, many books which were financially and critically successful - and included gratuitous scenes which I could not for the life of me see as serving any purpose but fun. There's nothing wrong with such scenes. In fact, they may be a big part of making the books successful.
Whether you lean toward the utilitarian or the hedonist view you may want to follow a practice a famous author once suggested. In the first draft put any damned thing you want, every inspiration that occurs to you, every incidental scrap that comes to mind, whether you see a use for it or not. Then do a rewrite in which you evaluate each scene for whether it should be changed or deleted.
Last edited:
