Content Feed

The most famous writing advice in history — "Write drunk, edit sober" — is a complete fraud. Hemingway never said it. The quote was invented by novelist Peter De Vries in his 1964 novel Reuben, Reuben, rephrased and misattributed decades later, then plastered across a million coffee mugs and dorm room posters. But here's the uncomfortable question nobody wants to ask: does it matter who said it if half the Western literary canon was written within arm's reach of a whiskey bottle?

Let's start with the rap sheet. Five of the first seven Americans to win the Nobel Prize in Literature were alcoholics: Sinclair Lewis, Eugene O'Neill, William Faulkner, Hemingway himself, and John Steinbeck. That's not a coincidence — that's a pattern. Edgar Allan Poe died in a gutter after a mysterious binge. F. Scott Fitzgerald drank his way through the Jazz Age and barely survived it. Dorothy Parker quipped her way through martini lunches at the Algonquin Round Table. Raymond Carver couldn't write a grocery list without a six-pack. The list is so long it starts to feel less like biography and more like a job requirement.

But — and this is the part the romantics never mention — most of these writers produced their best work despite the drinking, not because of it. Faulkner wrote The Sound and the Fury during a period of relative sobriety. Hemingway was fanatically disciplined about his morning writing sessions, standing at his desk at dawn, stone cold sober, producing his famous clean prose before the first drink of the day. He once told an interviewer: "Jeezus Christ! Have you ever heard of anyone who drank while he worked?" The man who supposedly championed drunk writing was horrified by the very idea.

Raymond Carver is perhaps the most instructive case. During his heaviest drinking years, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, he produced almost nothing. He later called that decade "a wasteland." It was only after he got sober in 1977 that he wrote the stories that made him the most influential short fiction writer of the twentieth century — What We Talk About When We Talk About Love, Cathedral, all of it. Sobriety didn't kill his muse. It resurrected it.

So where does the myth come from? There's a grain of truth buried under the romanticism, and it has nothing to do with alcohol specifically. What booze does — in moderate amounts, before it destroys you — is lower inhibitions. It quiets the inner critic, that nagging editorial voice that tells you your sentence is garbage before you've even finished typing it. And that voice is, genuinely, the enemy of first drafts. Every writer knows the feeling: you sit down to write, and the blank page stares back, and somewhere in your skull a committee of critics starts sharpening their knives. Alcohol tells that committee to shut up and sit down.

But here's the thing the myth conveniently ignores: there are a thousand ways to silence your inner critic that don't involve pickling your liver. Freewriting. Timed sprints. Writing badly on purpose. Meditation. Exercise. Even just writing at 5 AM when your brain hasn't fully booted up yet. The psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi spent decades studying flow states — those periods of effortless creative immersion — and not once did he prescribe a bottle of bourbon. What triggers flow is challenge matched to skill, clear goals, and immediate feedback. Not Maker's Mark.

The deeper problem with the "write drunk" philosophy is that it confuses disinhibition with inspiration. Being uninhibited doesn't make you creative — it just makes you louder. Anyone who's ever read their own drunk texts the next morning knows this. The words feel brilliant at midnight and mortifying by breakfast. The same principle applies to prose. Charles Bukowski, the patron saint of literary alcoholism, wrote prolifically while drinking, yes — but he also threw away enormous amounts of material. His published work is the carefully curated fraction that survived his own sober editing. The bottle didn't write Post Office. Discipline did.

There's also a survivorship bias problem so enormous you could park a yacht in it. We remember the alcoholic writers who succeeded. We don't remember the thousands — probably tens of thousands — who drank themselves into silence and oblivion. For every Faulkner, there were hundreds of equally talented writers who never finished a manuscript because they couldn't get out of bed before noon. We romanticize the survivors and forget the casualties. It's like admiring a lottery winner's "investment strategy."

The science is brutally clear on this. A 2017 study from the University of Graz found that while a small amount of alcohol can slightly increase certain types of creative thinking — specifically divergent thinking, the ability to generate many ideas — it simultaneously destroys working memory, analytical reasoning, and the ability to evaluate quality. In other words, alcohol might help you brainstorm, but it actively prevents you from doing anything useful with those ideas. You generate more raw material and lose the ability to tell the gold from the garbage. That's not a creative superpower. That's a mess.

And yet the myth persists, because it serves a purpose that has nothing to do with writing. It gives people permission. Permission to drink, obviously — but more importantly, permission to believe that creativity requires suffering, that art demands self-destruction, that the muse is a dark and dangerous mistress who can only be courted through excess. It's a profoundly seductive narrative, especially if you're twenty-two and have just discovered Kerouac.

But Jack Kerouac is actually the perfect cautionary tale. He wrote On the Road in a famous three-week Benzedrine-fueled binge in 1951 — at least, that's the legend. The truth is that Kerouac had been working on the novel for years, filling notebooks with observations, character sketches, and structural ideas. The "spontaneous" scroll version was essentially a transcription of material he'd been developing sober for half a decade. And even that mythologized draft required years of editing before it was publishable. The final version that Viking Press released in 1957 was Kerouac's carefully revised manuscript, not his amphetamine fever dream.

The real secret of creative writing is boring enough to make you weep: it's showing up. It's sitting at the desk when you don't feel inspired. It's writing two hundred words when you wanted to write two thousand. It's revision, revision, revision. Anthony Trollope wrote 47 novels by waking up at 5:30 every morning and writing 250 words every fifteen minutes, like a Victorian word factory. Jane Austen wrote her masterpieces at a tiny desk in a busy family sitting room with no lock on the door. Neither of them needed a cocktail. They needed a chair and a pen.

So here's my verdict on "write drunk, edit sober": it's a terrible piece of advice wrapped in a charming package. The charm is real — it captures something true about the tension between creation and criticism, between the wild first draft and the disciplined revision. But the advice itself will ruin you if you take it literally. The writers who produced great work while drinking did so on borrowed time, and most of them knew it. Hemingway put a shotgun in his mouth. Fitzgerald died at forty-four. Poe at forty. Kerouac at forty-seven.

Write sober. Edit sober. Live long enough to finish the book. That's not as catchy on a coffee mug, but it's the only advice that won't kill you.

Every year, the Bad Sex in Fiction Award reminds us that even brilliant novelists can write bedroom scenes so cringe-worthy they'd make a teenager blush. The list of winners reads like a who's who of literary talent: Norman Mailer, Tom Wolfe, Morrissey. If they can fail this spectacularly, what hope do the rest of us have? Quite a lot, actually — if you know the rules.

Let's get one thing straight. Writing sex is not about sex. It never was. When D.H. Lawrence published Lady Chatterley's Lover in 1928, the book was banned in Britain for over thirty years. Not because the scenes were graphic — by today's standards, they're practically quaint — but because Lawrence committed the real sin: he wrote sex that meant something. The intimacy between Connie and Mellors was about class, freedom, the revolt of the body against industrial England. The censors weren't scandalized by flesh. They were terrified of the ideas underneath it.

That's your first and most important lesson. A sex scene without subtext is just choreography. And nobody wants to read choreography. If your characters are in bed and the only thing happening is physical mechanics, you've written an instruction manual, not fiction. Every great sex scene in literature is actually about something else: power (Dangerous Liaisons), loneliness (Revolutionary Road), self-destruction (Crash by J.G. Ballard), or the desperate attempt to feel alive (anything by Henry Miller). Before you write a single heated breath, ask yourself: what is this scene really about?

Now, the mechanical stuff. Here's where most writers face-plant directly into the mattress. The Bad Sex Award exists because talented people suddenly forget how language works the moment clothes come off. They reach for metaphors like drowning poets. Exhibit A: the infamous passage from Morrissey's 2015 novel List of the Lost, where he described a sexual encounter with the phrase "the water arrived in wood." I'll let you sit with that one. The lesson? Your metaphors must earn their place. If you wouldn't use a comparison in any other scene, don't smuggle it into the bedroom just because you're nervous. "Her body was a landscape" — stop it. "He erupted like a volcano" — absolutely not. The moment your prose starts sounding like a nature documentary narrated by someone having a panic attack, you've lost the reader.

The best writers keep the language grounded. Look at Ian McEwan's On Chesil Beach. The entire novel builds toward a wedding night, and the sex scene — which is really about two people's catastrophic inability to communicate — uses precise, almost clinical language. It's devastating precisely because McEwan doesn't flinch, doesn't hide behind purple prose or poetic deflection. He writes what happens, and more importantly, what each character thinks and feels while it happens. The awkwardness is the point. The failure is the point. That's what makes it unforgettable.

Here's a practical rule that will save your manuscript: write the scene at the emotional level of your characters, not at the excitement level of a reader you're imagining. If your character is nervous, the prose should feel nervous — short sentences, clumsy observations, thoughts that interrupt the action. If your character is consumed by passion, the rhythm can lengthen, the syntax can loosen. But if your character is supposed to be a jaded thirty-something having a one-night stand and your prose reads like a breathless Victorian discovering an ankle for the first time, you've got a tonal problem that no amount of revision will fix.

Another concrete trick: use the senses, but not all of them at once. Amateurs try to paint the full sensory picture — the smell, the taste, the sound, the sight, the touch — and end up with something that reads like a sommelier reviewing a wine tasting. Pick one or two senses that your viewpoint character would actually notice. A hand on a hip. The sound of breathing. The taste of whiskey on someone's mouth. Specificity is intimacy. The more precisely you select details, the more the reader fills in the rest. And what the reader imagines will always be more powerful than what you describe.

Let's talk about what to leave out. Ernest Hemingway understood this better than anyone. In A Farewell to Arms, the love scenes between Frederic and Catherine are rendered with such restraint that you barely register them as sex scenes at all. But you feel everything. Hemingway's iceberg theory — show ten percent, hide ninety — works nowhere better than in intimate scenes. The reader doesn't need a play-by-play. They need the emotional before and after. They need the moment the character decides, and the moment they realize what it meant. Everything in between can be implied with a line break and a new paragraph that starts with morning light.

That said, don't be a coward about it either. There's a difference between tasteful restraint and squeamish avoidance. If your story demands an explicit scene — if the physical details carry emotional weight — then write it. Toni Morrison didn't shy away from the body in Beloved. Neither did James Baldwin in Giovanni's Room. Neither did Jeanette Winterson in Written on the Body, which is essentially a love letter to human anatomy that somehow manages to be both graphic and transcendent. The trick isn't avoiding explicitness. It's making sure every explicit detail serves the character and the story.

Here's one more piece of advice that nobody tells you: humor belongs in sex scenes. Real intimacy is often funny. Bodies make weird sounds. Someone's elbow ends up in the wrong place. A cat jumps on the bed. If your sex scenes are relentlessly serious, they'll feel fake. The best intimate writing acknowledges the absurdity of two human beings trying to merge into one. John Irving does this beautifully. So does Nick Hornby. A well-placed moment of humor doesn't deflate tension — it makes the tenderness that follows feel earned and real.

Finally, read your scene out loud. Yes, out loud. If you can't get through it without cringing, laughing at the wrong moments, or wanting to set the page on fire, it needs work. This is the most reliable test in existence. Your ear will catch what your eye forgives. If a sentence makes you wince when you hear it in your own voice, it will make your reader wince twice as hard.

So here's the summary, stripped bare. Know what the scene is about beneath the surface. Keep your metaphors honest and grounded. Match the prose to the character's emotional state. Choose specific sensory details rather than cataloguing everything. Be willing to leave things out — and be willing to put things in when the story demands it. Let it be funny when it wants to be funny. And for the love of all that is literary, read it out loud before anyone else sees it.

The Bad Sex Award isn't going anywhere. Every year, another celebrated novelist will reach for "pulsating orchid" or "molten core" and earn their place on the shortlist. But it doesn't have to be you. Write the scene the way you'd write any other — with honesty, precision, and respect for your characters. The bedroom is just another room in fiction. The only difference is that the stakes, when you get it wrong, are hilariously, permanently visible.