Is it sexist

to describe a woman character as "curvaceous"? I guess the more nuanced part of my question is how much and in what manner should a female character's body and features be described, if they have nothing to do with the plot per se -- I just want to create a picture of her. And what words or emphases or whatever would be offensive to a female reader?

 

It depends who's describing her. Who is the POV character at that point?

 

I think it is. If someone's body is nothing to do with the plot there's no point describing it - instead I'd suggest to give the character some privacy and agency and describe some things she controls and make choices over and would like others to take note of.
If we like creating pictures we can always become painters or photographers. Pictures of curvaceous women are usually more popular than stories about them.

A question for the OP's conscience is whether he has attached the same priority to creating pictures of the male characters in the story.
Reading back through the draft, are they "buff" and "dapper" and "chiselled" - or are they mainly disembodied sets of eyes leering around for a women?

 

I wouldn't say just throwing out that she's curvaceous would be that offensive. If you went into depth about exactly how she's curvaceous, and your book isn't some form of an erotica, then that could be a problem. But a throwaway adjective is probably not going to offend that many people, especially if your cast is filled with a variety of body types who are all treated similarly by the narration.

There are different philosophies when it comes to describing character appearances in writing. Some like detailed descriptions, others think it should be kept to the bare minimum. Ultimately I see it as a, you do you, thing. I'd just recommend to be consistent and avoid biases. If your going to comment on the attractiveness of your female characters, do so for all of your characters (at least those of equal importance).

 

Yes, it is a sexist term, but as mentioned, if the POV is a sexist person, it fits.

Does anyone say Rubenesque anymore?

 

maybe.

"curvaceous" specifically I guess is sexist (according to this board). I don't think there is anything wrong with using other words to describe "she has curves"

you can use more poetic prose to say that just saying mentioning curves is okay.

 

Curvaceous is traditionally a sexual description, but it also gets across a lot information quickly. I immediately imagine someone like Ms. Bellum from Power Puff Girls, or Joan Harris from Mad Men. And as a defining visual trait it is definitely one of the first things you pick up on when you meet someone in real life with that body shape, despite sexual preference or even what you find attractive. I don't think it's any different than saying someone is shredded, has greasy hair, or a squat face, or is obese, or has a lazy eye. It presents a powerful image which you can nest within your visual mind.

 

It's a third-person story, and the person doing the observing -- not the telling, that's me -- the person who sees her for the first time is not at all sexually interested in her. I just want to describe a woman in her late 30s as relatively attractive who is essentially healthy and maybe a tad overweight. Here is what I have thus far: "Olive presented an image of faded prettiness, a rounded face streaked with recent tears, pale blue eyes, long black hair streaked with white. carelessly brushed back over her ears, and a sad smile. About five and a half feet tall, softly curvaceous, early middle-aged, with hands that showed she'd been a working woman." Should I leave out all reference to her figure and let the reader fill in the picture? Say maybe "average height and weight"

 

I don't see anything wrong with it at all, and I think it fits well with the rest of your description (I might go with 'slightly' rather than 'softly').

 

I'm not sure if that's the same as curvaceous, actually.
Forgive me for sounding like I'm implying you don't know this, but Rubeneque is derived from the paintings of Rubens, which generally show more plump figures. Curvaceous leads me to think about the kind of women who still have that hourglass shape, but with a bunch more sand in it.

And just to be safe: If any of the above sounds mean, it's not meant as such.

To start with, I don't think "curvaceous" is sexist, per se. But I'm also a middle aged white guy, so these days that invalidates my opinion. The bigger point is that if describing her as such doesn't serve the story, it gets a little... unneccesary.
I had the same thing with the female lead in my story. Or love interest, really. I based her on a girl I worked with, and I did at one point spend far too many words on describing her, because I wanted the reader to know how beautiful she was. Like, if you were to have an affair with her, your girlfriend would go, "Yeah, I can understand that."
But even if I would have been able to properly describe her, she probably wouldn't be the reader's type, and they'd be wondering for a whole book why the guy was going through all this trouble for her.
Eventually I cut the whole thing back to a reference to her hair, because that's the only thing that naturally came up in conversation. As far as the reader knows now, she's beautiful, with earthy blonde hair. They can imagine their own perfect girl for the rest of it.

If you absolutely can't keep yourself from giving a physicial description, go with the POV suggestion. Or get her in a situation where it becomes relevant. Like how her curvaceous breasticles don't fit through the only gap that leads to freedom.

 

I'm surprised to see so many people having a problem with the word "curvaceous." Personally, I see no problem with it and doubt it would be terribly off-putting to readers of any gender. Just my thoughts on it.

 

Also, I don't think adding physical descriptions for characters is ever irrelevant. I see it as part of character development. I usually have to go back and add such things to make a story and it's characters feel fuller and better formed.

 

I'm sorry, to me the word "curvaceous" implies sexual attractiveness. Maybe ... with extra pounds ... or .... thick in the middle ... or ... her body padded by the years ...

I also wonder about "hands that showed she'd been a working woman" Did she do physical labour?

 

Curvaceous by itself had me thinking it could come across sexist. But with your full scene, I think it’s apparent that’s not the narrators intention.

 

Agree with the above. Given the full description, I think it is clear the POV character is not make this assessment in a sexualized manner.

 

Well, I want her to be sexually attractive to some people, just not my MC. She's an older widow but still young enough for relationships And she's been a farm housewife so her hands would show that.

"Working" as in earning a respectable income -- in her case, working the family farm. Honestly, you RI folks.

 

I agree with most of the above comments, and I hate to do it again, but it would be helpful to know how important this character is to the story. Is it ever explained why she's been crying? Is that detail important? Do any characters at any point in the story become attracted to her?

Personally, if she's a very minor character, I think the description is a little too much, but some of that is a matter of taste.

For the latter part of the description I'd probably say something like:

Five and a half feet tall, with mid-thirties pounds planted in a pleasant curviness she'd hide under her dusty overalls or Sunday School clothes.

But that's probably some distracting unintentional alliteration.

 

Did you at least invent the police uniform design? They are some nice threads.

Spoiler: Big Picture

 

Lol... what are they, mounties?

 

Now that you mention it, RI State do indeed look a fair bit like RCMP ceremonial.