Before I rant, let me rave….about my new book cover for A Not So Respectable Gentleman?! It is all over my website, but I can’t resist showing it off one more time.
Isn’t it a great romance cover?
Which makes me even more peeved. I get this great new romance cover and here comes yet another article about the Romance Genre, titled A Million Shades Of Smut.
The title itself is insulting. The photo used to illustrate the article is equally as insulting. The article is about books, people! At least use a book cover to illustrate it.
Especially because the article’s purpose is to try to make sense of the success of a particular erotic romance, Fifty Shades of Grey by E. L. James. I was totally unaware of this debut book, by the way, which, apparently, has been a phenomenon. I’m not even sure it is technically a romance, because apparently the story spans three books, but the article’s writer thought so.
There were a lot of clever parts of the article–the statistical charts (from RWA) and a flow chart that purports to lead you to the romance sub-genre that would interest you (If you follow the historical trail all the way to “Viking” you find Michelle Style‘s Harlequin Historical, The Viking’s Captive Princess). There were some decent quotes from publishing industry people, and some very lazy research. For instance, the example they give for Historical Romance is Whitney, My Love by Judith McNaught, a book originally released 21 years ago. Really. Couldn’t they find a more recent historical?
My main complaint, though, was the journalist’s premise that erotic romance novels (and, strongly implied, all romance novels) are smut. Now, I don’t read erotic romance–it just is not my thing–but I object to it being called “smut.” Smut is about obscenity or pornography.
According to Wikipedia:
Erotic romance novels are stories written about the development of a romantic relationship through sexual interaction. The sex is an inherent part of the story, character growth, and relationship development, and couldn’t be removed without damaging the storyline
Explicit sexual content within the parameters of a romance, is not obscene. Erotic romance certainly is not pornography, which has as its purpose the sexual arousal or erotic satisfaction of its reader.
From what I can tell, Fifty Shades of Grey is about a wounded hero and the (initially) innocent heroine who helps him heal–in addition to or, perhaps, through having lots of BDSM sex. A glimpse at the Amazon reader reviews indicated to me that readers were hooked by the characters and what would happen to them, not the sex.
Calling erotic romance “smut” tips me off that the journalist had preconceived notions about the romance genre in general and the erotic romance subgenre in particular. In this case, it seems to me that the journalist decided that romance novels were all about sex and she didn’t bother to take a serious look at why romance out sells all other genres.
We’re used to this sort of journalism. Rarely does a journalist write an article about romance that doesn’t include the term “bodice ripper.” I wish journalists would take the time and trouble to study and read about romance novels, instead of merely looking for facts that support their biased views.
Do you know of any such articles? If so, include the url for them! What do you think of erotic romance novels?
And how about that new cover of mine. Don’t forget to enter my new contest!
Love the cover and cannot wait for Leo’s book. You must be hiding under a rock if you have managed to escape all the 50 shades hype that has been going on. All I have to say is, “Lucky you and make room so I can crawl under that rock with you.”
I am hiding under a rock, I guess, Kathleen. It is amazing what I miss that the rest of the world knows…and even is sick of!! And I’m on the internet every day, too.
I take it the book did not interest you…
Interesting, but not surprising. I’ve heard of the latest crazy, but not read it and not particularly interested in reading it. I’ve read several articles, but sorry to say I don’t have the URLs. The most recent was a blog addressing PayPal’s brief decision to not accept payment for books with “questionable” content at SmashSwords. The blogger had a law degree and explained that pornography actually only applied to what is seen, ie, pictures, not what is read. The differences lies in who is involved. Pictures require using others, whereas books come from a single writer. I found it interesting. I could take their definition and do what I want with it, but I have a responsibility to myself to set healthy boundaries, and I decide no one else. By the definition above, I read several authors who would fall under the category. However, I have a friend who’s a librarian, and she would put them under the heading of Romantica, where sex plays a significant role but other elements are involved and it is only between two people, who will end up together, whereas Erotica is pretty much anything goes, which I find creepy, but that’s me.
Having said that, when I told my mother I had a contract to write romance novels, she responded that she stopped reading romances, over 20 years ago, because they were pornographic. Clarifying that I write Christian romance did not shut down the negative talk.
I can let others define everything in my life for me, or I can define it myself and hold true to it. I’ve lived the former, most of my life. In the last 10 years, I’ve chosen the latter, for the rest of my life, and I’m much happier.
The cover is so perfect for the title!!
Very interesting point about pornography, Judy. It makes sense.
I’m sorry your mother can’t be proud of you writing Christian Romance. I think that it is terrific that you had the guts to write a book, submit it to publishers and accept a contract for its sale.
You’d better tell me when it comes out so I can buy it!!!
*whispers* Book 1 is turned in to the editor. *bites nails*
I can’t get upset because smut in the mainstream context is used with tongue firmly in cheek so that women (and men) can deflect any ragging that they regularly choose to read “those” books. It’s a term popular in fan-fiction rated R or NC-17, or for slash fiction. Considering the Fifty Shades of… trilogy’s origin, it’s an apt title. And the romance=porn for women argument is one we’ll never shake because women’s sexuality and their reading habits are still hampered by old stereotypes and strictures from the pre-modern era.
Evangeline, perhaps you are right about “smut” being used tongue-in-cheek, but it totally escaped me when I was reading the article!
I did read one of the comments that said that it was a different matter for readers of the genre to term the books “smut” because they all know that the word is fondly used for books they enjoy. I took the word more literally.
Dictionary.com defines smut as “indecent language or publications; obscenity.” That’s the way I took it. But I do see your point that it might have been intended to be a humorous usage.
Like you, I did like the graphical representation of some of the RWA data.
Other than that, the piece doesn’t deserve the title “article.” It’s poorly reported, she clearly didn’t even attempt to fairly understand what she was writing about. She quoted some random bookstore employee? Some of the industry quotes, like the ones by Pam Jaffee and Whalen are shunted away. The piece is basically an opinionated rant disguised as an article. Poor journalism!
Yeah, the bookstore employee data was really useful.
The think is, I think the article would have been fascinating if she’d taken a serious look at why Fifty Shades of Grey has been such a hit.
Diane, I loved your new cover the moment I saw it.
I will say some of the covers don’t help dispel the smutty image that romance unjustifiably has. The body of work needs to be looked at as such and judged accordingly. Romance needs to be taken as a whole, looking at the quality of writing and the character & story development.
I will admit that I didn’t read romance for a long time because I didn’t want to be seen with a book with “one of those covers” on it. Now I ignore them, but that first impression runs many readers off and gives rise to that type of article.
I have read a couple erotic books, but really don’t care for them. I want more to the story and relationship than all the sex.
Librarypat,
Your point about the covers is one many people make, including Romance authors themselves. I do think some of them are over the top, but, on the whole, they signal to the reader that this is a romance and what kind of romance it might be. Browsing in a bookstore, looking at the endcaps, or even browsing online, the cover is the first level of selection. I rather want my core group of readers to pick up my book because of the cover.
But it is because the cover does signal that it is a romance that all the pre-conceived notions about romance come into play. Nobody sniggers at Science Fiction/Fantasy covers and those can also be over the top.
Or, at least, that is my opinion!
Diane