I never really expected to find something like this on this particular blog, but the Huffington Post (the super-blog hosted by Arianna Huffington) provided this link to an article by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: “Romance Novels Get Kinky.”
Pretty amusing read, though this bit here peeved me just a little:
After the session, Bright explained the difference between steamy, bodice-ripping romances and erotica.
“When people read a romance, they don’t want a surprise, they want to be put through the paces,” she said, explaining that those paces include a hero, a heroine, a conflict, a resolution and, most important, a happy ending.
“In an erotic novel, you don’t know what’s going to happen. It might not have a happy ending at all,” she said.
She compared it to watching “Law & Order” or “CSI” where the plot line could go in several directions, rather than a Western, which is more predictable because you have a cowboy, an Indian and a showdown.
Of course, the steamy parts are different, too. In romance novels, the mere touch of a man will often launch the heroine into waves of ecstasy. Not so in erotica, where those portrayals are more realistic. (Sorry, guys.)
Do you wish that people who talk about romance novels in the mass media have read books that were published in the last 10, 15 years instead of being stuck in Woodiwisslandia, circa 1975? Yeah, me too.
And in terms of erotica being more “surprising” than mainstream romance: I call bullshit. I don’t know what’s gonna happen? Fuck that, I’ll tell you what’s gonna happen: loads and loads of steamy sex, often with multiple partners. The HEA may not be guaranteed, but so what? A romance novel can be completely sex-free and still be considered a romance novel; you can’t say the same about erotica. Trying to tout one genre as more unpredictable because of its different constraints is pretty damn silly. Their example of CSI vs. Westerns kind of proves the point: I think crime shows operate under just as many constraints as Westerns (though what kind of Westerns ARE they talking about? I haven’t seen a whole lot, but I’ve seen plenty of Clint Eastwood Westerns and none of them feature Indian sidekicks that I can remember, though the showdown was de rigueur). Instead of a cowboy, an Indian and a showdown, you have a crazy-ass killer, some forensic pathologists flexing their studly bods (or in David Caruso’s case, taking his sunglasses on and off) while babbling about hydrogen peroxide concentrations in the plasma or what-have-you, and the bad guy is caught at the end. Or have the 10 or so episodes of CSI that I’ve watched been completely atypical of the series?
The comments on the Huffington Post about this article are also pretty amusing, by the way.
Is it wrong to want to find theHarbinger person who commented and shove Jaid Black’s entire Ellora’s Cave collection down his/her throat? Just wondering. The formula stuff gets old. Can’t even figure out what the dumbass anti-sex crowd is talking about. Who are these people and what is happening in their homes? Nothing, I guess.
Three cheers to booksquare for rushing in and showing some common sense.
Heh heh. I was going to stay out of it, until I saw that last comment by Stef and her formula layout for what is presumably the typical romance novel. Then I couldn’t restrain myself, so I posted. All the comments are moderated, however, so it might be a while before it shows up (if it does at all).
It showed up—what surprised me about the Stef post was that she listed eXstasy books as her website...which, as far as I can tell, publishes ‘amourotica’ or romance with hot sex. So I’m not sure if that was a link to what she thought was the exception...or the rule?
Amourotica? Are you making that one up? If erotica has hot sex does amourotica actually require that a body part catch fire....oh, forget it.
Really, I need a dictionary to keep up with all these definitions.
I don’t think Susie Bright was a very good representative of the industry as a whole. And for what it’s worth- there is a difference between erotica and erotic romance. Erotica doesn’t require the HEA, erotic romance (or romantica as coined by Ellora’s Cave) does.
And those commenters who sneered at romance being formulaic and all the same? I wonder if they’ve actually ever read a romance novel. People who have such derision for something rarely stoop to actually experiencing it for themselves but instead parrot what all the other haters are saying.
It’s the continued frustrating battle of the romance vs. everyone else.
Gee, Candy, you’d expect better from The Huffington Post, wouldn’t you? I couldn’t help commenting either, but turned off the computer before “Stef” weighed in with disdain dripping. I’m taking the high road here and hoping that with our links there, maybe somebody who could like—maybe—turn a good book into a movie or something followed them. And, you know, like then Connie Brockway could sell All Through The Night to like Julia Louis-Dreyfus or or maybe Larry David will discover Judith Ivory!
As I said, that’s the high road and I’m sticking to it.
Actually, I realized after Candy’s post that my comment was misinterpeted, and tried to post an explanation.
What I was intending was to respond to an earlier post that formulaic writing was the same as writing with structure. It’s not, and as I hate people touting “facts” that aren’t true because it tends to confuse aspiring authors, I posted. I then presented an example of formulaic writing, which was intended to be over-the-top on purpose.
I mean, HELLO, I publish the stuff, why would I knock it. But when I tried to send the post explaining what I meant, it told me I had posted one, and that was all I got for the day. I have been unable to post since then, so I assume I was reported for rabble rousing or something.
Apologies to those who I riled. And no, amourotica does not require body parts to spontaneously combust. That I know of.
By the way, you all crack me up. If I’m gonna get snarked, might as well be by the best.
And it appears the blog took it anyway, no matter what it told me. Twice. Apologies again.
Really, ummm, someone needs to fill me in. What in the hell is amourotica? I thought I heard them all - erotica, romantica, erotic romance, porn (just kidding, no one flame my ass, that last one is a joke). But, the term amourotica is new to me. I depend on Wendy and Candy to keep me up to date on this stuff but, clearly, they have fallen behind in their educate-HelenKay duties. So, if there’s something new and cool (or even old and cool) going on out there, I want to know.
Amourotica is our euphemism. See, “erotica” has become even more of a dirty word due to the incredible flood of poorly-edited books that has hit the market under that title. So we don’t want to use it. I think that was why EC trademarked “romantica”. That’s theirs.
Those of us who actually try to turn out a professional product are ashamed to call ourselves erotica. So we pick something close.
Ahhhh. I get it. Different terms for the same basic idea of hot romance. See, I’m a bit slow but I get there eventually.
Now, I gotta warn you, Stef, the comments about being “ashamed to call ourselves erotica” could result in a cyber attack. Not by me. I don’t have a dog in that fight so I don’t care but you may want to grab some body armor.
I think I have some chain mail somewhere. Besides, one doesn’t step into the lion’s lair unless they expect to be bitten.
But honestly, it’s really gotten to the level of requiring a defensive position.
That’s actually what got me to this site...I do Internet searches to see what people are saying in general about the genre, ebooks in general, romance, etc. And I saw the Covers feature.
There are new pubs every day--everyone thinks they know how to produce a good book. What one publisher does can affect how people view the entire market...especially since ebooks are already one of the black sheep of publishing. Sad, but true. So sometimes a protective position is needed.
Heh, posted a reply to your reply on the Huffington Post, Stef. I think there was a bit of miscommunication and daggers were drawn prematurely.
It’s all good. I saw, and posted a response, too.
One of the curses of the Internet is that it takes two seconds to freak someone out, and then usually several hours and myriad postings to figure out what the actual deal was. Especially when the forum is uncooperative.
Good thing I’ve developed an addiction to this site and check it when I’m supposed to be working. Oops.
Glad you two cleared everything up. But, Steph, I found your original post pretty disdainful. Out there in the mainstream media it behooves us to be careful.
Another unfortunate side affect of the Internet, the inability to hear tone of voice in an Internet post. I was going for light and humorous.
Probably not a smart move at 1 am after proofing 50 pages of gay vampires.
I bow in apology to you as well.
Another difference between romance and erotica is that in a romance, there might not be any sex, and really, the heroine might not spend a good amount of time wondering if they’re going to get busy. Usually she’s a virgin so she might react to the strength of his manful kisses or whatnot, but it’s not like a heroine in an historical wonders, “The Puddington Ball is tonight. Wonder if he’ll get me off in the closet near the maid’s quarters?”
The hero, well, he’s a man and what else do men think about? (How’s THAT for a sweeping generalization?)
In an erotica, at least those that I’ve read, the nookie is announced, almost, as a known event that is happening, and both characters are aware of it. Particularly the funky eroticas involving S&M or multiple partners and multiple orifices (orifii?). It would take a lot of character development to establish in the heroine or hero a comfort with sex acts that fall outside the norm of many readers’ experience when one or both is a virgin. To go from zero to warp speed sexually is a tough transition, so to treat the sex as a foregone conclusion leaves a mystery as to what KIND of sex, and what, if any, the consequences or reaction of both parties will be.
Thanks, Stef. And not a problem!
Actually, this article didn’t surprise me at all, based on my experience with SF conventions. A reporter will come in and ask intelligent, insightful questions and get intelligent, insightful answers - and the resulting article is almost always “Hey, guys, look at the freaks!”
Cool, Sandy.
Sarah nailed it right there.
I had someone ask me that question at the RT convention. Before I could answer, one of my authors piped up, “Instead of male members, we have c*ck.” Could almost be a T-shirt.
The biggest difference is sexual content and terminology. People buy erotica because they want real-life sex, and they expect to see sex, or else.
Those who try an erotica after years of romance reading are sometimes a bit surprised. Particularly if they wander into the BDSM section. I’ve gotten the emails, trust me.
I can only imagine the email you get in response to erotica and romantica - and I’m embarrassed to say that I only recently discovered erotica and am loving it. I had no idea that romantic-erotica existed, and I’m the one who stopped reading Sweet Valley High because they were too tame. I mean, there’s an early one where Bruce Patman puts his hand on Elizabeth’s breast, and I almost fell off my chair, I was so shocked. They actually used the word “breast!”
But romances? With explicit sexual terminology? “We don’t have members, we have c*cks?” HA! Love it. And of course, being me, I have to wonder why.
- and the resulting article is almost always “Hey, guys, look at the freaks!”
The funny thing is--the rest of the con was much worse than the Wild and Wacky Party. What happened in the Martini Bar makes that look tame.
One more thing: So often extreme sexual acts, such as multiple partners, accessories, elements of dominance and submission, etc, are depicted within the confines of violence. There is some violence within those acts, yes, but those who enjoy them aren’t doing so out of rage or anger or violence.
It’s refreshing and somewhat subversive to read about adventurous sex in the context of a sexually and emotionally positive relationship. Usually, I’ve encountered these experiences depicted within violent scenes.
I have said if only I could pub some of the emails I’ve gotten…
I had no clue either. I had read all the SVH before I even hit my teen years, since my older sister had them. My teens were spent with Stephen King and the Zebra Historicals, the latter earning me a detention for “reading porn in school”. If they only knew where I’d end up.
And it’s still a good read, that’s the best part. IMO, it should still have a story even if the sex is taken out--that’s good erotica. So the sex is like a bonus.
The thing that really pisses me off about the naysayers is that first, they obviously have never read an erotic romance (which, btw, has nothing to do with erotica), and second, they seem to be afraid of it. And those that read hot romance and don’t like it...fine. I don’t read your namby pamby fluff that builds sexual tension and then leaves me hanging. But I don’t bitch all over hell and creation about it either.
I stopped apologizing long ago for what I write. I’m damn proud that I use all the correct terms (because honestly...manhood and love channel make me want to hurl *g*) but I still write an emotional love story with a HEA. I write ROMANCE, dammit. (I need a t-shirt with Stef’s saying on the front and that on the back)
To each his own. I just wish some of them would grab a freakin clue or just leave my universe cuz it screws with my happy place ;-)
Jaci...cranky bitch...hey can I get a title like that? Maybe I should change my blog title..hehehe
Like I said, I get the emails. The best one was the woman who told me she would pray for my soul, and that of my child.
As if their emailing me and complaining is going to make me say, “Oh, Golly-gosh, you are so right. I will shut the website down immediately, and I will never write one again.”
I tend toward erotic romance rather than erotica in my own writing, though I’ve done both, and you’re right, very big difference. We had to add a catagory because the heavy erotic fans complained they were being cheated.
I noticed RT was grouped like that...romance writers in one, erotica/erotic romance in others. We were easy to spot...we were the ones misbehaving the most.
I may have to get those shirts made up...I’ve been tossing the idea around.
A website that reviews romance novels from a couple of smart bitches who will always give it to you straight. No bullshit. No gushing--unless the author really deserves it. To find out more, read all about us or check out our minty-fresh and funkadelic FAQ section.
I must have been off-line the “controversy” about bloggers attending came up, because I honestly don’t remember it. If they want to come, great. I mean, I’ve brought my mom to the last two conferences, paid for her registration so…
From Bloggers at RWA
I think that’s an obituary any romance author would be proud of.
From Another Face of Romance for That More Better Documentary
I wish I were in Vancouver but alas, I am at the opposite side of the country. It always makes me sad to see so many lovely little bookstores closing everywhere. I saw at least four disappear in Montreal in…
Ann Margret, maybe? For some reason, that’s who she reminds me of.
said on...
said on...
05.10.05 at 05:42 PM |