So it's sort of like the icon, except ... not.

[apocalypsos]

One of the genres I have a weakness for is time-travel romances, so when I was at Wegmans the other day and caught a familiar author name out of the corner of my eye in the book aisle, I snapped up the newest entry in one time-travel romance series I quite like. For the most part.

After reading it again, I'm reminded why it bothers me -- no sex.

I'm not saying I desperately need graphic wallbanging porn with rubber toys, costumes and a monkey in my romance novels, but the books in question, while fairly well-written otherwise, don't feature a lick of sex. At least, not that we get to see. I can't recall any of these characters ever having sex before they get married -- and I've read almost every book in the series -- and if they DO have sex we get a fade-to-black.

I would think that it's just a decision of the part of the author -- I don't know, maybe she's religious even if her characters aren't, maybe she's a bit too swamped in the romance part, whatever -- but what it's really starting to do is convince me that she's either convinced she can't write a sex scene or knows she can't. Either way, it irritates me. More than it probably should, really, especially considering how many of these books are modern women who hook up with medieval men who have no problem talking about how they've had plenty of sex with other women previously. At this point I'm just having a really hard time buying that, if not every single couple (I seem to recall one couple did have sex before marriage, but I didn't read that book and I seriously doubt that wasn't another round of fading to black), then the vast majority of the couples are just waiting to put a ring on it.

All of which pisses me off, because other than the sexual politics (or lack thereof), I quite like most of the books. They're just so damn chaste. It makes them feel like beginner-reader's romance novels. "Here, start with this, and we'll work you up bit and bit until we've got you reading hardcore poly erotica with rubber toys and costumes and a monkey."

That said, I can't recall if one of the characters wrote the family's love stories and published them in canon -- I believe they did -- but even so, I feel like it's a minor crime to drop a mention of your main character reading a romance novel once that was the exact plotline of your first book in the series. That's a little too wink-wink-nudge-nudge for a bunch of books with no damn sex onscreen.

Comments

[nrrrdy-grrrl.livejournal.com]

Clearly, we're spoiled.

But writing sex has a price-tag as far as credibility goes in commercial publishing. Well-written books with lots of great sex are labeled "erotica" which translates into "porn for intellectuals". That's a niche market. Trashy smut books are not well-written generally and chain booksellers may or may not sell them or may only sell a certain amount of them for much the same reasons that Blockbuster won't stock adult films. They want to appeal to a family market.

And while the 1990's endeavored in academic circles to legitimize porn, largely, they approach it in such a remote and theoretical fashion that it's hard to imagine we're still actually talking about fucking at a certain point. They've tended to focus on the seedier pop cultural or anthropological aspects of erotic writing as seen through a very dry and analytical perspective; what does this blowjob in a 1975 underground novel say about Western Civilization?

Who gives a crap?

Great erotica is a marginalized school of writing.

I mean, even Sci Fi, the most dissed literary genre ever in critical and academic circles, gets some measure of acknowledgement as legitimate literature. Erotica? Not so much.

I mean. okay, yeah, Hank Miller, Anais Nin, whatever. But that's pretty much it as far as celebrating gorgeously written smut goes.

Adult fan fiction can be some of the most literary, imaginative, compelling writing around with some of the most astonishing sexual imagery there is. But if there's a literary movement more ostracized than erotica, it's fan fiction.

[apocalypsos.livejournal.com]

The thing is, I'm not even talking about it in turns of these characters throwing themselves onto a rack and pouring hot wax onto one another or banging over every inch of their pretty, pretty castles. I'm talking one sex scene. Just one. Not even anything special, just missionary with candlelight and pretty music, and we don't even get THAT much. The most pedestrian sort of consummation scene you'd get in any other romance novel on the racks at Wal-Mart -- usually that's where I pick mine up -- and the author never even gives us that much.

I wish I could say I believed it was just a matter of taming it for a Wal-Mart-rack type of audience, but the fact is that the Wal-Mart rack isn't a nation of hand-holding and Eskimo kisses. It's not porn central or anything, but it's not even about approaching erotica levels with the writing. It's writing ONE sex scene into any of these novels, which isn't too much to ask for in any romance novel (even the most commercial of romances) and which the author seems almost physically incapable of doing at this point in the series.

[anonymous_sibyl]

May I ask which series you like? (She says, having a weakness for time-travel romance herself.)

Often when I'm reading "mainstream" romance novels I end up skipping the sex scenes. I just can't get through all the throbbing and weeping body parts anymore. Fandom has spoiled me for well-written sex. ;)

[reneekytokorpi.livejournal.com]

Jean M. Auel. Too much sex will kill a series!

[kerri]

She could just be writing for the people who like romance novels but don't want sex - when I worked at a library there would be a lot of older women who came in to get romances out, but never the bodice-rippers. I bet there's a market for them.

[reneekytokorpi.livejournal.com]

Seconded from another library worker. The romances checked out very well with the older audience, and the bodice rippers only really moved when someone turned 18 and could finally check them out. I guess people read to escape into a world they like better mostly, and if someone's life is lacking romance, but has sex...

[risha]

I just had an argument on tor.com (if three comments could be called an "argument") about whether the Anita Blake books were paranormal romances or erotica. As I understand it, erotica is about the sex, whereas romance is about the people and the sex is (and has always been) optional.

With that said, I prefer it in there myself. There's a reason why I gave up on Harlequins years ago - too many fade-to-blacks and wait-until-marriages. I think it's less the lack of payoff that irritates me, and more that it feels... regressive, maybe? A fallback to the days when sex was dirty.