Just Erotic Romance Reviews

Even though I have only been “exposed” to erotic romance (or romantica, as some call it) for a relatively short period of time, I have seen/read/heard my share of misconceptions about it. Some people call it erotica, others call it porn aka “smut” … and the latter is what prompted me to talk about it. I mean, let’s face it … the people who persist in calling erotic romance pornography are supposed to not have a clue as to what porn reads like, right? After all, they are too busy judging the rest of us who enjoy some spice in our lives as well as in our reading to even bother to learn the difference … or do they?

But first things first, definitions, we need definitions. Taking a look at the Merriam Webster dictionary (hey, we need to use prestigious publications) these are the basic definitions I was able to find:

I. Smut (5 entries found, only one is applicable)

Main Entry: smut
Function: noun
Date: 1664
1 : matter that soils or blackens; specifically : a particle of soot
2 : any of various destructive diseases especially of cereal grasses caused by parasitic fungi (order Ustilaginales) and marked by transformation of plant organs into dark masses of spores; also : a fungus causing a smut
3 : obscene language or matter

II. Pornography (one entry found)

Main Entry: por·nog·ra·phy
Pronunciation: -fE
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek pornographos, adjective, writing about prostitutes, from pornE prostitute + graphein to write; akin to Greek pernanai to sell, poros journey -- more at FARE, CARVE
Date: circa 1864
1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction <the pornography of violence>

III. Erotica (One entry found for erotica)
Main Entry: erot·i·ca
Pronunciation: i-'rä-ti-k&
Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction
Etymology: New Latin, from Greek erOtika, neuter plural of erOtikos
Date: 1854
1 : literary or artistic works having an erotic theme or quality
2 : depictions of things erotic

IV. Romance

Main Entry: 1ro·mance
Pronunciation: rO-'man(t)s, r&-; 'rO-"
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English romauns, from Old French romans French, something written in French, from Latin romanice in the Roman manner, from romanicus Roman, from Romanus
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : a medieval tale based on legend, chivalric love and adventure, or the supernatural (2) : a prose narrative treating imaginary characters involved in events remote in time or place and usually heroic, adventurous, or mysterious (3) : a love story b : a class of such literature
2 : something (as an extravagant story or account) that lacks basis in fact
3 : an emotional attraction or aura belonging to an especially heroic era, adventure, or activity
4 : Love affair
5 capitalized : the Romance languages

As one would expect, there is no specific definition found for the term erotic romance or romantica, but with the provided official definitions for “romance” and “erotica” it is mostly a matter of putting 1+1 together, right? WRONG! Some people still get confused about it, and that is why we are here today, to illustrate and enlighten.

Just for fun, … I mean research purposes I asked some friends a few questions to find out how what they think of when they hear the above terms. Regarding smut, two of them admitted to having read some. They both expressed similar thoughts about it: smut is “senseless gratification”. Of course, “smut” is more the equivalent of written porn than either erotica or erotic romance. In her definition of "smut" Dee S. Knight quoted Tom Lehrer as saying, “Smut has no socially redeeming value. ... I'm for it!” She went on to say, “[Smut] has its place, but not in romantic literature. Smut is all about the sex.” Gee, I love this. Sums it up beautifully.

Moving on to erotica and erotic romance, I found out that the line differentiating them is a bit thinner, but still, there are some differences noticeable enough to allow the reader to make a distinction between one and the other. Basically that thin line involves the existence, or development of a plot involving the two main characters (what we could call the romantic leads) and how explicit the love scenes are. In erotica the writing tends to emphasize the atmosphere more and what leads to a sexual encounter than the sexual encounter itself.

Over time, erotica has become a means of sexual expression for many female writers. One example is French born writer Anais Nin, renowned for her Diaries and for a collection of short erotic stories titled "Delta of Venus". "Delta of Venus" was a compilation of short stories that she wrote, on commission, for a wealthy collector. Despite the fact that her patron was not interested in poetry or anything artsy, she remained true to herself and wrote them in such a way that they simply can not be considered pornography. These tales are highly arousing and timeless. Anais Nin wrote the stories in the early 1930's. Her diaries and books are an example of sexual expression as an art form.

Another example is Anne Roquelaure's (one of Anne Rice's pseudonyms) Sleeping Beauty Trilogy. Although this trilogy is extremely erotic and graphic, and introduces the reader to BDSM, it simply cannot be considered pornography. Anne Roquelaure created a whole fantasy world for the sexual escapades of the main characters. This trilogy is a BDSM take- on the fairy tale "Sleeping Beauty," hence the title, and it tells the adventures of Beauty from the moment she is awakened until she finds her Prince Charming. The Sleeping Beauty trilogy, however, borders on what could be considered erotic romance. It is an example of the fine line that exists between the three genres, and especially between erotica and erotic romance.

I have noticed that erotica and erotic romance readers will not confuse any of these with smut (gee, wonder why) … however, the story is completely different when you ask people that either do not read erotic romance or only read mainstream romance.

The truth of the matter is that erotica has been around for centuries. There have been erotic writings ever since the written language has been in existence. The tendency is to think of erotica in visually graphics terms such as paintings, drawings, sculptures, etc. However, as language developed in the form of expression, it was only natural that written erotica would make an appearance sooner or later. Erotica has become particularly significant to women in modern times as well, as a means to express their sexual selves.

Fast forwarding to the present, the internet can be considered the ideal media, not only because it allows for both written and graphic depictions, but also because of the fact that it reaches a larger and more diverse audience. However, it also gives more grounds to perpetuate the misconception that erotic romance and erotica are synonyms of “porn” or “smut”. Why? Simple, because the internet is the source of all EVIL.

Okay, joking aside the fact that the internet has become such a readily accessible source for pornography certainly has not helped. In the same vein, there are tons of websites solely dedicated to erotica, which is good. Contradictions anyone?

Regarding erotic romance, it was not until relatively recently that erotic romance has been recognized as a romance sub-genre. Just to give you an example, in the Mailbag section of the August 2003 issue of Romantic Times magazine, a reader questioned the need1 for so many erotica reviews in the magazine. Romantic Times received a deluge of replies from erotic romance and erotica lovers and the magazine proceeded to publish some of the reader replies supporting the inclusion of erotica and erotic romance reviews in the magazine. What would have been the chances of such an overwhelming reaction only a couple of years ago?

The truth of the matter is that first erotica, and now erotic romance, have become a more favored way for expression of female sexuality. As women have learned to accept the fact that sex is not bad, or dirty or evil, in other words, accept their sexuality as natural, more are looking for alternatives to add some spice to their lives in a variety of ways, and certainly erotic writings is but one of them. I asked author Dee S. Knight what motivated her to read erotic writings (romantic or otherwise) and her reply pretty much reflects what are the feelings of many women who enjoy these genres, “Curiosity, as much as anything else. The desire to push the envelope a little further. And then I found it to be fun. The characters are good and what they do is exciting. I tend to lead a pretty boring life, so this is a way to live vicariously and think about things (even now) I would be too shy to suggest with hubby. It's pleasurable, pure and simple.” When I asked the same question to author Dakota Cassidy, her reply mirrored my own experience as well, “ I began reading romantica only a few months ago. I admit to an eye bulge or two, it was frank and open. There was no beating around the bush, but there was also an openness that was freeing. I loved the plots and the dialogue they intrigued me. Then they became like potato chips...you can't eat just one...LOL.” I couldn’t have said it better!

Of course, the fact that romance in and of itself is usually frowned upon, does not help. Erotic romance readers not only have to deal with prejudice coming from readers of other fiction genres, but also with prejudice from romance readers as well. As illogical and contradictory as that may sound.

Now you may be asking yourselves what is this all about. Well, fairly simple, I grow tired of hearing/reading comments of a rather condemning or judgmental nature about my choice of reading material. Given the fact that I don’t go around criticizing those that find inspirational romances inspirational, just to give an example, I don’t appreciate when others try to tell me what to read and don’t read or what to like or not like. The fact that I like to read graphically explicit material on occasion does not mean that it is wrong, it does not mean that I am sick nor does it mean that I don’t have ethical values. Sadly, a lot of this “condemnation” comes from people that have never bothered to even try the books which they are criticizing. Of course, everyone has the right to their opinion, but I would appreciate those opinions if I knew that they are informed ones rather than just self-righteous prejudice.

I must say that I am quite glad to have discovered erotica and erotic romance. I would even go as far as saying that there is value in smut, even if it is not as emotionally satisfying as a well-written erotic romance or a delight to read as an erotic poem. On a personal level, it has even helped in my marriage, and for that, I will always be thankful.

Endnote:

1 The full text cannot be transcribed to the article, as it is the property of Romantic Times magazine.

Back to Articles