Romance v. Smut

Romance v. Smut

 

It is a personal pet peeve of mine when people, especially teenagers, write things and label it as romance, when really it is just a nick away from a pornographic chunk of text. I absolutely hate distasteful “romance”, especially when it has nothing to add to a story. It is even worse when it is the focal point of a “story” and is simply sex, sex, kissing, and more sex. That is not romance.

 

The definition of romance, as a noun, is “A feeling of excitement and mystery associated with love.” There is no mystery in a highly cut-and-dry sex scene. So-and-so doing such-and-such to so-and-so is entirely unromantic, in my not-so-humble opinion.

 

The definition of romance, as a verb, is “To court, to woo”. So to romance someone, for example, is what we would think of dating. It’s where you get to know someone, and eventually persuade them into loving you. Simply put, roses, flowers, dates, moonlit dinners, etc. would be the most cliché and classic way to do this. Every one is different though.

 

So what is the difference between true romance, and smut? It’s really not that hard to tell, especially in novel writing. This ‘article’ applies to all types of writing, though, including roleplaying and such.

 

Romance does not start off with sex. Ever. Never ever, ever, ever. Ever. I’m sure you get the point now, yes? Good. There are many ways to start romance, it could be something as simple as a chance meeting, or something much more planned like a blind date. There’s no one right way to start a romance, especially in writing, but the wrong, utterly wrong and horrible way is to start with sex. Bad.

 

Smut is the opposite of romance, the way I see it. It is distasteful, leaves nothing to the imagination, does not have any ‘mystery’ or real excitement, and is purely carnal. Some of these popular Women’s novels, that focus on a carnal passion between the two lead characters, tend to be borderline smut. Very few of these authors actually take the time to build a decent relationship, and actually have the man woo the woman.

 

Nicholas Sparks is probably one of the most notable romance writers in these modern times. With stories such as The Notebook and Dear John, I’d say he’s the best chick-flick writer ever. Personally, I’m not a very woo-me sort of girl, but I dag-near had a heart attack when I saw Dear John. It actually had emotion. It wasn’t cliché, crappy “romance” that was not realistic or even mildly plausible.

 

On the other hand, we see things like Twilight [the movie, never read the books] where the romance is really not very romantic. Yes, I know, everyone hates Twilight. I don’t hate it, per se, I thought the first movie was good, the second was a little bit too boring. I rather hate the writing of it. The romance is not so much romance, as it is sexual tension. Jacob wants Bella, who wants Edward, who wants Bella. Love triangle at its worst. Most of it didn’t make sense, given that Bella is obviously not faithful to either one of them. I believe in Eclipse she actually kissed Jacob, after she accepted Edward’s proposal, and he was merely yards away from them. How is that romantic?

 

On the topic of roleplaying, there is a declining number of real literary talent in the realm of roleplays. Many have degraded themselves to *action stars*, one-liners, and txt tlk. The difference is highly noticeable when it comes to romance.

 

An example of how this works is, “*kisses other character* i luv u so much”. Looks a bit ridiculous, doesn’t it? If you wouldn’t write a novel in that sort of language�"and heavens forbid someone actually does�"why on earth would you roleplay that way? It often leaves a lack of plot, character development, or anything that makes a good story.

 

In conclusion to my rant, sex is not romance, romance is not solely sex. Smut is based solely on physical and carnal want for pleasure, while romance is based on both emotional and physical connection, and often builds up a relationship before heading in the direction of physical pleasure.

Author's Note

Response, reviews, and critiques are all very welcome.

Reviews

[David Rouken]

Excellent job on portraying an issue very close to me, I've always felt that many authors (Most notably Stephen King perhaps?) have used gratuitous (often overly-graphic) sex scenes as.. almost a filler at times, contributing little to nothing to the story whatsoever. I suppose it's "to keep the reader hooked" or some other equally flimsy excuse. At what point do sex scenes become nothing more than indulgences of the writer? Love is about so much more than physical attraction, and modern readers need to realize that. Keep the graphic sex in erotica where it belongs.

[Mullmugmos99]

Agree x 1000000