I just sent off the heavily revised (and 16,000 words lighter!) version of Lord Langdon’s Kiss to my critique partners and beta readers. I’m starting to look at new cover art and thinking about a topic that concerns many authors, especially those who self publish: keywords. These are the (often invisible) words that help customers on a website find what they’re looking for, beyond general categories like “Historical romance”. They could include words that describe the tone of the book, like “sexy”, “funny”, “dark”, etc…
So I’ve been thinking about how to describe a book which has no sex scenes other than kissing, but does have sexual tension.
Some of the terms I’ve seen that readers use when looking for Regency romance without sex scenes include “sweet”, “clean” and “decent.” I have a lot of problems with the latter two, because I don’t believe sex is dirty or evil. Readers who use such terms might not like the sexual tension in Lord Langdon’s Kiss and they definitely won’t like most of my other books.
So that leaves “sweet”, which I also take issue with as it implies that “spicy” stories are all about the sex. But that pet peeve aside, what do people really mean by the term “sweet romance”? Obviously, no sex scenes. However, a lot of the old traditional Regencies, the ones that were as much comedy-of-manners as romance, didn’t even sexual tension, or even sexual awareness. So if there’s physical attraction and/or a hot kiss or two, is the story no longer “sweet”?
So I’d love to know. What do you think “sweet” means?
And here’s a bonus question. The Romance Reader described Lord Langdon’s Kiss as a “fine Regency romp”. I’ve seen “romp” used to describe traditional Regencies before, but recently it seems to imply a fun and sexy read. If I use the word “romp” anywhere, will it mislead readers into thinking this book is sexier than it really is? Because I don’t like to disappoint!
And here’s a Wordle I created using this blog post. That site could be addictive!
Elena
www.elenagreene.com
I also dislike the word’s “clean” and “decent” being used in this way. I tend to equate “sweet” with “innocent” as well as gentle, or non-abrasive. It has overtones of “cloying”, for me!
I agree with you that “romp” is not generally used for a book with no sex, these days, although in the past it might be accurate of the characters get into lots of lively mischief.
It’s difficult to know what key words to use for your novel. “Traditional” is another word often used to mean “closed door” or fade to black, but might imply for most people not even the suggestion of sexual tension.
You should probably emphasise “romance”, and “growing attraction”, perhaps “electric” could be used to convey the UST.
HJ, thanks for your reply. I agree with you re “sweet”. It implies a sort of lightness, when so-called “sweet” books can be funny or angsty, deal with serious matters or not, just as sexier books can.
For better or worse, the term has stuck, so I’m curious to hear from more people.
That’s the tricky thing with all of this: how to boost sales but also make sure buyers don’t post angry reviews because they didn’t get what they expected.
Hmm. I definitely have a problem with the term decent romance, but it is the first time I have heard this term used. It comes off as pretty judgemental. I never thought of the term clean romance being anything other than romances without sex in them, but I suppose it could lead one into thinking sex=dirty.
To me, sweet romance means fluffy rather than no sex. It is the thing I have no interest in reading. I want real people with meaty conflicts. If that means no sex, fine. If it means sex that drives character growth, that is fine too.
But if it is sex for the point of sex, I am not interested. Too many authors use sex as a substitute for plot or character development.
My opinions may be unpopular and my definitions may be flat out wrong, but that’s how I see it.
No one’s wrong about this, because we’re talking about a term that’s never been officially defined. I’m not surprised that answers vary!
The other thing I heard about “clean” romance is that there should be no swearing, no drinking, etc… Possibly no gambling or dancing either. I haven’t tried any of the inspirational Regencies so I don’t know if they’re held to that standard. Depicting Regency society without so many of those common activities would be hard.
Elena, you’ve hit on a conundrum that affects all of us, readers and writers. Marketing is important, but it requires categorizing our books, and what do we do if we write something “in between”? I’m very interested in hearing what people have to say on this. I never realized “sweet” might be interpreted as “fluffy” –no wonder I’ve had readers complain that my books are “angsty”!! We know there’s no pleasing everyone –it’s not about that. It’s about trying to figure out how to help the readers who DO like what we write to find it. Not sure I have even so much as a clue these days.
That goes along with what ohhellsyeah said, that some people equate “sweet” with “light.” I love your books but they are not “light” and definitely not “fluffy”.
I guess I just tend to think of those terms as keywords in romance with specific and pretty well defined connotations. Sweet = no sex (on page). Romp = light (vs angsty). And I think “Trad” readers are likely to interpret them that way, so I wouldn’t put too much energy into worrying that single title readers will be confused or mislead.
I think more about this because I’ve written a range and have crossover readers. I get negative reviews complaining about too much sex in some books and also readers who’ve encouraged me to “sex it up” a little more.
A well-written description SHOULD help but some people buy without reading them. So covers are important, too. That’s a different topic.
Oh yes, re covers! If the cover includes a shirtless man or a woman falling out of her dress (or both!), I would expect there to be sex scenes!
I put “sweet” in the keywords for my Regency A Feather To Fly With, because I was told that’s what a lot of readers search on when they’re looking for romances without sex scenes. So “sweet” is apparently considered the opposite of “spicy”. And then on the cover I put the tagline “A sparkling romantic romp in the classic Regency tradition”. I hope ‘classic’ and ‘tradition’ tell people to read ‘romp’ in the old meaning, that it’s going to be funny.
Thanks for sharing that, Joyce. I will probably use “sweet” for this book, even if there’s a risk of attracting readers who may be offended by my other books.
It would have been easier if I had stuck to “sweet” or “spicy” and not written everything in between. A writer friend once told me my “brand” is based on other things. Some readers like all my books but others gravitate to one end or the other.
You are so right about the cover art! I think it’s the most important means we have of conveying the level of sexuality.
Wishing you the best with Feather to Fly With!
While I believe most readers feel a sweet Regency does not include sex, it is difficult to categorize a book that has any depth or variation in its content from what we traditionally expect in what we’ve come to know as a “sweet” Regency. As I work on my current story, I find myself drawing lines I feel I should not cross regarding the hero’s emotions and desires because I would not want to disappoint a reader with an unexpected physical display. Yet it can be challenging to create a truly believable hero without a certain degree of depth, and desire is often a part of that. I circumvent the dilemma by allowing the hero to have desires while placing the heroine’s reputation above that. I think Joyce is wise in classifying a book as “sweet” to indicate that it would appeal to readers who understand sweet to mean pure (without sex), and then adding a tagline to give readers a clearer, more detailed idea of what they can expect.
I am OK with characters restraining themselves for various reasons, but like you, find it less natural and believable if they’re not at least a little interested or tempted. It sounds like you’re treading that line wisely.
As a reader, I thought about this all day. And I think you answered yourself … “sweet (gentle) temptation” implies the lines are drawn but the book is not classically – can we use that word with Regencies yet? – traditional. As to “romp,” it no longer implies no sex, IMHO, it implies a “tone of voice” that stretches credulity and if the reader is a stickler for proprieties they should suspend them for the duration or read something else. Also as a reader, I’d add that the label and tagline is no longer as influential as it once was. The blurb and reviews let me know there may be something of interest to me. Even (or maybe especially) the negative reviews, because what one reader finds ick, another is partial to. I love traditional tropes with a twist, am so tired of twins and rebels without a real cause other than fighting with the hero, and insist, even in a romp, that characters remember what year they live in. I know others that hate the very things I love. Which makes *your* job even harder … aren’t you glad I stopped by :g:
I *am* glad you stopped by, Katie. You’re helping me think this through. It’s great that you read the blurb and the text of the reviews. You’re not the only one to say that that’s important, so I’ll keep working on it. That having been said, some don’t read the blurb, which is why covers also need to convey the tone and sensuality.
As for reviews, sometimes they tell as much or more about the reader’s tastes than about the book. Sometimes it’s like someone saying that this apple pie is the worst chocolate cake she ever had… All I can do is label this pie as clearly as possible and hope for the best!
I’ve seen “sweet” used a lot to imply no overt sex scenes. My publisher classifies their bottom level of spiciness as “sweet” (the category my books fit in). (They also include “sensual”, meaning a level of sexual tension, but without overt sex (maybe hinted fade-to-black sex scenes) and “spicy” to mean boom-chicka-bow-wow. Only recently have they expanded to “Erotica”.
It would be nice if there was an industry basic, such as chili ratings, etc.
I do like the use of the word “traditional”. For me, it implies lots of tension, but not necessarily overt sexual scenes.
Thanks for the input, Heidi, although it perpetuates the confusion. By your publisher’s ratings this might be “sensual” but I think anyone expecting a really sensual read might be disappointed… LOL on the chili analogy. I blogged a while back saying I wish they came with heat levels for romance as there are for Buffalo chicken wings, using at least four levels. Some review sites have rating systems but they’re not consistent.