On Hawtness and Romances
So, obviously, it takes me a while to get around to anything lately. I’ve been thinking about this since I read a comment by Nora Roberts at Dear Author (in response to Jane Litte’s article Let’s Talk About Sex (and Love, and then Sex Again) which posed the question of how/why/what it’ll take for romance to be accepted in the same way as a show like Bones, where the sexual tension and romantic subplots aren’t belittled):
when writers and readers talk about the hawt, hawt, hawt, then it becomes about the hawt–and not about the sex within the context of the story. It’s that the detractors and the media will jump on, while they disregard all the rest.
I don’t want to be known as a writer of hawt books. I want to be known as a good writer–whose books contain well written love scenes as well as good characterization, strong dialogue, a solid story, etc.
And my reaction was kind of like: nod, frown, nod, frown, nod, frown. Because I agree: to talk about how hawt books are when speaking with someone unfamiliar with the genre moves the focus completely onto the hawtness. But within the genre — hell, even on this blog — I like using “hawt” and to mention the heat level. The term “hawt,” IMO, has become a shorthand for “explicit” that also distances me, as a person/author/reader, from the eroticism of the novel.
I probably have to explain that. (Long post coming up after the cut.) Read more »