3 ms·

Because I'm an aspiring writer who learns a lot of things about publishing by the wayside. Romance is a major genre and frequently discussed, including its subd

Because I'm an aspiring writer who learns a lot of things about publishing by the wayside. Romance is a major genre and frequently discussed, including its subdivisions like "clean", "open/closed door", etc. And the top replies in that thread clearly agree with me, so I don't know why you think it's helping your case. Edit: and actually, you made an even stronger claim that romance and "explicit content" are definitionally equal, which really suggests you've never heard the term "erotica" which is well-established to be different from "romance".

thaumasiotes 2y ago
> And the top replies in that thread clearly agree with me, so I don't know why you think it's helping your case. Because they don't agree with you. "Clean romance" is to "romance" as "fish vegetarian" is to "vegetarian". It's a contrast, not a subtype. The idea that "clean romance" is "romance without sex scenes" immediately tells you that "romance" includes sex scenes. That's what "the exception that proves the rule" means. I'm familiar with the term "erotica". It is not restricted to books, but erotica in book form goes under the name "romance novels".
- andrewflnr 2y ago
  Why are you so sure it's not a subtype? I'm not going to say that's always how the "<descriptor> <noun>" structure works, but you have to admit it's pretty common. (Ed: compare to "healthy adult", "terrestrial vertebrate", "clean socks", etc) You're literally the first person I've ever encountered with this idea, after reading/watching dozens of articles/talks about genre from people in the field. You're also the first person I've seen to mention the term "fish vegetarian", which is indeed stupid; that's probably why those people are usually called "pescatarians".
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    > You're literally the first person I've ever encountered with this idea, after reading/watching dozens of articles/talks about genre from people in the field. That might be the problem. Taking an example from a different field, I am comfortable using the term "finite" to mean "more than zero". This is a common mathematical usage. (If you're curious, it contrasts "finite" with "infinitesimal" as opposed to "infinite".) People without mathematical training tend to object to it. If you're marketing books, because you're a bookstore, or a publisher, then you need to put clean romance somewhere, it shares most of its audience with romance, and it's natural to think of them as a group. But this is looking at the question from the wrong direction. If you ask "what's the term for a book with explicit sex scenes in it?", the answer to that is "a romance novel". I knew a Chinese World of Warcraft player who collected the item series called Steamy Romance Novels. ( https://warcraft.wiki.gg/wiki/Steamy_Romance_Novel https://warcraft.wiki.gg/wiki/Steamy_Romance_Novel ) She found them funny, but she remarked to me once that they seemed a lot more sexual than the title, "romance novel", implied. I put this down to unfamiliarity with English. Do you think more of the English-speaking player base should be confused by the items?
    - andrewflnr 2y ago
      > But this is looking at the question from the wrong direction. No, you nailed it with the marketing angle, the overlapping audience is the exact reason it's useful to put them all in one group. > If you ask "what's the term for a book with explicit sex scenes in it?", the answer to that is "a romance novel". No, the answer is just "book with explicit sex scenes". That's a cross-cutting feature across all kinds of genres, some of which are neither romance nor even erotica. You can have a thriller with explicit sex. To my knowledge there's no specific, shorter word or term for it. A romance in publishing-speak is actually a very specific formula in many ways. Romance readers are somewhat infamously picky about their happy endings, for instance. But there's an expected arc of characters meeting, having obstacles to getting together, and finally overcoming those obstacles. That's the heart of the genre, not sex. I know less about erotica, but it's much more specifically and completely about sex. Sorry, but to the extent it's possible to be wrong about terminology, as defined by actual usage, you're just dead wrong about this.

thaumasiotes 2y ago

> And the top replies in that thread clearly agree with me, so I don't know why you think it's helping your case. Because they don't agree with you. "Clean romance" is to "romance" as "fish vegetarian" is to "vegetarian". It's a contrast, not a subtype. The idea that "clean romance" is "romance without sex scenes" immediately tells you that "romance" includes sex scenes. That's what "the exception that proves the rule" means. I'm familiar with the term "erotica". It is not restricted to books, but erotica in book form goes under the name "romance novels".

andrewflnr 2y ago
Why are you so sure it's not a subtype? I'm not going to say that's always how the "<descriptor> <noun>" structure works, but you have to admit it's pretty common. (Ed: compare to "healthy adult", "terrestrial vertebrate", "clean socks", etc) You're literally the first person I've ever encountered with this idea, after reading/watching dozens of articles/talks about genre from people in the field. You're also the first person I've seen to mention the term "fish vegetarian", which is indeed stupid; that's probably why those people are usually called "pescatarians".
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  > You're literally the first person I've ever encountered with this idea, after reading/watching dozens of articles/talks about genre from people in the field. That might be the problem. Taking an example from a different field, I am comfortable using the term "finite" to mean "more than zero". This is a common mathematical usage. (If you're curious, it contrasts "finite" with "infinitesimal" as opposed to "infinite".) People without mathematical training tend to object to it. If you're marketing books, because you're a bookstore, or a publisher, then you need to put clean romance somewhere, it shares most of its audience with romance, and it's natural to think of them as a group. But this is looking at the question from the wrong direction. If you ask "what's the term for a book with explicit sex scenes in it?", the answer to that is "a romance novel". I knew a Chinese World of Warcraft player who collected the item series called Steamy Romance Novels. ( https://warcraft.wiki.gg/wiki/Steamy_Romance_Novel https://warcraft.wiki.gg/wiki/Steamy_Romance_Novel ) She found them funny, but she remarked to me once that they seemed a lot more sexual than the title, "romance novel", implied. I put this down to unfamiliarity with English. Do you think more of the English-speaking player base should be confused by the items?
  - andrewflnr 2y ago
    > But this is looking at the question from the wrong direction. No, you nailed it with the marketing angle, the overlapping audience is the exact reason it's useful to put them all in one group. > If you ask "what's the term for a book with explicit sex scenes in it?", the answer to that is "a romance novel". No, the answer is just "book with explicit sex scenes". That's a cross-cutting feature across all kinds of genres, some of which are neither romance nor even erotica. You can have a thriller with explicit sex. To my knowledge there's no specific, shorter word or term for it. A romance in publishing-speak is actually a very specific formula in many ways. Romance readers are somewhat infamously picky about their happy endings, for instance. But there's an expected arc of characters meeting, having obstacles to getting together, and finally overcoming those obstacles. That's the heart of the genre, not sex. I know less about erotica, but it's much more specifically and completely about sex. Sorry, but to the extent it's possible to be wrong about terminology, as defined by actual usage, you're just dead wrong about this.