and now for something completely different
over at the dearauthor thread that didn't die for a long time**, Angela James, who knows these things, says that Bonnie Dee doesn't write erotic romance.
???!!
Huh. That might be true of some of Dee's books, but others....what more could she do to push them into the E part of the E R world? Can't see it happening without pushing the story over the edge of romance into erotica. (Countess Takes a Lover is the one I'm thinking of, but I can pick out a couple of others)
In my little world this proves once and for all that what constitutes ER must be subjective, because Angela James knows what she's talking about and I think I do too. The Supremes knew it when they saw it, and so do the rest of us. Thing is, a sense of titillation is all it takes for some**** and others (usually people who've read nothing but smut for days and days--I've been in that boat******) require a lot more hammering and nailing to consider it hot.
I would go see if there is a list ("to be considered erotic romance, at least 45 percent of the book's content must be concerned with actual boffage, 20 percent devoted to tension. Subplots, eg anything unrelated to sex, may only take up 20 percent. The following words must be used at least once.") but I don't think I could take that list seriously as gospel anyway. Subjective is always more interesting, anyway.
That is all.
_____
**I'd link to it but there are almost 300 posts and only a few have to do with what is erotic romance. With a spectrum of heat set up. Yeah, I do like that spectrum. But still I'm not going link because I put in a few comments and look stoopid.
**** even I'm inconsistent within my own systems...some days I think that scene in Lord of Scoundrels where he removes her glove in a cafe is hotter than about 80 percent of the stuff published at literotica.
******* it makes me seasick after a while. I don't know how editors can manage.
???!!
Huh. That might be true of some of Dee's books, but others....what more could she do to push them into the E part of the E R world? Can't see it happening without pushing the story over the edge of romance into erotica. (Countess Takes a Lover is the one I'm thinking of, but I can pick out a couple of others)
In my little world this proves once and for all that what constitutes ER must be subjective, because Angela James knows what she's talking about and I think I do too. The Supremes knew it when they saw it, and so do the rest of us. Thing is, a sense of titillation is all it takes for some**** and others (usually people who've read nothing but smut for days and days--I've been in that boat******) require a lot more hammering and nailing to consider it hot.
I would go see if there is a list ("to be considered erotic romance, at least 45 percent of the book's content must be concerned with actual boffage, 20 percent devoted to tension. Subplots, eg anything unrelated to sex, may only take up 20 percent. The following words must be used at least once.") but I don't think I could take that list seriously as gospel anyway. Subjective is always more interesting, anyway.
That is all.
_____
**I'd link to it but there are almost 300 posts and only a few have to do with what is erotic romance. With a spectrum of heat set up. Yeah, I do like that spectrum. But still I'm not going link because I put in a few comments and look stoopid.
**** even I'm inconsistent within my own systems...some days I think that scene in Lord of Scoundrels where he removes her glove in a cafe is hotter than about 80 percent of the stuff published at literotica.
******* it makes me seasick after a while. I don't know how editors can manage.
I've never looked at literotica, but that glove scene in LOS is smokin'!!!!
ReplyDeleteHi Portia/Wendy!
ReplyDeleteIt's a huge site with lots of free smut. Kids, don't read this.
http://literotica.com/stories/index.php
Well I suppose we should always listen to other people's opinions, lol. It's nice that literature isn't science, and we can tell the 'experts' to blow it out their ears.
ReplyDelete:-D