How clean does a romance have to be to be called 'clean'?

[Abigail]

Hmm, that does sound like an entertaining one! Thanks for letting me know about it.

I have been so frustrated at the lack of peers for Georgette Heyer for so long that in the 1980s I attempted to write two Regencies in her style. The experience taught me just how peerless she is, how hard it is to approximate what appears so easy on her pages.

I’m on Team Hugo—The Unknown Ajax is my favorite.

[Charlotte]

Georgette Heyer is mentioned here, and I just finished a good newly-written book that I think I bought at the suggestion of the author here! It was quite good! I read it in two late nights. The vocabulary is excellent- like Heyer- and it was similar to "Cotillion" I suppose I'd say. Since I'm in the "clean" definition thread, it's no hotter or colder than Heyer:) The title is "Lucretia: A Regency Romance" by Rachel Carter.

[Abigail]

Thanks for the referral, Charlotte! So many Heyer fans are looking for her elusive equal.

[Groovy]

As a clean writer, I've decided to omit love scenes from my novels from now on. With that said, I received a nice review for one of my older books where the husband and wife made love at the end. But the reviewer thought that although it was appropriate, she should warn potential readers about that. That kind of shocked me because I never thought that a MARRIED couple making love would be considered cause for warning. (and it wasn't graphic. a three-year old could read it and go "eh":)

I guess there are many different avenues of what's considered clean.

[Barbara]

I find myself wondering whether hinting at sex rather than a graphic description of sex might cover it.

For me, it is about recognizing sensuality rather than explicit sexuality, describing a scene through emotions and conversation rather than a description of sexual activity.

[Groovy]

I concur:)

[Gerd]

Barbara wrote: "For me, it is about recognizing sensuality rather than explicit sexuality, describing a scene through emotions and conversation rather than a description of sexual activity..."

For me it's a matter of characters being trustworthy.
I can't bring myself to trust sexual characters. Somebody who puts so much emphasis on carnality, I can't see these people being interested in their opposite as a person, much less being faithful for long because the novelity of sex can possibly ever only last so long...

[Barbara]

Gerd wrote: "Barbara wrote: "For me, it is about recognizing sensuality rather than explicit sexuality, describing a scene through emotions and conversation rather than a description of sexual activity..."

For..."

So true! That is why the emotional counts so much more!

Thinking about it further, my observations about sensuality, I like the idea of hinting at what is to come, knowing we can use our imaginations.

[Abigail]

Well put, Gerd! You put your finger on something I felt intuitively but hadn’t consciously considered.

[Groovy]

I agree. I love the way it's put so correctly here. And that's why I love writing, especially the emotional passion and pull between the characters. Stories where the heart speaks instead of the physical act. Like Gerd said, if it's just physical, it will only last so long.

[Melanie]

The key words "sensuality" and "hinting" make it all so clear. Subtlety can draw stong emotional reactions from a reader.

I'm very much enjoying this thread.

[Barbara]

I particularly enjoy the characters' own internal issues, their thoughts, and motivations.