Clean Romances discussion
Welcome!!
>
BEFORE YOU POST...
Hi Sherry Lynn! Welcome to Clean Romances. We're so glad you found our little but growing group. :-) The questions are purely for fun. Answer them if you'd like or not. It was just a fun way one of our members thought up to try to get to know each other a little better. And yes, it's a constantly open thread, so new members can always jump in.

I'm an author who writes western historical romance. Mine are sweet traditional, I'd say. My latest, MONTANA DAWN, was recently chosen as Best Western Romance for 2010 at the Love Western Romances. I'm looking forward to getting to know you all.
Hugs,
~Caroline

What part of Montana are you in?

The Boyfriend Bylaws


Did you transplant from Sac. too? And, I'd love to get together with you when I make it up to Montana. I'll be sure to let you know.
Hugs!
~Caroline

I have finished the first draft of a clean romance sequel called "April in the Moonlight" and will begin editing it soon.


I am a big fan of paranormal romance, but I also love regular romance...as long as there's romance! :)

There appears to be a big audience for clean romance. Do you find that to be true? I've heard that erotic is pushing sensual and clean romance aside. While I think there is an audience for erotic and I have read and like some of that genre, I don't think the others are dying out. What does everyone here think?


Welcome Carrie! I think maybe the only thing erotic romance is pushing away is a lot of readers from the romance field. From the way this group is growing, there is clearly an audience still in search of clean romances. I think a lot of people just don't know where to find them. That's one of the gaps this group hopes to fill. I think you will find many wonderful clean romances, old and new, on our group bookshelf. Check it out! And if you find any clean, secular romances that AREN'T on our bookshelf, please, please add them. We want to offer readers as many clean romance options as we can find!

I don't believe at all that erotic romance is pushing out sensual and sweet. Erotic romance is popular, but there are plenty of people who read sweet (for example, this group is growing by leaps and bounds) and sensual.
I was really glad to see Astraea Press come onto the scene. As Joyce pointed out, outside of specific authors, readers don't know where to find sweet romance. Astraea is a nice one-stop shop.


My favorite novels and films are all way above board; my best work as a writer up to now is this:

This group's guideline says, "Not 'Christian' or 'Inspirational'." Despite my book's title (which is absolutely perfect for the characters and the old-fashioned story of doubt and commitment), ARCHANGEL is neither a dogma-pusher nor one of the many nether-world-power-spirit things going around right now. It's literature. It's unique.
I think I know what "clean" means...I'm a person of dignity and discretion...and yet I wrote this book. Why? There's some tension in it, and there are foul deeds that I'm sorry to say have made some of my loved ones cry--unfortunately there's no other way to make low characters seem low than to have them talk and act like the people they are. They have to ring true. Those folks in this story are sometimes not "clean."
But the people that matter are not intimidated by any of that, and neither should the reader be. The love and the courage are beautiful, and unconquerable. The subtle romantic undercurrent literally carries the story from start to finish, despite the fact that it rarely rises above a soft whisper.
And I'm not going to spoil it any further!
If you read ARCHANGEL from start to finish and are not moved to recurring images of devotion and greatness in your own heart, let me know and I'll get you a refund. I think you'll see that there is great beauty in struggle, in friendship, and in courage.
I invite you to experience ARCHANGEL, an eBook available at literally any eBook seller.
Thanks! Now I'll turn my attention to being a good group member and participating in the discussions.
- Mike
Welcome Mike! Your book sounds intriguing. I completely understand about "low characters" doing "low things" in a book to ring true. The one thing this group does not accept is graphic sex scenes, whether by "low" characters or anyone else in the book. Note the word "graphic". That doesn't mean immoral characters can't be immoral, just that we don't want a blow by blow description of it in books represented in our group. Does that make sense? Saying that, I haven't read your book, so I can't judge how it may or may not meet our criteria. I'm trusting for now that it's fine, so again, welcome! I hope you enjoy it here. :-)

Thanks for the gracious welcome! You pointed out,
> The one thing this group does not accept
> is graphic sex scenes
And I absolutely hate that kind of hack writing too. Not only for taste reasons, but also in defense of art! I so gratefully thank you all for having this group, and I applaud the standard you're establishing.
The line we're discussing is not often easy to know. Some people want villains to be toned down too far (one reviewer asked me why I couldn't just have the bad guys say the initials "G.D." so that the page would not be blemished with a curse). And it can be difficult to describe a crime without establishing the tasteless lowness of it.
I agonized over that line in writing ARCHANGEL. In the end I went with my personal instinct--I decided that as long as I establish a character as tasteless and low, then if they do something despicable, the book's theme and standards are on the right side of the whole question. And as long as just a brief sentence (out of ~400 pages) is used to establish that lowness, the ideals we all believe in are maintained.
Taste and decorum are relative things. There is no Goodness without there being Badness to conquer and abolish. Literature that evangelizes strength and virtue has to have that virtue come up against its antithesis, and then strive against it.
Does it sound like I'm okay here? I hope so, because if I've failed on this point then I'll be pretty disappointed in myself--again not only for sake of decorum but for sake of art. I do not want to crank out cheap means' of attracting attention (anyone can do that). I wanted to produce a masterpiece that would stay with a reader for weeks or months, and let them discover new dichotomies and ethical dilemmas and flavors of courage in the story the more they considered it.
And I'm not even sure I got my initial "hello" into the right folder here...sorry if I flubbed that one too....
- Mike

How true Jean, didn't mean to ignore the blossom to attend momentarily to the stem.
Personally, I think of Romance in a novel in two ways (and Jean please tell me how you think of it too): First, there should always be a subtle or less subtle stream of romantic interest between two characters whom we grow to care about. Second (and to me extremely important), there must be a romance between the main protagonist and the reader.
I believe it doesn't matter the gender of the protagonist, nor that of the reader. Why? Because Love is a whole other thing from physical gratification or chemical attraction. Love stands above all those gain-based, possession-based emotions. Love is for people, by people.
I know my own example best, so kindly forgive me if I use it: Male readers of my novel experience a strong "romance" with the main protagonist because he is what they are in their finest hour. The character defines the loftiest aspirations of strength, humilty and courage that male readers have for themselves. By relating to him, they feel renewed love for themselves.
And women readers experience a strong personal romance with that protagonist essentially because his qualities and capacity for devotion make him what every woman deserves.
I think the personal romance with the reader is paramount to literature qualifying as "Romance." What are your thoughts on this? What would be some examples you might think of?
- Mike

After writing six romance books, I think I know a little about chemistry both physical and emotional. But it's that connection and the sacrifice and devotion between two people that knocks my socks off, making me laugh and cry and sigh with them both.

Other than the writing skill itself, it comes down to knowing people, and especially Romantic people.
- Mike
Michael,
1st, our group only monitors sex scenes in the books on our group bookshelf, not language. We do have a thread where readers can rate language in books if they want to, but it's not required, and so far, no one actually has. No book will be excluded from our group due to language, although some readers may simply choose not to read books with particular language in them. That's a choice for each of our readers to make for themselves. In short, we will not exclude your book for language, so you don't need to worry about that.
2nd, although "romance" may indeed be defined in many different ways, for the purposes of our group we are generally talking about the romance "genre" as publishers tend to define it, and that generally requires (as Jean said) "a relationship of love between two people". And yes, in our particular group, that relationship is between one man and one woman. That certainly doesn't mean that there can't be other relationships developed in the book, such as the love between parents and child, the love between friends, etc, but if there is no one-man/one-woman romance thread included, then for our group, we would not consider it a romance.
Does that make sense?
Okay, I just re-read your comment above. "...it can be difficult to describe a crime without establishing the tasteless lowness of it.... There is no Goodness without there being Badness to conquer and abolish. Literature that evangelizes strength and virtue has to have that virtue come up against its antithesis, and then strive against it."
I agree with these statements and yes, I think you're okay in this group on this point. And it was perfectly fine to introduce yourself here too. We're glad to have you here!
1st, our group only monitors sex scenes in the books on our group bookshelf, not language. We do have a thread where readers can rate language in books if they want to, but it's not required, and so far, no one actually has. No book will be excluded from our group due to language, although some readers may simply choose not to read books with particular language in them. That's a choice for each of our readers to make for themselves. In short, we will not exclude your book for language, so you don't need to worry about that.
2nd, although "romance" may indeed be defined in many different ways, for the purposes of our group we are generally talking about the romance "genre" as publishers tend to define it, and that generally requires (as Jean said) "a relationship of love between two people". And yes, in our particular group, that relationship is between one man and one woman. That certainly doesn't mean that there can't be other relationships developed in the book, such as the love between parents and child, the love between friends, etc, but if there is no one-man/one-woman romance thread included, then for our group, we would not consider it a romance.
Does that make sense?
Okay, I just re-read your comment above. "...it can be difficult to describe a crime without establishing the tasteless lowness of it.... There is no Goodness without there being Badness to conquer and abolish. Literature that evangelizes strength and virtue has to have that virtue come up against its antithesis, and then strive against it."
I agree with these statements and yes, I think you're okay in this group on this point. And it was perfectly fine to introduce yourself here too. We're glad to have you here!


I think Sunny Days, Moonlit Nights does that. I am working on the sequel and have another plot for a sweet romance percolating in my brain.
Do you think it's okay for an author to keep the hero and heroine out of bed because she simply refuses to engage?


I have another book kicking around in my head, too, with a perfect premise for clean romance. The challenge is fun!

Is it okay, you ask...actually I don't know why the focus so often remains on bed at all. Rather than keeping sex the main question, air brushing and nicing up the words and calling it clean, I prefer romances to be woven through moral dilemmas that transcend this level of singular "engagement." I don't read to experience bed scenes. I love Romance, as it applies to the lives of great characters and their larger stories, the external pressures on them, and especially I like to see that characters are actually dedicated to something larger than themselves. In the real world, romance happens stirred in as an important ingredient in the mix of life, like sugar in bread dough (pardon the analogy, I bake occasionally). So I like literature to have that 'real' feel too.
Your publisher's requirements are of course important to your livelihood, but are a practical and artificial filter superimposed on the process. If we're talking about perfection and ideals, then volume marketabilty is not part of the definition of the ideal Romance novel.
I like a character to do what that character would really do and needs to do with respect to her larger story. I want her to care about meaning and not have this preoccupation with one kind of motion. If we decide on whether it's okay or not okay, then we've agreed on a 'formula' for our literature, which is too constraining.
Well that's my honest reaction Jean, it depends on the larger story, which should truly be larger but most often is not. I know most of what's out there just constructs some story around the romance and the decision of the bed. I try to appreciate each for what it can do well (or well enough), and meanwhile remember the great ones.

I hope that qualifies for everyone. I think it grows out of the story naturally and is not an artifice, just to move the plot along.
Reviews have been pretty good, so I guess the critics agree.

So well said Francine, I agree with you! I think most Romance writers try to box in the story to focus so primarily on the one element an average reader yearns to swim in. Then before you know it it becomes a rule!
In The Thorn Birds, if the story had been written just a little differently and Maggie and Father Ralph had not enjoyed their week together on the beach, wouldn't the story still be a Romance? Of course it would. So it's fine if a bigger picture encompasses, sometimes even dominates, the romantic thread. Some modern films like Titanic and Pearl Harbor are other good examples, you better believe they are romances and they feel real and are often beautiful and deep in more than one way at a time.


You have illuminated a point that most don't consciously realize Michael. Are you a Literature professor perhaps? I like your wonderful and authentic insights, thank you for sharing them. Thinking back, every classic Romance I can think of has the quality you describe.

- Mike



Great observations Therese. There are definitely a few people who simply do not want to read a single foul word or witness a villain accosting someone no matter how it's presented, but I think most selective readers derive their selectivity from the following: We do not want our senses to be dragged through the slime of degrading behavior to the point that we live and taste all of it. And we do not want degrading behavior to be celebrated.
As you so aptly point out, our characters must behave as they really would. This means dirty deeds might be done. Now, linguistic artistry should be able to transfer the affront to the reader's head without unnecessary discomfort and still not dilute the objectionable impact, but as long as that care is taken and that skill is in the author's quiver, most readers do want a REAL story.
Like many of us, personally I've always been a sucker for Good (including good morals, good values, selflessness, courage, and love) ultimately prevailing over evil, and also over apathy. So I do establish the baser elements in a story, so that Good (morality, courage, love) has the need and opportunity to rise to that challenge.
Short point is: I agree with you a thousand fold on the ringing true, and it follows then that the art is in doing it without a discerning reader becoming insulted by formula or gratuitous garbage to the point of tossing the book aside.
If we do it well enough, even the most selective reader comes away with a wonderful feeling that goodness triumphed.
Anyway, those are some key tenets I live by in my own writing (my novels and also shorter works). It's one reason why I LOVE to meet other people (like this group) who believe in quality and sensibility. Kindred spirits. :)
- Mike


As fun as all the 007 films were for other reasons, I always found myself embarrassed by all the applauded promiscuity. It seemed to fly in the face of the ethic of Honor.
Maybe it depends on the parents, but I agree that no self-respecting father and mother would raise their sons to be wanton, or careless with another human being's fortunes or feelings. But then there are plenty who take pride in their kid bullying other kids.
The opposite part of your point should make us consider whether its fair to revere female characters who are virtuous, over those who may be less so. There are numerous literary examples of respected and loved female characters who are more worldly, but they usually are portrayed as having never really lost their innocence despite their experiences. That's probably because innocence is naturally beautiful (naturally childlike) in any character.
I'm very glad you brought this up, because I can now go back and try to figure out why on earth I made the choices for my characters that I did. I believe my main female character has more than enough innocence to keep pace with her natural wisdom. Not sure why I did that, but I think she did it herself, not me.
And my primary male character is by my standards the very definition of moral strength, his own doubts and struggles with greater questions notwithstanding. I do know why I did that--it was essential to the story I wanted to write. If you like "noble" male protagonists, then I think (I hope) you would approve. At least, if I failed in that, then I've failed in pretty much everything I set out to accomplish with that book.
I've said it before--I think we need to have our own love affair with the main characters. For the primary male character, women should love him for what he is, and for his honor. Men should love him because he is who they want to be. And for the primary female character, it has to be just the same with the genders switched.
In short, I think you hit one very important nail on the head here. Thanks for making this point, and making me think!
- Mike

Jonathan Maberry -- Joe Ledger is multi-developed. He admits to having The Killer, The Cop and the Human (or whatever the third guy is) inside him. Guess what comes out with the Zombies? LOL - great series, and jam-packed with both action and emotional baggage.
Charles Todd -- Ian Rutledge, who is haunted by a soldier he ordered killed. Excellent development in both plotting and in-depth emotions of this troubled man who has honor and integrity at war with his duties during WWI.
LaVyrle Spencer -- always in-depth with both heroines and heroes. Emotional explorations, especially November of the Heart, Morning Glory and Hummingbird. Fabulous reads.
Cheryl St. John -- emotional, tug-at-your-heart stories mixed with complex heroes and heroines.
Those are just a FEW authors whose standards I try to meet. You'll see when DOUBLE CROSSING comes out in August from Astraea Press if I met that goal. :-D
And if I fell short, please tell me so that the next book will delve further.

Books mentioned in this topic
Archangel (other topics)The Boyfriend Bylaws (other topics)
Thank you so much for your understanding and for making this such a great group! :o)