In a literary atmosphere clouded by works such as “Heated Rivalry,” “A Court of Thorns and Roses” and Colleen Hoover’s bibliography, many contend that the respective crafts of writing and reading are being degraded, and I wholeheartedly agree.
However, there is an important caveat many critics miss. Many of these romance novels that garner attention online can be described as literary fast food, not because of their indulgence but because of the instant gratification baked into their plot structure and characterizations.
This new crop of romance authors is keeping the publishing industry afloat. The romance sector of literature is essentially bankrolling the publishing industry as it functions now. The tag #BookTok has gained more than 370 billion views, and Hoover sold 20 million books by 2022.
These books are often remarked upon for their scandalous and taboo subject matters. They blend graphic and explicitly written sex scenes with taboo or even abusive romance dynamics. This is not where they miss the mark, though. It’s the mishandling of the often contentious yet compelling subject matter that makes them not worth their salt.
There is an important distinction between sex in real literature and what has risen to popularity.
Smut, as it’s referred to online, is a new catch-all meant to describe sex scenes written for gratification purposes. Discourse over the degree of separation between reading and watching porn aside, it’s a different intent and style of writing.
University of Minnesota third-year English student Willa Krase said what makes BookTok books not literary is their lack of substance.
“I think they all have sort of a simplicity to them, I guess,” Krase said. “And it seems like some of them have smut just for the sake of having smut. That’s kind of what draws people in more so than the story itself.”
The manner in which the content is delivered determines whether a book with explicit content can retain literary status.
Krase said, “The Song of Achilles” by Madeline Miller is an example of this.
“‘The Song of Achilles’ has some sexual stuff in it, but I wouldn’t call it smut,” Krase said. “It’s not very explicit. I think that book still definitely has literary merit.”
If the content overshadows the plot, perhaps that is where the line can be drawn.
Writing that includes plot-driven and relevant sex should not be immediately disqualified from the literary canon.
A relevant example is the work of Eve Babitz. Her writing often recounts love affairs, partially inspired by her real life during the latter half of the 20th century in Hollywood. These scenes are written artfully, but not with gratification at the front of mind; they don’t shy away from glamour or intrigue. They are important in characterizing how each respective narrator knew and interacted with their lovers, as well as the development, or lack thereof, they catalyzed.
Sex is a plot device as relevant as any other when done well.
Another notable example is the work of Anaïs Nin, who wrote complex female characters depicting compelling romantic and sexual experiences. She’s famous for her writing on these dynamics, and her work still holds up half a century later.
Romance and even erotica are paramount to the documentation, chronicling and understanding of human relationships as they’re understood in their eras.
University student library assistant Fiona Bryant said she’s a fan of romance novels and believes that when written well, they hold literary merit.
“Romance has taught me so much, and I feel like there’s a lot that anyone could learn about human connection,” Bryant said.
The relationships between people and the ways they inform decision-making, as well as how these decisions affect relationships between people, will always fascinate us and pervade every medium.
Bryant said romance novels have enlightened her to other parts of the human experience and even other cultures.
“To me, reading is really important because that’s how you learn about other perspectives,” Bryant said. “That’s how you learn about other life experiences, and you’re just doing that to learn about the world as it is.”
The inclusion, or even romanticization, of toxic relationships dates back to the pioneering classic works of English literature. Have we forgotten about the complicated, messy interwoven dynamics characteristic of Shakespeare? To pull a more relevant example, Emily Brontë’s “Wuthering Heights” depicts two characters who are fixated on each other to the point of no return, wreaking havoc not only on each other but also nearly everyone they interact with.
Romance has been toxic, sticky and multifaceted for as long as it’s been written. Characters have been morally gray or even downright evil and still held up. When books are pushed to the front of discourse for their shock value or written without any real thought, their legitimacy slips. When authors rely on corrosive tropes and harmful stereotypes as vehicles for sexual content, problems arise.
I’m not saying these books should be banned or made less accessible. Romance is an important and worthwhile genre. It’s frightening to see it bastardized with such positive reception and intense popularity.
Reading doesn’t always have to be substantive, and neither does writing. The industry is barely keeping its head above water. And thanks to BookTok, romance is losing its grip on legitimacy.
