Smut?

Well, nothing will get a group of writers’ panties in a bunch like anything smacking of censorship. I have to say, I really can see both sides of this. It’s all those years of teaching debate, I tell you!

For one thing, I can tell you first hand that writers have no control over their covers. I had no control over mine—not even the titles. Now, I wasn’t unhappy with anything they did with mine, but if I’d been stuck with some nearly naked chick on her knees clinging to some nearly naked guy’s thighs, I would have had to deal with it. (Okay, I do make the “gag me” finger-down-the-throat gesture every time I say INTO HIS ARMS, and assure everyone that I did not write that title, and NOBODY’S SAINT has my 17th century sea captain on blue striped sheets, but I am so grateful for my tasteful covers that these are trifles.) The point is, as an author, I have no say. Oh—and the nearly naked chick on her knees would be just fine by the new standards. If she were standing with him, topless, and his hands were obscuring her breasts—no dice. I don’t think covers with naked people do much for our image as writers, but a woman standing next to a man does a heck of a lot more for our image as women than the kneeling chick.

For another, the limits they place on text would prevent me from posting the first chapter of my current WIP on my site. I have a modern woman who is stressed out and, yes, she drops the F-bomb once and makes what some movie reviewers call a “scatological reference.” (I love that term.) You see, the new standards do not permit what we might delicately refer to as “the f-word” and “the s-word.”

There are host of other verboten words. The list has caused some concern for a friend of mine who uses a very naughty word in her first chapter. You see, she wrote about a cowboy who had to "c*ck his gun." Shocking, isn’t it?

At the same time, there are erotica publishing houses out there who wander back and forth over the line of romance and, well, porn is such a harsh word, but… I can see where RWA would demand that books from these publishers fall within their guidelines in order to be included in RWA publications and events. One man and one woman who fall in love and live happily ever after while having lots and lots and lots of steamy sex falls in this category. Not my cup of tea, I’m more in favor of “some” steamy sex, but hey, nobody said everything has to fit my tastes. The new standards forbid bestiality. Okay by me, but a problem for paranormal romance writers whose heroes are werewolves. Again, from my personal POV…ew. But hey, whatever.

Actually, as a good Unitarian Universalist, I look at our one man, one woman standard and feel a bit hypocritical. I mean, if I support gay marriage (which I do) I should be arguing that my writing organization should allow books about monogamous, same-sex couples. I’d feel pretty good about that.

But that’s off the topic. Some novels being sold as romance feature threesomes and such, and that really does fall outside of the way RWA has defined itself. Then again, what about all those chick-lit writers we’ve taken under our wing? Their books are often romance-free.

So here we all are, trying to figure out if RWA is setting reasonable standards that are designed to help us rise up from our bad reps within the publishing industry as purveyors of purple prose, or are we being puritanical in a country that has swung dangerously toward theocracy (also another topic, but from the Inquisition to Salem to the Taliban, theocracies have been VERY dangerous).

I dunno. Sometimes, I wish that I were one of those people who could view things as black or white, good or evil. Alas, my experience is that very little in life is so clear-cut. Those of you who are fellow RWA members and headed to Reno this summer, won’t THIS make for an interesting general meeting?