Posts
Hello, my friends!
If you have read it and know what this is about, welcome! Today is my spoiler-filled comparison of the two subgenres of Romance, Clean vs. Dirty.
If you have not read the reviews for "A Proper Scandal" or "Dirty Letters" here are the links. Or, if you are not a link person, please take a minute, go back to the front page, and you should find them and read them.
I'm going to compare what I liked or didn't like about their subgenre representation. I'm going to contrast my personal main takeaways of a Clean versus the Dirty romance subgenre's as I go. This will be filled with spoilers, so if you have not read the books or do not like spoilers, you should read or listen to both books. Also, please remember, these are my opinions only. My opinions are subjective to me, and may not be your opinions. You may walk out of this feeling you have a different pick than I do.
Let's get started!
Part one! Slow Burns. I want to clear this misconception up based on the "A Proper Scandal" review. I was talking to an avid fan (you know who you are) and, I realized I am giving a perception that I am against slow-burn books.
I like slow burns personally, but I do not like dry as dust slow burns with all the passion of blade of grass on a sidewalk.
Let me give a hypothetical. Let's say you have a romance novel that is 250 pages. Now let's say that those 250 pages, the story's point is person A, and person B has to meet, fall in love, break up, and fall back in love again; a slow burn will change the act structure. In the many books I've read, what this generally translates to with most authors of romance, is all of the action happens in the 2nd act, and the first act is dry. This isn't every single book, but it is in most I've read with a slow-burn romance between 250 and 350 pages if the writer isn't paying attention to chemistry and tension.
So let me be clear here, slow burns are fine. Tolkien was the master of the slow burn, simmered that stuff right. But Tolkien did not write romance novels, and the point of some is to get to the point. Especially if the ultimate goal is a sex scene. However, if there is not a sex scene, slow can be beneficial if the tension and chemistry are great.
I am perfectly delighted to read a romance novel with no sex, all sorts of tension among morally gray or morally ambiguous characters. They can be opposite gendered, same-gendered, or identify however they prefer. As long as the tension and setup are structured right, a slow burn, no sex, just kissing romance is perfectly done. Those are fun.
For my next part, this idea that Clean romance is designed for those who want something more wholesome to read while also getting to fall in love. In contrast, by saying such a statement, would that mean those who prefer their Dirty counterpart do not like being wholesome? I don't think so. But I can say that you'd be mistaken if you go into the subgenres and you personally are under such a belief.
Grace, the main protagonist from "A Proper Scandal," was raised in a vicarage and constantly around the Bible. By contrast, Luca, the main protagonist from "Dirty Letters," was not. She was born and raised in a secular system and went to public schools. And yet, if you asked me to pick between the two of them and decide who was more honest and morale, it'd be Luca.
Why?
The story with Grace puts her in these positions that make her a liar and incredibly untrustworthy. It's the primary plot device of the story, and she uses this to get a guy to marry her in less than two weeks.
Whereas Luca, who did tell one lie in the entire story. Specifically, Luca lied when she didn't come clean with recognizing her pen pal to his face. Okay, that's not the end of the world. Luca did not lie about anything else in the story and was brutally honest and forthright.
This tells me quite a bit about character development in a story. If one says, a type of genre is supposed to be more moral than another, why? If the point is that "A Proper Scandal" does not have sex scenes and "Dirty Letters" does, well, okay, fine. But if it's because the characters are of higher quality and more morale, then you'd be incorrect. Which frustrates me for the subgenre title.
Let's go into another thing I really found frustrating. When we talk about the male leads, we have Griffin from "Dirty Letters," and we have Nate from "A Proper Scandal."
Nate is a hard-working man trying to fix his family's name and reputation through work, and he denies himself any female comfort because his ex was a horrible monster.
On the other hand, Griffin is an ordinary guy, who eventually makes it in music, and he has a lot of money and is a literal rockstar. If you look at that on paper, one obviously is doing more than the other with immoral things: rock stars have stereotypes of sex, drugs, and rock & roll.
But, if you asked me after reading both books which one was trying to help his fellow man and more likely to help feed the hungry, clothe, and comfort the sick, it would be Griffin without question. Sure, Nate does bring in a widow to his household to help her after a situation, but he's not the time to go looking to help whole groups of people out of their plights like Griffin is.
Again, for this subgenre, are we looking at the characters' morality, or are we looking at the fact the story is lacking Sex or has it included?
Griffin drops all he's doing to care for Luca, he helps her get the treatment she needs, he donates money to charities that treat an assortment. Is he perfect as a human? No. Is Nate perfect as a human? No.
Here's my ultimate point. I think this genre tag needs to change. I think instead of "Clean" vs. "Dirty," we need it appropriately labeled and correctly.
The dirty book, for me, had a lot more morality in the character foundations than the clean book. Of the two, though, if we are talking about Sex or kissing, well, I liked the clean book more. I had a few issues with how some of the discussions between Luca and Gryphon about their turn-ons were, and frankly, I love a hot kissing scene.
I blame the fact that I have come to fully enjoy and revel in Korean dramas on this. K Drama's if there is Sex, you have no idea. At least the ones I watch. I watch lots of build-up to a kiss, and the kisses are spectacular. I love those kinds of stories. I like a hot steamy kiss. I don't need the bodily fluid part because I just don't like discussions about bodily fluids. I'd probably be "Doctor Mrs. Y," not "Mrs. Y," and we could eliminate that.
Now, if that makes it clean to have a kissing romance, can we call it something else? Can we give books proper ratings? I know on an R-rated movie, the reader or viewer will have more adult-oriented situations. In erotica or pornography, the reader or viewer will get a lot more graphic details on fluids and viscosity. But if I'm watching a show on prime time, or a K Drama, it will probably be a kissing scene.
Why not classify it as "Kissing" or even use the movie "G, PG, PG-13" system? As a parting thought, I think they should use colors. In Comedy, when someone is going to use vulgarity and graphic detail, they call it going blue. Perhaps, for this genre thing, we can give colors. If it's a kissing book with morally gray characters, maybe we call that a "green" romance for the fact that it's free of Sex, and the ones that have the Sex, but the morally okay characters can be "coral" or "orange"? I have no idea; I'm just throwing ideas out.
These "Clean" and "Dirty" titles are misconstruing to the reader character development and morals.
The intimacy, and emotional touching of "Dirty Letters" to me, did laps around "A Proper Scandal." Truthfully, the Ferby thing and some of the actual letters in "Dirty Letters" are about the only spot I can call the book dirty.
There is no way, as a person who is being fair, that I can categorize call Grace and Nate from "A Proper Scandal" clean. That book is not a book of proper morality or anything to aspire to. They have all sorts of problems with trust, morality, and general honesty.
So what is the verdict? What do I, Mrs. Y, prefer between Dirty and Clean?
Neither.
I like my romance with appropriately paced slow burns that are kissing books. I like my romance if it has to have sex, to have characters that have good chemistry but aren't making a mess or causing one of them physical issues, or having to get dentistry work because in no way that didn't hurt someone's teeth in the description of the sex act.
If my bias on that came out, I'm sorry; this is my opinion, of course.
Both books got a 4 star from me, had high and low points, and were enjoyable. I don't know that I'd reread either one, but this is where I'm at as of writing this review right this moment.
Please tell me what you think in the comments! Also, if comments aren't loading (because they aren't from what I'm told by some), please send me a tweet to link this review. I'd love to continue this dialogue.
My Twitter is @mrs_y_writer. I am curious about your opinion on these things and, if you want, join me on Twitter for more conversation. Any and all interaction is excellent, and I appreciate that you took the time to read this.
Also, if you liked this or any of my content, please share the link with your friends. It would make me feel good to see more than 5 people read this one. <3
Have a fantastic rest of your week, and I look forward to the discussions.
