Lately, there’s been a lot of chatter about reclaiming the word “smut” in the romance community. I tried to have a conversation about this on Twitter, but 140 characters (or even 280 characters) doesn’t really cut it when you’re trying to have a serious discussion.
Here’s the thing about reclaiming words. Words have actual meanings. Not connotations or associations, but actual meanings. The word smut happens to mean dirt, smutty happens to mean dirty. At the moment, “dirty” is usually associated with “sex”.
For me, the moments in my childhood that I remember most fondly involved being dirty, sandy, muddy…or reading. The VERY best involved both. So I guess I’ve never had a negative association with the word “dirty.” But certainly, some people do. Reclaiming both dirty and smutty from their negative associations is certainly a worthwhile aim.
But that’s where things get murky.
If dirty = smutty = sexy, then “I write smutty books/smut” means “I write sexy books/sex.” And everyone has a different definition of what sexy is. Of what dirty is. Of whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing.
I don’t think anyone would argue that these circles overlap. I also doubt anyone would argue that they have areas in which they are completely separate. Is inspirational romance the same as smut? Is porn the same as romance? The problem is that when we’re talking about these things, people’s area of overlap is different.
I don’t happen to think there’s anything wrong with either of these circles. When I was in my 20s, I read a good deal of plain old smut. If there was a vague nod to romance, that was all it was. I dated a guy who was seriously into porn and he introduced me to a fair number of things I’d never tried before. But once the idea of it wore off, I found it boring. I wanted story. I wanted character arc. More than that, I wanted romance.
Romance is not the same thing as sex.
If you tell me you write “smut,” I am going to assume that you believe the major characteristic of your work is the sex. That doesn’t interest me as a reader. AND THAT’S OKAY. The defining characteristic of the books I like to read is their romance. Historical romance. Contemporary romance. Romantic suspense (as opposed to “sexy thrillers”).
Let me reiterate that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with smut. It’s just not what I want to read. So when people talk about reclaiming it to use for romance novels it upsets me. Because romance and smut are not the same thing. If you start calling all romance smut, how am I supposed to find the books I want to read, those books that have a softer focus on the sex?
And yes, it’s all about me.
But it’s also about readers finding books and writers finding audiences. Precision in language is a good thing for everyone. Not that it will solve all the problems—some people will still think books that contain the word “fuck” are “smut,” while others will require full-on detailed descriptions of BDSM and still not think it’s “smut.”
And last, I leave you with Tom Lehrer, my very favorite authority on the subject of smut.