Romance novel jargon

[Bramblethorn]

Other classic words in Romance are ‘bodice’ and ‘bosom’, terms rarely heard these days outside of millinery circles.

Millinery? Not where I'd expect to encounter them.

I don't hear "bosom" much, but AFAIK "bodice" is still pretty standard for the fitted torso part of a dress. What would you call it?

 

[TarnishedPenny]

I stand corrected. ‘Millinery’ is of course hats. I meant female fashion.

Good catch.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I've used both in my writing.... but then my Lesbian Sex stories are very much about the romance.

In terms of "core", however, I do feel there is a lot of accuracy there. Think in terms of fitness training - your "core" is your abdominal muscles, your pelvic region. With a really good orgasm, you often feel it there. Well, I can't speak for everyone, obviously, but that's been my experience and those of many of my girlfriends. So, it's always felt kind of accurate to me: focusing on the whole body reaction, not just the genitalia.

I use core all the time and to me it always means that whole abdominal area. Core as just vagina? Very misleading. Bad writing, if you ask me. Of course 98% of pulp romance is bad writing.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Sticking with my original post, I can buy its an expected style, but the writers and readers there being intellectually and stylistically superior is insulting to everyone else.

It's a huge eyeroll for sure. They're having sex but we can't say certain words ... oh get over yourself, author.

 

[gunhilltrain]

In a lot of cases it's unambiguously used to refer to the genitalia, though.

Like in the first example I quoted. "The La Croix fizzle in my core became lava" could feasibly refer vaguely to the pelvic region, a feeling that isn't strictly localized, but in the second part the narrator is explicitly talking about pushing her pussy/"core" into his face.

I never heard "La Croix fizzle" before. Sometimes erotic writing has to be understated a bit if it's going to sound believable.

The Esther Smith I mentioned before describes reading the full version of Lady Chatterly's Lover available in the U.S. in the early 1960's. She has some problems with it. Rippling, rippling, rippling, like a flapping overlapping of soft flames, soft as feathers, running to points of brilliance, exquisite, exquisite and melting her all molten inside. "At the risk of sounding like a grumpy Philistine, I thought, Come on David, let's move this along already."

 

[lovecraft68]

I use core all the time and to me it always means that whole abdominal area. Core as just vagina? Very misleading. Bad writing, if you ask me. Of course 98% of pulp romance is bad writing.

I'm going to have to think twice now before I talk about a great core workout at the gym.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Ah the big fish in a little pond makes up a point of something I didn’t say. Well done. When you are done pontificating try getting published for real. Then come at me. Until then, you are no Georgie Hawes.

Uhh, he is published I believe. In print. Attends book signings, etc. An actual writer/author/ thingee guy.

 

[KeithD]

Uhh, he is published I believe. In print. Attends book signings, etc. An actual writer/author/ thingee guy.

As in someone other than himself is publishing him in the marketplace? Beyond self-publishing?

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Madam your bull shit is pink.

Aww, how sweet of you to notice. (kiss)

Word to the wise: if you want to engage in sarcastic barbs with me, you will lose. You've picked the wrong girl. Ask around.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

As in a reputable publishing house.

Oh, a goalpost mover too! We're not fucking worthy!

 

[KeithD]

Madam your bull shit is pink.

Self-publishing, I think. But lots of titles in the marketplace and if he isn't buying up everything himself to make his stats look good, the stats are pretty good. As writers who are in the marketplace go here, you're barking up the wrong tree, I think.

 

[KeithD]

As in a reputable publishing house.

I don't think "reputable" means that much in erotica as long as it's someone else paying to get it to market.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Did he just reply to the same post twice as if lc68 had said it again? Give the guy a chance to respond, sheesh!

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Tabu, if your prose skills are anything like your thread posting skills, I think you have zero cred in debates about anything literary. Just sayin'.

 

[KeithD]

Well I don’t argue with someone else paying for it but,

Think contract and in the context of actually getting paid. You want a reputable publisher for sure.

If a publisher covers the production costs and you would have written it anyway (like for free here), I think you are getting profit from it. That is, at least, my profit point with my marketplace titles--breaking even on actual costs with someone else doing the production work and taking the financial risk.

I think you'd probably be best to drop this approach, because LC is probably in the top one percent of Lit. writers actually making money off of the writing.

 

[Voboy]

Seeing core, center, or flower are, IMO, excellent reasons to click right out of those stories and find something I'll like better. No offense to those who like that stuff (and there must be plenty; harlequins sell!), but I don't.

Same with manhood. Nope.

I've used "ecstasy" because, as others have said, it's a valid emotional word for the sensation of orgasm. But I wouldn't use it as a straight substitute. Occasionally I'll use "climax," but only with a certain kind of narrator. I write in FP, so word choice can lend important clues to the narrator's personality.

 

[mildlyaroused]

Think contract and in the context of actually getting paid. You want a reputable publisher for sure.

It's certainly an achievement to get your writing in print. I'm proud of doing so myself. But if you think published writers automatically have more credibility in literary discussions, I would tentatively suggest that you have a very narrow view on the industry. 90% of fiction is not very good, just like 90% of movies are not very good. There are probably more great writers who aren't published than great writers who are published. That's just how entertainment goes in our world. Frankly, coming at someone for not being published "for real" is bad taste, unproductive, and smells like insecurity.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Lit writer. I write professionally.

Dude, you've decided to take on lc68 and Keith. You have literally stumbled upon 1) probably the most prolific published actual author here and 2) probably the most experienced publishing professional here. You need to pick your random targets a wee bit better.

 

[mildlyaroused]

Read not read into what I wrote. So many facile men trying to put their words in my mouth. This is really getting boring.

Ah yes, I am a facile man indeed! (that is me in my picture btw. I may be facile but aren't I pretty?)

You're good at changing goalposts, as others have noted. Maybe don't be a diminishing asshole to an established and well-liked author and you won't have to engage in such boring conversations with silly facile males like myself.

 

[KeithD]

Lit writer. I write professionally.

So you say. I can eyeball much of what LC has in the marketplace.

So, you aren't going to take my advice and go to a different attack approach--one that could be verified?--because you simply have to attack? Can't win for losing?

 

[Britva415]

Have you ever come across these expressions elsewhere (especially in real life), or are they strictly "Romanese"?

This is exactly what I've been saying about the expression, "so very," in Lit stories where I object to it.

It has a place in this kind of literature, the kind which feigns a particular period and style and uses all of these other flowery euphemisms.

It seems jarringly out of place in a story in a modern and not-British setting.

Seeing core, center, or flower are, IMO, excellent reasons to click right out of those stories and find something I'll like better. No offense to those who like that stuff (and there must be plenty; harlequins sell!), but I don't.

Same with manhood. Nope.

That's how I react to "so very." It's either a story which is deliberately in a style and setting I'm not that interested in, or, it's an anachronism which signals to me that the rest of the (non-Romacese, ostensibly modern and non-British) story is going to be difficult to read with a straight face.

 

[Voboy]

Dude, you've decided to take on lc68 and Keith. You have literally stumbled upon 1) probably the most prolific published actual author here and 2) probably the most experienced publishing professional here. You need to pick your random targets a wee bit better.

Shhhh.

It's entertaining. Let him keep it up.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

An ADD spammer too! (swoon)

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Shhhh.

It's entertaining. Let him keep it up.

Indeed. When some schmuck challenges Pele and Beckham to a game of soccer, the ensuing trainwreck will draw a crowd for sure.

 

[mildlyaroused]

And you sir need glasses. read what I have written not between your imaginary lines. In order to understand a genre’s language proclivities do your research. Then write in it.

Imagine if LC wrote an IC romance novella. Do you think he might be the next Georgie Hawes? He could be.

No one would have objected if you just said that those words were used more in certain genres and left it at that.

What you actually did was talk about "skill and craft", "higher qualifications some won't ever", and "highly literate people", insinuating some sort of superiority. But by all means keep going; nothing I say will change anything.