Why I Refuse to Label Romance Books as Smut
There seems to be a cyclical battle in Romanclandia over “reclaiming” the word “smut” to represent romance books (with sex). It is infuriating for both sides and no one ever really wins. This disagreement is unsolvable and a non-issue compared to real life. We all need a distraction, and I hope this explanation will be that for me. I am not trying to relive the argument; I just want to lay mine out without real-time commentary.
- Definitions. The most important reason for me is the definition of smut. Merriam-Webster defines smut (noun) as:
1: matter that soils or blackens
specifically : a particle of soot
2: any of various destructive diseases especially of cereal grasses caused by parasitic basidiomycetous fungi (order Ustilaginales) and marked by transformation of plant parts into dark masses of spores
also : a fungus causing a smut
3: obscene language or matter
None of these definitions are positive. Smut is something that soils, destroys, or is obscene. This is something that the romance genre does not represent. This leads me to my second reason.
- You cannot reclaim a word that was never yours. The romance genre has meaningfully impacted many areas of life. And as important as the HEA is the intimacy between the main characters. For most relationships, that includes sexual intimacy. The romance genre encompasses “closed door” to erotic. However, I doubt many authors would label their work obscene, no matter the explicity of scenes included. During the 17th century, smut was used to describe sexually explicit material. Yes, romance books can contain sexually explicit scenes, but that is not the goal of the books. If you want to use sexually explicit in the most favorable light, then you could claim that there are romance books that contain smut. However, the romance genre is much more than smut. Given its history, we cannot use the word smut and expect those outside Romancelandia ever to see it positively or to respect books labeled as such.
- Given the current political climate of the US, the word smut can be used against us. By labeling books smut, we are calling attention to the sexually explicit material inside. It is not a radical thought to see how this could be equated to porn. Project 2025 wants to implement a ban on porn and calls for the imprisonment of those that create and distribute it. We are doing ourselves a disserve by equating romance books to smut or porn. It puts a target on our back to be silenced.
References
A scholar’s linguistic history of smut—The Globe and Mail. (n.d.). Retrieved January 26, 2025, from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/a-scholars-linguistic-history-of-smut/article18433527/
ClaireAt 7ESL, I., tools, we empower E. learners with advanced A. technology O. innovative, Fluently, R. H. U. S., Skills, I. T. W., & English, supporting learners at every level in mastering. (2020, March 11). What Does the Slang Term “Smut” Mean? • 7ESL. https://7esl.com/smut/
Definition of SMUT. (n.d.). Retrieved January 26, 2025, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smut
Folta, J. (2024, November 6). The Republicans’ Project 2025 is Disastrous For Books. Literary Hub. https://lithub.com/the-republicans-project-2025-is-disastrous-for-books/
Pornographic Film Actors Launch Ad Campaign Targeting Project 2025—The New York Times. (n.d.). Retrieved January 26, 2025, from https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/07/us/politics/porn-actors-project-2025-ad.html
Starsheep. (2023, September 26). What does smut mean in books? Notes from Starsheep. https://countingstarsheep.com/what-does-smut-mean-in-books/
