Is it a big market for sweet romances?

It's growing. There are quite a few digital pubs known for erotic romance, who are opening imprints for sweet. That it's a novelette might be more problematic.

I read sweet romance/inspie romance on a regular basis. What I do read is most often full length.

I write sweet romance. I think, lol. How is this defined?

andiwrite said:

I write sweet romance. I think, lol. How is this defined?

Click to expand...

I think sweet romances are the ones where they don't have sex or swearing, but they're not geared towards a specifically religious market either. I'm not clear if sex is allowed completely off screen, or whether the characters must actually abstain outside of marriage. I think regency romances were traditionally like this--the female character, at least, wouldn't have sex until after the wedding (which was the end of the story).
http://margaretmcgaffeyfisk.com/what-is-sweet-romance/

http://kayedacus.com/2011/08/23/romance-genre-definitions-part-2/

Roxxsmom said:

I think sweet romances are the ones where they don't have sex or swearing, but they're not geared towards a specifically religious market either.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the links, I've been wondering about the non-religious market for sweet romances myself. I have nothing against sex, but I tried writing a "modern" love scene once and it made *me* cringe... I can only imagine what someone else would have thought of it.

So no characters can curse in a sweet romance, either?

Not what are considered standard swear words. They can swear, but it'll be closer to stuff a grandmother might utter, like "Dammit!", "Oh, hellfire!" or "Son of a biscuit-eater!"

Sweet romances are on the rise. In fact, I have a friend who has a new release in Harlequin's "Heartwarming" line, which just moved from e-only to print and is now available in Walmarts. You might try picking up a few. It would encourage the publisher to keep the line.

c.m.n. said:

So no characters can curse in a sweet romance, either?

Click to expand...

I've heard reviewers say this is part of it. (When there is a swear, like Cathy said, it's a very "light" swear.)

Cathy C said:

Not what are considered standard swear words. They can swear, but it'll be closer to stuff a grandmother might utter, like "Dammit!", "Oh, hellfire!" or "Son of a biscuit-eater!"

Sweet romances are on the rise. In fact, I have a friend who has a new release in Harlequin's "Heartwarming" line, which just moved from e-only to print and is now available in Walmarts. You might try picking up a few. It would encourage the publisher to keep the line.

Click to expand...

Didn't Harlequin had another line called American Romances, or something like that? I thought that one seemed kind of sweet (if not a bit sensual)?

I love sweet romances, so this piece of info is good to know. It's why I love Regency (and YA) romances in the past.

I'm told that market is growing. One person who writes full length, sweet, romantic paranormal books that "slam the bedroom door," is Susanna Kearsley. She doesn't use a lot of blue language either. I've recommended Kearsley's work on AW before. She's an auto-buy for me.

I still write arguably sweet or sweet/spicy and as a reader I no longer purchase in the Christian-fic market. I'm okay with sack scenes if they're not accompanied by lots of ick terminology (my taste as a reader, not advocating anything to anyone who's not me).

You might give Kearsley a look-see and check out all the scope a sweet romance can handle.

If I wrote like Kearsley I could rule the world. Mwahh-hahh-hahh!

Erotic/sensual can be sweet too though, surely, if the characters are in a loving relationship? The distinction seems strange to me as a reader, have to say. I wouldn't expect a romance described as "sweet" to necessarily be sexless, and any "son of a nutcracker"-type swearing would just make the characters seem unrealistic.

antigherkin said:

Erotic/sensual can be sweet too though, surely, if the characters are in a loving relationship? The distinction seems strange to me as a reader, have to say. I wouldn't expect a romance described as "sweet" to necessarily be sexless, and any "son of a nutcracker"-type swearing would just make the characters seem unrealistic.

Click to expand...

I think sweet can have a bit of sensuality or "spice", but the main reason people like me would be looking for sweet Romances in particular is to have less sex scenes or less erotic material, etc.

It's like a "heat level" classification.

I don't quite understand what you mean by "loving relationships". Don't all Romances have "loving relationships"?

Or are we talking about almost quasi abusive relationships or something? Or maybe rough sex vs "gentle" sex? Overly sentimental or emotional vs very sexual?

I think some sweet Romances can also be classified as "clean" Romances (in Amazon, from what I saw anyway)...

The no-swearing part may not appeal to your tastes, but there are readers who do enjoy having less swearing in some of our entertainment.

(I myself don't mind some minor swearing, but I dislike if there are too many F-bombs, and/or some explicit sexual terms.)

Off topic a bit: I recently discovered that there are "cozy" mystery fans who are similar in wanting less explicit sex and violence, and sometimes less swearing as well. That probably explains why some of the mystery stuff I've liked in the past were "cozy" mysteries.

bunny-gypsy said:

I think sweet can have a bit of sensuality or "spice", but the main reason people like me would be looking for sweet Romances in particular is to have less sex scenes or less erotic material, etc.

It's like a "heat level" classification.

Has nothing to do with how "loving" a couple is. (All Romances should already automatically have love aka romance, anyway.)

I think some sweet Romances can also be classified as "clean" Romances (in Amazon, from what I saw anyway)...

The no-swearing part may not appeal to your tastes, but there are readers who do enjoy having less swearing in some of our entertainment.

(I myself don't mind some minor swearing, but I dislike if there are too many F-bombs, and/or some explicit sexual terms.)

Off topic a bit: I recently discovered that there are "cozy" mystery fans who are similar in wanting less explicit sex and violence, and sometimes less swearing as well. That probably explains why some of the mystery stuff I've liked in the past were "cozy" mysteries.

Click to expand...

Clean makes sense, I'd know what to expect with that.

I don't mind no swearing at all or some or lots - it's the fake sort of swearing in lieu of the real thing that glares to me when I read it. Always makes me think "But who says that?!"

I suppose we all have our preferences though. Personally I like a bit of sex in a book, writing or reading, but I dislike the two extremes of anatomically correct terminology, which sounds like a biology textbook, or over-elaborate euphemism like an old bonkbuster (turgid members and all that jazz). And I do still like sex scenes to be sweet (because I am a soppy romantic at heart, of course!).

The characters can still have their sweet, sweet sex--but it's offscreen or implied.

I think Sweet is sometimes used instead of "clean".

It's basically low heat. Less erotic stuff, basically. (And maybe less swearing.) That's the expectation of sweet romance readers.

Just like the expectation of romance readers is to have a romance in the story.

For sweet romance readers, the expectation is to have low heat/less explicit sex ("on-screen").

As someone who enjoys sweet stuff, I would be annoyed if the sweet romance had explicit, on-screen sex.

(I sometimes feel weird calling some things "clean", because it makes natural things, like sex, sound "dirty". What if I don't think sex is dirty, lol?)

bunny-gypsy said:

(I sometimes feel weird calling some things "clean", because it makes natural things, like sex, sound "dirty". What if I don't think sex is dirty, lol?)

Click to expand...

Well, quite!

I mean, if your sex scene is filled with

mangoes, split papayas, fruits tart and sweet and dripping with juice

Click to expand...

I imagine you'd have a bit of cleaning up to do later.


(That's from one of the Bad Sex Award contenders, btw)

bunny-gypsy said:

The characters can still have their sweet, sweet sex--but it's offscreen or implied.

I think Sweet is sometimes used instead of "clean".

Click to expand...

Yeah, my understanding is it's just the current industry term for low-heat-level, more innocent stories.

Samsonet said:

I mean, if your sex scene is filled with

I imagine you'd have a bit of cleaning up to do later.


(That's from one of the Bad Sex Award contenders, btw)

Click to expand...

Heh. For me, no one will ever beat Giles Coren's winning entry one year. Not only badly written but anatomically impossible.

andiwrite said:

I write sweet romance. I think, lol. How is this defined?

Click to expand...

Low/No sex scene content, closing the bedroom door like the old days. Probably no or little swearing. But a lot of romances just have "Josh swore" anyway without having the swear word.

If it has a Christian message it's Inspirational as well as sweet. Inspirational apparently has a sizable market. Also Amish romance is a niche that was doing well at one time.

I think a mistake people make is sending their sweet romance to a epublisher with a rep for good erotic romance sales, when they open a sweet line, and from what I've heard those just never seem to do well. I think you're better off trying for an agent or Harlequin line, or self pub with sweet romance.

You're arguing logic instead of genre.

Sure, you can think your new "50 Shades" inspired story is "sweet" and claim that in real life everyone swears like a trooper and not having obscenities in every piece of dialogue is unrealistic. Please, try and market it as a sweet romance, and tell us how well it sells.

Whether you agree or not, "sweet" has a marketing meaning. People buying books sold as sweet romances are looking for something in particular. Just as someone might write a book that they think is just seething with sexual tension, but if the characters never take off their clothes, they're probably best not to market it as erotica.

andiwrite said:

I write sweet romance. I think, lol. How is this defined?

Click to expand...

Hi Andiwrite! Hi everyone! From reading her blog posts I gathered that romance author Erin Knightley writes sweet historical romance-- no sex, perhaps just one kiss or two. Her books have gotten positive reviews from reviewer sites such as All About Romance and Mrs. Giggles. I haven't read any of her books yet because I tend to go for romances with steamy scenes like those of Sherry Thomas's or the ones by Lisa Kleypas. But if time permits and I have a craving for something sweet, I might just pick up one of Ms. Knightley's books, based on those glowing reviews.

My book is far from sweet by this definition, then. I guess a lot of the sweetest moments of my life involved sex and profanity. lol

andiwrite said:

My book is far from sweet by this definition, then. I guess a lot of the sweetest moments of my life involved sex and profanity. lol

Click to expand...

It's just a marketing term to differentiate from the "spicy"/"steamy" heat levels, is all.

Doesn't mean your own romances in life (or erotic romance novels) are any less "sweeter"...

It's just one way for those of us who would like a story with less profanity/less explicit sex to find such stories.

It's either that, or the "clean" label. (Which I don't like much, because it feels like it implies that sex and/or profanity are "dirty".)