In romance blurb after blurb, books with love scenes in them are referred to as spicy. Why? I suspect it’s because spicy sounds less sexual than sexy. Which, given that these are sex scenes seems odd. It’s my personal sense, as someone who reads many blurbs every day, that the language used to describe carnal interactions in romance in romance marketing has become more coy.
Why?
Is it because we’re less comfortable with sex writ large? Boomers love to worry that today’s youth ISN’T getting laid and there’s truth to that–almost 40% of 18 to 30 year olds have not had sex in the past year. (Older generations are also having less sex but the rise is less pronounced.)
Or is it because the past several decades have championed the idea that one’s body is private–there are no shared showers after gym these days nor is it now OK for strangers to hug you–has created an environment where sex–phyiscal intimacy–seems more daunting.
Or is it just our heightened sensitivity to language? Words around sex and gender have become more charged–and describing anything in sexual terms is riskier than using cooking terms.
I suspect some combination of all of these things but, whatever is causing it, I’m not for it! Don’t get me wrong–there are plenty of circumstances where a good euphemism is the way to go. There’s a reason my generation said sleeping together rather than f*cking–much easier to talk about your relationships with your parents, for starters, but still, this is SEX we are describing. If a novel has a lot of heat–another euphemism–I’d like to know that in the blurb. Saying something is spicy tells me much of nothing. I’m ready to bring sexy back.
I’m sure I’m just being cranky and it’s possible I’m just over spiced. What do you think? When you talk about romance novels with lots of sex, how do you describe them?
I don’t view blurbs as informational anymore, nor do I see covers as indicative of what a book contains. Publishers are aiming for as large a market as possible and I feel like lately they have skated the edges of blatant dishonesty to achieve this. I recently gave a non-fiction book a low grade for not being about what the cover and back blurb literally said it was about! The book was fine on its own but it was trying to be a response to another book by having the reader look at a different subject as more important rather than discussing the subject it was actually supposed to be about. Sound confusing? Imagine being the reader! That’s why I turned to reviews several decades ago. I trusted that author and got burned, so it was a good reinforcement of my review addiction. I think this may also have driven readers to Booktok, not just for socialization but for a desperate bid to not buy what they won’t like. I wonder how many writing careers have failed to launch or been destroyed simply because publishers, in their push to have it appeal to everyone, failed to attract the readers who would have loved the novel.
One of my dearest friends is an editor of genre fiction at a major publishing house whose authors consistently produce critically acclaimed, often award-nominated books that are nearly impossible to market. They’re not even that niche-y unless you consider “good books for people interested in something a bit different” a niche, which I suppose these days perhaps we do. So I’ve heard the lamentations from his side as well as the reader side, and it really is grim. His most commercially successful author basically got lucky because her books could be sold by a catchphrase that managed to appeal to people who would love them for the wrong reasons.
I agree. Most blurbs – from traditional publishers anyway – are full of “for fans of….” (and I’ve seen some horribly inaccurate descriptions over the past couple of years) and review quotes and don’t spend much time telling you what the book is about.
Thankfully, most of my go-to authors are self-published and still write blurbs that make sense.
“are full of for fans of….” This! If I see one more book marketed as “for fans of Bridgerton or Miss Scarlet and the Duke” I might just scream. I’ve enjoyed (some of) the Bridgerton books, the first two seasons of the show and am a die-hard fan of Miss Scarlet (not since the departure of the Duke though), but the only thing those blurbs succeed in doing, is send me running in the other direction.
Same. The worst one I’ve seen is Cat Sebastian’s We Could Be So Good being described as:
“Colleen Hoover meets The Seven Husbands of Evelyn Hugo in this mid-century romdram”
“Colleen Hoover” was later replaced by “Casey McQuiston” – but it’s still a completely unhelpful comparison. Looking at the Amazon US page now, that has gone, but the title of the book appears now to be:
We Could Be So Good: An Emotional Historical Romance with a Heartwarming Friendship, Join Nick and Andy on Their Journey of Love and Acceptance.
For fuck’s sake. And whoever wrote that clearly never learned how to use capital letters.
I hate this trend for spelling absolutely everything out. They’ll be putting the identity of the murderer in the title of mysteries next!
“this author meets that book” Give us your money even if you’ve never heard of either author or read said book. You’ll enjoy it, we promise (pinky swear).
“I hate this trend for spelling absolutely everything out” perhaps it’s the ChatGPT of it all.
“They’ll be putting the identity of the murderer in the title of mysteries next!” that’ll save readers time, lol.
Ironically, a mystery book titled “John did it”, “Jaime is the culprit” or “Peter’s bloody murders” doesn’t seem very implausible to me hahaha.
I’m laughing at ‘Peter’s Bloody Murders’
Right? I am SO over titles like this:
The Housemaid’s Secret: A totally gripping psychological thriller with a shocking twist
Blood of Hercules: A Dark Romantasy of Myth and Power, Perfect for Fans of Greek Mythology and Spicy BookTok Reads: The Best Fantasy Romance of 2024 (Villains of Lore Book 1)
I’m sorry, Dabney. I’m a bit confused. Are you suggesting that any time a blurb or reviewer uses the word “spicy” to suggest that some type of unspecified sexual acts are depicted on page in a book, the word should be replaced with the word “sexy”? Not sure that is helpful.
“Spicy” is being used because it has an “opposite” quality that doesn’t impart value judgements about readers. The “sweet – spicy” continuum for romances (has finally) replaced “clean” and “dirty”. What is the continuum for “sexy”? I’m not sure I’d want to read an “unsexy” romance. In fact, I’m not sure what that is. Georgette Heyer wrote some terrific romances with little or no bodily contact but I wouldn’t call them unsexy.
No–I’m not saying that. I’m saying I think it’s odd that the covers and the language to describe sexually explicit romances are so often overtly non-sexual.
I’ve seen lots of posts from authors and readers decrying this new regressive trend. It seems younger readers have become/are becoming quite prudish and puritannical and seeing as pretty much every company only wants to market their product to younger age groups, the covers and descriptions are being toned down. The problem is that those books now look like YA/Teen books instead of sexy romances and I’ve seen a lot of people displeased by the change. We’ve said something similar in reviews – that the blocky, brightly-coloured illustrated covers don’t reflect the content of some books.
I know there’s an element of self-censorship going on here – you’ve only got to look at the ridiculous lingo found on places like TikTok – “unalive” is my most recent bugbear; the use of “s3x” instead of “sex” and many other expressions people are using to avoid being flagged for inappropriate content. Unfortunately, those terms are becoming ubiquitous and falling into normal use, which I hate.
I hate the label”clean” and much prefer “closed door” which is a much better description.
I suppose I don’t particularly dislike the word “spicy” – when I’m talking about a curry. What I object to is that it’s been coined to avoid using the word “sexy” and that it is so very over-used. I still use the word “steamy” to describe sex scenes, but I don’t think I’ve every used “spicy” and don’t intend to (because I don’t like to follow trends!)
Why can’t we just call things what they are instead of having to find mealy-mouthed alternatives like we’re all twelve? It’s infantilising.
What’s interesting about that is how much very smutty romance sells. There’s a disconnect somewhere.
Absolutely. And if smut can be written and read, then we should be able to talk about it in the same terms. Although I know there’s a widespread fear that the new puritans will be coming for romance because it’s “porn” at some not distant point in the future.
As someone who watched this trend start on Tumblr with the younger generation: due to influences over there, there was a moral equating of “good” sex with good people and “bad” sex with bad people. There was a hullaballoo about “forced seduction, etc.” But at the end of the day, A/B/O and mob romances sell.
” It seems younger readers have become/are becoming quite prudish and puritannical ” I’m actually quite surprised at this, do you think it’s some kind of reaction to the current political climate or something else?
When “unalive” first made it’s way to Twitter, it took me awhile to know what it meant. I can understand people using other expressions to describe sex and sex-related stuff especially on Twitter – the porn bots practically swarm your account and start following and liking your posts if you don’t, but the word ‘dead’? What is inappropriate about that?
I suspect it partly has to do with what their conception of “normal sex” is. Younger people accidentally encounter a lot of porn that is violent and degrading and also what used to be considered extreme, dangerous sex acts are now commonplace. So I think some kids are prudish because they see something that looks unpleasant or downright traumatizing in porn, think that’s what sex is supposed to be, and then feel they’re not prepared for it. Or they do it, but just don’t want to be bombarded by that all the time. The idea of sex as this fun, pleasant, purely feel-good activity is kind of on the downswing in society, I feel.
“The idea of sex as this fun, pleasant, purely feel-good activity is kind of on the downswing in society, I feel.” sadly, I think you’re right. I remember being shocked when I first heard that young adults were abusing pain meds and cough medicine in order to increase their sexual stamina. It got so bad that those medications are now heavily regulated and are only available in licensed pharmacies and in restricted quantities
Hmmmmmm…. pain meds and most cough medicines contain opiates of some sort which tend to make erections and orgasms harder to come by.
In the US, those drugs are regulated for two different reasons.
Pain meds because of fears of addiction, overblown or not.
Cold medicines because a key ingredient in them pseudoephedrine–which can be used to make meth.
A lot of it’s the social atmosphere; no one’s in the mood to hump.
I think sex has historically been a comfort and a distraction in bad times. It’s a bummer it’s seen as more onerous than that today.
Yep, it can be an expression of joy, comfort, even camaraderie. Now people are scared.
Unalive baffles me. As Franklin said, nothing is certain but death and taxes. Why fear the word?
It was originally to get around censors that wouldn’t let them say stuff like “kill yourself.”
Still baffled. I mean, I see what you’re saying BUT that’s crazytalk.
It’s one of those things where the need to troll or get at your enemy overpowers basic English, basically.
So unproductive.
There’s an idea (I think misplaced) that if you say “kill yourself” you’ll encourage people to commit suicide, which we know is a social contagion. “Commit suicide” is also a phrase that is downgraded, per AP style, because it implies that it’s a crime. A lot of this is about destigmatizing and taking away any moral valence to the act, to get away from the old Christian logic of this being a mortal sin. Not sure it accomplishes any of that, though, and I’m sure this language contortion certainly doesn’t prevent suicide.
Your wrote: the covers and descriptions are being toned down.
Now you made me think! These last years I have seen changes in the covers of old books. Novels who had sexy covers the first time, now have a ‘comic’ or ‘graphic’ cover which does not correspond with the story.
For instance, ‘Man Down’, by Kate Meader, a terrible story of a man grieving the death of his family (wife and two children). It had a cover of a sad man with a naked torso in 2020. In 2023 it changed to a graphic one, that makes you think this is a rom-com. But it’s misleading, as it is quite a dramatic story.
Do you think it is because of this prudish tendency? Do they reject any nudity on the covers? I wasn’t aware of that.
The discussions I’ve seen pretty much all equate the change of cover style with the more prudish attitudes of younger readers (as per elsewhere on this thread, publishers only bother to market to people under 30 most of the time) AND a desire to avoid censorship, especially if their physical books are in stores.
I don’t think that prudishness is the reason for the appeal of graphic covers. My guess is that graphic covers are cheaper and faster to produce because they don’t require the time or expense of hiring models, doing a shoot, etc.
Plus, graphic covers can appeal to a wider audience as they don’t need to depict even a person and when they do depict people, their generic aspect allows the reader to project whatever they imagine.
I find traditional covers kind of boring. Art and design that you do on repeat gets stale. It’s good to shake things up once in a while.
I am not familiar with the Kate Meader cover you reference, so perhaps you are right that the revamped cover doesn’t fit that particular story, but I don’t agree that all graphic covers are cartoonish or that all evoke rom-coms.
Having lived through the dark ages – aka the era before e-readers – I can remember posters on this site decrying the old clinch covers because they didn’t want to be seen reading a book with such a cover in public. They much favored the floral covers of the late 90s/early nones. Since the bulk of my reading is now done on an e-reader, I barely notice covers anymore, but I have heard that a lot of younger people are going for beautiful editions of books. Not just elegant cover art but gilded/colored page edges, unique spines etc. For so many readers right now reading seems to go beyond the story and involves the social media experience, complete with pictures of the book. So I can see why, in those situations, you would want something that didn’t reflect just sexy but had artistic appeal.
I read an article recently saying that for a lot of these BookTok people, it’s more about being seen to like books than it is to actually read them.
I totally believe that. Which is why it drives me completely crazy that publishers – and other producers/makers of items – are so anxious to appeal to that crowd.
It’s interesting to look at the photos accompanying the NYT article on the wildly successful release of ONYX STORM. (The book was, according to the article, the fastest selling adult novel in 20 years.) Every single picture and person looks to be 35 or under and most look to be in their 20s. I believe that they all have devoured this book–Kayne is reviewing it for us–AND I wonder what else they read.
The books picked by Hazelwood seem to me to skew to a younger readership–not teens but 20 and 30 somethings. The romance covered in the NYT feature zero interest in historical romance, prefer untraditional leads, are uninterested in traditional men, and are exceedingly internet proficient. That makes sense in that the majority of NYT readers are under 50–and the largest group is under 30.
It does, again, leave me wondering why the mainstream media cares so little about the 50 and up romance readers. They read MORE than younger people and buy more books.
It does, again, leave me wondering why the mainstream media cares so little about the 50 and up romance readers. They read MORE than younger people and buy more books.
Exactly. As I said on another thread recently, we’ve been told for many, many years that the population in the West is ageing, and that the over 60s are where the money is. Yet pretty much everything is marketed to the 30s and under, who have much less disposable income these days thanks thanks to the horrendous cost of living.
I think the tradition of targeting younger consumers is an old, established one and the people in charge of making marketing decisions are not adapting to the new reality. Ironically, the people making the decisions to pursue the younger market while ignoring the older readers are probably older themselves. The new reality is that while a company needs to develop its future customer base, it can’t ignore the fact that the older consumers are the ones paying a lot of the bills and needs to be appealed to, as well.
Oh, absolutely. I worked in marketing in the 80s and 90s, and even then there was awareness of the ageing population – and still nobody willing to think about promoting products to older people. “60 is the new 40” we’re told – but on TV the only ads that are ever shown that are targeted at the over 50s (in the UK at least) are for life insurance, funeral plans, denture fixative, mobility aids, beds to help with back/joint pain and cruises.
Shelf-righteous?!!
Hah, good one!
Sweet heaven, this. I think people are afraid of the words ‘smut’ and of ‘sexy’ (and of their own sexuality sometimes). “Spicy” drives me nuts.
It’s quite interesting what you say about the things young people do nowadays, that they have less sex than previous generations. You have made me think, I have to ask people around me to see if it’s the same in my country or not.
As I review novels in Spanish, the words I use are different although they could sound very similar to yours. I think I tend to use words closer to ‘sexy’ or ‘sex scenes’ and ‘erotic’ than ‘spicy’ (more ‘sexo explícito’, ‘erótica’ than ‘picantonas’), but those words have a different connotation in my language. Something ‘picantón’ is sexy with a funny vibe.
The idea of ‘spicy’ comes from long time ago. I have read that Kathleen Woodiwiss said -and I quote-: ‘I don’t think people who say that have read my books. I believe I write love stories. With a little spice’.
The words I have seen in English these last years that I have not seen before, or at least not so widely used are ‘smut’ or ‘smutty’ versus ‘clean’. I don’t like them, as ‘smut’ reminds me of something ‘dirty, obscene’, and that’s not the way I think about sex.
In today’s NYT, Ali Hazelwood writes this intro in a column about her favorite spicy reads.
While I read and enjoy books with varying levels of spice — and I do not believe that every romance novel needs to include explicit scenes — I must admit that I have a soft spot for books in which the characters’ emotional and physical intimacy mirror each other. Sex scenes can highlight character growth, heighten romantic tension and advance the plot. And, above all, they’re fun.
Here is a list of some of my favorite steamy novels. It includes old favorites and soon-to-be-released gems — books that contain just one or two sex scenes and books in which the smut is the plot, books where the spice starts early and ones where the slow burn will make you tear your hair out. I hope you enjoy them as much as I did!
I’m uncomfortable with the word smut because in my head, it connotes porn which is neither sexy nor romantic to me, so erotica would be the word I’d use to describe a book where sex is the plot. I use spicy/sexy/steamy/hot interchangeably to describe books where there are a few sex scenes – two or three, maybe even four but not as many as in erotica; whether the sex happens early on in the books or later. Fade-to-black/closed door is how I’d describe a book where the sex is implied/ doesn’t happen on page. I detest the word “clean romance” as to me, it implies romance with sex is dirty.
Likes, dislikes, morals and lack of them, go round in circles over time. Sometimes I think that the so-called “New Puritans” are of the same mind-set as the Victorians who covered piano legs or the genuine Puritans who burnt “witches” in more places than just Salem. I wonder if these people will look back on themselves in 40-50 years and be embarrassed by their ridiculousness and have a good laugh or will they still be frightened of actually feeling and experiencing the ups and downs of daily life with all its pain, suffering, sadness, joy, fun and, yes, good, really good, sex. No wonder some of them use the term undead – really – just crazy. (If I am allowed to use the word crazy.)
Blurbs are mostly just AI shite, IMO, and I ignore them along with usually misleading covers. I much prefer relying on reviews from reviewers I trust here, and elsewhere, whose tastes generally march with mine. And I agree with Caz about self-published authors and their “blurbs”; more honest for sure and they often write books that are far superior to some of the crap on sale from the larger publishers. I can name one example: Lizzie Lamb who doesn’t seem to have had a look-in here – she writes terrific, wonderful books set (in the main) in the Scottish Highlands and has heroes and heroines that I adore reading about. Amazon reviewers consistently give her 5* ratings. I also agree about the obnoxious “if you like Julia Quinn (or any other author) and Bridgerton (loathed it) you will love XYZ” NO, I most probably won’t, thanks, please don’t waste my time.
i wouldn’t read a ton into this word choice.
In the parlance of my times, kids used to say that people having sex were “boning” or “Screwing”; the kids these days people “smash.”
That said, I recently took a fitness class and the instructor said the stretch that could be slightly uncomfortable was “spicy,” and so I wonder if spicy refers less to things that are plain sexy/arousing and more things that also have an edge of discomfort/pain. I agree people are having less sex overall, but the sex people are having is less “vanilla,” and there’s a lot more mainstreaming of BDSM and associated practices that definitely walk the line between pleasure/pain.
I just skimmed an article stating that Simon and Schuster are no longer wanting their authors to solicit “blurbs” for their books from other authors or reviewers.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/jan/31/simon-schuster-us-imprint-authors-blurbs-books
“While there has never been a formal mandatory policy in the eight years I’ve been with the Simon & Schuster imprint, it has been tacitly expected that authors – with the help of their agents and editors – do everything in their power to obtain blurbs to use on their book cover and in promotional material. I have always found this so weird,” Manning wrote in his essay.
“The argument has always been that this is what makes the book business so special: the collegiality of authors and their willingness to support one another. I disagree. I believe the insistence on blurbs has become incredibly damaging to what should be our industry’s ultimate goal: producing books of the highest possible quality.”
Authors feeling obliged to write blurbs for their friends can create “an incestuous and unmeritocratic literary ecosystem that often rewards connections over talent”, he added.
“Thank God,” was the reaction of British writer Jo Hamya. “Honestly, it’s just an insular and repetitive format.”
I think that’s a good thing. Those blurbs are meaningless.
Oh, me, too. I just thought the release was timely. 🙂
Yes, I saw that yesterday and heaved a sigh of relief. This practice of mutual backscratching is completely useless to anyone who reads a lot and realises they’re just paid-for endorsements.
Yep! As a reader you pretty quickly learn to ignore them for what they are, meaningless stock phrases.
Appropo of nothing, when my oldest two were 6 and 10 they took part in a multi-day bookmaking workshop where they wrote and illustrated their own books, and help bind them, including illustrating the front and back covers. One of the fun things they did was solicit “blurbs” from fellow writers, parents and instructors. I just went and pulled out one of the books and the blurbs were things like “A wonderful mystery from a talented new author!” and “What an entertaining mystery! A real page-turner!”
Our discussion made me think of those books and I had a good laugh at how the solicited “blurbs” sounded exactly like real ones, and were just as meaningless (while being very fun for the kids!).
I’m with Caz in that seeing the word spicy, I think of food related heat levels, like a spicy curry. I still use steamy or sexy to note that there are sexy scenes, and closed door if that’s the case. I had to stop using sexy in amazon reviews because they would then sensor them (or if you say sex scene).
I loathe the censoring of the word sexy. It’s a normal word, used for decades in advertising. Why, now, is it verboten?
Maybe because nowadays “sexy” is no longer always associated with sex or sexual activity. As some comments say, there are non-explicit novels that are very sexy because of what they evoke in the reader and today a curious phenomenon is occurring: sex is not always sexy.
I don’t know how many times I have read reviews or discussion threads about how a VERY explicit novel, full of sexual scenes with all kinds of practices, was not sexy at all, many young people who have already read many “spicy” novels miss the romantic and sexual tension between the characters, the yearning, the overwhelming chemistry because they feel that all that is no longer constructed but that many novels are “very well let’s get to what interests: Sex explicit and abundant” And although there is a young group that is becoming more conservative, the other extreme are those who treat sex with the same level of importance and fun as if you were talking about a fart, “Hey, it’s been a week, I’ll say, I met someone on the weekend and we fucked. I needed it. What do you say was in the exam on Friday?”.
Interesting. I’ll think about that. Thanks!
You make good points, and I have certainly read books where the sex scenes are most un-sexy and others where the author writes the most exquisite sexual tension when all the characters do is kiss.
But I’d still describe that as “sexy”, even though no uglies are bumped!
Well, the official definition of sexy is this:
sexually suggestive or stimulating
So, I think calling a book sexy can mean some combination of both of those characteristics.
I like having a variety of words to use for the word sexy including spicy. It’s colorful and readers like to use pepper emojis to describe how hot a book is. Certain words used on social media can get a post banned. Bethany Frankel wanted to talk about the New Jersey drones but her posts were banned so she called the drones Dior bags and those posts weren’t banned – they’re popular. Now Dior bags can refer to a purse or a drone. Algorithms affect and change our language.
In bad ways, IMHO. I agree that variety in language is great. But when everyday words get banned because of very very weak concerns, it bums me out.
Yes, exactly this. And then they pass into common parlance, which isn’t good – I’m seeing “unalive” being used like it’s an actual word!
Just say no!
Agreed.
When did the word “spicy” first start being used to describe the level of on-page sex in a romance novel? I’m guessing it emerged soon after publishers (or was it authors? or reviewers?) began to use the word “sweet” to refer to romances without on-page sex scenes. One taste metaphor to match another taste metaphor….
Although the usage has a longer history, not specific to romance novels. The Oxford English dictionary includes this definition for “spicy”: “Of writing or discourse: Smart and pointed; pungent; having a flavour of the sensational or scandalous; somewhat improper.” This usage dates to the mid-19th century!
As I’ve reflected on this, I’ve realized it’s not using spicy that I mind, it’s this creeping sense that publishers feel as if they have to downplay the appearance of sex in what are often very sexy reads. It’s a fakeout and it feel, somehow to me, jejune.
Yes. That’s what bothers me. And given the news this week from Oklahoma (despite the unlikelihood it’ll happen) I think the running scared will continue and get faster.