Is “Clean” the New “Dirty”?

I ran across an interesting article on The Story Sanctuary’s blog entitled, “Has Clean Become a Dirty Word in Book Reviews?” and was inspired to jot down my own thoughts on the topic. Essentially, her piece discusses a social media comment that claimed using the word “clean” in reviews to describe books that are free from (or relatively free from) problematic content is akin to being a “dirty” word and, hence, offensive and “shames” persons who prefer grittier reads.

So, to break this down, “clean” is somehow now a “dirty” word….

There’s a joke here somewhere (if you’ll pardon my sarcasm for a moment).

But in all seriousness, in my view, there is nothing inherently shameful in declaring a book, or other form of media, “clean.” (For purposes of simplicity, I’m going to limit my discussion to reviews of books and visual media, which comprise the bulk of my content here.)

On one hand, “clean” can have a very broad meaning while retaining an underlying basic definition. Most readers/viewers interpret the word “clean” to simply mean free from anything too overtly explicit. For instance, most people would likely concur that Leave it to Beaver is “clean” but 50 Shades of Gray is not. Therefore, I think there is some general sense of agreement on the term “clean” in and of itself.

But there can be varying degrees of “clean” and this is where things get subjective. By way of example, I think Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes novels and stories are clean as they have very sporadic, PG-level profanities; no graphic violence; and no sexual content. However, someone I recommended these books to asserted they’re not “clean” due to the infrequent swearing. So for most people, there seems to be a range of cleanness, from “squeaky clean” to “clean enough.”

Where a reader/viewer falls on this spectrum is impossible to predict: some folks prefer things 100% G-rated while others take no issue with some PG, PG-13, and even R-rated content. And there are some persons who exhibit no discretion or care and will read or engage any media as nothing seems to bother them. The topic of “cultural gluttons,” people who consume all media without consideration as to what they are mentally digesting, is outside the perimeters of this discussion. But in brief, everyone has personal boundaries, whether large or small, when it comes to engaging certain content. This includes boundaries regarding what sort of content (e.g. language, violence, sexual content, etc.) he or she is willing to avoid or engage and why and to what degree.

Personally, I don’t think readers/viewers who prefer clean books or media (squeaky clean or otherwise) should be shamed for not wishing to dive into explicit or problematic content. There might be a good reason why a reader/viewer wants to avoid certain content, from religious grounds to personal choice or taste, and he or she has every right to feel that way without condemnation. I know of some persons who don’t want to put certain images or ideas into their heads as they know that such content adversely affects them. To me, there is nothing “offensive” about someone being self-aware, knowing what is acceptable for them to put into their minds and what is unproductive or unedifying.

By way of example, I once knew someone who struggled with cursing. For most people, this is probably a habit of no great consequence. But this individual felt deeply convicted that constant swearing had become a genuine problem for them. So they did their best to not intentionally engage books or media that showcased a lot of swearing. This person was wise enough to know that one can’t walk around with earplugs in and blinders on, so they didn’t shut themselves off from the world. Instead, they chose to not purposely read or watch anything featuring a great deal of cursing. To me, that shows a lot of inner character and self-knowledge, not an offensive spirit who wants to somehow “ruin the fun” for everyone else.

But it seems like we live in an age where nearly everyone gets offended over everything – even being offended at people who don’t like offensive content because somehow that’s offensive!

An example I saw of this was on Goodreads in a book’s Q&A section between a user and the book’s author. I will not identify the author or the book in question, but the author essentially made fun of a user who posed the question of whether the author’s novel was “clean.” Rather than maturely answer the question, the author instead made this snarky comment: Well, that’s really going to depend on where you order it from, and how it’s shipped, and the care the booksellers take in protecting their stock. There might be some schmutz on a cover here and there from being handled, but that’s what dust jackets are for! Barring dropping it in a mud puddle, I suspect the book won’t be too dirty. (Yes, I know. But this question just makes me laugh.)

I’m sorry, but I’m not amused.

The author probably thought she was being clever or cute but, in truth, she was being unprofessional and needlessly sarcastic towards what was a genuinely serious question. If a reader asked me whether my books were “clean,” I would highlight any potential content issues and then respect their judgment as to whether or not they felt my book is “clean” enough for them. But I would never fire back with a veiled insult just because their concern about offensive content is – gasp! – offensive to me.

To put it bluntly, such persons need to grow up and develop a thicker skin. Rather than shaming someone for an opposing point of view, ask questions to educate yourself and find out why that person feels differently than you do. You might actually learn something while acting like a sane adult, not a spoiled child. But back to the matter at hand.

Personally, I like reviews that follow a three-tier structure: a spoiler-free synopsis, the reviewer’s thoughts and feelings, and a discussion or outline of content that goes beyond just labeling something clean/not clean as what one reviewer deems as “clean,” someone else might say is not. This requires a reviewer to isolate specific content areas and give examples to let readers/viewers decide if this is content they wish to peruse/view or not. This approach is respectful to readers/viewers as it gives them room to decide whether potential content issues are of any concern to them. For instance, if I read a review that says a book contains a few R-rated swears, no violence, and a few kissing scenes, I don’t feel that violates my personal reading boundaries, so I’ll probably check it out. But if a review claims a book contains copious amounts of bloody violence or explicit sexual content, I’m not going to waste my money or my time on it.

Here on my blog, I review books and media using a similar format where I isolate content to its own section, either by designating the paragraph with a “Content-wise…” opening or a separate section labeled Content. If readers want to view that part of the review, they can, or they can skip it as the review itself essentially remains separate from the content portion. Granted, I might bring up content in my review if it significantly contributed to my reason for liking or not liking a book, film, or TV show. But as far as a detailed breakdown goes, I usually save that for the end of the review.

In my reviews with a designated Content section, I break that portion down into three sub-headings – Language, Violence, and Sexual Content – as these seem to be the areas readers/viewers are most interested in or concerned about. At times, I’ve also included Substance Abuse or Thematic Content if I feel those categories are worth calling attention to. (For instance, one YA novel I reviewed showcased underage drinking, so I isolated that in a Substance Abuse sub-category.)

Personally, I favor reviews that break down content so I can make an informed decision of whether or not I want to spend my money and/or time engaging a book, movie, or TV show. Helping readers/viewers determine what may or may not be problematic is smart, not offensive. If content issues are of no concern to someone, that’s fine and they’re free to ignore such details in a review. But they shouldn’t shame or insult people who might show a little more discretion in what they read, watch, or listen to. I personally don’t see any problem in declaring something “clean” as long as a review can go beyond that simple definition and produce evidence to support its claim so as to better inform readers.

So is calling a book or a movie/TV show “clean” a “dirty” thing after all? Not really.

I think the real issue lies with persons who misinterpret or misunderstand the inherent function of reviews. A review’s purpose, by nature, is to state an opinion about a book, film, or TV show with the intent to arm readers/viewers with knowledge so they can judge for themselves whether something is worth their time, attention, and/or money. Reviews almost always come with the underlying understanding that readers are free to agree, disagree, or fall somewhere in between. If that has become a sticking point for some folks, then perhaps they need to re-evaluate the reviews they read, selecting those that better suit their interests. Even more so, perhaps it’s a good idea to re-evaluate what sorts of books or media you consume, keeping in mind that what we mentally digest can affect us for good or bad and often in very subtle ways.

And I see nothing “dirty” about that!