Romance,
Smut, Women’s Literature, are just some of the names applied to this much
maligned genre. Everyone seems to have
an opinion on whether romance is harmful, helpful or even real literature. So my question is why are romance novels so
maligned? Further, do any of the arguments hold water? As a prolific reader of romance for most of
my life I feel that I am in a unique position to evaluate these complaints for
validity. Since this is my blog I can
treat myself as the ultimate expert!
Point 1; Romance novels perpetuate stereotypes.
Many
people squawk about how romance novels perpetuate stereo types. Funny thing is that they cannot agree which
stereotypes are being perpetuated. I
have heard religious conservatives complain that they push militant feminism
and feminists shout that they promote patriarchy and dependence on a male hero.
Jeanne Dubino in “The Cinderella
Complex:” asserts that “Romances continue to perpetuate the division of the
world into the private and the public, the relegation of women into the home
and men into the workplace.” (Dubino, 2004)
Her point is that romantic fiction creates a fantasy that falling in
love and getting married will solve all of your problems. She traces this formula back to the book Pamela published way back in 1740. The ‘formula’ as Dubino sees it is the “link
between marriage, love, and women’s economic success” (Dubino, 2004). Dubino obviously feels that romance novels
encourage negative stereotypes of men and women and perpetuate patriarchal capitalism. To quote some other points of her article she
insists that “romances teach readers not to trust their own interpretations”
and “reproduces female desire for a male sexual partner, and for a sexually
aggressive partner” (Dubino, 2004). Even
the hero does not avoid stereotyping he
is “a representation of stereotypical masculinity, he is moody, alternately
distant and intimate, angry and loving” (Dubino, 2004). Clearly
she is not a fan.
Others have seen romantic fiction
as being empowering to women. S. Robbins
stated that “they put women at the center of the narrative more than any other
genre” (Robbins, 2007) and Juhaz insists that “from the eighteenth century to
present, the authors of womens romance fiction have been concerned with themes
of self-development” (Juhasz, 1988). The
romance writers and readers that I encounter in chat rooms and blogs all regard
themselves as feminists.
So who is right? Well as the resident expert I will weigh
in. I would disagree with Miss Dubino as
a whole. While there are some instances
on negative stereotypes and many romances novels, especially those of the 80’s,
included them, the romance novels of today are VERY empowering of women and
show many positive stereotype. Even the
romances of the 80’s contained messages that subtly influenced women to stretch
their boundaries and break free of stereotypes.
Women in romance novels have real jobs, take control of their lives, and
change the hero for the better. In some
modern romance novels the hero’s negative stereotypical view of women is slowly
changed and challenged by the heroin.
Every genre has some stinkers but in the majority of novels I have read
they women are presented very powerful and often ‘self-rescuing’. I actually believe that regular everyday
women get more positive and empowering ideas from romance than from any other
area of their lives. One of the biggest
contributions to the empowerment of women by romance novels is in the area of
sexuality. The modern romance novel
portrays a strong sexual woman in a positive light. In the past many women triumphed through
chastity, like Hester Prynne of Scarlet Letter fame (or infamy?), but in modern
romance women are empowered by their sexuality.
Sometimes I wonder if this is the sticking point for so many, maybe they
are threatened by a sexual woman!?
Point 2; Romance novels create unrealistic expectations
of relationships.
Many
people, even men, complain that women form unrealistic expectations of
relationships by reading romance novels.
Dubino weighed in here as well with “Romances recreate the magical stage
of courtship. For many women this is one
of the most exciting and important times of their lives; no wonder they want to
experience it over and over again.” (Dubino, 2004) I have heard pastors preach from the pulpit
that this ‘women’s porn’ makes women unhappy with their marital partners, and
many men have mocked me for reading them because the heroes are
unrealistic. I would have to say that
this argument sticks in my craw more than any other that is out there. Maybe all of these people should pick up a
few best seller romance novels and get reading.
My arguments on this takes two forms; first of all about the heroes and
heroines being unrealistic? SO WHAT??? I
can name unrealistic book characters in every genre. One of the reason reading is an escape is the
world of fantasy! Is Dirk Pit of Clive
Cussler’s book series realistic? How about the Sackett men from Louise L’
Amour? We don’t exactly read these books
as handbooks to the world, any more than we think the ‘Jersey Shore’ is how we
should live. I know many women who have
happy marriages to ordinary, fat, balding men that read romance. Romance is escape, it is entertainment, and
some people are taking it MUCH too seriously.
Once again I wonder how much of these arguments are made by ignorance or
being threatened by women’s fiction
Point 3; Romance Novels are not ‘real’ literature.
Lastly,
many people disdainfully label romance as trash or fluff. This argument has been aired since the days
of Jane Austin and Charlotte Bronte. I
would posit that misogyny is behind this idea.
Juhaz, in her article while discussing the term ‘women’s novel’ states
“No matter that the phrase has traditionally been used more disparagingly than
not, to belittle or degrade fiction that women tend to prefer” (Juhasz, 1988). Publisher’s Weekly stated that “evidence
shows that more women than men read fiction.
In fact, one recent study said the ratio is two to one. And romance is
fiction written almost exclusively by and for women.” (Eykelhof & Macomber,
2006) Many romance writers have degrees, meticulously research their subjects
and write truly exceptional stories which remain popular over time. As in any other genre some are junk, but as a
result of the author, not the genre.
Romance novels are disproportionately
represented on the best sellers list and control a large market share of the
publishing industry. People are reading
them, LOTS of people. Mostly women, but
studies show a growing readership among men.
Women from all walks of life, age and nationality read romance. I would assert that there is a stream of
literature from over time that could be termed romance novels. The most obvious are works of Jane Austin and
Charlotte Bronte, but even Biblical stories and texts are romance. The ones that come easily to my mind are the
stories of Ruth, Rahab, and Esther in the Old Testament. Just because they are “women’s books” does
not automatically mean they are inferior.
Once again I insist that it is THIS idea that is behind the assertion
that romance does not constitute ‘real’ literature.
So what do you think? Are romance
novels trash or legitimate? Is misogyny
behind the hate? I would challenge all
of you (even men) to pick up a few bestselling romance novels and give them a
whirl, you just might find yourself hooked!
For further defense of romance
novels check out these excellent blog posts:
Works Cited
Dubino, J. (2004). The cinderella complex: Romance fiction,
patriarchy and capitalism. Journal of Popular Culture, 27(3),
103-118. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-3840.1993.00103.x
Juhasz, S. (1988). Texts to grow on: Reading women's romance
fiction. Tulsa Studies in Women's Literature, 7(2), 239-259.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/463681
Robbins, S. (2007, November 19). Textually promiscuous. Publishers
Weekly, 23-28. DOI: www.publishersweekly.com
Eykelhof, P. & Macomber, D. (2006, July 31). Romancing
the store. Publishers Weekly, 82. DOI: www.publishersweekly.com
Hi Jennifer. I found your blog party post very entertaining (in a good way) and kept my attention the entire way through. I personally have never read a romance novel, but my wife is obsessed with them. She will pick one up and be done with it in a few hours. Her favorite author is Nicholas Sparks, and I will say that I have been dragged to the theatres to see The Notebook, Dear John and The Lucky One. She wanted to see if the film did the book justice. Aside from the bad acting or over acting in a few of the scenes I can understand how reading romance novels would be entertaining. She has told me before that she doesn't read them because that is how she wants her life to be. She knows they are pretty far-fetched and unrealistic, but they make her happy and that's all I care about.
ReplyDeleteI could not agree with you more that people out there are taking romance novels way too seriously. It's just a fiction story made to entertain. The women (and some men) are reading, it's not like they are going out there committing a whole bunch of crimes and it should not be treated as such. You also make a great point that people know enough when they chose to watch "Jersey Shore" that that isn't the way they should act/dress or whatever in their everyday life, it is simply meant to entertain.
Thank you for your interesting post, and I can honestly say that I will accept your challenge and read one of my wife's Nicholas Sparks books!
James, good for you! If nothing else you will get an inside view into your wife's emotional landscape. This could give you more tools to connect with her on a romantic level. My husband likes me to read sections out loud to him. Before you envision some romantic moment let me say that he then follows by laughing uproariously. He always says..."You know we don't think like that, right?" He does it purely for comical entertainment!
DeleteHi Jennifer!
ReplyDeleteI am a romance novel fan! My favorites are those that James mentioned above. I love The Notebook and Dear John, though I have not read The Lucky One.
I like to read them because they are simply romantic.I know that the relationships are sort of unrealistic, but they are so beautiful and dreamy!
Books like the Twilight series and even The Host (both by Stephenie Meyer) have a romance novel side to them in my opinion, which is why I was able to read the whole Twilight series in a matter of days and The Host in a 24 hour period! :)
Next ones I am going to pick up are the sultry 50 Shades series!
Great topic!
I have to admit that I have never read Nicholas Sparks. I have one in the pile at the end of my bed. I should probably pick it up and read it. I have been on a Loretta Chase bender lately and it is getting stale. Good luck with 50 Shades, I haven't got the nerve up to read them yet!
DeleteJennifer, I also love to read romance novels. I haven't read any lately. I love the fact that you can forget everything for a few hours and just lose yourself in the book. I have to agree with Dani that the Twilight series have a romance novel side to them. Which also allowed me to read the series in about 3 days.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that romance novels are trash. We know they are fiction but like I said before it can allow you to forget what ever it is bothering you and before you know it you have lost yourself in a fantasy world. I have read a sample of 50 Shades of Grey and I am looking forward to these next few weeks off after this term to lose myself in that series. Great job on your post!
Jen
So far I am a little intimidated about reading 50 shades. It seems like a little outside my comfort zone. My older brother read it and enjoyed it. As far as I know that is the only women's fiction he has ever opened. He usually reads military history and those types of books. He read it at the urging of a friend and said it was an interesting look into the human condition. Let me know how you like it. Many of my female friends are in raptures about it. I intend to spend my break digging out a spring to add to my household water system!!!
DeleteI really have little frame of reference on this topic because I've never forced myself to read more than a few pages of a romantic novel. These paperbacks often with he-man and she-ra type covers don't appeal to me in the least. With my small glance into this world of fiction; I find the characters are contrived and yet predictable. The plots are thinly veiled and packed with almost no realistic behavior.
ReplyDeleteBen, you are falling into the trap of reading out of date 80's style romance in the free box at the laundromat. Try looking at the NY Times best seller list and choosing one of those. Think of it as research into the mind of women. Newer quality romance have neither contrived of predictable characters and storylines. That is old-school style, I will admit that most of them were pretty bad. If you would like a suggestion hit me up, I have read enough that I should be able to help you. Who knows, you could become one of the growing numbers of men to become a fan!
DeleteHi, Jennifer. Thanks for writing about this topic! I have mixed feelings about the romance genre. I like romance when it is part of another plot conflict, and I find myself drawn into the "When will they realize they love each other?" drama. I like romance in the Jane Austen style, where kissing doesn't happen in public; I am uncomfortable with graphic descriptions of intercourse.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I also enjoy stories where the temptation to include a romance plot is resisted, where men and women can be friends and coworkers without having to fall in love with each other. I find the temptation to include romance demeaning for women characters who simply become the significant other of one of the male characters, the token woman or the reward for good behavior.
My mixed feelings extend to the impact of romance on real-world relationships. (I've considered this only in a heterosexual context; I'm not sure how romance impacts LGBTQ readers, except that they may have to search more carefully for stories that represent their experiences.) My experience has been that I seek a kind of honorable and brave partnership, probably influenced by my experience reading romance in the fantasy genre. Former boyfriends and my husband do not have that same concept but more influenced by the physical and visual aspects of male-female relationships associated with rock and roll, film, and porn. Yes, they do seek a committed relationship, but it is colored by the tone of their media, if that makes any sense. I guess I don't have a problem with the various influences; I just worry that they don't contribute to expectations that mesh well, particularly for young people.
I also have mixed feelings in terms of the literary value of romance fiction. I think there is a difference between "genre" fiction and "Literature" with a capital "L." This goes for science fiction, fantasy, western, and mystery, as well as romance. Literature with a capital "L" is more about art than the pleasure of the reading experience. Literature arrives in a lineage of texts that play with and challenge artistic conventions. The problem, often, with genre fiction is that it is written for easy consumption of the story, not for artistic pleasure. This quality makes genre fiction fun to read--I love fantasy and science fiction!--but difficult to study as an art form, except in studying the typical genre patterns or challenges those patterns or in addressing the content of the story. I do teach fantasy and science fiction, so I know it can be done, but many accomplished writers and scholars do not see an artistic value in those genres because there is little attempt to hone an artistic aspect in the writing. Nancy
I agree with Nancy's comment, "I like romance in the Jane Austen style, where kissing doesn't happen in public; I am uncomfortable with graphic descriptions of intercourse." Ditto. I think it is best to leave some things to the imagination! I also agree that a book that is fun to read and easily absorbed may not be literature but none the less a pleasent way to spend time.
Deleteoops. I meant "pleasant"
DeleteI understand your aversion to blow-by-blow sexual encounters, however I want to point out that romance novels do not all contain them. I often wish that the genre had a rating system because I have bought a few that were truly shocking!! One study showed that the two most popular sub-genres of romance were inspirational and erotica. I was bemused to find that the most popular ones were on opposite ends of the spectrum. "Bodice Rippers" are actually in the minority. Romance simply means that the story focuses around the romantic relationship and ends with a HEA (Happily Ever After), no sex required! There is 'something for everyone' if you would.
DeleteNancy, I have been contemplating your response further and have begun to wonder about something. Did the authors set out to write Literature with a capital L when they wrote. Did they do it intentionally or did it just happen. If it just happened, what elements made this magical alchemy occur? How many of these were considered Literature when they were published? In particular I contemplate Shakespeare and Jane Austin. I am not trying to imply anything with my comments, rather 'thinking out loud'. As our resident Literature expert can you shine any light on the subject?
DeleteThat's a good question, Jennifer! Shakespeare certainly did not intend his plays to last this long. He thought they would be performed for a couple weeks. Think of the amount of work he put into them for that expected duration! Austen wrote novels along the lines of other novels written by genteel women of the time. I don't know that she knew how good they would be, but I do think she expected publication.
DeleteCharles Dickens is a good example of someone writing for the people of his day, not to be remembered, just to be published and to entertain. His novels were all published in serial form, like a soap opera, so he wrote cliff hangers and to make people laugh and cry. He used lots of stereotypes. He listened to readers at coffee houses in order to decide how to write the ending. He knew he was popular, but he had no clue how long his literature would last.
Emily Dickinson is an example of a writer who wrote for herself but knew her work was exceptional, despite feedback from professionals. She allowed only a few poems to be published during her lifetime.
So, I would say that most probably did not write for posterity. They wrote because they loved it, it was a way to make money, and if they were women of the upper and upper-middle classes, they had few other potential professional opportunities. Regardless of their intentions, the reading community continued to buy their books, which encouraged publishers to continue to publish their books, and they remain important for study and pleasure today.
However, there's a significant difference between writers prior to World War I and writers after World War I: most prior to WWI were really well read. They often had read not only the work of their contemporaries and of older famous authors in their own languages but also Greek and Italian classics in the original languages. Most soldiers during WWI were classically educated and could write or at least recite heroic couplets and sonnets in their sleep. So, classically educated writers had a sense of what quality writing looks like across centuries and cultures, of how their writing interacted with that tradition, and of how it would be received by similarly educated readers. I would argue that "Literature" with a capital "L" was formed by a chain of serious readers who were also talented writers. Once their writings were taken seriously, read, and studied, those writings added to the chain.
After WWI, writers rebelled against tradition so much that publishers no longer expected knowledge of that tradition in support of publication. In a sense, the chain was broken, and all kinds of things became acceptable as literature. Education changed, too, and no longer were readers expecting forms and allusions common in classical literature. In fact, such literature became too difficult for common readers. So, I would argue that the gap between those studying Literature and those reading literature increased in the 20th century.
Now, there are plenty of people who wish to be writers who can get published without an understanding of the tradition of Literature. They may understand the conventions of their own genre and be successful in that genre, but their writing doesn't demonstrate a wider literary knowledge. Even if they have that knowledge, their readers may not want it. :)
So, I don't think older writers intended to write Literature; they just participated in the kind of writing occurring around them, like writers do today with differing results. Nancy
Hi Jennifer, You have some great reasons for reading romance, number one for me being "“Romances recreate the magical stage of courtship. For many women this is one of the most exciting and important times of their lives; no wonder they want to experience it over and over again.” (Dubino, 2004)". This was very true and on the very rare occasion I take the time to read a romance novel this is one of the reasons. I remember my husband’s and my courtship with fond memories.
ReplyDeleteI can see you are very passionate about your opinions and in Jane Austin’s time, her books may not have been considered literature but they are now. Only time will tell what we call the romance novels of today.
I like your passion and your points!
I agree that only time will tell. I will say that only a minority of romance novels are great quality. The kind of quality Nancy writes about. Maybe none have reached that level yet, but the genre is improving and I think it could be reached eventually. If not I will still be reading them for entertainment!
Delete