I have taken some heat for featuring both DocTurtle and Scrin’s read-a-log reviews of books as they seek an education in the romance genre, since it would appear to some that I’m erecting a massive turgid shrine to What The Penises Think of Romance.
Oh, so not so. What fascinates me personally about their responses are the fact that (a) men do not typically read a lot of romance and (b) being privvy to the reactions to a curious, intelligent dude reading a genre that is so often defined as “just for women” yields a very interesting personal dialogue as Scrin and SBiT Patrick share their thoughts with us. So I’m not squeeing with the glee that A Man has paid attention to us, preen, preen, preen for the peen.
Intelligent males asking for recommendations and then sharing their reactions opens our dialogue to include perspectives that, frankly, we don’t often enjoy. I’m not looking for validation of our collective enjoyment of romance but I am always eager to hear new opinions on the genre as readers of any gender are introduced to how good, how amazing, how truly enjoyable romance is.
So imagine my surprise and delight when I cranked up the inbox to find a very kind and warm letter from a gentleman named Charles who was very happy I was going to read Joan Wolf’s His Lordship’s Mistress because it was the book that introduced him to the genre. I asked if I could publish his letter, and he agreed.
17 February 2009
Dear SB Sarah,
I’m a man who’s been reading romance for over 25 years, and I was inspired to write to you for two reasons: the space you’ve devoted recently to men reading romance, and your recent Valentine’s Day present of His Lordship’s Mistress. That novel is responsible for my reading romance.
I was in a now-defunct bookstore in Boston after work one Friday afternoon, looking for something to read. I passed by the romance section, and noticed that two entire shelves were filled with books with variations on the same brownish-red cover: lo, the Signet Regency Romance series. I don’t really remember why I was so intrigued by having an entire publishing line dedicated to a single topic: perhaps it was because I was always running out of new things to read, and this ready availability appealed to me. I bought two: His Lordship’s Mistress and Joy Freeman’s A Suitable Match. I went home, opened first a bottle of wine, and then “His Lordship’s Mistress.”
I won’t say anything about the plot, in case you haven’t read it yet. But something about Jessica Andover captivated me; her story drew me in, and even moved me to tears. As soon as I finished it, I started on “A Suitable Match”: very different, but also a good read. On Monday, I went back to the store and bought a few others. The first one in this batch was horrible—in the “I’m so glad you raped me” tradition. I was repelled, but read the others. None was as good as “His Lordship’s Mistress,” but—rape notwithstanding—I was hooked.
A few years later, when I was about to enter graduate school, I culled my books, and gave about three hundred romances to a local nursing home. I kept only my favorites—including the first two I ever bought. And I have wondered, over the years, how my reading life would be different had I bought the rape book on that fateful Friday. I certainly would not have reread it every year, as I do “His Lordship’s Mistress.” Perhaps I would never have read another romance. And that would have been a shame. But thanks to Jessica Andover (and Joan Wolf), I have a reading life that is far more satisfying than it otherwise would have been. (In the interests of full disclosure, I should add that thanks to reading romance, I also have an undying hatred for verbal forms of the word “cup.”)
I hope you enjoy “His Lordship’s Mistress” as much as I do.
Sincerely,
Charles
I so want to buy Charles a bottle of wine, you have no idea. I asked Charles which books were some of his favorites, and y’all would not believe this list. From suspense to paranormal, historical to contemporary, Charles is one well-read romance reader, and his favorites are some of the best of the genre.
Thank you for writing, Charles, and for sharing your love letter to the genre.
JoanneL-
I grew up reading Zane Grey and Louis L’Amour and still periodically reread them (if I’m in the mood to) when I come across them at the library or someone’s summer cottage. I enjoy them – but then, they do always feature a love story…
Hey, Maya M. … I was driving someplace yesterday and noticed a road sign (you know, the yellow, diamond-shaped kind) that said “SOFT SHOULDER” and just naturally thought, “He caressed her soft shoulder.”
After awhile, certain phrases just stick. It’s like “found romance” the way people have sites for “found porn”—you know, the naughty town name or penis-looking rock on a playground, etc.
I love it when men do and enjoy things that are typically seen as female. I like men who aren’t slobs and who do actually enjoy housework. I like men who like shopping and who maintain high grooming standards. I like men who are as nurturing as they are providing. And when all that comes in a heterosexual package, it’s even better, because it’s someone breaking a stereotype.
I like that the SBs have brought us a few male perspectives on romance because, as others have said, this blog is about breaking that “bodice ripper” stereotype that continues to hang around the term “romance fiction.”
Romance is not—shouldn’t be—a girl’s-only genre. I think we all agree on that. And yet someone took SB Sarah to task when she featured a few romance newbies who were also men? Not cool.
I can’t help but think that if someone’s first thought was “oh great, now Sarah shows her true colors by finally expressing her need for penis validation”, maybe that involves a bit of projection. It never entered my mind that Sarah brought a few males to the party to validate us as romance readers, but then, I was raised by a smart bitch who read romance and was never exposed to the idea that romance was less worthy of my time.
Joanne- you must have missed some of the stuff I have said (or maybe it was on another site). LOL
Hubby and I both devour Griffin. Not only do I have everything (and some of it under his pen names, so they are originals) in MM, but in HC as they came out that way, on audio and now we both have it on our ereaders.
I love going through his books and finding the story lines and characters that tie into other series’. It’s subtle but there.
I am just getting into Lee Child. I also read Michael Connelly and a few others. And I am always on the lookout for someone I have missed!
@Lori
You will find everyone of his stories has romance running through it, in fact they carry on with lots of HEA’s!! Which one are you reading??
Another mostly male genre (that’s dying off)—the Longarm Western. They are westerns, but with a bit more sex. Of course, like romances, I’m sure there are gender crossers. There’s no book that checks M/F before it’s lets you open its pages—thank God.
@ev
By Order of the President. I’m only on about page 20, but the set up is sucking me in.
I’m actually not surprised that Griffin has romance in his books. IME pretty much all the thrillers, spy novels and other “guy books” have a romantic element. It’s presented differently than books marketed primarily to women, but it’s always there and often really sweet actually.
@Lori-
That’s the new series. I started, with a garage sale find, The Brotherhood of War, The Lieutenants. I was hooked by chapter 1. Then I found this author J. Kevin Dugan. Fell in love with his stuff too, as it was so much like Griffin. This was a police series.
Then one day, I got curious and checked pen names- imagine my surprise, and joy, when I found out that they were one and the same! I was really pleased when they re-released his stuff all under his name. Now his son WEB IV is helping to write the books too.
spamword- gone69. Too easy.
Techno-thrillers seem like they are written for men. Or maybe for boys. (The geeky boy in the adult man.) Men who rarely read fiction are willing to read techno-thrillers.
Robert Ludlum’s Bourne novels – have you ever tried to make it through one of these? The story of Bourne Identity is so great, (well, I guess it is romance) but the clunky technology and spy stuff triples the book.
And Tom Clancy. ugh. I have never made it through a Tom Clancy.
But in 1989, if you wanted to know all about a spy satellite and how cool it would be to use one, these were your guys. I haven’t kept up with their successors, but I’m guessing that they are out there.
As far as having men blog as they fall for romance, I have enjoyed this. I would enjoy anyone who previously disdained romance trying a few and writing honest responses. Every true reader loves to share their favorites with the uninitiated.
@CourtneyLee:
What is this…man…of which you speak?
I may catch some flack for being a misandrist (which I’m not, really), but in my experience, women have never been less than or not as good as men. In many cases, quite the opposite, in fact.
I have two bosses, one of whom I once fondly called the “wife” of their partnership. He was understandably annoyed, until I said, “Well, you get up earlier than he does, don’t you? You’re more organized and competent and have a better sense of responsibility to the business than he does, don’t you? You start working and keep going, when he takes any opportunity to put his feet up, isn’t that right? When he’s sick, he whines like a baby, but when you’re sick, you soldier on, right? You funnel your extra money to your kids, or back into the business, but he spends his own on himself, doesn’t he? If something happened to you, this place would fall apart, wouldn’t it? If he fucked off for a week, we’d barely notice, would we? There you go. You’re the wife.”
IMO, in a lot of ways, it isn’t women who’ve been catching up to men for the last hundred years. It’s men who are finally catching up to women.
I see the “male romance reader” posts less as currying male approval for the genre, and more like bringing men out of their knuckle-dragging ways and into a more civilized place.
I think it’s true that a lot of techno thrillers are very geek oriented, and geeks still skew a bit male. I know that the geekiness is a huge part of what I like about them. They’re like action movies but with lots of tech info thrown in. When it’s badly written it’s clunky and painful, but when it flows it can be a lot of fun.
Clancy can get a little long-winded, but skipping over the techno babble doesn’t hurt the book. And not all Ludlum’s or Clancy’s are created equal. The more recent titles published under both names were written by other people and mostly suck. It’s like the “guy book” equivilent of V.C. Andrews.
@ev: I’m looking forward to finishing a stupid paper I’m working on so that I can dig in to the Griffin. It’s hella long so if I read in small chunks I’m never going to get done.
Darlene Marshall> I &heart; the John Rain books as well. Definitely a big fan. I grew up reading Sheldon and Clancy (due to having my uncle live with us for a while).
Hold your horses y’all, I don’t have a friend, co-worker, or acquaintance who reads romance novels. No one in my real life world does, so stumbling upon this here blog, has been a huuuuge deal for lil ol me. It was a wake up call for me to see the hundreds of comments and discussions about a genre that I had been captivated and infatuated with for all those years…completely alone.
So I appreciate ANYBODY of any gender sharing their mutual love for reading about Romancelandia here on the interweb.
In regards to Manly Type Books – I could never get into Flashman or the Patrick O’Brian English Navy series (both of which my dad lurved) but did read and highly enjoy all of his Sharpe’s Books by Bernard Cornwell as well as his Travis McGee by John D. McDonald which greatly improved my dad’s and my conversation content! Although neither of which had a HEA, I would still recommend them.
Wow, it’s discussions like this that make me realize how many books there are in the world that I still have to read.
Here’s and interesting article about gender and reading : Why Hemingway Is Chick-Lit
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2780
I’m a fan of boys who read, generally. Seriously, it beats just looking at the pictures… 😉
Anyway, speaking of pictures, this is off topic but have you guys SEEN these: http://rolcats.com/
OMG. Who needs men when there are Soviet lolcats to be had?
@Lori-
Let me know what you think. Drop me an email.
Ah, the Flashman books…I’ve heard good things about those. Thanks for all the recommendations! Griffin, westerns…I have work to do. I appreciate your putting forward some guy-oriented stuff.
But that just the thing, isn’t it? I still stand by my original statement – that there is no “just for men” genre in books that is dismissed in the same knee-jerk reaction the way romance is. Guy-oriented is as close as we get. I kind of laughed – every time someone threw down some manly man authors, another chirped up and commented on how they loved it! Ladies, you all are very broad readers, I love it.
Me? I lurved the O’Brian novels. The right mix of historical tech, Austin-like conversation and the rough company of navy men. Ludlum I read in my teens – I enjoyed the first two. Clancy? Meh…read it, not bad.
I think it may be because women read what they want and aren’t ashamed about it. So you can call it guy fiction all you want, but if we aren’t ashamed or embarrassed to read it, why should men, or women, have to hide the fact that they read and enjoy romance?
I think the more men that we have step up here and admit that they read it and enjoy it, the better we all will be for it. I would love to talk to the women in their lives and see if it makes them a better partner.
I love the Horatio Hornblower series and that was before it became a great TV series. I wish they would finish it.
This is so true. I think lots of Bitches would like the movies, even if they’re not that interested in reading the books. They were really good.
Sadly, after those Fantastic Four movies I think Ioan Gruffudd is way too expensive to do any more of the movies and it wouldn’t be the same if they recast the part.
The same thing is true for the Sharpe’s stories. I liked both the books and the British TV show based on them and there won’t be any more shows because Sean Bean is now too expensive
I JUST added the Horatio Hornblower series to my TBR last week! After I checked on Wikipedia for a HEA of course!
On a hopeful note, I can’t find the cite right now but a year or so ago I read that the number of men reading romance has jumped by a lot in recent years. The increase was in the hybrids—-IIRC romantic suspense & futuristics mostly. That makes sense to me. As ev & I both noted, there’s often a romantic element in “guy books”, the proportions are just different. Lots of men who like those books would probably like the romance hybrids if they tried them.
“So you can call it guy fiction all you want, but if we aren’t ashamed or embarrassed to read it, why should men, or women, have to hide the fact that they read and enjoy romance? “
Yes yes yes! That’s it! My thought exactly.
I watched Hornblower, loved it, haven’t gotten round to reading it yet. But hey, if Winnie Churchill endorsed it, I sure would like to see what the fuss is!
For those who are thinking about dipping into the suspense or thriller genres you may be able to get some ideas from the read & review challenge that J Kaye is hosting here:
http://j-kaye-book-blog.blogspot.com/2008/12/suspense-thriller-challenge-post-your.html
I think the advantage of this for newbies is that there are a wide variety of reviews. There are about 50 people signed up & (in theory) each person will read 12 books, each in a different sub-genre. I’ve been reading other things so far this year so I have yet to complete any reviews for this challenge, but I have high hopes for the Griffin.
FYI, she lists a bunch of the different sub genres on the sign up page:
http://j-kaye-book-blog.blogspot.com/2008/11/2009-suspense-thriller-reading.html
And yet someone took SB Sarah to task when she featured a few romance newbies who were also men?
Well, no, that’s not quite it. It’s not that she “she featured a few romance newbies who were also men”; it’s that she she featured a few romance newbies because they were men. Had they been reluctant female readers, their replies in the comments would have been sufficient. I see a little imbalance there. If the emphasis had been more on “reluctant romance reader” and less on “men”, I don’t think it would have tripped me up so much.
It’s also a little odd to me to claim not to need men to validate the genre, yet needing their responses specifically (ie, not reluctant female readers) in order to further discussion or for romance novels to be taken seriously by non-fans. But then, I don’t have a problem with romance novels being marketed towards women (in part because so many other things get marketed towards men*); I don’t think only women should read them, but for me, a man reading a romance novel isn’t really cause for celebration either (‘course my stakes in it aren’t that high. I don’t write romance novels, I don’t have a problem buying and reading them, and I happily genre-hop).
(Now, anyone else reading the Kate Shugak series by Dana Stabenow, since we all seem to be recommending “boy books” – although this one might not qualify, being that it’s written by a woman about a female protagonist – and found in the mystery section, would cause me to leap for joy. Or Dennis Lehane’s Kenzie/Gennaro series, but I don’t think that one needs quite as much help finding an audience. Or comic books, speaking of “boy books”.)
All that said, this isn’t my site, and I don’t want to tell Sarah or Candy what to write about; there’s a lot about this site I like. If they want to have special book reviews by men, that’s fine; I’m just not sure how interested I personally would be in it just because they were from the male perspective (it would depend on the book that was being reviewed: I read the ones about Bujold’s The Sharing Knife, because I love that series, and not the other one because…I can’t remember why not now); if they also just as prominently featured reluctant female readers, I also wouldn’t mind that. (I don’t think gender viewpoints are so discrete that there’d be a big difference between the responses of a reluctant female reader and a reluctant male reader.) In any case, there are enough other people who are interested that SBTB wouldn’t be lacking for viewership.
*I tend to think that is why women in general are more likely to read/watch/participate in “boy stuff”—because what other option did/do we have? If a lot what’s out there is about the straight, white male, then, yeah, I think if you read enough of it, you’re going to find something/someone to relate to or that you enjoy reading about.
It was just my luck to be traveling yesterday, so I missed this whole discussion as it was happening. But as the author of the letter Sarah quoted, I just had to say, “Wow.”
To everyone who wrote in: you’ve given me a bunch of stuff to think about—including my own (unconscious?) motivations for what I read (e.g., why do I read so few contemporaries?). Thanks a lot!
Sarah: Thanks for calling me a gentleman—believe me, you’re being more than kind. And if you ever come up to Boston, we can share that bottle of wine.
Finally: in retrospect, I’ve decided that I was too hard on poor little “cup.” After all, I cup my hands to collect water every time I shave, and I forgot about the historical, “medical” sense of cupping. So, let’s just emend my “undying hatred,” and say that it’s limited to participial forms used in an erotic context.
I read WEB Griffin’s books on my mother’s recommendation. She loves military history, the Aubrey-Maturin seafaring novels, and political espionage stuff. She did her graduate work in political science, which I gather was also pretty much a “boys’ club” back in the 1960s. She now reads romance as well.
Oh, and if anyone wants to try a very gentle intro to westerns, I highly recommend Pratt’s The Strange Adventures of Rangergirl. It is a mixture of western, sci-fi, and comicbook-style action set in modern Santa Cruz.
I’ve never known a man who read, or admitted to reading romance, so the letter from Charles gave me some insight to a mans perspective. Thanks for letting us read the letter as well.