To start things off, let me just say I’m still having trouble believing we were mentioned obliquely in the New York Times. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m tickled as can be that we were considered even remotely worthy of mention, but as I wrote to a friend earlier: “Yeah, you know you’ve TRULY arrived when the NYT dismisses you as shrill, humorless, uncultured, oversexed twats. (…) It must’ve been a slow news day or something—the complete lack of newsworthy items like, ohhhh, sex scandals involving underage congressional pages or bills that infringe on Constitutional rights being passed must’ve made the brouhaha in our little corner of teh Interwebs an especially attractive story prospect.”
Reading that beautifully condescending article, which utilized some of the most execrable, stilted sexual metaphors this side of Bertrice Small while maintaining a delicately prudish air (our blog name is “not printable in most newspapers”? What, are we now the Website that Dare Not Speak Its Name?) has finally brought a lot of thoughts that have been kicking around in the back of my brain to the fore, as has reading this snippet of a comment posted by Robin in the original post about the Greater Washington Initiative ads:
Don’t you think this is because there is still such a moral dimension to reading—not just in whether or not you read, but what you actually read, as well?
I practically leaped in excitement when I read that sentence, in that “By JOVE she’s got it!” way that often accompanies a revelation that expresses a half-formed thought I’ve never been to articulate, but on thinking more about it, I’m not sure what to make of that yet, though I hope to figure it out as I discuss it with people in the comments. I do know that there’s a tendency to make assumptions about people’s intelligence based on what they’re reading, part of which is informed by class snobbery, part of which is informed by sexism, and part of which is defined by how trends in the literary canon inform what we view as high art vs. low art vs. not-at-all-even-close-to-art.
Romance novels make people intensely uncomfortable, which they express as deep disdain and/or complete dismissal. Hell, I’m still a bit squeamish about revealing my love of romance novels to new people, and I have friends who look at my bookshelves (which somebody once described as “schizoid in the very best way”) and bemoan how they don’t understand why I like romance novels when I have so many good books to read.
I think the roots of this disdain lie with our cultural discomfort with emotional and sexual intimacy. Besides the usual explanations, most of which are variations of “Oh, America is such a Puritan country,” I personally think that some it’s a reaction to the way both have been exploited by people who use it to sell everything from greeting cards to phone plans to insurance. Sneering at sentimentality makes us feel smarter; we’re not taken in by this blatant manipulation. We’re better than that, smarter than that.
But it’s not just the fact that romance novels deal specifically with squishy emotions that makes people uncomfortable. I think a big stumbling point for people lies with the happy ending. It’s unfashionable right now for our Art to be happy. The subjects can certainly yearn for happiness and attempt to seek it, but most of the time, the best we’re willing to give them is bittersweet closure. I’m certainly not qualified to say why the Aesthetic of Unhappiness has so much cachet right now, but I have a feeling a lot of it has to do with the brutalities of WWI and WWII.
However, and I’m going to get a lot of shit for this, I also can’t deny that romance novels are their own worst enemy. This genre is rife with bad, bad, bad writing. Yes yes, I know, other genres have awful books, too, Sturgeon’s Law, etc. etc. But I don’t know of any other genre in which books as all-encompassingly awful as what Cassie Edwards has published become bestsellers. I mean, I’ve read some horror and fantasy that’s almost as bad as the worst of romance, but these authors don’t become minor bestsellers with whole shelves dedicated to them at the bookstore. There’s bad, and then there’s romance novel bad, which is this whole other universe of awfulness (and bless her heart, Mrs. Giggles realized this ages ago, and dared to speak up about it).
And the most hellish thing is, when people make fun of romance novel stereotypes, I can’t even run in and say “You are completely talking out of your ass.” The truth of the matter is, it’s not that hard to pick up a romance lousy with foot-stamping heroines who shake their auburn tresses as the heroes growl menacingly at them. Perhaps it’s just as well that the author of that little piece didn’t know romance novels well enough to hit us where it really hurt, like, say, secret babies and virgin widows.
And the covers…oy, the covers. If you’ve spent any time on the site at all, y’all know what we think of the covers.
But all this is irrelevant, really. Romance novels can be (and often are) turds of the first order. The question is: can anyone make an informed judgment about somebody’s intelligence and/or moral character solely based on what they’re reading, especially something as ephemeral as a snapshot of what somebody chooses to read on the bus or the train? I don’t think so. God help me, I’ve read and enjoyed Dara Joy, but I don’t think I’m any dumber for being fond of her over-the-top prose. We read what we read for a multitude of reasons, and making that sort of judgment is reductionist to the point of retardation. The part that bothered me the most about the ad wasn’t that it was making fun of romance novels, it was the fact that it presented a false dichotomy. I don’t see the contradiction or tension between the same person reading, say, Savage Thunder and Phenomenology of Spirit. And I mean, c’mon, Plato? Plato is for pussies. A reasonably bright 11-year-old could read and grasp Plato. And yes, I’m aware of how obnoxious my one-upsmanship is, but goddamn, people who assume I’m stupid and uneducated simply because I enjoy a bodice ripper every now and then can suck it, and suck it hard. Because asswipes making snap judgments about me based solely on what I read are part of the reason why Sarah and I started this website in the first place.
Well, finally. I have been singing this refrain for a long time and all alone.
I like your ‘Aesthetic of Unhappiness’—I’ve been using ‘Culture of Ugly’ to talk about the litcriterati’s devotion to the morose, and knee-jerk reactions to any even remotely happy ending.
It’s all good. We got our first hate mail because I was quoted in the NY Times article as supposedly saying writing a romance is the same as writing a classic. Which doesn’t make sense anyway…you don’t really write a classic, you write a book and by some twist of fate, it becomes one.
What I meant was that it’s just as hard to write 100,000 words of romance as it is to write 100,000 words of any other genre. The curse of them only printing part of the message.
But the point is as you said it. We all make fun of our romance, it’s when it’s intimated that you are somehow a lesser being for reading them that it gets touchy.
We’re not supposed to judge a book by its cover. I mean, it’s a cliche for a reason. But, apparently it’s more than okay to judge the reader/writer by the book he/she chooses to read/write.
I’m actually amused by this ad and the buzz it has created but at the same time, I’m baffled. When Romance readers and writers choose come together in a resounding WTF, then we’re not only stupid for reading and writing the trash, but we’re also judged as humorless.
I’m not outraged by the ad—it just shows their own ignorance…gotta love that irony.
Frankly, I think RWA should sponsor a group of rebuttal ads. One of the multi-pubbed members of my Online Chapter suggested the ads should show that romance novels were “required reading” on the DC Metro. I found that idea highly amusing.
According to a literary novelist friend of mine, I’m not a real writer because of the genre in which I choose to write. I guess all those not real hours I’ve poured into my not real laptop writing my not real books in order to land my not real agent has been a not real waste of time.
Oh well. I’m not really gonna shed too many tears over that, just like I’m not really worried about what a bunch of pretentious blow hards think of me and the books I write. Because as Stuart Smalley would say, “I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.” And if they don’t, eh, wtf do I care?
Candy, I know where you are coming from, believe me. But I’m not inclined to say we’re always dominated by an Aesthetic of Unhappiness—I guess I’m far more used to getting frustrated because I often see people refusing at times to engage with books or art that contains something dark, serious, complex or remotely saddening, or that might in any way cast doubt on the Norman Vincent Peale Power of Positive Thinking school of thought. I’m a lot more used to see powerful people in public life make fun of intellectuals & say that, gosh darn it, plain common sense can carry you through any situation, even the most dangerous ambiguous.
Ah, behold the analytical mind of Candy, searching for answers to an age-old question. I wish you all good luck. However, if you never find what you seek, only hold on until you turn 40. After that, you will feel as I do – I don’t give a flying fuck what anyone thinks of my choice in reading materials.
When people make snide remarks about what I write, I ignore them. To do otherwise is useless and a waste of time I could be reading, or writing. I save my fury for numbnuts like Napoli and Head. Theirs are prejudices that may directly affect people in harmful ways.
I imagine morons who blather on about their literay superiority and look down their pointy noses at romance need to get laid. How’s that for denigrating an entire subset of the population?
As for badly written romances, well, someone clearly liked them, or they wouldn’t sell. That objective monster raises its ugly head and points out there are evidently quite a number of readers who enjoy secret baby, amnesia, cowboy stories. I wonder, do the literary snobs exhibit the same breadth of choice? Are there those who denounce Proust and Kafka as middling upstarts who waste paper with their drivel, and exalt Plato and Shakespeare as worthy? Is there a Cassie Edwards amongst the classics? Or are all works of literary value equally appreciated?
It’s quite freeing, entering middle age. I highly recommend it.
Pardon the post—I hit “publish” when I wanted to hit “preview.”
That last sentence should read:
“I’m a lot more used to seeing powerful people in public life make fun of intellectuals & say that, gosh darn it, plain common sense can carry you through any situation, even the most dangerously ambiguous.”
In other words: The exhortion to “Accentuate the Positive” & the habit of changing endings in adaptations to make them happier & easier to swallow seems to me to be the rule, rather than the exception. So I’m kind of glad that some art offers me a refuge from all the over simplistic reduction & easy solutions I’m sometimes offered to very complex situations.
‘Frankly, I think RWA should sponsor a group of rebuttal ads. One of the multi-pubbed members of my Online Chapter suggested the ads should show that romance novels were “required reading†on the DC Metro. I found that idea highly amusing.’
http://www.wmata.com/bus2bus/adsonmetro.cfm
Anyone want to start taking donations?
Candy said…
I cut off the quote there because that is such a fill-in-the-blank statement and I realized that everything floating around in my head came back to it, because we are all judged on various stereotypes that are in existence. Then I got to thinking about all the things about me that I’m judged on and the one that pisses me off the most is my accent. I am judged to be a brainless, slobbering, inbred hillbilly because of my accent.
Judge me on my reading. Judge me on my size. Judge me on my movie selection. Judge me on the 9 million other superficial qualities about me that you don’t like. Just don’t judge me on my accent.
I don’t think it’s possible to replicate a Cassie Edwards in the classics. There’s only one book I’ve read that was as incoherent and ungrammatical as the average Cassie Edwards novel. This book was called The Sound and the Fury, and Faulkner did what he did deliberately. I’m not sure the Edwards’ usage of exclamation points, ellipses and innovative sentence structures can be attributed to an attempt to simulate the internal thought processes of a mentally retarded man.
Yeah, I know. Reerrr, hiss, swipe. I’m being horribly catty, but OH MY GOD Desire’s Blossom was so terrible.
And yes, there is considerable debate regarding the literary canon; some people are Not At All Fond of Jane Austen, for example.
When we talk about these things, we run into questions of quality vs. what we enjoy. Something can be high-quality yet not be enjoyable to me (e.g. The Stone Diaries, Wuthering Heights), and conversely, something can be low-quality and be immensely enjoyable (e.g. anything by Dara Joy). Many people tend to conflate these two, i.e. what they like automatically means it’s actually GOOD.
But then that brings up the very hairy question of what “good” actually means, and whether there’s some sort of objective standard for that, and personally, I think there is. Skill with language, for example, is an essential component.
Sherryfair: Actually, I agree with you. This particular piece of mine isn’t intended to address the allergy many people exhibit against unhappy or ambiguous/open-ended endings, nor is it meant to exalt the happy ending über alles.
However, and I’m going to get a lot of shit for this, I also can’t deny that romance novels are their own worst enemy. This genre is rife with bad, bad, bad writing….There’s bad, and then there’s romance novel bad, which is this whole other universe of awfulness …
—>The cause of this (IMO) is the very success of the genre. The demand is so great that publishing companies literally cannot keep up.
You would think that with everyone who wants to be a writer the publishing companies could find enough good writers to meet the demand, right? But writers need more skills than just “writes engagingly.” They need:
1. writes engagingly
2. plots engagingly
3. writes quickly
4. meets deadlines
5. takes editorial direction well
Most wannabe writers fall down because they never even finish a novel. Of those that do finish a novel, most don’t write very well. But sometimes editors, under pressure and believing that “hey, this is at least better than average” will let #1 or #2 lapse if the author is very strong in #3, 4, and 5.
#3, 4, and 5 are of more immediate value to an editor than #1 and #2. (Which isn’t to say that editors don’t want good writing and plotting. Oh, lawsy, they do; they pray for it. But 3, 4, and 5 are more necessary.)
“This is at least better than average” is a terrible thing, but certainly the mantra of people trying to keep up with demand of any product. And while it’s true that the majority of romance readers would much rather read a GOOD romance novel, they will if necessary read a bad one. Sure, they’ll snark about it, and likely won’t pick up another book by that author, but the damage is done: Bookspan has another ticky-mark of a copy sold of a “good enough” novel.
As to the validity of people judging others by what they’re reading: obviously this is stupid. Or rather, the judgment should be on the whole, not the part. People should have the smarts to realize that the brain improves with variety, and someone who reads only classics, or only books written in the 19th century, or yes, only romance novels, is mock-worthy.
But a person whose Ayn Rand sits cover to cover with Lisa Kleypas…well, that’s likely going to be an interesting person.
Some more thoughts that I should’ve included before mashing the Submit button: I agree with sherryfair that popular culture isn’t necessarily dominated by the Aesthetic of Unhappiness, but I’d argue that high art/high culture is, and when it comes to judging what’s intelligent vs. what’s stupid, pop culture will necessarily come off the loser. And I’m not saying that’s necesarily wrong all the time, either. It’s just that the constant conflation of smart with high art/unhappy endings and teh dumbb with pop art/happy endings drives me batty.
Coming out of Lurk because this is such an interesting discussion. I read about 50/50 romance and other and I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s the sex that differentiates.
You can have sex in a “mainstream or literary” novel but god forbid that it’s a complete episode and everyone enjoys themselves.
I just finished reading the latest Zadie Smith (won the Orange Prize and shortlisted for the Man Booker so, “obviously” not a romance novel *ducking*) and there are a couple of sex scenes in there. They are both fairly truncated and one involved grubby infidelity.
Maybe you can have literary sex as long as it’s not too much fun and is used as a device by the writer to show a character flaw in the protagonists. In fact I don’t think I can remember reading a full sex scene written specifically to show love or a bond between two characters. Maybe in Birdsong but that was more like the one idyllic moment before all the shit came down.
Dunno – what does everyone else think?
Oh, and I think that the RWA should take out ads that show “The average romance reader” (a group of women of various ages, sitting together in a restaurant and laughing) and “the average Knowledge Economy worker” (a 40ish man driving a midlife-crisis mobile and being laughed at by a bunch of hottie young women).
‘Oh, and I think that the RWA should take out ads that show “The average romance reader†(a group of women of various ages, sitting together in a restaurant and laughing) and “the average Knowledge Economy worker†(a 40ish man driving a midlife-crisis mobile and being laughed at by a bunch of hottie young women).’
My ideas:
Spoof Version: Their Plato Gentleman in the first square. In the second square, same gentleman, same book cover—but the outer cover has slipped, exposing the romance cover.
The hot one:
The Plato Gentleman in the first square—all by himself.
In the second square, the man reading a romance novel…with a hottie kissing up on him.
Talk about mental stimulation.
This is fun.
Sad truth be told, romance publishers (and e-pubs, in particular) do pump out a lot of unadulterated horseshit…rendered even horsier and shittier by unqualified editors. It isn’t the subject matter that’s worthy of disdain—not by a long shot. And this is what the huffers and sniffers fail to realize. In all their Plato-worship, they’re overlooking the Bronte sisters, Jane Austen, D. H. Lawrence, Hemingway and Fitzgerald, blah blah blah etcetera.
Now, if I were a huffer and sniffer (which I guess I am, in a certain way and to a certain degree), here’s how I’d respond: No—love, sex and happy endings ain’t the problem; shitty writing is. Maybe if the romance community fortified itself with some standards, it wouldn’t be so vulnerable to attack.
But, again, we’re back to what readers want…or, at least, are more than willing to accept. If they’ve dumbed down to the point where they either don’t recognize or don’t care about crappy craftsmanship, then why not keep cranking out the crap?
I think the literati have a much bigger fight on their hands than they realize….
‘If they’ve dumbed down to the point where they either don’t recognize or don’t care about crappy craftsmanship, then why not keep cranking out the crap?’
Pride? Weird concept, I know. Pride vs. quick buck. Hmm.
Maybe if more pubs took the time to work on quality, the readers wouldn’t accept crap anymore. Change the market, you have to change with it, or die.
It’s all on the publishers.
Oh, Stef, if only we lived in a perfect world….
I fully agree with you. Or, at least, I’d like to. Pride in one’s product could be the solution. If publishers of romance fiction took more care in sorting the wheat from the chaff (in terms of both the submissions they accept and the editors they hire), readers just might come to appreciate, expect, and even demand the wheat.
But the operative word here is might.
‘But the operative word here is might.’
Well, of course. Some might see it as reinventing the wheel. But somebody had to do that back in the day, or we wouldn’t be dealing with rush hour traffic.
I think you can run a profitable business and still care about what you produce. It’s a matter of keeping your eye on the market and your thumb on quality control.
That’s one of the reasons I hang here—I’ve learned more about what not to screw up in both writing and coverart to last a lifetime, because for once, people actually say what exactly the issue is with the books, instead of just a random “this book bites”.
The popularity of erotic romance, IMO, signals that the romance community will embrace different if it’s done right.
So who knows? Sometimes it’s okay just to keep tossing in the starfish—it makes a difference for somebody, anyway.
I disagree a little about what makes people disdain romance so much. I don’t think it’s the happy ending. Mysteries, by and large, have happy ending—the murderer is found and justice is served. Science fiction has happy endings, the orb/key/necklace/spell is discovered and the end of the world is averted.
I think men and women disdain romance for different reasons. For men: I do think it’s the squishy feeling stuff. Squishy feelings, not just acknowledging them, but wallowing in them is weak. And showing that you’re weak—very stupid.
I think women have a problem with romance novels because no matter what the plot is, no matter how capable the heroine, the goal is gettin’ a man. I think that makes women very uncomfortable—That other people would think that’s her highest goal. But, you know, sometimes it is. Family is important, relationships are important, and sometimes it IS the most important thing—finding a man to build a life with. But that’s so fifties; it’s so not feminist. I think that’s why women who say they don’t read romance call women who do read romance stupid. To draw a line in the sand.
So romance novels really sort of thumb their noses at two pretty core values that modern men and women have and hold dear and EXPECT other men and women to value just as much: men despise weakness and women hate other women who don’t value independence. Because it was so hard-won.
The fact that romance readers don’t see how important these two things are to everyone else (evidenced by reading romance) or, if they do, are unwilling to conform or admit they’re wrong—well, that makes us stupid and worthy of scorn. Just like on the schoolyard.
I think some romances are technically bad. Which I think is a problem. But I also think I’m far more critical now than when I was a teenager. And I kind of think that’s what is going on. Some books aren’t written for women, they are written for girls. It’s a market; it will grow, and the purpose is to get repeat business.
If I’m getting you right, what you’re saying is essentially by reading romance, it’s failure to conform to the core values the nonconformists uphold, i.e boy does NOT have to meet girl. Girl can bloody well take care of herself.
A bit like the goth chicks picking on the Mary Sues. It’s not really personal, they just hate everything they stand for.
That might explain why that group doesn’t understand when the romance community gets so upset about slights—we’re taking it personally, and they’re not seeing it that way.
I’m not sure it’s conformist vs. non-conformist. Although that could just be my world-view. I actually assume most women are feminist.
What I do think is that arguing that romance readers aren’t intellectually stupid is never going to get it done. People don’t care whether we are intellectually stupid or not; we seem to socially stupid, which is far more offensive.
‘What I do think is that arguing that romance readers aren’t intellectually stupid is never going to get it done.’
So what will?
Romance reading isn’t defensible on intellectual grounds; that’s not its purpose. It’s purpose is that it’s emotionally satisfying. If it’s an intellectual experience as well, that’s just a bonus.
There is no argument. It’s cake. Cake is good. Cake is tasty. Cake is scrumptious and satisfying. Who doesn’t like cake? Who argues against cake? You can argue whether German Chocoate cake is better than Chocolate Chocolate Decadence, but really that’s not an argument as much as it is two people talking about yumminess.
You know? All reading might be cake. It just might be.
I learned in a PhD program in English that the romance genre is anti-feminist because it reinscribes getting a man as the highest goal a woman can attain, as y’all are saying. So, being a wanna-be novelist and a lover of romance AND a feminist, I spent a lot of time trying to come up with a new genre. Also failing.
Then I wrote this article, which was first published in the Journal of Popular Culture:
http://www.jennifer-echols.com/whatley.htm.
I compare the movies Air Force One and The American President as two versions of what people wished President Clinton could have been. Romance: he had good qualities, but wouldn’t he have been better if he could have had his love affair in office without cheating on his wife? (Sure! Kill his wife off.) Action/adventure: he had good qualities, but wouldn’t he have been better if he had secret military training and his plane were hijacked and his family were threatened along with the security of the country, and he had to kill foreigners with his bare hands?
In other words, some people fantasize about the perfect person coming into their lives. That’s kind of silly. Some people fantasize about the perfect person, already in their lives, being threatened or killed, so they’ll have an excuse to throw grenades. Also kind of silly.
The reason that romance is so much more maligned than action/adventure is simple: it usually belongs to women, and anything belonging to women is subject to more derision in our culture than anything belonging to men. This is why the person reading the romance and Plato in the ad in question is a man. I made this point in shorter form in an earlier post, but I think this is very important.
After I wrote the article and came to my conclusions about these genres, I decided to go ahead and write romance as a feminist, and it makes me happy.
*Standing Ovation for ammie from the one who reads everything from the label on her tea bag to “the classics”*
ooo my word verification is my ex’s birth date
Jennifer:
You’re saying that women malign romance and its readers because it’s for women?
So you’re saying that romance-maligning women say, “Hey we may be women, but at least we’re not THOSE women?” Like it’s a self-hatred thing? And me, being one of THOSE women and not all that apologetic, am not a self-hater?
Hmm… this is interesting.
Gee, these are all good arguments.. but the purpose of the ads in DC and the article in the Times was to reinforce the perceived superiority of the guys who created them. And why did they choose romance novels? Because they are lowest form of literature? I think we can all agree that every genre has it high and low forms. Why not use comic books as the foil? Well, those anime guys would argue that they have legitimate art form. What about music magazines? Well, those guys from Rolling Stone would point out that they transcend mere music. Sports books or mags? Well there are great sports writers…
Why ever did they chose romance novels then… Oh, how about because it is a chick genre? And since no one will turn on women faster than other women (because they want to endear themselves to the powers that be (guys) or that they want to be perceived as superior as the guys that bring the charge of romance novel inferiority) it is safe for the guys to make fun of.
Regarding a RWA rebuttal campaign, I seem to recall a few years back there was an ad campaign that said “Look Who’s Reading Romance”, and it showed real people—a male airline captain, cops, women doctors, army officers, librarians, etc., who all read romance and were proud of it.
It might be a good time to revive that campaign.
They wouldn’t have known it was a bad, bad book without the cover. They didn’t chose a contemporary Nora Roberts book or a JAK book or a women’s fiction book. They wouldn’t have dared. They picked the book with the most easily translatable cover, which was shorthand for trash.
And what if they did deliberately google “Romance Novel” and then just pick the trashiest cover to make a point. Their point fails at the end of the day. Well-educated doesn’t mean intelligent and it has NO VALUE without the ability to think and act by discarding bad ideas in favor of good ideas. There is also NO CORRELATION between what you read and your intellectual capacity. There is even less correlation between education and intellectual capacity. You know what? We can’t even measure educational effectiveness.
Washington D.C. is filled with well-educated, ineffective, wrong-headed people. That’s nothing to be proud of. All they did was prove that they are exactly where they belong.
I have always suspected that people who display any sort of cultural snobbery aren’t all that secure. Their’s is a bourgeois acceptance of higher authority, rather than seeking and finding their own joys in art.
Philistines.
Here is a scary thought? If enough anti-romance novel politicians get in office. How likely that they may impose certain restrictions on access to romance novels.
Can you imagine going into a seedy sex shop to buy the lastest novel from your favorite author?
Of course we all toast their hinneys but still the thought scares me.
The reason that romance is so much more maligned than action/adventure is simple: it usually belongs to women, and anything belonging to women is subject to more derision in our culture than anything belonging to men.
Bang on the money Jennifer.
“The reason that romance is so much more maligned than action/adventure is simple: it usually belongs to women, and anything belonging to women is subject to more derision in our culture than anything belonging to men.”
I think women also perpetuate this by being doubly harsh on other women. I don’t dress for the men I might meet, I dress so I won’t be mocked mercilessly by women.
Anything that is seen as a weakness, whether it’s clothes, weight or the books you choose to read is subject to ridicule. I think for some romance novels are a guilty pleasure and the guilt is transformed into mockery and put downs.
Jennifer has voiced my opinion much better than I ever could, but I’ll add my two cents anyway (and utterly ruin the thing, but hey…)
Women are the worst women-haters. We are. We’re slow to pardon other women for their “faults†or flaws or whatever. Look at female celebrities and when they screw up big time…it takes them much longer to get back into the public’s good graces than their male counterparts (Martha Stewart should know). Girls like to pick on girls best, and this gives clearance for guys to do the same.
Hey, I didn’t put my foot in my mouth too bad this time! I’m getting smarter…maybe.
Or, maybe I should read Plato.
Don’t have much to say, because it’s already been said, and because I’m on vacation. Yay!
Romance is snarked and/or dismissed—or worse, accused of being harmful because:
It’s primarily for women.
It highlights emotions.
It has sex.
It ends happily.
And yes, because many books in the genre are crap (subjectively). Because sometimes the plots, the writing, the sex, the covers are way over the top, or way below the bottom.
I used to cringe when I’d see some books, read some books, read some interviews with certain authors who giggled about how they did their ‘research’ with their husbands every night. Jesus. Don’t lump me in there, I’d think. Then I got over it because, hey, always gonna be lumped in.
No one should have to justify what they like to read, or write. And yet, we so often find ourselves in that position. I’ve been at this a long, long time now, and haven’t seen any real change in perception, attitude or media focus. I don’t expect to see any. And mostly I’m an optimistic bitch.
My god, Candy, this is brilliant. I’ve read the sexist/feminist/anti-feminist arguments dozens of times, and I feel like a bobble-head doll because I’m just nodding and agreeing, but this is the first time I’ve seen this argument phrased so clearly. The female-centeredness of romance is definitely a big part of why it’s denigrated, but the fact that sex & sentiment are manipulated to sell everything from soap to soup to SUVs marginalizes it even more.
Being used to sex & sentiment (I’m liking this phrase, btw) being manipulative has an effect, I think—making romance novels seem like the literary equivalent of squishy-sweet greeting cards or sleazy-sexy beer ads.
I’m going off to think about this some more. Thanks for the brain snack.
Yes, but the opposite is also true, if you think about it. No matter what the plot is, no matter hos capable the HERO is, the goal is gettin’ a girl. And I think that makes MEN very uncomfortable. As much as romances show that no woman can be fully and truly happy and content and satisfied without her soul mate, the same works for men, too. No man can be truly content and happy and satisfied without his soul mate, and with m/m slash at such a high premium, it’s almost DOUBLY true for men.
Add to that the fact that romances are written by women for women and you get something that will be put down and scorned precisely because its world view is so threatening to the established patriarchy. What if Romancelandia became reality? Men would have to stop being assholes and put their lovers and their families first and where would the world be then, hmm?
And going with the idea of the moral dimension of reading, this goes back at least until the start of novels and probably before that. Everything that is now said almost exclusively about romance novels was said in 18thC England about all novels. But once the genre was accepted as “literary,” all that scorn had to get dumped somewhere, and it was okay to dump it on the novels still written mostly by and for women, rather than dumping it on the novels written by and for men. Then again, very few novels are written FOR men because women have always read just about everything, as soon as they were given the opportunity to read.
If you ask me, and this is purely a guess, I think the author of that piece knew very, very intimately whereof she spoke. You don’t nail down that many of our stereotypes without some degree of familiarity. I think she knew them plenty well – which is why I could giggle.
That said, I think this entry brilliantly addresses critically what we’ve been discussing regarding the ad and the press coverage thereof. I know we are knocked around a bit for our choice of reading material, and as you said, those critics can bite a wang. But why is it that we are? What’s wrong with romance? Why is romance like country music – people are entirely comfortable espousing a preference for anything BUT that?
As a complete tangent – I have to say, the thing I love about this site is the number of enthusiastic, and exceptionally intelligent people who say, “OH YES, OH YES, OH YES, I love romance, too!”