Harlequin has a new campaign which on the surface seems like something I’d be happy to give a thumbs up as I move on to lunch and a book. With the “Whatever You’re Into” motto, they seem to be saying, hey, whatever works for you, it’s all good.
Problem is, the new video series that accompanies the slogan is so far from what I’m into that I’m feeling like maybe I’m on the wrong planet. We’ve discussed these videos at length at Bitchery HQ, and our reactions vary.
Sarah: Because I review books, I have become accustomed to being able to identify what it is that I did like about something, and what I didn’t. I can usually explain, illustrate, give multiple examples and then explain some more (because there’s no word count limit on this part of the internet — woo hoo!) every reason behind my opinion. “This is my opinion and here’s why” is a muscle I use a lot.
Which is why I’m flummoxed as to why I can’t quite articulate the reasons why the Harlequin “Whatever You’re Into” videos really made me uncomfortable, to the point of squick and recoil and headdesk and covering my face with my palms.
I seriously feel like the enemy of fun over here. So many people have been laughing and enjoying them – and there’s certainly a little comedy in them there parts – but I think I missed the joke.
Have a look:
So, for those who are visually impaired, I’ll give a quick summary.
In the first video, a older woman (older than 45, maybe? I’m terrible at age guessing) on a couch is approached by a young muscular dude in military dress whites, who removes his shirt and begins making out with her, accompanied by big swells of music and some moaning. The camera pans back to a man of a similar age to the woman, wearing a blue plaid shirt, and watching tv, oblivious to the woman making out with this young man next to her. He tips the bowl in front of him and asks if there are any more chips – and the young man immediately disappears, replaced by the woman who is not actually making out with anyone, but signing open mouthed and breathing somewhat heavily at a Harlequin romance.
The second video shows a similar set up, only this time, a woman is sitting on her dryer while a man in a cowboy hat and plaid shirt kisses her neck. She’s got her glasses on, which, as a person who wears glasses, I can only think, I hope she’s got some cleaning cloths nearby because nose smudges are a pain. Anyway, she rips the guy’s shirt open and pulls him closer, more moaning and more swelling of music (which I think may have been a nod to Gone with the Wind). Then the camera pulls back to show the woman alone reading a book, and her husband, who is short and balding and wearing a red polo shirt, reaches into the dryer and pulls out shorts (I think) and takes a deep sniff of the fabric. “Nice and hot! Thanks, honey!” he says, and wanders off screen – where the scene immediately switches to the woman being ravished on her dryer by a faceless cowboy. Both videos feature the tagline, “Escape the Everyday.”
So in these depictions, the woman reading the book becomes the heroine of the book, imagining herself as the recipient of the presumed hero’s attentions.
I have written a lot about how romance readers interact with their books. In the first book I co-authored, Beyond Heaving Bosoms ( A | BN | K | G | AB ), the discussion of reader identification makes up more than half a chapter. Colloquial wisdom then – and to some extent now – posits that many female readers employ the heroine as a placeholder, a person who the reader becomes during the story. The two exist in a symbiotic relationship that allows the reader to enter the story through the heroine, or perhaps ultimately AS the heroine. (This has led to many additional discussions of the resulting difficulties facing heroines who are not very easy to identify with.)
Meanwhile, others, including Laura Kinsale in her essay “The Androgynous Reader” in Dangerous Men and Adventurous Women ( A ), have argued that it’s the hero many readers are identify with, the one who gets to Do All The Things and Has More Power and Status, among other things.
But I don’t read like that. I know some people do, which is cool, but I don’t. I kind of hover over the characters as a benevolent witness, trying to identify and connect with each of them and all of them. On the surface, the Harlequin video series rests on the idea that “this is what happens when you read a romance,” but the illustrations of what happens are really far off the mark for me.
Usually, that’s fine. If something may be true for some people but not for me, that usually doesn’t bother me. But with these, the more I watch, the more repulsed I am.
I know many people worked really hard to create these clips – the production values are pretty damn spiffy, better than I could do on my own. And I also know some readers may indeed interact with romances in exactly that fashion – and that some readers think they’re hilarious. And we talk about escaping into our reading all the time. I read romance for a lot of reasons, and sometimes, hell, yes, it is to escape whatever is running around my brain and enjoy something entirely different.
I don’t think I’d be as frustrated and squicked out if it were just a question of reader identification and symbiosis. That’s not something I’d get ticked off about. It’s not the sexiness of the video, either. There are readers who read for erotic pleasure, just like there are readers who supplant the heroine in the narrative when they read.
But past the idea of reader identification,the video narratives rest firmly on several familiar, overused and stereotypical ideals, only one of which being that the reader is supplanting the heroine to be the object of the hero’s affections. The videos seem to suggest that the only reason romance readers engage is to escape – into lusty imaginatory infidelity. I’m not trying to check out of my life because my life is so horrible and my husband is so boring. I like my husband. That’s why I’m married to him. I don’t read romance because my real life sucks.
I do know this: the stereotyping of men – that definitely ticked me off, and I knew the source of my irk immediately. You either have the sexless husband or the supersexed muscular shirtless dude. Men are a lot more than that. The insults to men piss me off and make me sad.
Plus, the ageism of the portrayal of the men made me as angry as it does when only women who are youthful are valued as beautiful. There’s the young, firm, muscular fantasy dude, and the older husband, who is portrayed as balding or grey, wrinkled, oblivious, and unattractive. Humans age, and for some reason, the rules of attractiveness forbid aging. So only the young are hot and virile, and the older men are cast as the comic relief, sexless and bothersome.
But included in that stereotype of men is the stereotype of women, specifically romance readers: that we’re desperate for intimacy so we reach for books instead of people. (And are the readers all white? All of them? Really? Only white women? COME ON NOW.) (No pun intended.)
I may of course be reading too much into this, but I rarely react to things with a severe and immediate, NOPE NO NO NOPE NOPE NOPE. And I hate being the pouty enemy of fun — so I want to be clear: if the videos are making you laugh, that’s cool. If it doesn’t bother you, that’s ok. If you like them, it’s cool.
I know the point isn’t to make fun of readers, but more to make romance readers laugh – a pursuit I usually support wholeheartedly! So it’s not as if I’m mad because I think Harlequin is making fun of me or of readers – I don’t think they are. I think they were trying for an in-joke about readers. I wish I could better articulate why that joke missed me by such a margin.
RHG: I think there’s a confluence of things that make it soooooo off putting. Putting myself in the place of heroine is not how I read, either. I don’t read romance to “Escape” my life (though there are times when I need a soothing book because things are stressful, but that’s not the same). Putting dudes in the roles of either “boring stick-in-the-mud” or shirtless faceless eyecandy is insulting to dudes. And it’s as insulting to dudes as it is when women are put in the same position- it’s just that it happens to women all the time.
Maybe this is how some people enjoy their books, and I don’t want to shit on people for whom this is their experience. But this series of ads is presenting readers as a monolith, and I think that’s what’s awkward about it.
CarrieS: I agree with Sarah and RedHeadedGirl. I think the intent of the ads is clear – they are (I assume) trying to poke a little gentle fun at the genre. For a lot of reasons, I think they missed the mark. I do like the “Doing Laundry” video more than the “Popcorn on the Couch” video, and I think the difference between the videos illustrates how much of a difference small changes can make.
In the couch video, the woman is having a passionate make-out session on the couch with a man who is both speechless and shirtless. One of the things I love about romance is that it appreciates and validates women’s sexual desires, but in this scene the man kissing her is so robbed of any personality or agency that it crosses (an admittedly very fine and completely subjective) line between celebrating the female gaze and demeaning and objectifying men.
Meanwhile, the other man, the woman’s husband, is clueless and totally devoid of charm and attraction. So it’s insulting to the female character, because she’s reading romance to escape her life instead of taking action to change it, and it’s insulting to men because they are reduced to either a walking sex-toy or an emasculated burden.
If I were to evaluate romance based not on my own experience but solely on the video’s depiction of reading romance, I would come away with the impression that romance is an emotional crutch and literary porn. I would not come away with the impression that romance is a fun diversion and I certainly wouldn’t think that romance has a lot to offer in terms of emotion, character, and plot.
I’m not crazy about the second video, but it offends me much less than the first. Both videos close with the line “Escape the everyday.” In the first video, the “everyday” is shown as spending time with the husband. If sitting on the couch with your spouse is something you have to escape, then you have a serious problem. That’s not cute or funny. That’s sad.
In the second video, the husband is sweet and appreciative, and his line “Nice and hot!” is a cute little pun. Moreover, the woman isn’t trying to escape her husband; she’s trying to escape her laundry chores, and frankly we probably all want to escape from our laundry chores. The tone is a little less mean and depressing than the first one, although it still has the core problems with the focus on the sexual content of romance at the expense of any other element — and with the marginalization of men.
Both videos share common problems in that they reinforce an idea of romance novels that many of us have been trying very hard to change. These ads suggest that:
- Romance is porn. The guy is there to sexually service the woman, and there’s no emotion or plot or characterization. What’s important about the reading experience (as depicted in the video) is the vicarious experience of sexual pleasure.
- Romance readers are universally white, middle class, unattractive, sexually frustrated women.
NB: I’m not trying to insult the actresses by suggesting that they are inherently unattractive. I’m just suggesting that the ad attempts to present them as unattractive or at least as un-glamorous, and certainly not as polished as the hero kissing them.
Some of the “humor” is supposed to come from the presumed incongruity of middle-aged regular women experiencing passionate sexual ecstasy, which – you know what? Fuck your ageism and beauty standards and the entire society that says that only young, thin, gorgeous people, male and female, are entitled to enjoy sex without it being a grotesque comedy. Of course the “humor” also comes from the idea that the woman can’t get sexual fulfillment from her husband because he is also aging and imperfect which is so incredibly ageist and insulting that I could just spit.
- The women who read romance do so as a means of escape, not empowerment.
- Romance has nothing to offer a man and is in fact a threat to men.
I think it’s sad that a romance publisher is reinforcing those stereotypes. I suspect that they are trying to poke fun at these same stereotypes, and I know mileage will vary here. A lot of viewers will see this as a cute in-joke – something that takes the stereotypes so far that it subverts them and is hilarious.
For me, personally, both of these ads are misfires, especially the first one.
Amanda: It’s hard to add anything else to the discussion that hasn’t been already pointed out by these awesome ladies.
For me, I don’t think we can have it both ways, and I don’t know if I want it both ways either. As a community and readership, we want to be taken seriously and, until that happens, things like equating romance novels to masturbatory material just makes that job so much harder.
There’s that stereotype still of that romance reader being a “lonely housewife” or a “lonely cat lady.” Somehow lonely is always thrown in because it goes hand in hand with being sexually unfulfilled. My craptastic roommate even asked for romance suggestions because she needed something to soften her “long-distance relationship.” And it makes me sad to see the beauty of our genre boiled down to sex. We’re more than just heaving bosoms.
I get that maybe Harlequin wanted to poke fun at itself. Most videos that go viral or get a lot of views are often cheeky and fun (i.e. Old Spice) and I certainly don’t want to say we can’t poke fun at ourselves. But are people going to laugh with us or at us?
Like that BuzzFeed article from RT, where they had people write down snippets of their best erotica scenes. They didn’t credit the people participating and because of that, it seemed partially like a mockery. While I’m always glad the genre is getting exposure, I may not always agree on how it’s done.
Elyse: I think I was a little less cringey than you guys, but I agree that the videos missed the mark. Maybe I would have liked them more if, instead of just making out with Random Faceless Guy, the women were doing something like navigating a car chase with Romantic Suspense Hero or riding a horse through the English countryside with Regency Hero.
The reason that the ads felt tone deaf to me was that they play on the idea that romance is for sexually frustrated women. The implication of the videos is that the women are reading in order to fantasize about someone other than their “boring” husbands who are oblivious.
For me, the most interesting parts of romance novels are rarely the sex scenes. I don’t read romance to be titillated. I do definitely read to escape though, perhaps more than other readers. Reading is a vacation for me, both for my brain and my body. After working all day, I don’t particularly want to stare at another screen. I’d much rather pick up a book for entertainment. And because I suffer from chronic pain, a lot of the time I use romance novels to distract my mind from the fact that I just hurt. If I’m in Regency England or a Rom Sus car chase I don’t have to be totally present and focused on “ow.”
I think Random Faceless Guy making out with the ladies in the videos also does a disservice to the romance genre because it’s a genre that relies so heavily on character development. Obviously you can’t present a super complex character sketch in a 30 second ad, but romances aren’t about interchangeable hot dudes, no matter what folks who denigrate the genre thing.
So I get the humor in the ads, but I think it plays more on the negative stereotypes of romance readers than anything else which is kind of a bummer.
Sarah: I think what makes me lastingly angry about these videos is that, as Carrie pointed out, they’re mean, and they’re mean about men. When I realized how embarrassed I would be to show these videos to my husband because they are so cruel, that’s when the penny dropped. The joke isn’t entirely at the expense of the romance reader, but it is also at the expense of the husband of that reader.
In a genre that is about relationships, and is read by women who are very often in relationships, as Carrie noted, the idea that our partners are ugly and unattractive as they age and thus we replace them with virile faceless romance heroes is unkind and hurtful and, for me, untrue. I’m pretty used to assumptions about myself, my intellect, my education, my income, and my sex life because I read romance. I’m not used to those assumptions extending to my marriage and my partner. (I still haven’t shown him either of these).
What about you? What do you think of this video series? Did it bother you, or did you think they were funny? Like I said, if you like them, it’s cool. They didn’t work for us, but if they made you laugh, feel free to share why. What’s your take?
Again, its that old taking a few pages of the novel as if that’s all there is, as if we don’t care about characters and an actual plot. I’ve never liked the escapist argument, and for me, it is all about empowerment, so these really make me cringe. I did my masters research on M&B and libraries, and this kind of ad is what the people I spoke to think of an M&B reader as being. Miserable and needing some excitement. So it just makes me feel ick.
I think it’s the implication that if you’re into these books, it’s because you’re missing something elsewhere. I’m sure that’s not what they INTENDED, but putting the hot, intense, passionate action alongside clueless, bland men who barely seem to notice their wives says less “escape with a book!” to me and more “escape, period, because you’re so unsatisfied.”
Thinking of the concept, I keep remembering this old series of commercials. I think it was for a cable company? About parental controls maybe? There’s a woman talking to various generic characters from TV shows and movies (like a mobster who initially denies “recalling anything about Tony” going to “Tell you what, let me give you Tony’s watch to make up for it”), and it’s very lighthearted and deliberately silly (they’re just sitting around in her kitchen, or she runs into them on the stairs) and I can’t help but think something similarly toned with humour, different women, characters, and genres would have gotten the message across better here. Like a woman shopping for groceries and her cart is being pushed by some big, Matrix-looking military hero… a woman lounging on the couch watching a scary movie with some obviously vampiric paranormal hero… stuff like that.
I don’t like these videos. I have the feeling that they reduce female romance readers to sexually frustrated women, even if they are married. We already have problems with public opinion. Why adding grist to their mill?
I was going to post, but then I saw that Kris Bock (Comment 23) said almost everything that I was going to say, only more articulately. I’ll just add one thing — one of the reasons that the couch video falls flat is that the actress looks frightened/annoyed etc. The look on her face isn’t happy. That is automatic NO NOPE NO.
I thought that the laundry one was fine, but like Commenter 23, it would have worked in context of the other aspects of romance novels — because let’s be honest, can be getting some of the hot steamy, no strings attached sexy times.
The videos are cute but they really don’t represent me as a reader. I like to find connections with the characters but I don’t imagine myself the heroine. Similar to Sarah as I fall into the books world it is as if I am an observer. Also I am not an escape reader, I read mainly for enjoyment. If something is going on in my life that I would like to escape from my mind is to focused on that. The problem, for lack of a better word, actually hinders my reading.
Harlequin is struggling in a rapidly changing market. So yes these ads are tone def to the current market. The only white people thing is weird – i am living in Mexico now and am seeing the world more latino…whats up with that? I do think the caricature of the husband is messed up. Occasionally a hot romance does make me hot – and my husband asks as i pounce him “what were you reading” and i laugh. There are built in assumptions about romance. My teenage son sneered at some of the books i read and i asked him about some of the graphic novels, hard core magna and scifi he reads. It just stopped him as he thought about it- standard male fantasies are ok but no romance? And its not only about fantasy – its more about empowerment. Also – speaking of male attitudes toward romance – i think its a uptight US thing – latin culture embraces romance (men and women) like it should be….
I agree with this…because in my mind romance novels ARENT about sex…its so much more than that. And as I was watching these…I didn’t like them too much…too much focus on sex and not much else.
I didn’t laugh, those ads bother me a lot so much so that I hate them
These videos are funny but tacky. I have a few problems with them:
1. They hurt the reputation of romance readers (like we’re all in it for the sex scenes). Most of us won’t like a book if a plot isn’t good.
2. Not all romance readers are middle-aged women who wear JCPenney’s St. John’s Bay clothing and have dorky husbands.
3. A huge chunk of romance readers don’t pretend they are the heroine. We may think the hero is hot, but we also want an interesting heroine.
4. It’s mocking to the small percentage of romance readers who ARE middle-aged, wear St. John’s Bay and have dorky husbands. Like their lives are so pathetic they need to pretend to be the heroines in Harlequin books.
Like I said, the videos are funny, but I hope they aren’t aired on television because they’ll hurt the reputation of romance readers.
I too was put off by these videos. I thought after all I’ve argue with people what romance isn’t this video in 30 seconds negates it. They so reminded me of the 50 Shades of Grey skit that SNL did. Almost identical but less crude.
I for one read romance to enhance my life not escape but to relax and enjoy. I want to see a couple win against all odds. I need that happy ending to remind me love does conquer all. I never replace myself with the heroine but as Sarah said stand witness to the couple’s story. These videos portray romance as mommy porn and makes me not want to buy another HQ book. HQ has always been the genre I could count on not to be too sexy but have an actually story. I sure hope this is not a sign that they are going to try to change that.
They miss the mark for me, because they totally miss what I love so much about romances.
I’m in a long-term (LOOOOOOOONG TERM) relationship. I love everything about my relationship. I don’t have any desire to be with anyone else. But sometimes I do miss that little falling-in-love rollercoaster.
I have friends who deal with this by being polyamorous – that way you get the long-term commitment as well as the hot flush of new love. It doesn’t work for me. I just don’t have the emotional energy for more than one romantic relationship at a time.
However, when I read a romance novel I can experience that falling-in-love feeling vicariously through the main characters, and in far more ways than I could ever experience in real life. There’s no risk to it since I know there’s a happy ending. And since I read on the bus commuting to and from work, it doesn’t take my time away from my partner, who I just love spending time with.
I think my partner is the most awesome thing in the world. I don’t read romances to escape him. I read them in order to be reminded emotionally of those first wild “eeeeeeeeee!” moments where we fell in love.
Ugh. Hit every hot button of mine related to the stereotypes about the romance genre and its readers. I’m more a “hover” reader as Sarah described herself so no matter the ages of the actresses, the scenes just don’t connect with me…not even close. Romance is so much more than sex and out of context, the videos just startle me in an uncomfortable way. They’re not even humorous, especially as it feels as if they’re somehow stepping out on their hubbies, who seem like nice guys.
Although I share the “hover” aspect of engaging with romance novel characters, what engages me particularly, and what the “romance novels are a sexual substitute” approach ignores, is that a hell of a lot of the appeal of engaging characters is their conversation. I can’t recall a romance novel that was conducted entirely in mime (because sign language would also be conversation). The words of the characters are what create the emotional engine that drives the gears of plot.
I am so glad I’m not the only one who was offended by those ads. Someone mentioned being ashamed of her husband seeing the ads. Well, I am the mother of two teenage sons and I was upset about them seeing those ads. For exactly the reasons already expressed in the article. I’ll add to the people who have mentioned other ways the ads could have been done more tastefully, the “Outlander” scenario: Woman walking along reading a book, perhaps on a path through a park, and her clothing morphs as the scenery around her changes to a Scottish Moor and she is joined on her walk by a kilted gentleman.
Also these videos give the idea that romance readers read romance for sex To me a HEA is far more crucial than sex in a romance novel. If the sex is closed door I am okay especially if that is the way that author is known to write. I enjoy a good sex scene but it is no big deal if it isn’t there. However if a romance novel ends unhappily- ever-after that will make me ranty.
The phrase “Whatever You’re Into” is very inclusive but these videos have made Harlequin’s use of it seem very narrow and that is unfortunate.
To J.L.: I chose not to show those videos to my husband whom I love, who is beautiful (according to me and a lot of people LOL), who is nice, supportive, respectful and who has also a lot of humor. That’s why I never read romances and figure I could be the heroine.
And I don’t want my children to see these videos either.
Coco’s comment (no.16) encapsulates my reaction. I find these video beyond vile and don’t have a single kind or understanding thing to say about them. They have just put books published by Harlequin on my auto-don’t-buy-list for the forseeable future. (Yes, I am a Harlequin reader, mainly HP and HH.)
Nope, no way. To so badly miss so many important facets of romance–relationships, connections, emotion–makes these videos seem as if they were produced by the ANTI-romance faction. I don’t like what they say about any of us.
[…] marketing videos seem to have missed their mark. Sarah and crew from Smart Bitches Trashy Books offered thoughtful and considered opinions on just why this campaign doesn’t seem to be having the intended […]
As a black, unmarried reader, who grew up on Mills & Boons/Harlequin novels, the visuals alone gave me nothing to relate to. If I wasn’t sure that I *do* read books published by Harlequin today, like Carina, I’d avoid them.
I think my problem is that BOTH of them reduce reading to porn and escapism for housewives. If I saw a commercial for fantasy books and it was an “epic” battle where a handsome knight rushes in to save the damsel and spouts sexist, narrow-minded drivel at the villain then cut to an overweight man in his thirties in his basement I wouldn’t say it was “poking fun.” I would say it was offensive. Poking fun would be making fun of things romance readers ACTUALLY DO. Yelling at the book, cheering the badass blind illegitimate heroine out loud in the library, talking incredibly candidly about sex scenes and making other women/men uncomfortable, arguing over historical errors, jokes about how small towns always have cutsy names (“You’re from Butter, Ohio? I’m from Bread, Kentucky!”), the sheer amount of dukes, earls, and princes, the tropes in novels, marines holding puppies…
Poking fun at fantasy respectfully would be a commercial that made fantasy LOOK FREAKING COOL! Fans who forge their own swords and then try to casually use them as letter openers because what else do you do with a sword?, showing people arguing over a tiny continuity error and declaring a thumb war, having a female knight show up and kick ass in the book and then show a bunch of loser sexist “keep girls out of it” readers pout while the sensible ones hold the books and look satisfied. A wizard frantically flipping through the book and breaking the fourth wall because “Even the author can’t keep up with all these weird names! How do you spell Kazathrakamictu again? Is that two ks or one?” “Cast the spell, man! They’re at the gates!”
For me I read books of all genres for the heroes who give you the courage to face the trying times in your life, a place to escape when the people around you are cruel, a place to question and control everything that’s wrong in the world and get the message across that even if the world is wrong and life is difficult the inherit goodness of people cannot be destroyed, not by evil aliens, not by cancer, not by corrupting rings of power, governments, or war. Marines with puppies too, though. Why can’t those be in the commercials too?
Where’s the mom of two reading westerns while getting chemotherapy and scaring the nurses with her shrieks of laughter? Where’s the college boy trying to use cheesy pick up lines from his favorite small town series only to find that she reads them too? The business woman who kicks her heels up and reads them in full view of her underlings because she’ll read what she likes on her lunch break and still be the boss. At no point will a man strut in and imply that she reads them because she “just wants a traditional man to take control.”
The videos didn’t really bother me. The potential lost did though. They felt too much like those commercials a while back about how you could pause your show and go watch it in another room or on your device. Boring.
I don’t care for them. But at the risk of sounding a little too precious, I’m going to say I’m tired of all the crazy book covers too. You’d think, from some of the covers out there when you scan Amazon romances, that all we DID care about was a faceless man with a beefy chest, six pack abs, or a sculpted back. Some of the pics from romance conferences show attendees (readers and/or writers) going gaga over the models for these covers.
So I don’t think It’s any wonder that Harlequin made the damned ads.
I can’t see these videos, because I have safety mode enabled as part of my effort to protect grand-daughters and grand-sons from a range of ghastly images, including what seem to be much worse marketing ploys than these two spoofs.
However, I’ve read all the comments because the level of vehemence is intriguing.
I am drawn to the comments by Heather@18. She says it calmly and comprehensively.
Much of current romance (HR and contemporary) is now peppered with descriptions of sex that is, in my view, tedious, repetitive, unromantic and even pornographic – with its concentration on obsessiveness, subjugation and body parts. I dislike it, wish the objectification would disappear, but understand it must be what sells. Character development and story lines continue to diminish in importance in romance land, to be replaced by a litany of sex scenes. I’m confident that comparative analysis would prove this. Why flinch from that?
I read romance to manage insomnia, escape stress, pain, depression and the many responsible tasks I should be doing. Why would I apologise? I am well aware that, instead of reading, I could be spending those hours doing something more productive, selfless, romantic etc. In other words, “doing” instead of reading about other people’s lives. So what? Why would anyone be annoyed that I read to escape? None of my peers who share my love of poetry care when I mention I read it to “escape”.
I’m also not the slightest bit interested in doing what I can to have romance writing be treated “seriously”. Why bother? If a book is good enough – like a Kinsale or Brant etc – it requires no defence for its readers.
Fascinating discussion. I also had the immediate squick reaction, for many of the reasons already stated. Although I’m personally all for sexytimes in romance novels. But there it’s supposed to actually be sexy, and these encounters are sexless. Women swooning over faceless nameless obviously unconnected men. It was all so terribly un-sexy, besides being ageist, racist, mean-spirited, retrograde and oh so stereotypical.
Total fail, Harlequin!
I’m reading this on my laptop while sitting on the sofa. My husband is sitting in his recliner. There is a baseball game on the television. I find baseball boring. I write/read romance and other kinds of fiction to escape baseball, not my husband, which I think, is the idea of the ad. The problem though, is that romance is not all about sex, or even escape. Reading fiction of all kinds enhances our experience of life. It can make us more connected to our spouses/partners not less. There is nothing wrong with needing something to get you in the mood though, if that’s what you’re after. Reading serves many purposes. What bothered me about the ads is the stereotype of middle aged men and women. In particular, I hate the idea of the bald guy as sexually unattractive. Bald is not a personality, it’s simply a lack of hair. Yes, my husband is bald. So are several other attractive men that I know. Enjoyed the article.
Ugh, those adds. Harlequin, way to confirm everyone’s prejudices about what you publish. And fuck you for implying that reading romance novels means I am in any way cheating on my partner. I have been gunning through romance novels lately, as well as rereading the Phryne Fisher books, in order this time. And part of the reason for that is because things are a bit rough right now as my partner is struggling with major depression and anxiety and panic disorder. I love my partner and I know that she will beat this, but in the meantime things are a bit fraught. And books that end in happy ever after are an excellent medicine and a way to give my brain a respite.
I would have loved ads that included the partner in the story. A woman reading about a cowboy love story in pastels and surround sound, eyeing her husband, and then her and her husband at a dude ranch with the same music.
A woman sitting at her partner’s hospital bed late at night, reading to keep herself from worrying, and then the both of them after the partner has recovered, somewhere inspired by the romance novel.
I am also reminded of what Beverly Jenkins said in your interview with her for the podcast, that sometimes she got letters from men telling her how her novels had improved their marriage as their wives had become ‘amenable’ to certain things.
I suppose as others have said they are trying to appeal to the 50 Shades crowd, but I found the implications of these videos insulting and misogynist. A guy reading a Tom Clancy novel would never be depicted as cheating on his wife by reading a spy novel.
Also agree with what everyone said about romance being about so much more than sex!!!
I am side-eyeing Harlequin. The whole thing makes me tetchy.
I wish I had snapped a photo of the face I made while watching these. Needless to say, it was something along the lines of ‘Uuuugh’.
I can’t really add anything else to the discussion, except to say that the person who called these ‘stereotyping and patronizing’ hit the nail on the head. These reinforce my annoyance over the whole ‘mommy p0rn’ label/stereotype.
While romance is so much more than sex, if you’re going to produce a marketing tool that focuses on that aspect of reading romances, why would you choose such passive stereotypical images to get that across? Why is the woman the recipient of the advance rather than the initiator? Why not include a few moments of dialogue, a tease of seduction where the woman strokes a shoulder, a cheek, or takes a kiss?
The videos were stupid, and whatever books those ladies were reading were probably some of Harlequins less memorable stories.
I thought I was the only person who hate these video promos. It’s insulting to me as a romance reader of color because a) no where am I represented and b) the reader is desperate for sex in the novel which is NOT the total case for romance reader. Harlequin should pull these asinine promos and begin anew. They’ve fallen into every stereotypes about romance novels and pushed the genre back at least twenty years.
I found them to be a little disconcerting. My first thought was I don’t feel like that when I read romance novels. I read like I am looking at their lives. I don’t want to be the heroine. When I find my life boring I don’t pick a book I make a list of things I would like to change. I do think they played into the “your average, your husband’s average, your life is average so read a romance to make it better” stereotype. But I do use it as an escape when my kids what to watch their Spongebob marathons. I didn’t mind the random hot shirtless “romance hero” because 9 out 10 of the covers in the books I own are that; random shirtless hot guy. Most are some faceless dude standing there with his shirt off. I don’t like the ageism. Young people do read. I’m a middle aged woman who reads romance but I started when I was 10 or 11. My daughter started when she was 14 or 15 and she is 18 now.
The race thing I totally missed. I’m black and I’m use to seeing white woman being everything so a white actress portraying a romance reader has no significance to me.
I actually would have preferred to see the husbands/boyfriends/etc. being more present. For example, the military guy making out with the woman and the young virile man transforming into her husband in military uniform. Now he’s the man she loves instead of a faceless man and she’s getting some fantastic romance right there. Almost more about romance novels being a gateway instead of an escape. Women and men using what they find there to flavor their own relationships. The billionaire trope could then morph to the boyfriend/girlfriend sharing a romantic evening out instead of a penthouse meal. More of a “Find the romance in your everyday life” sort of way. It bums me out when it makes life seem boring without a Harlequin romance in hand. I’d rather see them use it to enhance life instead of escapism.
I saw the laundry video only before I read this and it really didn’t bother me, but I also didn’t really like it. I think there are two main problems with the videos (besides a lot of the stuff that everyone has already mentioned about being mean to guys, etc.). I think they imply a bit that reading romance is equivalent to cheating in a way. “Your husband doesn’t know that in your mind you are making out with Hot Sailor Guy”. I also think they don’t work because if you switched the genders around, it would be hella creepy, which then to me makes it hella creepy anyway. Think about an ad that shows a “normal” guy who suddenly is making out with a super sexy woman with his wife right beside him. Everyone would be up in arms about it.
I think there is a way to make these ads in a better way. A woman imagining herself in a gorgeous dress, waltzing in a ballroom, but actually she is mowing the grass or something…that would be fun and actually a lot closer to the parts of romance novels that I actually wish I was in.
Late to the party, as per usual. I pretty much agree with the SBs regarding these videos, though they didn’t actually enrage me. The videos just seem boring to me. Because stereotypes are boring as well as offensive.
Also the logic of perpetuating stereotypes in promotional material escapes me. If your target audience is romance readers, you might get a mild chuckle or two at best, or, alternatively, piss off your customer base. If your target is to entice new readers, there’s no way these are going to do it. Either the non-romance reader will default to I knew those things sucked or will simply refuse to identify with the extremely annoying caricatures in these videos.
Audible has some ads running on Pandora lately that do this so much better. All of them involve people listening to books, identifying with characters and becoming so absorbed that they lose track of what they’re doing. The ads are silly, but have no meanness. Also, these ads are divided between male and female narrators which makes a huge difference. I don’t mind the narrator whose obsession with some Scot’s kilt makes her forget her frittata if she’s balanced by the carpooling
dad who almost misses his turn because he’s distracted by the Great White Whale. These ads I could enjoy because I totally get sucked out of reality when I read. Laughing at the ads is a kind way laugh at myself. Unfortunately, there’s nothing very kind about the Harlequin videos.
I didn’t care for either of them, but I also found the laundry one slightly less disturbing. I think the cheating aspect is what bothers me the most. And while I enjoy a well-written steamy scene, I think the biggest draw for me in the genre is the promise of a happy ending (sexual pun aside). I realize life is often shitty and I can appreciate complex stories with flawed, emotionally damaged characters that don’t resolve with a shiny, red bow at the end, but the escape from reality I’m most often looking for is just an escape from uncertainty. Let’s see the video of the corporate woman stressed and uncertain about her upcoming presentation, hiding under her desk at lunch to read about evading pirates, finding treasure, and forcibly hooking some curmudgeon captain for a good smooch. Flash back to reality where she gets up straightens her suit and marches in fired-up for some real-life swashbuckling. That’s an ad campaign that I could identify with.
What I find so interesting about this discussion is how many romance readers are turned off by these ads. I couldn’t help but wonder if they aren’t for us. Maybe they are trying to market these to non-romance readers for converts? I know I’m stretching it but we’re just as likely to buy Harlequin now as we were before the ads so it would seem not geared to us.
The whole campaign sort of screams “Identify with this woman!” and we’re not. I think that represents a fundamental misunderstanding. If the market you do want buying books does not identify with what you are doing, then that is a questionable ad. It was doomed to failure to begin with since none of us are jumping on them excitedly.
I think most of us want an ad sort of grounded in reality. We want to identify with the woman in the ad. So most people seem to be suggesting ads where the woman takes an escape through the book and then looks up and she’s more confident, satisfied, or ready to button (or unbutton) her horny pants and jump on her guy (or girl). The escape is entertaining and empowering instead of making the woman glance up from the military man to see her “real life”. That’s just depressing and not the way to sell romance to non-romance readers.
Reading your last words on the post Sarah, it occurred to me that weird right wing fundamentalist Christian dudes such as Rick Santorum could re-title the ads “Do you know what your wife is doing?” Ick and wrong of course, but it’s what I’ve come to expect from the far right fundies. Getting this from Harlequin, who is supposed to be on our side? Well, that’s harder to take.