 |
|
The Gabbers  Amanda"I read anything that holds my attention past the first 100 pages, primarily genre fiction of all types, ’serious’ literature, classics and travelogues." read more...
|
Romance Matters
« Sing Out, Louise! | Home | Anticipation - is making me wait »  “Romance is just entertainment.” We’ve all heard – and perhaps even said – some version of one or all of these comments. Depending on who says them, and the context, responses can range from amused agreement to enraged rebuttal. But regardless who makes the comments, and the context, I think they all imply the same thing: that as a genre, Romance doesn’t matter – that it’s not important, weighty, serious, literary, lasting, relevant, etc. That implication frustrates me more than any one of the statements, because even if every single one of them were true, the implication isn’t. Romance as a genre does matter, and here’s why. At its best, Romance is about “capital L” Love – it’s about how a couple battles societal expectations for it, how justice is served to those who try to thwart it, how faith in its ideal is rewarded, and how it makes every kind of relationship thrive. At its worst, Romance is about Love, too. Because the genre is much bigger than a handful, or even a library full, of books. And the genre matters. Each year, more than 2000 books are published that tell the story of how important Love is. Its core elements appear in every other literary genre and artistic medium, as well. Genre Romance maps the highs of passionate bliss and the lows of tragic loss. It chronicles some of the most urgent and perennial themes of our shared history and one of the most basic elements of the human condition: desire. Were it not for desire, the genre of Romance would not exist. That need to feel close to other people, to want and be wanted, to love and be loved, and to extend emotional bonds beyond romantic love to children, extended family, friends, and other members of a community all drive the genre. The amorously engaged couple might be at the center of the genre’s definition, but the love match is significant because it is celebrated – by authors, by readers, by fictional characters within the novels — as wise and right and immortal in some way. Good marriages ideally mean good societies, in which fairness, wisdom, justice, and prosperity prevail. To have a genre that is largely written and read by women is not, in and of itself, indicative of the genre’s relevance, but the fact that it contemplates the happiness of women as a good thing is. That, in my opinion, is rather monumental, especially when accompanied by the portrayal of female sexual desire as normal and healthy. There are many reasons I believe Romance is academically important, as well, reasons that have to do with the role of popular fiction in any given historical moment and the cultural assumptions at work in the genre. At some level Romance contemplates the socialization of gender and sexuality, even as it appeals to some transcendent notion of unconditional love. Of course these aspects of the genre’s relevance are discernable now, but they become seasoned over time and are often clearest in retrospect. I’m not primarily concerned with that level of analysis here, though, because this small manifesto is not about studying Romance; it’s simply about remembering why I was drawn to the genre in the first place. I’ve needed a few reminders lately, too, what with some of the ugliness online and the uneven luck I’ve had with books. While I understand that individual books in the genre don’t have to be “good” to make the genre matter, I wish more of them were ‘knock your socks off’ great. I still crave the feeling I get when the emotional intensity of a smart, beautifully written, tightly crafted book engages my own passions and makes me slavishly follow every twist and turn in the story. Some people say genre fiction is plot driven, while others argue that Romance is all about the characters, but I think it’s both. Without characters I care about, the Love story seems but a weak imitation of the real thing. But without a compelling story for those characters to tell, their journey just does not seem worth taking. That doesn’t mean I need a lot of action or intricate plotting to be satisfied; it simply means that I need a solid marriage of character and context to make my own shift into the world of the book complete. And if the lovers are to share a great passion, I want the storytelling to share that passion and communicate it through the unique voice of an author who feels inspired and compelled to share her vision. These days, I still get that wonderful sense of connection to certain books, but not as often as I’d like. Sometimes that has to do with me – because I’m distracted or restless or not fully committed to giving over my attention to reading. But sometimes it’s about the books – through lack of editing, hackneyed language, inconsistent characterizations, and/or uninspired (and uninspiring) stories. I have moments when I’m downright embarrassed at what’s being published, both in ebook and print form. And at times I get frustrated by what I see as negative messages in different books, like the one with the heroine who inexplicably decides she’d rather follow her highland lover into the past rather than her lifelong passion for medicine into the future. Or the one with the hero who thinks it’s okay to mentally imprison the heroine so she won’t leave him. But even those difficulties are part of what makes the genre meaningful, because they reflect the varied images of women in the genre, the different facets of the lives of these characters, and the strong emotions the books engender. Even when the books disappoint me and piss me off, I eagerly await the next offering of a favorite author or the possibility of a newly discovered treasure in a batch of untried genre voices. Thus far, my optimism in the great books the genre still has to offer holds. But even if it doesn’t, even if bad timing and disappointment and trends I don’t understand get the best of my expectations, I still know the genre is important. Good books, bad books, trash, or treasure: Romance matters. This entry was posted by Robin on Monday, July 2nd, 2007 at 6:00 am. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. 14 Responses to “Romance Matters”Leave a Comment |
Copyright  This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. |
_sm.gif)
July 2nd, 2007 at 11:10 am
Thank you, Robin. That was a very well reasoned and well written essay on much of why I was and still am drawn to Capital R Romance.
July 2nd, 2007 at 3:15 pm
In light of the article at Atlanta Journal Constitution, this is a much needed look at the good part of romance. It’s easy to focus on the negative, but there is a reason, beyond that it is soft core porn, that so many people are drawn to read it.
July 2nd, 2007 at 6:45 pm
I really appreciate the way you boil it all done to a simple word - why romance is so special. It’s about LOVE. There are as many different ways to describe the stories as there are books but they are all really about the same thing - no matter what different routes they take.
That’s what makes those special books so memorable. The author has managed to make us believe two fictional characters and that after all the struggles they go through, in the end it’s their love for each other that remains strong.
It’s not about the sex - although that can be an added bonus. It’s not about the paranormal aspects, although that can cause our imaginations to take flight. It’s not about the suspense, although that can help keep our heart in our throats. And it’s not about the interesting historical facts we can pick up along the way, although that can help us at the oddest times. But it’s the enduring promise of love that keeps us coming back - book after book. And that to me is a very fine thing
July 2nd, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Fascinating post, especially in light of Laura’s speculation about romance being denigrated for its optimistic perspective on the world, precisely for its conviction that Love matters and is real. Thank you.
July 3rd, 2007 at 6:52 am
I think the biggest misconception about romances is that they are just about helpless, dependent women being swept off their feet by overpowering, rich men, and while that might have been how romances were 20-30 years ago, a lot has changed. I agree with Kristie - romance are about the love, and overcoming obstacles, and not settling for the first guy who pays you attention just because you’re afraid to be alone. My favorite romances are the ones where the heroine isn’t afraid to be by herself, yet is also strong enough to open her heart and love someone worthy of her. I’m not talking Cinderella and Prince Charming here, but rather two people who are perfect for each other, flaws and all.
I also think romances allow many women to embrace their sexuality, their fantasies, and not feel like there is something wrong with them or something to be ashamed of. Having that in a sold, loving relationship just strengthens my belief in the power of romances and the good that they do. Let the naysayers whine and call these books fluff - they have no clue what they are missing, and that’s a shame.
July 3rd, 2007 at 8:33 am
Ultimately love is what everyone craves and this is why at it’s best the romance genre can’t be beat. It’s not sappy or predictable or unrealisitic it’s what each of us want in our own lives on a daily basis.
These days, I still get that wonderful sense of connection to certain books, but not as often as I’d like. I think most of us fall into this category. The market is glutted with books and most fall short and yet when we find that one that works–perfection.
July 5th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
What a wonderful essay, Robin. Thank you for writing it.
July 5th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Suisan: I’m usually not much of a rah rah cheerleader type, but even I needed the reminder of why I read and BUY so many books in the genre, especially given my disappointment in so many of them.
Jane: Thanks for the mention of the AJC article. I hadn’t seen it. So on the one hand we have the argument that Romance novels are powerful but bad, and on the other we have the argument that Romance novels are silly but it’s good that women are reading. GAH!
Kristie: It’s so funny you should point out all the sub genres, because as much as I appreciate and crave diversity and hybridity in the genre, I also think the Love aspect of many books is being shortchanged for other things. I don’t think that the central focus on love requires a claustrophobic focus on just the couple, but what I enjoy about Romance is the DEVELOPMENT of love, and that’s what seems to be disappearing.
Sarah: Thanks for pointing me to Laura’s piece. I haven’t responded yet because I need to think some about her argument there about the optimism. What does strike me, though, is that as often as not, it’s WOMEN who are doing the degrading. Internalization of patriarchy? How about tacky marketing?
Stacy: When I read Lisa Chach’s Dream of Me, I was so taken by the overt theme of “sexual healing” for lack of a better phrase — the articulated contemplation of sex and sexuality as a good thing, and the need for women to embrace and appreciate their own sexuality (and for men to appreciate female sexuality, as well, and to RESPECT it). I think it’s SUCH an important aspect of the genre.
Tara Marie: If I didn’t read outside the genre, I don’t know what I’d do, because so much of what’s being published under the Romance label these days fails to satisfy. Some of it feels downright lazy. I hate saying that, but that’s the only word I can come up with that really fits my response.
July 5th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Janine: Thanks!
July 12th, 2007 at 12:59 am
That doesn’t mean I need a lot of action or intricate plotting to be satisfied; it simply means that I need a solid marriage of character and context to make my own shift into the world of the book complete.
This is the mix (or one mix) that gives me that “high” of finding a wonderful book. Nicely put.
remembering why I was drawn to the genre in the first place
I too love the genre but am often disappointed in it. I have to search my conscience when I see comments like Nora
Roberts’ on Smart Bitches:
There are going to be those who say they love the genre but want it to be something just a little different–without valuing what it is. A celebration of love, of emotion, of the power of finding a lifemate, and the hope that everyone can.
Is that me? Am I only critical, not a fan? But no, I do love the genre. I am a fan. I have been for 20 years, and though I now laugh at some of my teenage taste in reading, I find new types of romance that suit me today, and I still understand what drew me to those older romances as a teen. (And some of those books are better than I remembered!)
But I am often disappointed - and a lot of that’s because of my own high expectations. The “high” from a really great book sets up such dissatisfaction when I don’t find it in the next book.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:53 am
RfP: I don’t think Nora Roberts meant to imply at all that critical readers aren’t genre fans. But like many readers, she has a definite sense of what the genre is — and isn’t. That doesn’t mean she’s narrow in her views, just clear about how she defines the genre — at least in what she’s said on DA and SBTB about genre definitions.
I tend to welcome a pushing of the boundaries, believing that the genre definition — even the industry definition of the RWA that most people seem to use — is sufficiently broad to allow for an ending less than the HEA. Many Romance readers, however, believe a Romance must have a HEA ending to be a “true” Romance. Do I want the genre to be something different than it is? My first question is, “What is it?” As I said in response to Roberts’s comment, I tend to enjoy these boundary/definition questions because IMO they keep all of us honest about our own limitations as readers — the places where any of us are projecting our own expectations onto the genre, whether that’s in a narrower sense or a broader sense. Outside of a couple of core elements — central love story and optimistic ending — what the genre “is” becomes, IMO, a question of preference, of value, of taste, of desire, of opinion, etc.
Truly, I do understand why some authors and readers might feel that “their genre” is being threatened by readers who critique different aspects of the genre. I know I’ve been guilty of overgeneralization in my own views of the genre, especially when it comes to things that bother me, and it’s something I have to watch in myself. At the same time, though, I think stagnation is always a danger, so I tend to think that it’s ALWAYS a good thing to discuss and debate the limits and the characteristics of the genre, because I think it allows us to discover the diversity that exists within the Romance community, diversity that’s belied by some of the statistical information we’ve been led to believe defines genre readers, for example. Not that such information doesn’t have some value — but is it inclusive, is it conclusive, what’s the methodology, etc.? How are ebook readers, authors, and publishers represented? Is the online community well-reflected, blah, blah, blah. If the online reader community makes one point clear, IMO it’s that Romance readers are incredibly diverse and engaged in the genre at multiple levels (as readers, as critics, as reviewers, etc.).
One thing I do wonder, though, is whether there might be a difference in orientation between readers who are native Romance readers — those for whom the genre constitutes the overwhelming majority of their reading — and those who are part-time Romance readers — not casual Romance readers, but readers who spread their reading attention around different genres and types of books. Does that difference matter, and if so, how? I suspect that it does, but I can’t draw any general conclusions.
Anyway, back to your point, I don’t think we should feel ashamed at our intermittent disappointment in the genre. Do I believe there’s a point where one’s disappointment can become bitterness and inability to judge the genre fairly? Sure. But at that point I think one ultimately opts out of the genre — IMO only a masochist reads books over and over that they hate. Wouldn’t it be easy if that were the case? But it’s the books that ARE wonderful that make the disappointments more poignant, isn’t it?
July 12th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
I didn’t take Nora Roberts to be dissing criticism. She does have a specific view of “Romance” that I don’t entirely agree with. (I think some of the conventions that readers become wedded to originate with the romance industry, and can limit the stories that can be told in romance as a body of literature.) However, I think it’s good to occasionally stop and reevaluate whether I’m being more critical than affectionate toward the genre.
Above, I mentioned high expectations as one reason for my disappointment. Another reason is the wish for freshness. When romance starts to feel stale for me, I think part of it’s the books that are out there, but part of it’s simply that I need a break. As a reader, I have to be cognizant of when I’ve fallen into a rut and am starting to find fault with books out of avoidable boredom.
I take breaks from favorite authors, and enjoy them all the more for it. I also take breaks from writing styles, similar plots, even whole genres. When I see recommendations like “If you liked book X you might enjoy book Y”, I make a note to avoid Y - at least until I’ve read some contrasting books in between.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
I didn’t take Nora Roberts to be dissing criticism. She does have a specific view of “Romance” that I don’t entirely agree with. (I think some of the conventions that readers become wedded to originate with the romance industry, and can limit the stories that can be told in romance as a body of literature.) However, I think it’s good to occasionally stop and reevaluate whether I’m being more critical than affectionate toward the genre.
Well, it’s no secret that Nora Roberts and I disagree on a lot of things, including the definition of Romance (what I can’t tell is whether I’m in the minority for disagreeing with her or for articulating that disagreement). And I’ve expressed on numerous occasions exactly the anxiety you do here about the Romance industry v. the Romance genre. More and more I think the two are being conflated without people even realizing that it’s happening. And I think part of the reason has to do with the way the RWA acts as proxy and the extent to which they seem to be the only game in town — at least as many authors see them. The organization says it’s all about “professional writers,” but then it also acts as genre and industry advocate (note the stats you used on your blog) and as an intermediary between authors and publishers and as a service provider for aspiring authors and as a networking organization and as bestower of the RITA, etc. Now, for example, with the newly announced “standards” regarding epubs, we’re seeing again the tensions around the multiple roles the RWA seems to claim. On one level it’s fascinating to watch and on another level it concerns me as a reader — in so far as I wonder to what extent the RWA helps shape the genre and the industry.
That said, I definitely agree with you about needing to reflect and take breaks from the genre. Right now I’m feeling very intolerant toward Romances I haven’t read before, even from favorite authors. So I’ve turned away from them until I feel that craving return, which it always does.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
I wonder to what extent the RWA helps shape the genre and the industry.
Whenever you have a single organization effectively defining the playing field, that question gets interesting. The simplest diagnostic is the question, “What is romance?” It’s not the answer that matters so much as the way people approach answering.
In a “squishy” area like literature, it shouldn’t be easy to answer. If a lot of people agree on the same strict, easily determined definition then they’ve internalized at least some part of it from the organization. That doesn’t mean they disagree and the organization’s forcing it on them; in fact they may wholeheartedly agree with it. But to find it so well articulated, and so consistently, indicates a strong homogenizing influence. Now, how much of that’s RWA and how much is the internet….