Women's Genre Fiction: or, Yes, I read romance novels!

The most despised branch of the publishing industry is also the one that sells the most books. The romance divisions of many publishers help to subsidize the publication of "serious" literature that will only sell a few thousand copies. Why are romance novels so ridiculed? Here are some of the most common calumnies: "They are poorly written and formulaic." In answer to this I can only say: have you read a book by John Grisham lately? I have read a good number of romances, and I can honestly say that most are no more poorly written than the average thriller, mystery, or science fiction novel. Genre fiction is by nature formulaic to some degree. I will admit, however, that romance publishers (especially of "series" novels) hold authors to a more strict degree of conformity than they should. Probably it is out of a misguided belief that readers will not remain loyal to an author unless they keep getting more of the same. "They are pornographic." This is simply an inaccurate generalization. Yes, some romance novels (by no means all) have explicit sex scenes in them, but so does much other fiction, not to mention other forms of popular entertainment (TV and movies), and they are not castigated as porn. "They encourage sexist stereotypes." Ah yes, the bodice ripper. It is true that in the 1970's, when romances with (relatively) explicit sex first became wildly popular, some of the books included rape fantasies. For a while, the (male) publishers insisted that such scenes continue to be included, on the theory that a successful formula should not be changed. But women were not reading the books for the rape scenes. In fact, many readers were "turned off" by subsequent books and made their wishes known to authors. Eventually rape scenes became quite rare, as romance authors kept in tune with the zeitgeist. But the damage was done as far as the reputation of the genre. Some feminist critics have derided the reading of romance novels because they are fantasy fulfillments that distract women from the struggle for equality in real life. This is elitist bunk. These women work hard all day. Why shouldn't they be able to indulge in an escapist fantasy once in a while? Furthermore, they are perfectly aware (probably more so than many academics) of the difference between fantasy and reality. This brings me to what I think is the real question. Just why is it that the only genre of literature written (mostly) by and for women, to satisfy women's desires and fantasies, is widely considered lowbrow trash? Why is it that, unlike other genre fiction, romances are ignored by most book reviewers and not included on some best-seller lists? Could it be that, as woman-oriented fiction, they are simply less respected and valued? I define romance as a popular genre of fiction that deals with the development of a relationship between a man and woman (I don't know of any lesbian romance novels but there's no reason they could not exist) and has a happy ending. Notice that my definition would include Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility, Persuasion, etc. In fact, these are among the favorite novels of most romance readers. Why do readers demand a happy ending? Well, why does Shakespeare end so many of his Comedies with a wedding? It's for the same reason. Romance readers will accept an ambiguous or even a sad ending in certain cases, if the story is satisfying enough to support it. Gone with the Wind is a classic case. Recommended reading: Dangerous Men & Adventurous Women : Romance Writers on the Appeal of the Romance (New Cultural Studies) ed. Jayne Ann Krentz (1992). Here, the authors themselves take on some of the myths about romance novels. Who are my favorite romance authors? Hands down the winner is Georgette Heyer, who wrote frothy, light comedies set in the Georgian and Regency periods. She also wrote mysteries. A more recent favorite is Diana Gabaldon, whose book Outlander is a good example of what can be achieved in the romance genre when the editors loosen the conventions a bit. This is a very well-researched historical fantasy in which a modern, educated woman travels back in time to eighteenth-century Scotland. Gabaldon plays with many romance conventions: for example, Claire is no virginal maiden but already married when she makes her trip backward in time and meets the love of her life. Again, the male love interest turns out to be several years younger than she is. Enjoy!