A number of romance series have come out recently using a small town as the location. I consider this an interesting phenomenon.Studies have found that people are more trusting in homogeneous environments. Unfortunately, history has also found that homogeneous, stagnating environments are more susceptible to nasty stuff like long-term grudges and witch trials (Shyamalan's Village is massively problematic).
What is interesting about these current small town romance series is that they combine modern and progressive beliefs with all the positive markers of small town homogeneity and neighborly affection.
So, for instance, May Archer's O'Leary series--which I quite like since it takes place in upstate New York--is filled to the brim with gay couples and lesbian couples and non-binary individuals and traditional couples...young, old, with kids, etc. etc. etc. Everybody knows everyone's business. People help out in a pinch. All town citizens attend the multiple festivities. It's Amishness without all those pesky things like religious leaders and taboos.
I have mixed feelings about these series. On the one hand, I quite like the social contract business. I find many of these novels charming and often, quite funny. I also appreciate that such romances concentrate on the couple/relationship. External challenges take the form of letting people in on the "secret." Otherwise, the couple focuses on "solving" each other.
On the other hand, I sometimes feel--as when I was reading one of the Vale Valley novels--that so much utopia is not exactly realistic.
Yes, yes, I know that romances are part-fantasy. But not entirely. Real life is, in fact, filled with people getting over loss, finding true love, standing up against the odds, locating their bliss. It isn't so much that I want characters to suffer (although the writer part of me would argue that sometimes they need to) but rather that the true romantic in me wants to see romance thrive even in unlikely environments.
Stack all the cards in Romeo and Juliet's favor, it's not just that there is no plot. Rather--Okay, bad example. I don't really care about Romeo and Juliet.
Stack all the cards in Jane and Rochester's favor, and Jane might as well be Blanche Ingram. And who cares if Rochester marries Blanche Ingram?
Love in an imperfect world is what makes romance romance. Love in a perfect world is sweet but a little less engaging.
Generally, I switch between perfect small-town romances where people find "home" and utter security (think Anne of Green Gables) and city or urban romances where people have to find their feet among strangers. Both sides of my romance soul get satisfied--and I roll my eyes a bit less.
