Because this post needs to be re-posted regularly!
I came across this older (2011) post recently, and I realized that romance novels are still considered rather déclassé, even among supposedly "geeky" readers. That is, I have heard graphic novel/sci-fi/ fantasy readers state emphatically--in tones of disgust as if they were being personally attacked and offended--"I don't read romance."
And I once entered a local bookstore that sold mostly genre literature where the cashier and her friend loudly disparaged romances while I was wandering through the romance stacks. I put this down to bad capitalism (why would they offend a potential customer? I mean, that's just financially irresponsible).
I discuss romances in my tribute to Pamela by Samuel Richardson, which tribute also discusses and spoofs literary trends.
* * *
“I review romance novels,” said Deborah [Walsh]. Gary [Professor Just-Call-Me-Gary] and Dr. Matchel looked pained, but the judge set down a folder and said, “Really? Would you call this novel a romance?” “Sort of,” Deborah said. “It’s really more a polemic about education and servants and stuff. But it has a lot of the same material you’d find in a romance novel.” “Such as?” Dr. Matchel objected: “A discussion of romance novels is hardly appropriate.” “We are looking for established literary customs,” the judge said briskly. “What are the romantic components in Pamela, Miss Walsh?”“In traditional romance? There’s a heroine, first of all, and she’s good—you know, virtuous. And there’s a hero, and he’s a rake. And he pursues her and sometimes gets her into bed, but he always backs off when she says no, and then they reconcile, and then they marry.” Dr. Matchel cried, “These romance novels have done more to undermine women’s rights than any other type of literature.” “Oh, that’s old-school,” Deborah said. “Like people who think women should only have supported Hillary in 2008.” The judge said, “Do other eighteenth-century novels share these components?” “No!” Dr. Matchel said. “They are insightful and erudite pieces of literature in which progressive ideologies are buried!” But Leslie Quinn said, “Yes. Novels for the middle-class. Broadsheets. The romantic romance isn’t new. Everyone likes a juicy story.” The judge glanced at Mr. B who looked rather shell-shocked. The judge couldn’t blame him. Mr. B was being depicted as either a lecher or a champion. Personally, the judge thought both roles would prove uncomfortable.
Dr. Matchel and Gary's shock and discomfort is something I have encountered in academic settings.
The specific shock is aimed at the low character of romances; the general shock is over the low character of genre writing (see Eugene's post for thoughts on high versus low literature). It's okay to read stuff like romances for fun, but it's not okay to talk about it (though if you must, be sure to call it "erotica" and locate within it a political justification).
I think this discomfort misses the point (as so many academic reactions do). There are badly written romances. There are also well-written ones. Any work of art that people actually care about is going to grapple with human emotions, which romances do. The characteristics/reactions of romances aren't simply the product of undeveloped minds. I might not care for them when they show up in Twilight, but I recognize their power, their reality. As Mr. B ponders at one point during the trial:Simply not having sex was unthinkable. He could hardly handle sleeping alone. And Pamela was an eager participant in the marriage bed whatever his detractors might think.They were an odd people, these twenty-first-century inhabitants—far more obsessed with sex than most libertines but strangely repressive and easily shocked. Only this idealistic young girl [Deborah, the romance reviewer], who reminded him of his oldest daughter, seemed to take him at face value.
Although the true problem could be that romance novels just aren't angsty enough! “The whole novel is nothing but trite and shallow pandering,” Gary declaimed. “What about death, disease, poverty, slavery, racism—all the terrible issues of the eighteenth century? Hmm? I mean women couldn’t even vote! But no, we’re fixated on watching an inconsequential couple tie the knot.”
The judge glanced towards the characters’ table. Mr. B was smiling faintly. He hadn’t flinched at being called “inconsequential.” Presumably, people of the eighteenth century were less obsessed with getting their “day in court” than people of the twenty-first. The judge reminded himself not to chuckle at his own pun. “People hid their heads in the sand,” Gary was still declaiming. “Just like they do today.” Deborah said, “That sounds like the end of a lecture,” and Gary reddened. She was probably right, but the judge didn’t want audience members giving the Committee of Literary Fairness any (more) reason to complain. Leslie Quinn agreed, “People in the eighteenth century still had to work, love, have children, get along. Those topics never go away.” Dr. Matchel said, “But romance novels don’t deal with true domestic problems. They end with the wedding, giving readers the false impression that married life will be eternally happy. Escapist literature!” Mr. B's attorney muttered, “What’s wrong with escapism?”Like Deborah (hey, she is my character), I don't think there has to be a psycho-literary (acceptably literary explanation) for romance novels: For instance, some scholars think the hero actually represents the dark side of the female psyche—the whole thing is sort of Jungian. Yes, I know. I think it’s farfetched too. But the point is, the heroine is never completely at odds with the hero.
Personally, I think romance novels are delving into id stuff--stuff that's messy and uncertain and earthy. It's what Barthes called jouissance, delight in the bodily elements. Of course, Barthes had to put a label on it and make it sound literary when most grown-up women could just tell you that it's about the cerebral and carnal sides of the brain as well as the gentle and less gentle sides: the fear that both sexes have towards their companions and the possible delight and uncertainty involved. Biology creeps in there too.
And it's not going to go away whatever labels current groups plaster on people--and however unpleasant people get about other people's enjoyment.
