[Tumperkin's first post at RRR, and RRR's first guest post ever!]
I’ve always believed there is more to romance than is playing around on the surface. And whilst I still remain unclear what the answer to the above question is, I thought what better topic for an inaugural post at RRR? So whilst this post won’t offer any answers (I have none) it will wildly and inappropriately theorise, and pose a few questions, which I am hoping Jessica may offer a view upon.
So, why do women in particular read romance? What do we get out of it? What is its purpose?
On a purely surface level we get a story which documents the emotional journey of the protaganists towards a Happy Ever After/ Happy For Now ending. There seems to be a general consensus amongst romance readers over the necessity for that HEA or (at least) HFN.
Romance is often spoken of in terms of escapism and fantasy. This offends some romance readers. I can see why - there is an implication that something is lacking in the reader’s real life; something she needs to escape from or perhaps something she needs to fantasise that she can have.
I know that for me, there is something about reading romance that is different from reading other forms of fiction. With certain books, I will have a visceral reaction, a physical response. (And – no – I’m not thinking about erotica here. I’m thinking about those High Romance moments which sometimes make my stomach literally clench). In previous posts and comments on others’ blogs, I’ve spoken of certain romances being like ‘emotional pornography’; a possibly unrealistic but nevertheless gratifying portrayal of an emotional journey, much in the way that pornography might be viewed as an unrealistic but gratifying portrayal of a sexual act.
I know some will instinctively reject the idea of psychoanalysing romance readers – and I’m certainly not qualified to do so – but I do think there may be something in all this talk of romance as fantasy. Laplanche and Pontalis famously wrote, of fantasy, that fantasy is not the object of desire, but the setting of desire. The fantasist may not even be a protaganist in the fantasy. Further, the actual object of desire may not be obvious from the scenes that unfold. Those scenes in fact often mask the conflict that is at the root of the fantasy.
So what is the fantasy of a romance? Well, let me go back to what I said at the start. What happens in every romance? What is in fact, regarded as a crucial element of a romance novel? The HEA. And what is the HEA? What do all HEAs have in common? Is it as obvious as it seems? The protaganists finding love together? Let’s assume for a moment that that’s not it. After all, are any of us really interested when the happy couples of earlier books pop up in later novels? I’m not. It’s an irritant to me, a distraction from that emotional journey I’m on.
Which begs the question – what other element is present in every HEA? Well, there is this: the hero is captured. He is secured into a relationship with the heroine. Yes, yes, I know. There are many romances that feature heroes who aggressively pursue the heroine and know that they want a permanent relationship with her from the beginning. But is that significant? Is that just detail? Does it matter if the hero fights capture?
Is that just part of setting?
The fact is, to put it at its simplest, in a romance we generally start with a Free Man (even if he has another woman, he will be emotionally free) and we finish with a Captured Man.
Another thing about fantasy – and I can’t remember who said this, you’ll just have to roll with this – is that wherever there is repetition of the same fantasy over and over, there is a corresponding lack. In other words, if someone keeps repeating the same fantasy, are they seeking to satisfy something that is missing? Ooops – looks like we’re back to that unfulfilled romance reader cliche!
Or are we? Is there another way of looking at this?
The desirability of the free male is an integral part of our culture. Bachelors are free and easy; spinsters are lonely and bitter. My single female friends in their 30s are beginning to get anxious about their futures while my single male friends are less troubled. I’m not suggesting that individual romance readers read romance because of their personal feelings about their own lives. But as a gender, I think we’re aware of the difference between the experiences of women and men.
So could romance be a sort of collective, cultural fantasy? Could it be that women seek to satisfy that ‘cultural lack’ through the medium of the romance novel? The hero, brought to his knees – over and over and over again – by the heroine? Are romances really female power fantasies? Are they really about hunting men down? Is the cliche of the dominant alpha male a mask for that actual conflict? Maybe just a way of making the hurdle as large as possible so that the final gratification of the HEA is that much more satisfying? Like the angler who lands that really big fish?
Is romance really about women winning?
Related posts:
- Romance Novels in The Journal of Sex Research I reviewed Patricia Gaffney’s To Have and To Hold, which led me to consider the question of Rape in Romance....
- Runaway Train: Uncontrollable Hero Lust in Romance “If you touch me again,” [Zachary] said raggedly. I won’t be able to stop. I’ll take you right here, Holly...
- Who Invented Paranormal Romance? That’s a deliberately leading blog post title. I’m sure it wasn’t one person, but rather a group of people responding...
- Stock siblings in romance Have you ever noticed that in romance series featuring male siblings, you can often find the same character types? This...
- Romance Novels as an “Addiction” I was looking for reviews of Mary Jo Putney’s The Rake, when I found a 2004 AAR Interview with her...
- Top 10 Romance Blog Mysteries Can you help a newbie with some of these blogger mysteries? 10. Whatever happened to Paperbackreader.net? One day it was...
#1 by Ana on March 30, 2009 - 6:28 am
Sheesh that’s food for thought. I don’t KNOW if I can think like that or theorise like that. Does is HAVE to be genre related? Because whenever I think about my reading, I only think about how much I love the ACT of reading and I love nothing but to read GOOD Writing. I am forever searching for that. This is one of the reasons why I came so late to romance – I always thought – and I know now I was prejudiced – that there wouldn’t be good writing in romance. Good prose. I was wrong of course.
Another point is that I like light, funny, HAPPY stories. It is just the way I am wired. I do read darker books with unhappy endings, sad stories, etc but I feel emotionally exploited every time I do so. It is the same thing with movies, TV Shows, anything in my life. Dear Partner loves watching gut-wrenching movies and I love me some stupid comedies or romantic comedies. The fact that romance novels ASSURE me of a happy ending is indeed something that attracts me to it. Thea always teases me for that as well – she loves horror and Dark Fantasy and UF BECAUSE there is NO assurance of a happy ending. This is how we complement each other.
I am also an emotional reader who prefers character-driven stories. The point is , I don’t THINK that me reading romance there is anything to do with wish fulfilment re heroes or men, or WOMEN power , at least not for me. It’s to do with love for reading happy stories with character-driven plots that I find romance novels excel at. At least I think so –until I started to visit Racy Romance Reviews. Now I have to take the consideration the fact that I AM a woman – does that shape my reading habits? If so how come Thea does not like reading romance?
Gosh. I rambled.
#2 by Laura Vivanco on March 30, 2009 - 7:05 am
“After all, are any of us really interested when the happy couples of earlier books pop up in later novels? I’m not.”
You may not be, but presumably lots of other readers are, because otherwise why would all those characters keep popping up for cameo roles in sequels? And what about a really popular series like Gabaldon’s about Jamie and Claire? I wonder if some readers are more interested in what you call the ‘emotional pornography’ of the emotional roller coaster (which, as you make clear via a series of diagrams, can come in a variety of different forms) whereas other people are more interested in other things e.g. the reassurance of the happy ending (and those cameo appearances in later novels reinforce the HEA), getting to know particular characters as individuals, the novelty of the setting/characterisation, the beauty of the language, and so on. Some of those preferences are probably more common than others, and different people will rank these things differently.
Personally, I find that if there’s a lot of conflict the emotions it evokes can make me feel bad, and overshadow any good feelings eventually created by the HEA.
“Is romance really about women winning?”
If the central fantasy of romance is as you describe (and I’m not sure it always is, but I agree it’s quite common) then the answer perhaps depends whether you think women “win” when they “capture” or “land” a man.
I don’t think I’d ever use that kind of language to describe the kinds of relationships I prefer to read about, and that’s probably because I see ideal relationships being about cooperation, not conflict or competition.
What is Romance Really All About?
As an aside, for the past couple of days on the romance scholar list we’ve been discussing what I think’s a very odd article written by Stephanie Laurens. She seems to think that romance is really about encouraging women to value family and have babies:
“Romance today carries the essential message that love, marriage – and by implication children and family – are valuable and desirable goals.”
“romance novels – the one thing – the one and only thing – that directly and effectively reaffirms love, marriage and family as being desirable goals.”
“Not only will it improve mental health and enhance your communities’ creativity, but it will also insure that your country continues as a biologically stable nation.”
P.S. Now that there are two of you writing for the blog, would it be possible for you to put the name of the author of each post at the top of it? I did manage to work out that this one was written by Tumperkin, but I don’t think it actually says so anywhere.
#3 by Laura Vivanco on March 30, 2009 - 7:13 am
P.P.S. Actually, although I can’t see Tumperkin’s name on this page, when I double-checked my Google feed and read the post there, Tumperkin’s name did show up, just below the title. This is very clever of Google, but why doesn’t can’t I see it at RRR?
#4 by Ana on March 30, 2009 - 7:43 am
“She seems to think that romance is really about encouraging women to value family and have babies”
See…this is another thing…is that really “true”? Because then is another thing that goes to show how I am not your typical romance reader – heck you can go as far as to say I am not a “typical” woman if you follow that train of thought.
I have no desire whatsoever of getting married or having children. I do have my Dear Partner whom I love dearly and who I expect to spend the rest of my life with. But “wedding” and “children” are not our goal – how does that translate to “romance reading”?
Laura makes a pretty good point about “winning” :
“I don’t think I’d ever use that kind of language to describe the kinds of relationships I prefer to read about, and that’s probably because I see ideal relationships being about cooperation, not conflict or competition.”
I agree.
#5 by Heloise on March 30, 2009 - 10:42 am
I love this topic. I’ve often ‘excused’ my romance habit (not just enjoying the genre but being drawn to it) by saying that I’ve been reading them since I was twelve. I do think that reading genre fiction of many types at a certain formative age contributes to your ability to enjoy it later in life but that’s another topic.
But my feelings of being drawn to romance have always led me to contemplate, what is it about these books?! I love Tumperkin’s theory about women winning. And I love that Ana and Laura immediately jump in with other major themes that have to be in the top five(twenty) things that draw women to romance novels.
1) Good writing. We so agree that there are well written romance novels and badly written romance novels and that, for most reviewers at least, it’s a damn pleasure to read a well written book.
2) A thoroughly attractive, previously unclaimed man ends up completely devoted to a woman we either identify with or very much like, at the end of the book. ie. women win
3) Nothing too distressing is going to happen during this reading experience. Even in books where someone is truly scarred or injured, there will be some sort of improvement in their state by the end.
And my addition to the list….
4) There will be a recounting of the experience of infatuation/lust. It’s often hard to disentangle this from the sex but to me the re-living of the feelings of infatuation, heart beating, attention riveting, every sense on alert for the object of the infatuation, is one of the main reasons I read these books. And I can’t imagine I’m alone.
PS. Don’t get me started about Stephanie Laurens’s ideas. As if ‘women should get married and have babies’ needs to be defended and propagated more in our society. Whatever.
#6 by Marianne McA on March 30, 2009 - 10:46 am
I’d agree I read romance for the emotional gratification: a good romance may have other facets to appreciate – humour, good writing, clever characterisation etc – but I read the genre for that ‘Awww…’ moment.
The idea of the Free Man v. the Captured Man fantasy – that doesn’t ring true for me, though it might be true on some subconcious level.
Be a very subconscious thing, though, because for me the love of romance goes right back to childhood – to Cinderella and Rapunzel – and it’s hard to imagine I felt that ‘cultural lack’ as a small child.
To speculate wildly, isn’t it as likely that we all want – generalise, generalise – to find that perfect partner? That we’re hard wired to want to experience those emotions of connection and bonding? And Romance allows us to rehearse those emotions, or, at a later age, revisit them?
Actually, I think it’s possible that there are a range of different reasons for reading romance – that there may not be a one-size-fits-all reason for enjoying the genre.
#7 by Victoria Janssen on March 30, 2009 - 10:54 am
I don’t think there’s a single answer to this question, but I really like “Are romances really female power fantasies?”
#8 by Ana on March 30, 2009 - 11:23 am
“There will be a recounting of the experience of infatuation/lust. It’s often hard to disentangle this from the sex but to me the re-living of the feelings of infatuation, heart beating, attention riveting, every sense on alert for the object of the infatuation, is one of the main reasons I read these books. ”
That is SUCH a great point Heloise and so very true especially for the ones with partners/husbands amongst us. I sometimes think: gee I will never get the “infatuation” feel again (or if I do – let’s face it, no one is a saint here – I will never act on it) so maybe I AM re-living that every time I read a romance novel. and the falling in love and the anticipation are actually my favourite parts. More even than the consummation.
I am finding this discussion fascinating.
#9 by Keishon on March 30, 2009 - 12:16 pm
Why do I read romance? I started off reading romance with Victoria Holt. Her h/h’s always bantered back and forth with each other but it was the chemistry between them that made their relationship so fascinating as well as seeing them react to the world/people around them.
What is romance really about? Romance is whatever you make of it. Some of it is good and some of it is er pretty bad but a good romance for me is when I reach the end, I’m left with a stupid grin on my face and my heart is uplifted after the couple have earned their HEA. There’s an emotional payoff I’m looking for when I am heavily invested in the couple/story. For me, reading romance, it’s about the journey from A to B. This is the only way that I can explain it. Love conquers and heals all. I know it’s not realistic but that is the fantasy: love conquers all and you can apply that to any aspect of life.
#10 by Maya M. on March 30, 2009 - 2:02 pm
such thoughtful comments all around.
personally, i’m attracted to the concept that it’s actually BOTH parties that win – the woman, in the ways already described, and the man (or maybe its better to say partner) by realizing that he wants to commit to this relationship for the sake of benefits he can’t get from brief/casual/serial relationships – lasting friendship, true partner, etc.
#11 by Tumperkin on March 30, 2009 - 2:58 pm
Gosh – what great, interesting comments.
Ana – I’m fascinated by your comments. Your first comment almost suggests that you don’t read romance for any particular reason, that you’re just in it for the writing, and then later you agree enthusiastically with Heloise’s infatuation theory (which I also love BTW). And that reminds me of why I wrote this post: I was wondering WHY I seek out the same tropes again and again; WHY I read about the same character types and character arcs again and again? The fact that I can be incredibly specific about my wants, and my likely response to what I’m going to read tells me there is something more here (for me) than just enjoying the writing. The basic theory in this post (romance is about women winning) isn’t ‘my view’ on why I or anyone else reads romance. I think there’s something in the theory, but I can’t honestly say I think there is one single reason people read romance.
Laura – I’m conscious that you are a romance reader who is less keen on conflict but the degree of conflict isn’t really what I’m thinking about here. I suppose I might argue that that’s another element of setting although I accept the language I’ve used is pejorative – ‘winning’, ‘captured’ et al. (And I did consider suggesting ‘LHD’ as an alternative to ‘HEA’ i.e. Lock Him Down). Incidentally, do YOU like to revisit happy couples in later books? I wonder about this because reviews of series books do often complain about the amount of time given over to protaganists of earlier books and I can’t recall anyone actually SAYING they like this. I see Jamie and Clare as different because they are the protaganists (I believe?) in all of the books.
Heloise – I love your infatuation theory and agree wholeheartedly. In fact, I’ve thought in the past that reading a really great romance feels a bit like falling in love: the excitement of picking up the book to read another chapter, thinking about the story obsessively whenever you are parted from it etc. I also wonder – as you do – whether the reading of romance (and indeed particular romances) at a formative age ‘imprints’ you with a love of the genre (or in the case of particular romances, specific elements of it?).
Marianne – I agree that one size doesn’t fit all but I’m not sure that the fairy tale HEAs I loved as a child are the same as the romance HEAs I love now. I think a lot of the fairy tale HEA is more about reassurance (the good were rewarded and the bad punished) than delivering on a love story.
Victoria – Perhaps I’m too influenced by the fact that I like the idea of romance being a female power fantasy? Perhaps I’m trying to find an acceptable feminist motivation for liking romance? (*ponders*)
Keishon – like you, I love the journey to the HEA. And it’s important that that HEA feels earned and properly paced. So maybe that winning theory need’s fine-tuning – it’s not enough just to win…
#12 by Ama on March 30, 2009 - 3:31 pm
I know, I am crazy, right?
The thing is, I don’t like to say “I am a romance reader” – I find that sort of limiting. I read romance, as well as other genres. I also like to think that it is all about to have a good reading experience which to me comes from enjoying writing AND the character-driven stories. I know I am repeating what I said earlier but I am trying to make things clear to myself.
I only started to think WHY I read once I started blogging. I always took it for granted that it was just who I was – Ana, the reader. The fact that there are reasons behind the reading and behind WHAT I read is fascinating and also, sort of new to me, if that makes any sense?? But I am not in it just for the writing , it can’t be just the writing, the writing is sort of like the bass/battery on top of which a song is composed. Maybe it’s the basis? You can have a good basis but if you don’t have a good lyrics the song will suck? But you can still enjoy the music itself? Sort of like all Motown songs have the same rhythm and I LOVE them but Mnarvin Gaye’s songs are better than Gladys Knight and the Pip’s even though they are also utterly enjoyable? <<<<< crazy talk.
When Heloise wrote her theory, I jumped at it, because it makes so much sense and it adds subjectivity to my writing and to the emotional content theory.
#13 by Ana on March 30, 2009 - 3:34 pm
And all of a sudden I became “Ama”????? ha?
#14 by Laura Vivanco on March 30, 2009 - 3:48 pm
the degree of conflict isn’t really what I’m thinking about here
I mentioned it because I wondered if emotional ups and downs in the plots are what create the intense sensations you’re describing in terms of “emotional pornography.” And it seemed to me that those ups and downs are perhaps more likely to happen if there’s a lot of conflict. They can be caused by other things too, of course. AAR has a special list of
Two-Hanky Reads
These are the romances that make you cry, not just a tear or two, but those those that tend to be cathartic and intense.
I’ve never understood why anyone would want to end up in tears over a book. I don’t understand why anyone would read horror, either, because I don’t want to terrify myself, and I also avoid romantic suspense wherever possible. It makes me think that in my reading material I’m trying to avoid the intense emotions that many other readers are actively seeking out.
“Incidentally, do YOU like to revisit happy couples in later books?”
Yes, because if I liked the characters I like to see how they’re getting on. I was surprised and happy when I discovered the connections between some of Georgette Heyer’s novels, for example, and I liked it when characters from Crusie’s Strange Bedpersons turned up briefly in What the Lady Wants.
I wonder if I feel the way I do because when I like a romance I relate to the characters as though they were friends/acquaintances. So I’m not experiencing their emotions directly (I don’t experience it as re-living the sensation of falling in love/being infatuated). Instead, I feel happy for them when they’re happy and I worry about them and am upset for them when they’re not happy. I don’t want them to suffer (just as I wouldn’t want my friends to have to suffer when they’re in love) and when the novel ends, I think it’s nice to keep in touch with them.
#15 by katiebabs on March 30, 2009 - 4:02 pm
I like the idea about women in romance winning. But if you think of it, both the hero and heroine win at the end.
If men put aside their bias against romance, they would see what we, the romance readers sees in these books. At the end of the romance you feel happy. Why not continue to read book like that?
#16 by Laura Vivanco on March 30, 2009 - 4:03 pm
Oh, and I don’t do any “re-living of the feelings of infatuation, heart beating, attention riveting, every sense on alert for the object of the infatuation” either. I wouldn’t feel that way if a friend was telling me about how she got together with her new boyfriend, and perhaps because for me reading a romance is rather like hearing that kind of story, I respond in much the same way. I think this is one reason why in many ways I prefer romances that don’t include sex scenes. I don’t like to know TMI about my friends. I also don’t fall in love with either my friends’ boyfriends or romance heroes.
Obviously I can read romances in different ways depending on how academically I’m reading but I’ve been writing here about my emotional, non-academic preferences.
#17 by Jessica on March 30, 2009 - 4:21 pm
Ana wrote:
Yes. We believe you only Against Medical Advice.
I agree that there are many reasons women read romance and that these may change from person to person and book to book. But Tumperkin has pointed to some significant constants that all romances share. Let’s face it — we may read other things but when we read romance we are reading genre fiction with all that implies.
I also think we do a lot of things for no reason. You don’t have to be a Freudian to think this, you can be a neurologist or a neuropsychologist. Some of these hidden motivators can become apparent through reflection like the kind we are doing right now, or vaguely through fMRIs, or psychotherapy. Others may never be recoverable.
Sometimes when I deny that I read romance to escape or to relive an intense period in my long term relationship, I am pretty sure I doth protest too much.
I think we generally don’t like to ascribe motivations to ourselves that make us or our lives look bad. This makes the question even harder to answer, or more tempting to answer with a positive spin.
In other news, I am totally pleased yet vexed that the wretched pseudo feminist argument for romance by that author got unearthed (it is also being discussed at EREC) because I had in mind a blog post on “bad quasi feminist arguments for romance: with friends like these, who need enemies?” and this was number one on my hit list.
#18 by Tumperkin on March 30, 2009 - 4:30 pm
Ana – no, not crazy. I recognise what you’re saying. You’re British aren’t you? Saying ‘I am a romance reader’ in Britain is, well, let’s not go there. That’s another post. I love your Motown analogy. I’m going to start grading by Motown. A reads will now be known as ‘Gayes’ and Cs as ‘Pips’.
Laura – from what you describe, I have to agree that we have very different reading motivations.
KB – I’m not sure it’s bias so much as a total lack of interest.
#19 by willaful on March 30, 2009 - 7:42 pm
I doubt if the “woman winning” theory fits me, personally, because my husband is notoriously uxorious.
Don’t need to read about it!
I have always been attracted to genre fiction because I need story, but I think my particular fondness for romance in recent years has a lot to do with the HEA. Having an autistic son, the future for me is one ginormous question mark. I desperately stories I can count on to end happily.
#20 by Kate on March 30, 2009 - 8:56 pm
Wow…some a very thought-provoking post and comments.
I’ve spent a little bit thinking about this (ok, twenty minutes) and my mind is moving somewhat in circles. I can’t help but to wonder if a person reads romance novels due to an early start in reading in the genre? As in, would a person who started reading romances in their early teens be a more avid reader – or more likely to identify themselves as a “romance reader” – than one who came to the genre later? Could it be that at the age of thirteen one may not associate with the stigma attached to being a “romance reader” while someone in college or later would? Just a rambling thought. I started reading romances when I was probably twelve and have never particularly not gone through a period of not reading romances, though since I’m so picky about them I’ve never been a totally avid reader of romances. I remember the first romance I read – Sweet Liar by Jude Deveraux – and I just really liked it: fun, sassy, romantic, populated with people I liked, and there was a strong historical element to it as well, which even at twelve appealed to me. The next one I read was The Duchess, which was a historical, and I carried on devotedly reading Deveraux historicals pretty much until I’d read her backlist and she’d stopped writing them. I think if I’d gone from Sweet Liar to a contemporary/suspense romance, I wouldn’t have carried on reading them.
But also gauging by my other reading interests…I was really into Dana Fuller Ross’ Wagons West! series, westerns about the Oregon trail pioneers, and these were good and proper Westerns, not romances set in the west. However, my favorite part of each of the books were the romantic elements – Cathy and Whip, the marriages to Eulalia and Lee Blake enraged me, the ending of the two of them brought me to tears – and moreso, when the series continued on to the descendants of the original characters, I no longer cared and stopped reading it.
My point? Convoluted, I’m sure. My point was at a young age I was reading historicals – still my favorite subgenre – and even when I was not reading romances, I was most interested in the romantic elements. I’ll add in a lifelong love for fairy tales, and I think you have my recipe of what romance is all about for me.
There’s something to be said for analyzing what you read and why you’re reading it. Sometimes it’s not much more than a simple “I like it,” which I know is not fancy or smart but I think it’s true. I’ve never read a romance knowingly thinking about women winning or losing, and I’ve never thought it was to fulfill some need in my own life. Fantasy/Reality in check here.
I’ve rambled. I do that. I’m going to go think on this some more.
#21 by Kate on March 30, 2009 - 9:03 pm
“I think you have my recipe of what romance is all about for me.”
Ugh. I walked away and realized I didn’t answer this at all, I answered why it appeals to me as opposed to why I read it. Please don’t fail me for not answering the question, professors. Clearly I need to think on this more.
#22 by Ana on March 31, 2009 - 1:40 am
Tumperkin – I am not British , but I live in England. I am in fact, Brazilian.
Romance novels in Brazil are considered sub-sub-sub-literature. Brazilian writers do not write it. We only get some of the Categories translated and published in cheap pulp fiction format and sold ONLY at news papers stands. People that buy it? Poor women. It is as you can see, also a matter of social standing. If you are middle class or high class in Brazil you can not be seen carrying a romance novel in your hands. My family is middle class, my mother used to smuggle (yes, that’s how I learnt the art) romance novels and read them in secret. I never did read a romance novel whislt living in Brazil – I am a HISTORIAN, you see. God forbid my peers to know that I read such books.
I went back to Brazil for the first time since I moved a few months ago and I told all my friends about my blog. I told them I got loads of friends through it (they were happy about it), I told them I had loads of visitors, did author interviews and even received some books from publishers (they were so very proud) , then there comes the question. What kind of books do you read? I told them. Silence in the room. “But you do read proper European literature right?” *snorts* Brazilians can be so European-centric is not even funny, It’s like America does not exist when it comes to books.
So, does background count when trying to analyse how one reads and what and why? Yep, I think so.
Weren’t you glad you asked.
#23 by Kaetrin on March 31, 2009 - 4:25 am
I read romance for the happy endings. My theory is that there’s too much crap in real life and it often doesn’t turn out well. In a romance novel even the most tortured heroine/hero gets her/his HEA.
It’s also not mundane, like a lot of every day life is. I wouldn’t want to read a romance novel that banged on about morning breath, grocery shopping, endless washing and ironing – it’s real life and it’s not very romantic. (That’s not to say there aren’t romantic moments IRL, but they are not as “compact” as in a romance novel).
So, to escape misery or mediocrity, I read romance novels.
I also agree with Laura Vivanco about the return of previous protagonists in romance novels. I like to see the continuation of the HEA. In a really great romance novel, the characters become my friends. I am invested in their lives and I want to catch up with them. I don’t want the relationship to end. The best books are ones where at the end I feel both happy and sad – happy because the story was so good and sad because the experience, wonderful as it was, has ended. Those characters popping up in other books extend that experience for me.
I read all sorts of romance novels depending on my mood and I do have a lot of time for the TAJ as Tumperkin so aptly put it. I think that this is, for me, about how no matter how rubbish life can be – and let’s face it, everyone has a story of how their life has been rubbish at least for a period of time – there can be a happy ending and something in me sparks and renews – hope I guess.
Maybe in all my rambling, I have come to my answer after all. What are romance novels if not the epitome of hope fulfilled?
#24 by Jessica on March 31, 2009 - 5:14 am
Kate wrote:
I think that why you read it can be answered it large part by why it appeals to you!
#25 by Kate on March 31, 2009 - 9:40 am
Kaetrin wrote:
I like this – a lot!
I spent all night thinking about this (except for watching that harrowing documentary on Jonestown on PBS – anyone else catch that?) and haven’t really been able to answer my own questions, but I was thinking about it again this morning, and thought of that old quote, what is it, sometimes a banana is just a banana…? I think that’s partially my answer. I read romances because they’re narrative stories (I almost always read narrative fiction) with strong romantic elements (I’m a bit of a helpless romantic). The combination of the two makes romances reading my light reading of choice.
There, I said it. I think of it almost like watching a movie: sometimes you go for the frightening Jonestown documentary, sometimes you pop in Anchorman. Sometimes I want books that teach me, sometimes I want books that entertain. That doesn’t mean I don’t think it’s great we’re now dissecting the whys and wherefores of romance – I think that’s great, really, and there’s much to be said and done. But I think in regards to my own personal choice, romance novels entertain me, and that’s why I read them.
Ok, I have to stop thinking about this for awhile
#26 by carolyn jean on March 31, 2009 - 12:22 pm
What a great post, T. The concept of a woman winning or women winning, maybe womanhood winning, it does feel right on! Even with the alpha male, his drive to have her at all costs is a sort of testament to the woman’s power.
Heloise: I didn’t start reading romance until very deep into adulthood, though I know I’m the exception. But I totally agree with your idea on “There will be a recounting of the experience of infatuation/lust.”
For me, that’s a part of the hunt, though, to go with the Artemis/capture idea metaphor. WHat’s more, I think we can talk about capturing and partnership as not being mutually exclusive; it feels to me like they sort of come from different places in the psyche.
As for reading the same tropes over and over, I often watch my cats get excited about birds at the bird feeder, and each time it’s like, this new exciting thing, and I often link it to my romance reading. I never get sick of that story retold. It’s new every time!
I often say my life has improved since I’ve taken up romance reading, though I’ve never inspected that. I do wonder, thinking about comments above, if it’s sort of about getting closer to that hunger/hunt/satisfaction cycle.
#27 by Hortense Powdermaker on March 31, 2009 - 12:55 pm
Great illustration for a post about the captured male…Diana, is it?
Re men in romance – I remember reading something at the Cultural Gutter – ah, found it:
“the central fantasy of the modern romance novel is not that women require rescue, but that men are capable of change”
- and I think that’s true, the subtext being that women are the agency of transformation (and therefore powerful in a subversive way).
Personally, I read for entertainment; romance is one genre among many (but, I’ll admit, a primus enter pares). What I can’t figure out is why more men don’t read romance. Is it not entertaining, or is it a world view that makes them uneasy? Maybe the whole Kinder, Küche, Kirche thing (Laurens) is a central theme that doesn’t jive with their own fantasies of living like a hero in a John Ringo novel? – of course that presupposes that Laurens is right, and I’m not sure I agree – will have to check out that link.
Ana, I wonder if the Brazilian contempt for romance carries over to Jorge Amado’s books? Because it seems to me that Dona Flor e Seus Dos Maridos and Gabriela are both romances.
Kate – I saw that Jonestown documentary too.
*shudder*
#28 by Tumperkin on March 31, 2009 - 3:06 pm
Jessica – re how we like to view our motivations – I TRY to be very honest about this but it’s almost impossible not to start refracting our reasons for doing anything through the glass that is most consistent with our views of ourselves. Frankly, I’d LOVE to think that reading romance is an expression of my desire for female empowerment. The corollary of that – and the fear – is that perhaps is a subliminal attraction to some of the conservative values that I tend to deplore (I’ve still not read the Laurens article by the way so I’m not referring to that)
Willaful – my husb is also happily locked down but personally I don’t think this is about whether the reader is personally fulfilled. Except perhaps in that a happy partner might want to find some outlet for their desire to experience the excitement of a new infatuation through romance. I hear you on the HEA. Now you mention it, when I had my boys, I began to find any distressing news story almost unbearable and that did coincide with me returning to reading romance after a long gap. Interesting.
Kate – I too look at my non-romance bookshelf and see a lot of books that contain strong elements of romance. And yes, the lifelong love of fairy tales and all their re-tellings.
Ama – how interesting! Do you think it’s an even worse thing in Brazil than in Britain? I think it is a Bad Thing here. I would never admit it to my colleagues.
Kaetrin – Re the characters popping up again in later books, it’s not that I hate the idea. It’s that every time it happens I’m… disappointed. They’re all settled and boring – all the excitement has gone. How funny of you to mention the TAJ! (Blast from the past). I think the TAJ graphs explain this thing better than anything else I could come up with – at the HEA, the happiness trajectory goes Off The Scale – so there’s nowhere to go for those characters in a later book but down (for me).
Re your hope fulfilled comment – and Kate’s additional comments on this – I suppose I wonder if that’s a more general expression of what lots of readers want from lots of different kinds of books? In a crime novel, the mystery is solved at the end; in a fantasy quest, the quest is completed in some fashion. All genre books tend to have some form of fulfilment or restoration at the end of them. I think the question I am (trying to) pose is a stage beyond that assertion of ‘I want an HEA/ fulfilment/ satisfaction’ and into WHY do I want that? What specifically is it that is satisfying to me about that outcome?
CJ – I love the way you express stuff – the Hunger/Hunt/Satisfaction cycle – LOVE that. And yes, I agree that capturing and partnership probably come from different places in the psyche.
Hortense Powerdermaker – you win my Online Name of the Week. Yes, it is Diana – Renoir. As for your quote -
“the central fantasy of the modern romance novel is not that women require rescue, but that men are capable of change”
I think this is great. And the idea of the heroine being the agent for change really chimes with me.
#29 by Kate on March 31, 2009 - 3:52 pm
Tumperkin wrote:
More to raise another question as opposed to answer this one, I don’t find the HEA necessary in everything I read, particularly when reading non-genre books. For example, had Atonement ended differently, I would have hated it and called Ian McEwan a sellout. Why then am I so accepting of the HEA in a romance? Obviously because I expect it – some sort of conditioned response to the genre? And why would I find it satisfying if I knew it would happen in the first place?
Does anyone know of a romance that doesn’t have a tidy little HEA? I’d love to read something that ends on a wistful note.
#30 by Tumperkin on March 31, 2009 - 4:01 pm
Kate – A Civil Contract by Georgette Heyer. Very bittersweet.
#31 by Kaetrin on March 31, 2009 - 8:50 pm
One of the best novels where the protagonists from a previous book reappear is Silent Melody by Mary Balogh. It is the sequel (sort of) to Heartless (my very favouritest ever Balogh book) and Luke and Anna return as major secondary characters in SM – the latter is about Anna’s sister (and, in fact, Luke’s brother – yum!). I loved Luke and Anna and was sooooo happy to read about them more in SM. Anna’s sister (sorry, can’t remember her name off the top of my head) is deaf and Luke teaches her to read lips and to read and write, so he is a major influence on her character and an important figure in the book. Both Luke and Anna had work to do in the book so there was a purpose to them being there. They didn’t have a conflict between them per se but they were inherently involved and we got to see more of them working out their HEA and I loved it. (the main story was pretty good too!).
I’m just a sucker for a romance and I like to see that the character’s from previous books are still having their HEA.
As for the why of romance, I guess for me it really does go back to that life can be pretty shitty so why not escape to a fantasy where everything turns out right in the end?
#32 by Shannon C. on April 1, 2009 - 11:22 am
I’ve been thinking about this question for a while and haven’t quite found a satisfactory answer for myself. I just know I’ve always been drawn to the romantic elements of the other types of fiction I read. I still am, and my experience with fandom has made me quite passionate about my favorite couples in non-romance media.
Then, too, I wonder if there’s anything wrong with the admission that part of it is absolutely about the fantasy. I know sex in romance bears little resemblance to sex in real life, but I would much rather read about simultaneous orgasms and sparks flying and people passing out because the whole thing was just! that! good! than, say, the sex scene in the book I just finished, which was one of the least sexy things ever and not very satisfying for anybody. I know the latter is probably more “true to life” for some people, but the former leaves me feeling much more positive.
#33 by Tumperkin on April 1, 2009 - 2:24 pm
Keiron – I would love to read Silent Melody but those old Baloghs are impossible to get and cost a bloody fortune on Amazon (although I’ve managed to pick up a few wee bargains here and there). And yes Balogh’s done quite a few of the interconnected stories, some of which I’m actually quite ok with – especially when it’s a case of a secondary character getting the sequel rather than the H/H from the previous book popping up gratuitously in the later book.
Shannon – I was reading a book the other night that I am going to post about on my own blog very soon. There was this scene that just – I mean, I suppose it was cliched – but it just pushed some button for me. I was very aware that somehow this was just Hitting The Mark. I am going to reflect further. But yes, fantasy.