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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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*

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.

Maybe in all my rambling, I have come to my answer after all. What are romance novels if not the epitome of hope fulfilled?

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

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.

I think that why you read it can be answered it large part by why it appeals to you!