I do take the romance genre seriously. That I don’t think it can be critiqued as lit fic can be and that it will never have the impact of lit fic are, I think, positions as critically valid as any others. I haven’t adopted the positions lightly nor without considerable thought. I regret that I didn’t know that opposing positions were unwelcome.

But, having written all that, I’m still of the opinion that, because of the “sameness”–especially, the HEA–of romance, it will probably never give a reader anything but enjoyment. in contrast to “literature,” which offers, IMO, something beyond that. I’ll still continue to read it though, for joy in any form is a sufficient reason for reading whatever it is that supplies it.

You’ve made the same sort of comment in a few different posts now. It doesn’t have much to do with the post I wrote, and it doesn’t really serve to open conversation about the genre. In fact, it closes it down, unless folks want to be diverted from the post topic into an argument with you about whether your quoted comments are correct.

On this blog, I take romance (the genre, its readers, etc.) seriously as a subject of various kinds of analysis: literary, ethical , feminist, sociological, psychological. It’s a founding assumption of this blog that romance merits critical analysis as much as literature or anything else.

I confess, I find it odd that you would visit a blog whose authors and readers are dedicated to the pursuit of something you find impossible or fruitless. I can’t speculate on your reasons, but I really hope you’ll try to “buy in” to the basic premise of the blog and stay on topic in future comments

I’m not sure how indoctrinated I’ve been, despite reading romance for so long. Depends what you’re meaning by that, of course. I suppose it might take a while to explain it, but one of these days could you write a post about it for Dear Author? Or have you written one already? I know you’ve mentioned it several times in the past, but I still haven’t got a firm grasp of exactly what you mean by the “code” in which readers need to be “indoctrinated.” Unless you mean the same as Germaine Greer did, but I’m not sure that you do.

I’m not sure if this answers the question or not and I’m definitely not of the camp that completely believes that the language of romance is female as opposed to male but to me it’s akin to having to shift mental gears when reading or even watching a completely different type of popular fiction. It’s not so much that there’s literally a code there in each one but that there are common terminology and constructs used by each more often than another might.

And the reader/viewer has to get comfortable with those before truly getting into the flow of things for each. If they can’t then they’re never going to feel comfortable with that genre, whatever it is. Once that ability is attained, one might call it being in the mood for that particular genre but it’s still about becoming used to what’s normally there.

The word “formula” tends to have negative connotations in this context because it’s associated with words and phrases like “mass-produced” “churned out” and “all the same.” And I think you’d better not try telling any of the great chefs that what they produce is “formulaic”! They can do things with simple dishes, even with the same ingredients, that lesser chefs cannot achieve.

Speaking of food and ingredients. We were, weren’t we? LOL I’m reminded of watching a show called “The Chopping Block.” It was interesting to watch how the chefs took the same core ingredients and created very different dishes. Or even “Top Chef” to watch how the chef approached food from techniques to flavor melding or even just how they talked about it and “sold” it.

Since we’re using the food analogies, maybe books are like these final dishes. Some taste great and you can’t stop eating them. Others you want to savor. Some you just aren’t in the mood for. Others are for special occasions. Some you want to deconstruct to figure out how they did that. And so on.

Genres may be similar to the categories such as American, Greek, Italian, New French Cruisine, etc. Just grouping that set our palate expectations. But there are differences between what that translates into menu items at a different restaurant or meals at home.

I agree that all those differences in presentation may occur in romance novels, but the core recipe must be there or a particular novel falls into a different class.
In my thinking, admitting that the romance genre is formulaic compliments those who write successfully in the genre. It’s far more difficult to work within restrictions than without them.