Men’s novels are about how to get power. Killing and so on, or winning and so on. So are women’s novels, though the method is different. In men’s novels, getting the woman or women goes along with getting the power. It’s a perk, not a means. In women’s novels you get the power by getting the man. The man is the power. But sex won’t do, he has to love you. What do you think all that kneeling’s about, down among the crinolines, on the Persian carpet? Or at least say it. When all else is lacking, verbalization can be enough. Love. There, you can stand up now, it didn’t kill you. Did it?
-Margaret Atwood
From Jan Cohn’s Romance and Erotics of Property (London: Duke University Press, 1988).
- Publishers claim love as their subject and love as the common ground shared with each reader. These fictions hold out and fulfill the promise of love, offering the reader and the chance to experience love herself—if only vicariously and in fantasy…. (15).
- John Cawelti states: “The moral fantasy of the romance is that of love triumphant and permanent, overcoming all obstacles and difficulties.” [Romance novels raise] serious critical questions about the fantasy content of these stories and about their moral, which is to say political, credentials (15).
- Northrop Frye states that the “central element in romance is a love story in which the exciting adventures are normally a foreplay leading up to sexual union” (19).
A question came to mind while reading through Cohn’s book. And it’s a question that I wondered even when I was an avid romance reader. Romance novels promise love and yet…is love what these novels convey? Or sex? I’m not saying a romance novel should “teach” about what true love is. I’m not even saying that romance novels shouldn’t be about lust. But I’m curious to know what readers think is the main focus romance novels convey – love or lust? What kind of love or lust?
In Lisa Fletcher’s book, she mentions that Katherine Ramsdell writes of romance fiction as though it offers instruction in love for its readers: “They want to know exactly what it felt like to be living (and loving) during the particular period in history. In short they want to escape into and actually experience the period”.* This leads to my ultimate question: Do you think romance novels have that power to influence/instruct readers on the topic of love? In other words, because romance novels is a very gendered reading experience, could a woman’s perception of love partly be due to the influence of romance novels?
*(Fletcher, Lisa. Historical Romance Fiction. Hampshire: Ashgate, 2008)
February 27, 2012 at 4:44 pm
This is a dissertation in itself! And since I have not yet conducted said dissertation, I’ll respond with my opinions only.
“Could a woman’s perception of love partly be due to the influence of romance novels?” In a word, yes. Mine certainly was. My “love” role models in childhood were not the best. My grandparents, married until he died a few years ago (somewhere around 60-65 years of marriage) remained together only because they were Catholic and refused to divorce. My parents lived separately under the same roof from the time I was 11 until they finally divorced eight years later. I discovered romance novels when I was 14, and between them and romantic movies (erm…Princess Bride, anyone?), I would say my views of love skewed toward a more positive, soul-mate view. For that reason, I was intolerant of any man not treating me well (not putting me on a pedestal, but at least chivalrous), and many of my “relationships” in high school and college lasted a grand total of two weeks. My standards for relationships had increased, thanks to romance novels, and I wasn’t going to waste my time with anyone who didn’t at least meet those standards. Hell, if they weren’t Prince Charming in the honeymoon phase, there was no way they would last long term! LOL.
I’ve watched friends in abusive relationships, and wondered why they stayed. Perhaps if they’d had the influence of a few romance novels, they’d realize they weren’t being treated right. I don’t know, and it’s perhaps too simplistic to think a romance novel or two would influence them more than the guy they’re with. Then again, my experience with romance novels started when I was at the cusp of dating/puberty, so maybe it’s less influential at other times in our lives. So many variables.
As far as what romance novels convey, I say love. Lust and sex are part of a loving (as in intimate/romantic relationships), and to leave out the component of sexual tension would be to deny that sex is involved in our human experiences. Certainly, you can have romance novels without graphic sex, just as you can have graphic sex without love. But I think it’s more than black or white, love or lust, because they two are intertwined.
My final thought is: the source is outdated, and while the quotes within may still apply, the romance novel has changed dramatically since the 70s and early 80s, regarding themes and messages. What may have once been an instruction on love could now be seen as an instruction on empowerment. And for some reason, the quote by Cawelti raises my defenses…not sure if it’s the use of the term “fantasy,” to indicate that it cannot be reality, or the “serious critical questions” bit. I just don’t like it and feel it’s harshly judging a genre that is no different in fantasy than a thriller or science fiction novel. I could be reading it wrong, though.
Hope this wasn’t too rambly. Great, thought-provoking question!
February 27, 2012 at 4:45 pm
Oh, when I said the source was outdated, I meant the first one, not the Lisa Fletcher one.
February 27, 2012 at 10:04 pm
Thanks for your response Noelle? Yah, the source is outdated, but I wanted to share it anyways as it reminded me of how critics even nowaday still call romance novels “soft porn” for women. Romance novels have indeed changed a lot – and changed for the better. I read many of the older romance novels (because sometimes a favorite author of mine would have books published from way back when and I’d track ‘em all down). Back then, the message was pretty bad – with the whole trend of heros being let off the hook for “raping” the heroine…
And that’s very interesting, that romance novels to you actually made you want more out of a relationship rather than simply settle. I think that goes the same for me. But I also think the influence of romance novels can go two ways. The positive way, where it increases the standard, and the negative way, where a woman in an abusive relationship believes that if she holds out a bit longer the husband might reform? Maybe or maybe not.
But yah, I’m really glad I got to read your side of the argument. I’d like to learn more about how romance novels have influenced other readers before I start writing. Because much of the material I’m basing my essay off are written by critics who have never been avid romance readers.So I don’t want to be prejudiced in my research : )
February 27, 2012 at 7:26 pm
I’ve seen a lot of people in abusive relationships. I’m always wondering: WHY ARE YOU STAYING? LEAVE! Of course, I’m not in their relationship. I don’t know why they’re staying or this is happening to them. But, a few that I have spoken have said things like, ‘this is the way it’s supposed to be’ or ‘it’s fine. Nothing’s wrong’. Maybe if these people were romance novel influenced they would see that that’s NOT how it should be, or maybe they’d read the stories, enjoy them, and dream about them, but stay in their relationship. I don’t know. It’s because every situation is different.
February 27, 2012 at 7:27 pm
SHORT ANSWER: I think it depends on the genre of romance you read. You’ll get varying degrees of lust and love. Although, I think the two should be combined. (How effectively, depends on the writer.) Romance novels *have* influenced my perceptions of love because otherwise, I wouldn’t have a clue. (Yes, I see people around me, family, TV shows, and movies, but books allow me to see into the characters minds, their thought processes, their reasons.)
LONG ANSWER: I don’t think romance novels should ‘teach’ what love really is either. However, I do believe that if the genre is going to be called ROMANCE that there should be love or romance in the novel. Oddly, I’ve been thinking a lot about this question lately as well. I mostly read historical romances (and I’ll explain that in a bit), but it’s not the only genre I read. I’ve read contemporary, paranormal, urban fiction, fantasy, and young adult. But, the reason I’ve been asking myself lately: Are these novels really about love or about sex?
While I have enjoyed the books I’ve been reading, I’ve come to the conclusion that a lot (majority) of them center on the main couple’s sexual relationship. I’m innocent in almost any way you can imagine and probably don’t have a lot of authority on this subject, but while I know sex, lust, and passion are an integral part to any relationship – I don’t think it’s the main part or what fosters love. Many of the books I’ve read TELL me the characters love each other or have fallen for each other. But, from what I read I didn’t see it. I believe a romance more if I’m able to actually FEEL it and experience it along with the characters. Of course, with different people, plots, and whatnot the experience will be different each time. But, that’s what I love about authors who are able to evoke that feeling. It’s something I’ve been taking into account with my own writing and striving toward. I want my readers to fall in love with the hero at the same moment the heroine does, and not just because he’s witty, because he’s worth it and it’s real (and vice versa).
Now, the personal part – why do I read historical romances? It’s actually NOT because “[i]n short they want to escape into and actually experience the period”. I’m a Muslim girl who grew up in America, but was [is] still heavily influenced by cultural values. Sometimes, the two clash or become so convoluted I can’t separate the two. I know what it means for *me* to be a Muslim girl, but sometimes I find out certain things were actually more cultural than religious. There are, however, parts that overlap and completely agree.
I was born in Guyana (in South America) and up until 1966, Guyana was under British rule. They are a people who were and still influenced by British culture. But, it’s also mixed with Indian heritage, African, Dutch, and Chinese. When it comes to relationships, dating/courting, and marriages all of these cultures kind of agree (esp. when you consider the fact that this is one aspect that has not developed alongside technology, politics, etc.). The guy needs to be approved by the family and come from a good family (without scandal, have a good job/education). THEN, the guy and girl talk for a bit (generally with parental supervision) and see how it works out. This is how it is in many parts of Guyana.
My parents, however, and a lot of my family have had the freedom to choose their own spouses (and this was before they came to America).
From the religious aspect, it is the girl’s father’s responsibility to see that she’s married well, taken care of, etc. (Seeing a link to the books I read?) Women are not supposed to be alone with any non-familial male, or any male she could possibly marry (i.e. cousin on her father’s side), the match has to be approved by the father, etc.
My generation is the first to grow up here, but my brother and younger cousins are first generation Americans. American values that we’ve been surrounded by since forever conflict with a lot of our religious values. Americans date, have bf/gfs from 16 (or earlier), move in together without getting married. (To be clear: not judging). I can’t do any of those things. But, I’m still expected to find a guy on my own anyway. My parents aren’t going to force me to marry someone I don’t want to, but neither is it appropriate for me to go to a bar and find a date.
When did I start reading romances? The summer between junior and senior year of high school. A lot of my friends had already been on dates, had their first kiss, first boyfriend, or even had sex. Me? Nothing. Nada. I wasn’t interested and it wouldn’t have been able to happen even if I was. The romance novels allowed me to 1) enjoy a good story, 2) learn about love 3) experience creative history, 4) and live vicariously.
Do I have high expectations now? YES. Not unrealistic expectations of men. I’m not looking for the full head of glossy hair, chiseled 8-pack, 6’+, CEO of the biggest/wealthiest company in the world who’s also secretly a duke. (A few of those things would be…pleasing…) I’m looking for someone who will love me, won’t cheat on me, won’t beat or rape me, and wants a family (whom he won’t leave or abuse in anyway). That’s not unrealistic. That’s VERY realistic. I think expecting women to NOT want these things are unrealistic.
February 27, 2012 at 11:04 pm
Thank you for your response! And while there are many great authors, I’m sure, who are able to switch up the dynamic and portray love rather than lust, I too find that the majority of romance novels are based on sexual relationships. They’re great fun to read, but they can be hollowing at times. I TOTALLY agree with you that it is NOT unrealistic for a woman to desire a healthy relationship in which the man desires her alone. That’s actually a really good point – something I didn’t think about. That much of the “fantasies” presented in the romance novels IS what women should want in a relationship.
(But I guess the question becomes… what do romance novels portray as a healthy relationship? What happens if sexual passion, which is a major theme in romance novels, dwindles away in a relationship? What happens IF a man and woman is married and he cheats on her? Because with romance novels, the idea of “soul mate” has been so fixed into the psyche that I think, if a man isn’t unable to live up to the standard, the woman will search again, looking for “the one”- because he hasn’t fulfilled her fantasy. But then… I can’t say this is bad or good. Just a lot of questions romances raise up.)
I really enjoyed reading your personal account of why historical romances resonates so well with you! I found myself being able to relate with you in the latter bit – about how, as a daughter raised in a religious family, you can’t quite live in the footsteps of others. That’s why romance novels became to me, as I guess it did to you – a form of…escapism? Not that I was disappointed with reality and longed for escape. But I guess those novels offered freedom I would otherwise not choose to indulge in. The novels allowed me to live a certain way in my imagination with “no strings attached”.
February 28, 2012 at 11:37 pm
If you haven’t already, check out Teach Me Tonight, which is an academic-based set of analyses on the romance genre…by avid readers of the genre (http://teachmetonight.blogspot.com/). There’s also the Journal of Popular Romance Studies (http://jprstudies.org/). I’ve considered writing an article for their journal, but decided to leave the romance for pleasure reading.
March 3, 2012 at 6:07 pm
thanks! I’ll definately include notes from these sites in my project
February 29, 2012 at 2:50 pm
Interesting! What I find fascinating is that even things that aren’t necessarily meant to be instructional can be taken that way–that we can learn and internalize lessons from places that didn’t set out to teach us. I think romance novels could fall into this category–I think the primary purpose of most authors is entertainment, and so they create fantasies (sorry to use the word, Noelle, I’m just not sure what word is better :/) of romantic situations or partners for readers to lose themselves in. Like you said, June, I think it’s primarily escapism. The trouble is, those fantasies not only follow pre-existing ideals but also form and reinforce ideals. And there’s no getting around the fact that romance has a formula–it’s not a bad thing for a book, but applying a predictable formula to real life can be damaging. Even the good expectations that PS mentions can be oversimplified if pulled from between the covers (of the, um, book). Take most characters in most books–romance novels included. They are shown with a pat set of traits, some good, some bad. Being in a romantic relationship with someone means knowing them much better–their full spectrum of traits–than a book can really portray (even a wonderful, well-written book–this is not meant as a “romance is shallow” argument–compared to how real people act in real life, no book can quite capture anything close).
March 3, 2012 at 6:12 pm
I agree with you that romance novels, though it”s not intended to instruct — readers will internalize the values in these novels, especially avid romance readers. I was just reading about how romance readers are able to distinguish reality from “fantasy”, but “romanticism and realism can coexist on different levels of subjectivities”. I’ll include notes from this reading once I’m finished. She raises some really interesting points that isn’t so much critiquing romance books but romantic love itself…as a social construct. The book kept reminding me of your comment here because your thoughts parallel with the author’s. The essay is from a book called “Romance Revisited” – it’s outdated (published 1995), but I think the opinions about romantic love is relative enough to apply even for this time and age
March 9, 2012 at 11:08 pm
Hrmm I REALLY have to look into romance genres to answer your question
.. but a general outsider’s perspective, the genre seems overall like an escapist structure involving bits of “love” and “lust”. Now what’s love and what’s lust…? A discussion on its own… I might even blog about it later!
I don’t think “love” and “lust” are SEPARATED as though they come from two different sources of emotion. I think of them as differing streams of “attraction”, just as Ancient Greeks distinguished different types of love, from eros to agape, all under the umbrella of “love”. I find this understanding more embracing, and it helps explain the kind of loneliness or attraction-seeking people experience today. Psychologists have suggested that people “obsess” with sex today – with, on one hand, closeting and censoring it, and on the other end of the spectrum, mythologizing, pornographizing, and worshipping it – because they don’t experience the basic close, neighbourly, familial connections of smaller towns and communities from the past. In big cities we hardly know our neighbours anymore, and though we have internet and etc., there’s less verbal and body-language communication over all. So sex, furthered by media mythology – “sex completes you!” seems to be the new model for this need. At the same time, for this reason, I don’t think of sexual desire as any less than, say, “love” – which, if you think about it, is hardly just ROMANTIC love; it could be family love, friendship love, etc. etc.! I would never say that a “romance book” that focuses more on “lust” is any worse than one that portrays true “love”; I would say such a book hasn’t fulfilled reader expectations within the definitions of the genre, but I wouldn’t think it has taught a better or worse lesson. There are some REALLY good erotica books out there that explore the realm of human sexuality apart from the tropes and conventions of “romance”; namely, they are centered on, rather than enhanced by, sexual explicitness. I’m digressing lots here but your question about love/lust reminded me of this hierarchy that tends to happen with love/lust: we think love is a better, loftier subject, the mark of a better writer, than someone who writes about lust. But I’d disagree: it depends on HOW you handle the topics.
Rowenna said it very well – “Being in a romantic relationship with someone means knowing them much better–their full spectrum of traits–than a book can really portray (even a wonderful, well-written book–this is not meant as a “romance is shallow” argument–compared to how real people act in real life, no book can quite capture anything close).” – so I think ultimately romance offers only a tiny, tantalizing glimpse of that spectrum: real relationships are, in some ways, more enriching
At the same time, romance novels are still great for what they are: we read them for the same reason we’d read Sci-Fi, Fantasy, etc. etc… we might even read it for the same reason as reading, say, Spenser! – the escapist/imaginative route. I think romance is a powerful shaping force behind many forms of desire today… not only coupled/sexual desire, but it even extends towards, say, consumerist culture. Whether we envision the “perfect” partner or the perfect vacation getaway, romance (today) makes things better than they seem, and makes them desirable as escapist or “fantasy” forms. The genre convinces and empowers us to pursue these goals. And sometimes it’s great – it makes life a little more interesting!
March 31, 2012 at 3:12 pm
sorry for the late response! going to everyone’s comments again to decide what I’ll be arguing for my paper.
But you raised a really good point: “I would never say that a “romance book” that focuses more on “lust” is any worse than one that portrays true “love”; I would say such a book hasn’t fulfilled reader expectations within the definitions of the genre, but I wouldn’t think it has taught a better or worse lesson.”
It really comes down to what the expectations are about this genre… I’m just assuming and generalizing here, but if true long-lasting faithful-till-I-die kinda “love” is what readers are searching for in this genre, but are instead introduced to a story lust, it doesn’t teach a “better or worse lesson” but a problematic lesson.
IMO, love and lust is separate in the sense that they’re not compatible. Lust may lead to love, but “true” love doesn’t contain lust — rather, there is sexual attraction. The attraction can be very veryyyy intense – but that doesn’t make it lust. Lust, on the other hand, from what I understand, tends to objectify the man or woman in question. Lust suggests “taking” — i.e. having our own sexual appetite satisfied. It tends to deny the individuality of another. Like you mentioned, there’s nothing wrong with the concept of “lust” in literature, like erotica, but for women who are searching for love in romance novels and find lust instead… well, like i said, it’s problematic. It wouldn’t be, if the marketing of these novels didn’t suggest that they’re supposed to convey a love story.
March 31, 2012 at 4:06 pm
oh, i think your argument and my argument on love and lust might be touching upon the argument of didactic love fiction in which “good people are rewarded and bad people are punished” and amatory fiction, which celebrates sexual passion.
http://teachmetonight.blogspot.ca/2010/04/whats-at-core-of-genre.html