There's been a vast amount written and debated in the last week about the romance genre and the lack of respect it receives.1 I'm not planning on re-opening the debate with regards to suitable attire for romance authors because I'm sure anyone who's read all the posts and comments here, here, here and here will (a) have a good idea of the various standpoints on the issue and (b) have eye-strain.
I'd just like to observe that the study of popular culture is relatively new. Back in the late 1960s and 1970s when
Professor Ray B. Browne [...] founded the Journal of Popular Culture and the Popular Culture Library at Bowling Green State University in 1967, the Center for the Study of Popular Culture at BGSU in 1968, the BGSU Popular Press and the Popular Culture Association in 1970, the Department of Popular Culture at BGSU in 1972 (Americana)it was the case that
To the extent that popular culture was being examined back then, it was through the telescopic lens of history or with the long, cold tongs of the social sciences. But Browne insisted on also looking at contemporary material and applying to it the kind of close, comparative analysis that had previously been reserved for highbrow culture. (Salon)As Catherine Morland once observed, history could be described as "The quarrels of popes and kings, with wars or pestilences, in every page; the men all so good for nothing, and hardly any women at all" (Austen, Mansfield Park). Nowadays, however, historians use a much wider range of source materials and have rewritten histories to include women, children and the lower social classes. This opening up of new areas of research and a new appreciation for previously neglected texts and objects has led to the creation of new collections such as the
Browne Popular Culture Library. The BPCL, founded in 1969 and dedicated to the acquisition and preservation of research materials on American popular culture (post 1876), is the most comprehensive repository of its kind in the United States. (website)Such collections bring together these otherwise ephemeral resources in order to preserve them and make them accessible for academic study. The online databases at Streetprint.org serve the same purpose. All of them are collections of works of popular culture from chapbooks to street art and from Canada to Eritrea.
Here's a link to a 'penny dreadful',2 The Illustrated Family Novelist, from the Revolution and Romanticism database, which contains the short story of A True Woman by Miss Minnie Young. [If you look below the page there's an option to 'view larger image', followed by [+] and [+] and if you click on that larger [+] you can read the text more easily and move forwards through the text using the arrows at the sides of the pages.]
Here's Margaret, our heroine, talking to Dr Harley, her secret admirer, about the song 'The Lorelei' [lyrics by Heinrich Heine (1823) and music by Friedrich Silcher (1789-1860)]:
[Margaret] "I don't think I sympathise very much with the story, or rather with the luckless hero. Wasn't the Lorelei supposed to be soulless?"Given her views on love and folly I have the impression that Margaret might well disagree with the comment in the Text in Transit: A Guide to Genre in Popular Literature database, in the item on "Comic Romance", to the effect that "Romance and relationships are inherently ridiculous".3
[Dr Harley] "Yes"
[Margaret] "And the fisherman flung away his life for such a being?"
[Dr Harley] "He wasn't the first man who has flung away his life for a woman without a soul."
[Margaret] "That is very likely; but I can't sympathise with such a feeling."
[Dr Harley] "He was in love?"
[Margaret] "He was infatuated."
[Dr Harley] "Are they not convertible terms?"
"Certainly not," she spoke with some scorn; and then, seeing the expression on her companion's face - he only spoke thus to try her - she changed her tone. "But some people are so fond of talking as if love and folly were synonymous."
"Because so many people act as if they were. Of course they are not. The highest love is subordinate to reason, to honour, and to duty. When man or woman sweep down these barriers it is generally through the weakness of their principles rather than by the strength of their feelings." (page 5)
In comparison with history, the study of popular culture, that "vital area of study that offers new insights into our history, beliefs, diversity, emotional make-up, and socio-economic relations" (Portland State University) is still a relatively young discipline but already it has changed (revolutionised?) the way we think about what would once have been termed "low culture". Further study of both the romance genre as a whole and of individual romance novels will, I hope, contribute to a more nuanced approach to the genre, one which acknowledges the diversity of cultures, ideologies, and, yes, levels of literary merit, which are present in this huge and varied genre.
---
1 I would like to observe that "respect" is not synonymous with "respectability". The former, according to the OED can mean "a feeling of admiration for someone because of their qualities or achievements" or "due regard for the feelings or rights of others" whereas the respectable is what is "regarded by society as being proper, correct, and good" or is "of some merit or importance".
2 The term "penny dreadful" is not a complimentary one. Romances have suffered from similar labelling problems, with many described as 'bodice-rippers' despite the fact that they contained no descriptions of clothing being shredded. Kathleen Woodiwiss
became known as a pioneer of the "erotic historical" novel. She didn't appreciate it.3 Links to short descriptions of other romance sub-genres covered by the database, and a few examples of covers from each sub-genre, can be found here.
"I'm insulted when my books are called erotic," Woodiwiss said in a 1978 interview with Cosmopolitan magazine. "I write love stories, with a little spice." (LA Times)
----
The painting is of Liberty Guiding the People, by Eugène Delacroix, from Wikipedia. She may perhaps also be considered the embodiment of popular culture. She demands respect, not respectability, and her bodice, while unripped, is revealing. It's a costume which, while suitable for an allegorical figure, would certainly not be considered normal, professional wear for an author.
I'm enjoying these 30-year-old glimpses of romance culture. That 1981 Life Magazine article was eye-opening.
ReplyDeleteThe 1978 Woodiwiss quote ("I'm insulted when my books are called erotic") makes me wonder whether "erotic" had a different implication in pop culture 30 years ago, or if that was simply her viewpoint.
I forgot to say--this is an excellent point:
ReplyDelete"respect" is not synonymous with "respectability"
It's hard talk about one without invoking the other--and often that whole loaded group of words like respect, respectable, professional, personal, popular, elite, judgment, choice....
Nice footnotes, BTW ;)
The 1978 Woodiwiss quote ("I'm insulted when my books are called erotic") makes me wonder whether "erotic" had a different implication in pop culture 30 years ago, or if that was simply her viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteFrom a modern perspective, now that we've got a sub-genre called "erotic romance" it's certainly true that Woodiwiss's work wouldn't be classified that way. I suspect that (a) the "erotic" was possibly viewed in a somewhat different light in the 1970s and was perhaps less mainstream than it is now and so (b) her rejection of the term "erotic" perhaps resembles Nora Roberts' rejection of the definition of her work as "smut" (as in this movie clip). In other words, in both cases there's a sense that the works are being defined in terms of their sexual content which the author acknowledges but doesn't consider to be the sole or defining feature of the novels. That would be my take on the quotations, but of course I might well be wrong.
that whole loaded group of words
Yes, there are lots of words which have connotations which might mark some authors/works as "in" or "establishment", and I don't think that the genre has to become tame or conformist (which might be what's implied by the use of the term "respectable") in order to be worthy of respect. I'm using the term "respect" in the sense of deserving to be judged on a basis other than prejudice and stereotypes.
Nice footnotes, BTW ;)
Yes, I'm having a lot of fun formatting them, RfP, and I'm so glad you told me how to write the code. They make me feel that my blog posts are so much more professional-looking ;-)
That's true--Woodiwiss may well have been reacting to a pejorative or dismissive tone from the interviewer, not just a specific word.
ReplyDeletemy blog posts are so much more professional-looking
Ha, that in itself is a nice side note on the interesting places pop culture can go--something missed in that blast by Adam Kirsch against litblogs.
Romance has changed so much in the past thirty years and I feel that really is a reflection of our societal changes during that same time period. For example, I vaguely remember Rosemary Rogers’ as being brutal. Rape, coercion, females having to be one step ahead of males in order to just survive, not having any direct power or control over their own destinies regardless of their intelligence, ingenuity or station of birth. The only outs marriage, such as it was, with children or spinsterhood. But the woman seems to have a real choice here as to which one she will chose.
ReplyDeleteGradually the tone becomes gentler. Rape becomes forced seduction. But the characters also change. Men still have all the ultimate power but now the female characters seem to be put into a subordinate role such as secretary to executive, nurse to doctor. In fact, instead of being proactive and trying to stay ahead of the men, they seem to become more passive and enter into a victim role. Alone, friendless, orphaned or having a weak father or brother, the female must make the sacrifice to martyr themselves for others or give into blackmail because there is no other choice. Interestingly enough this is where we might see the hero as simply another aspect of the heroine, giving the reader a way to explore herself and her desires vivaciously without the judgment attached to what was appropriate for females. Again there is a choice of marriage with children or spinsterhood in these stories, but it feels different in that the only real option is marriage.
Recently we've entered a new phrase of exploring sexuality. BDSM, multiple partners, bestiality, and many other alternative lifestyle. Even so many of these stories still have the aspects of forced seduction to them or have the more submissive female being claimed by powerful alpha males. Even so, truly aggressive heroines are rarely seen. As aside: I think part of why M/M romance has a large following among hetrosexual female may be that it takes the female out of the equation. An author can go anywhere with a story and not have to worry whether or not one of the men is a virgin or will give up his job or...
Anyway, I think the next major shift of romance will have more heroines in active roles again. Taking charge, having communities around them, actively purposing an adventure, having discussion about whether or not to have children, etc. I think Jennifer Crusie is only one example of an author who has heroines in this mold. Someone somewhere called her subversive to the genre. I think I rather like that. It means that a shift is happening again.
So why is the shift happening this time? Because the next generation of reader/author wants to explore these things with a heroine not a hero stand-in. They want to see more of themselves with all the choices and responsibilities they have because of their choices. And as our society becomes more diverse in the US and distribution of romance novels becomes big business around the world, the range of content and issues explored will start to diverge even more. Erotic romance and the advent of e-publishing as it pertains to the romance industry is just the tip of the iceberg.
That's not to say forced seductions will ever go away. They’ll never go away as long as women feel that there’s something they shouldn’t do simply because they’re women. That’s a morality issues because it’s worldwide a gender issue. Besides FS give the reader a safe place to explore what they long to do.
So why is the romance genre important and why should society value it enough to study it? (Sorry, I have to take respect out of the conversation here because that word’s connotation is much too subjective for me.)
Looking over the trends in romance over a larger timeframe, I think you'll see the trends of society in western cultural especially in regards to how females believe they are viewed and what their acceptable choices are—career, attire, comportment, sexuality—within that society for a very specific demographic: US, white, Christian background, enough disposable income to purchase romance novels on a regular basis or access to a library or book trading network.
Is it important? Absolutely. As a whole this is a reflection of some of the unspoken cultural whispers that women receive. Look at romances during the first feminist movement vs. the feminist backlash, what do you see specifically about the power and choices that women have within these stories? What is the overall message that the reader is receiving even if the author isn’t purposefully putting it the story? It’s not just about love or sex even if that’s the vehicle used to move the story along.
The true power of the romance genre, isn’t whether the story’s well-written or porn vs. inspirational or any of the arguments that are given as to whether or not romance deserves ‘respect.’ Romance’s power is that it says something very definitively about the females who live when the story is written, their cultural values & mores, power structures, sexuality, and most importantly how women view their place in it even if they can’t articulate it.
Gosh, Laura, you really challenge me to think.
I'd just like to observe that the study of popular culture is relatively new
ReplyDeletePopular culture as a whole, yes. But those parts of it that Herder labelled "Volkspoesie" (roughly translated, "folk literature" -- in contrast to what the German term suggests, it doesn't only refer to poetry) has been of interest to scholars ever since the late 18th century -- thanks to Percy and Macpherson, whose collections inspired Herder, Brentano and von Arnim, as well as the Grimms to start collections of their own. Especially Jakob Grimm regarded this as a scholarly project and wasn't really happy about changing the "original" fairy tales.
RfP, re Adam Kirsch's comment that "The blog form, that miscellany of observations, opinions, and links, is not well-suited to writing about literature", I (obviously) think he's wrong. It's not the best way to write about literature at length and without interruptions, but if you want to have an ongoing dialogue with other readers, if you want to be not an authority presenting information, but more of a commentator who acts as part of a community of equals, then blogging can work very well.
ReplyDeleteIt also seems a little ironic that Kirsch's essay is readable on the web, along with the reviews sections of newspapers that have such sections online. That would tend to suggest to me that for many people it's no longer the case that "our habits and technology still make it hard to read long essays on the computer screen". Some people are even reading books online! ;-)
AQ, I have to admit that I've not been reading romance very long, and my knowledge of romances prior to the 1990s, other than Heyer, Mary Stewart, E. M. Hull's The Sheik and a few others, is rather limited. That said, what you're saying about this broad trend and the way in which it represents an ongoing exploration of female sexuality fits in with what I've learned from my secondary reading on the genre.
It is a very important trajectory, but it isn't the only trend in romance over the period you describe - there's also been the change from female-only point of view (and I wonder if that had something to do with the gothics that preceded the emergence of romances like Woodiwiss's) to a mixture of hero and heroine's POVs in the same novel. That can be related back to gender relationships too, though. There have also been changes/fluctuations in which historical periods have found favour, and there have always been trends with run in opposite directions or which resist change. The "trad Regency", for example, remained free of sex scenes for a very long time, and had particular conventions which made it different from other sub-genres. Nowadays, alongside the expansion of the erotic romance sub-genre, there's also the rise of the inspirational romance.
I'm not saying that to contradict you, because I think you're right with regards to the overall direction, it's just that I'm trying to add observations which make the picture a little more complex, to reflect what I'd describe as the variety present in the genre. That variety can be seen both in the long-term, where trends such as the one you describe can be clearly seen, and in the short-term, where there will always be some novels which run counter to the trends, or ignore them, as well as those which push the trends forwards.
Romance’s power is that it says something very definitively about the females who live when the story is written, their cultural values & mores, power structures, sexuality, and most importantly how women view their place in it even if they can’t articulate it.
I hadn't thought of it in these terms, but I think that's what I was trying to get at when I made the comparison with history, and the way that in the past women's lives were often excluded. The same could be said of the study of literature, which often excluded works by women.
That's not to say that all romances are written and read by women, but it's still the case that the majority of readers and authors are female.
Sandra, correct me if I'm wrong, but I have a sense that "folk" culture was viewed differently from "popular" culture. It seems to me that "folk" culture (rightly or wrongly, probably wrongly ;-) ) was seen as a source of national identity and unchanging values whereas "popular" culture, the real culture of the working classes present at the time was labelled "kitsch", lacking in artistic/literary merit and/or displaying "false consciousness" and buying into bourgeois values.
AQ mentioned the "next generation" of readers and it made me think of what teens are reading now and what they'll want and expect in romances as they grow into the genre. In discussing changes to the RITA YA category, the RWA said, "The Young Adult novel is our best way to guide young readers toward adult romance." I wonder if this is true. Are future adult romance readers reading "romantic" YA books now? If so (or if not), how will that influence the genre?
ReplyDeleteAnyone know of anything that discusses or researches what adult romance readers read as teens?
Anyone know of anything that discusses or researches what adult romance readers read as teens?
ReplyDeleteLinda K. Christian-Smith's Becoming a Woman Through Romance (New York; London: Routledge, 1990) is about young readers reading YA romance, but as far as I can remember it doesn't follow them into adulthood to see if they move on to read adult romances. I might be wrong about that though, because it's a while since I read it. It's also a while since the book was published, so the situation may well have changed. The Romance Wiki bibliography has a few other items about young adult readers, but they too seem to have been written some time ago.
According to the RWA's statistics, 1% of romance readers are 13 or younger and 6% are between the ages of 14-17. I'm assuming these readers are reading adult romances, but it's not actually stated what sort of romances they're choosing.
I'm not sure that really answers your question. Maybe someone else, who knows more than I do, will be able to give you more information. You could also try posting a question to the Romance Scholar email list; there are some very knowledgeable people on there.
Anyone know of anything that discusses or researches what adult romance readers read as teens?
ReplyDeleteJust get them to fall in love with reading so they become lifelong readers. The bigger the established readership, the greater the likelihood of pulling readers from that base who will love romance.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's the single most important thing you can do for the romance genre and society as a whole. And, no, I don't simplify or exaggerate at all. LOL
It is a very important trajectory, but it isn't the only trend in romance over the period you describe
ReplyDeleteCompletely agree. But it’s the trajectory I’m purposefully focusing on at the moment because I believe that it’s intricately tied to the cultural messages that romance novels directly reflect back to us.
Okay, I’m going to qualify this right now. My mind has been whirling since the SB conversation that Laura linked to started, it whirled faster & faster after Laura & I e-mailed each other and I wrote my original post on this blog. The reason I’m stating this is up-front is because I’m testing some of these thoughts/arguments out on you as well as myself. I’m hoping for lively discussion that makes all of us look at this issue from what I perceive as a different angle. But be warned I may take a counter position from what I actually believe or think I believe just so I can fully explore the topic.
That said, I’ve stated that romance’s power is that it says something very definitively about the females who live when the story is written, their cultural values & mores, power structures, sexuality, and most importantly how women view their place in it even if they can’t articulate it. It’s also it’s greatest weakness because it reflects back to us as a whole only certain perceived cultural messages by a very specific demographic group (I explain my meaning later) and that’s definitely a problem because history & current society might view it as a reflection of all women living when the book was written. Just as Jane Austen’s stories only represent a tiny aspect of the world & time she lived in, the same can be said about the romance genre as a whole. But unlike Jane Austen who can be applauded or cursed for limited world view and reflection of culture, the romance genre is more than one author with a limited readership. It’s the largest single genre of the fiction marketplace and yet as a whole, even with all of it power, it only explores a tiny aspect of the world and society it exists in.
So back to the questions Laura has raised. Does Romance as a whole deserve to be studied? Absolutely. Does romance as a whole deserve to be respected? Umm...maybe. I think that answer depends on a lot of things that are very subjective to an individual. I also think that if you’re answer is ‘yes, absolutely’ that the way that respect is shown means very different things. e.g., for Nora Roberts that answer may be that she never gets asked about Fabio or why she writes ‘porn’ again and perhaps it also means that a journalist such as Charlie Rose dedicates an entire show interviewing her about her latest book. For an average jane reader, it might mean that she never has to receive tacit disapproval from her peers or the checkout clerk about her choice in reading material.
So let’s get some of the superficial (my view) arguments of why shouldn’t it be respected out of the way.
1. Filled with copyediting errors, clunky prose, etc.
This is a product defect issue and the manufacturer should be held accountable. It has absolutely nothing to do with the romance genre as a whole. As a consumer if you don’t like it, then you need to write to the manufacturer and demand that they REPLACE your defective product with a defect-free product. After all why should a manufacturer fix something that the consumer is willing to not only purchase but keep purchasing without complaint?
2. Mantitty covers
Excuse me for a moment while I beat my head against the wall. Now I have to say ‘GET OVER IT!!!’ even though I’m quite sick of them myself. Erotic imagery sells everything in our society. Cars, household appliances, food. Heck, it’s even used to get us to live in a certain housing developments. This isn’t going to go away and if you really wanted it to go away for romance novels, you’d have to conclusively prove again and again to each publisher that the book would sell better without any erotic imagery. No one will EVER be able to do that. Not in a society that has proven again and again that sexual imagery sells products. Perhaps for a specific author (then I’d simply argue name recognition), but definitely not for the genre as a whole.
3. Romance is porn for woman.
Maybe a certain story is for a certain author/reader. So what? Accept it and move on. Romance is about relationships between people who will fall in love and have a happily-ever-after. That by its very definition means there will be sexual contact of some kind whether it is written in an explicit fashion or not at all and hidden behind closed doors. The level of sexuality depends entirely on the comfort level of the author and the reader, but it really has nothing to do with the outsider's arguments. Not really. Insiders completely miss this point because they neglect the cultural message being reflected in romance novels (perhaps they don’t even see the message) and instead allow the conversation to be splintered because of their personal comfort level with female sexuality. Actually this particular argument really is a reflection of society as a whole.
I'd like to take on what I think the 'whispered' cultural messages are and the problem of a limited world view and why it's relevant to respect for romance but I don't want to hog the blog or go down an avenue that isn't tied close enough to Laura's original post.
I haven't written my take on it yet and my mind is still whirling because I've never examined it from this angle before. Actually I've never given it much thought at all before the SB conversation even though I'd glanced at some of the 'romance' arguments before. I'm okay with not exploring this particular avenue. Just wanted to ask before I put the time into forcing myself to write down and hone my free-flowing thoughts into a more concise argument.
It’s also it’s greatest weakness because it reflects back to us as a whole only certain perceived cultural messages by a very specific demographic group (I explain my meaning later) and that’s definitely a problem because history & current society might view it as a reflection of all women living when the book was written.
ReplyDeleteIs it realistic, though, to expect any genre or artistic form to be produced by authors from, and/or appeal to, every part of society? I think not. If one looks at the literary canon, for example, it's composed primarily of "dead white males". Certain types of music are more likely to appeal to certain age groups etc. That's why, to get a more accurate picture of a society, one has to examine all of its different "popular culture" genres as well as its "high art". Or, if you can't do that (as I couldn't when I studied attitudes to death using 15th-century sources) then you have to be aware of the limitations of your sources (I limited my observations to the classes at the very top of the social hierarchy, since they were mainly the people producing the texts I studied /for whom the texts were produced).
1. Filled with copyediting errors, clunky prose, etc.
The copyediting can definitely be a problem, and it can be annoying to find someone using the wrong word (e.g. "flaunt" instead of "flout" or another, similar, common error). That said, just because someone or something is slightly flawed doesn't mean that it doesn't deserve respect. None of us are perfect, and I don't expect texts to be either ;-)
2. Mantitty covers [...] This isn’t going to go away
They're not as prevalent as they used to be. Candice Hern recently observed that
The old-fashioned clinch cover still lives, though apparently only at Avon. The bare-chested man entwined with a clothed woman (who always seems to be lifting her skirt to show her bare leg) survives in some bottom-tier Avon books, but almost nowhere else.
3. Romance is porn for woman
I wrote about this perception a while ago and as you say, usually it says a lot more about the speaker's opinion about the depiction of sexuality than it does about the novels.
I'd like to take on what I think the 'whispered' cultural messages are and the problem of a limited world view and why it's relevant to respect for romance but I don't want to hog the blog or go down an avenue that isn't tied close enough to Laura's original post.
Please, please feel free to go ahead. I don't want to force people to stick strictly to my perspective on an issue; if they did that (a) I'd be hogging the blog and (b) the issues would only be discussed from my own limited world view.
Are future adult romance readers reading "romantic" YA books now?
ReplyDeleteI doubt that that's a guaranteed pathway. I never had any interest in "romantic YA". I never read a Sweet Valley High, and neither did any of my romance-reading friends. I found them childish even when I was younger than their target market. The biggest problem was the characters' utter lack of charisma.
I explored sci fi/fantasy briefly as a teen, because I found a lot of extremely tight-focus, third-limited, heavily character-driven books in those genres. That intensity made for a more natural transition to romance, whereas the YA romances I was aware of seemed bland and socially-focused (sometimes even preachy), not individual character-focused.
‘GET OVER IT!!!’ ... Erotic imagery sells everything in our society.
No, I'm not going to "get over it". I don't keep books (any genre) in editions I find unattractive or not representative of my experience reading the book. Therefore the mantitty covers make a large fraction of the genre non-keepers for me.
Your "Erotic images sell everything" examples really aren't congruent with romance covers. Perhaps a man would buy a home in part because an attractive model caught his eye in an ad. Would he buy the house if it came with that model's image permanently emblazoned on it? Big difference between a temporary affective/acquisitive internal association of product with sex appeal, and a public, permanent infusing of the house/book with irrelevant attributes.
Insiders completely miss this point because they neglect the cultural message being reflected in romance novels (perhaps they don’t even see the message) and instead allow the conversation to be splintered because of their personal comfort level with female sexuality.
I don't see this happening at all. There's a lot of conversation about those cultural messages.
At the same time, I don't think the non-romance-reader always says "porn for women" in the sense of "sex books for women". I think a large portion of the pejorative "porn" is about the emotional content. "Emotional porn" isn't always said explicitly, but I think it's usually there in the background. There's a high level of squeamishness in talking about emotion, even more in some circles (and certainly with less organized pushback) than there is in talking about sex.
1. Filled with copyediting errors, clunky prose, etc.
ReplyDeleteYep, I think we agree here.
2. Mantitty covers [...] This isn’t going to go away
They're not as prevalent as they used to be. Candice Hern recently observed that
Too narrow of a focus IMO, because although these covers certainly aren't clinch covers, they still use erotic imagery even if it's more sophisticated. This is kind of like the line in the sand argument re: appropriate attire. It all depends on the audience and personal perspective because if you put the catalogue of an erotic romance publisher like Ellora's Cave up for review you'd get a lot more variance of opinion. And really in order for a trending argument you'd like to look at all the publisher's catalogues over an extended period of time with an agreed upon definition of 'mantitty.' I was using the word generically as a stand-in for comfort level of the consumer with the degree of erotic imagery used to sell the product.
Please, please feel free to go ahead.
Thanks! I have to be honest I'm a little daunted by the prospect. Rather than trying to a very large argument covering the entirity of the issue, I think I'll try to piecemeal it for the purposes of examination. Then perhaps when the conversation gets enough pieces
I was using the word generically as a stand-in for comfort level of the consumer with the degree of erotic imagery used to sell the product.
ReplyDeletePart of my problem with the mantitty covers is their dated look. They hark straight back to the 1970s "bodice rippers"--which I didn't like then, and don't like seeing dominate romance's image now. I'd much rather buy, carry around, and own a book with an erotic but non-dated cover. (Though I'm not so fond of pixelated space-alien cheese.)
I'm convinced most of chick lit's popularity is due to marketing. Cute, mod covers and modern settings with blurbs that sound straight out of Sex and the City. It's easier on the image to pick up a book like that--rather than a book that by all appearances is an unreconstructed rape-you-make-you-like-it tale.
No, I'm not going to "get over it". I don't keep books (any genre) in editions I find unattractive or not representative of my experience reading the book. Therefore the mantitty covers make a large fraction of the genre non-keepers for me.
ReplyDeleteYou absolutely don't have to get over it personally and I'm all for the effot to change how the product is sold if that's what the targeted consumer wants. However, when it comes to arguments of whether or not romance deserves respect and the argument uses the content of book covers to further the argument against respect, that's when I say 'get over it' because I think that the cover argument is very weak and superficial one in terms of respect.
Your "Erotic images sell everything" examples really aren't congruent with romance covers. Perhaps a man would buy a home in part because an attractive model caught his eye in an ad. Would he buy the house if it came with that model's image permanently emblazoned on it? Big difference between a temporary affective/acquisitive internal association of product with sex appeal, and a public, permanent infusing of the house/book with irrelevant attributes.
My quick and dirty answer is that book covers are the primary and direct advertisement to its consumer base which is why I feel I can compare it to directly to the other visual advertisement used to sell products. The fact that the advertisement is kept as long as the product is kept did not enter my mind. It is an interesting concept though that I will have to examine.
At the same time, I don't think the non-romance-reader always says "porn for women" in the sense of "sex books for women". I think a large portion of the pejorative "porn" is about the emotional content. "Emotional porn" isn't always said explicitly, but I think it's usually there in the background. There's a high level of squeamishness in talking about emotion, even more in some circles (and certainly with less organized pushback) than there is in talking about sex.
Completely agree, although I'd argue that outsiders don't differiante between emotional or sexual porn as much as you're implying and that they don't really care or even think about it that much. It's just a quick stereotypical answer for most of them.
That said, I do think that this question of degree is very, very more important to the insiders and the arguments used to counterdict the stereotype. That's part of why I think we need to take a step back and look at genre as the whole and look at the cultural messages that are conveyed regardless of whether the book is an erotic romance or an inspirational one. What subtext are we seeing, what do we ourselves hear resonating? Then we need to break them into tiny, tiny bits and see how it shakes up.
Hey, I may be so completely off base, but even if I am, I feel that looking at it from this perspective has value because of advancing that possibility that we may discover something new.
I think that the cover argument is very weak and superficial one in terms of respect.
ReplyDeleteMy point was that the cover isn't just sexual; it's dated and conveys a dated impression of the book's content. Which gives the cover quite a lot of power in the respect wars. What's inside matters a lot too, but honestly, what's inside could be dramatically experimental literary fiction--but none of the genre's detractors would pick it up if there's a clinch cover.
outsiders don't differiante between emotional or sexual porn as much as you're implying
I'm not implying that they differentiate at all in that immediate characterization of romance as porn. They don't have to be aware of the intertwining of the issues for both to be present.
we need to take a step back and look at genre as the whole and look at the cultural messages that are conveyed regardless of whether the book is an erotic romance or an inspirational one. What subtext are we seeing
I think Laura tackled subtext very well in Patriarchy and popularity and Romance: Porn or literature? That is to say, she made a number of points that I agree with ;)
Which gives the cover quite a lot of power in the respect wars.
ReplyDeleteI'd argue that the cover issue simply reinforces the against respect argument because I don't think that changing romance covers would have that much effect on the 'doesn't deserve respect' argument as it exists for non-romance consumers. I do, however, think that this issue matters to insiders perceptions quite a lot.
That said, I do think the covers (direct advertisement) impacts whether or not a book will be picked up from the shelf. I don't like cartoon covers so I don't pick up chick lit books from the shelf. That has absolutely nothing to do with the content of the individual book or my view of the chick lit subgenre.
I don't think that changing romance covers would have that much effect on the 'doesn't deserve respect' argument as it exists for non-romance consumers
ReplyDeleteNon-romance consumers may, however, consume something that is a romance if it's not marketed as romance. I suspect that, say, a romantic suspense cross-shelved in the thriller section of the book shop or library is more likely to be picked up and read by someone who likes thrillers than if it had what they identify as a "romance" cover. Even after reading it they may not be aware that it is a romance. And if they're told that it's a romance, they might then say "I don't read romance, romance is fluff, but I do read books by author X because they're quite good".
In other words, because they think that romance is "fluff" or "porn" or "trash", and because the book they've just read isn't "fluff" or "porn" or "trash, they conclude that the book can't be romance. Their perception of the genre as a whole remains unchanged.
In theory this could mean that if all romances were repackaged and differently labelled, that might change perceptions of the individual books. It would also mean the end of the genre as a genre.
In fact, you could argue that that situation would be similar to what exists in the UK. In the UK only Mills & Boons are really recognised as romances, and they're the ones that get the most ridicule. Romantic fiction of other kinds may not get as much respect as literary fiction, but it's not thought about in quite the same way as the M&Bs.
I think Laura tackled subtext very well in Patriarchy and popularity and Romance: Porn or literature? That is to say, she made a number of points that I agree with ;)
ReplyDeleteI haven't read had an opportunity to read them since I only arrived here via Laura's invitation. On the one hand, I don't want to cover ground that Laura has already probably covered quite well. On the other hand, I hestitate at reading them while my thoughts are new to me and free-flowing because Laura's insights will influence my arguments, i.e., I may unintentionally model/tailor part of my argument or I may feel that I have to directly address her points, moving the conversation down a different avenue than the one I'm currently on.
So I'm torn.
Non-romance consumers may, however, consume something that is a romance if it's not marketed as romance.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. JD Robb & Linnea Sinclair immediately come to mind. Some people do think these authors' books are romances. I can see their point, but I'd argue that the Death series isn't a 'true' romance because solving the crime is the primary plot rather than resolving any romantic issues between Eve & Roark.
In theory this could mean that if all romances were repackaged and differently labelled, that might change perceptions of the individual books. It would also mean the end of the genre as a genre.
Some books would benefit from re-labeling. The problem is that I'm not sure the majority of books can be relabled without creating another label to replace 'romance.' And if a new label is created, I think the lack of respect will simply follow it because the cultural message of fluff or porn hasn't been changed.
On the topic of covers. I'm interested in how accurate our perception of covers is. By that I'm mean I'd like to see publishers sales catalogues over a number of years for all their genres and then do an indepth comparision. Goodness, if only I had the time and could get someone to pay me for it.
ReplyDeleteAQ, please don't be torn. Feel free to follow your ideas and respond to comments on this thread. I'm glad that RfP liked my previous posts (and when I went back and re-read them I was quite pleased with them too ;-) ) but you aren't obliged to read them, especially not if it would interfere with your thought processes.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to see publishers sales catalogues over a number of years for all their genres and then do an indepth comparision.
ReplyDeleteJennifer McKnight-Trontz's 2002. The Look of Love: The Art of the Romance Novel (Princeton Architectural Press, 2002) is about the cover art of romance novels from the 1940s to the 1970s. I've not seen any work done on the cover art of more recent romances. I'm sure it would be interesting.
I don't like cartoon covers so I don't pick up chick lit books from the shelf
ReplyDeleteI'm the opposite. Bad experiences with chick lit led me to dislike cartoony covers featuring young women in high heels and self-consciously cutely-surprised expressions.
In theory this could mean that if all romances were repackaged and differently labelled, that might change perceptions of the individual books. It would also mean the end of the genre as a genre.
This is already happening with certain subgenres--perhaps those that are *interested* in crossing boundaries. Paranormals and fantasy, for example. Many of those are labeled/shelved as hybrids, which I think is both reasonable and healthful for all genres concerned.
It's fine if readers say "I read horror, and what's called paranormal romance, but I'm not a romance reader." It doesn't matter what they call themselves; they're reading romance, which must in itself improve their impression of the genre. People who don't enjoy undiluted character-focused romance needn't claim to be romance readers. I read paranormal romance, but would I call myself a horror reader? No--that would give a false impression of my interests.
There will always be a core to the genre that's most accessible to devotees. That portion of the genre would be difficult to repackage, and doing so might truly end the genre as such. Also, its readers probably wouldn't appreciate the change. (I think there's a parallel with the niche market questions on Karen Scott's survey, on whether black readers and authors want separate AA Fiction shelving: it's about both convenience and self-identity.) That core is much of what defines the genre in non-devotees' minds, and perhaps rightly so.
There will always be a core to the genre that's most accessible to devotees. That portion of the genre would be difficult to repackage, and doing so might truly end the genre as such.
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly what I'm talking about. In the UK we basically have Mills & Boons or 'romance sections' in libraries which include chick lit and other romantic fiction. None of big bookshops near me even have a romance section, and they don't stock M&Bs. If you want to be absolutely certain of getting a love story with a HEA, you'd need to stick to the Mills & Boons. And that's why there isn't the same concept of the 'romance genre' in the UK. Here we have the 'Romantic Novelists' Association' not a romance writers association.
So the UK doesn't have a romance "genre", it has one large romance publisher? I've certainly seen a lot of chick lit in UK bookstores (home of Helen Fielding, after all), and lines like Black Lace. I don't recall seeing romances like the Avon historicals (or if I did, they didn't have the American covers with heroine's bodice half-off and mouth half-open)--though I wasn't looking for them.
ReplyDeleteSo when you talk about repackaging killing the genre, which part or nationality of genre do you mean?
BTW, all the bookstores and libraries near me have romance sections about the size of the mystery and horror sections. None of them stocks Harlequins (M&B)--category romances are mostly found at grocery stores, though some libraries do carry them.
So the UK doesn't have a romance "genre", it has one large romance publisher?
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm saying is that there's only one publisher in the UK which is associated with publishing what in the US would be called 'romances', and that's Mills & Boon.
[Black Lace is erotica, isn't it? And Little Black Dress, although I think all of their titles so far have had happy endings, are marketed in a more chick-lit look/style]
In the UK there are some single-title romances as well as M&Bs, but they're almost certainly not going to be labelled that way on their spines by the publisher. They might be described in the backcover blurb as 'romantic' or even 'romance' but the concept of 'the romance genre' as defined by the Romance Writers of America isn't one which would link together single titles and category books in the minds of UK readers. Instead they'd probably think of M&Bs and 'romantic fiction'. M&Bs are considered separately not because of their HEA endings but because of their brand identity and the fact that they're so much shorter. M&Bs might be considered 'romantic fiction', but 'romantic fiction' can include stories which don't have a HEA. Or people might use the term 'romance' but mean 'romantic fiction', not the strict RWA definition.
So when you talk about repackaging killing the genre, which part or nationality of genre do you mean?
What I mean is that if the US followed the UK route of not giving single-titles an identity as 'romance', then the concept of a 'romance genre' as defined by the RWA might be lost. That doesn't mean that there wouldn't be love stories with HEAs but they maybe wouldn't be considered a distinct genre. They'd just be mixed in with all the other sorts of 'romantic fiction'.
That's what I thought you meant. (Yes, I've seen those Little Black Dress books, and assumed they were chick lit.)
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't mean that there wouldn't be love stories with HEAs but they maybe wouldn't be considered a distinct genre. They'd just be mixed in with all the other sorts of 'romantic fiction'.
I wouldn't mind if that happened. Heresy, I know. I think it could be exciting to see genres with more cross-pollination and fewer rules. That's what I like about the paranormal romance craze at the moment--different kinds of characters than the standard romance, different atmosphere, kinds of resolutions, different norms.
I felt a bit odd giving an opinion about the UK without a bit of textual evidence, so here's how the Romantic Novelists' Association describes 'romantic fiction':
ReplyDeleteRomantic fiction is the cross-genre genre. In the UK it appears under a variety of publishers' labels including general fiction, women's fiction, historical, romantic comedy, chick lit, sagas - even spooky - as well as romance. These are among the UK's most commercially successful book categories.
It embraces Jilly Cooper's 900 pages as well as the 187 Harlequin Mills & Boon category romances which are published every month; multi-generational sagas and Regency romps; deeply serious meditations on life and flippant twenty-somethings' metropolitan shenanigans. The engine of romantic fiction is love and relationships. The bodywork is infinitely variable.
I'm just going back to answering my own question about teens reading romance, which was a few posts ago. This doesn't answer it specifically, but I did find something that says that "seventy-one percent (71%) of romance readers say they read their first romance at age 16 or younger." http://www.storyforu.com/stats.htm
ReplyDeleteThanks, Sheryl. That's interesting and they've got some other interesting statistics there too, for example the ones about the races of romance readers, and the preferences regarding heroes' characteristics (number 1 is 'muscle bound'!) Another interesting statistic is the relatively low number of readers who say they like paranormals.
ReplyDeleteSome of the stats are marked as being from 2003, some are from 2002 so I assume that the rest must be from around the same two years. That might explain the preferences regarding sub-genres, because I have the impression that the current situation differs somewhat from the one described there.