So the online romance world got a little upset this past week about the "debate" in the Guardian. Laura posted about it here and Smart Bitch Sarah posted about it here, generating incredible debates in the comments of both posts. I think Laura did a fabulous job (as always) of talking about the fact that the books in question in the original article were Mills&Boon and how that affected the debate, and commenters at SBTB pretty much hashed over all possible issues of feminism and romance.
What I'd like to discuss in this post is the juxtaposition of a number of comments from the SBTB post that caught my attention. I don't remember if any of them were in direct response to each other or just to the general debate, but the combination interested me immensely.
First is this comment by Trumystique:
I was initially disgusted with the fact that the heroines consistently had one happy future.This is the common charge leveled against popular romance fiction, of course: it's a tool of the patriarchy and that the heroine is subjugated by the fact that the only viable option established by the romance narrative is that she "dwindles into marriage."1 For those trying to change societal expectations enough to establish more possible life choices for women, I imagine this does feel pretty limiting. And it's a charge that's been leveled against domestic fiction and the marriage plot since feminist literary criticism began doing its thing. To quote myself from my dissertation:
Feminist criticism has long argued that the marriage plot, in which the heroine's story necessarily ends either with marriage or with death, is inherently conservative. Rachel Blau DuPlessis explains that the marriage plot "muffles the main female character, represses quest," and "is based on extremes of sexual difference," finally arguing that the marriage plot "is a trope for the sex-gender system as a whole" (5). The marriage plot, then, replicates for women the repression of the patriarchal system to which they are subject. While admitting the validity of DuPlessis's critique, Laura Mooneyham White attempts "a partial defense of the marriage plot" (72) by maintaining that it "persists in the fictive imagination for some compelling reasons, and while the attack on the marriage plot as indicative of repressive social conditions and ideologies is well justified, feminist critics might benefit from seeing beyond the historical and cultural dimension of marriage" (76) to examine its narratological purpose. (150)White argues that marriage plots, specifically those of Jane Austen,
emphasize that through marriage one becomes part of a social and economic entity. Marriage allows the heroine to join the wholeness of society even as she joins the unity of male and female. (83)As I argue in my dissertation, however:
by examining Austen’s marriage plots from the perspective of Austen’s construction of the subjectivity of her heroes, it is possible to expand understanding of the marriage plot beyond its efficacy for the heroine. While White demonstrates convincingly that there is more involved in the appeal of the marriage plot for female readers than brainwashing about the benefits of subjugation to the whims of a husband, [I argue] that Austen is fundamentally refocusing the marriage plot to establish the benefits for the hero of concluding his narrative with marriage. The progress of Austen's heroes through her novels constitutes a narrative strategy that is just as empowering and much more practical for the female reader--and potentially revolutionary for the male reader--as questioning the effectiveness of the marriage plot for female characters in a world where marriage was almost an economic imperative for women. Austen's novels argue that civilized and civilizing associations with women in a permanent, romantic, heterosexual, companionate relationship are necessary for men to achieve their full potential. (151)That is, then, that the MALE characters are also "subjugated" by the marriage plot.
This point was not lost on the SBTB commenters. kis wrote:
Problem with feminism as a science is that they consider men a control group, when they’re as much a variable as anything else.And Xandra commented:
I’m having a hard time coming up with titles that didn’t end with heroes also coming to prioritize their relationships with the heroines.While feminist ideology has focused on the heroines in domestic fiction with marriage plots, they've forgotten about the heroes and the fact that they end up exactly like the heroines: married and happy. And while they don't necessarily give up their high-powered careers as Greek tycoons (although some definitely do), they do generally slow down a bit to smell the flowers and be with their heroines and their families. Every example I can think of in modern popular romance fiction has the hero not only admit that his love for his heroine and its return is necessary to his happiness and contentment--is necessary, in fact, for him to be a complete person--but also has the hero in some way indicate through his actions in an Epilogue or similar ending that time with his family has become the most important part of his life, at the expense of whatever high-powered career he might have pursued at the beginning of the book. Although "at the expense of" is misleading as the romance presents it, because the hero is almost always depicted as more successful when making time for his family than he is at the beginning of the book. Shane in Crusie and Mayer's Agnes and the Hitman gives up his career as a hitman to be with Agnes. All of Susan Elizabeth Phillips' football heroes are seen after their football careers, happy and content doing something else that gives them more time with their heroines. Suzanne Brockmann's heroes might seem to be the exception, but they prove the rule in another way: they end up working WITH their heroines, spending time with them that way. And historical romances do the same--the heroes go back to their estates and learn how to enjoy being gentlemen farmers, taking care of their larger "families" of tenants, farmers, servants, and of course their own wives and children.
Romance novels argue, then, that *men* are better off when they spend more time at home, giving up their soul-destroying, high-powered careers, and focusing instead on the domestic bliss their heroines give them, along with the babies they make together with such abandon. And while this view of the narrative of popular romance fiction necessarily endorses the domestic and the marriage plot as the Ideal To Which We Should All Strive, which might in and of itself be problematic from an ideological standpoint, it is not only the heroine who succumbs to the lure of domestic bliss by any means. In fact, I would argue that it's much more important--at least for the Alpha Male hero of modern popular romance--that the hero admits the value of and strives for the domestic lifestyle that that the heroine does. So while we're still definitely prioritizing the domestic, it's not the heroine who "dwindles into marriage," the the hero who embraces it as his lifeline to all things good.
On SBTB, Lone Chatelaine speculates about the implications of this view of romance novels:
Maybe instead of us females berating each other for what we all think each other should want, we should instead start requiring more males to step it up and be real men, the kind of men that a strong woman could lean on if she wanted to. . . . But perhaps we should put a little pressure on the men to try and attain a female driven genre’s idea of the fantasy. I’m not saying that men should start trying to be highland warriors or dark broody vampires, but there are obviously some common and attainable qualities in romance novels that women like in men. Strong, dependable, nice, loving, honest, considerate, protective, etc.2If critics are convinced that romance readers are unable to separate the fantasy of the romance from reality, why does that mean that readers are more likely to submit to the patriarchy's view of subjugated femininity and not, instead, insist that their male partners become sensitive, caring, dependable, honest men who are in touch with their feelings?3
1. Apparently a quote from William Congreve about a male character, interestingly enough.
2. My strong, dependable, nice, loving, honest, considerate, protective husband disagrees. He thinks that he'd look great in a kilt, with long canines. :)
3. If we want to take the unscientific "results" of myself and my reading experience and relationship expectations, everything I learned about how my husband should treat me come from the end of romances when the hero has admitted the necessity of love and his need for the heroine in his life. So rather than learn from romances that I need to subjugate myself to his masculine authority, I learned precisely the opposite.
Works Cited:
DuPlessis, Rachel Blau. Writing Beyond the Ending: Narrative Strategies of Twentieth-Century Women Writers. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985.
Frantz, Sarah S. G. "How Were His Sentiments To Be Read?": British Women Writing Masculinity, 1790-1820. Diss. U. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 2003.
White, Laura Mooneyham. "Jane Austen and the Marriage Plot: Questions of Persistence." Jane Austen and the Discourses of Feminism. Ed. Devony Looser. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995. 71-86.
The picture is (obviously) Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn from the film version of The Lord of the Rings. Because who is a more perfect example of all things good about the Alpha Male than Aragorn? And he's awfully easy on the eyes.
~If critics are convinced that romance readers are unable to separate the fantasy of the romance from reality, why does that mean that readers are more likely to submit to the patriarchy's view of subjugated femininity and not, instead, insist that their male partners become sensitive, caring, dependable, honest men who are in touch with their feelings~
ReplyDeleteTa-da!
(Not a particularly in-depth comment, but you said it so well it's all I had.)
I will add I've enjoyed the discussions, analyses and commentary on this.
while this view of the narrative of popular romance fiction necessarily endorses the domestic and the marriage plot as the Ideal To Which We Should All Strive, which might in and of itself be problematic from an ideological standpoint, it is not only the heroine who succumbs to the lure of domestic bliss
ReplyDeleteAs you suggest, part of the reason the focus has been on the heroine and what marriage does to her, is presumably because of "the historical and cultural dimension of marriage" and how marriage has been seen as particularly confining for women. But I wonder, too, if there are some other assumptions that have led to this reading of romance as the heroine's story, and one which ends in her marriage.
The first is the general assumption that romance is read by women. It's still mostly true (though the RWA figures suggested that the numbers of male readers of romance had increased), but I'm not sure how true it was of older forms of the marriage plot, and there's no-one imposing a ban on men reading the novels.
Linked to this is the assumption that the female reader will identify with the heroine and will possibly try to copy her, at least with regards to aspiring to marriage. But Kinsale argued in Dangerous Men and Adventurous Women that
it is myopic to believe that just because the reader is female she is confined to the heroine's character as the target of authentic reader identification.
In romance it is the hero who carries the book. Within the dynamics of reading a romance, the female reader is the hero, and also is the heroine-as-object-of-the-hero's-interest (32)
I personally read as an observer, watching the relationship develop, and not feeling as though I'm playing any part in the action. But if you put your argument and Kinsale's together, along with the idea that readers copy the character they identify with, then maybe it's the binding of the hero in marriage which binds the female reader ;-)
I don't think it's that simple. Readers probably are affected by some of the values in romances, but then they may also seek out romances which share their pre-existing values. And readers read in so many different ways, and can have such different interpretations of the same text that I'm not sure it's really possible to say that the entire genre (and it's a big one, with lots of diversity) has the same effect on every reader (again, we're a big, diverse group of people, both male and female).
But, getting away from readers and back to the texts, I think you're right to point out that the marriage has a very similar effect on both the hero and heroine.
"~If critics are convinced that romance readers are unable to separate the fantasy of the romance from reality, why does that mean that readers are more likely to submit to the patriarchy's view of subjugated femininity and not, instead, insist that their male partners become sensitive, caring, dependable, honest men who are in touch with their feelings~"
ReplyDeleteThat sentence struck me too. I agree that the feminist critique of romance often ignores character development in the male protagonist. The paragraph on Austen reminds me of the idea that true feminism should be freeing for men as well as women:
"Austen is fundamentally refocusing the marriage plot to establish the benefits for the hero of concluding his narrative with marriage. The progress of Austen's heroes through her novels constitutes a narrative strategy that is just as empowering and much more practical for the female reader--and potentially revolutionary for the male reader--as questioning the effectiveness of the marriage plot for female characters in a world where marriage was almost an economic imperative for women."
However, I think we've seen critiques both directions. Romance critics argue that readers are "more likely to submit to the patriarchy's view of subjugated femininity" AND that readers are likely to UNREALISTICALLY "insist that their male partners become sensitive, caring, dependable, honest men who are in touch with their feelings". One clear example of the latter is the Atlanta Journal-Constitution point-counterpoint from June:
"even traditional romance novels promote - almost by definition - an unattainable romantic ideal. The male heroes are all strong, rugged and breathtakingly handsome, yet sensitive, patient listeners and utterly unselfish. Is it any wonder that if we read two or three of those romances in a row, we’d start to be irritated by our real-life husbands with all their wonderful yet exasperating idiosyncrasies?
"Dr. Julianna Slattery, psychologist and author of the excellent book Finding the Hero in Your Husband[: Surrendering the Way God Intended], explained... 'For many women, these novels really do promote dissatisfaction with their relationships.'"
In the AJC it's an anti-feminist, fundamentalist argument, but I find it strikingly similar to the feminist argument. One side argues that women come to have unrealistic expectations; the other side argues that women's expectations of happiness come to depend on a male hero's actions. Both arguments depend on female readers reading a specific type of romance and being highly susceptible to messages in what they read. Both are undercut by Laura's argument that "Readers probably are affected by some of the values in romances, but then they may also seek out romances which share their pre-existing values. And readers read in so many different ways, and can have such different interpretations".
Austen's novels argue that civilized and civilizing associations with women in a permanent, romantic, heterosexual, companionate relationship are necessary for men to achieve their full potential.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Sarah, which is why I think we need to be thinking of these as domestic novels in the broader sense (i.e. domestication in terms of social utility). That is, Romance praises the domestic unit as one based on equitable mutual love and happiness, making it the "ideal" unit of society.
Unlike Crusie and several others, though, I don't see the genre as a whole as "empowering" or liberating for the heroine, for women, for the reader. I think the field is much more mixed, which is why someone like Bindel can latch so easily on the books she does. That SOME of it is subversive and empowering is clear. But I doubt the quintessential primer on Romance will ever be written, simply because the genre is too damn big to characterize meaningfully beyond its formalistic characteristics.
And while this view of the narrative of popular romance fiction necessarily endorses the domestic and the marriage plot as the Ideal To Which We Should All Strive, which might in and of itself be problematic from an ideological standpoint
Yes, this is where I think a lot of good analysis could take place. You could look at classical Comedy and the way that Romance often seems to mirror its structure, especially the perennial theme of promoting a love match instead of one based on social status, money, or political power, which can be seen as somewhat socially subversive. Or you could look at the culturally-coded model of domesticity as traditionally heterosexual + children, which isn't particularly subversive. Anyway, I think there's a lot to talk about here -- as you guys have been doing here, actually.
If critics are convinced that romance readers are unable to separate the fantasy of the romance from reality,
But are they, really? I sure see a lot of Romance readers raising this flag, but, for example, in Bindel's case (leading to the most recent appearance of this sentiment in various Romance venues), I don't think she's saying that at all. I think she's saying that even our fantasies are steeped in patriarchal assumptions. And while I think you could mount a convincing campaign against such a generalization, I don't think Bindel is talking about a failed reality/fantasy split, if for no other reason than she sees REALITY as patriarchal, too.
When this discussion came up a while ago (around Campbell's Claiming the Courtesan, I think), someone commented that if we're going to argue that Romance sends "good" messages, that we can't deny the opposite. And that if we say we're influenced in "positive" ways (i.e. anything we might "learn" from Romance novels), we can't deny the opposite.
So in the same way that saying something along the lines of 'I learned to expect men to be respectful from Romance' isn't any more a blurring of fantasy and reality than saying something along the lines of 'I think Romance teaches SOME women to be submissive to patriarchy.' (making use of Laura's perceptive spotting of the word "some" in Bindel's argument).
So when Romance readers invoke that defense I have a hard time not seeing it as a red herring, at least when it hasn't been raised as an offense. Because as soon as someone invokes it, the amen chorus begins, and sometimes, IMO, valuable points are completely bulldozed in the enthusiastic aftermath.
Not that I get worked up over it or anything, lol.
"If critics are convinced that romance readers are unable to separate the fantasy of the romance from reality, why does that mean that readers are more likely to submit to the patriarchy's view of subjugated femininity and not, instead, insist that their male partners become sensitive, caring, dependable, honest men who are in touch with their feelings?"
ReplyDeleteThank you. As someone who has married such a man, I appreciate that thought.
Also, FWIW, my husband and father have/had different means of attaining the same goals -- security for his family. Both good men, both a product of their own time and life experiences. Perhaps that's why there are so many stories out there.
JulieB
I too loved this quote:
ReplyDeleteThe progress of Austen's heroes through her novels constitutes a narrative strategy that is just as empowering and much more practical for the female reader--and potentially revolutionary for the male reader--as questioning the effectiveness of the marriage plot for female characters in a world where marriage was almost an economic imperative for women.
That's what I was attempting to get at in the earlier comment discussion, but you said it with knowledge and clarity.
I agree very much with earlier commenters that there is no definitive 'good' or 'bad' answer to the romance genre both due to the stunning width and depth of the works and due to the inherent variability of effects that a work can have on its readers. Alcohol clearly damages millions of people and destroys their lives; it also can bring many people together in communion. Reading stories of sexual fantasy can suck some people in so that they abandon their real lives and loves and in others it can open up possibilities and build their confidence and self-respect. Even something such as feeding the homeless can bring some people closer to all of humanity and while it build up resentment and despair in others. I'm not saying that there is no right or wrong; it's just never simple.
Anyway, great post.
[Sarah] If critics are convinced that romance readers are unable to separate the fantasy of the romance from reality,
ReplyDelete[Robin's response] But are they, really? I sure see a lot of Romance readers raising this flag, but, for example, in Bindel's case (leading to the most recent appearance of this sentiment in various Romance venues), I don't think she's saying that at all.
Bindel may not be saying that romance readers have a problem distinguishing fantasy from reality, but some other people seem to have said that. For example, in the article mentioned by RfP, Shaunti Feldhahn says that
some marriage therapists caution that women can become as dangerously unbalanced by these books’ entrancing but distorted messages as men can by distorted messages of pornography.
I'm not sure if that's what you're meaning, Pacatrue, when you say that "Reading stories of sexual fantasy can suck some people in so that they abandon their real lives and loves." You've put in a crucially important "some", though, whereas Feldhahn seems to be suggesting there's something so inherently powerful in these books that a mild exposure will cause some effect ("if we read two or three of those romances in a row, we’d start to be irritated by our real-life husbands with all their wonderful yet exasperating idiosyncrasies") and greater exposure to them will lead to a woman becoming "dangerously unbalanced." Puts a new slant on the SB's comments about the Black Dagger Brotherhood books being "like crack"!
But to be serious again, while I don't think any romance is really like a drug or a magic spell, I do think it's logical to recognise that
if we're going to argue that Romance sends "good" messages, that we can't deny the opposite. And that if we say we're influenced in "positive" ways (i.e. anything we might "learn" from Romance novels), we can't deny the opposite
And for some people, some romance novels (not all people and all romance novels) may not be very helpful. For example, "Dr. Julia Wood, a communication studies professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill [...] didn't set out to skewer romance novels when she began her study" but:
In a two-year study, which she described in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Wood identified "women's use of gender and romance narratives to make sense of violent relationships." (from here)
With quotes from 20 women she interviewed who had been in such relationships, [...] Wood wrote that "all (study) participants placed themselves within western culture's primary gender narrative, which prescribes and normalizes dominance and superiority for men and deference and dependence for women."
Even when the women are really getting slapped around.
People commonly use stories to make sense of their lives, placing themselves within those stories, said Wood: "Some of the images of men and women in these romance novels are entirely consistent with the dynamics of violent relationships."
It reminds me of what Sternberg said about how we "gradually form our own personal stories about love—models of how love is 'supposed' to work." Perhaps some people's models will have been affected in negative ways by reading certain romance novels, or it may be that their models were already in place and that this affected their choice of particular romances which contained depictions which had elements which matched those readers' pre-existing models of relationships.
Here is the context of the line: http://www.online-literature.com/view.php/way-of-the-world/43?term=dwindle
ReplyDeleteThe scene is EXTREMELY subversive of the conventional notions of marriage. It is Millamant who says that, given her way in everything, she may consent to "dwindle into a wife"; and Mirabell who expresses worry about "being enlarged into a husband."
JAK's plots very frequently feature an "outsider" hero who, through the heroine, is reconciled with his family or drawn into a new one. One especially good example is Grand Passion, in which the hero, raised in foster homes and now an executive in a prominent hotel-owning family, the daughter of which has just broken her engagement to him, is sent by the will of his late mentor to the small bed-and-breakfast run by the heroine--whose parents were murdered, leaving her alone in the world. But she has created a new "family" of strays she's hired, women from a nearby commune who do the cooking, and lost souls of various sorts. She has no trouble adding the hero to the collection; and even before they fall in love, he's part of the family--not simply "tamed," but fulfilled and enriched by his adopted family.
And her heroes tend to have portable jobs, like consulting or writing, so they have no problem moving to where the heroine has established herself.
Silver Linings has a particularly difficult situation: The heroine runs a successful art gallery in Seattle; the hero is starting a charter business on a remote Pacific island. The whole book is basically about their trying to work this out. (I'm reminded of the old joke about the Hollywood studio head demanding more conflict from his scriptwriters: "Like this--two brothers: one wants to be a test pilot, the other wants to be a concert pianist. And they're Siamese twins! Now THAT's conflict!")
My strong, dependable, nice, loving, honest, considerate, protective husband disagrees. He thinks that he'd look great in a kilt, with long canines.
Long canines? Lose the dachshunds; the scene calls for deerhounds, or at least collies.
I don't think it's about subjugation at all, in a really good romance novel: it's about being complementary to each other. Not only does each give a bit, each gains a lot. I was just rereading one of the recent J.D. Robb books, in which tough cop Eve Dallas, exhausted from working a tough case 24/7, thinks that even a strong woman needs someone to lean on sometimes. And Roarke, in another book, tells her that she fills a hole in his heart that he didn't even know was there.
The great thing about Jayne's books is that the protagonists (usually the heroine) find a solution to some either/or relationship dilemma that provides a compromise. No one is subjugated, and ultimately no one loses.
(For those who haven't read Silver Linings, he spends months in Seattle trying to fit into her world; but she finally realizes that she doesn't NEED her world--she was only trying to prove herself in the art world because she was the only non-creative one in a family of artists; and she'll be just as happy running a boutique and art shop back on that Pacific island, which the hero is going to turn into a tourist mecca.)
As for the abusive relationships, remember the Forward book I mentioned? She focuses on why these relationships seem to define "real passionate love" for such women, and it's much more to do with their prior family life than with reading romance novels.
(You people have no idea how much torture it is for me not to play the Word Verification Game--making up a sentence in which each word starts with one of the WV letters--here.)
Well, very interesting discussion, as usual. Thanks Sarah. But isn't it true that your argument sounds a little like Patmore's in his poem "The Angel in the House"? Men need women and women need men--marriage as the balance and music of the spheres. I always wondered though why Austen never got married. And do you think Darcy and Elizabeth live happily ever after? That marriage seems destined for big storms,I sense. ANd waht aboout Austen's near contemporary--Mary Shelley? Does she side with marriage or the Monster? The Monster seems more loveable than Victor anyway, doesn't he?
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to marriage, Shelley WAS a bit of a monster!
ReplyDeleteLaura, If anyone probably wants to make the fantasy/reality collapse argument it's Feldhahn, but even she can't quite bring herself to do it (i.e. women *can* . . . ).
ReplyDeleteI think though you've helped me understand that perhaps it's the argument of *influence* that readers are calling the fantasy/reality collapse. Which to me is quite different, in part because of what you say in your last paragraph about how the relationship between texts and readers is SO COMPLEX and so much a part of the larger social and cultural dialogues we all participate in.
Not being a big fan of the influence argument generally, I think it's understandable that when people feel they are influenced in positive ways it's based on an independent choice, but when it's proposed that the influence is negative, it feels like an accusation of weakness and stupidity. And yet, to some degree we're all influenced by those things that affirm or work in alliance with our own values, beliefs, life patterns, etc., regardless of our intelligence or personal strength.
Perhaps the problem comes partially in wanting the Romance genre to be one of empowerment, because that suggests an *affirmative purpose,* which then begs the question of influence, and then we go back to the arguments that the genre can be a so-called negative influence, as well.
And interestingly, I don't even think Bindel made the negative influence argument. What I felt she said was that Romance novels (or M&B novels or books featuring rape or whatever her focus was) are part of a larger patriarchal structure to which women are still subjected. Which makes Sarah's argument that heroes and heroines are both enriched by Romance domesticity relevant IMO as the flip side of the argument that both men and women suffer under patriarchy in RL.
Anyway, I definitely believe that stories do have some kind of power or they wouldn't be repeated to often, wouldn't be so popular, and wouldn't be defended with such passion. Whether that power is reflective or active or a bit of both is an interesting question, I think, although I tend to feel more comfortable talking about what I see in the genre and how that relates to what I see more generally within the genre or within society. I think things get squirrely when we try to argue for OR against influence, positive OR negative. But in any case, I still think the influence argument is different from the fantasy/reality collapse.
One thing I will note, though, is that when I first started reading the genre, I was struck by how many people, especially authors, but also readers, referred to their husbands in Romance hero terms. And honestly it kind of made me uncomfortable, because I wondered whether there was something about being a fan of the genre -- especially as an author -- that created a sense of pressure to talk in romantically idealistic terms about one's real life partner, regardless of the behind the scenes reality. I have clue whether any sense of pressure exists or not (as an eternal skeptic, I am genetically prohibited from talking about anything in my life in idealized terms, lol), but it's something that felt very prevalent to me for a while as I settled into the online community.
I agree that, in Romance, domesticity is upheld as the rightful Happily Ever After both the hero and heroine should seek after, and become worthy of as the story goes along.
ReplyDeleteThe patriarchy comes into this for me in the fact that it seems to be assumed that, within the domestic relationship, the hero will be the dominant partner, and the heroine the submissive one. In this sense, I think that the institution of marriage (particularly in historical romance) is so rigidly sexist itself that if the couple marries within it, it in no way serves as a balancing force between them.
Looking, for instance, at Darcy and Elizabeth. I love their story, but the truth is that, within their time and culture, marriage makes Elizabeth his property and any children she produces will belong to him, to do with as he pleases, much the same that any offspring his prize mare produces are his. The only thing that makes this situation tolerable to me is that I believe Darcy is an ethical man who genuinely loves Elizabeth.
In Historical Romances where the hero has been a grade A Alpha Asshat for the first two thirds of the book, I feel no such assurance. Even if a hero like that settles down into domesticity with the heroine, I see it as a cementing of his right to verbally abuse, manhandle and coerce the heroine for as long as they both shall live.
There modern Romances where the marriage makes me feel the same way. I'm thinking of ones where the heroine has very little power against the hero (down on her luck thus-and-such and her millionaire whoever? Vampire brides who must mate with the hero or he/she/they die?), and the current drastic power imbalance is carried on into the happily ever after, where the hero's path seems to be about learning to love a creature that depends on him and belongs to him, and the heroine's path is about being that worthy creature and accepting the "love" of someone with considerably more power than her.
I remember hearing once that marriage makes a man and wife the "king and queen" of their home. In this sense, they're both entering into the new Kingdom of Domesticity. But the king's will always supersedes the queen's in a patriarchy. So becoming part of a Kingdom means something different for a man than it does for a woman.
I think that stories that don't question patriarchy end up carrying it out to greater or lesser extent. I don't think this questioning has to be explicit (I'm thinking of the wordlessly non-traditional power dynamics of Zoe and Wash's marriage on the TV show Firefly, if any of you are familiar with it), but if it isn't there, and some nastiness on the part of the hero is, I can't imagine a marriage as "taming" and domesticating him to the same extent it is his heroine.
er, "in the majority of Romance." There are exceptions, of course.
ReplyDeleteYou mention Susan Elizabeth Phillip's football Romances. I recall being disturbed by one of them in particular called "Nobody's Baby But Mine," where the hero bullies and virtually imprisons the heroine in his house. I hated that the story seemed to think that he was justified in his domineering behavior because of her, admittedly awful, earlier duplicity. It was as if her having his child in her womb made his wanting to control her movements completely understandable in the author's moral universe. And I hated the way that her escape from him only lead her to the place of finally bowing to his will. Wherever she went, she was hemmed in on every side by the author and the author's hero. And even as the hero was forced (by the heroine's tricking him into impregnating her) into the domestic role, he wasn't imprisoned in the heroine's home and forced to realize the justness of her rule over him.
ARGH.
Perhaps I'm recalling it wrong?
The great thing about Jayne's books is that the protagonists (usually the heroine) find a solution to some either/or relationship dilemma that provides a compromise. No one is subjugated, and ultimately no one loses.
ReplyDeleteBut in the Dangerous Men volume JAK was very keen on the idea of heroes being "tamed" by the heroine. Maybe for her "taming" has different associations, but for me it sounds like a wild animal (and there are plenty of mentions of how heroes are compared to wild animals) being domesticated and made to see the human as its master. Then again, liontamers always have to be a bit wary that their "tame" lions don't decide to bite them. Maybe I'm overthinking this, but the vocabulary of "taming" is one I find problematic.
Here are some quotes from JAK in Dangerous Men and Adventurous Women
The hero must be part villain or else he won't be much of a challenge for a strong woman. The heroine must put herself at risk with him if the story is to achieve the level of excitement and the particular sense of danger that only a classic romance can provide (108-09)
In the romance novel [...] the woman always wins. With courage, intelligence, and gentleness she brings the most dangerous creature on earth, the human male, to his knees. (5)
the heroes in the books undergo a significant change in the course of the story, often being tamed or gentled or taught to love, but they do not lose any of their masculine strength in the process.
The stories make it clear that women value the warrior qualities in men as well as their protective, nurturing qualities. The trick is to teach the hero to integrate and control the two warring halves of himself so that he can function as a reliable mate and as a father (6)
Susan Elizabeth Phillips, who's also mentioned in Sarah's post, and in the comments to it, says that
my favorite scenes are always those in which the spunky heroine thrusts her chin up in the air and lays down the law to a towering, menacing, broad-shouldered male. She has no regard for her personal safety, the fact that he can flatten her with one sweep of his arm or crush her head between his hands as Rhett Butler threatens to do to Scarlett O'Hara - the fact that he can kill her if he wants to. She faces his rage with courage and, while he will almost certainly retaliate - sometimes with harsh, hurtful words, sometimes with aggressive lovemaking - she continues to defy him.
These scenes of confrontation become even more satisfying to me in books in which the hero actually has the power to kill the heroine without suffering any consequences himself. (57)
What is the ultimate fate of the most arrogant, domineering, ruthless macho hero any romance writer can create? He is tamed. (58)
I think I'll let those quotations stand by themselves, and not comment on them, or I'll end up going on at extreme length about why the taming theme does not appeal to me at all.
I think though you've helped me understand that perhaps it's the argument of *influence* that readers are calling the fantasy/reality collapse. Which to me is quite different
I think that's what's happening. For all that SEP says that "This fictional 'tough guy' hero is the sort of man I would never permit in my real life" (56), I get the impression that some readers would permit him in their lives. Maybe not many, but some. And because of that, and the comments that are then made, criticising romance for how it's affected women readers/been used by women readers who are in abusive relationships (causality hasn't been clearly established in either direction, I suspect), other romance readers (who are not in abusive relationships and/or whose romance reading has helped them in some way) get defensive, and say that they can tell the difference between fiction and reality. Which, of course, they can. But no-one was suggesting that romance readers really think they're going to marry a vampire, or be abducted by a pirate who will forcibly seduce them. The question of influence/reinforcement of values is so much more subtle than that, and the very same passage which seems subversive/empowering to one reader, because of how she interprets it as giving the woman "power", might be read by another as saying that it's okay if a man abuses her, because one day he'll change, just like a romance hero, and to yet another reader the same passage might seem to have values which seek to tie her into the role of being a feisty version of the Angel in the House.
we should instead start requiring more males to step it up and be real men
ReplyDeleteIf critics are convinced that romance readers are unable to separate the fantasy of the romance from reality, why does that mean that readers are more likely to submit to the patriarchy's view of subjugated femininity and not, instead, insist that their male partners become sensitive, caring, dependable, honest men who are in touch with their feelings
Thinking more about these quotes, in the light of the Angel in the House idea, it was interesting that you and Lone Chatelaine didn't phrase that in terms of the readers insisting that they will only enter into relationships with men who already possess all those desirable qualities.
Maybe I'm overanalysing this, but even if "insisting that their partners become ...." isn't as active as "taming" it still puts the woman in the position of requiring change from the man. But how many people really can or do change as a result of their partners wanting them to?
Actually, one of the things I found interesting about Radway's research was that some of the women readers said that as a result of their romance reading they became more assertive, and decided to work outside the home, or become romance writers. But they didn't mention trying to change their husbands. If the husbands changed, it was only an indirect consequence of the wives having already changed.
I have found others jib at the notion of ‘taming’ in discussions on this matter, and I think that this must be because many people evidently define the word in an extremely narrow, and, dare I say it, old-fashioned, way – the unattractive ‘lion-tamer’ image is a dead giveaway. I am positive that this was not the image in Jayne’s mind, and I have discussed it quite often with her. A tame animal is one that has voluntarily entered into a symbiotic relationship with humans in which it has given up some forms of instinctive ‘wild’ behaviour and adopted some others that fit in with the human way of life. The human offers various blandishments such as shelter and a regular food supply, and the animal concludes that these are worth having. Anyone who has gradually and cautiously been adopted by a feral cat will be familiar with the process.
ReplyDeleteDomestication on a species level, and taming on an individual level (of either a wild animal or a domestic one unaccustomed to humans) is invariably a two-way process, and is never accomplished by violence and crude domination or humiliation, by ‘breaking’ the subject. An animal trained by such methods is never actually tame at all, but is merely a temporarily subjugated wild animal whose behaviour has been superficially manipulated by pressure and punishment. The animal has to be willing to adapt its behaviour to please a human to whom it becomes emotionally attached, and it will do this in great part because there are clear benefits in the relationship (not only shelter and regular meals, but also the actual pleasure of interaction with friendly humans). Even at species-domestication level, palaeozoologists are tending more and more to the view that the long-domesticated species did not merely permit themselves to associate with human beings, but actually sought out that relationship voluntarily.
In the context of what I mean (and what she means) by taming and domestication, Jayne’s analogy makes a lot of sense. But it is clear that the verb ‘tame’ is a real obstacle for some people because they think it means only ‘train and dominate by violent means’. The examples that Tal cited from Jayne’s books show what she actually means: the entry of a lone male, with his consent, into a relationship that also gives him a place in a wider human social network. That IS taming, but it has nothing to do with hoops and cracking whips.
AgTigress
I did acknowledge the possibility that, for Krentz, "taming" could have different connotations from the ones it has for me.
ReplyDeleteThat said, having the woman take on the role of "tamer," even according to your definition, is still problematic for me when it happens so frequently in the genre and in such a consistently gendered manner. The man is being associated with animals and danger, while the woman is associated with civilization and domestication. Why can't we have some female rakes in need of the love of a good men to help them settle down? Maybe in m/m romances there are male rakes in need of the love of a good man to domesticate them?
But the fact that in m/f romances, when "taming" happens it's almost always the man who needs to be "tamed," seems to me to reinforce (or at the very least does nothing to undermine) a lot of the existing stereotypes about masculinity and femininity.
Goodness! I stay off line for a couple of days, and look what happens. How will I ever catch up?
ReplyDeleteLet's see:
Laura, you mentioned Wood's concern that "Some of the images of men and women in these romance novels are entirely consistent with the dynamics of violent relationships." The concern here would seem to be that women in violent relationships avail themselves of romance novels in which these dynamics turn out to have an HEA, and therefore stick with the men who abuse them.
This seems a sensible position, and quite far from the extremist notion that somehow reading romance novels caused the problem in the first place. On the other hand, I would say that much of the Bible is also entirely consistent with the dynamics of a violent relationship (images of God punishing His people when they go astray, for example, but then when the slaughter is done taking them back--after all, it was all for their own good). So romance is hardly the only source for such material, and not even the most culturally central one.
Re: Patmore and "The Angel in the House," I think that Patmore gets a bad rap. I quite like this poem, and find it much more complex than it gets credit for, after Virginia Woolf's famous smackdown. In fact, my hunch is that it was precisely more complex when it came to the question of men being "tamed" or "domesticated" by marriage, and of the benefits that would accrue to them if they did. This lovely quatrain, for example:
"I vowed unvarying faith, and she / To whom in full I pay that vow / Rewards me with variety / Which men who change can never know."
To say that romance fiction reinscribes Patmore's Victorian ideals, but this time with a more active, complex, independent, and sexual vision of women's lives may turn out to pay the genre quite a compliment!
Finally, about "taming" and such more generally: I like Anne Carson's notion that novels play out as plot and interpersonal conflict what other genres (like lyric poems) address as ambivalence or paradoxical desires within a single subject. A poem might address my conflicting desires 1) to work; 2) to ditch my job (and rational, dutiful, parsimonious thinking more generally) and live a life of passion and impulse and unbridled id; and 3) to punish myself for wanting to ditch my obligations to others. A novel might play these out sequentially: I work, I am kindnaped by Zulaikha, Queen of the Desert and forced to be her Yiddishe boy-toy, and so forth. If it's a romance, the novel may offer me the fantasy of some resolution to these paradoxical desires, which is no doubt part of the genre's appeal. (Better that than Freud's goal of "ordinary unhappiness.") And, come to think of it, didn't Patmore's quatrain offer a similar HEA? Sameness AND Variety, constancy AND change, with marriage as the realm in which such impossibilities coexist, where two are one, etc.
Laura writes:
ReplyDelete"having the woman take on the role of "tamer," even according to your definition, is still problematic for me when it happens so frequently in the genre and in such a consistently gendered manner. The man is being associated with animals and danger, while the woman is associated with civilization and domestication. Why can't we have some female rakes in need of the love of a good men to help them settle down?"
Hmmm...
As I watch the interactions between my wife and daughter, I wonder whether we aren't seeing a bit of projection here. In some ways--not in all of them, but in some--I'd say that my daughter's upbringing features far more frequent instances of being "tamed" than my son's has.
Maybe what we're seeing in this plot is less about men and women as such and more a retelling of a dynamic between women, in which female "wildness" gets projected onto male characters and is then appreciated, feared, and managed by the heroine?
Or is that just the coffee talking, and much too clever for its own darned good?
Males and females normally have perceptibly different behavioural patterns in *all* mammalian species, and for good biological reasons. They are not taught. Different gender roles are NOT peculiar to human beings: on the contrary, because of the complexities of our civilisations, they are often far less marked in human social units than they are even in other pack-dwelling species, such as dogs, let alone those species where the males and females live almost entirely segregated lives except when coming together to mate.
ReplyDeleteWe must not forget that we are animals, and like all other species, we are predisposed to do those things that are likely to keep the species going. I am all in favour of males who are excellent cooks and housekeepers, and of young women who go off to do dangerous deeds, and there is no reason why books should not be written about them. But ultimately, the experience of most humans is that females are more inclined to nest and to plan, and males are more aggressive and into short-term results.
Getting tied up in questions of 'gendering' (and it goes on in my own discipline, ad nauseam) is all too often based on an assumption that humans are different in kind, rather than merely degree, from other mammals. This is a curiously archaic view, since it is really the same theory that held, in the past, that 'Man' was lord of creation, and that other animals were put here for 'his' use - that we are not really animals at all.
I find the thought that human males, like those of most species, are inclined to be less instinctively domesticated than most human females perfectly acceptable, but I find the belief that we are somehow utterly different from other creatures and have imposed male and female gender roles intellectually, rather than inherited them biologically, depressingly reactionary.
AgTigress
I'd say that my daughter's upbringing features far more frequent instances of being "tamed" than my son's has.
ReplyDeleteMaybe your daughter is just naturally wilder than your son. Or, I suppose, it might have to do with the way that wildness isn't seen as feminine, so it's not considered a good thing in girls, whereas when a boy is wild, people have a tendency to shrug and say "boys will be boys".
Maybe what we're seeing in this plot is less about men and women as such and more a retelling of a dynamic between women, in which female "wildness" gets projected onto male characters and is then appreciated, feared, and managed by the heroine?
That would be consistent with Kinsale's ideas about how the female reader relates to both the hero and heroine. But I still don't see why these characteristics almost always have to get projected onto the hero? Well, apart from when it's a beta hero, which tends to mean that "taming" isn't part of the plot.
And why is it that if a heroine does something that "bad boy" heroes do, readers are apparently much more likely to say she's "unsympathetic", even though they might accept, or even find attractive, the very same behaviour in a hero?
I find the belief that we are somehow utterly different from other creatures and have imposed male and female gender roles intellectually, rather than inherited them biologically, depressingly reactionary.
According to Janet Shibley Hyde, "the fascination with psychological gender differences has been present from the dawn of formalized psychology around 1879" (581) and
The differences model, which argues that males and females are vastly different psychologically, dominates the popular media. Here, the author advances a very different view, the gender similarities hypothesis, which holds that males and females are similar on most, but not all, psychological variables. Results from a review of 46 meta-analyses support the gender similarities hypothesis. (from the abstract)
RfP's got more discussion of the science behind all this.
Getting tied up in questions of 'gendering' (and it goes on in my own discipline, ad nauseam) is all too often based on an assumption that humans are different in kind, rather than merely degree, from other mammals.
ReplyDeleteBut hasn't research shown that our assumptions about male aggression in various animal species are not correct, either? That in some species the female is the better and more active hunter (lions?) and that there are also different types and areas of aggression which show differential results for males and females of different species? Then there's the presence of homosexual behavior in animals, as well, which seems significant to me somehow, as well, especially in teasing out differences between sex and gender.
I always think it's interesting how our own observations of other species and cultures are so shaped by our own views, and that as cultural and social views and values change, so, not surprisingly, do our "truths" about other cultures and species.
I would say that much of the Bible is also entirely consistent with the dynamics of a violent relationship (images of God punishing His people when they go astray, for example, but then when the slaughter is done taking them back--after all, it was all for their own good). So romance is hardly the only source for such material, and not even the most culturally central one.
This point reminds me of the Feldhahn article Laura referenced earlier and the one "expert" -- Julianna Slattery -- Feldhahn uses to support her 'Romances *can be* (fill in the blank negative adjective)' position. Slattery's book, only partially cited by Feldhahn, is fully titled "Finding the Hero in Your Husband: Surrendering the way God intended." Yeah, no wonder she left that last -- and most important -- part out, lol.
You mention Susan Elizabeth Phillip's football Romances. I recall being disturbed by one of them in particular called "Nobody's Baby But Mine," where the hero bullies and virtually imprisons the heroine in his house. I hated that the story seemed to think that he was justified in his domineering behavior because of her, admittedly awful, earlier duplicity. It was as if her having his child in her womb made his wanting to control her movements completely understandable in the author's moral universe. And I hated the way that her escape from him only lead her to the place of finally bowing to his will. Wherever she went, she was hemmed in on every side by the author and the author's hero. And even as the hero was forced (by the heroine's tricking him into impregnating her) into the domestic role, he wasn't imprisoned in the heroine's home and forced to realize the justness of her rule over him.
ReplyDeleteWell, I hated Nobody's Baby But Mine with the passion of about a hundred suns (down from the usual thousand I reserve for The Conqueror) for the reasons you mention here (and more if I think about it too long).
This was the book I was referring to on the recent SB thread when I said I felt that in secret baby books I sometimes feel as if I'm being invited to judge the heroine harshly so as to accept her "punishment," her humbling, and to excuse the hero's truly porcine actions. Like I'm being invited into a conspiracy against my own gender and commitment to a woman's right to reproductive freedom, all to facilitate a Romance novel reunion fantasy. Okay, time to calm down, lol. Suffice it to say I disliked both Jane and what's his name intensely.
Anyway, more generally SEP novels fascinate me, because some of them IMO contain such wonderful characterizations of strong and complex heroes and heroines -- Ain't She Sweet, Dream A Little Dream, Fancy Pants -- that I fall happily into the book and relish the interdependence of the romantic relationship.
But then some of them -- Breathing Room, It Had to Be You, Nobody's Baby But Mine -- have elements that make me ceraazzy. Like when Phoebe believes she's 'reclaimed her womanhood' by having sex with what's his name in It Had To Be You. Or when the stereotypically uptight psychologist what's her name gets good and laid by what's his name in Breathing Room (boy did she need that, by god!). SEP is such a wonderful craftsperson, and a great storyteller, IMO, and her books present to me some of the things I most love and most hate in the genre. I don't really know of another author who hits both sides so strongly for me.
I can say that the authors whose books *always* hit it right for me are Judith Ivory, Laura Kinsale, Jo Goodman, and Patricia Gaffney. This isn't an exclusive list -- merely illustrative. In all of their books I find a sense of emotional interdependence such that each individual's independence isn't lost but actually enhanced in concert with the other partner. Where all thoughts of subjugation and surrender are absent from my reading experience.
(Answering Laura - haven't considered Robin's latest posts yet).
ReplyDeleteNo, I was not promoting the cod-psychology position that males and females are always diametrically different in an inevitable, biologically determined way. I’d actually forgotten about all that Mars/Venus stuff, and didn’t know it was still around. I think the problem is the need to over-simplify somewhat when scientific research is interpreted for more general use, not to mention the deliberate, more sensational over-simplification of popular ‘self-help’ literature. The answer to the nature/nurture debate is always going to be ‘both’, and it is as ridiculous to suppose that all the responses of humans (and other mammals) are hard-wired biological instincts as it is to suppose that all are culturally imposed by society, or that all are intellectually constructed through what the Victorians would have regarded as our god-like superior rationality. Any individual human being is defined by heredity, health, experience and culture, by a mixture of biological, psychological, emotional and societal forces, not any one of those forces alone.
My point was simply that some of the endless discussion of gender roles, at least in social anthropology and archaeology, seems to be based on the assumption that behaviour is always wholly culturally determined. This is simply not true: biology also plays a part, as comparisons with other species demonstrate.
AgTigress
I take your point, AgTigress, that "biology also plays a part." It may be, though, that precisely how biological differences will manifest themselves in culture vary radically from time to time and place to place, and even between groups that live in the same time and place.
ReplyDeleteAs an example, I'd look to Daniel Boyarin's book "Unheroic Conduct," which examines the ideals of masculinity in rabbinic European Jewish culture from Roman times up through the start of the 20th century.
I don't have the book in hand, but this from the description will give you the idea: "In a book that will both enlighten and provoke, Daniel Boyarin offers an alternative to the prevailing Euroamerican warrior/patriarch model of masculinity and recovers the Jewish ideal of the gentle, receptive male. The Western notion of the aggressive, sexually dominant male and the passive female reaches back through Freud to Roman times, but as Boyarin makes clear, such gender roles are not universal. Analyzing ancient and modern texts, he reveals early rabbis--studious, family-oriented--as exemplars of manhood and the prime objects of female desire in traditional Jewish society."
"Studious" and "family-oriented" actually downplay how surprising many of his artifacts are. I recall a number of texts--from popular culture, like songs, and from private culture, like diary entries and letters--in which women articulate their "dream man," Ashkenazi-diaspora style. He's slim, even frail, tender as butter, he's pale, with long, pretty side-curls; he doesn't (God forbid!) work for a living, which was the wife's job; instead, he's a scholar, spending hours in the house of study. He doesn't ride, he doesn't hunt, he doesn't shoot, he doesn't fight, he doesn't own property; from the point of view of Christian Europe, he wasn't much of a man.
Now, does this mean that such men lacked all aggressive, "alpha" qualities? If you've ever listened to yeshiva bochers argue over a text you'll know that some version of alpha manhood is alive and well and living in Pinsk, or Minsk, or Chelm, or Pumbadita. But most of the qualities that we associate with dear old Aragorn, pictured in Sarah's original post, are lacking, and it's precisely their absence that made these men attractive, at least on Boyarin's account.
Robin wrote:
ReplyDelete"the one "expert" -- Julianna Slattery -- Feldhahn uses to support her 'Romances *can be* (fill in the blank negative adjective)' position. Slattery's book, only partially cited by Feldhahn, is fully titled "Finding the Hero in Your Husband: Surrendering the way God intended." Yeah, no wonder she left that last -- and most important -- part out, lol."
Slattery's concern about romance fiction, including (maybe especially) Christian romance fiction, seems common in the evangelical world. Lynn S. Neal cites many similar fears from male and female critics of the genre in her book "Romancing God: Evangelical Women and Inspirational Fiction."
Wow, where to start? I guess with an admission of how cool Nora's comment was, to begin with. I've been gloating about it for 36 hours. :D
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said of Pride and Prejudice: "And do you think Darcy and Elizabeth live happily ever after? That marriage seems destined for big storms,I sense." I think this is a fascinating topic, especially considering a contemporary reader of P+P (and writer in her own right) Mary Russell Mitford, wrote: "The want of elegance is almost the only want in Miss Austen. I have not read her Mansfield Park, but it is impossible not to feel in every line of Pride and Prejudice, in every word of "Elizabeth," the entire want of taste which could produce so pert, so worldly a heroine as the beloved of such a man as Darcy. Wickham is equally bad. Oh! They were just fit for each other, and I cannot forgive that delightful Darcy for parting them. Darcy should have married Jane. He is of all the admirable characters the best designed and the best sustained." I've always taken this to mean that Austen readers have had Darcy-mania for 200 years, not just 10, but the idea of Jane and Darcy together is awful. Talk about a "typical" patriarchal arrangement! Darcy would run roughshod over Jane who would get meeker and meeker--and not in a good way. I think the subversion of a marriage between Elizabeth and Darcy is knowing that Elizabeth will laugh at Darcy's pomposity, and teach Darcy's sister to do the same (made explicit in the text!), undercutting his "masculine authority" and making the marriage much more equal. And Elizabeth with Bingley would be the same--Mr. Bennet had the right of it when he told Elizabeth that above all things, she must respect her partner in life. Equality in marriage is the ideal here, with the domestic unit as the social ideal.
This goes back to Robin's point (or her summary of someone else's point), which I love: "if we're going to argue that Romance sends "good" messages, that we can't deny the opposite. And that if we say we're influenced in "positive" ways (i.e. anything we might "learn" from Romance novels), we can't deny the opposite."
Eric and I are trying to stay away from this whole idea of, well, Empowerment vs. Oppression when discussing romances, because it's not an argument that can be won. Robin had fabulous comments on SBTB about seeing romance as a reflection of all sides of current ideological debates and cultural constructions of relationships and gender, that I think speak much more to the heart of what we're all trying to do with our new consideration of romances. But then the media latch onto "is it good for women or not" because that's been the dialogue up until now. And it's so easy to fall into--as I did here--because we all feel so strongly about it. Part of my concern is that so few non-romance readers have heard the "empowerment" side of the argument that I want to "bruit" it abroad (I'm reading Laura Kinsale's medieval novels right now!) that romances can be Good For You as well as Oppressive and Restrictive. But I think in the long run, staying AWAY from that debate is the better prospect, and examining exactly what and how romances reflect cultural constructions of [Fill in the Blank] is much more fruitful a pursuit.
And, Robin, have you read SEP's Kiss an Angel? What about Gaffney's To Have and To Hold? TBH, I'd love your take on that last one, which shows up on many many lists of "Best Romance Evah" and which I adored, but which I would think would hit all your buttons.
ReplyDeleteI have to admit Nobody's Baby But Mine was the first SEP I read and turned me on to her, so I obviously had a different reaction to it. What I found unbelievable about it was the "must give my baby a name" plot, but I oved the interaction b/t Cal and Jane.
Darcy would run roughshod over Jane who would get meeker and meeker--and not in a good way. [...] And Elizabeth with Bingley would be the same
ReplyDeleteI'm laughing, here, Sarah, because just this morning I said the complete opposite. Although I do think that Darcy and Elizabeth would have to humble each other first before they'd be ready for that.
Now, does this mean that such men lacked all aggressive, "alpha" qualities? If you've ever listened to yeshiva bochers argue over a text you'll know that some version of alpha manhood is alive and well and living in Pinsk, or Minsk, or Chelm, or Pumbadita.
Ah, and in the same post I was also saying how much I prefer Henry Tilney. As a cleric with a rapier-sharp wit and what other people might think is a feminine knowledge of muslins, he's the nearest Austen gets to the type you're describing here, Eric.
Getting tied up in questions of 'gendering'... is all too often based on an assumption that humans are different in kind, rather than merely degree, from other mammals.
ReplyDeleteI agree. However, other mammals' sex roles are not clear-cut or consistent. Even closely-related species can exhibit very different behaviors in mating, defense, foraging, etc, etc, etc. So while we are part of the animal kingdom, that doesn't say anything definite about our biologically-driven gender traits.
some of the endless discussion of gender roles, at least in social anthropology and archaeology, seems to be based on the assumption that behaviour is always wholly culturally determined. This is simply not true: biology also plays a part, as comparisons with other species demonstrate.
Again, I agree with the basic statement that biology plays a part. I disagree that we know what part it plays. I don't think the evidence even shows that the part played by biology is consistent across the population, or even within a single individual across a whole lifetime. Recent neuroscience (two studies cited here) finds that socialization can alter physical structures in the brain--including structures important to developing "feminine" characteristics such as empathy. So even if "nature" started out dominant, "nurture" has such a strong effect that "nature" can be changed during a person's lifetime.
hasn't research shown that our assumptions about male aggression in various animal species are not correct, either? That in some species the female is the better and more active hunter (lions?) and that there are also different types and areas of aggression which show differential results for males and females of different species?...
I always think it's interesting how our own observations of other species and cultures are so shaped by our own views
Those are significant themes in Olivia Judson's Dr Tatiana's Sex Advice To All Creation. Judson shows how little science underlies our popular notions of species' sexual behaviors, and how early scientists' limited and assumption-laden observations have been overgeneralized. Much of what we "know" about evolution and mate selection (e.g. male must spread his seed, female must attract a male to monogamy) turns out to be false for many species--some closely related to us, some not.
Eric and I are trying to stay away from this whole idea of, well, Empowerment vs. Oppression when discussing romances, because it's not an argument that can be won.... [But] it's so easy to fall into--as I did here--because we all feel so strongly about it.
It's also easy to fall into because some of each (empowerment and oppression) is probably true. SOME of each, SOME of the time, to SOME extent for SOME women reading SOME romance novels in SOME circumstances... and doubtless SOME caveats I've left out. Laura recently pointed out a crucial "some" in Bindel's diatribe against romance. That word can change everything, and leaving it out can dramatically change the tenor of conversation. On the other hand, including so many disclaimers can in its own way make it hard work to carry on a conversation like this--in the media, and even here--as it takes a lot of time to define terms and get clear on assumptions.
I prefer Henry Tilney. As a cleric with a rapier-sharp wit and what other people might think is a feminine knowledge of muslins, he's the nearest Austen gets to the type you're describing here, Eric.
There's also Edmund of Mansfield Park, who could be read as a similar type minus the rapier-sharp wit. I'm sure he appeals to some readers who find Henry Tilney sarcastic or condescending.
And Robin, I;m going to disagree strenuously with your view of Phoebe in It Had to be You. Phoebe is one of the very few heroines I adore (like Brockmann's Kate in Heart Throb) because I understand exactly where she's coming from. I too have a body "made for sex" with curves in all the right places and very large breasts that I use as defense/shield/distractor and therefore to my advantage when dealing with men. I think her reaction to her REAL rape is brilliantly done and her recovery accurately portrayed. And the scene in which she reclaims herself and her sexuality because Dan does exactly what she tells him to do and stops when she says stop is one of the most powerful sex scenes and the most powerful scenes of a woman's sexuality that I've ever read. So while I understand what you say about Nobody's Baby But Mine, even though I like the book, I vehemently disagree with you on IHTBY. YMMV--and obviously does! :)
ReplyDeleteHey, I have an idea!
ReplyDeleteGiven how much romances vary one from another, so that we endlessly revisit the SOME do this, SOME do that argument;
and given Blake's always wise observation that "to generalize is to be an idiot";
why don't we all choose one novel, or a small group of novels, and go after them collectively? Continue this discussion, but about some text that we all have in common, more or less fresh in our minds, and see what we come up with?
If you like the idea, what novel do you suggest? Something old, something new? Something readily available, certainly!
On one of Robin’s points; yes, species often have different ‘gender roles’ from one another, if we may call them that (I have come to hate the term), because the social organisation in one species differs from that of another. Even within one closely related zoological family, there may be differences: the social hierarchies and organisation of lions and tigers are very different, as are those of horses and asses, yet in both cases, the species are genetically close enough to interbreed. There are a few species where females always hold the highest, overall alpha rank in a community (e.g. the Spotted Hyena, Crocuta crocuta) and in many species, there are separate, integrated and balanced hierarchies for males and females within the same group; the alpha female has different duties in relation to the herd/pack from the alpha male (horses are a good example: the alpha mare leads, communicating internally with the band, the stallion rounds up and protects, interacting with other horse bands and other external groups). Remember that the scientific study of many of these matters is very recent indeed: all are post-Enlightenment, that is, within the last 300+ years. Psychology and social anthropology are quite young disciplines, and the scientific field of (animal) ethology is even more modern, even though humans have been observing animals throughout their (the humans’) whole history. Many mistakes have been made in the past, and many more will be made in the future. Like all academic endeavour, there is no final resolution.
ReplyDeleteIt is absolutely true that we are trying harder to release ourselves from an anthropomorphic position in studying such things, but it isn’t easy to step outside the viewpoint of our own cultural conditioning, let alone our species. For example, most intelligence testing of animals throughout the 20th century tended to assess their intelligence – which should mean the innate and learned abilities that enable the animals to be successful, individually or communally – in terms of human standards. They usually tested how much the intelligence of a dog or a horse or a parrot resembles HUMAN intelligence. That must change.
That is very interesting material in E.M.Selenger’s post about a specific Jewish cultural norm, which was quite unknown to me. Cultural variability is extensive, and of course there are many variations we cannot know in detail, or even at all – like those that prevailed in prehistory, a period which constitutes a far higher proportion of the total existence of Homo sapiens than does historical, recorded time. If the diffident, pale-faced scholar is perceived as the epitome of manly virtue in this particular cultural milieu, I assume that scholarship was rated highly as a human achievement, and that he who possessed it therefore had – has – power and high status within that particular community. While not wishing to enter into a discussion of cultures about which I know little, I can think of very good reasons for it, certainly in the Graeco-Roman world. Jewish communities living in enclaves within first pagan, and later Christian and Moslem, wider societies would rather naturally tend to value cerebral rather than physical superiority as a sign of high status, because being different was part of their cultural identity. Fortunately other animals do not need to take religion into account.
All I am saying, ultimately, is that the whole picture has to be looked at - biology, culture, undividual experience. And the problem about THAT is that most generalisations fall, with a resounding crash.
AgTigress (again, additional posts have appeared while I was eating dinner, so I may be repeating or disagreeing with points that I have not yet taken into account).
Eric, like Dear Author's Dueling Reviews, except "Dueling Criticism"? That would be cool! The question, of course, becomes what book, like you said. Maybe a "quick" M&B/HQN read instead of a longer book? Or a reprint of a category novel--although that necessarily makes the original publication date longer ago than a recently published category. Hrm.
ReplyDeleteI've been reading everyone's comments with keen interest would enjoy seeing you all do the "dueling criticism" thing with some Harlequin Presents titles, since that line started this entire conversation. Just a thought from a very interested reader.
ReplyDeleteBTW, Robin, I find myself frequently saying, "yes, that's it exactly" or "wish I had thought of that" while reading your posts. It's been fun and interesting following your comments here and at SBTB.
MplsGirl
On "taming"--I wonder if Jayne would write that today. We should get the Tigress to ask her. And I must admit that it always seems to me, in the select few romance writers I read, that the heroine is more of a horse whisperer than a bronco-buster. And the relationship is more like what one finds in Andre Norton or Anne McCaffrey's Pern books: two intelligent, independent creatures of different species becoming partners and friends. This human/animal bond is one of the deepest pleasures of fantasy (C.S. Lewis once suggested it fulfills a need that goes back to the Garden of Eden); and I think it applies equally well to the male-female bond, when you are contemplating the differences between them. I think the man taming the woman tends to resemble bronco-busting: he uses his superior power--physical, social, or economic--to control her; while the female taming the male uses gentleness and reward, giving him what he's been missing in life--affection, companionship, loyalty, physical comfort.
ReplyDeleteI'm reminded of the scenes in some of the Albert Payson Terhune stories I devoured in my youth, where some man wins over a collie gone feral by feeding him little bits of fried liver.
Do you suppose this would work on Rhett Butler?
(Incidentally, I wrote this before reading the post by the Silver Tigress which makes many of the same points.)
Laura wrote: Why can't we have some female rakes in need of the love of a good men to help them settle down?
That's pretty much the plot of Midnight Bayou by Nora Roberts. There are quite a few examples of role reversal here (not least the hero's pregnancy....).
I think Darcy and Elizabeth will do just fine if they have something to do. I rather enjoy Carrie Bebris's series featuring them as detectives: Pride and Prescience, or A Truth Universally Acknowledged; Suspense and Sensibility, or First Impressions Revisited; North By Northanger, or The Shades of Pemberley. Elizabeth develops mild paranormal abilities, which the utterly rational Darcy finds unbelievable; but they manage to work it out.
I like Eric's book-discussion idea. What if we pick two or three books dealing with the same theme (NOT a secret baby!) and compare and contrast them? One might be one we all like or at least consider well done; one we regard as mediocre as best; and one a category.
why don't we all choose one novel, or a small group of novels, and go after them collectively? Continue this discussion, but about some text that we all have in common, more or less fresh in our minds, and see what we come up with?
ReplyDeleteSomething like the Sunday Salon? (I've thought about joining them and adding some romance novels to the mix.)
The collective reading and discussion idea really appeals to me. May I suggest "A Man to Slay Dragons" by Meagan McKinney? It's a pretty recent Romance, and it's one of the books I was thinking of when I earlier mentioned a modern Romances can have a really steep power imbalance that the hero takes advantage of, despite being in an era where women have won legal rights.
ReplyDeleteI admit that I didn't finish reading it the first time through, because I was reading for my own pleasure and the hero's stalking and emotional abuse was making me feel Robin's hatred that has "the passion of a hundred suns," (love that description! ;) but it might be interesting to read it again from an investigative perspective, and have a forum to analyze it in.
Interestingly, this book, like Nobody's Baby But Mine, uses duplicity on the part of the heroine to justify the hero's bullying of her. Though in this case her sin is that the heroine is suspected of involvement in a crime, rather than that her being pregnant unethically means that she deserves the way the hero treats her.
Just a suggestion!
And Robin, I;m going to disagree strenuously with your view of Phoebe in It Had to be You.
ReplyDeleteYeah, we've had the go around on this one before, Sarah. And while I understand where you're coming from (last time you said more directly that you identified with Phoebe to some degree), there are a number of things in the book that really hit my buttons (a couple of scenes where Dan seems more cruel/controlling than provocative, for example).
And while it may be petty to respond negatively to one word, the way SEP phrased that moment -- "she reclaimed her womanhood" (p. 171) -- crystallized my negative reaction to the novel. Had she phrased it like you did -- that Phoebe reclaimed her *sexuality* -- I think it would have been a different sort of experience (but perhaps a different sort of book, too).
But womanhood felt so all-encompassing to me, and so essentialist, that I couldn't get past it because I felt that way throughout the book somehow (although I agree with you that the way Phoebe's sexual trauma is treated is quite good).
It was like when Linda Howard wrote that scene in Dream Man where Dane takes Marlie from behind: ". . . he flipped her onto her stomach, kneed her legs apart, and drove into her with battering force" (p. 251, emphasis mine). If Howard was trying to create an anti-rape image there it didn't work for me at all, and if it wasn't really conscious in its mirroring of the sexual violence Marlie suffered in the past (and magically recovered from under Dane's 'capable hands'), then that's problematic for me in different ways. Anyway, I had similar issues in both books, I think, albeit from different character POV directions.
And, Robin, have you read SEP's Kiss an Angel? What about Gaffney's To Have and To Hold? TBH, I'd love your take on that last one, which shows up on many many lists of "Best Romance Evah" and which I adored, but which I would think would hit all your buttons.
I haven't read Kiss an Angel, but THATH is one of my top ten favorite Romances Evah, too. And I have a special fondness for it after being compared on a Romance board to a KKK member for extolling what I saw as its virtues. And this was after practically being accused of advocating censorship because I had the nerve (on the same board) to suggest that Romance rape deserved close scrutiny because of its RL significance.
But see, the manifestation of that paradox is exactly why I love the novel so much. Gaffney isn't afraid of making those early scenes between Rachel and Sebastian terribly uncomfortable. She's not afraid of revealing Sebastian's casual cruelty right alongside his genuine interest in Rachel and his own neediness in provoking a reaction from her.
And yet Gaffney still, IMO, redeems Sebastian, and not because Rachel heals him (or because he heals her), but because he reaches a point inside himself where he feels compelled to change, which makes it safe for Rachel to begin the long process of returning to her own emotional presence.
So ultimately THATH is one of those books, IMO, that invites a really serious discussion of forced seduction and sexual violence in Romance (and doesn't trivialize these things), and yet still manages to deliver, IMO, a very believable romantic resolution for Rachel and Sebastian. So for me it covers both ends of the Bindel-Cummings ideological gamut.
But then the media latch onto "is it good for women or not" because that's been the dialogue up until now. And it's so easy to fall into--as I did here--because we all feel so strongly about it. Part of my concern is that so few non-romance readers have heard the "empowerment" side of the argument that I want to "bruit" it abroad (I'm reading Laura Kinsale's medieval novels right now!) that romances can be Good For You as well as Oppressive and Restrictive.
I get this, Sarah, and I understand that a lot of the oppositional rhetoric occurs because Romance readers are so used to feeling defensive about the genre. On the one hand, it's easy IMO to see how non-Romance readers can dismiss so many of the covers and titles of the books, but when you know the genre from the inside, those judgments feel so unfair. And because IMO it's largely the marketing that perpetuates the low-brow reputation, it's like the genre is perennially disadvantaged in this way.
The thing is, though, that IMO that internal defensiveness isn't only directed at external critics but at readers who fail to merely accept that Romance is "just entertainment." And I think that "just entertainment" argument is itself a way of evading certain things in the genre that even its readers know can be problematic to those of us who accept the paradigm. So maybe we don't always want to look so closely, because what would that mean, etc., etc.
Which is another reason I think the influence argument -- even when it's in the direction of empowerment -- can frustrate the project of analyzing books in the genre in a way that allows them to reveal their own characteristics, their own secrets, their own ideological trajectories within the parameters of the novels themselves.
Which, I think, will ultimately translate into an open invitation for genre respect, not for what the books do or doesn't say TO women, but for what the books do *as texts* worthy of critical attention. JMO, of course, from someone most definitely invested in this mode of critique.
BTW, Robin, I find myself frequently saying, "yes, that's it exactly" or "wish I had thought of that" while reading your posts. It's been fun and interesting following your comments here and at SBTB.
Thanks so much, mpls girl! This blog format suits my rambling and not particularly organized thought process, although I realize it doesn't necessarily suit blog readers. So it's nice to know that I'm making periodic sense to some people, lol.
I'm extremely late to this discussion. I only found it because someone emailed it to me when they were googling for something.
ReplyDeleteI just have one comment that is in response to the taming issue.
With my comment on Romancing the Blog, I didn't mean to imply that women should tame their existing partners. I meant that potential partners shouldn't even be given a second glance if they don't step up and behave like real men possessing all the traits women deserve.
If men weren't "getting any" because women didn't like the way they acted, believe me...they'd change their offensive behaviors, and suddenly it would be cool to act like a real man, instead of a whiny, image-concerned player-boy.
Good discussions here. I'll be exploring further and hanging around a while.
Oh, and if you ever get your man in a kilt, we want pics! ;-)