tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post115930562092408181..comments2024-03-26T01:10:13.720+00:00Comments on Teach Me Tonight: Julie Cohen - Being a Bad Girl (2)E. M. Selingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00426524354823232002noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-1159901173249629212006-10-03T19:46:00.000+01:002006-10-03T19:46:00.000+01:00Writing romance has certainly helped me with my re...Writing romance has certainly helped me with my relationships--because the focus is on understanding characters and their motivations, I find I spend more time trying to figure out people and why they behave the way they do, and how I can best react to that. <BR/><BR/>I like your answer, Laura, thank you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-1159715934166836012006-10-01T16:18:00.000+01:002006-10-01T16:18:00.000+01:00This is certainly true of the sexual side of roman...This is certainly true of the sexual side of romance. It's a well-anecdoted and vaguely-documented fact that romance readers have better and more satisfying sex lives than non-romance readers do. If it gets you hot when you read it, you might act on that. And if it teaches you something new, you might experiment with it. I know that's certainly true for myself (and let's stop there and not delve into TMI). But I don't think that's an inherently conservative force, by any means, because while romances focus on monogamous relationships, its readers don't have to practice their new-found knowledge monogamously. And even if they do, making married/committed relationship life happier and more fulfilling seems to be to be more social change than conservative status quo.<BR/><BR/>Anecdotally again, I know some women who have refused to settle with an unhappy relationship because of reading romances. While a lot of non-readers argue that it's made women have unrealistic expectations for a relationship, I think it's made women strive for more. Again, it's certainly effected my relationship with my husband for the better as far as communication skills and inability to settle for unhappiness and discontent.Sarah S.G. Frantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10413768227099945783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-1159442013264781372006-09-28T12:13:00.000+01:002006-09-28T12:13:00.000+01:00I don't see how 'safe' fantasizing can be an 'inhe...I don't see how 'safe' fantasizing can be an 'inherently conservative force' (well, unless we were living in a society like the one depicted in Huxley's <I>Brave New World</I> where people are rendered submissive in part through the viewing of 'feelies'). If we're talking about sexual fantasies, then even the admission that women have sexual fantasies, and that they can be visual fantasies is something which some of the 'conservative forces' might have denied not so long ago.<BR/><BR/>If we're talking about fantasies about one's work, or finding a work-life balance, or the sort of relationships one would like to have, I also don't think romance is necessarily a 'conservative force'. I can see how some people might think that about romance, because it does usually show one man and one woman who get married. Marriage as an institution is indeed fairly traditional, but the types of relationships encompassed within the term 'marriage' can and have varied a lot. Some marriages are not at all 'conservative' or traditional.<BR/><BR/>Radway speculated about changes to the lives of romance readers caused by their reading material. She couldn't prove a causal relationship between romance reading and these changes, but she speculated about whether it existed. She observed that romance reading did seem to have given some readers courage to try new things - there were the readers who decided to go out and get a job (instead of continuing to be housewives - this was what happened with Dot) or they decided to try writing romances themselves. Again, that may not seem particularly revolutionary to some people, but in that particular social context, and for those women, it was.<BR/><BR/>So my feeling would be that while romance may seem traditional and conservative to someone who doesn't read and like them, and who wants widespread social change, romances can nonetheless support/encourage change in small, incremental ways on a personal level (though this may not be true of all romances).Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-1159437023080097872006-09-28T10:50:00.000+01:002006-09-28T10:50:00.000+01:00I like VERY much your idea that romances allow the...I like VERY much your idea that romances allow their readers to try on fantasies, in a safe, reassuring environment, and that characters trying on roles within a novel are echoes of this act. I think that is very true (of all fiction, not just romance, though in romance it may be more explicit), and you've just explained to me why I'm so attracted to reading and writing plots and characters that involve disguises, switching roles, misidentification, and changing self-image. <BR/><BR/>I know that some commentators have found this function of "safe" fantasizing to be an inherently conservative force in a woman's life, and accuse romance of preserving the status quo. I don't agree with that, myself, partly because I find romances to be optimistic and idealistic, and partly because I know so many romance readers who genuinely feel they have grown through their reading. What do you think?<BR/><BR/>Thank you, Laura, for giving me so much food for thought. I've enjoyed it thoroughly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com