Scott McCracken has observed that
To study popular fiction [...] is to study only a small part of popular culture. Nonetheless, written popular narratives can tell us much about who we are and about the society in which we live. [...] Popular fiction is both created by and a participant in social conflict. (1-2)
Support for his view can be found in a variety of reports from the 2015 Romance Writers of America conference. Suleikha Snyder, for instance,
found the conference a source of enjoyment and comradeship but also felt there was what could almost be considered a parallel RWA conference,
The
one where publishers still don't quite know what to do with
multicultural and queer romance. [...]
The
one where you feel as though your presence is just barely being
tolerated, and these other women are indulging you as long as you stay quiet and don't draw too
much attention.
This
other conference was a convergence of microaggressions. From being
side-eyed in elevators to having us confused for each other —
Falguni Kothari and Alisha Rai are not
the same person, FYI — to being told that diverse books were not a
priority for Pocket/Gallery...there was a thread of something that
was almost like resentment.
“Why do we have to talk about diversity?” “Why are there so
many of you here?” “My God, can't you all be quiet and go away,
so we can go back to the way it was before?”
Here are a few of
Rebekah Weatherspoon's comments in a similar vein:
A collection of tweets from the RWA panel on "Diversity in Romance: Why it Matters", at which Weatherspoon was one of the panellists,
has been compiled by Alisha Rai
and the handout from Alyssa Cole, Lena Hart, K. M. Jackson and Falguni
Kothari's workshop on "Multicultural Romance: When Keeping it Real Goes
Wrong - and How to Make it Right"
is now online too.
From an academic point of view, all of this reinforced for me a number of points most/all romance scholars are aware of:
* Romance, like all popular culture, reflects (and sometimes explicitly
reflects on) the social/cultural/economic context from which it emerges and that context is not solely the context of white, middle-aged, cis-sexual, heterosexual women of the kind studied by Janice Radway. It never was, of course, and it certainly isn't now.
* This means that while it may be tempting to claim romance
as a bastion of one particular point of view and/or make generalisations about romance (e.g. "romance is
feminist!", "romance authors are supportive of one another!") such claims need to be qualified.
* If our collective body of work (both written and pedagogical) is not to present a misleading and/or incomplete picture of popular romance fiction we must make romance fiction's diversity apparent to our readers/students.
Any other conclusions romance scholars could benefit from bearing in mind?
[Edited to add:
Jessica Miller's reflections on the conference focus on
socioeconomic class issues. Here are a few random examples:
1. Meetings at the Broadway Lounge in the conference hotel. So many
meetings happened there, both scheduled and informal. A drink at the
lounge will set you back $10-15 plus tip.
2. Dressing for the conference and the RITAs. There’s a lot we can
say about the gendered nature of the term “business casual”, (does it
ever apply to men?), the beauty norms, etc. But I’m thinking about the
cost of showing up for the meetings, the cocktail parties, and the
RITAs. And the issue isn’t even just having to dress up. I think a
middle class woman can show up in casual clothes and not feel bad about
it. Someone in a different situation might find it important to dress to
hide her economic status (“Dress for success!” “Dress for the position
you want, not the one you have!” etc.).
It barely needs saying given the number of romance protagonists who are billionaires/tycoons/rich aristocrats, but issues of socioeconomic class are also present in romance fiction itself.]
------
McCracken, Scott.
Pulp: Reading Popular Fiction. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1998.
