The Viability of the Romance Novel...

or Why I can read sex and still be an academic...

Romance novels have received more than their fair share of criticism...or rather derision...from both the non-academic public and the Ivory Tower elitists. And yet, despite the large number of people who claim to "hate" those trashy novels, romance novels still exist, and if the number of books in the romance section of major bookstores is any indication, they are thriving. Nora Roberts is as much a household name as Stephen King, and Roberts, unlike King, even has her own television commercials.

I'm not going to deny the difference between the writers of romance novels, and I mean romance novels in the popular sense, not the classic, and the writers who consistently appear in our literary canon (Shakespeare, Thoreau, Woolf, Bronte, etc.). And I realize there is a sort of blueprint for popular romance novels, where many many many have the same stock characters and plotlines. I have to admit, however, I love the books. I've read a great, great deal of romance novels.

I have 147 romance novels logged on LibraryThing.com; and 99% of the 147 novels are by three authors: Nora Roberts, Sandra Brown, and Elizabeth Lowell. I also enjoy the occasional Jayne Ann Krentz, Judith McNaught, and Lisa Jackson. I'm sort of a romance novel snob; I have specific authors I enjoy and find many of the other authors to just be silly. But give me a Nora Roberts book and I will more than likely finish it in less than four hours. And I'll be feeling relatively good for a day or so after.

Now, the academic view of romance novels has changed tremendously as the interest in popular culture and cultural studies has increased. This is all fine and good. I'm glad academics are seeing the viability in studying romance novels. And yet, it must be noted that these books are still being studied from a "why do people like them?" point of view, rather than the more academic "what do these books teach us?" point of view.

And yet, what do romance novels teach us? That women have rather uniform sexual fantasies? That women are generally submissive virgins who long to be taught the ropes of sexuality by an experienced male partner? That the craving for a knight in shining armor on a big white horse is engrained in our psyches? I don't mean to say that all romance novels follow this pattern, but many do.

Perhaps an interesting question to ask is this: Why do women in the 21st century, strong, independent women who can take care of themselves and who resent many of the aspects of chivalry, turn to romance novels like the above?

Well I haven't really followed the path my title(s) would suggest, now have I? Here is an excerpt from Elaine Wethington's "Are Academic Opinions about Romance Novels All Negative?" In this section, she is discussing the main reasons academics have not looked at romance novels in a serious light. It should be noted that she does not necessarily agree with these points; she is merely restating the common arguments.

Here are the four "sticking points":

Point 1: Romances are all the same. This view is reinforced by the sympathetic academics, who try to identify commonalities across the genre of romance. Their analytic approach obscures the fact that many different types of romance novels are written, and that they appeal to varied audiences. Most studies of romance novels utilize only a handful of novels. Most importantly, they don't compare and contrast different types of romance novels.

Point 2: Romances are produced by publishers who demand conformity to a set formula, not by authors exercising full creativity. Academics and critics who don't read romances think categories are "romance novels." Every academic I have talked to believes that Danielle Steel writes romance novels (I make it a point to enlighten them); only one had ever heard of Nora Roberts. Frankly, there is some truth to the belief that publishers tend to enforce conformity to a formula in many cases. (What requires more examination is whether romance novelists are under more pressure to conform to a formula than are authors in other genres.)

Point 3: Romances promote a conservative message about male-female relationships. The concern here is that romance novels encourage women, particularly young and impressionable women, toward views that reinforce gender inequality. The concern is not that readers mix up reality and fantasy. Rather it is the belief that readers are subconsciously attracted to a latent message in the books that subverts feminism.

Point 4: Romances are borderline pornography. Unless they read a lot of popular fiction, academics are unaware how much variability there is in sexual explicitness. But I understand part of their point here. Romance novels contain much more explicit sex than mainstream fiction and other fiction genres. Several sympathetic academics have mentioned how uncomfortable they are with the objectification of both male and female bodies found in these books, and not just on the covers. The portrayal of Native American heroes in Westerns is the most troublesome example.

I've (half-assed) addressed points 1 through 3, but I have something to say about point 4 - the pornography problem (which I find different from the "portrayal of Native American heroes" problem, which probably warrants its own point). Americans are prudes. While the sex in the romance novels I read is rather explicit, so what? Does the existence of sex within a "text" make it trash? If so, there are some popular, "artsy" paintings that need to be looked at again. But then again, we still live in a male dominated world, so sex that appeals to the eye (male sex) is more acceptable than sex that appeals to the ear (female sex). I can't remember where I read/heard it, but somewhere someone or something told me that men respond more to the visual and women to the auditory.

Hmmm...an attempt to return to my title.....

The main argument for academics reading romance novels: Thematically complex, ideologically compelling, argumentative, boundary crossing, literary work after literary work makes the brain go on vacation. All work and no play makes Trisha's brain a dull brain.

People tend to be shocked when their English professor reveals a love for romance novels. Of course, it only makes logical sense that English professors be enamored of only the classics, refrain from anything that even closely resembles porn, and be disgusted by popular anything. Hmm.... somewhere along the line in preparation for becoming an English professor, someone forgot to tell me that. Shucks.

Now if you will excuse me, I have to finish Moby Dick and then go read a book that also prominently features a....well you can fill in the blank.