the ask@AAR: Is there a romance canon?
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a canon is
a. Literary Criticism. A body of literary works traditionally regarded as the most important, significant, and worthy of study; those works of esp. Western literature considered to be established as being of the highest quality and most enduring value; the classics (now frequently in the canon). Also (usually with qualifying word): such a body of literature in a particular language, or from a particular culture, period, genre, etc.
b. In extended use (esp. with reference to art or music): a body of works, etc., considered to be established as the most important or significant in a particular field. Frequently with qualifying word.
Does romance have one? Has your sense of what belongs in this possible canon changed over time? If you had to pick ten books that you would say belong in the romance canon, what would they be? Or would you pick–which is easier!–ten authors? Who would they be?
My canon of ten books–it could change tomorrow-would be:
Lord of Scoundrels by Loretta Chase
Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
Bet Me by Jennifer Crusie
A Hunger Like No Other by Kresley Cole
Devil in Winter by Lisa Kleypas
Glitterland by Alexis Hall
The Wolf and the Dove by Kathleen Woodiwiss
50 Shades of Grey by E. L. James
Indigo by Beverley Jenkins
Naked in Death by J. D. Robb
My current list of ten authors would be:
Nora Roberts, Beverly Jenkins, Alexis Hall, Kathleen Woodiwiss, Julia Quinn, Jane Austen, Georgette Heyer, Barbara Cartland, Nalini Singh, and Alyssa Cole.
Thoughts?
Coming out of deep lurk-mode for this one because it intrigues me so much. And is still going on after I thought it was over so I thought I’d toss my two cents in just for the heck of it.
Should there be a romance novel canon? Well, if we’re talking academic study, then sure. The problem is that the romance genre is just so doggone large though. Realistically we’re talking about millions (?) of books. And that’s just since the boom in the 1970s.
From a personal reader perspective, though, the idea of condensing the genre down to a short list always tends to irritate me. When I look at the list that Dabney originally posted I see what I always see when this discussion comes up. An assortment of high-profile names. Some historical, some contemporary. Several Regency. Some leaning towards women’s fiction, some suspense, maybe. What I don’t see are any of the outliers. Paranormals. Science-fiction romances. Gothics. Inspirationals. I could go on but what about this one – just plain old swashbuckling rollicking adventure romances from any time period or setting?
I toss that last in simply because one of the things that truly irks me is the default acceptance that Jane Austen’s influence on romance is so big. When I think of romance novels I think of mystery, adventure, fantasy, science fiction, superheroes . . . all somehow rolled into one genre that’s main focus is a love story. That’s a lot more Arthur Conan Doyle, Alexander Dumas and Jules Verne than Jane Austen. (Who wasn’t writing romances, either.)
Now, I’m not saying that Austen didn’t have a huge influence on one corner of the genre. One corner, however, not the whole thing. So I guess what I’m saying is that I’d hold any “canon” suspect if it wasn’t broad enough to show just how big and varied the genre actually is. Because that very variety is what defines the romance genre to me.
I’m with you! Having grown up reading Sir Walter Scott and Robin Hood stories, I love romantic adventure stories. I want a nice, meaty plot to go with the love story.
I love romantic suspense and wish it was a bigger deal in romance.
Same here. And the best RS right now is in m/m, which is an even smaller corner of the genre as a whole.
I think you forgot to add in your opinion!
And it’s not simply those but all those swashbuckling romantic movies I grew up on. ;-D
No, there isn’t a canon. The books are too different.
Most of the books in your list are US-centric, barely known outside the US. And they are too different. Pride and Prejudice isn’t a romance, it’s a social comedy. The book is about as romantic as Dickens’ Our Mutual Friend, or Nicholas Nickleby, which also include romances, but aren’t about romance. Romances written in the Regency were very different, or rather, novels considered as romances at the time.
Is Dracula a romance?
You missed out the big UK authors like Catherine Cookson, Dilly Court, Freda Lightfoot. So no. It’s impossible.
Naked In Death is a detective novel with a romance. For any kind of canon there has to be a set criterion.
I take “canon” books to be the ones that really generated the romance genre whether they are thought of romances or not. P&P and Jane Eyre technically aren’t “romances” but there is no denying they spawned possibly hundreds of thousands of imitations in one form or another over the years.
They shaped what came to be known as “romances” whether the authors would have liked that idea or not. Same with Gabaldon. She may not like “Outlander” being referred to as a romance but it’s been one of the most influential ones of the late 20th early 21st century.
I can name a hundred more books with romantic elements or a romance storyline such as Dickens’ “Our Mutual Friend” as you mention- but how influential was that? How many romance authors would cite that as the book that spurred them to write? How many imitations of it in any form has infiltrated the romance market over the years? Not many.
If we are throwing even a wider net we could include things like Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet” as an influence on themes that keep being re-used, but in terms of actual books and formats from start to finish that were imitated over and over and helped created the romance genre I stand by my list below.
Love this discussion!! I think there is definitely a canon. If I were pointing people to romance authors from this “canon” it would be the following in no particular order:
Jane Austen
Lisa Kleypas
Julia Quinn
Jennifer Cruise
Georgette Heyer
Johanna Lindsey
Susan Elizabeth Phillips
Amanda Quick
Mary Balogh
Sarah Maclean
Robyn Carr
Loretta Chase
Julie Anne Long
Tessa Dare
Judith McNaught
Jude Deveraux
Julie Garwood
Rachel Gibson
Lorraine Heath
Kristin Higgins
Elizabeth Hoyt
Eloisa James
Julie James
Susan Mallery
Jill Shalvis
Nora Roberts
Sherry Thomas
Kathleen Woodiwiss
Diana Gabaldon
Amanda Quick = Jayne Ann Krentz + 5 other pen names … *Sweet Starfire*
+ Betty Neels
+ Louisa May Alcott – Little Women, An Old Fashioned Girl and A Whisper in the Dark
+ Elizabeth Lowell
+ Victoria Holt
I think if you are thinking of “canon” for romance being the books that ultimately spawned the current romance genre either directly or indirectly you must include both Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice” and Charlotte Bronte’s “Jane Eyre” for the “historical” roots. While there are other romances from the 19th century on that were popular in their time, they just don’t have the legs that these two books do. Almost every Regency since must give some credit to P&P and Jane Eyre was the precursor to not only every romance about a governess but almost every gothic and woman in danger romance.
In more modern times, “The Sheik” by E.M. Hull was already mentioned as a high point of the (teens? 1920’s?) but surely Margaret Mitchell’s “Gone With The Wind” was by far the most influential “romance” in the first half of the twentieth century at least.
I agree that Georgette Heyer and her (watered down imitation) Barbara Cartland really defined the Regency genre for decades.
The next big “high point” in romance comes in the 1970’s with the first romance blockbusters and prolific authors Rosemary Rogers and Kathleen Woodiwiss. They were overtaken in the 80’s by Johanna Lindsay and to a lesser extent Jude Devereaux.
It’s probably not until the 90’s that we see a real explosion of bestseller romance authors that even move into hard cover like Jayne Ann Krentz, Linda Howard and the very prolific Nora Roberts. All authors that cut their teeth writing category romances that also really defined romance in that genre from the early 80’s on.
I also think Diana Gabaldon and “Outlander” deserves a shoutout as well as she utterly changed what a romance could be with her books (despite her denial that she is a romance author).
In the 90’s and on things really opened up with tons of romance writers gaining popularity and hitting the NYT bestseller lists regularly and demanding more respect.
There are other writers I could mention as well like Victoria Holt and her many pseudonyms who defined the gothic, “governess” romantic suspense genre Jane Eyre started.
Many of the books and authors I mentioned hold up well to this day, and some absolutely do not.
But whether you like all the books or not I don’t think there is much doubt we would not have a Carla Kelly or a Lisa Kleypas or a Loretta Chase without the authors above and their works to build on.
My list in historical order:
Jane Austen-Pride and Prejudice
Charlotte Bronte -Jane Eyre
E.M. Hull- The Sheik
Margaret Mitchell- Gone With The Wind
Georgette Heyer- Multiple
Barbara Cartland-Multiple
Victoria Holt-The Mistress of Mellyn etc.
Rosemary Rogers- Sweet Savage Love
Kathleen Woodiwiss- The Flame and The Flower
Johanna Lindsay- The Mallory family book series
Jude Devereaux- A Knight In Shining Armor
Nora Roberts-Multiple
Jayne Ann Krentz- Multiple
Linda Howard- Multiple
Diana Gabaldon-Outlander
Agree, Chrisreader, about Outlander as Gabaldon’s books have been a revelation to me, a reader who said NEVER, NEVER, EVER to time slip stories. My most anticipated book in November (well for the last 4+ years!!) is due to arrive around the 23rd: Go Tell the Bees I am Gone.
I’ve always assumed that for a book to be worthy of being part of the canon, that it must withstand the test of time, which is the surest way to insure its quality. If you look at the plays, novels, and poetry that have withstood that test, naturally, only a tiny fraction endure. Sadly, so many of romances that I loved–and reread frequently–now are outdated–at best. Some of them, for example Woodiwiss, are no longer readable.
So, can I change your questions, just a bit. (I realize that it is essentially the same as you asked). What romances do we believe people will read and enjoy (not as an academic study) 100 years from now?
“Pride and Prejudice,” yes. “Jane Eyre” by Bronte. (Yeah. I know. You are thinking, “Obviously. These two already have endured 100 years.”
“Venetia” by Heyer. Although humor is tricky: “Bet Me” by Crusie and “A Duke of Ones Own” by Eloise James. Carla Kelly’s “Marrying the Royal Marine. “Blue-Eyed Devil” by Kleypas. Oh, wait, That one I don’t think will age well.
Well, maybe the ones by James, Kelly, and Kleypas will not endure, but I do think Carla Kelly might.
I think the names you list above, even if it isn’t that particular book by the author, will likely endure.
Whether it’s “Libby’s London Merchant” by Carla Kelly or “Mrs Drew Plays Her Hand” or any of the “Marrying” trilogy (which I love) that later generations hold up as her “best” work, I don’t doubt that her books will carry on as beloved. It’s her universal themes of love, forgiveness and spirituality as well as her wonderful writing that make them timeless.
I think Kleypas’s historicals will likely hold up better than her contemporary novels (which don’t have the timeless qualities for later readers) so don’t in general age well. Whether it’s “Devil In Winter” or another of her books remains to be seen as trends in evertythjng changes so much.
Heyer has made it this long as a big influence but it will be interesting to see if her own prejudices will tar her legacy in any way or if subsequent generations will overlook what some now find too problematic about her to support her books.
Maybe there is another author who has been writing amazing stories that are too avant- garde for us now that will years emerge later as a “forgotten treasure” of our time.
All I know is that I decided to write books that I wanted to read, and remain true to history. Clio,is my muse, as well as my lifelong friend. And I’m still at it. Thanks, readers.
Thank you so very much for all the many hours of sheer reading joy you have given me! And thank you for taking the time to respond here.
My pleasure. I confess I haven’t looked at this site in a while. It appears to still be a really good one. I like that.
We are thrilled to have you back. Thanks for the kind words.
Dear Carla, although I cut my teeth on Georgette Heyer in high school, you will always be first in my heart. “Reforming Lord Ragsdale” was not only a perfect romance, but it inspired me to understand so much more of Irish history. I have read everyone of your books and appreciated the kindness, bravery and humanity of so many of the characters. Brava, brava, brava!
As Elaine mentioned Georgette Heyer… I was delighted to read this article in The Guardian earlier today in which the lovely Mr. Stephen Fry (who has written the introduction to the new Folio Society edition of Venetia) reflects on “what makes an excellent regency romance.” https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/oct/01/stephen-fry-on-the-enduring-appeal-of-georgette-heyer
Finally managed to read the Stephen Fry piece. Perfect, just perfect evocation and tribute to a writer who, for me, and after Jane Austen, will never be equalled in HR and specifically Regency romance. Thanks for sharing it!
It was perfect – and very clear he knows what he’s talking about.
I finally read the Fry piece, and just have a couple possible corrections. Heyer wrote before the modern romance genre as we now know it existed, and while her works are enjoyed by genre romance readers, not all are primarily romances. I thought I read years ago that she thought she wrote historical fiction or comedies of manners.
Also, the use of period cant is definitely a feature of her writing and that of many imitators, but that use is a little too heavy. Too much lower-class cant is in the dialogue of upper-class characters.
I agree with Ocean Jasper’s comment below: romance is so broad a category, with so many sub-genres and tropes (and so many differing opinions about them) that attempting to create a “canon” would be a fruitless endeavor. All of us have romance authors and books we think are essential/must-reads, but who would be the ultimate “decider” as to what is canonical? Also (despite the fact that I have a degree in English and for many years happily read the established “dead guys plus Jane Austen, George Eliot, and the Brontes” western literary canon), I love that romance is free from a formal canon: no one gets to say, for example, that WHITNEY MY LOVE has more value than LIBERATING LACEY. We all create our own personal canons and no two are going to be the same.
I think a canon is decided by history. I think we can all agree on Austen and Bronte being included but we don’t have enough hindsight to say what authors from even 2000 on will be part of the “canon”.
Just look at how the AAR top 100 has changed from year to year or decade to decade. There hasn’t been enough time to sort out for more recent books what is just changing tastes and preferences and what is a true classic that speaks to generations.
Of course there is a romance canon despite what some critics would have us think and it goes back a very long way – think of, for example, The Sheik by Edith M Hull. IMO there are “sub-canons” within the canon and for me the Regency, especially those known as “Trad Regencies” are clearly a sub-canon, much beloved by many of us. I had a trawl through the bookshelves of my old paperbacks and here are 10 authors and their books that I would put into the Trad Regency Canon. You will note from this that I have been reading in this specific sub-canon for decades!! And in two cases, I could only narrow it down to two books with great difficulty.
1 – Georgette Heyer – Venetia and A Civil Contract
2 – Mary Balogh – Simply Love and The Secret Pearl
3 – Mary Jo Putney – The Rake and the Reformer
4 – Jo Beverly – An Unwilling Bride
5 – Marjorie Farrell – Miss Ware’s Refusal
6 – Judith A Lansdowne – The Bedevilled Duke
7 – Barbara Metzger – Rake’s Ransom
8 – Edith Layton – The Cad
9 – Paula Allardyce – Octavia
10 – Carla Kelly – Reforming Lord Ragsdale
But does a canon have to have its roots in history?
Romance has become so much more diverse over the decades–should the canon reflect that?
I’m genuinely curious!
That’s kind of the point I was making above (we posted at the same time). The modern romance genre is so diverse I don’t think you can narrow it down to a canon that means anything, even in a subgenre like YA or MM. Every reader likes different things in their romances for different reasons.
I think tastes change from year to year and the AAR awards are a wonderful reflection and historical document of these changes.
If you think of canon as the books that shaped the genre as it is today, see my post for my thoughts and candidates.
I think if you say “canon” the choices should have their roots in history.
If you want to teach it at universities, which is why canons exist, yes you need to have a history.
Dabney – sorry for not coming back to you sooner. We are having our kitchen remodelled and I have just endured 3+ days of ripping out, drilling, banging, an angry and traumatised cat (now lounging in the Kitty Hotel & Spa for the duration) and making tea and coffee for the workmen upmpty-two times a day.
I am not sure about whether a canon has to have its roots in history but any type/genre/style, etc. must started somewhere at some time so maybe canons are an organic growth from that seminal work that kick-starts it. One (perhaps extreme) example that comes to my mind about roots in history would be the Old Testament books of Ruth and Esther or the story of David and Bathsheba in 2nd Samuel which, in their way, are stories about women and their lives including the men in them so perhaps kernels of modern romantic or women’s fiction. These stories are, in part, romantic, and exciting tales of life in a far off and far away world.
For the “Regency Romance”, the start, arguably was Jane Austen but she is such a colossus that she strides over more than one canon IMO. The real kick-start had to be Georgette Heyer and I believe that every writer in the Regency sub-genre has evolved from her work which always showed evidence of her immaculate and very deep research which she entered into journals and albums (cf Jane Aiken Hodge’s book about her). She started my own interest in carriages (always check out stable blocks at historical houses) and dress (I have a number of framed plates from the early 19th century with “walking dress”, “full evening dress”, etc.). I have often wondered if there is a writer of Regency romance out there who has never read Heyer. It seems impossible to me but maybe a writer out there will have the courage to say they never have and/or deny Heyer influenced them.
It has been several decades since Heyer was writing. I strongly suspect you can now find many younger authors who have not read Heyer OR Austen OR any other original material from the Regency era. They are writing in a contemporary popular culture RegencyLand only loosely connected to the historical era, and the results reflect that.
Agreed, Mark. Too much stuff in the last 15 years or so in no way can be defined as Regency or even Historical romance from my personal POV. The old wallpaper concept. Others will strongly disagree; some won’t. Ever the pleasure of AAR’s great diversity of opinion.
I agree that there are definitely young authors out there who have never read Heyer, however I doubt there are any out there that haven’t read Heyer “derivatives” or imitations.
I think Heyer set the form and the language for a lot of what we think of as “Regency romances” and countless people copied her. I hadn’t read Heyer when I read Barbara Cartland so many decades ago, but I was absorbing “Heyer-isms” or “Heyer-speak” or her style through Cartland.
That’s why I included certain people in my list of “canons” because there are newer authors who are surely influenced by, or are imitating these “canon” authors who don’t even know they are, because it’s trickled down so far now.
I don’t think all genres necessarily have a canon, and I would include romance among them.
For other genres, I don’t think say thrillers and action books have a canon either.
I agree. While the classic whodunit, for example, has a canon in that it has a series of landmark books that are recognised as setting the rules for the genre and reforming them over time, thrillers and romances are very much a product of their time and while there are wonderful and much loved books in both genres, you’d find it hard to get people to agree on what any canon should include. Many of the respected romance trendsetters of their day are embarrassing relics of outdated social attitudes now. And (thankfully) the genre has expanded in so many different directions with the advent of self publishing and smaller presses that it would be impossible for me to identify significant books that a romance newbie should read in order to understand the genre. I could simply recommend those that are my recent favourites, because my own tastes are constantly changing.
The only truly canonical romance, in my opinion, is Pride and Prejudice, in terms of an undisputedly landmark novel which laid down rules for the genre. Everything else is just a matter of personal reading preference.
This is not meant to dismiss romance as being unworthy of study or discussion; it’s just that the romance genre is too prolific!
I’m not sure of exactly what you mean by thrillers and if you mean along the lines of mystery then I’d say definitely Agatha Christie and The Murder of Roger Ackroyd and if more horror then H.P. Lovecraft and Stephen King. For action I would say Ian Fleming and James Bond then in the 80’s-90’s the rise of Tom Clancy.
I don’t know if pivotal books count as canon but I would say thrillers definitely have pivotal novels, Gone Girl being one that recently changed everything about the genre.
Thrillers/mysteries, to me, definitely have a canon. These would be some contenders.
The Woman in White by Wilkie Collins
The Hound of the Baskervilles by Arthur Conan Doyle
And Then There Were None by Agatha Christie
Rebecca by Daphne Du Maurier
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo by Stieg Larson
The Silence of the Lambs by Thomas Harris
Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn
The DaVinci Code by Dan Brown
Presumed Innocent by Scott Turow
Devil in a Blue Dress by Walter Mosley
The No. 1 Ladies’ Detective Agency by Alexander McCall Smith
The Firm by John Grisham
The Murders In The Rue Morgue.
Yes!
The Thirty Nine Steps – John Buchan
The List of Adrian Messenger – Phillip MacDonald
The Maltese Falcon – Dashiell Hammett
Yes to all of these.
The Moonstone – widely regarded as the first “modern” detective novel – should be on the list!