the ask@AAR: What’s your least favorite insult leveled at romance?
Elaine S, a long time AAR reader and commenter, recently sent us an exceedingly irritating article from Britain’s the Daily Mail about the upcoming romance to be published by the Duchess of York. (And, we hear, Marguerite Kaye!) In it, the writer reduces romance novels to stories in which there’s a:
… strong, gorgeous hero at your side with confidence and money, gently lifting all your burdens while admiring your precious porcelain beauty and dauntless spirit…
Actually that’s one of the nicer cliches in this article. (Please, take a moment to sigh.)
The success of Bridgerton has forced mainstream media to do a bit more than their usual ignoring/mocking of romance. In recent weeks, the NYT, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal have written about romance with something close ot (grudging) respect. And yet, even with this more laudatory coverage, one still encounters the endless trashing of romance coupled with long comment streams about the genre’s vapidity, mindlessness, sexism, and general it’s very very bad-ness.
It makes me crazy. For me, the thing that I find the most irksome is the idea that romance isn’t feminist. Why? I always wonder. It’s about women doing what they want, making their own choices, and telling their story. I just don’t get the diss.
How ’bout you? What’s your least favorite (baseless) criticism leveled against romance? What’s the worst thing anyone’s ever said to you about being a romance reader?
Thankfully, an excellent article in the Sunday Times this weekend counters the Daily Fail’s rubbish: https://bit.ly/3nSQL3K
It might be behind a paywall, so here are some choice quotes:
…for anyone inclined to snigger at it, I would point you towards a) the prodigious productivity of the authors and b) the historical research inherent in any such project. I would also suggest that c) you pick one up and try to put it down, although d) I would always, always recommend actual Georgette Heyer first. When it comes to Regency novels, she was The Master, like a Henry James of things that are fun to read.
They are for the most part not only well written, with superb characterisation — romantic novelists have this down to a fine art — but also full of deft plots and bigger themes than their jackets might suggest; the historical ones are often educational too.
The whole thing is done with the lightest of touches, as though it were nothing — that’s the skill of it. I always think that with literary fiction you can sometimes hear the grunts and frenzied cogitations, and are being invited to admire them: “Ooh, look at your brains.” Not here. These are someone saying: “Here, have a glass of champagne.” It doesn’t mean they didn’t grow the vines or trample the grapes or bottle the vintage. They just don’t feel the need to remind you.
Romantic novelists, 99% of whom are women, make it possible for publishers to invest in the more challenging or experimental end of literary fiction. Fine thanks they get for it: the poor romantic novelists are treated with contempt by everyone except their readers. They’re never nominated for mainstream literary prizes, even though some of them could give the odd Booker winner a run for their money (also true of crime writers). They’re barely reviewed: no double-page spreads or fawning profiles here. The romantic novelist is lucky to get one little paragraph in the “quick roundup of stuff that’s not worth a proper review” column. Even the wider reading public, unembarrassed by their thriller or police procedural, smirk at a woman reading a paperback with a pastel cover and make immediate assumptions about both her and it.
Despite the lack of fanfare … they continue to conquer the bestseller charts, which of course is the problem: too popular. Specifically, too popular with women,
She concludes by saying:
They are “proper” books, actually, and they’re wonderful.
Well said, India Knight!
Thanks, Caz, this made for a refreshing read!
Because of the Ferguson book The Guardian had a similar article in the centre of which stood the success of the Mills & Boon books.
The heading read:
“There’s an art to it’: with one sold every 10 seconds, what’s Mills & Boon’s secret?
As Sarah Ferguson joins roster of authors, Mills & Boon and Bridgerton success shows there’s money in romance” by Mark Brown Arts correspondent.
The article brought Interviews with m&b authors Sharon Kendrick and Annie O’Neil. Nothing to say about that. But I wanted you to read the first sentences:
“It is easy to mock a fantasy world of personal assistants taming playboy princes, nurses unlocking the passions of surly surgeons, or chambermaids bedding brooding billionaires. Less easy to mock is the wild and continuing popularity of Mills & Boon when one of its romances is sold every 10 seconds in the UK.”
Isn’t it a nice Summary?
I have two big issues with the way that the romance genre is portrayed by the mainstream. First – that it’s easy to write a romance novel. As if anyone can just sit down in front of a computer and pound out a successful romance in a couple of hours. Second – that romance readers are less intelligent.
I’m probably hammering this point to death, but my research into romance novels for the purposes of “easy writing” quickly disabused me of that false notion. The more research I did in various genres, the more I discovered that the one story type you can actually pound out like that is erotica shorts- definitely not romance. And even with erotica, you have to demonstrate respect for your readers’ tastes and expectations. True, there’s a joke in the industry that “If you can imagine it, someone else is into it.” Still, some markets are far more viable than others. And although erotica readers are far more forgiving than romance readers on average, they won’t put up with grammar and spelling that is so poor it takes them out of the story. (Actually, nobody should have to put up with that, but still…) Or, as I have been informed recently, if the work isn’t sexy enough. (Heaven forbid characters engage in a little discussion or foreplay before we get to the X-rated scenes…) Plus, the rapid release pace can be psychologically draining.
In short, there really is no such thing as “easy writing.” It can be a lot of fun, but it’s all work in one way or another. And I would argue that romance readers can be extremely harsh critics among the different genre types. You better follow those expected beats, or else face review wrath!
As for the “romance readers are less intelligent” argument, any lively discussion on AAR quickly disproves that point as well. ;-)
I have to say that I insulted romance novels in my own mind, many times. I came of age in the late 1970s, and there was a real stigma against romance novels. A lover of literary fiction and the classics who also dabbled in other genres, I considered romance novels beneath my notice. The covers looked so cheesy, either sickly sweet Harlequins or bodice rippers with Fabio on the cover. It’s only been in the past few years that I seriously read romance, turning to it because my life was stressful, and literary fiction had become so depressing and/or weird that I was finding little joy in it. I must say that if not for my Kindle, I don’t know that I would have read much romance because many of the covers are still a little cheesy, and I would have been subjected to unwelcome comments. However, I have been very pleasantly surprised by the variety of genres within romance, the creativity, and the quality of the writing. I am a convert! I think romance needs to continue updating its image, and having a loyal and vocal fanbase and ambassadors like Bridgerton and Virgin River can only help.
Nice to hear from a fellow romance convert! Before I got bitten by the romance bug (a nice bug with a guaranteed HEA!), I mostly read historical fiction and science fiction. As I learned about the HEA/HFN requirements for romance, I really grew attached to HR. Too much “literary” historical fiction was getting depressing. Why would I want to read a lush, lyrical setting only to get an absolute gut punch at the end? That’s not to say I’m through with anything but happy endings, but right now especially, I can’t get enough of protagonists triumphing with love, happiness, and good fortune. :)
I believe strongly that women needed privacy to read romance without insult for years and that ebooks gave us that.
Absolutely! Looking just at the recently reviewed books on AAR’s home page, there are only 2 covers I might feel comfortable carrying in public without inciting comment. People like to ask what you are reading and if they see a steamy cover with a lot of cleavage or pecs, the conversation could get weird in a hurry. I don’t want to be talking about a romance novel with strangers in a doctor’s waiting room or on the bus or train. Perhaps I am just easily embarrassed? What do others think?
Hence the rise of the cartoon covers.
I’ll read anything I want on the subway/bus. Honestly, I’m more concerned about unmasked panhandlers coming close than I am about people who find romance novel covers weird or silly or titillating. Any stranger who wants to confront me on my choice of reading material will find out just how important their unsolicited opinion is to me.
I’m more discreet in the workplace because it’s a hospital, but even then, the only romance covers I’d conceal are the really blatant ones.
You’re not alone. I only really started reading romance in a big way after I got my first Kindle. When I used to commute on the Tube I’d probably have felt self-conscious reading a romance; Kindles didn’t arrive until my kids were young and one of the best things was being able to pick up exactly where I left off reading without scrabbling around for a bookmark and having to worry about what the cover looked like. But you’re right – people do like to ask what you’re reading and more than once I’ve said that I’m reading a mystery – without mentioning that it’s also about two guys who hate each other’s guts but are secretly desperately in love with each other!! (And I’m a teacher so I’d rather avoid the staffroom gossip!)
I sadly agree!! Of course men could read Playboy on the commuter train………
I always glared at them….
No question! I used to use a book cover on my paperbacks before the rise of ebooks. I bought an iPod itouch the day after they announced the kindle app for Apple devices (because it was cheaper than a super expensive kindle at the time and could do more). By the time the second generation kindle came out I bought one.
I rediscovered romance because I had the first Kindle. Ebooks have been a boon in so many ways.
I was an early adopter of the Kindle for this very reason. I was homeschooling my children and while waiting for them at various activities (group classes, choir, Shakespeare club) I always brought a book. The cover of the book was perhaps the most important factor in whether I would take it with me to read in front of people (which were mostly very conservative), or whether I would stay in the car to read. The Kindle solved that issue. If asked what I was reading I simply answered “contemporary fiction,” “historical fiction,” “fantasy,” or such vague answers. I wasn’t ashamed of my reading choices, but felt very little could be gained by having someone lecture me on it. Not worth the emotional energy. Another big boon was my adoption of audiobooks! Not only could I listen to whatever I wanted in private, but the headphones discouraged people from talking to me more than just reading a book seemed to. Plus, I started walking during my wait times so I could “read” and exercise at the same time.
That’s a really good way of putting it. While I still prefer the look and feel of physical books, I definitely use e-books for privacy reasons if reading culturally maligned, controversial, and/or sensitive subject matter.
I remember getting annoyed when somebody questioned why I was reading a paperback anthology entitled Biketopia: Feminist Bicycle Science Fiction, and said with the side-eye, “That’s kind of weird.” Yeah, I don’t need that kind of reading judgment as an adult, thank you. But at the time, I didn’t want to get belligerent about it, so I said something like, “I’m a writer. Part of my job is knowing what comps are on the market.” (Which was partially true.) And that was the end of it.
Which brings up another good point. If you say you’re reading something for your job, people back off. But Heaven forbid if you read something “weird” for fun.
When I told a friend that I was writing a historical romance, she paused for a moment and then said, “Well, that should take you about 15 minutes.”
That’s the one that annoyed me most.
Oh, right. Because the research alone for something set in the past is going to be an instant process. I don’t think a number of non-writers are aware that research takes a really long time. Writing isn’t just a matter of plunking oneself in front of the keyboard and typing- although that is definitely part of it. Just the other day, I was writing an introduction for some public domain book I’m thinking of releasing (KDP allows publication of public domain work provided it is differentiated via annotation, translation, and/or illustrations). Leave it to me to pick a really obscure author. The intro is maybe 2,000 words, but it took me hours of research to ensure accuracy and draw connections with other texts. Plus, I still have to do some other contextual stuff for timelines, footnotes, etc. And this is for a book that is literally already written! But a friend of yours thinks an HR can be written in a snap? The 15 minutes comment was probably facetious, but still…
Welp.
Not really a friend if she undermines your efforts like that.
Seriously. If someone told me they were going to try writing the instructions on the back of a tube of toothpaste I would encourage them.
Looove the assumption that all heroines/readers have porcelain (white) skin. Also that all romances are m/f.
Yeah–Is it really that difficult to just do a wee bit of research before you wield your words?
I know, right? Back in the dark days when I sought out romance as a possible get rich quick scheme, I at least had the decency to read a few examples of the genre to get a feel for expectations. And boy, was I ever wrong about the genre! I have yet to write that originally intended “hack piece,” because romance as a whole is nothing of the kind. And I have yet to encounter the allegedly ubiquitous porcelain white skin or the hero’s tanned arm hanging over the bed. Like I said, Purves’s article reads like a cliché of a cliché.
I know, right? I know there are people who can write three or four books a year, but I can’t. It takes me at least a year. When I started, I wanted to write something as good as Loretta Chase’s Mr. Impossible, and I cannot believe she knocked that out in a month or two.
Come to think of it, don’t think I’ve ever read a book that fits the the stereotype in that article. They may exist, but I could give you an equally dismissive summary of “literary” novels.
Does your dismissive summary of literary novels sound like the one I heard? It went something like, “pretentious drivel about boring white people having affairs- and then dying.” Lol.
That amazes me as well, but it might also be the reason we’re seeing a lot of HR-lite instead of historically believable, meticulously researched work. Then again, some people are just incredibly speedy and driven. Plus, if you’ve written, say, 20+ Regencies (or maybe a lot more), some of the research has to be banked in the author’s memory to speed up future novels. Still, it’s incredible.
If you don’t mind my asking, how do you go about researching your HR? I ask because a lot of writers when interviewed say, “Then I did a bunch of research” and then they zip onto the next topic as though their methods are a big secret or aren’t worth talking about. For me, research is difficult and haphazard. A lot of shots in the dark on JSTOR, some library books, the internet, Online Etymology Dictionary to avoid anachronistic words- but a lot of it involves bumbling around (at least for me). Yet another reason why I chickened out ever writing HR once I found out how much of it was quality literature. So, kudos to you and all other HR writers for doing what you do. I salute you!
It is a bit rich that anyone writing for the Daily Mail has the gall to denigrate any genre of literature. I could barely get through the whole article because it was frustrating. I hate how people are so quick to trash an entire genre, without having the decency to read any books from said genre. There are of course romance novels that are duds, just as there are in every genre.There are also some really beautifully written books, full of emotional depth and flawed characters. The cliche of the strong, gorgeous hero admiring the helpless beauty irks me to no end. There is so much more to romance than that. In Flowers from the Storm, it is Maddy who helps Christian reconnect with the world and re-discover himself. It is a story that centres romance, but also has such great insights about spirituality and morality.How can any book which physically causes your heart to ache or twinge be dismissed as trash?
In terms of duds in romance, we could apply Theodore Sturgeon’s rule for SF/F: 90% of SF/F is crap, but then 90% of anything is crap. The problem is that the world recognizes the 10% that is good for almost everything except romance.
This is spot on!
This is such a smart way to see this. I’m stealing it. Thanks!
As a long-time reader of F&SF, I heard this called Sturgeon’s Law for a long time, then called Sturgeon’s Revelation: 90% of science fiction is cr*p because 90% of everything is cr*p.
I’ve heard so many insulting things I don’t think I could remember or reproduce them all. For me, like Elaine S. says, the worst part is that often the belittling is done by other women.
Maybe it’s out of ignorance, or in the way many women feel like they have to be the “cool girl” of movies and fiction it’s often women who talk about what “trash” romance novels are, how they only read “real literature” and what an embarrassment those books are to women. About a million years ago when I worked in a book store female co-workers thought it was “embarrassing” to be working in the romance section and used to laugh at the people buying harlequin or other romance books but have no problems selling something called “Cannibal Killers” to the true crime fans.
As Julia Quinn pointed out in a recent interview, it’s Romance that funds so many publishing houses with the incredible amounts of money it generates, allowing them to take chances and publish those genres like poetry etc. that aren’t money makers.
Romance novels are the Cinderella’s of the book world that do all the work but don’t get to go to the ball.
I hope they were at least not laughing at the romance customers in front of them. How awful! And hypocritical, as you add, considering they gave a level of gravitas toward selling gruesome true crime. Although, the more I think about it, American culture has a higher level of tolerance for violence than love and sex. I’m sure that helps shape the negative attitudes toward romance as well. As George R.R. Martin said, you can get away with the most horrific description of an axe going into somebody’s head, but an equally detailed description of a penis going into a vagina = HORRORS! I think that sums it up pretty well.
That’s an excellent point about romance funding other publishing ventures. Another point I want to add is that romance, fantasy, and science fiction are the only genres I’ve found that actually allow unsolicited book submissions to major presses. You just try to send your Earth-shattering literary manuscript someplace without an agent. Not happening. Frankly, I think these tanking publishing houses ought to take notes from Harlequin and Carina Press who accept both freelance and agented submissions.
It’s so true about the violence. Look at Stephen King (I’m not knocking him- he’s written some good stuff) if you psychoanalyzed his work and tried to apply the same prejudices to his readers then they’d be locked up as crazed serial killers the way some people want to say romance readers are “oversexed nymphos”.
‘American Psycho” by Brett Easton Ellis is considered a masterpiece even though “Alison Kelly of The Observer notes that while “some countries [deem it] so potentially disturbing that it can only be sold shrink-wrapped”, “critics rave about it” and “academics revel in its transgressive and postmodern qualities”
And as you mention Game Of Thrones, while many discussed the extreme violence shown while watching it, the only big outcries about the show were ones about the sex related scenes.
Funny thing about Stephen King. I saw a YouTube interview of him and the interviewer asked him what his childhood was like. King replied something to the effect of, “I know why you’re asking. Because you and a lot of other people believe that someone who writes such messed up stuff has to have had a messed up childhood. No, I didn’t. I just write messed up stuff.” I also laughed when he said he’d never do a horror story with a mummy because it’s like, “Oh no! Here comes the mummy! Let’s all walk away…”
I haven’t followed Game of Thrones, so I’ll take your word for it that there were greater outcries about the sex than the violence. Also, I can’t remember where I read it, but some American filmmaker was kind of disgusted that the censors made him cover up a pile of murdered naked bodies with extra blood to hide their private parts. So, in other words, he was forced to make the already disturbing scene gorier because excessive carnage was deemed less offensive to an American audience than naked breasts and genitalia. So there you go.
“Romance novels are the Cinderella’s of the book world that do all the work but don’t get to go to the ball.”
Beautifully put! I’m definitely going to borrow that phrase.
You are very welcome to, lol.
Wow, your story from the bookstore is terribly saddening. I can’t understand why anyone would act so cruelly towards others, and in a professional capacity, no less. And I’ve always found double standards frustrating as all get out.
Also, I cannot tell you how tired I am of the term “real literature”, which often seems to be deployed by people who only read “real literature” and wouldn’t touch the inferior books others read with a ten-foot pole. Considering how popular genre fiction is, there are quite a lot of people out there reading what – unreal literature? My impression is that the opposite of ”real literature” often seems to simply be ”wrong literature”. Because at the end of the day, it doesn’t seem to be about anything as logical as literary merit (which, in my opinion, is a subjective concept anyway) of the books, since while every genre has their bad books (general fiction and literary fiction have their own duds too), there are also absolute diamonds in each genre, romance very much included – as has been noted in many, great comments here. It is certainly possible to be ignorant of all of this, but I feel like more often than not it all comes down to the nonsensical notion that it doesn’t matter if a book of a certain genre is good because it’s still a book of said genre and thus automatically bad.
I love this so much – wonderful wordsmithing! And so very true.
I’ll be honest, I don’t read a lot of commentary by anyone about anything. I don’t read editorials, or ‘culture’ think pieces, except the ones that my mom sends me. Mostly that’s because I don’t need anyone to tell me what I ought to like. I’m 55 years old, dang it; I know what I like.
Having been a romance reader for 40+ years (in all genres ranging from 1970s Harlequin and Barbara Cartland through SFF-adjacent to cozy mystery) and having written a master’s thesis on a romance writer, I’m confident that my understanding of the genre is more well-founded than that of the average journalist, let alone that of the average internet commenter.
That said, no one has ever really criticized me for reading (or writing) romance. Most of my friends IRL don’t seem to read fiction at all, and if they do, it’s not romance. There is a strong possibility that, knowing me, they know better than to say ‘why do you read that trash.’ Because I would call them out on it.
A few people might even think of the genre differently now that they know I read and write it. I haven’t converted anyone (as far as I know) – even my sister, who’s been my beta reader for years, doesn’t read romance except for what I write.
The power of the romance genre is that it doesn’t need mainstream media to support it. People want to read love stories; they always have, and they always will.
Who did you write your thesis on?
Frances Burney :-)
I… can’t… even.
Thanks for sharing the article, Elaine S. I read it and can’t believe how much it sounds like a cliché of a cliché. Before I had any respect for romance, the worst I did was walk by the section with my nose in the air. But I didn’t publish a diatribe on a subject I knew nothing about. Ms. Purves’s article doesn’t even show rudimentary research, let alone personal experience with the subject. And yet this is what passes for journalism these days? I can be a lot more forgiving of off the cuff comments on an internet forum or people blabbing away on a podcast. But for something this ignorant to go to print where the author is probably getting paid for it? It goes to show that someone in the editorial department probably greenlighted this piece with no problems whatsoever.
I can tell you from personal experience that when I freelanced a piece for a writers’ blog, the editor came right out and said, “We need to work on some tone issues.” Not because I was being a jerk in my writing, or even facetious, but the editor was sensitive to how some of my wording could be misconstrued as flippant or insulting. (Y’all know me! ;-)) So, we worked together to smooth it out. Obviously, that didn’t happen in the case of this anti-romance puff piece. Some editor probably wholeheartedly agreed with all the uninformed snark and thought, “Sure, send that puppy to press as-is.” My point is, it’s not just the author who’s at fault here. There’s enough of a negative culture surrounding romance in the editorial department (not to mention the wider culture itself) that this piece got published.
As for my least favorite insult of romance? I would have to say it’s the general attitude of readers- especially adults- not knowing what’s best for them. As many here have said, there’s a real condescension toward leisure reading that isn’t “literary.” Romance bears the brunt of a lot of this, but “trashy” books in general get a lot of flack. I’m sick of hearing pretentious teachers say that “funny” or “happy” books aren’t serious enough to merit teaching in their class- or reading them at all. Not all, of course. But I’ve definitely heard the argument.
On a lighter note, I love that romance writer (can’t remember who) on a panel who responded to the accusation of writing “mommy porn” with the words, “Well, aren’t mommies allowed to have orgasms too?” LOL!
P.S. In this same article, Purves called erotica “torrid.” As a writer in the genre, I might say, “Yeah, and so what? But I’m sure a woman of your journalistic caliber has never so much as peeked at a dirty story…”
Also, NO ONE GETS RANDOMLY SHOT OR TORTURED.
Um… All of them?
I just get sick it when the HEA is scorned because it’s a requirement, when nobody scorns a mystery when the villain is unmasked or a sci-fi book for having aliens in it.
I get sick of it when romance authors are denigrated for writing about feelings when anyone can write about car chases and blowing shit up.
I get sick of it when it seems that you have to write about misery all the time to be an “acclaimed author”.
I get sick of it when nobody ever mentions that there are crappy books about in EVERY genre.
“Mommy porn”, “trashy books”, “girlie touchy-feely shit” – I’m sick to the back teeth of all of it. And an article like that – well, it just goes to show yet again, that we women are sometimes our own worst enemies.
Yep, all of this.
My “favorite” slam is kind of related to Caz’ first: romances are really just the same story over and over again. My comeback to that is to say ok, yes; but only in the same way that that mysteries and thrillers are always about revealing the crime/criminal. That usually shuts them up.
In a discussion about sex scenes, someone told me this was why she never read them, because they were all alike. “Once you’ve read one, you’ve read them all.”
So everyone in the world, whether gay or straight, whether vanilla or kinky, whether angry or loving or businesslike or nervous, has sex in the exact same way, every time?
I can’t even.
My growing catalog of 70+ smut pieces begs to differ… ;-)
Such a perspective shows a distinct lack of imagination on the part of the critic!
Preach it!
A million times yes to everything you said!
I’ve thought a lot about this in particular as it’s something that’s been driving me nuts for a long time. It has seemed to me that if just about anyone dares to write a book that isn’t about misery, there’s a great chance it gets called unrealistic and naive regardless of the genre, and is deemed lightweight and slightly embarrassing as a piece of literature. Or at least the novel has to have a MEA, miserably ever after, where the protagonist(s) realizes at the end that everything previously happened has been a lie, and in fact people are beasts ruled by base instinct, love is an illusion, hope is a joke, life is shit and then you die (or some version of this) to be considered worthwhile. I think that’s an awfully cynical way of looking at life. When did everything that’s good in life, that makes life worth living and miseries worth fighting through become unrealistic, embarrassing and lightweight?
I am currently listening to all the Harry Potter books. I read them all to my children but it was years ago. I am struck by the sheer exhilaration and suppressed joy that infuses these books. (I’m halfway through The Goblet of Fire–the books after this get darker.) Wikipedia says:
No books have sold more copies in the 21st century and yet critics trashed these books as facile, unoriginal, and god knows what. They are wrong.
The books–and, please, let’s not get into the recent political hullabaloo about Rowling–make one feel lucky to be alive, to be able to laugh, wonder, and love. If they’re trashy, well sign me up!
Well said!
That quote from Wikipedia is music to my ears. It all makes me downright gleeful, and I’d be lying if I said part of it wasn’t in the “Put that in your pipe and smoke it, naysayers!” kind of way.
There aren’t many better feelings than reading a book that makes you feel like that – you expressed the feeling so beautifully! If some people want to call such books trashy, fine, but I do have to wonder about the strange way they define words.
And thanks for the link to The Guardian article, it was very interesting!
You’re welcome. Have a great day!
I was told all my life that romance was trash and would rot my brain. Or that it showed my brain must already be rotted away. And of course, combined with insults related to me being a female.
This is the worst to me: just “trash”, no engagement, no reason, just that one word is enough to get me crazy – total disregard without reasons.
Which taught me to hide my reading and bless kindle – now no one sees what I read.
At least I got my reaction all ready by now:
I try not to engage anymore, but if I have to I simply ask persons what they like to do to unwind: gossip sites, TV series, soaps, thrillers, James Bond, Tom Clancy’ish books – and I ask them what is the difference? Do they believe in the plots? Are they feeling that it impacts their capabilities?
If someone still needs it, esp. men, I get worse:
Are they (if Clancy, or Rambo, or Mission Impossible or such) so insecure in their manhood that they reassure themselves via such males?
Those that want to listen suddenly see how insulting they are, those that don’t get shut up.
Great response. I use the many reality series on TV as another example. Do you watch The Bachelor(ette)? (or any other voyeuristic shows) If so, please tell me how romance novels are trash, but these aren’t? Because, you know, they really aren’t “reality” at all.
I personally have no problems with people enjoying reality show–more power to them. But really..
Also, I enjoy many cosy mysteries but they are about as formulaic as you can get. I don’t have any patience for people accusing romance novels of poor writing when they read other popular fiction books that are equally (if not more) questionable.
Lastly, almost to a person, those criticizing romance books have never read one, or in the case of one person I read recently, they read “two romance books in junior high.”
Do you watch The Bachelor(ette)? (or any other voyeuristic shows) If so, please tell me how romance novels are trash, but these aren’t?
Spot on. But then, of course, there’s the fact that most of the people who watch that type of show probably can’t read anyway…
(My version of the “trash books” insult – said with a raised eyebrow and my tongue firmly in my cheek. Even though I think it’s not entirely untrue!)
After 40-plus years of romance reading, I deliberately avoid reading anything written about romance by someone outside of Romancelandia—no matter how hard they try (and most don’t try very hard), the article/story/post usual drips with condescension. However, you just can’t avoid encounters with people who have never read a romance (and wouldn’t know a romance trope even if it were ten-foot tall and dancing on the piano under a red neon “I’m a Trope” sign), but still claim to know everything about the genre based on a Fabio cover from the mid-1990s they once saw and a touristy skim & scan of 50 SHADES. So, with that out of the way, I’ll say my least favorite cliche about romance is that women read it out of sexual frustration. I loathe that stupid cliche. I’ve been happily married for over 30 years and love my husband very much. Romance is neither wish-fulfillment nor aspiration—its simply my favorite genre for comfort & relaxation reading. I also read quite a lot of murder-mysteries and psychological suspense—but no one suggests that’s because I want to murder somebody!
I have to quote this claim from a writers’ discussion board where I hang out :
The person who posted this went on to rant some more against romance novels for their escapism and their happy-ever-after endings. She asked why romances didn’t focus on the realistic, routine give-and-take of maintaining an established relationship instead. Finally, I asked what was the point of coming into the romance forum to tell romance readers how much you despise romance.
Bless your heart.
It’s particularly galling and sad that these comments are usually written by women who are so insulting to other women. What would the reaction be if I wrote a similar diatribe against, say, Hilary Mantel having not read her work (which I have) and out purely to score points based on hearsay? If Libby Purves had actually read a few M&B or other romance novels I might be prepared to take her POV seriously enough to enter meaningful debate with her. As usual in these cases, you can’t argue against ignorance and unwarranted hostility. And so much for sisterhood outside the M25 or Wasington DC Beltway!!
Thanks for sharing the article, Elaine!
I made the mistake of reading a few of the comments, most of which were just horrible. The Daily Fail is toxic.
It is seriously toxic. I didn’t even bother reading the comments because I knew they would be dreadful.