The Wayback on Wednesday: Authors Answer: What is a Romance Novel? (from March 22, 1999)
In more than one of my columns, I’ve talked about how broadly the definition of a romance novel should be extended. Some romances read to me like historical, epic fiction, others as suspense novels with some romance thrown in for good measure. In some cases the author is truly trying to write a romance but separates the lead characters for so much of the book that it leaves me wanting. In other cases, the author has actually not written a romance but her publisher is marketing her book as such. Way back in January, author Pat Rice and I talked about this phenomenon (you can read her email to me on this subject here), and in June, I set up the HEA endings page to explore one facet of what many of us think determines a romance. What we found out, I think, surprised many of us – we’re not all on the same page because we all don’t think an HEA ending is required.
So I’ve decided to ask authors for their definition of a romance novel, and even went further as to say they could include what they felt a romance should be and/or what a romance should not be, if they so desired.
I’ll be posting author’s definitions here, and have opened a page for reader’s definitions as well – anyone with a definition should feel free to e-mail me, letting me know if you are reader or author. I think this should make a fascinating interplay, as interesting as the Wallbanging discussion we had this spring.
There are links for many of the authors below; those links will take you to additional writings at this site by the author or about the author.
Here’s what authors had to say:
A romance novel is the exploration of how two people who have the potential to love fully, find each other, conquer whatever problems stand between them, and make a decision to continue with each other. By the fact that they have conquered their conflict or solved their conflict, they can then go on hand in hand through the rest of life continuing with that success to conquer the many other problems that are going to come their way.
I think a romance has to have an HEA ending. Not simply because that’s our definition – that’s our modern definition. The medieval definition of a romance is, there is no happy ending. He goes away with his love intact, in his heart, and she is married to someone else. She loves him from afar. Contemporary romance has a happy ending and there are lots of cultural reasons why that will continue to be so, despite The Bridges of Madison County.
I think that the past 30 years have shown us that in American society, the idea of the family unit based on a loving nurturing relationship between two people who go on together is dying. The result is, of course, that our children are growing up in single-parent care homes and sometimes in no-parent homes. Our divorce rate is the highest in the world. Among RWA members, the percentage of divorced members is 9%.
I’ll celebrate my 28th wedding anniversary shortly. In a society in which the individual has been revered to the detriment of everyone else, including their own individual growth, romance novels reaffirm that it is possible, though perhaps not probable, to find someone to love and have someone commit to you forever and ever. In a society in which women still bear the brunt of broken marriages and children who need nurturing, romance gives hope that there may just be some happy ending.
It’s a story, a love story. Relationship story. What makes it any different than general fiction? Nothing, except that, in a romance, the relationship is paramount. It has to have a happy ending. But I don’t like to read any book, where, in the end, there is this sense of hopelessness – romance, general fiction, what have you. I don’t write about that and I don’t want to read about that.
There are two answers; one from a romance writer’s perspective, one from a romance reader’s. For the former, defining the romance is to breathe life into two endearing characters who were meant to be together … they just need the author to show them how their love can endure. For the latter, my definition would be almost the same, except that the emphasis is always on the romance, on the way these two people’s lives intertwine and become inseparable until a happily-ever-after ending is a foregone conclusion. In no longer becomes a matter if the couple will happily-ever-after, but how that sometimes monumental feat is possible.
In the end, I think everyone needs to be reassured that ever-lasting love is attainable to us all. That true love can triumph over the most insurmountable odds. It’s a question many of us face in our everyday lives, and an answer that we find not only in romance novels, but in real life as well.
The medieval definition of a romance always involved a quest, and I think the modern romance does, too: the heroine’s quest for self-actualization. Until a woman finds out who she is and what she needs from life, she can’t really connect to another person as an equal. So the best romance novels always show a woman coming to her strength and fullness as a human being, and part of the reward for the fulfillment of that quest is a strong, equal life partner. The old “I can’t live without you” always seemed so weak to me; I like the more modern “I can make it without you, but just by existing you enrich my life so much I’ll never want to.”
Romance novels provide action, adventure, and excitement with the added focus on a loving, passionate relationship. Through a romance novel, a reader is taken to distant worlds, the past, to different cultures and exotic places. In romances, a hero goes above and beyond the usual, the expected, in his quest to win the heroine. He’ll fight an army to save her. A rake will look deeper into his heart, and realize a woman he loves has more to offer than the pretty, vacuous women he’s known in the past. A hero gives up his kingdom, or his pirate ship, to make her his wife.
I personally like romance because the stories uphold things I believe in strongly – people’s dreams and values overcoming circumstances and obstacles, and that love matters, people matter, and that two people who love each other can live an adventurous, successful life. Romance novels, more than any other genre, affirm love conquering all odds.
In romance novels, the lovers are intricately developed characters, people with foibles and flaws as well as heroic motivation. Romance characters go beyond the ordinary to achieve an extraordinary love, but the journey to happiness isn’t easy, and depends upon the actions they take throughout the book. Heroes and heroines earn their happiness. In every romance I’ve read, both the hero and heroine have goals which reflect their personal values. Underlying a heroine’s quest for vengeance is an honorable desire for justice, to see right prevail. A hero has sacrificed himself for his family, or given his life’s blood to defend his country in war. Characters in romances are defined by their strong aspirations and values, something which makes them special, & isn’t necessarily the case in other genres.
The adventure and drama in a romance novel fill the same entertainment needs as movies and other genres of fiction. It’s fun. But to me, the popularity of romance means people value love, marriage, passion, and enjoy reading adventures that include falling in love, something that’s a great adventure in most of our lives. We want to see people overcome obstacles inside themselves and in the world around them to earn the life they want.
Actually, I wish more people would read romance, because I think they’d find it enjoyable. Often, people have a stereotype of large-breasted vixens and overly-macho men tearing at each other. Most romances are delicate portrayals of loving, passionate relationships, where lovers find a way through turmoil, inside themselves and in the world around them, to end the book with a believable commitment to a good life together. It’s not the fairy tale ‘happily ever after.’ It’s a workable relationship between two people who have come to terms with themselves and each other.
For me, a romance novel is a story about the development or repair of a mating relationship. It focusses on an intense period within a long-term relationship, usually courtship. This is why it is not the same thing as a romantic saga – a story about a couple going through life together, or a sequence of such couples; and why it’s intensely focussed on the relationship, not the history, the cause, the crime etc. which forms the context – because people in courtship mode are obsessed by the beloved and the progress of the relationship.
A definition of romance. . . interesting. . .because in Tonight or Never (Dara’s latest release), a question is posed in the beginning and answered at the end. The hero’s name is Lord John Sexton and he is dubbed “Lord of Sex” by the ladies of the ton and the heroine’s name is Chloe Heart. One of the secondary characters poses the question when they wed (a kind of marriage of convenience) “What do you suppose will come of it when Heart and Sex come together?” This naturally causes a frenzied round of wagering. At the end of the story, he tells the hero that when heart and sex come together you have “romance. ” Which is indeed what these two characters find; as well as being what the reader has (hopefully) experienced along with them.
At the risk of oversimplifying, in my opinion, a romance is about a happy ending. I love the happy ending. I love that two people can come together amid all the world’s craziness – shades of Casablanca here, huh? – and create their own world. A place of joy and giving and growing. A place where love is unconditional and true.
For me, that’s it in a nutshell.
I would define a romance as something where relationship is the absolute heart and soul and center of the book. This differs from something like romantic suspense, where there might be a great romance, but the core of the book is the suspense. (Contrast “romantic suspense” with “suspenseful romance” – i.e., which is the noun (the heart) and which is the modifier.
Romance novels are affirmations of all that is meaningful in life – and these affirmations are just as important to our emotional well being as exercise and nutrition are to our physical health.
The ideals of love, fidelity and positive feminism are explored more thoroughly in romance novels than in any other genre. In reading and writing romances, I have discovered my own value as a woman. I believe most avid readers of romance novels have more strongly developed ambitions for themselves, their partners and their families than the average woman. We have spent more time considering the meaning and implications of love, and we recognize (in spite of our general liking for spicy love scenes) that physicality is really a minor feature of a relationship. Emotion, and all its intricacies, is what draws us . . . and that is why romance novels define what is best about being human.
Definition of the romance: A story about a man and a woman, each of whom are essentially heroic. This man and this woman each bring to the table (story) 100% of their desire and their talent for forming a lasting relationship. A romance is the story of one man and one woman. Everything that happens in a romance relates to this couple, has some impact on this couple. We may call this a convention yet it allows for infinite variety. The convention from which the romance does not vary even remotely, is the happy ending – thank goodness!
Aimee Thurlo
Romance is falling in love – it’s the only real magic left in the world. It’s a reflection of God, and something that is blessed because of what it brings out in people. It’s life at its shining best.
That’s what I portray in my work as an author and I feel extremely fortunate to have been given the ability and the gift to do so.
A romance to me, is first and foremost, a love story – a love story with a happy ending (you can have love stories without a happy ending, example: Gone With the Wind). It’s a story that weaves hopes and dreams throughout.
Romance celebrates the power of love and the nobility of the human spirit.
Judith O’Brien
Ah, romance. I believe romance is when two of the most unlikely souls imaginable turn out to be the most perfect of mates. Alone, the hero and heroine are incomplete – their faults shine like beacons. Together, they are complete – they fit together like the proverbial pieces of a puzzle. Of course, both take some growing and self-examination to reach their ultimate destination – and it is that very journey romance writers chronicle, and readers savor. . . .
What’s romance? Romance is that aura that surrounds falling/being in love.
It’s that light-headed, stomach dropping, lump-in-your-throat feeling you get when the man you love says something sweet, does something silly that touches your heart. It’s the excitement of the chase and the capture. . . and later the eternal imprisonment of your heart.
Romance is a sharing of the souls, of going to the trouble of overlooking all the things a lover dislikes about his/her partner – and especially those traits he/shedoes like – long enough to discover and come to love the genuine person within.
I’m not certain I can express what romance means to me as well as I should.
Yes, it’s always the happy ending, but that’s not the be all and the end all. Romance is love, in all its forms: between parents and child, man and woman, brother to brother, love of God or religion or whatever. Two characters cannot develop satisfying, romantic relationships between each other unless they have some understanding of love, whether from lack of it or desire for it or full knowledge of it. As the song says, love truly does make the world go around– when one strips basic human behavior to its barest form. So, to me, romance is what makes the world tick, it’s the trigger that shoots the gun, the reason roses grow in spring. I know that’s a rather liberal definition, but no one ever accused me of a narrow mind. 
If romance is love, then romance is human behavior. That describes the genre better than bubble baths and champagne.
Cheryl Biggs
What makes a romance a romance? A heroine and hero who create sparks when they come together, a compelling plot, and a satisfying wrap up of that plot and the romance between the two main characters. That’s my idea of a romance novel. Whether it’s a touchy feeling story, a murder mystery, a cops and robbers, a rodeo setting, the sultry bayou, Civil War, old west, whatever the time or place, it has to have the above elements.
Gone With the Wind, Bridges of Madison County, Sommersby, and My Best Friend’s Wedding were just a few stories/movies I can think of that have been touted as romances, but in my opinion fell short of what our present day publishing industry accepts as “romances”. None had a happy ending with the hero and heroine ending up together – forever, something our industry and readers expect, and always get.
Rosalyn Alsobrook
A romance novel is an escape that allows the reader to return to her/his real life with a renewed hope.
Rachelle Nelson
Romance is a gift to the senses; it is a need fulfilled.
Victoria Alexander
A romance novel is a story in which, in spite of all obstacles, the hero and heroine end up together.
DeWanna Pace
A romance novel is the story of characters, challenged by change and empowered by love, to overcome personal obstacles to their growth.
Historical fiction author Ann Chamberlin
A romance novel emphasizes the relationship between a man and a woman with a majority of the scenes devoted to sorting out their emotions. I think it must have a happy ending – happy ending meaning that the hero and heroine commit to a life together. “Love conquers all” is the theme.
I see romance, as Debbie Macomber once told me, as literature that fantasizes about “taking an alpha male and making a sensitive woman out of him”.
Most cultures in the world have cultural constraints to instill the support and protection of a man in to the child-mother dyad – ie, honor, bride price, etc. Our male-centered society has done away with these. I see romance as a desperate attempt to recreate these constraints.
Valerie Taylor
To me, a Romance is a story which focuses primarily on a developing relationship. Other than that, I’m unwilling to put limits on it.
For instance, I wouldn’t require a happily-ever-after ending. I do consider Gone With the Wind a romance, even though Scarlett remained confused about which man she loved until the very end, even though the ending was not the traditional romance ending.
Debra Dier
What is a romance novel?
A romance novel focuses on the developing relationship between a man and a woman. Characters should be the main focus. The protagonists must display worthy characteristics such as loyalty, bravery, and honesty. It is essential for readers to care for a hero and heroine and root from them to reach their goals.
The time period can be anything from the dawn of history to the future. The setting can range from Australia to the American West, and all points in-between. Romances are supple, they can be molded from nearly any category of fiction, such as fantasy, science fiction, mystery, suspense, thrillers, even horror. In terms of style, romances range from light to dark, from comedy to drama. They may be sensual or sweet, gentle or intense. They encompass a wide variety of writing styles and creativity.
Although elements of romance can be found in most popular fiction, in a pure romance, there is always a satisfactory ending, with the couple having the promise of happily ever after. A true romance celebrates life and expresses an ultimate optimism.
A romance novel is the story of two people who struggle to find a common ground of committed relationship, other than the sexual chemistry that first ignites their desire to be together.
A good romance novel is one in which the two main protagonists are people the reader can identify with in some fashion and whose inner lives are as interesting as their professional occupations. The plot line must be substantial enough for the reader to maintain interest from chapter to chapter. In other words, the reader must be able to say when reading the book, “I care about these people and what happens to them. I want the best for them, despite the personal and circumstantial obstacles that war to keep them apart.”
(NOTE: I’ve deliberately avoided gender to allow for the broadest application of the above statements.)
I like a definition that encompasses the older meaning of Romance. . . a larger than life adventure story with its feet on the ground and its heart in the clouds, combined with what has become the heart of the genre of romance – the transforming love story. As for that happy-ever-after ending. . . it’s the one I love, but, again, being inclusive, I’d hate to leave Romeo & Juliet and the lovely center of Titanic (the movie) out, so I’d like to recognize that sometimes a story needs a good happy-ever-after, and sometimes it needs a good cry. I think romance readers are wise enough to embrace both. . . and I know they have the heart!
A romance novel is a relationship book with a happy ending. A man…I don’t know, I suppose you could have other romances besides heterosexual ones. But generally, it’s a man and a woman in a relationship that grows…I don’t know. I like to think of it as growth in human beings through love.
A romance novel has to have a happy ending. I think that’s part of the pleasure of it, believing that, in fact, love will make life happier.
The NYT is again reviewing romance! Olivia Waite picks some great books here!
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/07/books/review/summer-romance-novels-vanessa-riley.html
I’m responding to several posts, so I won’t try to attach as a reply to one.
Most genre fiction, not just romances, tends toward more optimistic endings than non-genre fiction. Since I prefer optimism and I disliked most of the fiction I had to read in school, almost all my voluntary fiction reading is genre: F&SF for many years, then more romances than F&SF when F&SF became less reliably optimistic.
I’m not sure if I’m reading the remark about men romanticizing sex the way it was intended, but the first few romances that come to mind when I try to think of the most romantic romances I’ve read are all kisses-only, not highly sexed:
Venetia by Georgette Heyer
A Rake’s Reform by Cindy Holbrook
The Mad Miss Mathley by Michelle Martin
On gender roles, one of my favorite female characters is a super-competent woman (interstellar naval officer & much more) written by a man: Honor Harrington in the Honorverse books by David Weber.
If you’re looking for optimistic F&SF, the Solarpunk movement is definitely worth checking out. World Weaver Press (www.worldweaverpress.com) has some nice anthologies of uplifting SF. Also, DreamForge magazine focuses on positive speculative fiction.
I enjoy hearing your responses Mark because amongst romance readers you are a voice I don’t get to hear often.
I used to read more historical fiction than I do for the same reason your F&SF has been channeled more into romance. It depends totally on my mood, but when I know I need the security of having a story wrap up happily I reach for romance.
For me, Julie Garwood and Kathleen Eagle have expressed my feelings best.
This particular statement sums up why I avoid most so-called “literary fiction” because so much of it is just another rendition of hopelessness in all of its manifestations.
I agree – there’s just so much misery in so many of those books.
I would include films also, as I want a happy/hopeful end to them too.
I think there is an idea that if a story is too happy or ends happily it is ‘trite” and not serious enough and this carries over into fiction. If a work is to be considered “serious” it has to be sufficiently bleak.
I’ve seen this criticism leveled at movies as well. If the ending is in any way happy, the filmmakers “sold out”. I know not every story ends happily but by the same token, not every story needs to end unhappily. This has even seemed to carry over into genres like horror movies (which I admit I don’t watch a lot of) but now, unlike years past, there is usually no person left standing or everyone has been corrupted by the evil.
Seriously–blame the patriarchy for that. Men (and yes this is a generalization) are drawn to stories about war, murder, and money. They’ve run the movie and TV studios, controlled the media, and dominated publishing for decades. When women have more power in those realms, happier stories are told.
I always think about the year that Shakespeare In Love won for best picture and so many people talk about what a tragedy it was because it shouldn’t have beaten Saving Private Ryan. Now I agree SPR was an excellent film both technically and in its acting but does that mean because SIL is lighter it’s junk?
If you asked me to sit down and write something really gut wrenching and horrible that could make you cry I am certain I could do it. Even authors that aren’t super talented (IMHO) have been able to wring tears out of me even if it’s just from some really maudlin stuff. But if you asked me to bang out something really funny and witty could I? Probably not.
I do think (in general) that a lot of women are drawn to lighter material. But I could be generalizing. Or it could just be Kristin Scott Thomas in Fleabag was right when she said:
“Women are born with pain built in,” she says. “It’s our physical destiny: period pains, sore boobs, childbirth, you know. We carry it within ourselves throughout our lives, men don’t.
“They have to seek it out, they invent all these gods and demons and things just so they can feel guilty about things, which is something we do very well on our own. And then they create wars so they can feel things and touch each other and when there aren’t any wars they can play rugby.”
That was perhaps my favorite scene in Fleabag.
Shakespeare in Love and Saving Private Ryan are both superb films. I’d actually argue that Saving Private Ryan is a vastly less macho war film than many of the others we deem as great.
Joy is hard to do well; it’s hard to make happy endings feel profound–Tolstoy was on to something when he wrote:
All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.
Stories that celebrate life are, in my opinion, harder to pull off than ones that tell us life sucks. Have you ever read Handling Sin? It’s a gem of a book and one that makes the reader fiercely grateful to be alive. THAT’S hard to pull off in books the world takes seriously.
I am fascinated by the question of what stories men (do I mean straight men?) find romantic. I’ve asked my own husband, and he hasn’t really been able to answer me. Right now we’ve been re-watching Parks and Rec and are in the middle of Season 3, and it’s calling up all these old feelings about how I loved the love story of Leslie and Ben. And I look over at him and he’s basically all about the comedy of it all. I don’t get it.
NB: I know I’m generalizing and all men don’t hate romance and all women aren’t into love stories, and there are lots of stereotypes flying around in this comment, but I wonder.
I’m sure this is bound to get me in trouble but I think men romanticize sex more than women do.
I will say, when I think about what men are drawn to AND I’m feeling cynical, I always think of this passage:
Being the Cool Girl means I am a hot, brilliant, funny woman who adores football, poker, dirty jokes, and burping, who plays video games, drinks cheap beer, loves threesomes and anal sex, and jams hot dogs and hamburgers into her mouth like she’s hosting the world’s biggest culinary gang bang while somehow maintaining a size 2, because Cool Girls are above all hot. Hot and understanding. Cool Girls never get angry; they only smile in a chagrined, loving manner and let their men do whatever they want. Go ahead, shit on me, I don’t mind, I’m the Cool Girl.
Men actually think this girl exists. Maybe they’re fooled because so many women are willing to pretend to be this girl. For a long time Cool Girl offended me. I used to see men—friends, coworkers, strangers—giddy over these awful pretender women, and I’d want to sit these men down and calmly say: You are not dating a woman, you are dating a woman who has watched too many movies written by socially awkward men who’d like to believe that this kind of woman exists and might kiss them. I’d want to grab the poor guy by his lapels or messenger bag and say: The bitch doesn’t really love chili dogs that much—no one loves chili dogs that much! And the Cool Girls are even more pathetic: They’re not even pretending to be the woman they want to be, they’re pretending to be the woman a man wants them to be. Oh, and if you’re not a Cool Girl, I beg you not to believe that your man doesn’t want the Cool Girl. It may be a slightly different version—maybe he’s a vegetarian, so Cool Girl loves seitan and is great with dogs; or maybe he’s a hipster artist, so Cool Girl is a tattooed, bespectacled nerd who loves comics. There are variations to the window dressing, but believe me, he wants Cool Girl, who is basically the girl who likes every fucking thing he likes and doesn’t ever complain. (How do you know you’re not Cool Girl? Because he says things like: “I like strong women.” If he says that to you, he will at some point fuck someone else. Because “I like strong women” is code for “I hate strong women.”)
I think men are more naive in many ways than women are for sure. As much as women are stereotypically known for falling for a guy’s “line” a lot of men are happy to fall for a woman’s “act” whether it be pretending to be the “cool girl” or the 20 something model who convinces the 60 something tycoon she loves him solely for himself.
I am not sure it is “romance” per se but men surely get caught up in a fantasy as much as women do. Just different kinds of fantasies- and I think both genders can be guilty of falling for what they want to hear.
I do think that men in general have much higher opinions of themselves than women do and that lends to a lack of self awareness and a likelihood to believe a bunch of bunk.
I don’t have the book in front of me so am probably butchering the quote, but in Sigrid Nunez’s “The Friend” (which refers both to a man and a dog), the main character says something to the effect that she doesn’t understand why men are viewed as the final arbiters of everything when they once worshiped cats as gods but have trouble believing that women are human.
Sorry and maybe I just missed it, but who said this and where?
It’s a quote from Gone Girl.
Apologies if this is a double post (thought I’d posted yesterday but didn’t see it today), but who wrote the passage quoted above?
From a historical perspective, especially during the Victorian era, romance as “feminine” was viewed as part of a dominant ideology that defined women as angels of the hearth and people who inhabit the domestic, private sphere. Women maintain the home, care for the children, and the ideologies around nurturing and caretaking were firmly identified with “femininity.” In the public sphere of work and commerce and politics, “masculinity” became a fixed ideology to support a society that divided people along gender lines.
I think these older entrenched ideologies are slowly breaking down in modern society as women continue to challenge them. Women are leaving the home to work, more men are staying home to raise children, and women and men are more inclined to divide caretaking duties. Cartaking and nurturing will slowly lose its gendered traits. Feminism today is directly tackling the concept of toxic masculinity because its foundational to patriarchy. The bottom line for me is that there is nothing “natural” about a man finding romance trivial or women gravitating toward it. Our society conditions us to believe these are gendered concepts but when you scrutinize them closely, they fall apart, of course. Look at how often men are berated for signs of weakness, including anything that can cause them to be identified as feminine or at how often women are chastised for traits that we cherish in men.
I do think things will become less skewed over time but I doubt that “caretaking and nurturing will slowly lose their gendered traits”. I think that as long as women physically bear the children there will always be (in general) more women involved in caretaking.
I’ve spoken to numerous couples I know with children and with minute exceptions the mothers have been the ones far more willing to self sacrifice and take care of the children. The men are almost unanimously more likely to put themselves first before a woman would over their child and many men I know have expressed that they didn’t immediately feel connected to their child the way the women did.
I think it makes a certain sense that if you physically carry a child for nine months and are aware that everything you eat and do affects it and that you are ultimately responsible for its survival for that time, then birth it you have a closer bond.
I absolutely reject the idea that biology determines ideology. Science is changing conception, for one thing, and who knows how people will conceive babies in the future. Also, people’s ideas about caretaking ideologies change over time and the more people — men and women — push back against the idea of nurturing being equated with femininity, the less powerful the ideology is. Masculinity studies has, for instance, taken root in higher education and already has taken up these ideas in scholarship and college courses new generations of students are taking today. Men want family leave from employers. Men want to raise children and many men want to stay at home with them in the formative years. I have male students writing papers right now on the inequality of a justice system that automatically gives women full custody over a child. Men are capable of recognizing the ideology behind caretaking ideologies and collaborate with women to challenge old assumptions. Lots of women reject motherhood entirely and reject the notion that they are “naturally” nurturing. I think it’s inaccurate to assume ever that just because inequality prevailed in the past that inequality will continue to do so in the future. The observations you cite above are based on ideology. Sure, women sacrifice for children, but they do so more than men because they are conditioned and expected to do so. Men will sacrifice equally for children if society permits them to do so and if women require it from their partners.
I completely agree with what blackjack has said, biology does not determine ideology. I also want to add that the women aren’t always the ones bearing the child in the relationship. A transgendered male (FTM) can be the ones to have the children. Therefore the argument that women are *always* the bearer does not fit.
I read most of the sentiments here as self-professed generalizations. I don’t think anyone is saying anything about ALL men or ALL women.
Chrisreader above stated that “with minute exceptions…” women are more willing to sacrifice. That’s a troubling generalization. I for one appreciate Bridget’s reminder that transgender people exist in these conversations. I’m not always good on this issue myself, and it is such a good reminder to be careful about how we conceptualize bodies and love and how we talk about these issues.
She wrote “in general.”
Yes, and generalizations and stereotypes can be harmful to real people! Transgender people are almost always omitted from norms and it was helpful to me to see someone finally post here on this issue. Maybe we can welcome that voice and perspective, esp because they are the most marginalized and discriminated group today.
I’m thrilled when people post varied and new perspectives and we welcome those voices.
And, it’s reasonable for people to discuss generalizations and stereotypes.
AAR is a place where both things happen.
And Bridget inserted a critically important observation about the ways in which gender is constructed and not natural. Trans and non binary people do not fit into traditional perspectives. Trans men can give birth to babies and be loving parents. Biological mothers can be horrible parents. Gay men can nearly entirely omit women and raise children as lovingly as a woman. People can adopt and raise children with as much love as a biological parent. There are so many examples. Let’s dismantle harmful stereotypes because it is important to do that.
I hope Bridget returns because that is just about the first person I’ve seen here posting transgender issues, a category that brings so much unease to so many.
As usual you are cherry picking and misquoting what I wrote. The minute exceptions are amongst people *I know*. Those are the people I mention. It has nothing to do with transgender people or any people outside the couples I mentioned. Nor is it a statement about everyone in the world. It’s my personal observation and experience with people I know. Things the men of the couples have done and said versus what the women have.
Do I know men who are more involved in the care of their children than women? Yes, but as I say it’s a very minute number compared to the overall number of women. Do I know same sex couples with children? Yes, but mainly F/F which did not seem to apply to the gendered prediction you were making. Do I know transgendered people? Of course, but none I know who have given birth and fit into the group I was discussing.
It’s not a “troubling generalization” it’s an observation based on real people that I have friendships and relationships with. And if you look at any kind of current data you will see the numbers prove these lopsided roles.
It’s also not a startling concept that whoever physically carries a child, however they identify themselves, has a natural propensity to feel closer to the child.
Chrisreader, you’re not alone in your observations. And there are definitely studies to back up your claims, including an interesting one about the general behavior differences between male and female rhesus monkeys, who cannot possibly have absorbed human cultural reasons for their division of interests and labor along sex lines.
I really don’t know why people get upset with observable generalizations. Nobody here is saying it’s wrong for someone to buck gender norms, and yet stating patterns of behavior between and among the sexes are considered “harmful stereotypes.”
In regard to same sex couples with children, I remember gay journalist Justin Raimondo, sadly deceased now, was strongly opposed to the idea of legal gay marriage between men on the grounds that it was trying to impose heterosexual standards on homosexuality. He was of the mindset that gay partnerships weren’t about forming families but about having fun. (He had a big thing about how it was totally different for lesbians on the grounds that dynamics between two women are wholly different from the dynamics between two men, and thought it was far more likely for a F/F couple to want to raise children than their M/M counterparts. Incidentally, he did end up getting married near the end of his life, which I found awfully funny. Not necessarily hypocritical, just amusing. Views can definitely change over time.) Dolce and Gabana got in trouble for making a similar statement about homosexual relations between men being about fun rather than family, and that the two shouldn’t mix. I’m not mentioning any of this to take sides, but I did want to bring up how not all gays regard their relationships as straights might think they do.
I’m reminded of the late journalist Joe Bageant who couldn’t get over all the quibbling in regard to these issues. He basically said, “Uh, maybe you haven’t noticed but, you won’t the sexual revolution in the 1960s. You won! Find something productive to tackle next.”
Yes Nan, and my opinions are just that, my opinions based off decades of what I observed personally and professionally.
Maybe things will change drastically over time and maybe most societies on earth were not in any way influenced by biology but by the same societal influences (no matter how different or diverse the cultures were).
My disagreement is based on what I see and have seen, not only amongst my friends but amongst people I have dealt with in non profit and for profit work. People of every strata of society and age groups and many nationalities, religions and self identifiers.
The comment that I “as usual” do anything is ad hominem, Chrisreader.
Your personal examples lead to sweeping generalizations that are exclusionary to so many groups. I do not want to discuss people’s personal experiences as evidence on a social media site because as I’ve stated elsewhere, it’s not evidence. An opinion or observation isn’t a fact. But since you keep bringing in personal observations over and over as supposed evidence, let me add that for those of us with diversity in our personal lives, your reference only to heterosexual cis couples feels narrow. Your personal world sounds limited to me based on my personal experiences with a wide range of living options, groups of people, and choices. Having said that I think that we should stick with actual evidence. It really helps to avoid hurt feelings and personal attacks.
I’m not going to engage in a personal attack and I certainly won’t do one and end it with tips to avoid personal feelings and “personal attacks. Your entire statement above is a very personal attack.
I can discuss ideas of yours I disagree with without making comments on your personal life. Talk about “sweeping generalizations”.
It’s not a personal attack to say you misquoted me, it’s a statement of fact. It’s also not the first time it’s happened.
This entire section is full of personal opinions. No one, including yourself, has linked to any peer reviewed studies to back up their comments.
I’m sorry there are things here you “don’t want to discuss” which I am translating as “you don’t want to see posted here”.
oh my goodness!
Hi chrisreader, thank you for responding to me, this is one of my first posts on this website. The argument that you have transgender friends or lesbian friends has nothing to do with this, and I don’t know why you would bring them up, but good for you I guess. In your original post you said something along the lines of fathers don’t connect with their child like the mother does, but that can’t be true if a father can carry a child. Your post seems to exist to affirm gender norms and how they play out in our society. I’m glad that transgender people aren’t a startling concept for you but maybe next time think about how there aren’t just cisgendered men and women in this world.
Hi Bridget,
It isn’t an “argument” that I have friends of any type but thanks I guess, for the “good for you” comment.
A question was made about why the group I mentioned from my personal experience was made up of the people it was.
Since a couple of people seemed fixated on exactly who made up my “focus group” I explained that the examples were about how men related to their children based on their own feelings and experiences as said to me as well as things I had personally witnessed. The F/F couples I know who have children all identify as female and do not directly relate to the male discussion. My friends in M/M couples either do not have children together or have older children from previous M/F marriages. Any of my transgender friends do not have any children either from previous or current relationships so I have no comments or observations from them to include.
Chrisreader, I’ve enjoyed reading all your comments on this post and agree with a lot of what you said. Dabney just gave me the word on a comment here that things are getting a little personal, (which is a no-no, and rightly so!), so I’m ducking out of this conversation before I let my emotions run away with me. As I said earlier, this is an uncomfortable topic for me, and I don’t want to intentionally cause any hurt feelings. See you around AAR– elsewhere. :)
Hi Nan, I’m signing off on this as well.
I just wanted to address some misquotes that were posted relating to me.
I don’t want to get dragged into any snarky comments or personal attacks which is what it’s turning into and I certainly don’t want AAR dragged into it somehow.
Take care, I hope your, (or anyone’s feelings) weren’t hurt from what started out as a discussion on what romance is. I’ll see you on the boards soon I’m sure.
Thank you.
Thank you.
At the risk of getting accused of transphobia, I must strongly disagree with this statement on the basis of biological reality: “A transgendered male (FTM) can be the ones to have the children. Therefore the argument that women are *always* the bearer does not fit.”
A transgendered male (FTM), regardless of how he identifies, is a biological female. Period. Short of science fiction, nothing can change the FACT that every single cell of a transgender person’s body belongs to that of their biological birth sex. It doesn’t matter how many surgeries a person has, what hormones they take, how strongly that person identifies, etc. Biological females with two X chromosomes are always the bearers of children. And to state this fact is not a sign of transphobia or whatever. It’s just a fact, as uncomfortable as we may find it.
Look, I’m extremely libertarian in my outlook. What a consenting adults do in regard to their bodies is none of my business as long as their actions do not infringe on the rights of others. But I am extremely concerned that society is moving in the direction of ignoring facts and unchangeable reality in order to protect people’s feelings and delusions.
Yes, I said delusions. Just because you say you are something, that does not mean you are. There are extremely mentally ill people who believe their arm doesn’t belong to them so it needs to be amputated, or that they’re the second coming of Jesus Christ, or that they receive marching orders from the drapes in their living room window. Should we as a society say, “All that matters is how this person identifies?” Or should we say, “Wait a minute. This sounds like a suffering person who needs help?”
I say all this not out of hatred, fear, or whatever. I say this because I am genuinely concerned, particularly when it comes to confused teenagers. There has been an alarming increase in the number of teenage girls who suddenly identify as trans (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-why-the-surge-in-gender-dysphoria-among-teenage-girls/), when traditionally, most trans individuals were male to female. Is this just a new era of acceptance as the mainstream media wants us to believe, or are there some unaddressed mental health issues being shoved aside in favor of a political ideology?
So yes, Bridget and Blackjack, this is an uncomfortable topic for me. I don’t want to “out myself” in regard to why this particular cultural shift worries me so badly. But I hope my arguments speak for themselves.
BTW, a comment like this one got me kicked off of SBTB. I really hope that doesn’t happen at AAR. But I couldn’t stay out of the discussion any longer.
You will not get kicked off for saying this. And it’s clear you’re struggling how to have compassion for all.
If we can’t listen to voices other than our own, how will we ever form a society?
Thanks, Dabney. You’re quite insightful. I do try to have compassion for all, even if it doesn’t always come across that way. And I want everybody to get their HEAs, both in literature and in life. :)
It’s hard to listen to voices that are so utterly silenced and invisible. What is AAR doing to welcome transgender romance readers? I’m not seeing it here and it is frankly unacceptable.
Okay, I’ve seen enough. Hate speech is not compassionate in any way, shape, or form, and it’s a site’s job to ensure safe spaces free of hate speech for everyone. So many times in recent years at AAR, discriminatory posts that target minority groups are permitted and even endorsed in the name of “both sides” and “free speech.” I’ve realized over the past 24 hours that I have reached my threshold of acceptance for what is going on here on the blogs. I felt sad and frustrated months ago when there were clearly racist posts on the blogs – yes, the ones that got posted and spread around Twitter. I so appreciate all of the social media responses asking AAR to “clean up their house” from writers like Courtney Milan, Alyssa Cole, Tessa Dare, and Sarah McClean, to name just a few.
People of color, especially African American readers, largely steer clear of AAR. Now one person representing a transgender perspective shows up and look at the little rows of angry emoticons and transphobic comments, even though Bridget said nothing that is considered particularly new, radical, earth-shattering, or isn’t already common knowledge. As soon as I saw Bridget’s posts, I knew hateful views were coming and would be welcomed and sure enough, they arrived this morning. I’ve seen enough – and after more than a dozen years here, I’m done.
I am sorry to hear you feel that way. We do strive to make everyone feel welcome here and, clearly in your case, we have failed.
Thank you for all your input.
Hi Nan,
I enjoy hearing your point of view and agree that people have many different points of view. Just because someone is in a minority or marginalized group doesn’t mean they share all the same thoughts and agree on everything.
One thing I have consistently noticed in your comments is that you try to respond to everyone, include everyone and offer helpful links or recommendations freely which seems very kind to me.
I hope you (and everyone) will always feel free to post here and share ideas. How boring would it be if every response was just “Yes, I agree”.
“beams”
Chrisreader, your praises are practically making me blush (which is no small task when writing to an erotica author :)).
“One thing I have consistently noticed in your comments is that you try to respond to everyone, include everyone and offer helpful links or recommendations freely which seems very kind to me.”
Thanks, Chrisreader. A lot of places interpret my arguments/passionate comments as picking fights, when that’s hardly my intention. I offer tips and links because I like people to be successful. Because success = happiness, and happiness really helps people be more friendly and civil to each other, I think. As far as I’m concerned, the economic pie theory is a fallacy in the sense that we can bake another pie instead of fighting over the pieces. It doesn’t diminish me or my work in any way to offer avenues for other readers and writers to publish, so why should I keep those tips a secret? In the digital age- with romance and erotica in particular- there’s no limit to how many stories can be published and consumed. Every one of us at AAR could write a romance novel (or several!) and not really be competing with one another. (Obviously, finances are limited, but romance readers tend to be so voracious, the effects are almost negligible, especially for subscribers to KU.)
I enjoy reading your comments as well because I like your balanced approach when exploring topics raised. You make observations in the real world and aren’t afraid to share your opinions based on those observations. Like you, I don’t think every insight needs to be backed up by official studies (although there is certainly an important place for them). There’s so much we can learn by opening our eyes and using our brains to draw our own conclusions. As an aside, I think that’s why the mainstream media was so blindsided that Donald Trump got elected. They got too insular, too wrapped up in their polls, statistics, and limited circle of friends to see what was really going on out on the streets. But I digress.
I love AAR because of the website’s willingness to let commenters explore ideas as long as we keep civil. The world is filled with too much of an attitude of “if you’re not with us, you’re against us,” which is sadly true on a lot of websites as well. Wasn’t the internet supposed to be the new Wild West? Now special interest groups seek means of taming it, putting their own limited fences around it to suit their world vision. But I digress, again. My point is, I have found a refuge at AAR that allows for stimulating debate, sharing of ideas, book recs (and sometimes movie recs!), and a lack of an echo chamber. Nowhere else have I found that, so it keeps me coming back.
Yes, SBTB is a safe space for the transgender community and they wouldn’t want posters posting harmful comments about this very vulnerable and marginalized group:
I don’t know enough on the issue. I hope Bridget returns. Clearly their voice matters and there is an enormous gap here on this site. Transgender males are NOT biological women and it is stigmatizing for anyone to tell them that they are. Many have some form of surgery and some even retain female reproductive parts that enables them to bear children while still identifying as male. Gender IS not biology. No one gets to define another group of people for them on their behalf. We don’t get to speak for them in a top down manner. You may not get thrown off this site but there is a trans & gender active community in social media that can read here and so you might want to be aware of posts that can cause another AAR flame like we had recently around racial issues.
“Transgender males are NOT biological women…” Social attitudes, philosophy, and cultural shifts in consciousness have absolutely no bearing on biological reality. If an individual is born with XX chromosomes, that person is a biological female for life. If an individual is born with XY chromosomes, that person is a biological male for life. Those aren’t opinions. Those are verifiable facts. I am not sure why stating reality is considered “stigmatizing” or “harmful.” We should have the courage to face reality head-on, even when the facts of the matter are uncomfortable.
Now, when I speak to or about transgender individuals, I use their chosen names and pronouns as a matter of courtesy. I treat people as individuals and afford them the same courtesies I would like to receive. But being civil does not require me to pretend their view of themselves somehow changes what they actually are.
“…so you might want to be aware of posts that can cause another AAR flame like we had recently around racial issues.” Believe me, I’m aware. I don’t make posts lightly.
Gender and biology are not the same thing. Continuing to state or imply this does not make it so. And yet, you continue despite at least two people here stating otherwise. Curious.
I actually don’t care about your ideas on gay marriage, and don’t share the same opinion. I would also like to add that sex and gender are two different things, so yes they may be biologically female but that has nothing to do with their gender. so I don’t know why you would bring that up. And just FYI that argument is used by people who are transphobic, so to avoid later confusion, please don’t use it.
“I actually don’t care about your ideas on gay marriage, and don’t share the same opinion.” Um… I didn’t actually share my opinion on gay marriage. I was sharing what a few gays guys I knew about said that was controversial.
you mentioned gay marriage and your idea on it in a earlier post I was responding as a whole. Trust me the LGBTQ+ community doesn’t care about your worries for them. They know who they are, and you don’t get to decide whether or not they are under “delusions” because that is both a homophobic and transphobic statement. IF you don’t want people to call you homophobic or transphobic, try not to say homophobic and transphobic things on the internet. You are helping no one by spreading distasteful things. A fact is that even if you don’t like it, gay people exist. They aren’t delusioned, and cisgendered, heterosexual people doesn’t get to decide how those that don’t fit what is “normal” feel or are. Its not about how someone identifies its about understanding that they are different than you, and that is OK.
“A fact is that even if you don’t like it, gay people exist.”
I never said I don’t like that gay people exist. I’m not sure what gave you that impression. If you look at my earlier posts on this topic, I am actually quite supportive of, and enjoy, queer romances- both as a reader and a writer. But there is a world of difference between having sexual preferences for members of the same sex than believing oneself to be a different sex than is encoded in one’s biological makeup.
As for “gender,” fine. Play with the idea of gender. Call yourself anything you wish and find outlets to express yourself. But labels and beliefs do not change the reality of one’s biological sex.
“…and cisgendered, heterosexual people doesn’t get to decide how those that don’t fit what is ‘normal’ feel or are.”
Two things about this. First, you are correct that nobody can decide how someone else feels. I’m not denying that. But it’s not a matter of decision to accurately describe what people factually “are.”
Second, and correct me if I’m misreading your comment, what makes you think I am a cisgendered heterosexual? I may be. Then again, I may not be. I have purposely never officially identified who or what I am online because my arguments should be able to stand on their own.
I feel that this conversation is devolving into personal attacks which are verboten at AAR. I would appreciate if all parties would refrain from such.
Certainly, and I have nothing more to say on the topic. But I’m not sure where I overstepped the line.
yeah it would be helpful if you curbed people who share ideas that are harmful to minorities. Like that gender isn’t real, and some TERF arguments. everyone is entitled to their opinion but not when it harmful to a minority. That’s just not cool and very unwelcoming for those in those communities and allies. If you want more to use this website try making a safe space for everyone. This place has become a home for people to share their racist, homophobic, trans phobic ideas and that isn’t how it should be run. that kind of stuff should never be accepted or acknowledged as a valid opinion.
I’m sorry you had this experience here, Bridget. Please “friend” me at Goodreads as I would love to stay connected and learn more about the books you enjoy. I’m “Blackjack” there :)
I’m going to jump in again with the generalizing knowing that yes, not all men and not all women are the same, but one common thread I have noticed about men is their need for attention.
Regardless of their individual taste on what is romantic and what in a woman attracts them, (because that clearly varies) I think in general that men have more of a need for attention and that plays a large part in their idea of romance and an ideal woman.
Now everyone likes some degree of attention I know. I mean that I have heard umpteen many couples repeat the same story after having a child about the marriage hitting a rough patch and the man having a real problem with the attention going to his child rather than him.
I think a lot of male fantasies come down to the ideal woman not only admiring him but making him the most important thing, bar none.
Very well said, Chrisreader. I read romantic fiction in its various genres for escapism, relaxation or to wind down at the end of the day. So I don’t need the seriously serious (or pretentious) which I can and do get in other ways in my reading. These days, just picking up the newspaper is so depressing that I want to hide under the covers.
Okay, I want to preface this…I think if you’re a reader who doesn’t want to ever encounter hopelessness in literature or read an unhappy ending, that’s totally legitimate and your right.
For 9 seasons, I worked as a tour guide at the Mount, which is a historic house in Lenox, MA dedicated to Edith Wharton. If you’re unfamiliar with her name, she’s the American author who wrote The House of Mirth, Ethan Frome, and The Age of Innocence. Obviously, I’m a huge fan and part of my job was to encourage guests to read her work which was great because I passionately believe she should be more widely read. However, with one notable exception, her novels and short stories don’t end happily and many women who visited the Mount weren’t interested in reading her work after learning that.
I get it. After 30+ years of the patriarchy and an educational literary canon by men for men about men (that often fetishizes women’s pain), I’m fairly uninterested in unhappy endings myself.
However, there was something heartbreaking about trying to get women to read a woman who wrote about women’s lives and finding it an uphill battle. Yes, her stories can be hopeless but there’s a radical point to it — she was uncovering the myriad ways women’s lives have been made hopeless by men and the patriarchal systems that exclusively serve them. Her stories linger over a ton of familiar themes for romance readers (yearning, desire, marriages of convenience), but her characters are denied neat or happy endings because that made the most sense to her.
Just thought I’d share so hopelessness and unhappy endings and the women who write them could get some representation in this discussion.
As a literature teacher, I have to say it’s been depressing to read here that people find anything without a happy ending unacceptable in art. I love unicorns and rainbows as much as anyone, but I couldn’t subsist on that diet alone.
I rely on a variety of artists’ interpretations of our very complex world. I cannot live in aggressive denial of history or current events, and while I do turn to fiction for pleasure, I define reading pleasure a bit differently than many of the AAR folk. I love romance but I also love the complexity and nuance and beautiful language that literary fiction embodies. I appreciate artists’ willingness to explore all aspects of life – the wonderful and the bleak. I think you are absolutely right too that in the bleakness, hope emerges but we have to be willing to expose ourselves to these ideas first.
Just briefly too, as a child I was an reader and read everything. The Diary of Anne Frank changed my life. Bleak, yes. Essential reading, yes! I’m so thankful my parents encouraged me to read a variety of literature as a child and to be aware of the world, even the darkest parts of it.
I don’t think anyone here is saying they want all books to be sunny, just romance. At least that’s my take.
It is also a very depressing time for many and I suspect that there are those that in a less troubled era would happily read less light work.
For me, I always want to read a light book while reading a darker book. Right now, I’m reading Maria Vale’s shifter/wolves series, Stephen King’s The Stand, and American Dirt. I pick up whichever one suits me at the time.
Just curious where it was said here that “people find anything without a happy ending unacceptable in art”?
What I read was people saying the opposite, that endings should be varied rather than solely bleak to be comsidered valuable.
That was how I read your comment.
I was referring to all the comments up thread on the “hopelessness” and “sheer misery” of literary fiction in contrast to romances. My comment was not directed to you.
I never said it was directed to me. I asked where it was said here.
I will say I am more open to unhappy stories by women about issues women face than I am unhappy stories by men about how much the world sucks. One of my all time favorite books is A Map of the World by Jane Hamilton which is one of the saddest books I’ve ever read but speaks to me because of its focus on the perils of women and mothers in small towns. And I just reread Anna Karenina–her story also calls to me even though it was penned by Tolstoy.
I do need, in general however, some sense of redemption in what I read if possible. Unrelentingly grim is hard for me to get through.
Agreed, 100%.
I’ve never heard of A Map of the World, but it sounds interesting. I would definitely say that one of my favorite sub-genres would be books that “focus on the perils of women and mothers in small towns”.
I’m not sure if you’re saying that you think romance novels should have unhappy endings or if you’re just generalizing to say that if people like romances to have happy endings then that’s the only thing they read.
As this is a site devoted to Romance I think most people try to keep within the guidelines of discussing that, but if assuming other readers here are as voracious in their reading as I am then I am sure they read across many genres.
I think Edith Wharton is an excellent author, and I have enjoyed all the works you mention above, as I am sure many readers here have as well. But it’s comparing apples and oranges. To Kill A Mockingbird is an amazing work by a female author that was likely a life changing read for many posters here (as it was for me when I first read it) but it’s definitely not germane to a discussion on romance novels so it probably won’t get a lot of mentions here.
No, no, no. I’m not saying that I think romance novels should have unhappy endings or that people who gravitate towards romance only read happy endings. I wasn’t trying to state anything as combative or antagonistic as that.
The discussion of hopelessness in fiction, unhappy endings, and gender reminded me of a time in my life when all three of those things intersected on a daily basis in an occupational setting. Since the conversation had moved outside of the romance genre (I love Fleabag & Gone Girl, which were both quoted above & are not romances), I thought it would be an acceptable addition to the discussion.
My comment wasn’t meant as an attack on anyone in particular or as an opening salvo to any specific argument that exists in opposition to anyone else’s. I shared it because I wanted to explore a different dimension of the topic in as respectful a way as possible, but if you didn’t find it germane to the conversation, I completely understand.
It’s perfectly fine to expand to comments outside of romance novels, those sometimes turn into the most lively discussions. We all veer off topic that’s for sure, me more than most.
I just responded because it seemed like you and Blackjack had concluded from the comments that people posting here only ever want happy endings for all stories.
For romance certainly, for most other genres I think it should be an open field and a work should be judged on its merits. For instance, mysteries can end happily or not (I’m thinking of Agatha Christie for example who wrote both) as long as the mystery itself is addressed.
It was fine and good and please keep contributing!
Yes, that is how I interpreted your comment based on generalizations others were posting.
Cecily – thanks for your thoughts. I don’t think I said I never read the themes that often run through literary fiction just that I largely don’t. I read a lot of social history and biography where one often encounters the worst as well as the best that we experience as human brings through the course of all our shared history.
I volunteered for 14 years with a well known suicide prevention charity and heard such sad and desperate stories that turning to the less challenging and romantic book with an HEA was sometimes a huge relief.
Yes, I have read Edith Wharton and your volunteering role sounds wonderful and very similar to mine with the National Trust in England. It’s wonderful to have the opportunity to introduce visitors to new places, people, culture, history and ideas
Wow, there’s so much to unpack with these responses! What’s “positive feminism”, Lisa Kleypas-in-the-90s?
For me, one of the most interesting parts of these definitions is the way some of these authors seem to have internalized the criticism of the genre and address it by placing romance authors and readers on a pedestal. When Jo-Ann Power brags about the low divorce rate of RWA members and Lisa Kleypas praises how much better romance readers understand love, I’m tempted to roll my eyes. But I think there’s something deeper going on here…
Yes, romance has been unfairly maligned because of sexism. However, in my mind, the answer to those sexist judgements isn’t to put romance at the top of some hierarchy of fiction. Romance is valuable because all fiction is valuable. Romance readers are (gasp!) just like everybody else. Romance authors have complicated love lives too!
I was also struck by Jennifer Cruisie’s progressive reaction to this question and one of my most persistent criticisms of highly popular romances is that I feel as if the heroine doesn’t grow or journey enough…but I’d push back against the idea of love as a reward or the concept that a woman has to be self-actualized to receive it. Hahaha, I’m FAR from self-actualized, but on my good days, I think I’m deserving of love!
Yes, total agreement that love not be presented as the end of a heroine’s journey or even a necessity in a woman’s life. I like that Crusie says: “The old “I can’t live without you” always seemed so weak to me; I like the more modern “I can make it without you”” even while acknowledging that romantic love can be a positive thing in our lives.
I just finished reading Mia Vincy’s new novel and so it’s very fresh in my mind, but the heroine proclaims her love to the hero on the final pages and then assures him that she’ll be just fine if her feelings aren’t reciprocated, to which he quickly responds that he knows she will.
Agreed. I would even argue there’s something more romantic about being someone’s choice versus being their necessity. I also think that, in the scene you described in Mia Vincy’s new novel, there’s an added layer of bravery to fictional characters (or people) who can express their intimate feelings without attachment to the outcome.
At the same time, I do read and enjoy more taboo romances where the HEA is framed in older terms, the “I can’t live without you”. They’re not taboo because of a particular sex act, but rather that they purposefully explore darker subjects without much nuance or realism. Wuthering Heights is the classic standard-bearer of this type of narrative.
I usually gravitate towards these stories when I’m feeling unhappy myself and want to experience a fun house mirror version of violence, sex, and love. Sometimes, it feels good-in-a-bad-way to have an arch-fiend wondering the moors, crying your name.
I wrote a several-page essay several years ago about Genre Labels (available at http://www.ccrsdodona.org/markmuse/reading/genrelabels.html). My definition near the start of the essay: A genre romance novel (or series, novelette, novella or short story) tells a story about entities developing a permanent sexual love relationship with a “happily ever after” ending.
That was very interesting Mark and I wholly agree that expectations can enhance or destroy an experience.
I believe that romance, amongst other genres, has a very certain set of expectations whether it’s in novel or movie form.
I think the worst thing the movie “Last Christmas” did was release trailers marketing it as an upbeat holiday romance akin to Fred Claus or Elf, when it was a movie that dealt with much darker themes and a big twist (that many people guessed). It set movie goers up to expect candy but were then served an olive. There’s nothing wrong with olives but if you’re expecting sweet and get bitter instead it can ruin your experience.
So many interesting thoughts from these writers…
I’m not familiar with Stobie Piel but I don’t agree with the notion that it’s romantic for a rake to choose a special heroine “who has more to offer than the pretty, vacuous women.” Most of the romances I read today have moved away from demonizing other women so that one special one can shine. Pitting women against women to fight over a man is sexist. Mia Vincy just brilliantly flipped this custom upside down in A Dangerous Kind of Lady. I also am not inclined toward the idea that a romance is equated with marriage.
Stella Cameron’s definition of romance as that between a man and a woman didn’t age well.
I definitely agree with Lisa Kleypas that emotions rather than physicality are central to a romance novel.
I love Jennifer Crusie’s definition that a romance is “a heroine’s quest for self-actualization.” That statement seems very forward-thinking for 1999, and I’m betting that sentiment would still not sit well today with some readers. I’m a heroine centric reader and want women to be at the center of fiction and tend to approach all romances with that main requirement. It’s the reason I don’t read M/M fiction.
“I also am not inclined toward the idea that a romance is equated with marriage.” We’re in total agreement about this. Like you, I like to see other HEA/HFN options.
“I’m a heroine centric reader and want women to be at the center of fiction and tend to approach all romances with that main requirement. It’s the reason I don’t read M/M fiction.” Interesting. Would you be willing to read F/F fiction, or does that not appeal to you? Just wondering.
YES. I don’t read M/M romance for the same reason.
Recently, I’ve been trying to take a hard look at my reading history and ask myself tough questions about what I’m reading and why. By eschewing M/M romance, I had given myself permission to passively avoid all queer romance and I wanted to break myself out of that pattern. I read Olivia Waite’s The Lady’s Guide to Celestial Mechanics and I found TWO HEROINES to be an absolute revelation.
“I found TWO HEROINES to be an absolute revelation.”
I confess I haven’t read many f/f romances, only because there used to be so few of them. Just looking at the online catalog for Carina Press, one of my favorite romance publishers, you can see how heavily queer romance skews toward m/m. Having said that, I definitely enjoy m/m both as a reader and a writer. But I also want to expand my repertoire now that Carina Press, Carina Adores in particular, has come out with some interesting f/f romances.
One f/f rec I have, which goes under the broader umbrella of women’s fiction, is Till Human Voices Wake Us by Patti Davis. It’s been a long time since I’ve read it, but it’s about a woman who falls in love with her sister-in-law after the tragic drowning death of her young son. With all that’s going on right now, it may be a little too depressing, but I recall a pleasant HFN.
Oh, I will take all the f/f recommendations! Thank you for the suggestion, I would’ve never chosen it myself because I’m such a horrible cover snob. It’s officially on my TBR list. :)
You’re welcome! “Till Human Voices Wake Us” is the only f/f story I can think of offhand that I’ve actually read all the way through. I wouldn’t have known about it except that Patti Davis self-published through KDP (then CreateSpace) when it was brand new and got interviewed about it. Her story was interesting. She’s related to the Reagans (a cousin, I think?), so she had some publishing connections with an annoying catch- traditional publishers would only consider nonfiction about the Reagans or fiction that included a cameo appearance by the Reagans. She got really frustrated trying to break out of that mold, basically being rejected instantly if she didn’t include the Reagans in every single one of her works. So she was proud to jump ship and publish “Till Human Voices Wake Us” on Amazon with nary a Reagan in the cast of characters. Just your fun story of the day.
On the subject of f/f, you may want to look at Carina Press’s catalog section labeled Female/Female here: https://www.carinapress.com/shop/category/female-female.html. They only have 15 books so far plus one on the way (versus 208 male/male with more coming soon), but that number may increase with their new Carina Adores line. If you like HR, one of their f/f stories takes place at the end of WWI; one of the heroines was a veterinarian for war horses and understandably has PTSD, which sounds like a fascinating premise for a romance.
I haven’t read “Desert of the Heart” by Jane Rule yet, so I don’t know if it has an HEA or not, but I have heard good things about it as well as the movie based on it, which is entitled “Desert Hearts.” From what I’ve heard, the movie is better than the book. The love story takes place in 1959 between a college professor staying in Reno for several weeks to secure a divorce and a woman who works at one of the bars nearby.
Hope you find some more recs that tickle your fancy!
Check Gay City Library in Seattle. They have an online catalog you can search. They have 1500 lesbian titles. Not all will be romances but quite a few are. (sorry the link command isn’t working – but you can cut and paste this link to get there).
https://www.librarycat.org/lib/GayCityLGBTLibrary/search/tag/Lesbian_Fiction
Jericho by Ann McMan (2011) was one title that I remember as quite lovely.
For light F/F romances try Melissa Brayden (her first, Waiting in the Wings, and her last, Entangled, are quite good) or Georgia Beers (her last, Hopeless Romantic, is also good; but my favorite might be 96 hours).
Other good contemporary romances are Lee Winter’s Breaking Character and The Brutal Truth (try to get the audiobook which are fantastic, imo).
Clare Ashton’s The Goodmans, is both hilarious and sexy.
For historical romance, Jae’s Shaken to the Core (the background is the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and is very well researched).
For a fantastic speculative saga (with strong romantic lines) read Fletcher DeLancey’s Chronicles of Alsea series. All the books are 5 stars to me, even if I have a very soft spot for the 2nd (the most romantic one: Without a Front, The Producer’s Challenge) and the 6th in the series (Outcaste). DeLancey’s world building is outstanding.
Let me know if you want more. :)
IIRC, Pembroke Park by Michelle Martin, which I read 20 years ago, centers on two couples: m/m & f/f. It may be hard to find, since it was trade paperback back then & a quick search didn’t find an ebook version.
Sarah Waters to my mind writes the best lesbian fiction, though she’s not strictly a romance genre writer. I love her book, Fingersmith, and readers who enjoy complex historical writing might enjoy her books.
There was a phenomenal adoption of Fingersmith made years ago. I hadn’t read the book at the time and knew nothing of the plot when I watched it and was absolutely blown away by it. I never saw the twists coming. Amazing cast and acting, I highly recommend it. I also believe there was a Korean film that was based on the novel as well that came out just a few years ago that was very well received.
Same here. I actually prefer F/F contemporary romances (some are delightful), but is much more rare to find a good F/F suspense romance or a F/F historical romance (geez, until a few year ago, these last only managed to break my heart).
As result, I often read M/F suspense and historical and occasionally a contemporary.
I think that women’s fiction has a very important role in today’s society, and books written by women for women add to the literary community greatly. That is the kind of representation we need in pop culture.
Although I would like to add the M/M is a very important part of literature too. It represents the LGBTQ+ community which, like all other minorities have been forgotten about in fiction. I do love to see that there are more books out there representing that group. I just wish there would be more diversity. There is more to the LGBTQ+ community than white cisgendered gay men. I wish there were more books that showed trans men and women and people who don’t fit the gender binary. This group needs more than just YA fiction; they need adult relationships too.
But like I said before women’s stories are very important and essential to progressing literature.
I don’t read M/M fiction, but the representations almost solely on white men and cis men seems problematic to be sure. Where are the transgendered romances? It’s interesting too that you think YA fiction is more inclusive/progressive. I don’t read much YA fiction but I’m wondering if younger authors and younger readership make up the demographics for it. If so, that gives me hope for the future.
What a great topic to bring up for the Way Back Wednesdays! Romance as a genre certainly has changed since 1999 (for that matter, what hasn’t?).
I think the broad, current industry standard definition of what constitutes a romance works well. A romance is a story that features a central romance and ends with an HEA or HFN. Beyond that, (almost) anything goes. A romance can be historical fiction, thriller, fantasy, paranormal, or whatever else as long as the romance is front and center rather than a minor subplot, and the love interests get together at the end (i.e. they don’t die unless you’re in a paranormal/ghost story situation where you might get a pass if the characters still end up together for all eternity, but I digress).
HFNs and broader definitions of who can have a romance (it used to be defined exclusively as one cismale hero and one cisfemale heroine) have been good for the genre. The looser HFN is great for authors who want to follow a couple over a period of time or would like to leave things a little more open-ended than the traditional HEA. And it’s nice that happy queer love stories are more widely recognized as legitimate romances. No one has to read them if they don’t want to, but the options are growing for those who do. (Shoutout to Carina Adores!)
Plus, I like how erotic romance is slowly gaining traction as a legitimate subgenre of romance. The two genres used to behave as totally separate entities, at least from my observations. Now, readers who like high levels of explicit sex and an HEA/HFN for the love interests can get the best of both worlds. :)
I enjoyed Lisa Kleypas’s observations but I have to agree with Wendy F that Julie Garwood’s definition is right on the money. All of the emotions and growth and experiences won’t make it a romance novel unless there is a happy ending by the last page.
I don’t have a good memory for what romances I was reading in 1999, but I find it interesting that I haven’t heard of 6 of the authors quoted and not read three of the 7 whose names I recognized.
It would be interesting to go back to these authors, show them their statements, and see if they’d still agree with their definitions.
I’ve never read any of Julie Garwood’s books but I’d pretty much go with her definition.