Yeah, thanks, NYT. We’ll take it from here
Hope. Escape. Fun. Happiness Something just for me. Taught me about respect. Joy. Taught me that I deserve a happily ever after, too.
I spent the spring and summer of 2016 listening to women about why they read romance novels. I ran a research project that was specifically interested in how women who see themselves as ‘religious’ interacted with the sex in romance novels, but my participants gave me so many gifts beyond that. Many I heard from weren’t even women of faith, they just wanted to tell me how important these books are to them, how vital they are to their lives. (1)
Because for so many women, they are just that: vital.
I talked to women whose entire sexual health education came from Harlequin, because their schools and families and religious spaces never talked about sex and the issues surrounding it. From the books, these women told me, they learned about consent and respect and orgasms. (2)
I heard from women in helping professions – teaching, social work, nursing – for whom reading romance is elemental to their self care regimens.
I talked to trans-women who told me that romance was one of the ways they ‘learned’ womanhood. One of my favorite interviews was with a lovely woman living in Illinois who talked at length about how she and her transition therapist read contemporary romances as part of her therapy. She was a plus-sized lady and was having some latent self-esteem problems post-transition. Her therapist told her to read Bet Me by Jennifer Crusie and sent her to Smart Bitches, Trashy Books to find other books like it. (She actually sent me an email a few months ago and begged me to read Alice Clayton’s Hudson Valley series and I immediately referred her to recent works by Kate Meader, Olivia Dade, and Amy Andrews. I love this wee world sometimes.)
I heard from women who read stacks of Nora Roberts, Julia Quinn, Beverly Jenkins, Georgette Heyer, Sonali Dev, Rebekah Weatherspoon, Julie Ann Long, Sarah MacLean, E.L James, Maya Banks, Maisey Yates, Sarah Mayberry (y’all, the list of authors these women name-checked is four pages long, so I’ll stop here) while sitting in chemotherapy chairs or next to bedsides of 
dying loved ones or in between therapy appointments for their special needs child. These women talked about romance novels as ‘lifelines’, reminders that there is still hope in our world and that happily ever afters do still exist.
I talked to women who just enjoyed it. No fuss, no frills, romance was just their favorite genre and they weren’t sure why people made so much fun of it.
I heard from women in ministry who told me they had no fellow women they could trust with talking about sex, and so romance characters became their ‘girlfriends’ in that way. An Anglican minister in the English midlands told me over Skype, with a eyebrow raised saucily, that she and her husband owe a lot to Mills & Boon.
I talked to women who were in abusive relationships and realized they were abusive after seeing ‘their’ relationship on the page. One woman I spoke to, who lived in Belgium, told me about reading a Kristan Higgins book and realizing that her boyfriend would never do the tender things the hero in that book did. That helped her re-examine her entire relationship, come to the conclusion that he was actually an (in her words) “unmitigated ass who gave zero shits about me as a human” and begin the long process of extricating herself from that situation.
Sit with that. A woman’s life changed because she read a book. And not just any book. A romance novel. A novel in a genre which the New York Times found it appropriate this past week to shame, deride, and write off as useless tripe that was only read by dumb women.
A lot of very smart people have had words about that stance, defending our beloved genre with the fiery righteousness that only comes from being on the side of truth and hope. Lauren Layne’s was a particular favorite, but Ron Hogan’s is also worth your time, as is SBTB’s.
Instead of parsing that particular article, I want to take a breath and be frank about why the article was written and why the NYT was, I believe, comfortable with running that piece after decades of ignoring the romance genre. This fact is why all romance is political, all moments of centering women and their stories is revolutionary, and why I will defend Romancelandia until my dying breath. The fact is that America is saturated in toxic masculinity through its patriarchal foundations. Our very culture is deeply sexist.
When social scientists (of which I am proudly one) talk about a cultural patriarchy, we’re highlighting a culture where straight white men – their voices, their bodies, their heterosexuality, their life choices, their opinions – are categorized as ‘normal’ and everyone else is ‘othered’. In terms of gender in particular, this means that women are always automatically less-than, unless there is an intentional and consistent restructuring.
This culture of toxic masculinity/sexism/patriarchy, whatever your word of choice, is why we’re stillalking about sexual assault in terms of what the girl was wearing, why we’re still talking about women in politics as aberrations and annoyances, why we’re still letting men decide reproductive health issues, why working mothers are forced to ‘lean in’ and stay at home moms are mocked. This culture is why Romancelandia is allowed to be mocked in the NYT – there’s no automatic power for men in this world and this deeply sexist culture cannot stand that. (3)
The 1200+ women in my project all talked about romance as some sort of escape, and what I believe they were articulating is that in reading romance, they could often take a temporary breath from a world in which they were not valued and come to one where they were. Romancelandia consistently centers women and their pleasure, their values, their decisions, and their lives. This runs counter to the messages of the culture, where women are often only permitted to be centered only when they fit certain molds or check certain stereotypes. (4)
In fact, it runs so counter to the message of the culture that the mighty Grey Lady herself decided to ask an octogenarian gentleman, who clearly had never heard of RWA before getting this assignment, to speak for us instead of inviting us to speak for ourselves.
Romancelandia is imperfect and messy and we have a lot of work to do to make sure that more stories are centered. We have got to be better about letting voices speak for themselves rather than speaking for them, better about getting holiday stories that don’t involve Christmas, better about making sure our celebration of women is intersectional. Do not read this article, I beg you, as me saying we have it all figured out because lawd jaysus do we not.
However, what we do have is an intentionally crafted space where we celebrate women and praise be we do, for if we don’t celebrate ourselves, the culture has once again reminded us that no one else will.
~ Kristen Donnelly
It would be really interesting, sociologically, to run this again post-2016 election. Anyone wanna collaborate?
Clearly, these women weren’t reading the more… problematic of HQs back catalogue. These were mostly younger women, who were raised in evangelical circles, and were reading things produced in the late 90s onwards. Lisa Kleypas’ Wallflowers quartet and a slew of Nora Roberts books were also mentioned in this conversation. For anyone particularly interested in abstinence education and its relationship to this conversation, I have about 25 pages of notes. Let’s get (virtual) coffee.
Male authors, for example, are not automatically granted deference the way they are in literary fiction. M/M stories are still centered around the values of consent, respect, and HEAs, for which the larger literary establishment gives limited craps, and which our genre prizes above all else.
Reese Weatherspoon’s comment at the end of her 2017 Emmy acceptance speech for Big LIttle Lies hit the nail on the head: let women be the center of their own stories. In romance, we are. Gloriously messy and diverse and powerful, we are.
Excellent work, Kristen!
I absolutely don’t understand why professional critics simply can’t give every genre out there an even, fare shake. For the millionth time, I have to invoke the ghost of Roger Ebert, who understood that every genre has value, every medium contains highs and lows, objects of quality and objects of lesser quality.
Hot damn- those are some of the best responses to the NYT response ever, ever, EVER! Proud to be part of such an interesting, intelligent, enthusiastic reading community.
I really tried not to read this when it was making the rounds, but I gave in. And of course, I was just as pissed off as the rest of Romancelandia.
The fact that their ‘rebuttal’ is written by a woman doesn’t make the second one any better, as many have pointed out that other women are also very denigrating of the genre. And this is galling: “But the fan’s relationship to a work of art is different from the critic’s … Our goal is to assess and critique the books on offer.” So…he was the only critic you could find? There are people who read and appreciate the romance genre who are perfectly able to do this.
Talk about doubling down.
Their second response is, possibly, worse. We–again–responded. If you want to see our thoughts, go to the Readers’ Choice comments.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/reader-center/romance-novels-books-desk.html?comments#permid=24295936
“The cover of the Oct. 1 edition of The New York Times Book Review was a roundup of fall romance novels by Robert Gottlieb,” Even this isn’t true??????? Does he think The Duke and I was published in 2017?
I liked your thoughtful and articulate response to the NYTimes, Dabney! I think these are important debates to have and staying silent in the face of discrimination has never been a helpful way to proceed.
Thanks. I wish I thought it would make a difference!
As a male reader of romances, getting the nerve to shop for them (many years ago, before I switched completely to buying ebooks) took a little while. I’ve long since adopted a WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) attitude. I’m not going to worry about ignorant opinions. If you don’t like it the problem is yours, not mine.
I hate to say it, but the worst blow-back I get about writing historical romance has been from women. From a sister-in-law who referred to what I write as not “real” books, to a (female) therapist who warned against writing/reading romance because it encouraged escapism and unrealistic expectations, it has been my own gender that has made me feel the most shame about what I love to do.
I hate that the Times would publish this article, but I do like the way my romance “siblings” have defended the genre. Not only do I love articles like this, but I love all the articulate, intelligent, and passionate comments.
When I read the comment about passing romance novels around like contraband in law school I actually got teary. I’m a lawyer who had the EXACT same experience in school.
This article also made me remember WAY back to an incident in high school that I had forgotten. Our librarian kept a cardboard box of romances tucked BENEATH a book shelf–as if they needed to be hidden. The books weren’t part of the regular catalogue and we checked them out on the honor system.
My math teacher saw one of the books on my desk (it was a Victoria Holt, I recall it well) and he told me that reading garbage would make me stupid.
I don’t remember my 9th grade response, but I know I made sure to hide my reading material after that.
That was 35 years ago and people are still trying to shame me.
Thanks for such an articulate defense of the genre and the joy it brings.
I do agree that there are many women who staunchly defend patriarchy, and there have been many arguments here at AAR over the years on this very topic.
Part of the problem (of the many problems) with the NYTimes article is that there is an essentializing and stereotyping of male and females, whereas reality is so much more complicated. I thankfully do not know many men who fantasize about violence or wanting to be James Bond. I do though know many men who value their rich emotional lives and depend on the romance they have with their partners. I also know many women, myself included, who value their romantic life, real and imagined, and also enjoy self-empowerment and a professional life. The stereotypes are discouraging and harmful.
Everyone – thank you so much for your feedback. I’m glad my rantypants thoughts made sense! This conversation is the one I have professionally, for the record, so I am always happy to process and dialogue.
Very retro and disappointing article from the NYTimes, although after the sexism on display for all Americans in our last presidential election, such blatant sexism doesn’t surprise me at all.
Still, the quote at the end is shockingly awful: “Why shouldn’t women dream? After all, guys have their James Bonds as role models. Are fantasies of violence and danger really more respectable than fantasies of courtship and female self-empowerment?” Is that really a question the author has even pondered? Contrasting male fantasies of violence with female fantasies of self-empowerment is just bizarre.
That quote made me furious. I literally felt as though I’d been patted on the head.
Given James Bond is a total misogynist, it’s especially infuriating.
This was such an insightful post, Kristen. That article was a travesty in so many ways, and you did such a stellar job defending a genre so many of us love. Great job!
Romancelandia has been lit up with people refuting and protesting that op-ed. However, this essay is a refreshing look at the landscape of romance novels and the positivity to be found therein.
The comment about centering a
particular type of man in the center of the nation’s consciousness is inspired.
Brilliantly said, and proof positive that the most appropriate person/people to speak about this subject are the intelligent, well-read women why make up the vast majority of Romancelandia.
I would add a suggestion: if you were truly outraged by that joke of an article in the NYT, email them and let them know. Personally, I’ve decided to cancel my online subscription to the paper. I can find plenty of news sources who don’t treat me like an idiot child, who respect me as a woman, and who actually value me as a reader. I will send a very specific email as to why I’ve canceled. Perhaps if enough of us express our disappointment and outrage in ways that actually affect the NYT’s pocketbook, they may rethink their attitude.
Most of the letters being published are pro-romance. This doesn’t excuse the Times but it does make me feel better about its readership.
“We’re highlighting a culture where straight white men – their voices, their bodies, their heterosexuality, their life choices, their opinions – are categorized as ‘normal’ and everyone else is ‘othered’.”
I know this wasn’t the focus of your piece, Kristen, but it’s such a clear and concise summary that I’m going to save it for future discussions.
My training is in experimental behavioral research, so I’m afraid I can’t work with you on a follow-up project, but I’d love to learn more about your research.
I have to say I think it goes even beyond “straight white men” as some of the worst romance bashing I’ve ever heard is from women. Particularly educated women who see it as “trash”and beneath them. There were a few of us I knew in Law School who used to read and pass romance novels around like it was illegal contraband but back then not one of us would have publicly said in the cafeteria we read it. Not when we were being told by other WOMEN things like “you know you are going to have to cut your hair to get a job in law right?” Or when a friend had the nerve to walk into the law library wearing makeup while everyone was cramming for midterms and I heard two fellow FEMALE students ask “what is she here for-just to catch a husband?!”
I have heard too many women remark that romance is for “bored, uneducated housewives” in a nasty way using words no man I know would dare utter upon fear of death. I know years ago romance was at least 50% of the paperback market yet commanded zero respect. We are the ones that are feeding this multi million dollar (or is it billion now?) industry yet one of the top reasons why women have supposedly adopted ereaders is so people on public transit etc won’t know what we are reading. I’m afraid until women as a whole are proud of this female dominated market things won’t change. As long as women act like it is something to be ashamed of no one else will ever give it the respect it deserves.
You make an EXCELLENT point, Chrisreader. I would actually argue that supports my point. This sexism is so ingrained in all of us – every single participant in the culture – that it permeates everyone.
I do a lot of work with religion and women and some of the strongest supporters of patriarchal religions are women who have the least amount of power in them. There are a lot of reasons for this, but one is that the patriarchal culture informs their worldview as well.
I marvel at this all the time. I opted, years ago, to be a stay at home mom. A stay at home mom in charge of the family finances and who researched her state’s divorce laws so that I understood both the risks inherent in that choice and the ways in which I could (somewhat) protect myself. The scorn I got from my peer group–in my liberal college town–was withering.
Whether it’s the mommy wars or the romance wars, women find it difficult to agree that all choices can be respected. I agree that sexism is so pervasive it’s hard to see. This sexism has created a society where any choice a woman makes is presented as the lesser of two evils. If we had quality child care, quality child care leave, a professional culture that supported families, I’m willing to bet we’d find it easier to celebrate choices–reading or otherwise–that supported love, families, relationships and joy.
Dabney, this also completely relates to Virginia Woolf and what I was discussing with Kristen that female = emotions = weakness or “lesser”. I like to think this younger generation of women are experiencing less of this but I am afraid it just seems to transform into a new form. Like this idea of the “cool girl” that Jennifer Lawrence has come to epitomize (not picking on her but she has become the men’s ideal of this). This fantastically hot girl who is really just a “guy” underneath it all, which is why she is so great! She burps but still looks flawless doing it, she’s not demanding or fussy, she just fun and naturally flawless! No three hours of makeup application needed! She doesn’t nag or want a boyfriend. She’s how every girl or woman should be!
And then all I can think of is that scene with Kristen Wiig from Bridesmaids trying to be all this with John Hamm, sneaking makeup, pretending she doesn’t want a commitment etc.
I’m not saying every woman just wants commitment, or a baby or any one specific thing but we have to stop apologizing for ANYTHING we want. One thing I’ve learned over the years is men RARELY feel apologetic for anything they want, and why should they? But women need to feel the same way and that starts with society and ourselves.
Absolutely! Somehow we need to get away from this idea that male =strong and female =weak. That emotions are bad, or should be a “guilty pleasure” we hide.
For me it all comes back to Virginia Woolf saying “This is an important book, the critic assumes, because it deals with war. This is an insignificant book because it deals with the feelings of women in a drawing-room.”
Guilty of being someone who only really got into romance in a big way with the advent of the Kindle. I wasn’t commuting by that time (I, too, was a stay-at-home mother for a few years), but I can honestly say that some of those 80s and 90s covers put me off reading romances in public places.
June – steal away! I have a lot more thoughts on this specific cultural construction that I’m happy to blather on about and also to hear from your discipline’s perspective. Easiest way to connect for me is through Twitter – I’m @bevsandbooks.
When I was younger, the genre that I was mocked for reading was science fiction. (Computers made us cool and we now dominate the film industry so we’ve had our revenge but . . doesn’t matter, we were still mocked. ) There are still people who mock that genre – I can remember Mercedes Lackey saying that someone had recently (past decade) taken time out of their busy schedule to tell her to her face that her books were mainly reading material for teenage boys. That woman was the mother of a boy who read science fiction. My own parents mocked (gently) the sci-fi books I read and movies I watched – including Star Wars and Star Trek. (I make it a point to use the Star Trek/Star Wars stamps whenever possible on mail I send them :-) My mom read (and still reads) romance novels. I don’t defend what I read (which is pretty much everything except Westerns and Horror) because why should I let anyone shame my choices? That includes fellow romance readers who tend to despise Twilight by Stephanie Meyer (love it) and 50 Shades of Grey (which I didn’t like but it was certainly no worse than a G.A. Aiken novel). I think it is genre fiction that literature fans are really gunning for and I know why – the books actually sell. Yep, people actually want to read a romance, sci-fi/fantasy book or Western. Deal with it.
Exactly. To each their own.
What I read doesn’t have anything to do with anyone else, and while I might not like someone else’s book choices, I will cheerfully and ruthlessly defend their right to that choice.
(though I will disagree on the Aiken reference, but that’s a debate for another day ^_^)
Fabulous essay! A few years ago I recommended Breathing Room to a non romance reader friend who wasn’t feeling it for her husband after the birth of her son. For two years. She scoffed, but it worked! I could give a lecture on Waterloo thanks to Heyer and Putney. I’m good at Jeopardy too. Romance novels are more than sex and an HEA, they help and inform which makes this article even more demeaning.
Whoever thought an “old white man” was the right person to write that article is A Total Moron!
I still maintain I learned more about British history from reading Jean Plaidy than I ever learned in school history lessons. And I’m still learning from HR (and HF) – the best authors take the time to get the history right and incorporate an “oh – I didn’t know that!” moment as well!
WOW- I am blown away by your terrific words and viewpoint, Kristen, and disappointed by the NYT. When I saw a blurb earlier this week that the newspaper was running an article I thought that was very cool. Now I am just…sad…for a minute. Time to get back to enjoying any and all kinds of romance without explaining my choice to ANYONE!!! Thanks for always providing insight and food for thought.
I already said this over on Smart Bitches, but NEVER EVER read a think-piece on Romance that is not written by someone from Romancelandia. I know it sounds like it’s advocating an insular approach, but it will save your blood pressure. I don’t need the Times to man-splain romance novels to me, thank you. That snotty, patronizing, condescending approach just reassures people who would never read a romance novel that they are indeed superior to the silly women who do read them.
I’m still trying to understand why did they put such an old white man whose expertise is in literary fiction to review a genre he knows so little about and does not enjoy. It was as if the newspaper was saying do you really want us to review those trashy books? We’ll do it but now you are going to find out what we really think.
That’s exactly what was going through my head. Like when you ask someone to do a chore they really don’t want to do, so they think if they do it badly enough you’ll wish you’d never asked them in the first place and won’t ask again!