Ah,
February. It seems like every time this month rolls around, there are think-pieces written about the romance genre. Some of them are
thoughtful, such as
this piece highlighting Helen Hoang, author of
The Kiss Quotient.
Others…not
so much. (And why must they always reference Fabio? Fabio
was 1987, for crying out loud! We don’t all run around and refer to The Facts of Life or Growing Pains when we talk about sitcoms. But, I digress…)
I
was recently asked by a reporter what I thought the “misconceptions” of the
romance genre were. He was highlighting a romance author panel that I’ll be
speaking at on February 13th at the Salisbury Public Library. If you’re
in the area, you can find the event here: Romance Author Panel
Honestly,
when he asked me, I didn't know how to respond. Not because I couldn’t think
of any misconceptions, but because there were so many things I wanted to say
and I knew he was not prepared. Really, he was looking for a convenient soundbite.
You
see, the "misconception" of romance is a topic I could probably talk about
for hours. In fact, I have given whole presentations on the subject. I'm not
the only one. There are countless books and articles discussing this. (One that
I would highly recommend is "Dangerous Books for Girls" by Maya
Rodale.)
First,
it's important to consider how the romance genre has been referred to
throughout history. Bodice rippers. Trashy novels. Fluff. Guilty pleasure.
Formulaic (on a good day, if the person is trying to sound academic and not
just biased.) Trite, vapid, mommy porn...
the
list goes on, right?
Why
have these stories historically been discounted as "not real
literature?" I think it's predominantly because this genre is
female-based. Meaning, it puts the female experience at the center of the
story.
Historically,
this genre was women writing stories for women...about women. And those women
tended to be aspirational. Protagonists are strong, pursuing their life goals
and dreams, and not settling - be it in their careers, relationships, or sexual
pleasure and satisfaction.
That
last one tends to be a particular sticking point for much of society. Throughout the ages, women who own their own sexuality and pleasure have been
painted as harlots and sluts. In the past, our roles were relegated to pristine
virgin, wife, mother OR the cautionary tale of a spinster, fallen woman,
forbidden fruit.
The
idea that a woman can have her own agency, or that she could inhabit a space in
between these two polarities - for example, a woman who is both a mother and also a
sexual being who pursues her own pleasure - is not a narrative our society
tends to be comfortable with.
And
yet, that is where most women reside. Which is why we see romance as one of -
if not THE – best-selling genres in publishing. Obviously, there are people who
are reading these books!
As
our society has evolved, so too have our stories. This is due in large part to
the advent of self-publishing. Back before Amazon reinvented the industry with
the Kindle, the only way to get stories to readers was through traditional
publishing. There were a few main publishing houses; Hachette, Harper Collins,
MacMillan, Penguin Random House, and Simon & Schuster, to name a few.
 |
| Another romance author event for anyone local. |
In
essence, there were a limited amount of people who were the gatekeepers to our
society's narratives. And while most of the editors were women, the people who
had the money and made the decisions were predominantly men. So, if your story
didn't fit their world-view, if it was considered morally corrupt or not
proper enough, or if they couldn't see themselves in the characters (thereby
making it unmarketable) then they weren't going to publish it.
You
can see some of those biases represented in older romance novels. That's WHY
the tropes of damsels-in-distress, strong stoic heroes, and "bodice
rippers" really came about. Only the romances that stuck within
well-understood gender norms were making it through the gauntlet.
Now
with the advent of self-publishing, that has started to change. Don't get me
wrong. Marginalized voices, POC and LGBTQ+ authors and characters are still
massively under-represented. If you question that, simply look at everything
that has been happening in RWA Nationals this last month and a half.
However,
things are beginning to open up and Romancelandia has been in an ongoing
conversation about the concept of who deserves love. In a word: everybody.
This
can be seen in the sheer number of sub-genres that romance has to offer. Yes,
there are the tried and true categories of contemporary romance and historical
romance. There is also a spectrum in the genre from "Clean" (meaning
no sex) Christian and Amish romances to "Sweet" (meaning limited or
closed-door sex) to BDSM erotica (the door is WAY open. Heck, sometimes there
isn't a door!) There are also combinations of genres, such as paranormal
romance, romantic suspense, even science fiction romance.
This
diversification within the genre is the trend romance should be taking because
there are an infinite number of ways people meet, connect, and fall in love.
Our world is full of romance stories. They walk hand-in-hand down the street.
They sit in restaurants over glasses of wine. They struggle to figure out who's
going to pick up the kids from school.
Every
day, people with different histories, baggage and expectations find a way to be
better together. I think those are stories worth telling.
I’d
love to hear what you think! Do you believe there are “misconceptions” about the
romance genre? Have you experienced them first-hand? If so, what are they?
Also, don't forget our Romance Gems monthly contest. You can find the details on our Monthly Giveaway Page.
