Part One of the Smeddley Book Essicles*

[smeddley]

Not all Bodice-Rippers are Bad
or : Why I read Romance Novels, a Smart Girl's Guide to a Cliché Genre

I get a lot of flack for liking romance novels. And I do understand that they’re not everyone’s cup of tea. I do have a problem, however, with a few of the reasons usually cited for the dislike. People tend to dislike romance novels for one of three reasons: they simply do not like romance storylines, they think they’re trite/cliché/stupid/cheesy/unrealistic, or they think that anything remotely romantic dehumanizes women and romance novels are going to toss up back to the middle ages, equality-wise. I’m only going to rebut one of these, the second one.

The first is a matter of personal taste and is a completely valid opinion. People have different taste, and if that sort of storyline doesn’t interest you, you’re not going to enjoy it. Period. End of story. And people who like romance novels should learn not to argue this point and accept that some people just will never enjoy their favorite books. Just like some people aren’t dog people or cat people, some people aren’t romance fans. And that’s fine! Variety is good! As long as they aren’t jerks about it and say nasty things to you for your taste (more on this later), live and let live. You probably don’t like some of their favorite books, too.

The third point is unarguable, but for another reason. I’m not going to say the people that feel this are bat shit insane, but… well, there it is. These tend to be the type of militant feminists that, frankly, I’m not sure anything would make happy short of a world completely devoid of men. Are there romance novels that demean women? Of course, just like there are movies and songs and every other genre of book out there that does the same thing. But does reading such a book set back feminism fifty years? Of course not. Don’t be silly. Just like playing Lego Star Wars as Darth Maul doesn’t turn me into an evil, black-hearted villain intent on destroying everything (made of Legos) in sight, reading a novel where the main character is a simpering, kow-towing wimp won’t make me less independent. In fact, I might even enjoy the sense of superiority I get when reading it, so I can say, “You silly bitch!” And, to be honest, if you’re reading a historical romance novel it’s a fact: that’s the way it was back then. Most romance novels are completely unrealistic in the amount of power they do give women! But I said I wasn’t going to argue it, and I should stop now. Because no ground can be made up there, you either agree or you don’t. Sure, there are some books that make me uncomfortable with the ‘relationship’ (there are some non-consensual ones that are a bit… weird) and I will say I don’t like them, but censorship (as in the wiping out of an entire genre) is not the answer.

The second point… now that’s where some reasonable arguments can be made. We’ll start with them being ‘trite and cliché.’ I admit, here’s the basic plot of 99.9% of romance novels:

* Hero and Heroine meet; there’s an instant attraction (and/or the classic love/hate relationship)
* Obstacles arise (other people, mysterious circumstances, misunderstandings)
* High jinks ensue
* Everything is ironed out, they live happily ever after

That’s it. That’s a romance novel in a nutshell. Sure, the circumstances and settings and characters vary, but there’s your storyline. But see, that’s the point. The circumstances and the settings and the characters. There are plots within the overall plot (Okay, we know she’s going to end up with the pirate captain, but what about this mysterious treasure? How do they figure that out, and what about the skeevy first mate and how does he tie into all this?) that are the real point of the story. And, of course, the characters. Nothing makes or breaks a romance novel like the characters. The way they interact with one another can be a joy to read… or it can set your teeth on edge. They can be fun and different and brilliant… or boring and two-dimensional. Just like… oh, every other genre out there. You have good books and bad books of every genre.

But, you say, not all genres are so predictable! Really? Really?

With the exception of Science Fiction and Fantasy (more on that later) – yes, all genres are predictable. That’s… what makes them a genre. Here’s a mystery novel for you:

* A crime is committed
* Either a police person or a gifted amateur sleuth sets about to solve the case
* There are misdirecting clues, sometimes the investigator’s life is in peril
* The case is solved.

So, why would you ever read a mystery again? You know how it ends. They solve the case! Oh, you say, but the cases are all different! Well, I argue, so are the romance novels. Sure, she’ll end up with him in the end – but how and why? I mean, people read non-fiction history books all the time (here’s a hint: Lincoln gets shot and the Titanic sinks!) and they know the ultimate ending, but they want details and interesting tidbits. It’s all in the details.

So don’t tell me you won’t read it because you know how it ends, because that’s not the point of the story. You want another example? I’ve been to both Seattle, Washington and Washington DC (point A, the beginning, and point B, the ending). Does that mean that, if I set off in my car from Seattle I might as well zone out as I drive cross-country? I mean, I know my destination – point B – well enough, what’s the point of paying attention to the journey? Even if I’ve driven it before, there might be new sites, or I might take a different route or a detour, or any number of things. It’s asinine to assume there’s nothing worthwhile between points A and B.

I think I’ve beaten that point to death. Moving on to the fact that they’re ‘stupid and cheesy.’

Here I will contend that you’re reading the wrong romance novels! Are there stupid, cheesy, horridly written romance novels? Yes. There are also stupid, cheesy, horridly written mysteries, science fiction/fantasy novels, and westerns. And plenty of stupid, cheesy, really horridly written chick-lit. Perhaps romance does have a bit more than its fair share, volume-wise, but because of the sheer number of romance novels written I’d hazard a guess that the percentages aren’t that far off. If you argue that the romance is the cheese factor, I contend that you belong to group one, and simply do not like romance in your fiction at all. And no amount of reading good romance will change that. But admit that it’s just not your cup of tea, please don’t say that you don’t like them because they are stupid and the people that read them are morons. ‘Stupid’ is the person who, after shocking themselves a dozen times on a frayed electrical cord, decides to grab it one more time because the result might be different this time. A person who doesn’t share your taste is not a moron, just different. More on that in ‘I'm okay, you read dumb books’, though.

Finally, the argument that romance novels are unrealistic. Here I completely agree. They are utterly unrealistic. They are the height of unrealistic. No one expects them to be realistic. That’s why it’s fiction. Do you honestly believe that all the armchair detective novels are realistic? Perhaps the mysteries involving the police, okay, but not the ‘average citizen’ who fights crime more efficiently and smartly than an entire police force. And science fiction and fantasy are inherently unrealistic (there’s a common belief that science fiction, being ‘based’ on science is more realistic than fantasy, but I don’t buy into that – uh-oh, it’s another segment… let’s see… ‘The Magic of Science: Technobabble and Spells as a way to explain the unexplainable in Science Fiction and Fantasy’, coming soon to a blog near you!). If I wanted realism I’d watch the news. Or read non-fiction. Sure, there’s a scale of realism in fiction, sliding from a lot of the nearly normal ‘general fiction’ to the height of absurdity (I think this title has to go to sci-fi/fantasy, and they should be proud of it!). Some people are only happy at the bottom of the scale, others disdain normality and heard straight for the upper bounds. But romance falls somewhere in the middle – sure, there are bits that aren’t historically accurate (in the historical romances) and there are some ‘yeah, right’ moments in all of them, but outside of the ‘paranormal romances’ they contain human beings acting rather humanly in a society we know. That’s pretty normal. Comparatively, that’s pretty realistic. To use this as an argument against romance as a genre isn’t particularly effective, unless you’re one of those people that hugs the bottom of the scale for dear life. In which case you also must dismiss all fantasy, almost all sci-fi, and a good percentage of mysteries, westerns, and chick-lit, plus a fair amount of the general fiction. So just say that you can’t abide unrealistic storylines, and leave the genre out of it.

Can romance novels be trite and cliché? Yes. Are there romance novels that are stupid and cheesy? Sure. Are romance novels unrealistic? Sometimes. But are they all that way? No. So, you ask, what are they?

They are fun. They are humorous. They can have characters that make you laugh and tug at your heartstrings. They can make you root for a character… or against a character. They can make you twist your brain to try to solve the mystery or misunderstanding before the author gives you the answer, or they can simply transport you to another world for a few hours. They are what you get out of them. Even if it’s just escape, and that alone is enough. We all need that from time to time, and of all the ways to do it, what’s wrong with indulging in a little brain candy with a happy ending? When did it become taboo to enjoy something nice? Why, in a world filled with enough misery and crap to drown you, is a whole genre designed to do nothing but make you feel good disdained? When did people decide that everything we read has to be deep, and dark, and moody? When did ‘intellectual’ become nearly synonymous with ‘morose’? What the hell is wrong with enjoying something at face value and simply having a good time?

I read romance novels.

I like romance novels.

I believe, deep in my cynical little heart, in happily ever after.

And I’m proud of that.


*Essicles: a combination of 'articles' and 'essays', neither seemed right to call these since they are not published, so Pen made me a new word! Also, post-by-email seems to be not working, so if two other copies of this post appear I'm sorry!

Comments

[alankria.livejournal.com]

To briefly look at point 3, it would certainly help if far fewer romance novel covers (at least the ones I've seen) showed women swooning into men's arms. Some female characters who require a man for strength is okay, because some women are like that. But when the press of numbers (and admittedly I'm going on covers only, because I am a strong point 1 person) seems to indicate that this genre includes a very large number of stories about weak women falling into strong men's arms, that's when feminists start to find it uncomfortable. I don't deplore the whole genre, as I've no doubt there are plenty of books out there about two interesting, strong people who find happiness together (which is yay!). But I do have issues with the weak woman + strong man combo, when it appears en masse.

That aside, I agree with this a lot. Some people get awfully enraged by the idea of other people liking things they consider sub-par. It's art, morons. It's completely subjective. And that's okay, in fact it's the point.

[smeddley.livejournal.com]

Ah, this would be another whole essicle, on judging books by their covers. Because romance novel covers are pretty bad. I remember one in particular, it was the typical 'on a pirate ship, woman held in a hot guy's arms' cover art, and the title was something about pirates. The thing is, it wasn't the guy that was the pirate, it was the woman. She was the (unrealistically) strong and independent character, who had her 'soft side' revealed by the guy. Who I think was a merchant or military captain, I forget. Anyway, even the romance novels with storng female characters tend to have those covers. tradition, I suppose?

But I also think there's nothing wrong with leaning on someone now and then, letting someone stronger (man or woman) prop you up. Rarely to the men in these books 'fix' the woman's life, it's usually the opposite. They cause trouble, but love makes it worth it yada yada yada. That touches on the extreme part of 'feminism' I'm uncomfortable with. I refuse to give up being a girl. I like being girly. I like big, strong, strapping men. *sigh* That's a very complicated subject for me. Because while I believe that professionally I should be equal to a guy (physical attributes - like strength - and job description permitting) I also love the differences between men and woman. I like manly men. I like girly things.

I'm not articulating myself well. To really talk about this, I'd need to sit down and think about that aspect. And probably piss a few people off. :D But rest assured, between the lurid covers, most of those female characters are surprisingly strong given the historical constraints (I mostly talk about historical romances, because that's what I read the most of).

[alankria.livejournal.com]

I admit that I have some baggage with the whole "weak woman propped up by man" concept -- I was in a relationship for two years with a guy who, I don't know how, made me feel really dependent on him, made me feel really weak and that I needed him to prop me up. And I found it incredibly, incredibly damaging to myself. Breaking up with him and not leaning on someone else is the best thing I did for myself. So, yeah. I have issues with that trope, especially when it's presented as Awesome And True Love-ly. I was in "true love". I'm much happier without it.

But that said, of course it depends on the partners in question. Tim and I weren't a good match; I'm sure plenty of other couples, real and fictional, manage the propping up with breaking down the propped-up person in the process. If I read a story where the man helps the woman through a difficult time, but it's not harming her in any way, I'm not bothered. (Nora Roberts/JD Robb does this well, IMO. It helps that the women also help the men, particularly in the Eve/Roarke relationship.) It's where something damaging is presented as good that I find it problematic.

I wonder if that ties this issue a little into quality. Hmmm.

(And I also hate where the woman is a brainless simpering creature who needs a man to survive. But that's poor characterisation, IMO, which definitely makes it a quality issue.)

[elaran.livejournal.com]

mmm Nora Roberts. ^___^ Have read a large number of her stuff. Haven't read her JD Robb ones though.

[alankria.livejournal.com]

I like the JD Robb ones because they have a lot of plot. They're also good because, after >20 books, she's had time to really develop her characters. I've only read a few written under her own name, and those ones were also pretty plot-heavy. Mum only passes those ones onto me, because she knows I have no interest in the ones that are primarily about the romance.

[http://users.livejournal.com/anam_cara_/]

I love the JD Robb ones because the 'cast' of characters around the main characters are just as interesting, with individual long story arcs between books, and I grow to love and be as interested in them, as I am in Eve/Roarke.

[smeddley.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I do think it has to do with the dynamic of a relationship, because you can get help from someone without being weak or dependent. I've read very few good romances where the woman is controlled, or weak, or otherwise harmed (except in the exasperated 'oh, men!' way). So, yeah, I think this all goes straight back to quality, and good characters!

[(Anonymous)]

i enjoyed reading this immensely. well done!

can you recommend me some "good" romance novels, the kind with heart and soul and movement?

- toast_is_lovely here.

[smeddley.livejournal.com]

I'd say early Julie Garwood, Julia Quinn, Some Johanna Lindsey, and Catherine Coulter are good bets. And Amanda Quick outside of the 'second sight' series.

[auraesque.livejournal.com]

Once I picked up a chick lit book thinking it would be clever and about an enterprising young woman's adventures solving mysteries. I didn't notice that it was published by harlequin.

Oh. My. God. There was so much smut. I feel my Stacey and Clinton icon is appropriate here.

[auraesque.livejournal.com]

And this is the book here: http://tinyurl.com/5lgoht

Turns out it was published by Avon, not Harlequin.

[smeddley.livejournal.com]

I felt that way the first time I read one by Jennifer Cruise. I was bopping along, light fluffy chick-lit and a bit of humor, then *BAM* smutsmutsmutsmutsmutsmut... and it never stopped!

[revoked-soul.livejournal.com]

I'm with you. I'll read romance novels, although I can't say I've stumbled upon a good one in a long, long time (probably because I don't read too many...).

In fact, I'll read just about anything if the writing is good. I'm more about characters than plot, anyway.

Enjoying things at face value and having a good time...we could all use more of that! I wish I could do it more. I've developed an unfortunate habit, though, of picking books apart when I read them. Even when I enjoyed a book, I find myself sitting there going "But there was this, and this, and that part could have been done better..."

I blame writing for my intense criticism. Bah.

[smeddley.livejournal.com]

I agree. I don't care what 'genre' something is as long as the writing is good!

I've actually very picky about the books I read, and fairly critical, but I can still enjoy a mediocre book. And sometimes the bad ones are just as entertaining, though not in the way the author intended...

[gelsey.livejournal.com]

I <3 romance novels too.

And sometimes the entire point of reading them is that they are sometimes cheesy and unrealistic. Y'know?

So I'll join you in waving the romance-lovers flag :DDD

[smeddley.livejournal.com]

I agree! I need more cheese and unrealism in my life. :D Yay, romance! (I totally saw that two of the authors I read have new ones out, I need to reserve them at the library....)

[cdpeck.livejournal.com]

Shouldn't you be baking?

Seriously though, I feel the same way when it comes to literary fiction vs. genre fiction. I hate it when people look down on my interests as if I'm less intelligent than they are. Fuck that. Maybe I just BORE EASILY. And what's wrong with that?

I'm not a big fan of romance novels, but I am a fan of a romance story in genre works. I would have to really, really like the characters to enjoy a romance novel, and usually I don't, unfortunately. I need some genre-type storyline to get me interested in the characters first. A good example would be Buffy and Angel. If that were a straight romance story I could've cared less. But within a genre piece, it works. In fact, I can't imagine Buffy being nearly as popular without that romance. On the other hand, I tried reading some of Laurell K. Hamilton's stuff and it leans too much toward romance for my taste. The genre plot is too light for me, so I can't find myself giving a damn about the characters, especially when they're just having sex with each other.

[foxfirefey]

Icon love!

[aeamek.livejournal.com]

lol wut?

[cdpeck.livejournal.com]

Farts.

[aeamek.livejournal.com]

better

[smeddley.livejournal.com]

New stove/oven on the 17th! Cookies for everyone!

I so agree. I hate literary snobs!

LKH is just a bad example of just about everything, as far as I've heard (I've never read hers, but people whose opinion I trust have). My favorites are actually the books that combine romance with mystery of sci-fi. I like to have some strong plot to support the romantic tension.

[clare-dragonfly.livejournal.com]

And plenty of stupid, cheesy, really horridly written chick-lit.

What, that's not the definition of chick-lit?

[smeddley.livejournal.com]

Ha! Sometimes, yes, I think so. I have to be honest, I've found very little straight chick-lit I've liked.

[clare-dragonfly.livejournal.com]

Also: Are there romance novels that don't employ purple prose? I'm not asking to dismiss them, but I kinda thought that was one of the defining features.

[smeddley.livejournal.com]

Yes, there are romance novels that - if you only read a non-romantic snippet - you would not necessarily peg as 'romance'. I think the only truly defining feature of a romance novel is the happily ever after and the use of euphemisms during the sex scenes.

[elaran.livejournal.com]

Hah. I second everything you've written! *sekritly loves the romance novels* Ok, more like not so sekritly? I'm too much of a cynic to believe in happily ever after but I sure as hell like reading about it. Also sometimes you just need some good smut.

[smeddley.livejournal.com]

No secrets! Be proud! :D

I've read some really smutty ones lately. NOT something to delve into on your lunch break at work, that's for sure...

[dynastic-queen.livejournal.com]

I third it. Everything you've written. What the heck's wrong with some good slap-and-tickle? Spare me.

[smeddley.livejournal.com]

'Slap-and-tickle' makes me giggle. And yes, I think we need fewer literary snobs and more people that just like a good time. :)

[somerled.livejournal.com]

Hey! There's this community we moderate where this might be a useful post…

[smeddley.livejournal.com]

You think? I guess it could apply to writing, as well as reading. Okay, I'll even try to tie it in to the Picture Prompt... :O

[cazrolime.livejournal.com]

Just like playing Lego Star Wars as Darth Maul doesn’t turn me into an evil, black-hearted villain intent on destroying everything (made of Legos) in sight

...*giggles* You're awesome.

So, why would you ever read a mystery again? You know how it ends. They solve the case! Oh, you say, but the cases are all different! Well, I argue, so are the romance novels. Sure, she’ll end up with him in the end – but how and why?

And you say you're not good at these things as written pieces? xD This is both brilliantly argued and fun to read.

Hear hear on enjoying happy endings. I'm a big fan of piling problem after problem on my characters, but one feature of writing I hate more than any other is an ending that gives no glimmer of hope. Take "Lord of the Rings"-- there are a crazybad number of troubles for pretty much everyone involved, and getting rid of Sauron doesn't make everything shiny and fluffy, but we do get the hope that Frodo will heal and the knowledge that lasting good came of the Quest, whatever its cost.

Compare and contrast that with a vampire book I read called "Thirsty", in which the main character starts turning into a vampire, with a life expectancy of maybe zero, and the author goes out of his way to show the reader that there's no way to escape his fate and that the afterlife for vampires is horrific torture. I mean, why would you do that? Why write a story in which the characters are all infinitely worse off at the end than at the beginning? I'd rather read the entire Eragon series than a book without any happy in its ending.

[smeddley.livejournal.com]

I've become a true Lego Star Wars addict, I wouldn't come near me in a costume made of Legos any time soon... Unless you're willing to be bludgeoned and produce studs...

Thank you! I try, sometimes I worry I get a little less than objective and a little... emotional.

Yeah, I don't mind ambiguous endings, but I don't like crappy ones. I don't understand why people subject themselves to such depressing crap.

I've not read Eragon yet, though we do have the first two books...