meganbmoore | On society, fiction, and the romance novel.

So, last night,

lyssieand I ~~had a threesome~~ watched Farscape. ~~Close enough.~~

Anyway, if you read two of our journals, you know what the conversation probably eventually turned to during post-viewing chat. If you read all three, you know there was no escaping it. Namely, fiction and society and women. Not that the post's title isn't a dead giveaway. Now you know if you want to run.

Anyway, we were talking about how we all often have trouble getting into a fandom’s favorite male character. I mentioned that often, part of my problem is that the favorite’s personality and angsty backstory and goals and motives are rather a dime a dozen in romance novels. And it’s not that I dislike them, it’s just that I’ve seen them so often that I’m not as impressed as others tend to be. (Let’s face it, everyone has that reaction to some form of character, be it gender or genre or relationship related. Different tastes and all that.) Eventually, this turned to one of the defenses for slash being that it’s feminist because it’s predominantly romantic and/or sexual fiction being written by and for women. I’m not interested at the moment in getting into whether you or I agree on that stance. However, when I see that brought up, my immediate thought is “but what about romance novels?”

Because, guys? Romance novels? Are romantic and often sexual stories written by and for women, often with the added aspect of featuring a woman struggling against sexism in a society. More obviously so in historicals, but the element is also there in many contemporaries.

Please note here that I’m not about to say romance novels are feminist. Like many things, they can be feminist depending on the approach, but nothing about them is inherently feminist. Being about women doesn’t make something feminist, and being about men doesn’t make something anti-feminist. Ditto for being written by or for men or women. It’s all about what’s done with it. (Because, seriously. Otherwise? Devil Wears Prada is a feminist manifesto.)

Moving on, let’s look at how romance novels are regarded. They make up over 50% for the prose fiction published and consumed each year. Women automatically buy them every month. The two used bookstores in town? About 75% of their business comes from romance novels. They’re able to run rental clubs because women will buy a dozen new romance novels, read them, take them in for store credit, and get a dozen more romance novels for cheap.

They’re also the only genre of fiction where I know people who refuse to read anything else. I once asked someone why, and she said because with anything else, she never knew if it’d have any women. The woman I asked would probably never even think of it from anything resembling a feminist perspective. She just wants to be assured that there will be women featured positively in her fiction, and that she didn’t have to worry about the woman (or man) suddenly dying at the end. I don’t know if that’s the case with all romance novel readers (It probably contributed a lot to my reading them so much as a teen, though I can’t remember my reasoning there.) but it’s something to think about.

But look at how they’re commonly viewed. There are, arguably, the least respected prose fiction genre out there. You aren’t supposed to say they’re good. They can be entertaining, they can be escapism, you can read them for “those bits,” but you shouldn’t say that they’re good, and you should probably point out those other things you read that are quality, too, just to cover yourself.

Look at The Tale of Genji, which is commonly regarded as the first modern novel*. It was also written by a woman. And then books became popular, and suddenly men wrote them, not women. Rather like how Izumo no Okuni created kabuki and all the performers were also female. And then it got popular, and only men were allowed to be involved.

Anyway, flash forward, and you have men writing epics with damsels and sex. And then Kathleen E. Woodiwiss writes this huge thing called The Flame and the Flower and it’s the same thing, only it’s written for women, and with even more sex. And you know, to our modern sensibilities it’s a “rape means true love” story with a creepifying power imbalance and horrendously purple prose, but then? I first read it as a teen and reread it a few years ago. And guys? That book is kinda really bad. But even now, I look at the story and when it came out and what was around then, and I go “Yes, I get it. Ginormous problems and overwhelmingly alpha hero aside, I totally get it.”** And it came out and women said “This! We want more of this!” And they got more, but it also became the shameful secret that keeps the publishing industry afloat. (Yes, there were old school Harlequins then, but have you read those? Can we say pure and pristine despite overwhelmingly alpha guys”? I think we can.) And the more genres romance novels started to have, the less respected they came. And yeah, many are badly written. Many things in ALL types of fiction are badly written. But many are good, too.

But really, why? Why is it that the predominant fiction that’s by and for women is also the least respected? Why is one of the trendiest things out there to negatively compare things to fiction for women? (Not that I’m innocent of it.) Why do things become more respected when women create them and they’re taken over by men, but lose respect when women take them-even part of them-for their own?

*P.S. Please rec a good translation. I have Edward G. Seidensticker’s abdridged version, but may now be reading it as a group thing.

**And in a way, I somewhat feel this way about Twilight. Because I couldn’t read it am I’m kinda horrified that it’s the book for teenaged girls these days, but you know away? Strip away the writing and the actual plot and all, and at it’s core, you have a girl who wants something, is told by a man who supposedly knows better that she can’t have it, and even that it’s for her own good. And she goes after it anyway. And she gets it. And I think a response to that is a lot of the popularity.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

crumpeteer.livejournal.com

I think part of the hero liking is that there are only so many hero archetypes that get used much. Everyone's got a favorite. I tend to like swashbuckler types with a little jerk to them. I tend to be hard on female characters though. Maybe I just don't connect with them as much, as ones on tv tend to not be a type of woman I understand very well.

From:

meganbmoore.livejournal.com

Honestly? To use character types that almost everyone will recognize, I can read 30 books about Aragorn for every 1 book I can about Eowyn. Now, I like Aragorn, but after 30 or 60 or 90 times, I'm not going to be impressed by him yet again. So, while I may like him, if my choice is book #60 about Aragorn or book #2 about Eowyn, sign me up for Eowyn, even if Aragorn is the one everyone is clamoring about yet again.

I'm a damsel. I'm in distress. I can handle it.

On society, fiction, and the romance novel.

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags