Women by Women
May 14, 2008
The more I read about awesome organizations like WisCon and the Carl Brandon Society, or blogs like FeministSF, and awards like the Tiptree, I wonder why the romance genre, this genre that is purported to be “for women, by women,” shies away from in-depth discussion and deconstruction of the romance novel and the society that influences it. Here we have two forums for discussion between readers and authors (RT and RWA), and instead of utilizing it to the fullest, the emphasis seems to be on how to write sex scenes (rather than how to use sex as a piece characterization), creating “yummy” heroes (instead of creating unique male leads that don’t feel like a repeat of one another from book to book), and other topics that serve to increase the formulaic texture of the romance novel.
A part of me believes that feminist critique and organizations within the sf/f genre exist because women are marginalized within that genre; the romance genre is dominated by women, there is a subconscious attitude that there is nothing to fight (that opens a whole ‘nother can of worms) and that the genre is feminist because it supposedly frees sexual shackles and gives women a safe place to explore their fantasies.
Okay, a valid assertion. However, it never ceases to amaze me that many within the genre want respect, yet the moment a conversation veers towards critical discussion, the tone heats (I call it the “hater” syndrome wherein opinions are invalidated and misconstrued as someone tearing the other down; having a personal opinion is not applicable) and ye olde arguement: “It’s just a romance novel/entertainment/fantasy, it isn’t literature.”
The latter part always shocks me. Isn’t a bound work of writing literature? And on that note, weren’t a significant portion of works we consider to be “classic literature” originally popular/pulp/penny-dreadful/written for money? Not to mention that viewing the romance genre and “classic literature” as sitting on opposite ends of the literary spectrum is an insult to one’s intelligence–and isn’t very feminist at all. It seems sort of on par with the RT convention turning into bachelorette party disguised as a romance genre meet-and-greet to lessen the stigmas placed on both female sexuality and the image of the average romance reader being a middle-aged, sexually-deprived housewife.
When people do engage in critique of the romance genre, they are accused of “ripping the romance industry a new one” [1]–also an insult to women. It implies that women are sensitive creatures who need a “positive,” “nurturing,” and “sweet” atmosphere to produce their wonderful works. This leads me to assume that many view critiquing the genre, or gasp, reviewing a book with no holds barred as somehow “masculine,” therefore unwelcome within the genre. Really doesn’t leave room for the multifaceted being that is woman (and in fact, just human), and really buys into the myth that being “opinionated” equals being like a “man.”
Because of this, I feel “women’s issues” are handled with kid gloves by the romance industry. We’ll get the occasional debate on forced seduction/rape in romance, but the discussion hardly ever evolves into the issues of rape and female sexuality, instead turning into a slugfest over defending individual “fantasies.” Don’t get me started on the topic of fetishism within the romance genre. (another “fantasy”). Certainly tastes are subjective, but discussion should not be about likes and dislikes, nor “right” vs “wrong.”One wouldn’t read a “classic” without analysis of the author, the background and the history behind the novel. Why isn’t a romance novel allotted that same respect?
Perhaps the romance genre needs to be seasoned, the way sf/f and mystery was–perhaps within twenty or so years, we’ll be ready to view the genre objectively and honestly.
But that feels like a cop-out, doesn’t it?
Entry Filed under: Romance Industry. Tags: academia, awards, deconstruction, Feminism, SF/F.
5 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
1.
jmc | May 14, 2008 at 5:15 am
I despise the “it’s just a romance novel/entertainment/fantasy, it isn’t literature” argument that is thrown in whenever a serious critique of the genre is brought up. I think it is an artificial distinction based on the high/low dichotomy of the arts in our culture — only fiction that is deemed to be high art is entitled to be labeled as literature, hence no genre fiction can be called so.
While I may read romance novels to be entertained, I’m aware that there are underlying themes and messages in the content, many of which make me very uncomfortable when I focus on them, rather than the surface details. Often the subtext of romance novels is much more conservative than I am, and more conservative than I would expect from a genre that purports to give women a safe place to explore their fantasies.
The possiblity of the romance community labeling criticism as being explicitly masculine is something I hadn’t thought of before. Normally, I think of our inability to rationally discuss the genre as a function of the “nice” admonition (if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all)… but I suppose it comes down to the same thing in the end: socialized gender expectations.
I wish I were better educated in terms of deconstructing literature. For the most part, I am confined to pointing out what I like and what I don’t, which leaves something to be desired.
2.
Laura Vivanco | May 15, 2008 at 2:41 am
This leads me to assume that many view critiquing the genre, or gasp, reviewing a book with no holds barred as somehow “masculine”
Good thing I’m not too bothered about other people’s perception of my gender identity, then! I was curious about this, so I stuck the first few paragraphs (minus quotations) of a recent blog post of mine into the Gender Genie. It came out as very heavily male (around 300 points for female, 600 for male). I did label it as a “blog post” and maybe blog posts are generally less analytical, but the analysis is based on things like how many times you use the word “the,” so it makes me wonder if, culturally, analysis is, in general, perceived as “masculine.” That would tie in with the way that men have traditionally been considered more rational, more logical, whereas women were (and, often still are) often thought of as hysterical, hormone-controlled, emotional beings who prefer to talk about feelings.
there is a subconscious attitude that [...] the genre is feminist because it supposedly frees sexual shackles and gives women a safe place to explore their fantasies.
I think you’re right that this can used as a way of shutting down discussion. It could, though, be used to open up huge discussion, because it’s not the case that there’s just one kind of “feminism.” Secondly, even if some romances are feminist, calling the entire genre “feminist” is such a sweeping generalisation that I can’t accept that it’s true of all romances. I know I’ve read some romances in which the heroine explicitly states that she is not a “women’s libber” and is horrified that anyone might accidentally mistake her for a feminist. It’s also not difficult to think of plenty of romances which reinforce the sexual double standard and traditional gender roles. Are some women’s sexual fantasies best fulfilled by scenarios involving the sexual double standard and traditional gender roles? No doubt. Does this make things complicated? Of course. And given that the concept of “internalised oppression” exists, I think the presence of apparently unfeminist “fantasies” in a supposedly “feminist” genre suggests there’s a need for more discussion about the issues. Some of the ways in which internalised oppression might affect women’s thinking about their sexuality are described here. I can think of ways in which some romance novels perpetuate some of these forms of internalised oppression. Of course, we might also want to have a discussion about how many of the items listed there are really oppression, and whether some could be a matter of individual preference, but that just means there’s a need for more discussion and thinking, not less.
I think some authors and readers are open to, and interested in having, analytical discussions about the genre. Some authors, for example, participated in, or commented favourably on reports about, the romance panels at the recent Popular Culture Association conference. I wonder if it’s taken the romance genre longer to get to this point than it’s taken the science fiction/speculative fiction genre precisely because science fiction and speculative fiction are built round the concept of exploring new ideas and putting humans into new environments, trying out new forms of social organisation etc. Romance is more about feelings. Romantic love isn’t very rational, and just as the characters often fall in love at first sight and say that their beloved “just feels right,” so there’s perhaps a tendency to want to say that what’s expressed in the novels “just feels right.” Maybe some people fear that analysing romances will remove the mystery and destroy whatever it is that creates those gut reactions?
3.
monicajackson | May 15, 2008 at 5:59 am
This is such a great post, I simply felt called to acknowledge it.
I don’t feel a part of/plugged into the romance community enough to bother to engage in debate with them on these issues of critique or non-critique, but all the points you raised are valid.
For a genre that is lauded as a feminist statement of forthright women’s fantasies, they sure do spend a lot of time trying to be girly.
4.
blackromancereader | May 15, 2008 at 11:17 pm
JMC: I wish I were better educated in terms of deconstructing literature. For the most part, I am confined to pointing out what I like and what I don’t, which leaves something to be desired.
I don’t think deconstructing literature requires “education,” but is
knowing what you do and don’t like, and then taking the next step by figuring out why you like and dislike what you do, and the possible reasons for it. I didn’t begin to examine romance novels critically until two years ago, when I joined AAR’s message boards and discovered a different side to reading.
Laura: It came out as very heavily male (around 300 points for female, 600 for male). I did label it as a “blog post” and maybe blog posts are generally less analytical, but the analysis is based on things like how many times you use the word “the,” so it makes me wonder if, culturally, analysis is, in general, perceived as “masculine.” That would tie in with the way that men have traditionally been considered more rational, more logical, whereas women were (and, often still are) often thought of as hysterical, hormone-controlled, emotional beings who prefer to talk about feelings.
I stuck this post in the genie and got masculine as well! I think there is a validity to “feminine” and “masculine” manner of speech. My anthropology instructor recently lectured on linguistics and how women speak less assertively than men–where men speak in statements, women tend to add a questioning or uncertain note to the end of their sentences, as well as “you know?” or “right?” to make certain they are being listened to.
it’s not the case that there’s just one kind of “feminism.” Secondly, even if some romances are feminist, calling the entire genre “feminist” is such a sweeping generalisation that I can’t accept that it’s true of all romances.
There’s a general fear amongst women of the word “feminism” while at the same time, we can cling to it in the face of male contempt. A very interesting dichotomy, imo. But the sweeping generalizations are why I feel there needs to be a series of in-depth discussion on the romance genre, in a safe arena for romance readers and writers.
Romance is more about feelings. Romantic love isn’t very rational, and just as the characters often fall in love at first sight and say that their beloved “just feels right,” so there’s perhaps a tendency to want to say that what’s expressed in the novels “just feels right.” Maybe some people fear that analysing romances will remove the mystery and destroy whatever it is that creates those gut reactions?
That is true, however, I don’t think discussion lessens the mystery. Sometimes I can’t explain what it was that made me love a book, even as I’m critiquing it.
Monica: This is such a great post, I simply felt called to acknowledge it….they sure do spend a lot of time trying to be girly
Thanks! And hee, when I think “girly” I tend to think of all the feuding and scandals scorching the blogosphere: very Mean Girls.
5.
Bianca Reagan | May 16, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Usually “literature” translates to white, male and/or British for many American readers and educators. Also, just because a group is full of women does not make it feminist. Look at The Pussycat Dolls.