The reading of romance novels is an active practice that serves to develop a woman’s “emotional literacy” (Duncombe and Marsden 239). The influence of romantic love persists despite the changes within the romance genre, from the “bodice-rippers” (a genre of romance that naturalized sexual brutality) of the early 80s where the heroines were mainly presented as submissive and innocent compared to the superior and sexually experienced alpha-male, to a gradual shift in favour of a more egalitarian relationship (Lee 55). Romance novels from the beginning of the 20th century to the 21st century, despite the value changes, still share four basic elements: a heroine, a hero, a conflict-ridden love story, and a happily-ever-after ending (Barlow 47). Romance novels are therefore a variation of the same formula, which Ken Gelder refers to as a form of “literary ‘re-reading’” (Gelder 44). The phenomenal sales suggest that this romance formula continues to speak closely and intimately to women (Gelder 51).
Romantic love has been sold in paperback form by the millions (Stacey and Pearce 11). The discourse of romantic love raises the question as to why romance is intimately linked with women (Lanbauer 1). Romance is not a substance to be found in the blood; as gender is viewed as a social construct, so romantic love should also be understood as a social practice (Jackson 58). Popular romance novels, according to Lisa Fletcher, are “a key cultural reference point for thinking through what it means to say “I love you”” (Fletcher 56). Romance novels therefore play a crucial role in the development of “emotional literacy” that allows a woman to “understand and label ‘romantic’ feelings” (Duncombe and Marsden 239). Tania Modleski raises an interesting dynamic between reader and text, observes how romance novels can be said to intensify female tensions and conflicts, but the contradiction (of romantic love versus reality) in women’s lives are more responsible for the existence of romance novels than these novels are for the contradictions (Modleski 57).
The contradictions Modleski refers to is within the idea of romantic love, for such a ‘feeling’ carries tension and conflict when applied to reality. Stevi Jackson explains that there are “fundamental contradictions between passionate, romantic attraction and longer term affectionate love, yet the first is supposed to provide the basis for the second: a disruptive, tumultuous emotion is ideally supposed to be the foundation of a secure and durable relationship” (Jackson 53). For example, the fact that romance novels always conclude with a ‘happily ever after’ indicates that the excitement lies in the chase, not in the ‘happily ever after’ (53). Women are aware that ‘happily ever after’ is not a reality for many, a fact that can be bolstered by the numerous studies of marriage and long term heterosexual relationships since the 1960s that display that many women are dissatisfied with a “lack of emotional reciprocity, with men’s incapacity to give or display love” (54). In other words, the reality for women is that romantic passion begins to fade and routinize with time (54). Therefore, popular formula fiction exists to satisfy fantasy needs that cannot be met in real life (Cohn 5), and women read romance novels to experience the thrill of romance (Jackson 54).
While critics view the plot and writing of a romance novels to be mediocre, the effect the romance genre has on a number of women illustrates how this genre should not be condemned and viewed as inconsequential, for according to Linda Barlow, romance novels should be seen “as psychological maps which provide intriguing insights into the emotional landscape of women” (Barlow 46). A study of the interaction between women readers and the romantic text will therefore provide insight into the way women explore their gendered identities within patriarchal culture, and insight into the influence the message contained in romance novels have upon the lives of women: that the one great adventure in a woman’s life is finding and securing of Mr. Right.
Work Cited
Barlow, Linda. “The Androgynous Writer: Another View of Point of View .” In Dangerous men and Adventurous Women, edited by Jayne Ann Krentz, 45-52. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1992.
Cohn, Jan. Romance and Erotics of Property. London: Duke University Press, 1988.
Duncombe, Jean and Dennis Marsden. “‘Can Men Love?’: ‘Reading’, ‘Staging’ and ‘Resisting’ the Romance.” In Romance Revisited, edited by Lynne Pearce and Jackie Stacey, 238-250. London: Lawrence & Wishart Limited, 1995.
Fletcher, Lisa. Historical Romance Fiction. Hampshire: Ashgate, 2008.
Gelder, Ken. Popular Fiction. London: Routledge, 2004.
Jackson, Stevi. “Women and Heterosexual love: complicity, resistance and change.” In Romance Revisited, edited by Lynne Pearce and Jackie Stacey, 49-62. London: Lawrence & Wishart Limited, 1995.
Lanbauer, Laurie. Women and Romance: The Consolations of Gender in the English Novel.
Lee, Linda J. “Guilty Pleasures: Reading Romance Novels as Reworked Fairy Tales.” Marvels & Tales 22.1 (2008). Web. <http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/marvels/vol22/iss1/4>.
Modleski, Tania. Loving with a Vengeance. New York: Methuen, 1982.
Stacey, Jackie and Lynne Pearce. “The Heart of the Matter: Feminists Revisit Romance.” In Romance Revisited, edited by Lynne Pearce and Jackie Stacey, 11-45. London: Lawrence & Wishart Limited, 1995.