Home

After sixty years, Harlequin Romance books are still enslaving readers. What’s their secret?

April 21, 2009 - 2:51pm — Blake

Especially alluring for the theorists is the natural dialectic: i.e., are these books perversely, even dangerously anachronistic, trapped within a dated, patriarchal framework? Or are they in fact empowering: fiction written by women for women, in which there is always a happy ending for the female characters? If you factor in reader demographics — Harlequin reports that 53 percent of its overwhelmingly female readership has at least some college education, and 45 percent work full time — you have the makings of a feminist studies seminar, the central question of which might be, what is the appeal of these books, and is this a bad (in the critical theory sense of “bad”) thing?

  • Email this Story
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
April 21, 2009 - 4:05pm — Anonymous

Reseach & Romance Novels

It would be great if someone could update the Janice R. Radway study. It's woefully out of date. Updated research would shed some wonderful light on a much-maligned genre.

  • Email this comment
April 22, 2009 - 4:38pm — GrayArcadian

Try Jenkins

I know Henry Jenkins in his book "Textual Poachers" had a chapter about the show "Beauty and the Beast" examined and updated some of Radway's conclusions in regards to a fan culture audience - which is, oddly enough, not a group that generally reads romance novels in my experience, but one that backed many of Radway's conclusions regarding audience expectations. Even that book though could use an update (even if it's the best book fandom geek subculture manual ever written, IMO).

Thanks for mentioning Radway. I actually started reading romance novels after reading her book.

  • Email this comment
April 22, 2009 - 7:25pm — Anonymous

MY NEW BOOK

I'd like to take a few moments if I may, to promote my new book,"Beth:Love Along The Way....by B.G.Sanford," and just released by Eloquent Books. It's a beautiful romance, a love affair of a lifetime, presenting its self to Beth during some of the darkest times of her life. She struggles with what to do, yet knowing what would be morally right. Because of the very substance of this book, it certainly can't be considered "lightweight" by any stretch of the imagination. I hope you have an opportunity to read it as it's an entertaining story you won't soon forget.
All my best,
B.G.Sanford
http://www.eloquentbooks.com/BethLoveAlongTheWay.html

  • Email this comment
April 23, 2009 - 12:54pm — Anonymous

Researching Romance Fiction

For some time, I have been wanting to do a study of the books themselves. It seems to me that most critical writing about romance fiction inevitably relies on sweeping generalizations and stereotypes. The validity of these works then come into question, because the genre is simply too diverse. Now, the scope of my reading in the genre is admittedly limited (historical romance with a healthy dose of sexual content), but I still wonder: Would quantitative analysis across the spectrum help clarify what romance fiction "really is"? And could that in turn lead to more valuable criticism? Or am I just defending my penchant for reading what others in the library field like to call "trashy books?" [brood, brood,brood....]

  • Email this comment
April 23, 2009 - 3:16pm — GrayArcadian

It's all trash before it's

It's all trash before it's treasure.

Seriously, read Janice Radway's "Reading the Romance" just as a place to start on that defense. It cured me of my snobbery. I don't agree with everything she says in there, but, again, it's a place to start. As for defending reading - if you're here, you're probably a librarian. You defend reading because it's reading. Wanting a little more respect for reading materials so people can learn to love them without the extra baggage is something I can completely understand and get behind.

  • Email this comment
Syndicate content