Kat Mayo from Book Thingo blog answered a call on Twitter to extend the discussion on feminism and romance. She writes:
I'm excited about this series of posts because—yay!—discussions around romance.
I'm excited about this series of posts because—yay!—discussions around romance.
In Elizabeth's introduction to Louise Cusack's
post, In
defence of books written by women for women, she asks: In what sense, if any, can [romance books] be considered “feminist”?
Recently, I have leaned in favour of the
‘written for women, by women’ proof of romance’s feminist sensibilities. I
particularly love author
Jennifer Crusie’s passionate defence of the genre, where she points out
that, among other things, ‘romance fiction says that women are primary not
supporting characters, equal to men in power, intelligence, and ability.’
But Keziah Hills's tweets (quoted by Elizabeth
in the post above) have me re-examining my position that the genre is
inherently feminist.
I'm looking forward to more posts—and your
comments—on the subject to help me clarify my thinking.
At the moment, I think what I want to say is
that the genre, as a whole, tends to be reflective rather than progressive.
This is a factor of many things, not the least of which is a publishing model
that requires books to have broad appeal.
At the same time, I believe that most romance
books have a subversive element that speaks to feminism—usually but not always
to do with women’s sexuality or the way in which the heroine negotiates power
with the hero—but that genre conventions (such as page count), traditions (such
as category lines) or assumptions about reader expectations don't always allow
for a full exploration of feminist values in every single book.
In some ways, this is part of the strength of
romance books—that they can present stories familiar to many women and overlay
them with questions about what we expect or should expect from our families,
our partners and ourselves. A great romance book, for me, is familiar yet unpredictable.
I agree with Louise that there's a problem
around the perception of romance as a genre—the assumption that all romance
writing has less literary worth than other genres or works. I also believe
there is a lack of consideration for the reasons why women read in the genre so
extensively.
In response to Louise’s post, Marilyn
(Anonymous) commented that ‘romances…play
into the narrative of a woman's life is all about having the right man to
depend on. They do not challenge this dangerous assumption either for
individual women or for society as a whole.’
On the surface, this seems fair enough for those who don’t read romance
books or who don’t understand why women read so widely and so passionately in
the genre. But I challenge this assertion on two fronts.
 |
| Released: April 2012 |
The narrative described by the comment also assumes something
about the reader—that the heroine represents us. Any feminist who has read and
enjoyed Twilight would know this
cannot be true, and this assumption leads to a profound misunderstanding of
romance fiction (note 1). And besides, romance readers read other books, too.
The assumption also ignores the popularity among female readers
of romance featuring two men (note 2)—so much so that m/m romance written for
women seems to be evolving into a genre separate from gay romance written for men.
But where I think the comment truly missed the
point was addressed by the next commenter, Shellyrae. Our emotional response
is intrinsic to how readers of romance enjoy our Mills and Boons, our vampires
and werewolves, and our reformed Regency rakes. Yes, the story must be written
competently, but how the characters’ emotional turmoil speak to my own life is
why I go back for more.
You see, romance books often do challenge assumptions about how women
should feel or react or enjoy themselves in relationships—with men as well as
with friends and family, who may feature as secondary characters with their own
subplots and emotional conflicts. As
Australian sff romance author Nicole Murphy writes, romance fiction
provides ‘stories that speak to the truth of being a woman in this world and
the specific struggles and issues that we deal with that men do not.’
And even if one argues that romance fiction is
wholly escapist fiction—which, I should stress, is not a position that many
romance readers take—I don’t believe that necessarily devalues the genre. Ye
olde bodice rippers, some would argue, can provide an emotionally safe way for
women to explore rape fantasy. We don’t assume that readers of crime fiction
harbour murderous tendencies, so why would we assume that women who love The Flame and the Flower want to be
mistaken for a prostitute and raped on a ship? (Note 3)
Paranormal romance—those cruel, befanged undead
or those ferociously aggressive and possessive half-animals—provide a palatable
way to present ‘shameful’ fantasies, including rape, BDSM, multiple partners
and even double-pronged heroes. (And yes, I
have that book.)
Finally, I think it’s also very important to
keep in mind that romance books—even those primarily written for a Western
audience—are sold and bought across different cultures and generations of
women. These subversive elements, mild though they might seem to some of us,
may be incredibly empowering to women who have very few other channels by which
to receive these ideas. The romance reader's desire for emotional justice at
the end of each story resonates, I think, with women who have felt that lack of
justice and power through their own life experiences.
The virgin amnesiac mistress bride with a
secret baby story can be escapism or an exploration of any number of themes
around sexuality, gender politics and reproductive rights. It all depends on a
combination of the author and their writing as well as the reader and their
personal reflections on what they're reading.
Do I think romance authors and readers need to
challenge genre assumptions more? Yes, especially in areas of contraception and
abortion. Romance as a genre is still fairly conservative here.
Do I think these issues make the genre
inherently not feminist? I’m not sure.
Because I think where I’m up to is this: When
we consider what romance fiction brings to feminism, it's not enough to talk
about what we as individuals get out of romance fiction or how we interpret
this book or that. Knowing the genre's popularity among female readers, we
should also be asking: How do women read romance and why do they love these
books so much? Only then, I think, will we have a better understanding of the
genre's importance and influence in women's lives.
Kat
Mayo has been reading romance books since she was ten, when she discovered an
abandoned Mills & Boon book in her grandmother’s garage. She runs Book Thingo, an Australian blog for
readers of (mostly) romance fiction, and tweets as @BookThingo.
Additional notes
(A more comprehensive discussion of each of
these references will appear here: Feminism
in romance – annotated notes at Book Thingo.)
1.
Reader point of view in romance
The
Androgynous Reader: Point of View in the Romance (in Dangerous Men and Adventurous Women: Romance Writer on the Appeal of
Romance, edited by Jayne Ann Krentz), Laura Kinsale argues that passive
heroines are placeholders and that romance readers identify with the hero as
much as—or sometimes more than—with the heroine.
2.
Popularity of m/m romance with female readers
Why
do women read M/M romance/erotica? by J. Leigh Bailey
All
m/m fiction is not created equal by Sunita
An
angle on slash and the appropriation debate by Kivitasku
Yaoi:
What makes the yaoi genre appealing to women? (Response by Erica Friedman)
3.
Rape fantasy in romance fiction – This issue is much discussed in the romance
reading community. Here are some excellent discussions, and in most cases the
comments are just as thought-provoking as the original posts:
Sexual
Force and Reader Consent in Romance by Robin Reader argues that consent to
the rape fantasy is in the hands of the reader.
Rape
and Romance Reader by Laura Vivanco, who was a guest poster here at
Australian Women Writer’s Challenge in February
Talking
about the R Word by Candy Tan
When is rape fantasy
acceptable or at least tolerable? by Mrs Giggles: ‘the rape fantasy is
popular in fiction because it allows the heroine to have sex and experience
pleasure without having to take any accountability for it’.
Women’s
Rape Fantasies: How Common? What Do They Mean? by Michael Castleman: ‘[rape
fantasies] imply nothing about one’s mental health or real-life sexual
inclinations.’
Romance
novels in The Journal of Sex Research by Jessica Tripler
I don't know that I'd agree that the romance genre is inherently feminist. It certainly can be, and perhaps even should be. Any sort of story that delves into and challenges the cultural assumptions regarding gender and power in relationships could probably be considered feminist, and much of the romance genre does this. Just because it isn't explicitly expressed in the pages or purposeful on the part of the author, doesn't mean it's not feminist. The simple act of creating a story that expressly goes against the masculine norms of gender and power can be feminist, even if the author had no direct intention of doing so. Some might argue that the HEA of romance subverts the feminist ideology, but really, it's just a way of presenting a hopeful and happy resolution of the gender/power struggles women face every day.
ReplyDeleteAs for their literary merit, that goes across the board like any other work of fiction. To say that writing about love and relationships isn't or can't be literary would be falllacy. You can certainly write "literary" quality and have a happy ending. Honestly, I believe that's more in the talent of the writer than the genre as a whole. Just like every other category of book out there, they run the gamut from trash to genius.
The title of the post is a little misleading because I was really opting to answer Elizabeth's question around feminist values in romance. The more I think about it, the more I agree with Keziah that the genre isn't inherently feminist, in the sense that it's not intrinsically beholden to the feminist movement, but I'd argue that romance definitely speaks to feminist values.
DeleteAny sort of story that delves into and challenges the cultural assumptions regarding gender and power in relationships could probably be considered feminist
I agree, although this is a double-edged sword because what seems challenging to some readers isn't always going to be so for others.
I also agree with you that the HEA in and of itself isn't necessarily anti-feminist--it's just a decision to resolve the stories' emotional conflicts happily. I'd even go so far as to argue that rapish heroes, for example, aren't necessarily anti-feminist, but that they serve a purpose for the reader, which may or may not speak to feminist values.
I think when we talk about literary merit in the romance genre, it's almost impossible for romance to compete with more literary works. Our books will always lose out in the judging due to publishing requirements, stylistic conventions and the sad fact that there is very little understanding outside the romance community about why this type of fiction is widely enjoyed by and valuable to women.
I think the position I was coming from in my tweets was the idea that romance had an obligation to feminism. I don't think romance as an obligation to any social movement. My reaction was based on ideas around straight-jackets and my resistance that any genre has to fit into a political/social system of thought. I don't like the idea that romances might be judged as not feminist enough (by whom?)
ReplyDeleteThat said, I come to reading romance like most people, with my values and ways of seeing the world. I will vote with my feet if what I'm reading doesn't speak to my need for women to be autonomous, thinking self determiners of their lives.
I agree with most of what you've said Kat, particularly the idea that romance can be quite subversive because it puts women at the centre of discourse. But for me that's not enough to make it inherently feminist. Convents and women's prisons put women at the centre of their activities and while sometimes they are quite subversive of patriarchal structures, that's not a given.
The whole discussion is fascinating and I find myself thinking about it a lot.