My romance novel dilemma

[Moonstone]

Ahh the misyognistic, hypocritical tripe of romance novels.

Never in my life have I had a more deeply rooted hatred for a book genre than this one. Now don't get me wrong, I'm a book worm through and through, I practically live in books, but as open minded as I am, I've stumbled upon the works of Cassie Edwards 'Savage' series and Danielle Steel. It really makes me wonder why in the hell would ANYONE buy into this garbage? At the beginning the women are strong, independent, kick ass heroines, with a brazen wit that rings a certain sense of free minded charm. But that is all chucked out the window whenever the brawny, male lead steps in and sweeps her off her feet.

Their constant reguritated female heroines and male leads all follow one, big dildo of a formula.

Female leads;
Strong
Portrayed as independent in the beginning and free-minded
But as the story progresses she is deduced to a horny and bumbling, doe-eyed idiot who is 'deeply' in love with her male aggressor
They follow the stereotypical role of a what a female should be and act like which is refined, virginal but a secret freak in the sheets whenever the male role steps in and 'awakens' her inner sex goddess.
Stunningly beautiful without any flaws whatsoever, they also appear to not get their periods, crap or fart.
Long flowing hair of the [insert adjective here] of all the lands, pale or lightly tanned with brightly colored eyes of the deepest emerald green or the bluest of sapphire stones.
Soft spoken voices
Are easily seduced at the flash of defined chest muscles and bushy eyebrows
Short tempered (Irrational ususally)
Unrealistic body types.. ie; Full hips, buttocks and thighs, a generous amount of boobage and a low cut dress to match, revealing her plunging cleavage, 18 inch waists, blah, blah, blah..
Is always the damsel in distress and needs someone to come to her aide, blah, blah, blah because she's a fucking moron and always gets into trouble
Eventually gets married and has children and lives happily ever fucking after blah, blah, blah.

Male leads
The same stereotypes of what males should be and act like apply here too;
Brawny
Ridiculously muscular
Dominant
A 'guys guy'
Charming and intelligent, often more intelligent than the female lead
Tall, dark and handsome
A real lady killer with his skilled expertise on the art of love making and pleasure
Macho
Has bed down with many women (This is where the Stud/Slut double standard comes into play)
Brings his lady killer and expertise skills of pleasure to the virgin lead and because romance novels are obviously based on reality, her first time is perfect, satisfying and pleasuring.
Possessive, no seriously the male leads are REALLY possessive and controlling.
If she speaks her mind, he either A. Uses his own wit to counteract it in a demeaning manner, OR B. The actions followed are usually him grabbing her by the wrists or waist and pulling her close and devouring her mouth or getting her just close enough to incite a dominant and alpha stance of 'I'm bigger, stronger and faster than you' aura, sending the heroine into a raging, teenage hormonal fit.

In short, these novels are pure shit. I don't know how many times I've seen a captivating title of what I believed to be of the non romance genre and that ends up being a fuckery of 'careless whispers in the dark to Brigadette, sending her into a tizzy.'

What I find to be more disturbing is that these are written by women FOR other women. Really distored views of romance and the human sexual experience. I guess we all need to dream? But at least make it... I don't know not as stupid? Ah, who am I to judge another's fantasy? I'm not exactly a walk in the park for female independence, they're times where I'd like to just 'give in' and in certain fantasies I'm able to convey that safely but it with myself still being in control.

These novels have the woman essentially pretending to be outspoken and courageous but ultimately turns in her 'Independence hat' for a pair of footie pajama's, a momma's cooking apron and motts apple sauce.

So why the fuck do I keep reading them?!

[spacefem]

I have never read a romance novel, except to open one up to a page, read a paragraph and laugh at it. But I thought that was the point, that they WERE so awful and formula-following, right?

There's this awesome movie about indie film called Christmas in the Clouds about these Indians who run a vacation resort, and they all end up reading this book they stole from the desk clerk called "Path of Savages" that just exploits every awful indian stereotype... Buffalo Thunder would have his way. again.

[sagermo]

all follow one, big dildo of a formula

lol
I tried reading a novel like this once when I was on a super long car trip and it was the only book around, and it was pretty awful. It is quite amazing how huge of an amount of them are produced. They even have sub-genres like "Family Man' and "Cowboy".

[Sonic#]

I have two approaches to romance novels (which does make it a di-lemma - two approaches!).

As a reader, modern popular romances are silly to me. (Then again, they aren't meant to appeal to me.) I like the classic ones: gothic novels, Austen find-the-right-man-with-suitable-tongue-in-cheek stories, the Bronte sisters stories, and so on. I have only a little experience with the genre, garnered from a novel read here by accident, a novel read there because I was looking for a silly escape. Their plots, as you say, are predictable. Variation occurs in the combinations of details. A woman unlucky in love going to a ranch. A woman working in an office going off of a bad breakup finds Him. They're amusing because they're predictable, because they have such awkward euphemisms for emotions and intimacy, because the stereotypes are nigh unbelievable. They're scary because of the things you point out: an independent woman is entrapped into a possibly emotionally abusive and physically intense relationship, made to feel that she can't control herself, and rendered entirely dependent on a man who tumbles precariously between respecting her and being unable to control his desire. Gross.

And yet a second approach interferes. Several years ago, I read some of Janice Radway's work on the readers of popular romance. I think I've recommended it before. It's good, because Radway gives voice to the part of this discussion that too often gets glossed over in the claims that these books suck: the marginalized readers. The readers of these romances are more self-aware than many critics of Harlequin romances and the like give them credit for. Some of the things she noted in a small-group study of readers:
1. They know what to look for, and don't swallow everything that the printers give them, carefully decoding blurbs and trusting the opinions of friends.
2. They often read books they do not really like or fully endorse.
3. Most were married mothers of children.
4. Reading for one reader was a way to escape from the physical and mental exhaustion of taking care of her home, husband, and three children. She eventually obsessed with romance. It built her confidence to the point where, at the urging of her daughter, she worked at a bookstore, networked other readers with a newsletter, and so on.
5. Many of these readers view romances as chronicles of female triumph, a smart and capable heroine who recognizes her qualities and can love her as she wants to be loved. It's marriage or pleasure or love combined with female independence.
6. They're fantasies involving identifying with the main character. Like many fantasies, these narratives do not offer dreams these readers want to come true.
7. Many of them don't see their heroines as typical. Nonreaders of romance see predictable types. They see a variety of individuals.
8. They most like happy endings, the depiction of a growing relationship, and details after the climax of what happens to the characters.

These and other things helped me be less judgmental of both the readers and the genre. Yes, it's heterosexist about pleasure, the reading of male violence as empassioned rather than abusive is highly problematic, and so on. Also, this study wasn't representative then (it was a small group), and the demographics of readers have changed since. Nevertheless, within these systems that attribute legitimacy to women becoming lovers, wives, and mothers, within systems that at once praise independence, look askance at dependent subjects, and make independence seem impossible, romances offer a narrative that allows for temporary satisfaction, solace, or escape to many readers.

In reply to a post lillerina earlier made, these aren't feminist narratives in one way, but they can still do substantial good for their readers.

[Mathmo]

Thanks for posting that Sonic - I think it's important to think about readers' responses to texts. One way I see books is that they're like food. You can hate crisps (potato chips). Mostly, though, I think that hating crisps is a bit of a waste of time and energy. Are they bad for you? Well, yes. Might you sometimes want to have some anyway? Sure. Do they do a lot of harm in the world? On balance I would say probably not (others may disagree). If you eat them all the time, is that bad? Probably.

I think that's the attitude I'd take towards romance novels (I've read a couple). In my experience so far at least, romance novels are clearly marketed as such, the audience knows what kind of thing they're getting, can discriminate between flavours. You pretty much know what to expect. I think other books actually have more potential to be damaging (e.g. twilight from what I've heard about the relationship between Bella and Edward) because it is less obvious from the outset what kind of book they are and what messages they might have (maybe there's an analogy between food that looks good but is full of trans-fats? Or maybe I'm pushing this metaphor too far ).

Although I'm not a reader of romance novels, I am a reader of chick lit. Some of the same accusations get levelled at that genre (formulaic, etc) although probably people would say it's not so bad. I'd like to think I'm quite discriminating in terms of what I read (shopping and shoes and sleeping around? no. strong independent women eventually making it through? yes.), it's only one of many genres I read, and I read for a specific purpose (to read stories of strong women, who care about honesty and friends and family, mostly). One person I know who reads romance novels fairly regularly and owns a number of them has a similar approach in that she also reads a huge range of other stuff, literary, modern crime novels, etc.

Also, I see some other genres as being essentially as formulaic and gratuitous ... the abused child memoir-style book, for example (e.g. "A Child Called It"). And lots of books have huge problems in them ... a lot of sci fi has lots of awful gender portrayals in it, a lot of children's books from 100 years ago are awfully classist and racist ... but I think that readers can read those and not necessarily buy into those elements, so I hope the same is true for romance novels.

[Axiomatic]

I read fantasy, so I really, really don't have any right to call out romance for being formulaic.

[Moonstone]

Thank you for the responses everyone, opened my mind quite a bit.