A few days ago, a member of a published romance authors’ e-mail loop linked to this page of Andrew Sullivan’s The Daily Dish and lauded an anonymous writer for her well-crafted, positive comments on the romance industry. I clicked over to read the piece and stumbled across this disturbing line:
Although the romance novel industry is constantly derided from the outside, made fun of and considered “trash” by the uninformed, these are not the romance novels your mother read, nor anything like the Barbara Cartland books gathering dust on your grandmother’s bookshelf.
Did this individual (who describes herself as an author of European historical romance novels) really mean to suggest that the romance novels our mothers read were indeed trash, unlike the novels of today, which are quality reading? That’s what it sounds like to me–and I’m sorry to say this is hardly the first time I’ve heard that sentiment expressed by a fellow romance writer. But is denigrating the old books really a good way to build respect our genre?
It might be if it were true that today’s books are more entertaining and relevant than yesterday’s books were in their own time. But we can’t demonstrate that today’s books are better because they are not better.
One example often cited as “proof” of the improved literary quality of modern romance novels is the increasing rarity of purple prose. Yet romance authors of the past didn’t write purple because they were ignorant and untalented. They were simply writing for their time and their market–just as we do today. So it’s disingenuous of us to attempt to correct our critics’ perception of the literary quality of modern romance novels by agreeing that yesterday’s romances were insipid and cliche-ridden and insisting that we’ve moved beyond that now, thank goodness, and are finally producing books that are fresh and compelling and extremely well-written.
All right, there were a lot of truly awful romance novels published in the 70’s and 80’s. But I’ve seen quite a few stinkers bearing copyright dates of 2008 and 2009, as well, so you won’t hear me crowing that we’ve come a long way, baby. Today’s books aren’t, as a whole, better than yesterday’s. Yes, the genre has broadened, and we’re seeing many new and exciting sugenres and writing styles. But as regards literary quality, the romance writers of today aren’t more creative and more talented than the authors our mothers loved; neither do they subscribe to higher standards of literary excellence.
So maybe joining our critics in sneering at the romance novels of yesteryear isn’t the smartest way to promote our genre. If we persist in doing that, it will serve us right when the next generation of romance writers ridicules our books and wonders how we could have been so totally unenlightened.
No related posts.
I wouldn’t say that the books are better or worse for that matter, but I find them to be different.
Although the romance novel industry is constantly derided from the outside, made fun of and considered “trash” by the uninformed, these are not the romance novels your mother read, nor anything like the Barbara Cartland books gathering dust on your grandmother’s bookshelf. This is a HUGE business of numerous sub-genres for all tastes, and regardless of what anybody thinks, romance novels SELL.
The anonymous author doesn’t actually state that the romances “your mother read” were “trash” and were not commercially significant, but she or he is definitely contrasting past and present and she or he is either being unclear in her/his writing or she/he deliberately intended the sentences to imply that romances written in the past did deserve to be made fun of and weren’t the products of “a HUGE business of numerous sub-genres.”
It’s perhaps worth pointing out that Mills & Boon had its 100th birthday last year, while Harlequin is having its 60th this year, so the various parts of that company are hardly new. Romance publishing’s been commercially viable for a long time.
It’s also worth noting that there have been various sub-genres for some time. Gothic romances of the kind written by Victoria Holt co-existed with historical romances and contemporary romances (with the contemporary medical romance being an important sub-sub-genre). There were also inspirational romances (and Grace Livingston Hill’s novels have been republished many times since she first wrote them).
As for the issue of the quality of the romance novels my mother read, I think the fact that Georgette Heyer’s novels are still being reprinted suggests something about their quality and enduring popularity.
Excellent point Brenda. In fact, I’m trying to make a point of squeezing in extra time (and hopefully, space) to read the books of our romance author “foremothers.”
Ohhhh…. someone was actually dissing Barbara Cartland? Why, I oughta…
She was my first romance read. I’ve read ALL her books (even the one on honey). They were perfect for a 12 year old romance reader. An adult book (because I believed myself all grown up at that time) but not so adult.
As I tell my business buds, people who don’t understand romance, don’t understand the average woman. My generation is NOT the same as my mother’s and my mother’s is not the same as my grandmother’s. It makes sense that our reading preferences wouldn’t be the same.
Great points, Brenda! For so long the Romance Genre went un-analyzed, un-reviewed with no critical literary discussions, although that is changing with blogs like this, and others being more avant garde in the industry.
I think that since the genre was not taken “seriously” for so long many people aren’t aware of the critical points you mentioned (purple prose=writing for the time, writers today=not necessarily more creative, just more diverse) because the genre wasn’t really studied.
I myself am guilty of this, I just started reading romance for pleasure, but the more I began to learn about the tropes, genres, and the history of how the romance genre evolved the more enjoyable my romance reading became.
Great points, Brenda! For so long the Romance Genre went un-analyzed, un-reviewed with no critical literary discussions, although that is changing with blogs like this, and others being more avant garde in the industry.
I think that since the genre was not taken “seriously” for so long many people aren’t aware of the critical points you mentioned (purple prose=writing for the time, writers today=not necessarily more creative, just more diverse) because the genre wasn’t really studied.
I myself am guilty of this, I just started reading romance for pleasure, but the more I began to learn about the tropes, sub-genres, and the history of how the romance genre evolved the more enjoyable my romance reading became.
I get annoyed when people blast those “tacky old romance novels” because they’re part of this genre too, part of its history, and we as readers in the same genre shouldn’t be ashamed of loving it. More importantly, I get annoyed when a non-reader of the genre tries to MAKE us be ashamed; it’s patronizing.
Books by women and for women are an important part of womens’ culture, and tell us a lot about how that culture has changed over time. It’s important that we remember–or learn for the first time–how things have changed over the decades. And remember and honor our mothers.
I’m interpreting the quote as simply stating that today’s romance novels are different than what the (essay) reader is likely thinking of as romance novels (i.e., what they’ve been exposed to in the past). I’m not seeing the judgment that Cartland is trash.
But maybe I’m preemptively drunk for St. Patrick’s Day.
I’m with you, Chicklet. I don’t think there was anything inherently insulting in the quote. The comment about the Cartlands and other books of yore gathering dust implies to me more that they’re old-fashioned and don’t hold the same appeal for the current generation of romance readers as they might have, once upon a time.
To me, how it’s read has to do more with the reader than the person writing it.
And I have had no alcohol.
Thank you, Laura. Nothing gets my goat more than the mistaken assumption that the genre began in the 1970s. It exploded then, but it didn’t begin then.
Okay, that off my chest,
I often believe we should cut people some slack when they make comments like the one quoted because essentially, she isn’t wrong. She isn’t absolutely correct, either, but she also isn’t speaking to us. The simple truth of the matter, though, is that if the average Jane Q. Public really were to pluck an average romance novel off a bookstore shelf and actually open it and read it, she might be considerably surprised if she were expecting a Barbara Cartland novel . . . 
I mean any way one views that one it’s an eye-opener, people, good, bad or downright ugly?
Yeah, what’s the probability of someone randomly picking a “safe” romance nowadays? And I ain’t talking about trash, here. You know your minds are all in the gutter.
Nothing gets my goat more than the mistaken assumption that the genre began in the 1970s. It exploded then, but it didn’t begin then.
Very true, Bev. I hope you don’t think I was suggesting otherwise. As it happens, I’m a huge fan of Georgette Heyer, who began writing romance in, what, the early 1920’s?
I also hope you don’t think I was suggesting there was no diversity in our genre until recently. Of course there was. But there’s diversity and then there’s DIVERSITY, right?
And it’s a simple fact that our genre has never catered to such wide-ranging tastes as it does today.
I’m interpreting the quote as simply stating that today’s romance novels are different than what the (essay) reader is likely thinking of as romance novels (i.e., what they’ve been exposed to in the past). I’m not seeing the judgment that Cartland is trash.
Chicklet, whether or not it was intentional, that sentence is put together in such a way that it does suggest what I said. Consider this simpler sentence, which is presented in exactly the same format: “Although many people disparage the romance genre, today’s books aren’t anything like yesterday’s.” The implication is clear: If only the haters would take a look at today’s books, which are nothing like yesterday’s books, they’d stop sneering at the genre–because today’s books are good.
But regardless of what was actually meant by the person I quoted, I say again that I have heard the older books of our genre dissed in no uncertain terms by many of my romance-writing contemporaries. My bloggy rant was a reaction to that, not to this single quote.
Good post, Brenda. Not that it has anything to do with it, but I cut my romance reading teeth on Barbara Cartland. I have no idea how many of the books I read, but I loved them all. I’m not sure what I would think of them today, but my mom had no problem handing them off to me when she was done–I had to sneak the Desires!
You’re preaching to the choir, Brenda. I posted something akin to this over at SBTB because it’s gone too far. We cheer when the genre gets a positive spin in the press, but then turn around the stab romance in the back by deriding “bodice rippers” of yore.
Isn’t the first rule of gaining respect is to first respect yourself? When I see romance readers and writers talk down about books published in the 70s and 80s, and “how far the genre has come” I honestly feel a bit of contempt. I’m also very surprised that authors who are still around today sit silently while these comments are tossed about, and sometimes even spout them.
Isn’t the first rule of gaining respect is to first respect yourself? When I see romance readers and writers talk down about books published in the 70s and 80s, and “how far the genre has come†I honestly feel a bit of contempt. I’m also very surprised that authors who are still around today sit silently while these comments are tossed about, and sometimes even spout them.
Okay, when you put it that way, I’ll back up on what I said earlier. Somewhat.
Yeah, we first have to respect ourselves. I’ve always maintained that.
We also have to acknowledge, though, that the romance genre did not begin with the bodice rippers of the ’70s before we can talk about how far it’s come, however. This is a serious pet peeve of mine. Why? Because until this is pounded into everyone’s head, that’s our origins and it’s simply wrong. It’s not only historically inaccurate. It’s misleading in so many ways that it gives a false impression of the genre in its totality.
There were books that weren’t “bodice rippers” being published during the bodice ripper period. There were books published before that period that had nothing whatsoever to do with that type of writing. To equate the beginning of the genre to that and never challenge it is just wrong.
So wrong.
Andrew Sullivan is a barking mad lunatic. I’m afraid to click through to read the post. The whole “We are better than the giants who paved the way for us” argument is sad to me.
When I see or hear something like this, I think immediately of Jane Austin, Charles Dickens, and countless other authors of the nineteenth century. Not necessarily romance but they too were almost called trash, if not publicly denounced. And look at them today. They are applauded, made into movies, encouraged in reading classes, taught in college. To quote one of Dickens characters. “Bah, Humbug!” to those who criticize the early romance novels. Some may well be the applauded books of the future.
Allison
Well, even now there are those who find out I’m a writer, get all googly-eyed with impressed wonder, then ask me what I write. When they hear “romance,” you can see those eyes glaze over just a bit and their replies take on a placating edge–unless they’re fans of the genre.
Sadly, there is still a lot of stigma attached to romance as not being “real” literature. Funny how it’s a top seller in the industry!
Deriding those earlier romances would be like a writer of fantasy taking pokes at Tolkien. You would either sound arrogant or ignorant. And in Tolkien’s time, his work was considered a betrayal of the literary expectations of his peers.
Writing what people want to read is smart, profitable and rewarding. And what people like to read changes over time the same as hair and clothing styles.
Yeah, it sorta throws under the bus not just the earlier writers, but their fans. Women back in the day had to just as strongly defend the genre, perhaps even more so, and this comes across as denigrating their taste and their contributions. In doing so, it weakens the modern case for the genre, by implying that our defense might be for something that women 20-30 years from now might feel the need to publicly reject.
The women that wrote in the past, the books they created, are part of our heritage. Our shared history. They entertained the women of their time, helped fuel their dreams and fantasies, took them to other times and distant shores — and there’s nothing wrong with that and no good reason to be ashamed.