I'm struck by several things. Something to celebrate: the appearance of two romances with gay male couples not just in supporting roles, but in the leads: Elle Kennedy and Sarina Bowen's Him (a Goodreads Reader's Choice nominee) and Alexis Hall's For Real (on the PW list). Some things to decry: no lesbian romances. And, unless I'm missing something because I haven't read all of the books that made the lists, no romances with or by people of color. Lordy, here's hoping that when RWA announces the RITA and Golden Heart nominations, the landscape won't be so blindingly white.
And, since I review romances with feminist sympathies, I was struck by the fact that there is very little overlap between the books on these lists and the books I've written about on RNFF this year. I reviewed Hall's For Real in this post, and Lilah Pace's Asking For It here (both from the PW list). And I just read and enjoyed Him, although when I went to write about it, I found myself leaning more towards writing a post about whether female heterosexual readers are more comfortable with m/m romances in which the protagonists, with the exception of their sexual orientations, embody traditional masculinity (as do the two hockey playing friends who become lovers in Him) rather than a review of the book itself. But I haven't reviewed, or even read, the majority of the other list-making titles.
Because there is little overlap between generally praiseworthy (or generally popular?) romance novels and romance novels with feminist appeal? Because no one reviewer has the time to ferret out, read, and review all potential great romance novels, even when the scope of what constitutes "great" in said reviewer's mind is restricted to feminist-friendly books? Some combination of the two, or some other reason altogether? I was curious enough to go out and get a hold of many of the books on these lists, reading them to see if I could figure out the answer to these questions. Sadly, it's looking like the answer is closer to the former than to the latter, so far.
Hence, then, no feminist-positive review today—I've spent too much time being disappointed by the list books, and not enough time tracking down and reading feminist-friendly titles. I like to keep the review section of the blog to books I feel comfortable endorsing, but I do write up my thoughts on other books I've read on my Goodreads account. I've added a feed showing my current Goodreads reviews to the right-hand sidebar, if any RNFF readers are interested in my take on other romance novels. And I've love to connect with other feminist-minded readers on Goodreads, if you, too, write up your thoughts about your reading there.
In the meantime, anyone have any feminist-friendly romance novels published in 2015 that you haven't yet seen featured on this blog? Would love to hear your thoughts...
Kelly Bowen's You're the Earl that I Want was one that I felt while it wasn't explicitly feminist, was more feminist positive than most historicals and certainly more than most of the books on the list seemed to be. It required a ton of willful suspension of disbelief precisely because of just how much agency the women have.
ReplyDeleteOther than that, as I get older I find that my preferences diverge more and more from the "Best" lists.
Two books pop into my head on this. One is Ann Aguirre's Dred Chronicles, which I read all together when the last book came out, and so I think of it in one piece rather than just the 2015 book Breakout. And that may be because I am conflating a woman in a position of power as feminist friendly. In any event, I thought that series was pretty fantastic. The other is Ilona Andrews' Innkeeper Chronicle, Sweep in Peace. The romance is three steps shy of a slow burn, but for me that is OK, it is Dina's story, and she is a kickass homemaker. But again, that may be me conflating a woman in power (she is all but invincible in her domain) with feminist friendly.
G.A. Aiken's Feel the Burn was another one I quite enjoyed, but I wouldn't call it feminist friendly. In fact if I were forced to categorize it through that lens, it was almost misogynistic. My enjoyment of exaggerated gender stereotypes in a reversal situation is probably baggage I should probably unpack, but considering how rarely it happens it doesn't usually feel worth the effort.
Thanks for the recs, Erin. Looking forward to checking them out!
DeleteDang it, was supposed to be misandrist in that last sentence.
ReplyDeleteAnother "best" list: https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/the-best-romance-novels-of-2015/2015/11/18/5d661010-7902-11e5-b9c1-f03c48c96ac2_story.html
ReplyDeleteOoh, I didn't think of it at first, because it's a more subtle thing. But I'm rereading it fresh from this post and some things caught my attention differently. Dark Horse might qualify, and its pretty fantastic too. It is science fiction and a human woman winds up in an alien society. A very egalitarian one.
ReplyDeletehttps://burnsthroughherbookshelf.wordpress.com/2015/06/26/review-dark-horse-by-michelle-diener/
This one's on my TBR pile... will definitely have to move it up the pile!
DeleteEveryone I've recommended it to has really enjoyed it. Even if they aren't sci-fi fans.
ReplyDelete