Showing posts with label ideology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ideology. Show all posts

Friday, May 8, 2015

The Benefits of Speaking Out

Every month, a copy of  RWR: The Romance Writers' Report, arrives the old-fashioned way—in my actual, not virtual, mailbox, the one hanging just outside my front door. RWR is the journal of the Romance Writers of America, a magazine filled with articles by RWA members that range from the motivational ("Breaking Free of Distractions"; "Conquering Self-Defeating Behaviors") to the practical ("DIY Author: Six Scrivener Shortcuts"; "How to Throw a Book Release Party"). When I first joined RWA, about five years ago, I found RWR to be a toss-up—some articles, particularly those related to craft informative and helpful, others, consisting mainly of encouraging platitudes, not so much.

This year, though, I've noticed a small shift, with the inclusion of of articles with more of an intellectual and/or ideological bent. I was particularly excited by the March 2015 issue, which featured not only "Diversity in Romance: A frank look at the market by romance authors who write books featuring people of color" but also "The Dance of Consent: Making consent visible as a positive and desirable feature of lovemaking in romance fiction." Both articles tackled ideological issues of great concern in the larger romance community: are books featuring characters of color subject to discrimination, by readers and/or publishers? Can discussions about sexual consent be crafted in a way that adds to, rather than detracts from, a romance's appeal?

It was disappointing, then, to reach the end of the magazine to find an article listing ten things an author should not post on social media, an article that included a piece of advice that directly discouraged this slight move of RWR's toward addressing important ideological issues. Among perfectly understandable professional recommendations, such as "don't share personal information" and "don't post revealing photos," the Marketing Insider warned romance writers about taking a too public stance on "polarizing topics." To wit:

     There are a million polarizing topics. Let's name some: religion. Gay marriage. The ruling in Ferguson, Missouri. Yes, an author's social media account should tell others who you are, but you are also in the business of selling books.
     Leading a some-what public life means that while you may have your opinions, you cannot afford to let those opinions turn your readership away. Therefore, should a polarizing issue arise, take a more neutral approach, express sadness or appreciation that the topic is being addressed. (RWR March 2015, page 42).

The Marketing Insider assumes a typical corporate attitude: don't say anything with the least chance of pissing any group off. The columnist, though, did not seem to realize that some of the issues she used as examples of "polarizing" might in fact be central to an author's writing, and, even more so, to her or his identity. Romance authors need to be apolitical, Marketing Insider assumes, if they are to reach as broad an audience as possible. Don't be controversial; be nice.

The niceness imperative is particularly pernicious in the romance-writing world, in no small part because of the strongly gendered nature of its membership. Girls and women are encouraged to be nice, to fit in, to get along; females who chafe against this message are often policed not by men, but by other women who have internalized the unwritten rules.




I was more than a little jazzed, then, to open the May 2015 edition of RWR today to find Courtney Milan's strong rebuttal of the Marketing Insider's position, in the magazine's lead article, "Speaking Out: Why authors speak out on social media, the consequences of doing so, and the danger of silence" (pages 23-26). Seeing such a rebuttal penned by a member of RWA's Board (Milan was elected this past year), and published in RWA's monthly magazine, gives me hope that the larger organization may be ready to engage in a larger conversation about the politics of romance writing, and the problems with, as well as the benefits of, the romance community's niceness imperative.

I won't go into the details of Milan's rebuttal here (although I do hope she will make her article publicly available to those outside the RWA community). What I will do, though, is list the authors she interviewed for her article, authors who speak out about "polarizing" issues, and provide links to their author web sites. Not surprisingly, books by several of the authors (including Milan's herself) have been featured in previous RNFF posts, and on RNFF "Best of" lists. Writers with feminist sensibilities tend to recognize the interconnectedness of different forms of political and social oppression, and aren't afraid to speak out about them. To the benefit of us all.

I'm planning to thank them for their courage in speaking up by pledging to read at least one book by each author on this list with whom I'm unfamiliar in the coming months. Will you join me?



Authors who spoke out for Milan's article (in alphabetical order):

Solace Ames
Heidi Belleau (no active website, but here's a link to her publisher's page)
Kay Cassidy
Alyssa Cole
K. M. Jackson
Racheline Maltese
Courtney Milan
E. E. Ottoman
Farrah Rochon
Suleikha Snyder




Friday, January 17, 2014

Definitions of Love

Yesterday, while killing time at the vet's, waiting with my cats until it was time for them to submit to the indignities of their annual check-ups, my eyes wandered the room, looking for something, anything to read. (Lugging around two large cats, even in carriers, leaves no hands free to hold an iPad or a book). Expecting to find handouts about pet foot, or perhaps, if I was lucky, a glossy copy of Cat Fancier, I instead came across a newsprint magazine with very brief self-help and spirituality articles sandwiched between lots of advertisements. Not my usual reading material, but hey, I needed something to distract me from the plaintive kitty chorus my two furry companions were singing, attempting to make me cringe with guilt for bringing them to a place with strange people, sharp needles, and big, smelly DOGS .

I quickly skimmed through inspirational words about renewing yourself during mid-life, and a profile of a doctor working to help war veterans through acupuncture, before coming across something a bit more relevant: an essay that encouraged readers to think about romantic love not as a state of being, but instead as an emotion. Try thinking of love as a feeling, like anger, sadness, or happiness, the author wrote, instead of a constant, something that's always there. Imagine love as a feeling, as a moment of pleasure, something that comes and goes rather than something that's with you all the time.

Why embrace such a definition of love? If you regard love as a feeling rather than a state of being, the author suggested, then your goal becomes not to find someone to love, or someone who loves you, but instead to create more moments during your day, during your life, where you have the opportunity to feel the emotion of love. Recall moments when you've felt love, and think about what you did that allowed you to experience that feeling. And then think about what you can do in the future to bring about other, similar moments, moments that foster the emotion of love. And then act to create the circumstances most likely to welcome and nurture that feeling.

Touchy-feely, yeah. But food for thought, nonetheless. Such a conception of romantic love struck me as quite at odds with the way love is presented in much romance fiction: "You're my other half"; "I'll love you forever"; "I'll never feel this way about anyone but you." In Romancelandia, you find the person you love, and who loves you back, and you've reached your goal; the story ends. The difference between this self-help article's view of love and the one more commonly embraced by the romance genre made me wonder: why is romance fiction so invested in this one narrative of love? What do we gain by focusing so tightly on it? What do we lose by not considering other definitions of love?

What other conceptions of romantic love are out there in the world? Some links to kickstart thinking:

The 5 Ways We Define Love (And Why They're Wrong)
What is Love? Famous Definitions from 400 Years of Literary History
7 Other Definitions of Real Love Worth Considering


What would a romance novel look like that embraced a different definition of love? Would we even consider it a romance novel anymore?

My two kitty choristers. Because you can never have enough
cute cat pictures on the web...

Friday, April 12, 2013

Kids in Romance Novels

For the past several weeks, I've been researching and prepping to teach an online course about the history of children and childhood during the Regency period, for an audience of historical romance writers. I'm a research wonk, so digging into all this information about what kids wore, what they ate, where (and with whom) they slept has me in my element. But it's also been making me wonder about the uses of the child figure in romance fiction. As a romance typically focuses tightly around the two (or sometimes more) adults who are falling in love with one another, how, and perhaps more importantly, why does romance make room for secondary characters from the younger generation? And does the inclusion of a child character tend to push a romance toward feminist, or anti-feminist ideologies?

Here are some reasons I can think of to include a child or children in a romance, some neutral, some with feminist leanings, still others that work to contain or constrain female needs and desires:

• Because many of us idealize children and childhood, and regard children as innocent, including a child character can more easily allow an author to mobilize readers' emotions, pulling on those old heartstrings.

• Showing a hero or heroine acting kindly to a child can demonstrate said character's nature, and suitability for a romantic partnership, without having to have the narrator resort to telling us "s/he is a kind person."

• Likewise, because we often think of children (like animals/pets) as having an instinctual "feel" for other people. If a child warms to an unfamiliar adult, said child's instincts can help persuade the other half of the romantic couple that the potential mate is worthy.

• Children can bring lovers in conflict, or lovers who are estranged, back together: witness the ever-popular secret baby plot.

• Or children can foster conflict—a mother at odds with her son's coach; a father who disagrees with his daughter's governess—bringing people with heightened emotions together so that the romantic sparks can flash. When potential romantic partners do not share similar child-rearing philosophies, tensions can mount quickly...

• Kids can play the role of matchmakers, working to push a reluctant parent or relative into a romantic relationship.

• A kid continually interrupting before things get too steamy helps build up the sexual tension...

• Because kids are associated with the inability to suppress emotions, showing a hero interacting with a child can allow said hero to access and show emotions that otherwise would not be allowed under contemporary codes of masculinity.

• Because kids are often believed to be unable to lie socially (or at least, to keep quiet about things adults can more easily suppress), kids can point out how one protagonist is feeling towards the other.

• Interacting with a kid can force that ever-immature hero (or, far more rarely, heroine) to realize that he is ready to "grow up" and start taking on the adult responsibilities of caring for, and financially supporting, a family. For heroines, the trope seems to function more often as a curb upon work, rather than a push towards adulthood; seeing other women's babies or children can persuade a heroine to think that she, too, wants to abandon the working grind to have a child of her own.


Interesting side note: while looking for book covers to accompany this post, I discovered that stand-alone romances rarely seem to feature covers with babies or kids on them. In contrast, category romances seem to have little problem drawing on the "ah, how cute" factor. Why do you think this is?


What are your favorite romances that include babies and/or children? And to what ideological uses do the authors of said romances put their young secondary characters?


Next time on RNFF:
A pre-romance for teen readers: Erica Lorraine Scheidt's Uses for Boys

Friday, February 8, 2013

Guns, Love, and Ideology in Romantic Suspense

In the public debate about gun control currently taking place across the United States in the wake of the December 2012 killings at Connecticut's Sandy Hook Elementary School, politicians, lobbyists, and pundits of all stripes have set forth arguments both rational and emotional for changing the nation's laws regarding the ownership of guns. In the past, the majority of disputants in the gun rights vs. gun control debate were, perhaps unsurprisingly, of the male persuasion. But as Washington Post reporter Philip Rucker recently noted, both sides in this current debate have turned more and more to women, using them both to frame the terms of the debate and to symbolize the stakes of gun ownership and abuse.

Why was I so surprised, then, when I started to read what I thought was an entertaining work of romantic suspense only to discover myself immersed in gun advocacy ideology? And not a heavy-handed, preachy, easily brushed-aside advocacy, but an advocacy woven with extreme skill and care right into the heart of the novel's romance? Uninformed critics of the genre may beleive that romances contain nothing but escapist fluff, but a closer look reveals potent political ideology in this particular novel, ideology that may be all the more effective for being packaged in the form of a compelling narrative than in political punditry or dry statistics and facts.

As discussed in Tuesday's post, many works of romantic suspense rely on the Gothic trope of placing a woman in danger to guarantee their readers thrills. In their jointly-authored Running Wild, Linda Howard and Linda Jones follow the formula, putting their heroine, Carlin, right in the cross-hairs. After only two dates, Carlin's would-be boyfriend becomes so obsessed with her that he believes her refusal to see him again demands her death. Though the narrative choice to make Brad, her stalker, a cop makes sense plot-wise, to explain his skill with firearms and computers, it also functions to foster a larger suspicion of government institutions that arm their members, a suspicion common among many gun rights activists.

After Carly's stalker mistakenly murders her co-worker (she'd borrowed Carly's raincoat), Carly flees from Texas (no slacker when it comes to gun rights) to Wyoming, the land where, the narrative informs us, carrying a concealed weapon is legal, and private gun sales require no background checks. Unsurprisingly, it's also where she meets her Prince not-so-charming, taciturn ranch owner Zeke, quite handy himself with a pistol.

Interestingly, Zeke doesn't simply tell Carly that he and his gun will protect her; neither does the narrative overtly show Carly depending on Zeke to keep her safe. Carly is constructed as tough, independent, and sassy, not a girl in search of a savior. So when Zeke counsels Carly to learn to shoot and carry her own weapon, his advice can easily be interpreted as empowering, perhaps even feminist. But the novel's true leanings become more apparent as the plot progresses.

Carly, put off by the idea of gun ownership, initially ignores Zeke's advice. The text thus must put her in a position of danger again, to persuade her how wrong such a decision was. It is not Brad this time, but a ranch hand who plays villain; his inexpert flirting leads to an attempt to coerce Carly into having sex. Although she threatens the reprobate with not one but two knives, it takes Zeke and all the other (male) ranch hands to rescue her. Zeke not only removes the threat, but beats up the miscreant in the bargain. That Zeke had the bad judgment to hire the man in the first place, and then to buy his story about needing to go back to the ranch house where he knew Carly was alone, are facts the narrative would have readers conveniently forget.

Allowing Zeke to rescue Carly, even though she never asked him to, clearly intensifies Carly's growing attraction to him:

The idea that Zeke had gotten into a fight for her—that was what was bothering her [in a good way]. After Brad, she simply hadn't been tempted by any kind of relationship, but Zeke was kind of the antidote to Brad. Brad threatened her; Zeke protected her. (197-98)

It simultaneously convinces Carly of the wisdom of learning to shoot:

She'd thought a lot about taking shooting lessons since Zeke had first mentioned it, and she still couldn't make a firm decision about whether or not she wanted to go that far. Arming herself seemed like such a drastic step. On the other hand, Brad was definitely armed, and if by some nightmare she found herself face-to-face with him she never, ever, wanted to be empty-handed and defenseless.
     There was her answer right there, reluctantly arrived at or not. (222)

A woman needs a gun not to hunt, or to enjoy target practice, as male-focused gun advocacy typically asserts, but to protect herself from dangerous men. Women are "defenseless" without a pistol in hand, the text urges readers to believe, a belief also commonly expressed in gun rights propaganda.

The novel devotes an entire chapter to Zeke teaching Carlin to shoot, a performance watched by all the male ranch hands. Each man brings out his pistol or rifle so she can try different weapons and find out which one she likes best. After firing her first shot (which, of course, comically misses its target), Carlin exuberantly exclaims "Yes! I want to shoot everything. This is fun!" (230).

She likes handling the rifles, but

when she picked up her first pistol, she felt something click inside her. As much fun as the shotgun had been, some primitive gene deep inside her sat up and took notice when her hand closed around the butt of the pistol. Oh my God. This was it. This was what suited her best. (230)

The desire for a gun is coded here not only as a natural, biological urge (what chromosome do you think that gun gene is on?), but also as a romantic imperative. The wording used to describe Carly's discovery of the right gun parallels the wording many romance novelists use to describe the discovery of the other "right one," the one and only true love; romance and gun ownership here become inextricably linked, even conflated. As an added bonus, Zeke finds the sight of Carly with her pistol a clear sexual turn-on: "If you could see your expression," Zeke said, his own voice low.... His eyes were heavy-lidded, intent." (231).

Now that Carly can wield her own gun, is she safe? Does she no longer need protecting? The narrative almost immediately puts her in danger again, not, this time from a man but from mother nature, which brings down the snowstorm which causes the truck in which she is a passenger to slide partway down a cliff. Zeke and the other ranch hands come to her rescue, of course, and the near-death experience leads to another intensification of her relationship with Zeke. Intriguingly, the narrative does not overtly suggest that being saved by Zeke makes Carly desire him; instead, it positions her earlier decision to refrain from becoming sexually involved with Zeke as a misguided attempt to protect, both herself and him:

     She thought she was protecting herself, protecting him, and all she'd been doing was depriving them.
     She'd be damned if she'd let Brad have that much control over her, over her life. (256)

Carly's attempt to protect Zeke from Brad by not acting on her attraction to Zeke is thus constructed  as a negative giving over of control; readers are meant to see Carly's going to Zeke's bedroom, and asking him to have sex with her, as a positive, empowered move, one in which she refuses to knuckle under to the patriarchal control of the mad stalker cop. When Zeke asks "You want me to fuck you?" Carly tells him, "No.  I want to fuck you" (259).

Yet even before Carly takes a step into Zeke's bedroom, she's already putting constraints on her own empowerment. "She couldn't take back control of her entire life, but right here, tonight, she could be a woman. She refused to let Brad keep her from that anymore" (257). Engaging in sex is equated with "being a woman"; being a woman means not being able to exert full control, not being able to protect herself fully. (Ironically enough, Carly's initial sexual encounter with Zeke is "unprotected"; neither uses any form of birth control. Though they later use condoms, Carly is glad when she's able to get a friend to procure her birth control pills, happy to do away with the "annoying" condoms; apparently, there are no STDs, as well as no background checks, in Wyoming).

After they have sex, Carly finally confides in Zeke, telling him about stalker Brad, but makes him promise not to tell anyone, or to try to "fix" her problem. "A part of him wanted to call Brad himself, to hunt the bastard down and issue a challenge—Come and get her, motherfucker, try to get through me. But this wasn't the Old West, and unfortunately, 'He needed killin' was no longer an acceptable defense," Zeke thinks. He ultimately agrees not to butt in—at least "for now" (313).

But a few months and a mere sixty pages later, Zeke decides it's time to take action. Without telling Carlin, he engages a detective to track Brad down, a move that almost leads Brad right to Zeke's ranch. The narrative lets Zeke off the hook, though, by making the meddling of another woman—Zeke's former housekeeper, an older woman who's known Zeke since he was a child and feels protective of him—what really leads Brad to Carlin. Once again, a woman's misguided attempts to "protect" a man backfire.

But Carlin is packing now; if, as gun rights proponents such as Women Against Gun Control (source of the photo to the left) suggest, owning a gun means you're safe from the murderers and rapists of the world, then Carlin should be fine. Carlin certainly thinks so:

Her pistol lay on the passenger seat, fully loaded, one in the chamber. Thanks to Zeke, she knew how to use it. And she would, by God, fight for her life and the lives of everyone she loved. Brad knew her as a woman who would run rather than fight. He knew her as an easily manipulatable, scared mouse.
     That wasn't who she was anymore. She'd changed—and she was more than willing to fight for what was hers. (348)

At this point in the novel, I wondered aloud whether it would be Carlin or Zeke who got to pull the trigger on the despicable Brad (because of course, even though Wyoming is not the Old West, you just knew that this book was not going to allow Brad to be captured and sent off to jail without some blood being shed). If Carlin did the honors, wouldn't such an act undermine the text's message that women are in danger from bad men, and need good men with guns to keep them safe? But if Zeke did, wouldn't readers understand that the novel's gestures towards empowered femininity were just a form of appeasement, a move to allow female readers to pretend to be empowered while really still embracing the old construction of man as protector, woman in need of protection?

Howard and Jones solve this apparently no-win situation by allowing both Carlin and Zeke to have their turn at Brad. I'll leave you to guess which one only wounds him, and which one "fired, and the side of Brad's head blew out in a red mist of blood and brain matter" (362).

In order for gun advocates to successfully deploy the figure of the woman in their rhetoric, they must balance between two apparently opposing visions of femininity. Women must be constructed as in danger, subject at any time and for no apparent reason to the violent behavior of marauding male criminals such as Brad. Yet they must also be shown as believing that gun ownership will empower them, will allow them to protect themselves and others from any such depredations.* Howard and Jones demonstrate how conflating romance and gun ownership might just make this ideological tightrope that much easier for gun rights activists to walk.

Running Wild is taut, tight, and deeply engaging, a showcase for the skills of two gifted writers. But as a feminist, I find what they say with those skills disturbing. What other romance novels can you think of that engage so successfully (and/or disturbingly) with political ideology, of either a liberal or conservative stripe?


* That twelve times as many women are killed by guns owned by men whom they know, rather than by strangers, is a fact conveniently hidden in the course of such rhetoric. Violence Policy Center, When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 2008 Homicide Data. Violence Policy Center, September 2010.


Photo/Illustration credits:
Gun Owners are Compensating and Gun Control T-Shirt: Women Against Gun Control
Protect Children, Not Guns: ivillage.com



Next time on RNFF:
A Wrinkle in Time goes graphic
 




Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Battle of the Sexes, Courtroom Style: Julie James' PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT

Shakespeare's Beatrice and Benedict. Howard Hawks's Hildy Johnson and Walter Burns. George Cukor's Adam and Amanda Bonner. Tennis's Bobby Riggs and Billy Jean King. The battle of the sexes comedy has been a staple of stage, screen, and popular culture since Aristophanes' Lysistrada. But in the genre of the contemporary romance, true battle of the sexes storylines seem remarkably few and far between. Perhaps this is because the heterosexual romance novel is, at its heart, always about a struggle between a woman and a man, so writers feel little need to write explicitly about gender politics. Or perhaps it is a sign of our purportedly post-feminist times, when many believe that feminism has achieved its goals and therefore is no longer useful or even necessary. Plots that take issue with such a belief may find it more difficult to find a ready readership.

Benedict and Beatrice battle it out in Much Ado about Nothing
But with Practice Makes Perfect, author Julie James proves herself more than up to the challenge of crafting a compelling battle of the sexes romance, one as funny as it is politically savvy. The story's heroine, Payton Kendall, daughter of a openly feminist single mother, has worked her butt off for the past eight years, striving to prove herself at the high-powered Chicago law firm she joined just after law school. Because of her mother's feminist teachings, Payton recognizes that she has to work harder than most men to achieve her goal of making partner; though her firm may openly declare its commitment to women ("In order to honor its commitment to the policies created by the Committee for the Retention of Women, the firm is proud to announce that it has set a goal of increasing the number of female partners by 10 percent by next year" [19]), the unwritten cultural assumptions of the firm still favor men.

For example, Payton's boss, Ben, isn't quite comfortable with women:

She had begun to suspect that Ben—while never blatantly unprofessional—had a more difficult time getting along with women. It certainly wasn't an unlikely conclusion to draw. Law firms could be old-fashioned at times and unfortunately, female attorneys still had a bit of an 'old boy network' to contend with. (4)

If collegiality plays into decisions about who makes partner and who doesn't, then Ben's discomfort with Payton and other female associates places a barrier between them and advancement, particularly if Ben and others like him aren't aware of (or aren't willing to acknowledge) their own biases.

Sometimes Payton can be pragmatic about the everyday sexism she faces at the office, and in the courtroom:

A jury consultant she had worked with during a particularly tricky gender discrimination trial had told her that jurors—both men and women—responded more favorably to female lawyers who were attractive. While Payton found this to be sadly sexist, she accepted it as a fact nonetheless and thus made it a general rule to always put her best face forward, literally, at work. (2)

But when the sexism presents her with a challenge she can't over come (such as a colleague taking their mutual client to a golf club that doesn't allow women), her frustration, and her sarcasm, go into overdrive. As she complains to fellow associate Laney:

"The problem is, getting business is part of the business. It's like a ritual with these guys: 'Hey, how 'bout those Cubs'"—the bad male impersonation was back—'"let's play some golf, smoke some cigars. Here's my penis, there's yours—yep, they appear to be about the same size—okay, let's do some deals.'" (33).

Complaining about socializing may strike some as petty. But Payton knows that the way male lawyers can choose activities that exclude women and use them as an opportunity to forge relationships with other male lawyers, and with clients, gives them an advantage in a culture where the social and the business worlds are far from separate.

A true battle of the sexes comedy requires not only a heroine pointing out the failings of men, but a man who will take equal relish in doing the same of women. Payton's opponent at the law firm is one J. D. Jameson, cocky, privileged scion of a wealthy Chicago family. Ever since J.D. and Payton started in the same "class" at the firm, they've engaged in an undeclared competition, striving to prove to the firm, and to themselves, that each is better than the other. And the battle is edging into outright war now that the firm has announced only one of them will be allowed to make partner this year.

As in the classic battle of the sexes comedies, Payton and J. D. spend much of their time flinging sharp verbal zingers at one another. Many of those zingers take the form of gender-based insults:

     " 'Forty Women to Watch Under 40,'" J. D. emphasized. "Tell me, Payton—is there a reason your gender finds it necessary to be so separatist? Afraid of a little competition from the opposite sex, perhaps?"
    "If my gender hesitates to compete with yours, J. D., it's only because we're afraid to lower ourselves to your level," she replied sweetly. (11).

J.D. believes that white men are getting the short end of the stick in a "socially liberal, politically correct" society. "There is no glass ceiling anymore—these women choose to leave the workforce of their own volition" he gripes to a fellow (male) associate after hearing about the firm's plan to increase the number of female partners (20).  "The playing field isn't level," he goes on to assert, stating as a fact that "if a man and a woman are equally qualified for a position, the woman gets the job" (21). A proponent of the "reverse discrimination" theory, J.D. takes pride in his own "fairness": "I'm just saying that everyone should be judged solely on merit. No 'plus' factors for gender, race, national origin.... so that each person is given a a fair chance" (22). J.D. refuses see that his own background has already give him an edge in the purported meritocracy of the law firm.

J.D. also refuses to acknowledge the simmering attraction that underlies his gender-based attacks on Payton, a failing he shares with Payton herself. James' story thus allows the reader to know more, or to know better, than its main characters do. Payton continually reminds herself that she's "above such petty nonsense" as competing with J. D., while J.D. reassures himself, "Not that it was a competition between them" whenever he finds himself gloating over his latest Payton-related triumph (28). It's funny to see J.D. and Payton both act in ways that give the blatant lie to such self-justifications. But their blindness also serves a second purpose: to suggest to readers that if our protagonists are mistaken about their own feelings, they might also be mistaken about their gender-based assertions.

This certainly proves true of J.D., who must gradually come to see the validity of Payton's gender critique over the course of the novel in order to become a worthy romance hero. Payton's change comes not in the form of political consciousness-raising, but in a personal recognition that ideological soul mates do not necessarily make the best life-mates.

Practice Makes Perfect's feminist credentials would be impeccable, but for one disturbing factor: Payton is an expert in race and gender discrimination cases. But she is typically not on the side of women: she earns her hefty paychecks by defending large corporations against gender discrimination charges. She wins the one case James depicts in the novel, a case in which the woman suing the company that Payton represents is obviously misguided. But are all, or even most, such cases so obviously spurious? Or is this simply wish-fulfillment on the part of those whose, like Payton and her fellow corporate lawyers, build their fortunes defending big business?

Equal opportunity for women in the old boys' world of the law office is a goal feminism surely should embrace. But when that opportunity comes at the expense of other women, we might want to pause in our praise. Has James pulled a sly bait and switch, offering up gender equality in romance in exchange for readers' turning their own blind eye to larger, institutionally-based gender discrimination? The personal is political, but is the political no longer necessary in a world of personal gender equality?

What other romance novels can you think of that feature a politically-inflected battle of the sexes storyline? And how do the endings of those novels reinforce, or undermine, feminist goals?


Photo/illustration credits:
Much Ado About Nothing: Fandango 
• Old Boys' Network: Cafe Press
• Battle of the Sexes Tug of War: Brittany Jones blog
• Wal-Mart cartoon: Walt Hangelsman, Newsday via Ottinger Firm



Next time on RNFF
RNFF Pet Peeve #2: Romance novels that diss feminism


Friday, September 21, 2012

Who am I to be writing about romance novels and feminism?

As an early adolescent in the late 1970s, I was an avid Harlequin Romance reader. Haunting the bookshelves in my local Caldors and Bradlees stores, I set aside a certain amount of my allowance (and later, my babysitting money) to purchasing those slim, colorful volumes, though their garishly-illustrated covers, blatantly shouting “this book is about sex,” or, at least in the books I chose, “this book is about a woman who has to keep saying no to sex, even though she’d rather say yes” made me slink in furtive guilt through the checkout line.

Though I read widely in other genres, no other type of book held such a hold over me as genre romance did. Pleasure and guilt, both to be kept hidden, compelled me to keep adding to my romance novel collection, which took up more and more shelves in my hidden closet bookshelf as my teen years progressed. My 12-year-old self didn’t understand the compulsion, or the guilt these books evoked; I only knew that something about them kept me coming back for more.

Only after taking Women’s Studies classes at college did I begin to understand why I had found such novels so utterly compelling, and so guilt-inducing—and why I should steer far away from them. They were part of the patriarchy, the social system that deemed men and boys the primary authority figures, and left women subordinate to their rules and restrictions. The patriarchy, where “you throw like a girl” was an insult, where the patently unfair sexual double standard held sexually active boys to be the height of cool, sexually active girls the skankiest of whores. The patriarchy, which feminists in the 1980s were eager to identify, protest against, and dismantle.

By persuading their characters, and their female readers alongside them, to believe that heterosexual romance was the most important thing in their lives—in many cases, the only important thing in their lives—romance novels could only stand in the way of women who wished to gain parity with men in the workplace, in the household, in life. If I wished to be a feminist, then, those Harlequins hiding in the back of my closet would have to go.

Flash forward twenty-five years, to an M.A. and Ph.D.-wielding scholar of children’s literature writing an article about Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight series. The planned article would focus on the genre conventions of fantasy, not romance. But I began to wonder how fantasy conventions might differ from (or perhaps overlap) the conventions of romance. Little academic attention had been paid to romance when I was reading it back in the 1980s. But had scholars in recent years begun to analyze the genre? I began to wonder…

A few trips to the library, and an essay by Dawn Heinecken later, and my original question, and my reading habits, took off in an entirely different direction. Heinecken’s article, “Changing Ideologies in Romance Fiction,”* argued that romance as a genre had been transformed since the days when passive Harlequin heroines waited to be rescued and made whole by dominant, often violent, alpha male heroes. Romance novels being written in the late 1990s, Heinecken argued, had begun to incorporate feminist discourses, running “counter to the traditionally ‘masculine’ ideology of competition, hierarchy, and autonomy…. romance novels embrace a sense of social justice and the necessity for a cooperative relationship that is in direct opposition to masculine modes of thought” (150).

Could Heinecken’s claim be true? I certainly had my doubts.

But after I finished writing my article, I had some free time, and was willing to put her claim to the test. Off I hied to the local library, where a copy of Loretta Chase’s Lord of Scoundrels awaited. Candy Tan and Sarah Wendell, authors of Beyond Heaving Bosoms: The Smart Bitches’ Guide to Romance Novels, had recommended Scoundrels during an interview broadcast on NPR in 2009.

First Heinecken, then NPR? Could romance novels have changed so radically since I had banished them from my bookshelves back in the 1980s?

One Loretta Chase novel later, and I was once again hooked on romance. I haunted the local library’s romance section, ordered novels via interlibrary loan, and purchased the ones I found particularly compelling. Between that fateful day in April of 2009 and today, the fall of 2012, I read more than five hundred romance novels.

And I’m still reading them.

Heinecken, then, was right—romance novels had changed. Or, perhaps, it would be more accurate to say, some romance novels had changed. You can still find plenty of conventional patriarchal romances, with alpha heroes all too ready to dominate sweet but passive heroines who can only find their worth if they are loved by/stalked by an overwhelmingly virile man. But some novelists experimented with other visions of masculinity, visions more appealing to readers with feminist sensibilities than the traditional alpha male. And still others gestured towards feminist truisms while simultaneously embracing traditional patriarchal tropes.

Few review journals, though, had the space for, or the interest in, vetting individual romance novels’ feminist credentials. Individual bloggers might devote a line or two to such questions. But no blog seemed to focus specifically on the feminist aspects of contemporary romance fiction, books that meet the Romance Writers of America’s definition of a romance as “as a work that contains a central love story, and the resolution of the romance is emotionally satisfying and optimistic.”**

Hence this blog, Romance Novels for Feminists (RNFF), was born…

What paths have led you to becoming a romance reader? And if you consider yourself a feminist, do you find yourself conflicted or guilty about your romance reading?


* Heinecken, Dawn. “Changing Ideologies in Romance Fiction.” Romantic Conventions. Ed. Anne K. Kaler and Rosemary E. Johnson-Kurek. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State U Popular P, 1999. 149-172.

** Hot Sheet. RWA Board Meeting. July 22-23, 2012.


Next time: The romance novel that made me seriously think about the possibility of feminist romance fiction