Showing posts with label stereotypes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stereotypes. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

The Merits of Romance: A Debate from Catherine M. Roach's HAPPILY EVER AFTER

In between reading romance novels, I've been gradually making my way through Catherine M. Roach's academic study of the genre, Happily Ever After: The Romance Story in Popular Culture (see my post about the book's opening chapter here). Because Roach is in the unusual (although not entirely unique) position of being both a scholar and a writer of romance, her nonfiction study includes more than just straightforward analyses of individual books, or analysis of the romance genre as a whole. Instead, academically-oriented chapters are sandwiched between chapters that Roach describes as "more narrative in style, with passages of my own romance writing and with stories based on my time spent among romance communities of readers and authors" (15). One of the most curious of these chapters is Chapter 3, "Notes from the Imagination: Reading Romance Writing." The chapter stages an imaginary debate between the author's two romance-related identities: Catherine Roach, gender and cultural studies professor, and Catherine LaRoche, historical romance author.





The idea behind such a "performative ethnography," Roach argues in the introduction to this chapter, is to allow the reader to "have fun" rather than "drowning you in jargon and theory" (48). By making fun not only of herself, but of "certain conventions of sober analysis," Roach hopes to destabilize the "insider/outsider boundaries that can make conversation—serious conversation—difficult across the divide between academics and the general public" (48).

I have to admit, though, that I found myself frowning more often than laughing while reading Chapter 3, and not quite knowing why. Was I just not getting into the spirit of Roach's self-described "tomfoolery"? Or was there something else going on here?

When I went back to re-read the chapter, I found my eye caught this time not by the content of Roach and LaRoche's arguments, but by the stage directions and voice intonations Roche gives each of her two "identities" to perform. Can you tell which Roach/LaRoche's identity goes with which set of stage directions?



Debator ADebator B
sneering tone sighing
more sneering sounds of slurping coffee
sound of coffee cup slamming down squealing noisily
bewildered sounds of chair scraping
annoyed pouting, sitting back down
sanctimoniously sighing
whining mockingly
grudgingly pouting again
sarcastically sounds of shuffling paper
with more sneer laughing
bewildered, again laughing
paper rustling noises that sound suspiciously like a woman fanning herself sounds of slapping the table
humph angrily
defensively
goadingly

(answer will appear in comment section below at the end of the day)

What stereotypes of romance writers, and of female academics, does each set of stage directions suggest?

Does deploying such stereotypes in the middle of a mock debate help call our attention to them? Or simply reproduce them? Can using them (and having readers notice you using them) help break down the "insider/outsider boundaries that can make conversation—serious conversation—difficult across the divide between academics and the general public" (48)? Or does it just invite readers to uncritically mock both sides?


Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Romancing Jewishness: Rose Lerner's TRUE PRETENTIONS

It's pretty rare to find depictions of Jewishness in romance fiction. It's even more rare to find them in English-set historical romance. If an author wants to write a Jewish character, s/he has to content with the weighty history of past depictions of Jewishness in English literature, a history which features two quite different stereotypes. The first, epitomized by the famous figures of Shylock, Fagin, and Svengali, is of the evil Jew, the demon Other—the moneylender, the thief, the stealer and manipulator of (good Christian) children. Not quite as damaging, but equally limiting, are portraits of the Jew as cardboard saint, sometimes created by Jewish writers themselves, sometimes by Christian writers such as Maria Edgeworth and Charles Dickens who had been upbraided by Jews for anti-semitic portrayals in their previous work. Neither stereotype is likely to have much appeal to the modern romance reader. Far easier to not mention a character's cultural or religious background at all than to have to fight to overcome such a heavy burden of negative stereotypes.

The Artful Dodger introduces Oliver to Fagin
To open a Regency romance, then, and discover that your book's protagonist is named Ash Cohen, is more than a bit of a surprise. To find yourself introduced to Ash while he is in the midst of fleeing from the latest flat he and his younger brother have just swindled is nearly a shock. But Rose Lerner, the author of True Pretensions, is not simply falling into lazy stereotypes in her creation of Asher and his brother Rafe (Raphael); instead, she is confronting such stereotypes head-on.

Ash is hardly the Jew with a halo of gold. Ash uses his very friendliness to persuade others to trust him, trust him enough to hand over their money for plans he has no intention of fulfilling. While he never swindles more from a flat than the flat can afford to lose, he hardly loses much sleep over the money he takes; having grown up in London's slums scraping out a living to support himself and his brother by thieving, bodysnatching, and occasionally selling his own body, Ash figures the comfortably well-off still have more than enough to get by on, even after an encounter with the Cohens. "What's so bad about being selfish, anyway? Everybody's selfish.... Selfishness is as natural as breathing. Unlike you, I don't blame people for how they're made. Next you'll be talking about original sin like a goy," he tells his brother when Rafe protests (Kindle Loc 1180). Behind every romance bad boy is a past that made him the way he is; behind the Jewish stereotype, Lerner suggests, is a history of abuse and oppression the stereotype is meant to hide.

Molly Picon as Fiddler on the Roof's matchmaker, Yente
But if Ash is selfish, he's practically selfless when it comes to his younger brother. So when, at novel's start, Rafe decides that he's tired of the swindling life, Ash comes up with a plan for one final con, a swindle that will ensure his brother the life he never had: he will find a wealthy woman and play matchmaker (shades of Fiddler on the Roof), using his charm and skill to convince her to fall for his handsome, kindly brother.

That Ash's mark is the epitome of upright, conservative Englishness makes the irony all the sweeter when Ash finds himself falling for Tory political patroness Lydia Reeve himself. Lydia, whose father has recently died, has been unable to persuade her younger brother to support the political causes which she and her father held so dear to her heart. Such support takes not only a willing heart and hands, but substantial amounts of money: money to purchase new coats for the children in the workhouse; money to pay for an apprenticeship for the child of an ally; money to support schools, and hospitals, and the pet projects of all those who supported the Tories in the last election. Lydia has an inheritance, yes, but she can only get access to it if she marries. Rafe would seem like the perfect solution—if only Lydia didn't find herself drawn to his less handsome, but far more compelling, older brother...

Ash believes it better to keep his cultural heritage a secret: "When I have a drink with a man in a pub, and he doesn't know I'm Jewish... what's the difference between a Jew and a Gentile, really? It makes no difference, but I believe it would to him, so I don't mention it, and we can go on drinking together," he tells Lydia after Rafe lets their secret out of the bag. But deep inside, Ash knows keeping the secret isn't just a question of "practicality. But somehow he was ashamed to explain how it would hurt, to see himself turn from a fellow soul to a dirty Jew" (Loc 3935). Keeping a pane of glass between himself and those hurtful emotions allows him to go through life liking everyone he meets. But does it also stand in the way of forming deeper connections than just liking?

How does cultural identity, and our relation to it, influence our relationships? How do larger cultural stereotypes? Does it matter it we pretend to be one thing to the world, while truly we are another? If we pretend even with our most intimate relations? When does pretense become the truth? Weighty questions for a historical romance, no doubt. But when asked by a writer as skilled as Rose Lerner, their consideration proves just as much of a pleasure as the slow-build romance between two people who have far more in common than their cultural identities would ever suggest.


Illustration/Photo credits:
Fagin: Wikimedia Commons
Molly Picon as Yente: Molly Picon gallery







Rose Lerner, True Pretenses
Samhain, 2015

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

There's Something about Stereotypes: Emma Barry's PRIVATE POLITICS

Reading Emma Barry's latest contemporary romance, Private Politics, got me thinking about the connections between stereotypes and self-identity. According to the OED, a stereotype in our modern sense of the word was coined in 1922 by American journalist Walter Lippman, to refer to "a preconceived and oversimplified idea of the characteristics which typify a person, situation, etc.; an attitude based on such a preconception. Also, a person who appears to conform closely to the idea of a type." The definition focuses on the beliefs of the judger, the viewer. What does stereotype look like from the opposite end—from the one being stereotyped? Can stereotypes be claimed, transformed, empowered? Can they be used, manipulated, for positive effect?

The first line of the blurb for Private Politics— "New York socialite Alyse Philips is not the airhead people take her for"—simultaneously invokes a particular stereotype and calls the same stereotype into question. What is the stereotype of a "New York socialite," and in what ways does Alyse embody it? Do "people" take Alyse for an "airhead" because the stereotype "New York socialite" by definition assumes a person of little brain? Or do Alyse's own actions and behavior encourage such a conclusion?

The questions I list above rest upon a binary view of stereotypes: a stereotype is either wrong, a "preconceived, oversimplified" and damaging idea about a person or a group, or it's right, an accurate assessment of a person or group's character. The opening pages of Private Politics, though, ask readers to move beyond the good/bad binary, suggesting that while the label "New York socialite" goes a long way toward describing Alyse, it doesn't capture everything about her. And "New York socialite" isn't the only stereotype with which Alyse is labeled by other characters, by the narrator, and, most interestingly, by herself.

The opening lines of the novel present us with an Alyse long used to using both her good looks and her WASP (white Anglo Saxon Protestant) background, as well as people's assumptions about the personality that of course must accompany them, to manipulate situations to her own benefit. Simultaneously, however,  the same lines comically undermine her ability to do so in this particular instance:

Smart, capable and in awe of her: was that really too much to ask from the men in her life? Alyse Philips dragged perfectly manicured nails through her blond hair and flipped it over her shoulder. But did the accountant across from her so much as acknowledge it? A practiced movement that had melted bartenders on three continents, received appreciative smiles from congressmen and even caused her father to once issue a compliment—and Fred of all people was unmoved. (Loc 86-89)

Though Alyse wishes that men looked at her and thought "smart and capable," "dazzled" is the far more "typical" response her chic blond good looks evoke. And if she can't get smart and capable, she'll settle dazzled, a reaction that has not only made her a successful fundraiser for Young Women Read, Inc., a Washington D. C. charity that sends books and funds schools focused on educating girls, but that has greased the wheels of her everyday life:

Alyse leaned on the table conspiratorially and flashed the hint of a smile. The effect was flirty. It was the kind of practiced move she usually reserved for bribing the checkout guy at the grocery store not to charge her for plastic bags when she forgot the canvas ones her roommate insisted they use. (Loc 126-128)

Alyse is well-aware of the power that she gains by playing to the stereotypes others have about her, and the image Alyse projects—part charming socialite, part dumb blonde—typically gets her what she wants. Barry sets Alyse up as the opposite not just of the typical romance heroine, then, but the heroine of the Western novel since the days of Samuel Richardson's Pamela and Clarissa: the girl who is valued for her authenticity, her lack of artifice and disguise.

Even while Alyse takes advantage of the stereotypes that others hold about her, though, she also finds herself chafing at the limitations they place upon her. The "dumb" part, for example—especially when it's not just a man, but her own (female) boss, who accepts her clueless act at face value. When Alyse begins to question irregularities she's discovered in donations while gathering documents for an audit, Geri blows off her concerns:

     “I’m certain it’s because of your great fundraisers.”
     Everyone was always saying things like that and it was true: her fundraisers were great. But whenever Geri joined in, it seemed insincere—the verbal equivalent of a pinch on the cheek or a pat on the hand. Sweet condescension.
     “Thanks. I’m sure you’re right.” The words stung her mouth as she accepted the stupid non-compliment. Accepted all the low judgments Geri had of her. She felt dirty. Like she’d walked home in late August and needed a second shower. (Loc 438-442)

Alyse may have spent her college years partying rather than thinking about her future, but she's far from stupid. Certainly not stupid enough to ignore the financial discrepancies she's discovered, discrepancies that she worries will eventually be blamed on her.

Lucky for Alyse, the best friend of her roommate's fiancĂ© is a political blogger with a nose for D.C. dirt. Unlucky for said friend, Liam Nussbaum, Alyse has been the object of his unrequited crush for the past six months: "The girl was the most ridiculously perfect creature he’d seen outside the pages of a magazine. Tall, blond and stylish—so sophisticated and fashionable even he couldn’t miss it" (Loc 226-227). But Liam has noticed far more than the image that Alyse works so hard to project: "The slightest edge of NYC in her voice, the way he felt her smile in his gut and the intelligence she tried so hard to hide until it flashed out: everything about her drove him insane" (Loc 228-229). Liam sees the "smart, capable" woman behind Alyse's image, and is more than a little in awe of her. The perfect mate, no?

But wait. It's not that simple. For the stereotype game takes on a different dimension when it comes to Liam. Intellectual, geeky, (presumably white) and not nearly as conventionally attractive as his two best buds, Barry's male protagonist is about as far from the alpha male hero stereotype of Romancelandia as you can get. Yet at the same time, he embodies another stereotype quite closely: that of the nice Jewish boy.

Liam's Judaism is mentioned in the text more often than Alyse's WASP-i-ness, although not ever, interestingly enough, in connection with the "nice Jewish boy" stereotype. "His family was more culturally Jewish than anything. He remembered entire years when they’d never darkened the door of a synagogue. His bar mitzvah experience had been pretty laid-back," Liam recalls before a conversation with his mother, who wants him to get married, preferably to a Jewish girl (Loc 613). But later in the story, when Alyse tries to make a joke of Liam's desire for a family, the joke turns into a more serious revelation about Liam's identity:

    “The whole big white church wedding,” she teased, struggling to keep her teeth from chattering.
     “The whole big white synagogue wedding. Not to put too fine a point on it.”
     He was Jewish. Liam was Jewish. She wasn’t sure why she was surprised. She was a New Yorker. Many of her childhood friends were but somehow the news came as a shock.
     Realizing she hadn’t responded, she said, “Right. Yes. Of course.”
     Speaking rapidly as if he had caught on to the shock under her words, he said, “I’m more culturally Jewish than anything else. I mean, my family doesn’t really care either way.”
     “I’ve attended my share of seders, Liam, I get it.”
     An awkward tension settled between them. (Loc 2464)

Liam may be a cultural Jew rather than a religious one, but his Judaism is important enough to him for him to want it to be present at a key transitional moment in his life. Contrast this with Alyse's playful, self-mocking, and questioning view of her "WASP" identity: "She felt longing—and WASPs simply weren't supposed to" (Loc 164).

The text clearly names Liam Jewish, but never directly labels him a "nice Jewish boy," a construction of masculinity that emphasizes the studiousness, sensitivity, and gentleness of a traditional Talmudic scholar (see Daniel Boyarin's Unheroic Conduct for more on this). Why? Is it because "nice Jewish boy" has both positive and negative connotations, depending on who is doing the judging? Because it lacks the power traditionally associated with the "WASP" stereotype? Because WASP is a label that comes from outside the culture it names, while "nice Jewish boy" comes from within? Because it suggests an uncomfortable lack of traditional masculinity to the reader? Because Liam is not comfortable manipulating others through playing a role as is Alyse? I'm not quite sure.

Perhaps it is simply because Liam finds himself limited by certain aspects of the stereotype, even while as a whole he embraces it. For Liam, unlike his two best friends, has never had much luck in the dating department, something that he connects directly to his self-image: "He couldn’t attract someone that hot. Someone that vivacious. Someone like her.... She’d never see him as anything other than a nerdy friend of Parker’s. There was no hope that they might be different. He was what he was and so was she—that didn’t stop a guy from wishing that for one night, she’d decide to go slumming" (Loc 234-235; 305-307).

Thus, as Liam and Alyse's relationship begins to unfold, Barry flips the confident male/self-doubting female stereotype common to conventional romance on its head, making Liam, not Alyse, the one who won't just fall into bed, who worries about his feelings and the effect a casual fling with his formerly unrequited crush would have on them:

"I’m vulnerable here. For months I pictured exactly this. Pictured falling into bed with you knowing it was just the once. And I was okay with it. But now, I know that I can’t. I won’t. From this—” he made a motion she thought was probably supposed to represent the making out, “—we might be able to go back to being friends without permanent damage. But from that I couldn’t.” (Loc 1569-1572)

The inversion of the stereotype here isn't just for comic effect. Barry is asking readers to both accept the accuracy of the stereotype—the anxious, worried, vulnerable person in love really does exist out there in the world—but also, to play with the possibility that the stereotype is not as gender-exclusive as it commonly appears.

The novel isn't content to give just one take-away message about stereotypes. Instead, it insists we take a more complex view. Alyse comes to love Liam because he sees more than just the stereotypes, the self-fashioning she uses to navigate through her world: "You who saw through my layers." But it's not just that she can finally "be herself" with someone, can drop her "act" when he is around. Because Liam also admires her for the very layers he sees through, admires her for her ability to use those layers, those stereotypes, to "strategically manipulat[e] your opponent" (Loc 2304). The layers, and Alyse's ability to use them to achieve her goals, are just as much a part of her as what Liam can see "through" them. Alyse doesn't have to stop acting, stop being strategic in her manipulation of self-image and others' assumptions about it, in order to be deserving of love.

But neither Alyse nor the novel demands that Liam practice the same self-fashioning. Liam is open, honest, and direct, even (or perhaps especially) about his feelings, something the text, through Alyse, insists is valuable in a man:

     “Thank you,” he said.
     “For?”
     “Sharing your passion with me.”
     “You never need to be thanked for sharing your passions.”
     “I just go around spilling them all over the place,” he teased.
     “No. Because you trust people enough to share. You’re open. It’s a gift.” (Loc 1221)


One of my favorite lines from the novel comes toward its end:

Just that morning they’d been arguing about whether she’d been snoring the night before. She had been, but that didn’t stop her from vigorously denying it. “That’s a highly dubious accusation. I don’t think WASPs are allowed to snore.” “Really? Among my people, it’s encouraged.” (Loc 3244-3247).

I've leave it to you to unpack the different ways that each character plays with, rejects, and embraces cultural and gender stereotypes in this funny, but thought-provoking passage...






Carina Press, 2014

Friday, October 5, 2012

RNFF Pet Peeve: "It's a Guy Thing..."


 

 



You've all read them, those lines in romance novels meant to explain away some difference or conflict between the hero and heroine. A girlfriend tells the heroine, "Don't worry, everyone knows men hate talking about their feelings" when her new love interest won't discuss last night's disagreement. Or a buddy jokes to his newly engaged best friend, when dragged along to the mall by his fiancée: "Get used to cooling your heels, Jack. All women love to shop." Or the hero dismisses the heroine's attempt to figure out why he's breaking his promise to go see her beloved ballet company perform, saying "You wouldn't understand. It's a guy thing..."

Realistic lines, perhaps, echoes of ones we hear almost every day. They're used, of course, to explain what to the speaker are natural, obvious differences between the sexes. Or are they?

When you stop to think about it, such statements are rarely true of all men or all women. Yes, many men don't care to discuss their feelings, but I know quite a few who are quite ready to bend my ear telling me their latest emotional triumphs and woes. Yes, many women do love to hit the shopping center hard, but I also know quite a few who despise shopping more than a visit to the dentist for root canal. For any statement you can find that attempts to categorize behavior by assigning it exclusively to one gender or the other, I'll bet I can find at least one person (and in most cases, many people) who doesn't conform. I'll bet even the people who utter such statements would, if pressed, admit that they know someone who undermines the truth of their own generalization.


So why do authors keep writing such statements and putting them in the mouths of their characters? Sexism? Laziness? Because they really live in such a culturally homogeneous place that every man really
does act like every other?

I've been pondering the possibilities, and I'd like to throw out a few
here for your consideration:




PLEASURE IN SUPERIORITY

In a romance novel, when the gender statement is said with a touch of tolerant amusement, and refers to the male sex ("Oh, men!"), the pleasure offered to the (presumably female reader) is that of feeling superior. Men, silly creatures, they can't talk about their feelings. Aren't we women special because we can?

While such superiority may make us feel better in the face of messages that denigrate characteristics typically associated with being a member of the female sex, it's a temporary fix, I'd argue, and one that does little to advance equality between the sexes.


PLEASURE IN DIFFERENCE

If a romance includes not only "guy" statements, but also "girl" statements, then the pleasure in feeling superior is no longer at issue (or if it is, it is a pleasure that moves back and forth between feeling superior and feeling inferior). Perhaps the pleasure in this case lies in the assertion of difference. Men are x and women are y, so very different one from the other; in overcoming such vast differences by novel's end, the heroism of our protagonists strikes us as far more vast than it would have if gender differences did not exist.

I wonder, though, if this isn't just a shortcut on the part of writers, relying on gendered stereotypes to build conflict between their protagonists rather than on detailed character development? Bridging the gap between two different human beings, no matter their sex or gender, seems a far more monumental a task than bridging the gap between a stereotypical man and a stereotypical woman.

Psychologist Janet Shibley Hyde's 2005 meta-analysis of previous scientific studies of gender differences argues that males and females are similar on most, but not all psychological variables. In her 2010 follow-up study focusing on gender differences in sexuality, she discovered an even more intriguing fact: "nations and ethnic groups with greater gender equity had smaller gender differences for some reported sexual behaviors than nations and ethnic groups with less gender equity" (21).* Yet even today, seven years after the publication Hyde's "The Gender Similarities Hypothesis," the difference model, which argues that males and females are vastly different psychologically, continues to dominate both the popular media and conventional wisdom, and much romance writing.


FRUSTRATION AT DIFFERENCE

Sometimes, though, difference leads not to pleasure, but to pain. When the romance hero does not act, or think, in the way the heroine expects (and vice versa), it can be easy to explain away the resulting frustration by pointing the finger at gender.  Excuses that attribute problems of communication to gender, rather than to individuals, let romance characters, and through them, romance readers, off the hook. "Can't help it honey, it's just the way women/men are!" The protagonists in such romances often come together only because of sexual attraction, rather than because of any sense that they truly understand one another, making it difficult to believe that their "happily ever after" will continue after the first blush of romance wears away.


HOMOGENEITY = HIGHER SALES

And of course we have the crass commercial reason: if all women think the same way, then publishers only have to create one type of romance, and repeat it ad nauseum. If some women like alpha heroes, while others like beta heroes, while still others like stories of two women together, that makes it far more difficult for a publisher to produce the bestsellers that will appeal to "all" romance readers. Buying into the myth that all men or all women think, act, or believe in the same way means simultaneously buying into the reader that publishers have constructed to aid their sales.


GENDER POLICING

The concept of gender policing comes from queer theory, suggesting that gay and transgendered individuals are often on the receiving end of pressure to conform to more conventional gender norms. But everyone is subject to such policing, not just those who obviously don't act "masculine" or "feminine," as recent studies by sociologists and ethnographers have come to show.** We receive messages about how to act "feminine" or "masculine" from the time we are infants, from our parents, our teachers, our peers. Don't yell and scream, it's not ladylike. Don't cry; boys are tough. Girls like pink and princesses. Boys like trucks and guns. Men who have casual sex are studs. Girls who have casual sex are sluts.

By the time we become adults, most of us have internalized such messages, and have come to believe that what we were taught is actually simply the way it is. Even when we are confronted by people who do not follow the gendered patterns we've come to take for granted, we don't change our statements; instead, we simply consider these odd people exceptions that prove, rather than disprove, the rules. Other people are easier to understand, after all, if we can put them neatly into labelled boxes, and if they act according to the rules of the box in which they've been placed.

But not all people fit comfortably within those boxes. And many refuse to step in them, or allow others to push them in. Their refusals remind us of our own acceptance, our own choice to step into the boxes. And sometimes that reminder can be shame-inducing, pointing to the moments when we lacked the courage to do what we wanted, to be what we are.

And this is one of the less than amusing purposes of "men are all..." and "women are all..." statements: not to state an obvious truth, but to ostracize those who make us uncomfortable, or ashamed of our own lack of courage.


Feminism doesn't mean that all girls should be tomboys, nor does it mean that princesses and pink should be banned from every girl's room. But it also doesn't mean that all girls should have to be princesses, or all boy should have to like trucks (or to dislike talking about feelings, or whatever other manly characteristic or pursuit an author deems the key to all masculinity). So next time you come across one of those "it's a guy thing" statements in your romance novel, take a moment to stop and think about what purpose it is truly serving.


* Janet Shibley Hyde, "The Gender Similarities Hypothesis." American Psychologist 2005 (60.6): 581-592; Jennifer L. Petersen and Janet Shibley Hyde, "A Meta-Analysis of Research on Gender Differences in Sexuality, 1993-2007." Psychological Bulletin 2010 (136.1): 21-38.

** See for example, Martin, K. 1998. Becoming a Gendered Body: Practices of Preschools. American Sociological Review, 63(4), 494-511.



Photo/Illustration credits:
"I have feelings..."
Women Rule
Feminsts disguised as humans
For Mothers



Next time: RNFF Book Review of Where She Went