Jan
Saturday Salon: Views on Romance from a Historian, a Psychologist, and an Economist
I started the week getting grumpy at the British historian Simon Schama for his article on the PBS series Downton Abbey. I happen to love Downton Abbey; he doesn’t. That’s OK. He’s perfectly at liberty to turn up his nose at this classy but soapy drama about the aristocracy. Not everyone enjoys the shenanigans of hot lords. Certainly not Prof. Schama who thinks the series services “the instincts of cultural necrophilia.” Whatev. I think Simon should chill. It’s not like hot lords are still running the country.
It's Saturday and we don't have to do anything. Wait, that's just like every other day.
But then he attacked Downton for being too cheerful, even suggesting that it was unrealistic for Matthew to return from World War I alive. Excuuuuse me, Simon. Yes, WWI was a hideous pointless slaughter, but not everyone was killed. Lots died and lots returned, some in better shape than others. If the writers of this fictional drama want a character to survive, that’s their prerogative.
And then he really pissed me off with this statement:
…history’s meant to be a bummer, not a stroll down memory lane. Done right, it delivers the tonic of tragedy, not the bromide of romance.
Fighting words. I bet I know what Simon thinks of romance novels.
The week ended on a more cheerful note with a piece at msn.com by writer and psychologist Debra Holland entitled Life Lessons from Romance Novels. She makes some very good points about how romance reading helps women. Plus you should see the book covers that illustrate her argument. Nicely chosen, Debra (or random MSN deputy editor). Is it possible you have ever visited The Ballroom?
And then there’s Jeremy Rifkin. Rifkin is an economist who teaches at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. He acts as an advisor to the European Union and several European governments of varying political persuasions. Without getting in too deep, he believes that individuals have to work together to solve the world’s problems. In The Empathic Civilization he discusses how psychological factors impact economic development. And – surprise, surprise – he says that romance novels have played their part in the historical growth of human empathy.
Women helped men learn how to love and express intimacy … In the Romantic schema–visited repeatedly in romance novels–the conquest is reversed. The hardened and insensitive male is wooed by the nurturance and affection of the female. She senses the intimate qualities long buried inside her mate and by creating a sense of trust and affection is able to bring them out–to melt his heart.
Rifkin sees women as teaching the male “empathy.” And, interestingly he credits the romance novel, going back to the eighteenth century, with not merely recording this female-male influence, but with actually causing it. He says reading novels provided the impetus for woman to demand more sensitivity in men.
I’ve grossly over-simplified Rifkin’s thesis, but I’m getting one clear message. Romance novels are good. Romance novels will solve the global economic crisis and bring about world peace. So what we need to do is get more men to read romance.
Do the men in your life read romance. And if not why not? What should we do to encourage men to read more romance, thus bringing about peace, prosperity, and the end of static cling?
Jan 21, 2012
2:14 am
Greetings Miranda,
I don’t know about ending static cling but I think men could learn a lot, about a lot, if they read more romance. This is an issue that I ‘rant’ about quite often on my blog and even address at home with my dh. So I have a little trick that I use to whittle away at the wall that he has built up in regards to ‘bodice rippers’ as he prefers to call them – I read to him or have him read the excerpts of my own stories I post online. He’s always saying he’s going to read my WIP ( I even printed out some of the chaps. for him once) but he never ‘has time’ to do it. Slowly but surely, he’s getting more and more interested though. I also remind him that my WWII, 82nd Airborne, D-Day parachuting into Normandy, Korean Vet father reads romance novels! The wall is slowly beginning to crumble because I don’t give up! I guess that makes me the heroine of my own life story, doesn’t it? : )
Happy Saturday!
Jan 21, 2012
11:22 am
Aha! Feed it to him in little morsels, gradually increasing the dose. Good strategy, Amy.
Jan 21, 2012
2:28 pm
Yay for your romance-reading father, Amy! You keep at it with your husband. Sounds like he’s coming around to the Light Side of the Force already.
Jan 21, 2012
9:56 am
What a fantastic post, Miranda! Thanks!
I admit, I got a bit fired up about history having to be a bummer. Seriously dude? I almost feel bad for him.
Why is it, though, that our society thinks that something has to be depressing in order to teach a good lesson? I have plenty of friends who only read “literary” fiction books. It all seems to be full of horror though. Rape, depression, poverty and sicknesses, etc, delivered as a big helping of downer. And then they all approach it like they’re taking cold medicine. “It’s good for me, even if it doesn’t go down smooth.”
Anyway, that’s a separate issue.
The men in my life do not read romance. In fact, most of the men in my life do not read fiction at all, at least not regularly. When my DH had a long train commute, he read. But now, if he has spare time at home, he sticks to nonfiction and spends the rest of his time doing something else. The other men in my life are pretty similar, I think.
I don’t know how to fix that problem. More pictures? (I’m only half kidding. As a gross generalization, don’t men prefer visual stuff to language stuff?)
Jan 21, 2012
11:30 am
“Why is it, though, that our society thinks that something has to be depressing in order to teach a good lesson?” I have no idea, Marnee!
Hmm. More pictures. We know (see Lisa’s comment below) that guys don’t like to be seen reading books with romancey covers. Do we need illustrations? Do we go the girly mag route? I think the ladies would go on strike.
From comments I’ve had from guy friends about my books, men can find the physical awesomeness of our heroes intimidating. We know it’s just a fantasy, but they don’t understand that. When I wrote a hero who was average height I had several (well, three) comments from men that they appreciated that he wasn’t Superman. Men also enjoy a bit of adventure – more time devoted to the external plot as opposed to the relationship stuff that is key for most romance readers.
Jan 21, 2012
11:40 am
You may have something there, Miranda, about men being intimidated by the heroes in romance novels. My dh is a voracious reader of every other kind of fiction even ones that have a strong physical male protaganist but one thing I notice – usually not much in the way of sex scenes. I think it’s our hero’s ability to make love to a woman and truly satisfy her that intimidates our men. Of course, if they read romances and paid attention then they could have greater prowess in the bedroom, too!
Sex therapists are always telling women to tell men what they want – we’re screaming it and they still aren’t listening!! But then, when do they? ; )
Jan 21, 2012
3:37 pm
Amy, I find male readers enjoy the sex scenes. Probably because there aren’t any good sex scenes in “men’s” books.
Jan 22, 2012
1:30 am
Agreed, I think they enjoy them too, once they actually read them! And just think of what stimulating conversation can be had after he reads a while. : )
Jan 21, 2012
10:37 am
Fascinating topic Miranda!
And I have only very recently discovered the awesomeness that is Downton Abbey, and can’t wait for the new episode tomorrow night!
And pooh to Prof. Shama. I totally agree that accurate, educational, and worthwhile doesn’t mean it has to be depressing and dry as heck. It’s like parents who push reading on their kids like it’s a chore similar to having to wash the dishes or eat their vegetables. If they make it a fun activity, and it develops into an enjoyable hobby, it’s win-win for everyone.
Nope, none of the men in my life read romances. I think part of the reason is that they think the covers are off-putting. I have put up with some wisecracks about them.
Jan 21, 2012
11:33 am
I will hand it to Schama: he knows how to write. Prof. Rifkin, though more sympathetic, is definitely “dry as heck.”
What could we put on the covers to appeal to men? Football players? Duelists? Welders? Horse trainers? And, alas, none of them showing their abs.
Jan 21, 2012
11:48 am
Schama may have know how to write but if he hasn’t anything worth putting into words, what’s the difference? You know the man must not have much of an imagination if he thinks that history is meant to be a bummer instead of a stroll down memory lane. Geez, Mr. Historian, if history only contains tragedy without romance, we would have ceased to exist long ago. There is plenty in history that makes you happy, proud and want to stand up and cheer. It’s not all a bummer besides hasn’t he ever heard of ‘the romance of war’? : )
Jan 21, 2012
2:58 pm
That line really bothered me too. But maybe he’s defining tragedy differently? At the moment, I’m interpreting his statement to mean he approaches his work with the bias of every action having a negative/tragic effect.
And Amy’s right, some of the tragedies in history have occurred because of romance.
Jan 21, 2012
12:20 pm
Thank you for this interesting post, Miranda.
Maya Rodale makes an excellent point in saying romance has historically been derided because it empowers women to seek and demand fulfillment in all areas of their lives.
Romance also gives women a powerful place in the marketplace – both as writers and readers. Is there any other business where a top-earning product is denigrated the way the romance genre is?
It’s refreshing that Rifkin is enlightened enough to see and embrace the power and influence of both women and romance!
Jan 21, 2012
3:13 pm
Diana, I adore Maya’s video. When I tell my colleagues in academia that I’m a romance writer, and I get that feeling that they think poorly of the industry, I tell them what romance novels are really about and how the industry is largely controlled by women. It’s an eye opener for most of them.
Jan 21, 2012
3:40 pm
Yes, Rifkin’s argument is refreshing. One is so used hearing romance dismissed with a sneer.
Jan 21, 2012
1:15 pm
I would love for more men to read romance. They might even pick up some ideas to use, that’s never a bad thing.
As for the good professor, I suggest he watch 2 minutes of Jersy Shore if he really wants to see a television show that’s a bummer. Downton Abbey looks lovely & I am anxious to start watching it as everyone I know is head over heels in love with it.
Jan 21, 2012
3:41 pm
Jersey Shore! LOL. That’s going to be food for future historians, jamzangel!
Jan 21, 2012
3:03 pm
None of the men in my life read romance on its own, as in a romance novel. But I know they love the romantic aspects of the sci fi/thriller/mystery books they do read. I think they happen to like romance as more of a subplot.
Jan 21, 2012
3:43 pm
I think that’s right, Sabrina. Men tend to enjoy a bit more action in their fiction – so do some women.
Jan 21, 2012
3:14 pm
My husband doesn’t think he reads romance since his books of choice are history and historical fiction as well as just about any book by Tom Clancy.
What he doesn’t realize and I do since he makes me read many of these books is that many of them do include lots of romance! Whether it’s a book about the Knights Templar or a book on Henry VIII, a history book or historical fiction, how can you not include the romance and intrigue and be true to the story?
So yes, he does read romance – he just doesn’t realize that he’s doing it!
Jan 21, 2012
3:54 pm
Good point, Jeanne. As long as people have been alive, love has been part of their stories. Though, as Rifkin points out, the modern romance fiction originated only in the 18th century.
Jan 22, 2012
1:41 am
Romance fiction originated in the 18th Century along with all kinds of fiction. It’s probably strange for us to think that people didn’t always read books. Before the first ‘novels’ were created, most reading materials consisted of history documents and poetry. Even the first ‘novels’ tended to be written more like diaries than prose. I’m just glad that those first authors were bold enough to write real stories – by the way, most were romances or bawdy tales of a man’s life as in THE HISTORY OF TOM JONES, A FOUNDLING by Henry Fielding which was actually many individual stories pulled into one.
Jan 21, 2012
3:20 pm
My husband’s Belgian godfather reads my books and loves them. (Thanks, Olivier!) My husband has read some of my books, and always helps me work out the plots. And he’s one of my historical consultants (the sweetie), especially on my book coming out this summer that sails into Caribbean waters again.
I don’t know how to get more men to read romance, but it’s lovely that some do.
Schama is a curmudgeon. Given Britain’s colonial history, I’m not surprised. Fortunately not all historians have a dim view of humanity. Alongside the tragedy in human history there is also great joy and triumph. I’m rather fond of historians who admit to both.
Jan 21, 2012
3:58 pm
I certainly wouldn’t deny that history (including British history) contains a great deal of ugliness. My issue with Schama’s piece is that he seems to deny the right of anyone else to celebrate the happier aspects of the past.
Cheers to Olivier! And cheers to your husband for helping out. My dad reads all my books and enjoys them very much. But he’s not exactly an unbiased reader!
Jan 21, 2012
3:31 pm
Wonderful post, Miranda!
I’m not sure that men could ever be enticed en masse to read romance novels, and I’m not sure I care too much. I kind of enjoy that we women have a space of our own within fiction–I just wish that it didn’t so frequently lead to denigration.
(that is not say that I don’t welcome or appreciat male readers–I just assume that the romance readership will always be overwhelmingly female, and I’m okay with that.)
I used to wonder why most male-written “romances” end with tragedy, while female-written ones end with “happily ever after.” I do think the intimidation factor others have mentioned is part of it. I suspect most men feel that they have a moment of true heroism in them–but I think they worry about sustainin that for a lifetime. The allure of the tragic ending is that it allows the hero to be immortalized and remembered and loved at his pinnacle of greatness, before any balding sets in.
If only the guys knew that WE find it most romantic to love a strong hero in his moment of weakness!
Jan 21, 2012
3:44 pm
And I apologize for all the typos! Argh, my phone.
Jan 21, 2012
4:05 pm
I’m incredibly impressed that you wrote all that on your phone, Tessa. I don’t think we should change romance to attract more male readers, but it would be nice if more of them would at least give this very feminine art form an occasional look.
Men are so literal, aren’t they? I’ve explained to men that the fact that heroes tend to be rich and handsome is not the main point of the romance. It’s just the icing on the cake.
Interesting point about men and tragedy. I’ll have to think about it. And what do we make of those “love stories” like Nicholas Sparks and, indeed, Love Story, where the heroine dies? Why the aversion to HEA? Does it all come down to fear of baldness, LOL?
Jan 22, 2012
1:54 am
LOL!! Fear of baldness!
Since everyone eventually dies, can we say that Nicholas Sparks or Erich Segal didn’t write a HEA? Well, maybe not in LOVE STORY, I don’t believe those two would have ever really had an HEA even if she had lived. But take THE NOTEBOOK – they died in each other’s arms after a lifetime of love, marriage and family. It was disease that drew them apart not the lack of love and his love never waned, not for a moment. I love that book. [snuffle, snuffle]
I agree with Jeanne Miro – many works of fiction could be classified as a romance if we wanted to push the issue but I kinda agree with Tessa, it’s nice having our own corner of the literary world.
Miranda, this topic is most interesting! Thanks for giving us something to ponder on a cold weekend. : )
Jan 21, 2012
4:25 pm
I think Schama’s word use is really interesting.
“history’s MEANT to be a bummer, not a stroll down memory lane.”
First, history is history. The good, the bad, the in between. All of it.
I think his sentiment reflects a tendency society (in general) often has of focusing on the negative rather than the positive. A quick look at a news channel or local paper will confirm this.
I think romance novels kind of fly in the face of this tendency to dwell on the negative. They certainly seem to over set Schama’s manly apple-cart.
None of the men in my life read romance. When I’ve questioned them about it, they tell me its unrealistic and sets standards that most men cannot live up to.
I think this misunderstanding means they just need to read more romance. Then they might see beyond the six packs and muscular legs (shout out Lady B!) to underlying themes like sharing, loyalty, trust, and love.
OK that was long. I hope it makes sense. haha
Jan 21, 2012
5:02 pm
All very well said, Solange!
Yes, that MEANT was what really got to me, too. Hey, Mr. Schama. You’re not the boss of me.
That romance gives women unrealistic expectations is an old saw and we all know it’s silly. We can tell the difference between fact and fiction!
“I think this misunderstanding means they just need to read more romance. Then they might see beyond the six packs and muscular legs (shout out Lady B!) to underlying themes like sharing, loyalty, trust, and love. ”
You said this beautifully, but I’m afraid it may be too much to expect men to overlook our physical fantasies. Perhaps there needs to be a new line of romance, aimed at both men and women, where the heroes are ordinary guys.
Jan 21, 2012
5:27 pm
This is true. I can’t expect a man to overlook my physical fantasies any more than I can his.
Great post!
Jan 21, 2012
4:32 pm
Maybe it’s not just fear of baldness, but change? If one of the characters dies, that perfect love remains frozen in time forever.
People who complain about romance say the happy endings are “too easy,” but I think the real complaint is that they’re too difficult and therefore intimidating/unrealistic. People use this to dismiss the whole genre as fluff. But it’s no different from every mystery novel ending with a solved crime. It’s what makes for a satisfying story.
Jan 21, 2012
5:52 pm
You are so right. Imagine an ending where H and H get married because they’ve been living together for 5 years, her mother expects it, and it would be cool to have a big party. They have a couple of kids, argue a lot, and finally drift apart. It would be really easy to write that one convincingly, but who would want to read it?
Jan 22, 2012
1:58 am
Not only that but in romance we aren’t looking past that moment when our hero and heroine actually admit to falling in love with each other … the story ends at that high point in the relationship. We don’t want to know the trials and tribulations that arise after the HEA … that’s too much like real life. : )
Jan 21, 2012
6:41 pm
Hi everyone!
Great post Miranda, I think Jeanne might be on to something, men do read romance just not books that are categorised as romance.
As for “history is meant to be a bummer”, it’s that attitude that has kids worldwide moaning and groaning through their history lessons. I know I didn’t get interested in history until after I’d left school. I’ll stick with books and documentaries by people who know how to make history interesting.
Jan 22, 2012
2:01 am
Great point, Beebs! It’s the stories behind all of the dates, places and names that make history interesting and some of those stories make our modern romance novels look tame. : )
Jan 22, 2012
9:23 am
You are right, Beebs, about making history interesting for kids. Not that it has to be all hearts and flowers. Speaking for myself, I loved history from when I was very young and it was always my favorite subject in school. What I loved was the human stories set in this foreign country known as the past. I discovered historical novels very early, especially Jean Plaidy. Her tales of queens, princesses, and mistresses weren’t sanitized: horrible things happened and they certainly didn’t all end well. But the characters were people you cared about. If you take the most depressing, horrible aspects of history (and there sure are plenty to choose from!) you can write novels that some people will want to read. But not me.
It’s all about individual choices and tastes.
Jan 22, 2012
2:15 am
Guys reading romance? I don’t think I know any of those! I actually discovered romance by accident, my mom bought me a brown grocery bag of what was mostly old 80′s and 90′s scifi books at a garage sale that had a few romances buried in the bottom (most notably Lisa Kleypas’ Dreaming of You, and Julia Quinn’s Splendid). Thus one summer day I was sitting about the dorm, and in my boredom, began reading them. I was hooked from there.
I think the biggest hurdle I had to get over when I started buying romance on my own was being the shaggy haired, six foot tall Texan in the book store romance section, or standing in line at the grocery store holding a book with a barely clad woman (or man!) on the cover. It wasn’t until I got to the point where I was sure enough in myself (or just my masculinity) that it didn’t bother me anymore.
These days when I try to convince my male friends to try out the romance genre, I have to tailor it to their specific tastes, be it paranormal, historical, or whatever they tend to read. The best selling point with a few friends is that romance is simply a good story. No matter the trials, the cliches, the misunderstandings, the book will give you a complete story that, most importantly, ends happily. Yes, there is sex in most romances. But it’s a natural part of the story, and good writers (such as the Ballroom ladies!) never make it feel forced just to get a bit of titillation in. It’s there to help advance the relationship, to show us, as readers, how two people can fall so completely for one another, they just… mesh into one soul.
I’ve come to the realization that yes, while lust is a big part of romance novels, it is nowhere near as important as the idea that you can trust someone, not just with your body, but your ideas, your quirks, and your heart; everything that can sometimes drag men down and keep them up at night.No one is perfect, but the characters in romance novels point out that you don’t have to be, you just have to find the person that loves you for it anyway. When I put down a romance novel, I feel better about myself, and humanity, because life is an adventure, but love makes it a great one.
Jan 22, 2012
9:27 am
David – I am so glad you chimed in on this discussion, as our resident Ballroom male. Thank you for giving us your very important perspective. It’s clear to me you really “get” romance.
Sometime I’d love to hear what you, as a man, think of the covers (especially the topless men) and preponderance of wealthy and good looking heroes.
And may I say I would love to find a six-foot Texan in my local romance section. What fun!
Jan 22, 2012
11:38 am
The covers, oh the covers. Frankly, they used to make me nervous. I think it is a major issue to the male brain. The girl showing a little skin is one thing, but buying a book where the male lead is half naked and showing off a body I’d never have time to make in a gym is what makes most men nervous, in my opinion.
Is the woman working the register noticing that I had a greasy cheeseburger for lunch? Is her mind cataloging how tanned and muscular the man on the book cover is, then comparing me in my baggy jeans and tshirt unfavorably? It’s all a self-image thing. In romance over the last few years, images have shifted; heroines don’t have to be gorgeous, all of them slim and curved just right, because their hero sees them as his personification of beauty, no matter their size (this is a good thing, by the way). But I think romance still needs one partner to be good looking. I can’t recall a hero without broad shoulders, good legs, slim hips. I’ve never been skinny, in that sense, too much bad food and only a passing nod to fitness because many of my jobs have involved moving heavy objects. So seeing a tall, muscular, not a bit of fat on his torso guy standing proudly on a cover can be a little intimidating, that competitive part in the back of my brain going “of course he got the girl, she’d never even notice you.”
Hopefully that helps explain it, it’s early and I’m writing this as I get ready for work.
Jan 22, 2012
5:57 pm
That’s a great question, David…whether or not a romance can succeed without one of the main characters being good looking. I’m certain it can be done…but of course, I’m having a bit of a struggle thinking of one where both parties are less than perfect (and scars don’t count, unless they’re REALLY scars, you know?).
Anyone have one?
Jan 22, 2012
7:03 pm
I can’t think of one. Even if a character is said to be unattractive, he/she never is really. “She was much too thin.” Bwahahaha
Jan 22, 2012
11:50 pm
LOL, Miranda!
See also:
Her lips were too full
Her breasts were too large
His face was too rugged
He was so. Very. Large.
Boo, hoo.
Jan 22, 2012
5:54 pm
Hear hear, David!
Thank you so much for joining in the conversation…it’s wonderful to have a voice from “the other side”…I only wish more male readers would speak up. We know you’re out there…and it makes me happy to know that you feel comfortable joining the conversation here at the Ballroom.
As an aside, I’m giving a speech in April at a gender studies conference in Erie, PA…and one of the books that is to be discussed as part of the weekend is Dreaming of You specifically because it is a book that is so much about the hero’s journey (in all meanings of the phrase). It’s Derek’s book more than anything else, you know? I wonder if that’s one of the tricks for luring men into the genre? More books with realistic, complex heroes who are there for their own growth as well as the heroine’s?
Jan 22, 2012
7:43 pm
It was that book that made me abandon the idea of romance being the old ‘bodice ripper’ idea. When I was younger, any time romance was mentioned it was ‘tawdry,’ and ‘porn for women.’ I’m glad I found out differently, though my wallet may sometimes wish otherwise.
And good luck with your speech!
Jan 22, 2012
2:20 pm
I love the post and all the comments, especially David’s. Don’t worry, women have been worrying about body image for years and it’s not just on romance books. Look at many of the magazine covers. But what I’ve discovered is that if a man is in love, the woman is always beautiful to him. And I think it works both ways. After 30 years, I still think my husband is a very handsome man and he has a picture of me naked in the pool as his screen saver.
Jan 22, 2012
7:01 pm
Well said, Ella. Your husband sounds lovely.