Why Are Romance Novels So Conventional and Predictable?
Of course, when you think about it, “ditto” is a rather cheap and easy way out, and since I’m neither cheap nor easy, I thought I’d address this in more depth here.
Kate was absolutely correct in explaining that in order for a novel to be a “romance novel” it must end with a couple (usually straight) living happily ever after in a monogamous relationship. Romance novels seldom vary from this standard, with the occasional exception of an erotica romance ending in three people in a trilogamous relationship (newly minted word!). You wouldn’t find this in a mainstream romance novel, though.
So the question is “why?” I’m going to take a stab at the answer.
The first thing you need to know is that romance novels account for over half the paperback sales in this country, and they are written predominately by women for women. That’s the first thing that makes it hard for many men to “get” this genre. We all understand that romance novels are about fantasy, including sexual fantasy. Even squeaky-clean inspirational romances have sexual tension between the characters. Other novels are much more explicit. I think guys look at the genre and say, “Who the heck writes a sexual fantasy book about MONOGAMY? Are you nuts? If I’m gonna fantasize, there are at least going to be twins involved.”
So then we have to look at the differences between men and women and the numerous studies that challenge one of W’s assertions—the idea that human beings are not naturally monogamous. I would argue that, to some degree, women are. Therefore, love and commitment—lifelong commitment—are a big part of their sexual ideal.
I think it starts with biology. You’ve all heard the theories. Men can procreate, well, several times a day if they’re not busy doing anything else. There appears to be a basic biological drive in the males of many species to pour as much DNA as possible into the gene pool. Just look at how much of Genghis Kahn’s DNA is still easily traceable throughout the regions of Asia that he conquered. Busy fellow.
Women can procreate, at best, every nine months, but that’s unrealistic. Childbirth throws off the cycle, as does breastfeeding, and in the state of nature, the mother-child relationship is designed to include breastfeeding for around 3 years. Let’s say one baby per year maximum. While she is pregnant and then caring for a helpless infant, she is susceptible to starvation, predators, you name it. If her DNA is going to survive, she needs a protector and provider, and she needs him to stick around.
So part of it is hardwiring.
Now, W also asked why the heroines tend to fall for libertines (a category in which W places himself). Furthermore, why must the libertines be depicted as having had screwed up lives, and what’s up with these freewheeling guys suddenly giving up adventuresome sex for some silly virgin?
This is fantasy. Women’s fantasy. In our books, we describe these men as libertines, rakes, and rogues. In the industry, we refer to them as “alpha males,” and they are hot commodities. Let’s go back to biology. The alpha male is strong and aggressive with a very high sex drive. He’s just the bloke to give a woman strong children and bring home the prehistoric warthog bacon while she’s caring for them. But human sex isn’t just about biology. It’s about psychology. Let’s face it, the experience of many women is that real men who are like this are jerks. (Not all libertines, W. I’ve read your commandments, and you seem like a decent fellow.) Well, no one wants to live “ever after” with a jerk, so we give him excuses—a tortured past. Something that the pure and good heroine can cure him of so that he’s good for something besides sex.
Why are the heroines mostly pure, especially in historicals? Part of it’s the time periods—women were discouraged from sleeping around. The fantasy part may be more about women wishing they hadn’t ended up sleeping with so many poor choices in the course of looking for the right guy.
So there it is in a nutshell—my guess as to why women like romance novels while their partners are mystified by them.
This explanation is fascinating! While not particularly a fan of
historical romance novels myself, I put the only title my library has of
one of your books on hold and will read it when it comes in. They own two
copies of For Her Love. If I like it, I'll request they buy more of your
books! You might be interested to know that one of those copies is checked
out.
Romance novels - I read them on occasion. Wait, I am a guy. Really I find
them to be interesting and yes, they are predictable. But in a sense that
is what is good about the story.
I taught a philosophy class for a while and one of the things I would do
would be ask the students what they read and then in the conversation would
engage the discussion of what might their significants would read. The men
would state that their wives or girlfriends would read the typical pop
women's magazines and romance novels. So I did something crazy, I put out
to the guys to take the romance novel the woman is reading and set the
mood: get scented candles, some bubble bath, and the book and take that
soak. Then when they finished or had enough sit down and discuss the story
line. I did the same with the women in the class. Except figure out the
setting for taking that Hunter's Digest and get in the mood and read then
discuss.
It was interesting the outcome - no one admitted that they took
the bath and read but I found that in a couple of relationships some
significant changes took place and for the positive.
Great comments, Leroy and Rosebud! First--I always love to hear that
someone is reading or plans on reading my books, so Rosebud, I hope you
enjoy For Her Love, and Leroy, good for you. Studies show that married
women who read romance have a lot more sex than their non-romance reading
counterparts.
Well, I've done extensive reading in biology, anthropology, sexology,
history, gender studies, sociology, and psychology and I stand by my
original assertion that women are no more naturally monogamous than men.
However, there have been strong cultural sanctions against women who stray
from the sexual straight and narrow. Women have always been viewed and
punished more harshly for deviating from monogamy than have men. If women
were actually naturally monogamous, no such sanctions would have ever been
necessary.
The "hardwiring" argument doesn't sit well with me.
Well, it's all a matter of taste and marketing. Whether you buy the
hardwiring argument or not (which I will admit is simplified--humans are
very complex and the importance of socialization can't be overstated) the
kinds of romances you're talking about don't sell in the kinds of numbers
big publishers demand. The women who buy them react negatively when the
hero and heroine have sex with anyone other than each other in the course
of the book. Again, this is a HUGE market, and the constraints are mostly
determined by the readers. Publishers are far more interested in making
sales than creating a social agenda.
Actually, I've thought of doing just that...I've had others who have also
urged me to do so. Are there many men who write romance novels, and, if
they do, do they always use a female pseudonym?
Thanks, W! Romance novels don't have a long shelf life. There are so many
competing for space. If you can't find them, just ask the store to order
one for you. They're all still in print.
This is really fascinating stuff. I never thought that I would enjoy
reading the blog of a romance author. Wow.