In a previous post on this blog, titled "Romance: A Genre Without a Past?", I noted how the primary focus on current releases among romance readers has resulted in romance novels of the past being denied the critical esteem that older books in other genres have enjoyed. I wrote: "Because there is no body of criticism supporting old romance novels as worthy literature (as literature, not just for its potential cultural or historical interest), they are easier to dismiss and deride since there is almost no positive critical consensus surrounding them."
Another problem with ignoring the genre's past is that it creates a void for others to fill with alternate versions of romance novel history that are skewed towards writers with established critical reputations while actual romance genre authors are ignored and forgotten.
Case in point, from a 2009 lecture on YouTube titled "History of Romance Novel" (at the 6:14 mark): "So, I want to ask a question before we get started. How many here will admit to reading a romance novel? Raise your hand. Okay. Not many of you are going to admit it. How many of you have 'a friend of a friend' that have read a romance novel? Mike Light [?] apparently. So... [laughs] So, and you know, romance novels, it's a bigger genre now than it used to be. I don't just mean these Harlequin or these Avon romance novels that you can buy on supermarket shelves, right? Nicholas Sparks. Who's seen a Nicholas Sparks film or read a Nicholas Sparks book? That's a whole new genre of romance novel that actually has male characters as the lead character. What we call male romance novels."
Um, what?
One of the identifiers of U.S. romance genre fiction is the HEA (happily ever after) or HFN (happy for now). Sparks' novels lack the HEA. And the author himself does not identify as a romance author. In addition, many bestselling authors (including Sparks) of all genres can be found "on supermarket shelves," and that ought not to be used as a reason to dismiss them as unworthy of literary examination. The implication is that because Harlequin and Avon books are available at stores frequented by women shoppers then the books should be taken less seriously than ones found in libraries and bookstores. (It's a nonsensical bias given that Harlequin and Avon books can also be found in many libraries and bookstores.)
The lecturer addresses the HEA component of romance novels at the video's 1:11:00 mark: "I will say that one of the big critiques about romance novels is they always have a happy ending, and they teach people that your life is always going to end happily. How many people in this room thinks that their life is always going to be happy? One [person]. So I would say for that most of us we read escapist novels because we want to feel that one moment of, yeah you're right, life is going to be happy, and then we shut the novel and say 'Oh crap' and then you get on with your life. And so, but that's one of the complaints."
More from the lecture (at the 1:17:40 mark) on Nicholas Sparks' novels as a romance novel: "Romance novels have to be within that genre, that girl meets boy, that there's a work on the relationship, and the main focus in the book is on that relationship and building that relationship. And so, when you get into historical fiction, a lot of the times they'll be a focus on maybe a mystery, and then the romance is kind of to the side. That's not a romance. A romance novel has to be, is defined, by the fact that your main discussion in that book is about the building of that relationship. And so, when you get into, say, Nicholas Sparks, right? That's a great example of somebody who writes male romance novels. And the whole focus of the book, either though for a lot of people it's considered popular fiction, right? They wouldn't consider it a romance novel, but it's a romance novel because the whole story surrounds that relationship and the building of that relationship."
It sounds to me like the lecturer is accepting only one of the definitions of a romance novel (central focus on the romantic relationship) while disregarding the other definition (HEA/HFN) in order to include Sparks as a romance novelist. Why would she consider Sparks "male romance," though, simply because the author himself is male? Presumably the majority of Sparks readers are not men.
While watching the entire 90-minute video, I made a note of every author that was mentioned by name in the video. (Keep in mind that this video was made in 2009.) Here we go:
Herodotus [ancient Greek historian]
Andreas Capellanus [12th century male writer]
Chretien de Troyes [12th century poet]
Thomas Malory [15th century writer]
Samuel Richardson [author of "Pamela," 1740]
Henry Fielding [18th century writer]
Ann Radcliffe [1764-1823, early gothic writer]
Lord Byron [1788-1824, poet]
Percy Bysshe Shelley [1792-1822, poet]
(I didn't count Fabio as a writer, although he "wrote" a few novels with the help of Eugenia Riley, and of course he is mentioned a couple times in the lecture. Also some novels like "Wuthering Heights" and "The Sheik" were mentioned, but the names of their authors -- Emily Bronte and E. M. Hull, respectively -- were not.)
So, in an entire 90-minute talk about the history of romance novels, only one actual romance genre writer (Kathleen Woodiwiss) was mentioned by name.
What bothers me about this is that there are not many videos on YouTube about the genre's history nor giving a timeline of the genre's history in an informed way. (A notable exception is the "Romance Trailblazers" video that was done for the 2019 RITA Award ceremony.)
The failure to provide author's names -- even when summarizing the plot of one of their books -- reinforces the idea that romance novelists are interchangeable and anonymous hacks, not notable in and of themselves. In fact, romance readers are often drawn to particular writers, and author branding on the covers has been used for decades to promote the books of specific authors to their fans. Some readers love one writer, but avoid another, based on either past experience of reading their work or on the author's reputation in the field.
In addition, being willing to name writers like Samuel Richardson, but not naming the author of the romance novel that the lecturer says that she read recently (about a beekeeping heroine; I'm wondering if it's a Sandra Hill novel that I have) reinforces the idea that the romance genre author is not notable, unimportant. More frustrating, the lecturer at the end expresses admiration for the work of newer romance novelists that she has read, but she doesn't give their names -- and at the Q&A with the audience at the end, no one bothered to ask.
