From: hc56@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Hannah Cox)
Subject: Romance novels....
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:39:11 GMT

-sorry my editor caused me to delete the first address :-)

In article <Bx8EA6.CpM@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jchason@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Julie Chason) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>In article <Bx5wy1.GxE@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jchason@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Julie Chason) writes:
>>>Another response to this issue--I have heard several times that romance 
>>>novels are often written by men.  
>
>>I am under the impression that the majority (perhaps the overwhelming
>>majority) are written by women. 
>
	In fact I know of a number of cases where the psuedonym covers the fact that novel is written either by a man or a male/female team.

>>>                                I know that hearsay is not good evidence of 
>>>authorship, but neither is the cover of a book necessarily.  And I'm not
>>>saying that male authorship is evidence of some sort of oppresive conspiracy

>>>of men against women.  
	I actually talked with a cover artist once about 
it  and if it were actually true that the only people who read romances are women, why are all the women half naked on the cover (historical only) when in a large majority of the novels the man has his clothes off first?  Realistically a half naked woman on the cover of a novel would be more appealing to a male reader than most female readers.  He agreed but said basically that that was what the publisher wanted so that was what the publisher got.

>>It would be politically correct to do so, even if they were all written by
>>women (which I am not asserting, for the hard of reading). :^}
>
>I think you and I have a different definition of politically correct. I'm not 
>hostile to PC and I don't beleive in gender stereotyping of males or females. 

>But is PC hostile to -only- white-hetero-males? At any rate, you need not
>look far for gender stereotypes, there have been a lot posted in this
>netgroup lately.
 
>>>                        You just cant imply that romance novels provide some 
>>>window into the minds of women.  
>
>>If their readership is exclusively female (or almost so), how can you say
>>that it does not provide such a window? I am not sure what kind of window,
>>but there is something here.
>
	I object to the majority of this train of reasoning.  For one thing I know of a number of men who read romance novels, and I'd rather not get into the psychological reasoning of that.  However I think that people who read romance novels get the same thing out of it that people who read SF get out of their books...great escapist fantasy.  I read romance novels, and I get as much enjoyment out of them as I do Jonathan Kellerman (for you illiterati he writes awesome psychological thrillers), Stephen King, Sa




ra Paretsky, Elizabeth Peters, Harlen Ellison, Robert Heinlein (I know I can't spell it--but he wrote a lot about sex too), etc.  
>>I would like to point out the many claims made of Playboy and porn. Or should
>>we make a parallel claim and say that women are being brainwashed by the
>>romance novels? This would seem as valid as the other brainwashing claims.
>
>Or maybe they simply reinforce prevailing cultural values?  

If you do not like them, I suspect that you will be unwilling to buy them
and read them, regardless of whether or not they reinforce prevailing cultural 
values. 

>                                                             In which case 
>they would provide a gauge of the fantasies of women who read them and buy 
>their notions without criticism.  It's blanket characterizations I object to.
>Some of us grew out of the habit at about the age of 17; I presume others 
>never acquired the habit.
>
>Look, lots of men go to football games and act like idiots.  Should I say on 
>this basis that men are idiots? 

It's been done. If you want to try an experiment, bring this up when talking
with women where you work. If most agree or disagree, this would say
something about prevailing gender stereotypes. My guess is that most women
would uncritically accept the above, and some would even extend it. BTW, I
do not think that I could perform this experiment, although I might try
a similar experiment with some female stereotypes.
  
>>>                               And even if all such novels were written by
>>>women, and a majority of women read these articles, then this does not mean
>>>that whatever is contained in these novels reflects the True and Natural 
>>>Contents of the minds of women.
>> 
>>No, of course not. But it is still a valid question to ask exactly what
>>it does mean. These novels must be fullfilling some need of the women
>> who read them.                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>>>Julie
>
>Ok, now we're getting somewhere. I took your original post to mean that 
>because women read books in which the hero rapes the heroine, women want to 
>be raped.  Now it sounds like your open to a different interpretation.

My original post made no mention of rape, nor has any subsequent post.
Roberts Shaeffer's post made this connection, I have not addressed it.
 
>I think most of the people who followed-up were right on the mark.  

I belive that I originally mentioned this topic, in response to the
porno-imbalance thread, and in a rape-free context. It was dropped
from the thread without a single comment.

Now I am incorrectly given ownership of the rape thread, and the 
follow-up posters get credit for the topic I introduced, as I introduced
it. Thanx.

>The rape scenario has to do with avoiding responsibility for sex rather than 
>wanting to be dragged into the bushes and forced.
>
>The sub-genre I used to read (quite a while ago) was the historical romance
>novel.  From what I remember, there seems to be two basic rape scenarios.
>One I'll call 'raped by a rake.'  The rake isn't really a bad guy; he's just 
>misunderstood, maybe tormented, something of a Beverly Hills 90210 Luke, only
>probably more muscular.  Maybe he's a Viking, or a rebel baron.  Sooner or 
>later he'll cry, beg forgiveness, and will marry his victim.
>
>How many women whose husbands abuse them say he is always sorry afterward?
**The only thing that I have to say about rape scenarios is that I have never really liked them, basically because I believe in taking responsiblity for your own actions and if you want to do it--do it,  and please don't ofr get one of the most famous rape scenes of all time that has been thouroughly romanticized.  Yes I am talking of the stair scene in Gone With The Wind.  And don't even try to tell me that the only reason that men went to see that movie was because their wives and girlfrinds dragged them




.

This has a strong resemblance to one of those blanket characterizations.
 
>The other scenario reads something like this:  "He crushed her against him,
>bruising her velvet skin.  She could feel his throbbing manhood pressing
>against her, and a surging warmth flooded through her body in response. 
>'Oh, Silverena, how I have dreamed of this moment,' he panted, his breath
>hot against her cheek.  She knew she could deny him no longer.....'
>This scene isn't really rape, because she does want it.  Its a rough, forceful
>seduction in which the heroine's final resistances to the inevitable will 
>crumble under the force of his passion.  She is fairly passive until passion 
>catches up to her.  
>
>She's not "really" responsible for sex happening, she's 
>giving the man she loves what he wants.  She wants it too, but he had to 
>initiate  and break down her resistance.  And God won't really mind she
>had premarital sex because she was a virgin before she met him and she will
>ALWAYS marry this guy.  
>
>That's another feature of these novels.  He always marries her.  He also always
>rescues her from whatever threatens here.  And he will always find her, even
>if he has to chase across three continents to do so.

**Too True

I tried to read a romance novel years ago, but I could not finish it. I do
not really recall why. But the above seems to be a validation of the notion
of romantic love.


	**I'd also like to point out that if you read anything on the popular fiction market that reaches the top ten list as a bestseller..there is usually a romance in it and if they don't get married (we are talking happy ending books here) they generally live together or come to some other 'together forever arangment.
	**My last point is that what you all seem to be talking about is some really bad romance novels, bad novels come in all shapes and sizes...AND IN ALL GENRES!!!   BTW Pride and Predjudice (spelling I know) is a romance novel.
>"Some day my prince will come...."
>                Snow White.
> 
>Julie
>(thats not a .sig up there) 
>
>>Rich
>>payner@netcom.com

rich again






















































































Also BTW before you typecast me, I'm not a housewife, I'm a democrat and pro-choice, generally anti-feminist because most of the ones  've met have totally pissed me off.  I am also very soor that my editor is acting up and I have no idea what this is going to look like when I post it.  And if you've been following the thread you'll figure out what's mine and what's rich's that my machine refused to quote--even manually.



Sorry


bitch.

Newsgroups: rec.humor,rec.humor.d,alt.folklore.computers