Am I the only romance reader who doesn’t believe that romance should be “for women by women” solely? Every time I run across that “mantra” lately, it’s starting to stick in my craw. If I had a craw, that is. (G) And that specific phrase doesn’t even have to be “said” for me to start twitching.
Take the ever-present discussion of chick lit that’s always popping up somewhere or another nowadays. That one always starts me dwelling on how chick lit is so strongly focused on “her story”. That’s all well and good and actually nothing all that new to romances – not that chick lit is romance, exactly, but that’s a whole other discussion I’m not getting into here. Just go back and read some of the medical romances from the 1950s on and see if you don’t see a similarity to chick lit. So there’s nothing wrong with even a romance being told more from her perspective than his. Even today.
It’s just that thinking about going back to a steady diet of that single-minded perspective gives me acute indigestion . . .
Then, doggone it if a comment of the same “focus on her journey” mentality cropped up unexpectedly in a discussion of erotic romances the other day. Well, it was unexpected to me even if I should’ve been expecting it, I suppose. Women gaining their sexual power and all that. Again, all well and good, but that also got me to pondering this whole “women’s fiction” thing all over again and I started getting another tick in my cheek.
Yeah, there are times when I want to read about another women’s journey just for the sake of the “female bonding” that can result. But you know what? Those moments are rarer than one might think. And, while I admit that some of my favorite romances do focus on “her journey” in an intense way – The Captain’s Woman by Merline Lovelace comes to mind – to me, romance is first and foremost “their story” and when I want romance I want their story.
Not hers. Not even his. Theirs.
Okay, I feel so much better getting that off my chest.
Well, hmmm. I have to wonder what in the world she’s been reading or rather not reading in romance. No, that truly wasn’t a sarcastic remark. Honest, because the very first thing that came to mind is that I’ve found that attitude regarding the heroine’s “sexual journey” in a lot of romances and particularly those within the last decade so I’m sort of at a loss here as to what to say. I think I have more questions than comments, so let me start there.
Exactly what time frame are we talking about, i.e. when was Schone’s first book related to this published?
Heh! Thanks. I have no problem with your reaction at all, fwiw.
I agree that every story should be ‘theirs’, but that thing I talked about: if you remember, old historical romances – right up to 1998 or thereabouts – were usually about the hero. He usually decides when and where he and the heroine should have sex and how. More than not he has the control at all times, whether done brutally or not.
Robin Schone’s books shifted that focus onto the heroine. It’s her turn to control when and where she’d like to have sex. It’s almost a revolution, having this woman taking control by going to this man and ask for sex lessons at her own pace. And the hero supports her by minding and nurturing her sexual desires. That’s what I meant about her ‘journey’.
Although the focus is her, another new thing is the hero has his emotional/sexual satisfaction and love through HER emotional/sexual satisfaction and love. Basically he recognises that she has desires and it becomes his sole desire to answer them all. It’s not quite erotica, but it’s not quite romance either, hence the birth of erotic romance. [It’s still a romance, though!] Nowadays we see that in a lot of mainstream romances, particularly historicals [e.g. Cheryl Holt], but it was quite new back then, I think.
I don’t mean to say that it’s one person’s journey *as* the whole story, but as the central vein of the story. It’s very much ‘their’ story. Definitely. 😀 I mean, the hero is the half of the story and the other half is the heroine. Without him, readers wouldn’t get that kind of satisfaction because it’s not about romance any more.
I hope this clarifies a bit. Either way I still don’t know if my take is right. It’s how I saw it. :>
Yeah, Maili, that was the one. (BG)
And I honestly don’t have a problem with what you said there. It just got me to thinking about this whole “women’s fiction” thing.
Again!
And I had to rant some. (BG)
Still, I’m always interested in what you have to say. (G)
LOL! Are you referring to my response at Smart Bitches? If so, I’d like to explain myself a bit more there, but first I want to make sure that I’m not jumping to conclusion. 😀