Sunday, July 15, 2018

Classism and consumption in romance novels

I used to read a lot of romance novels, probably because I was single for a long time. Over time, I kept seeing tropes pop up that rubbed me the wrong way:

  • Vast differences in social class between male and female protagonists. Titles like "The Millionaire's Pregnant Secretary" and "The Sheikh's Prize* make male wealth and female beauty the main selling point in the book. Edwardian romance paints the man as a duke or an earl and the woman as a genteel clergyman's daughter or an orphan or a nanny. And don't get me started with JD Robb's romantic police procedurals -- she's a cop and he owns half the planet. The exchange of her beauty for his money is classic, but perhaps outdated in a society with much more egalitarianism.
  • Large amounts of money in the happily ever after -- research shows that, although money changes everything, it does not necessarily change it for the better. Lottery winners are no more happy than us normal people, and maybe even less happy. People tend to throw their fortunes away, and given the bounty the male protagonist drops on his true love, romantic males are no exception.
  • Speaking of money, conspicuous consumption. When the male protagonist spends money, we get detailed descriptions about his wardrobe, his car, the dress, the dinner, the yacht, the trousseau, the ... you get it. We witness how the protagonists spend their wealth, because if they didn't spend it, nobody, including us, would know how rich they were. That's the meaning of conspicuous consumption.
  • Overdone sex and male prowess. Don't get me wrong, I like sex.** But these invariable rules make me skip ahead to the next scene: If the female is a virgin, she's overwhelmed by the size of the male's penis. If she's not a virgin, he supplies better orgasms than anyone else. No matter how badly the two protagonists fight, they still have better sex than any of their readers. They always have sex before falling in love, and they spend the rest of the book dithering about why they can't marry the other person, and it's invariably that they don't want to subject the other person to embarrassment or ridicule or a life of servitude. We, the readers, don't only vicariously consume the couple's wealth, but their out-in-the-open sex life. 
I admit I'm not the typical reader. Wish fulfillment to me would be living in Canada as a published author, retired, and a cat***.  I like my couples to have more equal footing, and the woman to supply more than just her pretty face to the union. I like strong females and males with depth, not just "strong and silent".

I have to admit that I still read a few romance authors. Robin D. Owens I read for her world building and her focus on emotional baggage rather than "He/she wouldn't possibly want to marry me". Also, her sex scenes are reasonably anchored in reality. I read Barbara Michaels, although her books may not be considered romance, because she has very real protagonists who seldom have the immense social class disparities. I read a few others -- Mary Balogh among others. And I still read JD Robb, but I skip over the sexual acrobatics.

* These may actually be real titles for all I know.
** Oops. TMI.
*** I would not be the first published cat. That honor goes to Lil' Bub, the pint-sized alien cat. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

I believe that everyone here comes with good intent. If you come to spoil my assumptions by verbal abuse, excessive profanity, spam or other abuses I had not considered, I reserve the right to delete your notes or delete your participation. I am the arbiter of what violates good intent.