Romance novels are EVERYWHERE right now. Each week, a new romance book store opens; the New York Times, Entertainment Weekly, even The Guardian all review romance. Bookstores that previously didn’t carry romance now have whole sections. Don’t even get me started on TikTok.
So, does this mean the cultural bias against love stories has substantially ebbed? I’m curious what you think. I’ll share my own views in the comments as well!
Next month, Eloisa James will publish The Reluctant Countess, the second in her Would Be Wallflowers historical romance series. James has published over 40 books and we’ve reviewed her 38 times. She’s gotten five DIKs, most recently with My Last Duchess, 24 Bs, six Cs, and 3 Ds. Her 2011 When Beauty Tamed the Beast–an…
Since 1996, All About Romance has been where readers come to swoon, to squabble, and to share the joy (and occasional outrage) of a genre that never stands still. For almost three decades, we’ve written about the books that made us laugh, sigh, roll our eyes, and, sometimes, want to throw them against the wall….
I don’t buy a lot of books–I am the romance reader version of Billy Mack: I became the Publisher of AAR and now they give them to me for free! But despite having thousands of unread books on my TBR, I continue to purchase new ones. Some are books I find on my daily Steals…
We’ve reviewed Ms. Higgins 22 times at AAR. She’s received eight DIK grades, twelve B grades, and two C+s. Her last seven books have been women’s fiction rather than straight romances, six of which (the women’s fiction) have gotten As. Higgins is famous in Romancelandia for being the nicest woman you’ve ever met (Jenny Holiday…
Have you seen Spielberg’s West Side Story? It’s good–a fairly faithful remake of the 1961 film–with gorgeous song and dance scenes and a heartbreaking finish. I grew up with the original and it’s always been on of my favorite musicals. The lyrics Sondheim wrote, the melodies of Bernstein, the choreography of Robbins, and the voices…
In the last three recently published romances I’ve read, I’ve very little idea of what the heroine looks like. The heroes are still chiseled with piercing blue/green/grey eyes, abs like an egg carton, long silky black/blonde/chestnut hair, and sinfully full lips. The heroines are, well, I don’t know because the authors didn’t describe their physical…
l still feel a cultural bias against romance books. I feel the bias at my library book club, with friends, family and the NYT (and other popular publications.) The NYT recently came out with a list of The 100 Best Books of the 21st Century and I didn’t spot any romance books on their list. I do think that publishers are offering more romance books (and more diverse ones). I’m thankful for the AAR romance community along with other social media like Goodreads, Instagram and TikTok.
Yeah, I noticed the same lack of “women’s fiction” in the NYT list as well. But at least there was a solid % of women authors on the list . . .
At least the NYT has a regular monthly column now for romance novel reviews written by Olivia Waite. I feel like romance is taken more seriously on pop culture sites like Vulture, Slate, and Paste/AV Club. But there are still many clueless publications that make jokes about “bodice rippers,” etc. I’ve been reading romance novels for almost 50 years, and I stopped feeling like I had to apologize for it somewhere along the line. Part of that is cultural acceptance, and part of it is getting too old to give a sh*t about others’ opinions.
Yes—but I think it’s a mixed blessing. On the one hand, we can finally move away from the misogynistic notion that romance readers are undereducated, sexually-frustrated women reading p*rn. On the other hand, what had once been our quiet little niche has now exploded with everyone trying to game the system and squeeze money out of it. I’m also concerned that with romance’s increased visibility will come far more scrutiny from the usual book-banning types and books that previously flew under the radar (especially those featuring m/m pairings, poly relationships, and trans MCs) will increasingly become the target of the “we need to remove this to protect our kids from smut” brigade.
I have a couple of negative thoughts about why this might be.
First is the implosion of RWA, which got a lot of coverage. People perked up and thought, “Romance is inclusive? Hey, that would make it acceptable, even fashionable. Maybe we should take a look.”
Second, romance books tend to be fairly short, and these days readers, especially young readers, have short attention spans. People who look with horror at the prospect of reading 800 pages of a Dickens’ novel may be more inclined to try a 250-page romance that they can even read on their phone.
I have an even more cynical explanation for reviews of romance in the New York Times, etc. Print newspapers have be hemorrhaging readers for quite a while now. Maybe they figure anything that will get people to buy the paper helps.
I will now go make a cup of tea and try to think positive thoughts.
I don’t think things have changed much, tbh, but the romance market is quite different in the UK, I think. There seems to be an argument once a month on social media about how HEAs are dumb, and/or someone talking shit about romance novels.
I have to agree with DDD about the romance bandwagon that’s being jumped on currently; ever since the advent of the cartoon cover – which I am convinced started as a way of making non-romance novels look like romance novels with the intention of selling them to romance readers – that it’s a money grab by other genres desperate to cash in on the popularity of romance.
And I’m seeing a lot of authors of non-het romances worried about being targeted by the “for the sake of the children” brigade. Books featuring LGBTQ+ characters are already being challenged and removed from school libraries in the US – so far it hasn’t happened here (the school I work at has several copies of Heartstopper and some other queer YA romances I recognise) and I really hope that fad doesn’t cross the Pond. So those authors’ fears are valid.
Romance is more visible, for sure, but I’m not sure it’s ever going to shed the “mommy porn” image when it’s continually written about by people who don’t understand it.
I made a point of visiting my local independent bookstore on Aug. 17, to help them celebrate “bookstore romance” day. A couple of observations.
In the last five years, they’ve actually devoted a short aisle of bookcases to romance titles (up from a shelf or two in one bookcase of Nora Roberts and Danielle Steele and Debbie Macomber). But my experience on the day of the “celebration” was disappointing for a retail establishment that purports to want my business.
First, I was asked by a sum total of one clerk if I was looking for anything in particular as I was standing in the romance aisle and when I said no, I was just browsing, she nodded, and as she walked away, invited me to speak up if there was anything she could do to help. She made no effort to engage me in any sort of conversation about romances in general or what romances I like to read or anything else genre related. I would have loved to have had a conversation with someone about what I’m reading or what they are reading. But I got the distinct impression that (a white-haired?) romance reader is not really worth talking to – even on bookstore romance day.
Second, everything on their shelves is (mostly) recently published in trade ppbk format (so $18-20 per book). They do have a good selection of diverse authors. But the titles are pretty much 1) only the most recent title by each author, and 2) either contemporary romance (with generally young protagonists) or the most popular Tiktok and KU dark fantasy titles. What I can’t find are the authors/titles I’ve enjoyed in the last year – to be fair, because the authors are generally self-published – nor any backlist titles of some of the best romance writing the genre has to offer. I’m frustrated that anyone new to the genre is thinking that what I see stocked fairly represents what the genre has to offer. It really doesn’t scratch the surface.
And to be fair to my independent bookstore, the situation at Barnes & Noble isn’t any different, although B&N devotes 2 or 3 times as much floor space to romances and therefore carries many more titles. The selection isn’t really any better. Very few historicals, and no westerns or romantic suspense for example. And the staff (what little there is) has either no time or interest in talking to customers.
I realize that there are too many romances published in any given year for bookstores to carry everything. And many of the best back list titles have not (yet?) been printed in trade ppk format. (B&N is systematically reducing their floor space of mass market ppbk format.) But the focus on what the 20-somethings I know seem to want to read seems short-sighted. My mother has been commenting on it for decades: women have money to spend but brand managers continue to chase the 18-29 audience. At least, that is how it feels standing in front of those shelves.
For those lucky enough to live somewhere with a romance-specific store, I expect the experience might be a little different. I would hope that the staff is happy to engage in a conversation there. And the back-lists of really good authors might have a place on their shelves when a customer comes in and asks for something good to read.
My two local bookstores have oodles of romance, most of it targeted to younger people.
Is it targeted as in “it’s been on TikTok”? Or do you think the staff know their stuff?
My one very small local bookshop doesn’t stock much romance at all (if, indeed, it stocks any).
No–I live in the educated hipster world. They’re all super into romance now–but it is not old skool stuff. Like I said lots of queer romance, romance with young, struggling leads, etc…
That is what I’m seeing as well, Dabney (although they make plenty use of “as seen on TikTok” signage). And the young readers in my local romance book club are very aware of what is being recommended by TikTok, on Instagram, and “reviews” at KU (none of which I use).
FWIW, I regularly reference this web site in conversations with those readers but I’m still the only person in the group who is a regular here. This is my “go to” source for romance recommendations because I’m not a regular at other social media sites.
Also, FYI, I think I mentioned elsewhere on the site that I was pleased to see so many fabulous bookstores in the towns I visited in France and Italy last Spring. I made a point of photographing the shelves of the romance sections I saw. They had many of the same (young/diverse) authors/titles + “Bridgerton” I see in the US: trade paperback books, not mass market authors.
A well written cri de coeur, nblibgirl, and I think your analysis is spot on. And as Caz said, there is a puritanical prudish streak in some of the younger folk who I earnestly hope will out-grow it. On the other hand, when they hit about 60 and let the grey show, they will be ignored anyway. 😉
Speaking of older, invisible women, I just watched the pilot of CBS’ reboot of Matlock with Kathy Bates. That is one of the major premise’s of the show and may make for some very interesting plotting.
…women have money to spend but brand managers continue to chase the 18-29 audience
For years, I’ve heard how we’re an “ageing population” – yet this ⬆️is exactly right. You’d have thought marketeers would have taken notice of this by now but no, it’s all about the twentysomethings. Maybe up to 35.
I doubt it. Romance books still have sex scenes designed to arouse and society as a whole is still prudish about that sort of stuff.
Yep. And I think in some quarters, the prudishness is getting worse.
It seems to me that certain kind of romance are very in vogue. I think most, today, would be comfortable telling their friends they were reading an Emily Henry or a K. J. Charles. I’m not so sure the same tolerance is there for a Harlequin Presents or The Wolf and the Dove.
you hit the nail on the head.
I think the cartoon covers (somehow more literary than traditional romance covers), TV shows like Outlander and Bridgerton and maybe also the increasing popularity of audiobooks have all made more people try romance who previously never considered it. And there’s safety in numbers; if other people are reading certain books it’s OK for you to seek them out or admit that you’re reading them too. Maybe it’s only the tip of the romance iceberg that’s on most people’s radar but that’s better than the whole genre being dismissed.
Agree!
Agree. And don’t forget e-books. No one (but Amazon) knows what anyone else is reading.
It took decades for mysteries to be respected as a genre, so I have a little hope for romances.
Even today, romances sustain publishing houses (and generating millions for Amazon), yet they are scorned, I believe, because they are written by and for mostly women. I don’t believe that most straight men have a deep need for romance, but women do. (Note the difference, here, please, between romance and love.) Ridiculing romance novels reinforces masculine power. In many ways, women have advanced in American society not by changing business and society’s values and attitudes, but by adhering to masculine standards.
It’s funny. Porn has never been as wide-spread and easily accessible, but romances still get tarred with this slur. Society is not yet comfortable with women’s sexuality.
No, society is not done with trashing romances. Yes, romances have become a little more accepted in the last fifty years since “The Flame and the Flower,” but not as much as you would expect.
I agree with you that most straight men do not have a need for romance. My impression is that most men absolutely crave love and companionship and are often lonelier than women. But their love fantasies are not stories. If they’re reading a book, what they want is for the drama and angst to revolve around everything but the love story. I think most men’s secret love dream is to be loved for who they are without much effort or struggle.
This is a really interesting comment that has led me to reflect a bit on myself and my reading preferences, so thank you for posting it.
I’m a straight woman who has read romance novels for almost two decades, but as a person I don’t need or want romance; I’m more like a stereotypical man in that way. I read romance for the psychology of the love story and of the sex scenes, and I often ding books for Grand Gestures or for relying too much on romantic stereotypes and tropes; what I want, both in art and life, is the love that underlies (or should underlie) the romance, and I find that I’m often much more critical of the genre than many other romance readers because of it. For me, too many romance novels have too much romance and not enough love.
Your comment helped me connect some of those dots for myself, so thank you!
Now I want to write a column asking men why they read romance and/or how important love stories are to them in the fiction they read.
Yes! I would be very interested in why men read romances, and what kind they like and whether they like gay romances and if they, themselves are gay or straight. I suspect that these are not easy questions to answer for them. It is tough to be an outlier, even with a kindle.
I know very few men who read for pleasure anything longer than a tweet these days; and even fewer who read fiction. So, yes, it would be really interesting to know why the men who read romances, do so.
I can share that my husband’s grandfather spent a couple of years grieving for his wife of 60+ years when she died 10 years ago, and read a few Danielle Steele books during that time. Knowing that I’m a big reader, he (embarassedly) admitted “what a great writer she was” and how much he was enjoying her books. This was especially surprising because he had access to very little formal education growing up and he never read anything but a local paper and business correspondence for all of the rest of his life. But those books did seem to provide some comfort to him, before being convinced to move into a retirement center (where he suddenly became too busy to read again :-).
Dr. Feelgood is a big fiction reader as is my youngest son. I think older generations of men read fiction, mostly thrillers, historical fiction and mysteries.
When I think about the men in my family (my father, two uncles, my husband, my brother, my cousin, husband of another cousin, my son, and 3 nephews – all over the age of 25 and college-educated), three read non-fiction for pleasure. Only one of them reads both fiction and non-fiction. As a librarian, it breaks my heart.
FYI
The first link is to some basic stats for U.S. readers; and while the headline is encouraging at first glance, you’ll see it is a % for people who’ve read ONE book in the last year. (I can’t even imagine only reading one book in a year.) The percentage of Americans who’ve read 31 books in a previous year is abysmal.
Book readers in the U.S. by gender 2021 | Statista
But maybe there is hope for future generations with articles like these:
Why Men Should Read Fiction | The Art of Manliness
Why Reading Fiction Is Essential for Men Today | Psychology Today
Why Men Are Reading Romance Novels (esquire.com)
Relatively few do, is my understanding. And if you look at some of the social forums dedicated to men’s romance (such as reddit/romanceformen) it is very much “Romance? I do not think it means what you think it means…” because very few of the requests or recommendations seem to fit any of the genre conventions of what I would call romance — even some of the o.g. ones from the 1800s that were maybe written by men.
I’m also curious if, say, gay men read the M/M romance novels that I might enjoy, like Glitterland, etc., or if most of the readers of those are women. Probably someone has that data.
I think I agree with much of what you’ve said here. Thank you for your post.
This may explain why so many men keep marrying throughout their adult lives but so many women choose to remain single after losing or divorcing a partner?
My own spouse of many years continues to remind me that “men are simple creatures”. But it just occurred to me to wonder if that is part of the appeal of romances for women e.g. characters who have to put some effort their relationships/into winning (and keeping) their partners?
If they have anodyne covers and an ambiguous title, maybe. Like Colleen Hoover. But I still think there’s a bias against the heart of the genre, those books with covers that show two people in a clinch. Our local book stores have romance sections, but they mostly have contemporaries and only when they have cartoon and/or vague flower covers.
I don’t think there will ever be a complete loss of the taboo against them in public spaces for sure, because sex is a private act and most romance novels have a lot of it. I’d be weirded out to see a dude watching porn on his phone on the bus, even if it was only a glimpse; so it’s sort of similar.