NOTES

1 Tania Modleski. Loving with a Vengeance. New York: Methuen

Books, 1982. p26.

* The Writer, May 1997, pi 8.

3 rw.
^ Anne Cranny-Francis. Feminist Fictions, p iii,

r______________• p3-

^ Ray B. Browne, Marshall W. Fishwick. Symbiosis: Popular Culture

and Other Fields. Bowling Green: BGSUPP, 1988. p23.

Ray B.Browne, Sam Grogg, Lany Landrum, eds. Theories and

Methodologies in Popular Culture. Bowling Green: BGSUPP, 1986. p57

S Ibid.

^Marshall Fishwick. "Popular Culture in India" (lecture)

(0 Russell B. Nye. The Unembarrassed Muse:Popular Arts in America.

New York: Dial Press, 1970.

11 Falk, Kathryn. "Who Reads Romances — and Why". Publishers'

Weekly, 13 November 1981. pp 61-3.

11 Christopher D. Geist, Jack Nachbar, The Popular Culture Reader.

26
 Bowling Green: BGSUPP, 1983.

^Stella Doug. "Selling Romances: Often Right Out of the Boxes".

Publishers' Weekly, 13 November 1981. pp61-63.

‘^Hester Eisenstein. Contemporary Feminist Thought. Boston; G.K.

Hall & Co., 1983. p46.

^Showalter, Elaine. "Re-Vision: Feminist Afterthought" Signs

lS Hab' M6l0'1 ’ Pef ^ : WtVTrat~\yg. CoruJc-nh ~t^g_

K~C3 0 ^ CO. , pZ2l. rtSI.

Alberto Manguel, A History of Reading. New York: Penguin Books,

1996.

v* Ibid.

Cora Kaplan. Sea Changes: Essays on Culture and Feminism. Verso,

1980. p33.

30 Ann Barr Snitow. "Mass-Market Romance: Pornography for Women

is Different". Mary Eagleton, ed. Feminist Literary Theory: A Reader.

Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988. pi34.

54Ibid, pi40.

^Ruthven. Feminist Literary Studies

^Musell, Kay. The Romantic Imagination,

11

*4 Ibid.

27
 Chapter Two
Under the Shadow of Gender Roles:
Women Writing and Women Reading.
As has already been said women who read paperback romances suffer

from anxiety and doubts about the validity of their reading preferences. The

reason for this, we have seen is the combined disfavor of the mainstream

literary establishment and the dominant ideology of patriarchy, A glance

into the past and the history of women’s writing will tell us that things were

quite different once. Women writers’ enjoyed huge popularity and very

wide readership. We have no means of finding out whether or not the

women readers of women’s novels felt the kind of ambivalence that we are

now talking about. There is no record of readers’ opinion handed down

from the past centuries about this but what is most revealing is the fact that

women writers who wrote from women’s perspectives have been immensely

successful. Critical scholarship has revealed the astonishing fact that these

novels were enjoyed by both men and women. The fact that these books

were romance fiction did not prevent large numbers of men from reading

and enjoying them. Ann Rosalind Jones writes:

Romance has been a persistently popular mode in Western

literature; lovers have met, separated and been blissfully reunited

28
 since Alexandrian Greece, as in Longus’ Daphms and Chloe, in

the Roman comic theater, in Arthurian cycles, Italian pastoral,

and throughout the popular as well as now canonized

psychological/realist novels of the eighteenth and nineteenth

centuries. *

The segregation of readership came later when new popular genre

emerged and were duly declared ‘masculine’ such as the cowboy fiction,

detective and spy stories and to a large extent science fiction. To quote Ann

Rosalind Jones again, “...it is only recently that romance has been aimed so

exclusively at women. It was written and read by aristocrats of both sexes

until the 18th century; only then did it begin to be mocked as a feminine

preoccupation. In the nineteenth century too romance novels and fantasy

were viewed with great favor as they served as popular media for political

ends. Ann Cranny Francis, in her book Feminist Fiction describes romances

under the category of ‘genre’ fiction. She writes: “As a form of political

resistance the use of generic fiction has a long history. Fantasy and romance

(in the modem sense) became established genres, utopian fiction reached a

new height of popularity in the 1880s and 1890s only recently approached in
i
the 1960s and 1970s.” She points out that romance fiction was sometimes

used as vehicle for political debate by political activists in the 19th century.

29
The Chartist newspaper published romance and melodrama clearly intended

to show the decadence of traditional landowners and to exalt the figure of

the working class hero, the princes inevitably snatched away in the strong

arms of a Cossack rather than doomed to a life of ease with an effete

member of a decayed aristocracy.

The impact of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s book Uncle Tom’s Cabin

upon American politics needs no elaboration. Lincoln was all praise for the

book and Russell Nye tells us, that Lincoln was also impressed by another

novel by a woman author, Mrs. Victor, and compared her book Maum
3
Guinea and Her Children to Mrs. Stowe’s book. It is clear that in an altered

socio-political context the genre of romance fiction became relegated

entirely to women’s reading and in the process got devalued and denigrated.

It is interesting to take a look at the growth and spread of this genre in

the past two centuries. It is the popularly held belief that the English

novelist Samuel Richardson is the father of sentimental fiction that was the

forerunner of women’s fiction. Here again, one must pause to highlight the

discrimination and neglect shown to women by literary historians. Dale

*
Spender’s amazing book Mothers of the Novel argues that there were at least

a hundred women novelists writing before Jane Austen. Women, then, gave

30
birth and nurturance to the novel form but of course the social climate was

fiercely antagonistic to the idea of women producing any writing.

The fact that women did write novels against innumerable odds is an

amazing fact that needs to be appreciated. In spite of lack of education, lack

of opportunities for travel, lack of exposure and lack of what Virginia Woolf

calls “a room of one’s own”, women produced and circulated a large number

of novels, because writing novels was the only literary activity that women

laboring under many disabilities, could attempt. Any other literary form like

the theatre was out of a woman’s reach or would have disastrous

consequences to the woman as Virginia Woolfs story of Shakespeare’s

imaginary sister Judith Shakespeare proves. The novel, however, flourished

in the hands of women writers and Richardson’s Pamela and Clarissa

became definitive models. Richardson unashamedly used the female sphere

of domesticity in his books.

The great critic ' a t Knight points out that Pamela was the result of
S
the author’s being in die constant company of women. Unlike Fielding who

knew intimately the rough and tough masculine world was enabled by this

very exposure to write what Wilson Knight considers great literary pieces.

But Richardson, according to him spent most of his time being the ladies’

man and produced Pamela and Clarissa. These novels so different in the fate

31
of their female protagonists encoded the message that all popular novels

were striving to convey. It was the simple, unmistakable moral: the morally

upright woman is celebrated in marriage; while her negative counterpart

meets with death after a series of miserable experience.

Before Richardson’s book appeared in England, American women

had not produced many novels. The early settlers considered abstinence

from any pursuit of earthly pleasures as a necessary part of their religion.

Though some critics have given credit to Mrs. Rowlandson’s A Tale of

Captivity as an early novel, still we have to remember that it was an

autobiographical. It narrated her experience as a captive of the Indians.

This autobiographical novel was given the approval by the society because

its aim was to witness to the goodness of god and the deliverance extended

by him. Besides the theological principles, education of women also played

a major part in the lack of women’s literary pursuits. According to Jennifer

Monaghan, until the early 1800s girls were not taught to write. The women

were trained to read, and even the dame schools run by them, only trained

the smaller children to read. Therefore, it is no wonder that women’s

writing as we know exists in America only after 1800. It must be

remembered that the earlier American women’s works were conceived and

/or written in England prior to the authors’ emigration.

32
 The first novel of Susannah Rowson, Charlotte Temple (1794) was

actually written before her emigration. Emulating Richardson, Rowson has

written this novel with the theme of seduction. But unlike Richardson, she

has not used the epistolary form and thus has achieved a more detailed

narrative construction. The Coquette (1797) by Hannah Foster is another

novel, which has a similar theme of seduction resulting in the errant

woman’s death. By contrast, Catherine Maria Sedgwick’s Hope Leslie

(1827) has a heroic heroine who is not as helpless as Charlotte Temple.

Susan Warner’s The Wide. Wide World (185 H is yet another hugely

successful popular women’s novel which gets mentioned in every literary

history of the American novel. It is similar to the contemporary romance

fiction in the sense that it is about Ellen Montgomery, who goes through

various troubles and finally wins the love of John Humphrey. Another

writer of importance was Mary Jane Holmes who’s Tempest and Sunshine

(1854). This novel has two women; one of whom is conventional and gains

marriage at the end, while the other woman is unconventional, choosing a

single life by the end of the novel.

Caroline Cheesebro’ is another prolific writer of her period. Among

her works are Isa, a Pilgrimage (1852), The Children of Light (1853), and

The World Overcome (1856). Cheesebro’ is an exceptional novelist since

33
her heroine Isa in Isa, a Pilgrimage thoughtfully chooses to live together

with her lover and even has a child out of wedlock. Isa is also portrayed as a

woman of independent will who also has her own career. Harriet Beecher

Stowe, Louisa May Alcott are women novelists belonging to this period but

I have chosen to keep them out of this list because of their subsequent entry

into the literary canon, as opposed to the mere enjoyment of contemporary

popularity of the above mentioned novelists. Sarah Ome Jewett can be

included in this list of women’s fiction though Jewett has been blamed for

projecting rosy-hued representation of reality in her writings. Jewett has

chosen to present a world wherein friendships and deeper relationships

between women through which she seems to offer the ideal way out of

heartache and despair.

The second half of the 19* century saw in America the birth of what

came to be called the ‘dime novels’. The dime novel tradition began in

eighteen forties and fifties and flourished in the last decades of the twentieth

century. The name is derived from the price of the book, namely, one dime.

This sales technique is yet another milestone of success in the history of

publishing. While a number of publishers existed, The Beadle Brothers

could be said to have been the most popular booksellers. Even in the dime

34
novel tradition women authors like Mrs. Mary Denison, Mrs. Metta Victor,

Ann Sophie Stephens and others wrote many best selling novels.

At the turn of the twentieth century, or at least the second decade of

the century, paperbacks were first issued as a solution to the problem created

by the expensive hardcover books. The bestseller from this period, Edith M.

Hull’s The Sheik (1925), sold 1,200,000 copies and remained on top of the

list for two years. To be on the bestseller list, a writer has to produce a work

that has immense popularity and public appeal. It is interesting to note how

many women have stayed on top of the bestseller list, while only a few of

them have entered the canon.

The thirties saw Pearl S. Buck, Margaret Mitchell, Mary Johnson and

others while the genre of historical romances ruled the roost. Though a male

writer, Lloyd Douglas, was highly successful in this decade he was never on

par with Mitchell in sales. The 40s and 50s saw Betty Smith as a best selling

writer with books like A Tree Grows In Brooklyn (1943), Tomorrow Will

Be Better (1948), Jov in the Morning (1963L all with domestic themes.

According to Russell Nye, her 1943 novel sold two million copies in

addition to the half million copies sold to the armed forces. Russell Nye in

The Unembarrassed Muse savs.

35
 “ Although it was first assumed that radio and television daytime

serials might drain away some of the domestic novel’s female

audience, the competition seemed to have little effect on the work

of three women — Edna Ferber, Frances Parkinson Keyes, and

Taylor Caldwell — who have maintained steady sales over thirty

years. In fact the combined sales of the three, in 1960, already

had reached twenty-six millions, about evenly divided among

L
them.”

The gothic trend of the 40s and 60s again has women authors as

bestsellers: Mary Roberts Rinehart, Daphne du Maurier, Victoria Holt, Mary

Stewart, Josephine Edgar. Mary Stewart is said to have had a total sales of

over ten million. The list of bestsellers by women down the decades seem

unending, and since this study is not a direct enquiry into them, the list has

to be representative.

While women have written books, which have been commercially

successful and hugely appreciated by contemporaries, yet they have been

refused recognition.' One major reason for the refusing admittance into the

literary canon is the choice of subject and the treatment of it. It is an

interesting fact that most of the women’s fiction has been about women’s

lives and how these novels have been denied literary status. Apparently to

36
be a successful writer it is essential to be a male. Joanna Russ, further

exposes the attitude of the literary historians, when she says,“...it is

impossible to write a conventional success story with a heroine, for success

in male terms is a failure for a woman, a ‘fact’ movies, books, and television

plays have been earnestly proving to us for decades.” 1

One of the popular subjects for women novelists has been romance. Even

the contemporary romances hold the same appeal. This choice of theme

makes the novels of women writers to be called ‘unrealistic’. Addressing

this issue Jane Spencer says,

“Romance obviously held a continuing appeal for the novelist

and the novel-reader; and it held an especially strong appeal for

women....Without resorting to the eternal feminine for

explanation, we need to examine this connection, which has

meant that much of women’s fiction has been devalued as

unrealistic. Why should women in general, and hence women

writers, not subscribe to realism? Its depends who decides what

reality is... Yet women novelists writing about the lives of young

ladies in their own society were, of course, dealing with reality

and ordinary experience. The reason their work was not

interpreted as realistic has to do with society, attitude to the

37
 young lady’s life. The young lady’s concern was seen as

frivolous and somehow not truly real...What was ‘unreal’ about

%
romance was precisely women’s importance in it.”

This is surely a result of canon which every literary artist and critic tends

to idealize. While the prerequisites of canon have been determined

predominantly by men, women continue to aspire towards it. Unless women

reject die importance of being acknowledged into the canon it is not possible

for women to pride in their own gender’s literary history. It will also help in

prevention of a sense of guilt, shame and inferiority with regard to the

production and reception of women’s fiction.

What is really interesting is the fact that the romance publishing

industry, which men control, is above blame and contempt. By contrast with

the romance reading, romance publishing is a highly commendable industry

whose phenomenal statistics is much praised and acclaimed. This dual

nature of the industry makes it necessary to consider the industry, the way it

operates and the politics involved in it, since such knowledge is power.

Power, which can enhance our understanding of the politics of gender. The

contemporary romances face a similar situation. They are bestsellers

bringing in millions of dollars in sales, with a worldwide popularity. Yet

38
these romance novels are rejected by the mainstream critics and commoners,

labeled as ‘trash’ and ‘mass-produced fantasies’.

The beginning of the formulaic romance was in 1907 when Mills & Boon

Books started publishing them in England. Over 50 years, romance

publishing remained a British endeavor, but in 1957, Harlequin Books, a

branch of the Canadian company called Torstar Inc., bought over the right to

reprint the Mills & Boon romances in America. By the year 1972, Mills &

Boon, was brought over by Harlequin Books and within 6 years, the firm

was supplying books to more than 80 countries. In 1984, Harlequin Ltd.,

also took over Silhouette Books a division of the Simon & Schuster Ltd.

Through all these conglomerations Harlequin Books monopolized the

romance market but other publishing firms also have constantly exhibited

interest in the annual turnover of the romances. Other publishers like Dell,

Jove, Bantam, Avon and others joined the romance route. All this interest in

the ‘pulp’ fiction was the money involved:

“in 1990, Harlequin Enterprises grossed $302 million in sales and

almost $50 million in operating profits from its two smoothly

meshed pulp mills, 194 million books in some 100 markets

3
worldwide and in more than twenty languages.”

39
The business of publishing the so-called ‘trash’ was not so trivial, since

these books consist of 8% - $40% of paperback industry, besides the 100%

Harlequin published as of the year 1981.

Competition was tough between the companies for the coveted market

and no effort was spared to conquer the hearts of an estimated 20 million

readers. An account of the intrigues and temptations attempted by these

publishing houses could read very much like the story of Samuel

Richardson’s novel. Silhouette Books earmarked nothing less than $3

million for advertising in 1980, adding another million within a year. In

1983, the rivaling firms of Harlequin Books and Silhouette Books were

spending $20 million a year for advertising.

Besides the astronomical sum involved, a consideration of the tug-of-

war between Harlequin Books and Silhouette Books would be vital to

understand the aggressive pursuit of ‘romantic profits’. Until 1978, Simon

& Schuster was the sole proprietor of distribution of Harlequin Romances in

America, but when the Canadian firm withdrew the rights, Simon &

Schuster launched Silhouette Books in retaliation. With the power of market

survey done by Silhouette Books, they thrived well landing a vital blow to

Harlequin.. Silhouette used tactics like creating book covers similar to

Harlequin Books, stealing Harlequin employers, both writers and

40
administrators, securing the rack space of Harlequin Books in the bookstores

etc. Such was the rivalry between both the firms that, within four years of

Silhouette’s publication the firm was brought over by Harlequin Enterprises

Ltd., for about S 10 million U. S. dollars, and Harlequin Books regained the

monopoly in the romance market. Harlequin holds an important due to the

worldwide popularity it enjoys. For instance, in India, Sri Lanka and other

Asian countries the three familiar brand names are those of Mills & Boon.

Harlequin and Silhouette Books — all part of the conglomerated Torstar

Inc., Canada.

Romance writing is a highly formulaic process as we are very well

aware. The repetition of the formula and the assured happy ending hold

secret of their success. However, the firms are smart enough to publish

various lines catering to varying groups of audience. Some of the popular

sub-categories of this genre include historicals, gothics, bodice-rippers, and

contemporaries. To elaborate further, the historicals focus on the periods of

history, thus tapping on the possibilities of varying situations, dress code,

and ethics of a bygone period; similarly gothics borrow the traditions of

gothic writing but make sure that the predominance is given to the love

story. The ‘contemporary’ romances deal with more realistic characters plot

and situations, while the ‘bodice-rippers’ are highly sensual in their content.

41
The presence of these various subcategories is a definite publishing move,

which ensures that readers with differing reading tastes could be lured into

romance reading and get something that meets their tastes. The publishers

ensure that the specifications for the various subcategories are well adhered

to. The various lines have different Editors-in-chief, and these editors have

a list of suggestions about the individual line for potential writers. These

lists are called ‘Tip-Sheets”.

Having established the publishing side of the romance it would be

good to pass on to the people who are engaged in writing these romances.

What is romance writing like? Is the business of writing constantly criticized

and condemned too? Does it involve financial gain? If so, is it favorable to

be a romance writer? While talking about the process of writing, Jayne Anne

Krentz, a romance writer says that it was six years before her writing was

published. According to Jennifer McCord, the person who interviewed this

author, says

“ Disciplined, prolific and versatile, Krentz gets to her desk by 7

a.m., breaks for lunch and aerobics, brews herself a special tea,

runs some errands, and is back at the computer for the rest of the

afternoon...Though (she) spends a minimum of six hours a day

42
 writing, she says that she thinks about her books even while in
ip
other activities.”

Another writer, Margaret Chittendon, claims that she not only enjoys her

writing but that she also tries to do it well. She says,

“I even take the time to try to do it well — nine months to a year

per book, usually, I attempt to write about ‘real’ people rather

than to create characters. I work hard at bringing to life

interesting occupations and vivid settings, researching on the

u
spot.”

These writers undeniably put in great effort, while producing

romances, which are the result of lonely, but highly organized schedule like

that of any other mainstream literary artists. Such devoted pursuit normally

would bring great respect in any other disciplines. On the other hand, there

is a painful absence of respect and regard for their work, in spite of the

effort, research and discipline.

Jayne Ann Krentz’s interview for Publisher's Weekly was published

almost a decade after that of Margaret Chittendon. But what is really

interesting is the fact that the status of the romance writer seems not to have

changed dramatically. For instance, Chittendon says,

43
 “I am a writer of romance novels, which is to say I am a pitiable

creature, disdained by writers of ‘serious’ books, ignored by reviewers

and reviled by TV talk show hosts—especially those of the male

persuasion....

I am tired of hearing romance novels denounced as garbage, even

worse, referred to as a ‘product’ or ‘units’ by the very publishers

who make a sizeable profit from selling them. I’m tired of being

asked by television interviewers if I’m embarrassed to admit

doing what I do ...I’m tired of having critics of the genre take it

for granted that all romance writers knock books out at the rate of

one a month, or that only writers who couldn’t possibly write

‘real’ books write for the genre.” ‘X

Almost after a decade, the opinions expressed in the above quoted interview

are surprisingly echoed in the interviewing of Krentz, who agrees that “(she)

was sick and tired of seeing romance novels critiqued by the media without
ti
any real understanding.” Reading through their words, we can discern that

everyone including television interviewers, media people, lay people,

reviewers, and even critics themselves do not think much of the profession

of writing romance novels.

44
 In contrast to the publication industry, the profession of romance

writing is viewed with great misgivings. It is crucial also to consider the

monetary gains that one achieves through romance writing, as this is a very

important factor in any profession. There are many women who are drawn to

the lucrative business of novel/paperback romances trusting in the success

stories of women like Barbara Cartland, Danielle Steele, Janet Dailey and

others. It is interesting to note that most of the firms pay advances $2,000 -

$3,000 for beginners, and around $15,000 for well-known writers; in

addition, they might earn as much royalty as $40,000, which is not as much

as a writer of mainstream literature may earn.

Abundant scorn and limited funds may be the reward of average

romance writers, but that is not the end of their tribulation. Harlequin, the

giant in this industry has set up a tradition cum trap — author anonymity. In

order to ensure brand name promotion, Harlequin insists that an author

should use a penname, which will be retained by the company. In case, the

writer moves to another firm, Harlequin has the right to use the same nom de

plume for another writer. Any reprint may not pay royalty to the writer who

leaves.

The authority of Harlequin is unquestionable and unshakeable. When

one literary agent took up the issue to court, Harlequin not only threatened to

45
do away the contracts from the agency, but also carried out the threat. It

cancelled all the contracts of the agent’s authors and hundreds of

manuscripts accepted for printing were rejected. According to Poliak,

“ The agent ‘was practically in tears’ recalls Maria Pallante, a

lawyer and assistant director of the Author Guild, which is

investigating Harlequin’s pseudonym practices. Pallante said she

has talked with some two dozen romance writers and their agents

and ‘there has been a shocking level of fear!” ^

Great is the contrast between the publishers and writers: while the

former group is predominantly male, the latter female. The former group

stands for power, riches and dominance, while the latter stand for

vulnerability, limited finance, and subordination. Unlike the readers of

romances, and heroines who seem to be pursuing emotional realm, these

writers do achieve self-sufficiency. While the layperson and the critic laugh

at the vulnerable heroine and macho boss -hero of the romances, how is it

that they are silent at the vulnerable writer heroine vs. macho publishers? In

a world of improved customer relations, the women readers who help the

publishers succeed and the women writers whose potential serves them are

deeply scoffed at, made fun of, treated indifferently. The essential stance of

the romance reader should be to remember that reading can serve various

46
aims, all of which are valid. Discussing the reading of fiction Inge

Wimmers comments.

“What is it to read novels? ... Readings differ depending on the

kind of novel being read and the reader’s purpose, interests, and

ideology. By opening the interpretive space between reader and

text to include both text interpretation and self-interpretation, the

frames of reference that come into play are multiplied”

Reading purpose can be pure pleasure. The women readers need to assert

their right to read the books that are pleasure producing for them.

We have seen a number of significant facts about the history of

romance writing and publication. From these facts about the production of

romance we have to move on to the reception of these romance novels. As

has been pointed out earlier they were at first read with avid interest by both

sexes; but when they became almost exclusively meant for female

readership the public’s attitude changed. The books and their readers were

downgraded. Even when women’s studies and feminist literary criticism

emerged the negative view of romances was in force. Several feminists

dismissed romances as trash, and beneath serious notice. Other feminists

saw in them a threat to all that Women’s Liberation Movement stood for.

Some of this negative response to romance fiction has already been

47
mentioned in chapter one. But a somewhat closer look at the violent

antagonism that this genre evoked in feminists is useful for our

understanding of the general response to romances.

Not only romances but their readers also evoked great disdain in

Germaine Greer, author of The Female Eunuch. She called these readers

“supermenial female swallowers” of romance fiction, who are so thoroughly

implicated in this “opiate of the super-menial” as to be responsible for their

own oppression. Standing firmly on the tenets of women’s liberation form

an oppressive heterosexual, patriarchal culture, Greer’s objection to romance

fiction is that it perpetuates patriarchy, by making attractive the bondage of

women. “If women’s liberation is to happen”, she wrote, “if the reservoir of

real women’s love is to be tapped, this sterile self-deception must be

counteracted.” ^

Shulamith Firestone whose view about romance was mentioned

briefly earlier, also deserves some mention in this contexts. Firestone who

gives some space to criticism of romance fiction in her book The Dialectic

of Sex projects the idea that romance is an all-pervasive manifestation of

male ideology. She argues that the culture of romance is created by men as

a snare for women. Predictably women have been easily lured into this snare

but the benefits of this arrangement are decidedly for men, for women are

48
kept in psychological bondage to male sexuality. As Firestone puts it,

“Romanticism is a cultural tool of male power to keep women from knowing

IT
their condition.”

Feminist critics who agreed with her pointed out however that

romance and the ‘submission’ inherent in heterosexual relationship was a

need felt by women and that women were willingly complicitous in their

oppression. Rosalind Coward, for instance, after studying the ‘culture of

romance’ and the literary products — romance fiction makes the following

statement: “Did not Freud help us to understand that in learning to love men

we also leam to subordinate ourselves to them? The ropes which bind

women are the hardest to cut, because they are woven with so many of our
is
own desires.”

With the acknowledgement that romance certainly met certain

female needs feminist literaiy criticism began to take a divergent attitude to

die genre. Discussing the issue of feminist criticism and romantic fiction

Mary Eagieton adds,

“What emerges also in the criticism of romantic fiction is the

pleasure which the feminist critic herself finds in the text. The

critical writing frequently reveals a humour, excitement and

delight that makes it quite distinctive, particularly the relish with

49
 which the critic debunks the stereotypes. Whereas ten years ago

romantic fiction was regarded as mere fodder for the female

masses, it now furnishes material for those concerned with

distinctly unromantic issues such as ideology, semiotics, reader-

response theory, and cultural studies.”

Ann Barr Snitow was among the early feminist critics who scrutinized

the paperback romances and according to her these are pornographic in

their function. Snitow is highly ironic in her article, which she opens with

the idea that in Harlequin romances “have no plot in the usual sense. All

tension and problems arise from the fact that the Harlequin world is

inhabited by two species incapable of communicating with each other,

male and female.” Though her study is interesting it is very reductive

and dismissive in its attitude towards the romance readers. She considers

that the main interest of these romances is the ‘titillating’ nature of these

romances. Throughout her article she echoes her thought that

“sexual feeling is probably the main point. Like sex itself, the

novels are set in an eternal present in which the actual present, a

time of disturbing disruptions between the sexes, is dissolved

and only a comfortable timeless, universal battle remains. The

hero wants sex; the heroine wants it, too, but can only enjoy it

50
 after the love promise has been finally made and the ring is on
her finger.” 10

Kay Mussell's Fantasy and Reconciliation is a study completely focused on

the contemporary romances. Though she initially makes a claim that,

"...(T)his book does not defend romances ... either as art or as appropriate

models for female lives but I hope it respects, understands, and thus

defends those women who chooses to read them”, throughout the book, her

dominant opinion seems to be that these books are escapist in their function.

However, the content analysis of the romances is truly revelatory and

seminal. But she is quick to judge readers as passive; for instance, she says,

“Consumer research for publishers indicates that romance readers do not

recognize the same distinctions among formulas made by publishers .. ."But

later studies, especially that of Radway has proved that in reality the readers

actually are selective in their choice of romances irrespective of the

subcategories.

In her work, Loving with Vengeance. Modleski analyses Harlequin

romances, female gothic, and soap operas. She considers these forms to have

elements that are subversive to patriarchy. She attributes the popularity of

these forms to the fact these successfully represent the feminine desires

51
which are real to the contemporary women that are not adequately met by

the present day society.

Janice Radway*s Reading the romance: Women. Patriarchy, and

Popular Literature, is another major work, which is highly esteemed. In

addition to considering the commercial, ideological and historical processes

which make the success of these books possible, she has interviewed fifty

readers from a small town called Smithton. From interacting with them, she

has come to decide that romance reading is far from passive, the Smithton

women actively decide what kind of romances they would read and what

they would reject. Based on their choices Radway has also made an analysis

of the structure of bad and ideal romances, which are interesting. In a sense,

Radway is conforming to Modleski’s opinion when she says that,

“when the act of romance reading is viewed as it is by the readers

themselves, from within a belief system that accepts as given the

institutions of heterosexuality and monogamous marriage, it can

be conceived as an activity of mild protest and longing for reform

necessitated by those institutions’ failure to satisfy the emotional

needs of women. Reading therefore functions for them as an act

of recognition and contestation whereby that failure is first

it
admitted and then partially reversed.”

52
 Carol Thurston's book The Romance Revolution, an analysis of the

romances covering almost three decades. She traces the changes within these

romances over the years. For instance, she has illustrated how the earlier

romances conformed to the commonly held view that female sexuality is

passive while male sexuality is aggressive. The recent romances have

female sexuality portrayed as being more active and therefore, helps in

forming a new identity for the readers.

It is interesting to note how the different feminist critics have

interpreted the romance reading in different ways. Each study has focused

on a single aspect, all of which are valid and revelatory. In fact, the Indian

women readers, who were interviewed, acknowledged these aspects in

layperson’s terms. For instance, most of the women acknowledged that they

understood the escapist function of romance reading. However, these

critical works have been written by Western feminists in their national

context. The focus of this study is different in that it considers the reception

of the American romances in the Indian cultural context. How different is

the reception of these predominantly Western, white, heterosexual romances,

in an Oriental, patriarchal, non-white society like India? In spite of the

cultural differences, these romances have great appeal for the Indian women.

In order to understand the Indian women readers who interact with these

53
texts, we need to understand the cultural milieu of the readers. In the

following chapter we will consider the gender construct and the imaging of

women in the Indian society.

54
 NOTES

1 Ann Rosalind Jones, Mary Eagleton, ed. Feminist Literary Theory: A

Reader. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988.

2 Anne Cranny-Frands. Feminist Fictions, pin

3 Russell Nye. The Unembarrassed Muse : The Popular Arts in America

Dial Press. New York, 1970.

4 Dale Spender. Mothers of the Novel. London: Pandora Books, 1986.

5 Grant C. Knight, The Novel in English. New York: Richard Smith

Inc., 1931. pl23

6 Nye, Russell B. The Unembarrassed Muse : The Popular Arts in America.

Dial Press, New York, 1970.p79

7 Joanna Russ. To Write like a Woman: Essays in Feminism and

Sciencg Fiction. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995. p89.

8 Jane Spencer. The Rise of the Woman Novelist: From Aphra Behn to Jane

Austen. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986.

9 Vivien Lee Jennings, "The Romance Wars”. Publishers' Weekly, 24

August, 1984. pp50-55.

10 Jennifer McCord. "Vivien Lee Jennings" Publishers' Weekly, 1994.

11 Chittendon, Margaret. "My Say", Publishers' Weekly 10 February

1984. p86.

55
12 Ibid.

13 Jennifer McCord. "Vivien Lee Jennings" Publishers' Weekly, 1994.

14 Pollack, "Romance Slaves" Publishers' Weekly, 1986.

15 Inge Wimmers. Poetics of Reading: Approaches to the Novel. New

Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1988. pi 54

16 Germaine Greer,’’Romance” in The Female Eunuch. Paladin,

1970.pl71.

17 Shulamith Firestone.. “The Culture of Romance” in The Dialectic of

Sex. Paladin, 1970.pl39.

18 Rosalind Coward. “Female Desire: Women’s Sexuality Today” in

Mary Eagleton, ed. Feminist Literary Theory: A Reader. Oxford:

Basil Blackwell, 1988. pl46.

19 Mary Eagleton, cd. Feminist Literary Theory: A Reader. Oxford:

Basil Blackwell, 1988. pl46.

20 Ann Barr Snitow. “Mass Market Romance: Pornography for Women

is Different”, Radical History Review, No.20, Summer 1979.

21 Kay Mussell.. "Romantic Fiction" in Handbook of American Popular

Culture edited by Thomas Inge (Greenwood Press, New York, 1976).

22 Janice Radway, Reading the Romance: Women. Patriarchy and

Popular Literature. London: Verso,1984.

56