fraactals replied to your quote: Many students of the modern popular romance insist...
TALK TO ME ABOUT THIS PLS
I knew this would interest you! By the way, Janice Radwayās study is pretty famous -- I donāt know if youāve read it, but Iāve seen it referenced multiple times in conjunction with romance. My understanding is, it changed the game. I donāt know if Beebeeās book would be interesting to you at all because I think it usesĀ āsupermarket novelā genres as a jumping off point rather than an extended area of theorization.
But as for my thoughts on this particular bit, I think itās fascinating if a bit overgeneralizing?Ā āAmerican women are not provided with nurturersā seems like a potentially fraught claim: which American women? what counts as a nurturer? do housekeepers, personal assistants, nannies, etc., count as nurturers? and those are obviously different from romantic nurturers, and so may not discredit Radway/Beebeeās point, but itās worth thinking through. I also donāt know the demographics on what women are most likely to read romance (I might guess: white? middle-class? lower-class? straight? but that could easily be wrong) or what demographic of men are reading war books. However, all that said, I think itās undeniable that romance novels are gendered a particular way, and war books another, and I thinkĀ āuse-valueā (for women, for men) is an incredibly smart way to talk about how thoseĀ āgenresā therefore work.Ā
Based on the introduction (which is all Iāve read!), Beebee seems to be arguing that genre is ALWAYS at play, and that what makes works legible (no matter how postmodern, anti-genre, or generically confused) is the knowledge of genre and how genre works. Iād love to think about that more deeply in conversation with the mostĀ ātypicalā genres (e.g., romance or murder mystery), and howĀ āemotional satisfactionā comes not just from how well these books conform to generic beats, but also how they play with, defy, and surprise those beats. If something aligns too closely with those beats, itās easy to feel bored or let-down, but if something deviates too far, it can be disappointing or not even feel like itās part of the genre. I donāt read a ton of romance novels but I can think of some romcom movies where I feel like this absolutely applies, and I suspect itās a similar situation. Murder mysteries too. You want the murder, you want a solution that makes sense, but you also want to be surprised.
Do you have thoughts on how romance in particular is navigating generic expectations? How does good romance walk that line? Ā