Oh fiction, you slay me, or is this a rescue?

Let me begin with two statements: I love fiction, and I don’t care for romance novels. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve read them, but largely they just aren’t my thing. I mention this to divert complaints of elitism.

To me reading is reading is reading with a few notable exceptions. The first Twilight book is so poorly written it is hard to read and may actually result in people becoming poorer writers. But mostly my loathing is saved for books that promote bigotry in general…though that argument can be made for Twilight.

Palash Ghosh tells a tale of a woman reading and was thrust into a world of romance, left to ponder , why? Why would women be interested in romance novels where the plots are often archaic “hero saves woman” tropes? The only logical conclusion, all women want to be saved. Ghosh does note the importance and prevalence of guilty pleasures like genre fiction, but for some reason romance novels are different, probably because they are big sellers, huge actually. This might have something to do with women just read more fiction than men, actually, I think women read more books than men period, but men may consume other written media at a higher rate…I can’t remember that source.

Ghosh has trouble with successful, young, and generally attractive  women reading these books. Because only hags read romance or maybe the issue is women reading. I jest of course. Romance novels are big money makers for publishers, and this is really important in an industry that is dying. Ghosh discusses who reads these books, women between the ages of 30 and 54 in the middle and upper classes. Then Ghosh continues to discuss the industry specifically the publishing houses.

Ghosh then talks about the plots of these novels. Before I get into Ghosh’s perspective, a few notes: romance novels are genre fiction, and most genre fiction follows tropes of its genre. Romance novels play up the virtue of the woman protagonist, conflict, masculine hero who saves the day, and then there are some risqué scenes for our protagonist and hero, because love leads to happiness. More modern versions of these stories, usually called chick lit, will focus on virtues outside of purity, but like hard working, mothering, etc. Ghosh asks,

“But I must wonder why so many women—forty years after the women’s liberation movement, Roe vs. Wade and the pill have transformed the lives of women in the most dramatic of ways—continue to indulge in the fanciful tales of females so unlike them who live in fantasy worlds light years removed from their reality?

“I’m not sure if the immense popularity of romance novels represents a kind of ‘repudiation’ of the women’s lib movement, but clearly something is missing in the lives and experiences of tens of millions (maybe even hundreds of millions) of contemporary ladies.”

Of course, you don’t mean to imply women are rejecting women’s lib, which is exactly why you wrote it. Ghosh continues to cite a contemporary romance author who says women love masculine men as defined by the patriarchy…false. Also, please, tell me more about what is missing from my life? Because at the moment I think it is fair pay, wage equity, and comprehensive access to health care, but I could be wrong. But of course, to reinforce Ghosh’s not saying women are rejecting feminism asks, are women rejecting feminism:

“[T]hat is, in the early 21^st century, have women grown tired of the burdens and expectations that the ‘freedoms’ they have gained imparted upon them? Is this a rejection of modern feminism? An expression of distaste of the hippie culture which essentially destroyed all traditional forms or behavior in the western world? Do women long for days of old when men were masculine gentlemen and women were feminine and protected as precious treasures and regarded as possessions?

“Perhaps most women (even the ones who get lost in romance novels) do not want to go all the way back—but it is obvious, they are unhappy with how the world has turned out in the contemporary era.

“Still, I would suggest that is someone is enamored with romantic novels, one should perhaps eschew the contemporary books and read the beautiful, deep and moving works of 19^th century women authors like Jane Austen and the Bronte sisters—they combine romanticism with cold hard reality and profound insights in humanity.””

Wow. No. No. and No. Ghosh is drawing a lot of conclusions from the purchasing habits of people. Also, Ghosh knows shit about literature, which is demonstrated by his references to Austin and Bronte. So, women aren’t rejecting feminism and equality, some are, but as a movement we’ve been successful at changing the minds of a lot of women…men not so much. To imply reading a book about a woman protagonist with a shitty plot means you want to emulate said shitty plot is stupid. That is all. End scene.

Asserting women have grown tired of the expectations set for them is out of line. I get tired of people telling me what to do because I’m a woman so clearly I can’t make decisions for myself. My favorite is when all my men friends warn me about living somewhere, it has happened with every large move I’ve made. Cleveland, Baltimore, DC. Because you know there are bad neighborhood somewhere in those cities, and I’m the perpetual victim. Now I know they don’t mean it this way or in a negative way at all, but that is what they are saying. So unless, you have a different reason for not wanting me to move, save it. This is made all the more ironic when you consider the neighborhood I grew up in.

Also, hippies destroyed everything in the western world? Patriarchy did fine. Which we know because women were excluded from leadership in almost all the major movements (anti-war and civil rights). It was even noted in Occupy that women had less of a vocal presences than men. The “protected as treasures” line. Christ. I know I don’t want to go back to being property, which Ghosh doesn’t say, instead possessions. It is a nicer way to say it. Women were property and used as a commodity. Personally, I would love for us to chuck all the notions of purity and property from women because rape was a property crime and often is still treated as one, for example, people really believe that if a woman has had sex in the past she can’t be raped. Take a minute.

Then Ghosh concludes by telling women to read classic women’s literature. Except there isn’t that much of it, which Ghosh seems obvious to. Women were/are actively excluded from the cannon. Austin is a great example of this. However, Ghosh has a very limited and frustrating understanding of Austin. Austin is a class writer. Her books are often considered romance now, but those story lines are the means to talk about class, manipulation, and social expectations. Don’t believe me? Read Pride and Prejudice again, but this time note all the times marriage is referenced as a tool to mark class and social standing. Austin shows us the changing is society with the rise of the bourgeois and merchant class.

Finally, and my real point here, maybe women just want to read books about women, told from their perspectives. See literature has a man problem. Even J.K. Rowling was told Harry had to center around a boy. Men protagonists outnumber women except in romance novels. There are more women protagonists now than ever before, but still most children’s books center around white boys, and when a novel features a women protagonist it is assumed that the novel is romance or chick lit. Remember the scandal with Wikipedia about “American women authors” and who was listed there, who wasn’t, and how the women listed there weren’t listed on the “American authors”’s page? So my counter argument to Ghosh’s is that women want to read more stories about women, and since we read more fiction than men it shouldn’t be a problem. Also, we want more women authors, because authors still have a better chance of being published by using a male or sexually ambiguous name (see J.K. Rowling).

So literature industrial complex my demands:

More stories about women and women’s lives

More stories by women

More interesting and fully development women characters at large

More stories by and about marginalized women including women of color, women in poverty, and the oppressed

See there is a discussion around whether men can write women. We hear about it all the time when we talk about film. The female characters aren’t developed, and it is just assumed men can’t write them. Well, hire women to write them. I solve so many problems, you guys. However, this criticism is rarely applied to female authors, and that is because so many stories are men’s stories that everyone knows how to write relatable men. After all men are considered the default example of the human condition.