ROMANCE NOVELS FOR FEMINISTS new blog

[Jackie]

Hi, fellow historical romance readers. Some of you may be interested in a new blog I launched this week, called ROMANCE NOVELS FOR FEMINISTS. I'll be reviewing romance books with feminist themes, as well as musing about the connections and contradictions between romance fiction and feminism. I'm looking forward to sharing my thoughts, and hearing yours.

You can find the blog at:
http://romancenovelsforfeminists.blog...

Or you can see it on my Goodreads author page.

Best,
Jackie

[Steelwhisper]

Hmm. I'm not so sure there are any major changes.

[Shereen]

Hi Jackie,

You might enjoy this article on a similar topic.

Barbara Samuels writes:
"I didn't stumble into writing romance—how many writers and artists stumble into it? I chose romance. Deliberately, with much thought. I chose it because I am a feminist, and because I wanted to bypass the male culture of the mainstream publishing world. I genuinely did not care, when I began, if any man ever read anything I wrote. I wanted to write for women."

Weaving Legends and Reclaiming History: A Barbara Samuel Appreciation

[Jackie]

Thanks for the pointer, Shereen. I appreciate it!

-- Jackie


Shereen wrote: "Hi Jackie,

You might enjoy this article on a similar topic.

Barbara Samuels writes:
"I didn't stumble into writing romance—how many writers and artists stumble into it? I chose romance. Deliberat..."

[Steelwhisper]

Given the fact that we have to thank (I don't do much sarcasm, normally, but this is a heavy version) this movement for the narrowing down of romance with HEA to the quite laughable travesty it has become these days, compared to classic Romance as it existed as late as the 1950s, I see very little achievement. Rather the reverse.

It also doesn't help to look just at m/f romance. What used to take place there now has been migrated to BDSM romance and m/m as being more palatable to the average female reader. The readers however migrated along, huge numbers of them.

So where's the change? And where is it to the better?

[Jackie]

Steelwhisper:

May I ask for some more information before I respond to your questions about "Where's the change? And where is it to the better?"

Why do you see romance today as a "laughable travesty"? What was it about the romances of the 1950s that you admired, and miss in today's romance?

Re BDSM: are you arguing that the dominance and submissive gender-based patterns of m/f romance of the past (what period? Not 1950s, if that's what you admire) have migrated to BDSM and m/m romance? And that readers who used to get pleasure from submission/dominance relationships in mainstream m/f romance now have to read BDSM or m/m books to get that pleasure? Why would reading those books be "more palatable" than reading more mainstream romance?

-- Jackie