Popular Culture Review Vol. 16, No. 1, Spring 2005 | Page 157

Ecosystem of Sex
153
revolve around men. Feminists seek to equalize power with men; and, as a
result, romance novels appear anathema to the feminist project. Even some
traditionalist romance fiction readers are put off by what they call the “rape
sagas” found in many of the novels. One romance fiction writer, Penelope
Williamson, however, argues against the criticism that romances are simply a
“series of sexual encounters strung together, a sort of lightweight pornography
for women.” She explains, “Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Pornography is sex without love; in romance, love is center stage” (Williamson
1992, 126). This explanation doubtless holds little weight with feminists of any
category. Yet, another female writer, Hanna Rosin, points out, “By introducing
God, the Christian love stories violate the central principle of a romance: that the
plot revolves around subtle shifts between two lovers, the hero and the heroine.
God robs the hero of his chance to save the damsel in distress, and prove his
mettle” (Rosin 1997, 2)
Postmodern feminism may tend to rationalize the romance fiction
market as a surrogate form of rationale for living in a patriarchal driven culture.
Better for a woman to “escape” into a romance novel than sleep with Prince
Valium. Although, there are plenty of women who do both, women who read
romance fiction, both secular and IRF, commented that reading these novels was
a way of “calming down” and “letting go of the cares of the day.” Janice
Radway’s work, Reading the Romance, is far less critical of the women who
read romance than Ann Barr Snitow’s, “Mass Market Romance: Pornography
for Women is Different,” and Tania Modleski’s, Loving with a Vengeance:
Mass-Produced Fantasies for Women. Radway questions the backlash against
the feminist approach for secular romance fiction, placing the reasoning for its
intense popularity on changes in market approaches (Radaway 1984, 19). A
point with which we agree, until IRF plots are taken into account. Radway takes
issue with the topic of rape in secular fiction by pointing out: “This curious and
artificial distinction that they [readers] draw between ‘forceful persuasion’ and
‘true rape’ is a function of the very pressing need to know how to deal with the
realities of male power and force in day-to-day existence” (1984, 76).
Criticism of women who read romance fiction (secular or IRF) is, at
best, suspect in itself. One romance writer contends, “To belittle romance fiction
is to belittle women” (Arnold 135). However, romance publishers, such as
Harlequin, promote their lines but rarely its female authors. Leslie Ravine
quoted Silhouette president P.J. Fennel as saying, “We’re out to get brand name
loyalty, so we’re not selling individual titles” (Rabine 1985, 57). This might be
one more example of how women in professional fields are treated as second-
class citizens. Female romance fiction writers have to fight their own battles
with the patriarchy of publishing giants. From the tone of Jayne Krentz’s book,
which profiles romance writers’ articles about writing romance, writers are
listening to the voices of their readers as much, if not more, than the voices of
their publishers.