Misconceptions about Romance Novels

Say the words “romance novel” and waaaay too many people think of “bodice ripper” book covers and stories about damsels in distress waiting for the white knight to come and rescue them. It’s unfortunate that the early days of the Harlequin romance novel created the stereotype that still persists today.

In reality, the romance genre has been around forever. Think Romeo and Juliet, written in 1595 and based on an Italian tale translated in 1562. A classic love story albeit without the happily ever after ending.

Jane Austen wrote Pride and Prejudice in 1813. It’s considered one of the first romantic comedies in the history of the novel. This popular story has been made into movies no fewer than four times starting in 1940. It’s also been made into three TV serials. There’s also a Broadway musical version of the story. The popular movie Bridget Jones’ Diary is a loose adaptation of the novel with Mark Darcy modeled after Austen’s Mr. Darcy.

Today’s romance novels feature strong women – think Stephanie Plum in the wildly popular Janet Evanovich series, or the heroines in the novels of romance mainstay Nora Roberts. A romance is really just a story that contains a central love story with the “plot centered around two individuals struggling to make the relationship work” and has an emotionally satisfying ending. Many novels – I’d venture to say most – contain romantic elements. Even the novels by renowned western writer Louis L’Amour contain romance.

And the romance doesn’t have to be between a man and a woman. Diana Gabaldon follows up her popular Outlander series with a series about Lord John Grey in which his undying love for Jamie Fraser (the hero in the Outlander series) underlies any other romantic relationship Grey attempts. In case you didn’t get it, Lord John is gay and his homosexual lifestyle adds a sense of danger to the Outlander and Lord John series both set in the 1700s.

All the “eeeewwwww, romance novels” attitudes are contradicted by the numbers. Romance sells! Of those who read books last year, one in five read romance novels. With the exception of religious/inspirational, romance outsold every other category in 2006. That’s more than westerns, mysteries, sci-fi, etc. Romance fiction generated $1.37 billion in sales in 2006. (2007 numbers aren’t in yet but they will, no doubt, show similar results.)

Who reads romance? Just about everybody – even men. According to a poll conducted by Corona Research (a market research firm in Denver), in 2002 seven percent of romance readers were men. In 2006, that number jumped to 22 percent. Forty-two percent have a bachelor degree or higher. Geographically, in the US readership is split fairly evenly between Southern, Midwestern and Western states.

People are reading romance and not even recognizing that it is romance. One of my friends commented the other day that she never reads romance yet one of her favorite authors is Barbara Taylor Bradford, arguably the number one best seller of women’s fiction over the last 30 years. “Women’s fiction” is just another way of saying it’s a novel with strong romantic elements, which puts the work under the romance umbrella.

So how do we put these misconceptions to rest?

When I hear the “eeewww, romance” reaction, I like to ask people to name their favorite books and then note which ones are really romances or contain romantic elements. I get a lot of “oh, I didn’t think of that” reactions.

That tells me that, bottom line, overcoming the stereotypes means focusing on stories that are so well written with well developed plots and compelling, three dimensional characters that the non-romance reader won’t automatically slot the book into their mental “bodice ripper” category. If quality writing and compelling stories hook the reader, maybe they’ll forget all about the “eeewww” factor.