Dangerous Books For Girls: The Bad Reputation of Romance Novels, Explained

"Romance novels feature nuanced portrayals of female characters having adventures, making choices, and accepting themselves just as they are. When we say these stories are silly and unrealistic, we are telling young girls not to expect to be the heroines in their own real lives.Romance novels depict female sexuality as a loving, pleasurable, and above all acceptable part of being a happy woman. But when we call them smutty, dirty, or trashy books, we are negating that message.Romance novels portray life as we, women, would love it to be. One that recognizes our worth, rewards us for our confidence, and supports our choices. When we say these books are unrealistic, we are telling young girls, who might still be open-minded about their own opportunities, that they should lower their expectations.Romance novels show a variety of heroines, be they plain, pretty, plump, or skinny. They might be black, white, rich, poor, gay, or straight. But when we say only stupid women read these books, we are telling young girls that they are foolish for believing that they can be beautiful and loveable just the way they are.Even when we don't talk about romance novels, we are sending a message that women are not worth talking about and that they should be seen and not heard."[From Dangerous Books for Girls: The Bad Reputation of Romance Novels Explained by Maya Rodale, "Why It Matters How We Talk About Romance Novels"]Dangerous Books for Girls is an examination romance as genre primarily through the lens of gender. The author brought up a lot of points that I hadn't considered and constructs an interesting and well supported argument about how the romance genre isn't treated fairly (in comparison to contemporary lit or fantasy or historical fiction or literally any other genre) primarily due to its mostly female authorship and readership. The author also points out the likely role that the romance genre has played in social movements due to the inherent message of the stories. Despite romance's reputation for cringy bodice rippers and rapist 'heroes' - a reputation largely based on early to mid twentieth century books, not the modern genre - more recently published romances often are nuanced explorations of any number of issues, only organized around the axis of a relationship and invested in a hopeful conclusion. As the author points out, trashing an entire genre based on commonly appearing tropes is unfair in the extreme, prevents readers from picking up the books or respecting people who read the genre, and denigrates the kind of discussion and change that the themes are meant to promote. An equivalent would be trashing fantasy as a genre because the apocalypse (or whatever their specific variant is called) is a commonly used trope and saying that discussion of racism and fascism through the medium of Harry Potter is a worthless endeavor, people who read the Harry Potter are stupid anyways and no semi-intelligent person would stoop to picking up those kinds of books because they aren't worth the paper they're printed on. There are some people who feel that way about fantasy, but the author's point is that such people are comparatively few and far between when one takes into account the mass of people who think something similar about the romance genre, often without even realizing it.Overall, Dangerous Books for Girls was an enlightening read, and it is one that I would recommend to others.

Maya Rodale’s book is based on solid research and provides some deep historical insights. She points out that women began writing and reading romantic fiction in the 19th century after paper production and printing became cheap enough to allow low-cost books to be made available to the general public. Jane Austen, for example, wrote romances which included social commentary and criticism. Women’s interest in reading romance was a direct response to the very limited opportunities they had at the time. They were very often forced into loveless marriages because marriage was basically a financial arrangement that had little to do with love. Of course, the cultural watchdogs didn’t like women thinking about love, reading about love, and wanting a loving marriage because these romances gave women “ideas” that the watchdogs considered inappropriate. So these readers were shamed for reading romance. This shaming continues up to the present day.Also interesting in Rodale’s book was commentary about the evolution of romance books in the late 20th century. The connection between the subgenre of romance called “bodice rippers” and the women’s liberation/feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s was a surprise to me, as was the connection between the 2008-2009 economic recession and the appearance of billionaire romances. By the way, “bodice rippers” as a romance subgenre was actually quite short-lived, although the term lives on as a way of disparaging all romance. In contrast to this, and with tongue firmly in cheek, there are two sisters in the Los Angeles area who established a romance-only bookstore called The Ripped Bodice.The shame of reading and writing romance continues today despite the massive popularity of the genre and the billions of dollars it brings in. The inescapable conclusion is that romance writing and reading are disparaged due to sexist attitudes about women.

Enjoyed it! But know going in that it is accurately titled. The book is survey data, historical context, and analysis about why Romance has such a reputation. I still hate traditional covers, but I enjoyed thinking about a very written-by-women, read-by-women genre --- at that angle, it constantly being trashed starts to make sense given how male-centric our society is. Not a how-to-write book, so if you are looking for that, go elsewhere.The cover is horrible and you'll get grease prints on it no matter how clean your hands are.

This is more of an essay collection than anything else, and it's filled with such cogent gems about the ways in which we think about romance. It reminds me of the concept of "Kirk Drift." The ideas we have about both Star Trek and Romance have little to do with what actually occurs textually, but misconceptions amplified through our misogynistic culture. This has a permanent place on my shelf.

I've been a reader of romance since I was 11 and used to snag my mother's Harlequins. 30 years later, I'm an author of romance. The stigma attached has always bothered me. This book was so fabulously informative. I was thrilled to learn about so much of the history of the romance genre and the women who have been writing it for decades. Thanks so much for this book. I loved it so much, I adopted the tagline "Lady Novelist" for myself...in honor of my predecessors.

Ever felt embarrassed of your romance reading habit? Ever been unsure how to defend the genre? This book has the answers.In a well-researched but easy to read style, Rodale discusses the history of the genre, the centuries of denigration and dismissal, the common critiques, and all the ways it has served and supported women.

Great book.

Awesome book, with insight into the Romance genre.

Sem palavras pra descrever um livro que eu PRECISAVA LER. Ele não é completo, e está desatualizado, mas ajuda a organizar as coisas na bagunça que é o mercado. romances importam, e muito. Romances são a expressão mais profunda do feminino. São assuntos de mulheres para mulheres em que elas podem ser livres e terem prazer. Em que não são coadjuvantes desfocadas vestindo biquínis para agradar o herói. Elas não elevam nossa expectativa quanto ao que queremos da vida (embora, pera: pq isso seria ruim?) elas só mostram que o que recebemos nos relacionamentos pode e deve ser melhorado. Tive alguns pensamentos divergentes em alguns momentos mas que não tirou nem um pouco minha completa concordância com a premissa geral.

A short, but utterly fascinating read on the origins of the 'romance novel' -- both the ones from the 18th and 19th centuries, and the modern definition that we use today-- as well as the history of the stigma against reading them, and the idea that romance novels are frivolous, only for women and thus ok to disregard as 'literary.'Truly, for anyone who reads romance novels, or for anyone who thinks they're "porn for women" this should be required reading to understand the historical, political and sociological environment that created the romance novel, and that created the opinion that has shaped the way romance novels were seen, and are still seen by the majority of people. Romances are generally seen as lacking in proper literary merit, as frivolous reading for women, as unrealistic, as emotional, and something that can be completely disregarded, even though romance novels are the most popular type of novels published today, and, historically, were also incredibly popular during the 19th century.Recommended for anyone who likes romance novels.

Congratulations for such a well researched novel. Thanks for being such a champion for the genre and us, the readers