A reader flags this post by Sarah Wendell, who criticizes the dismissive coverage of News Corp’s $415-million acquisition of Harlequin last week. The reader vents:
Why is it reporters and their editors can write seriously about porn, marijuana, party drugs, fraternity hazing, gay sex, and numerous other topics, but come unglued when they have to write about romance novels?
I suspect reading romances is one of the most closeted behaviors American women indulge in. I am sure there are people who read the Fifty Shades of Grey books that wouldn’t be caught dead reading a Harlequin Presents paperback, in public or in private. Even violent video games are treated with more respect than romance novels. I’m a little baffled as to why the Harlequin I’m reading is somehow intellectually stunting, but episodes of Game of Thrones or 24 or even CSI are important parts of the culture – important enough to be reviewed in multiple mainstream publications, while romance novels are ignored and the business of romance is treated like a joke.
Another is less convinced that the genre deserves respect:
The search for a Ulysses of the romance genre is really misplaced. It’s a search for profundity in pornography, albeit pornography directed at women.
Now, I like pornography as much as the next man, and some pornography can be sublime, but its intent and effect are somewhat orthogonal to true art. It suppresses rather than invites reflection. So I find the pursuit of profundity there to be profound misunderstanding of the nature of the genre. Though male-centric pornography is visual while female-centric pornography is verbal, that detail does not alter the nature of the genre.
Tying in Caleb Crain’s musings on the state of the gay novel, another reader takes the conversation in another direction:
The gay novel is doing just fine if you accept romance as a part of fiction. Gay romance is a booming and very successful genre. The majority of gay romance readers, though by no means all, are heterosexual women. The majority of writers are as well. I think that qualifies this email to fit into your End of Gay Culture Watch thread as well.
The concept that straight readers won’t find gay characters “relatable” is provably false. I think it’s more likely that readers of any sexuality simply aren’t that interested in literary fiction. Actually, I don’t even think it’s the age-old literary-fiction-vs.-popular-fiction battle in this instance. Many of my friends are authors, and my Facebook news feed is currently filled with friends of mine proudly announcing their Lambda Literary Awards nominations. Several of them are in the romance category, but not all.
Maybe it’s time writers of gay fiction look to themselves and the content they produce instead of finding reasons the market isn’t responsive. The market loves a good story.
A less high-minded reader:
My romance cannon. That’s what I’m going to call it now.
Heh. Earlier Dish on romance novels here.
The Dish 