Romance Novels Welcome the 21st Century
Apr 01 '00
Okay, I know the 21st century really doesn't begin until next year, but I like the title.
I have been reading "Bodice Busters" for 21 years now and I am rather amazed at the evolution they have gone through.
1970s--Harlequin is the undisputed Publishing Queen of Romance with Barbara Cartland vying for the title. Most of these novels have the "fire burning low in the grate" (after marriage of course) or really passionate kisses where the lovers "moan low in their throat". Later, Harlequin begins to publish a lot of their stories where the heroine is "forced" into marriage with the big bad virile CEO threatening her family so she must marry him. This is the beginning of the "rape scenes" where he demands his "husbandly rights. I think this was supposed to prove what a "manly", "macho" man our 'hero' was. The "big, thick sleazy trashy romance novels" (can we just call them BTSTRNs?) quickly took this further and had our hero abducting the virginal heroine and forcing sex on her during her captivity and SHE LOVES IT!!! Yeah, very realistic. Actually, it's sad to consider, but this plot dates back to the 1920s with E.M. Hull's "The Sheik". Heard of Rudolph Valentino? He was an overnight sensation with the silent film of the same name. Isn't it sad that the same, stupid, insipid, unrealistic plot survived for 50 years???
1980s--the BTSTRNs became more "soft porn" and "experimented" with optional plots. I remember one book, was it "Burning Sands"? Oh well, who cares. The writer chose bondage as her major theme. She compared the clitoris to an "erect strawberry", a "juicy red plum" and finally an apple. Of course our heroine engaged in more sex than Heidi Fleiss ever thought of and probably more variations. With this novel and several like it, the Rape Scene became almost obligatory.
Pause for a moment. Why did this happen? Could it be because of the unspoken desire of women who were working, taking classes, raising a family and doing 90% of the housework wanted a man to take charge of something for them? Or could it be because most major publishing houses still had mostly male editors? I think the latter reason is more true. Just think about the covers on these "Bodice Busters". There is Fabio or some Fabio type guy, shirtless with tight pants, lustily holding a woman who's head is tilted back, exposing these huge melon breasts that are about to pop out of her dress (hence the alternitive name "bodice buster"). Now I cannot answer for most heterosexual women, but isn't that more of a male turn-on? Oh well, back to the review.
1990s begin to exhibit a definite split personality on romance novels. I think we all knew the formula plot up until now: The woman is always virginal, the man is always virile. He is a sucessful, multi-millionaire CEO and she is his secretary or business rival (who's business is failing) or an enemy of his family or his chauffeurs' daughter just come back from somewhere. Or they had an affair years ago and he suddenly finds out he is the father of a x year old son. Usually there were two or three "love" scenes, the first one usually featuring a rape-type scene only it isn't rape because she really wants it. Fair enough on the formula? Of course, these "fill in the blanks" type stories are still around thanks to Janelle Taylor and Johanna Lindsey and 'writers' of that caliber. But a new breed of story has come out.
Now, there are "good" romance writers and "BTSTRNs" who follow most of the formula. Now that there are more female editors, the "bodice buster" is becoming passe. Covers show less skin, more flowers. The "good" writers (Julie Garwood, Judith McNaught, Jude Deveraux, LaVyrle Spencer and others of that caliber) no long rely on the standard formula. She may not be a virgin. The child may not be his. He may be an ordinary fellow and not a CEO. Women are no longer degraded in a lot of the novels and it features more love, more actual caring than sex (though the sex scenes are hot and steamy).
The "raper" bodice busters may never disapear, after all, it's been 50 years and somebody is still buying them, but there are more "love stories" than "woman falls for her rapist". We can say the love stories are pap and give women unrealistic "Cinderella" ideals (where we expect a man to save us), but I don't think so. We read romance novels for fun, to relax and maybe to restore our belief in this burgeoning divorce rate, that True Love and Great Sex are out there, we just haven't found it yet (or maybe we have, in which case read one of the steamy sections and go wake your partner).
At 35, I'm not sure I believe in True Love and Great Sex. Shoot, I'd settle for not being the one stuck with the dishes all the time. But I still read them. Sometimes I laugh because Garwood has Fairy Tale Love and Devereaux has the Love Like It Oughta Be and sometimes I cry because Spencer writes a lot of Love Like I Think It May Be. And sometimes I just think: "Maybe I just haven't met the right one yet".
Here's to hoping.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
laryan
|
|
Member: Lisa Ryan
Location: Louisville, KY
Reviews written: 281
Trusted by: 249 members
About Me:
Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt, moved on, reviewed it all. Made 7 cents.
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.