Scan barcode
andipants's review
I was really hoping for a lot more out of this book. I understand it's a decade old, and was prepared for some of the arguments to be old-hat or out-of-date, but the problem is deeper: the arguments are weak, disorganized, and illogical. The author makes statements of opinion and expects the reader to take them as fact. She dismisses a lot of criticism out-of-hand, with little more than a "Nuh-uh". For example, in response to critics' accusations of romance novels glorifying the flawed institution of marriage, she argues that marriage in romance novels represents freedom because it's what the heroine wants, without even touching the fact that in real life, not all women desire marriage. It's the presentation of the desire for marriage as a given for all women that's the problem, and she ignores it entirely. She also fails to acknowledge any of the problematic aspects of marriage as a concept (especially historically). She goes so far as to discuss the concept of married women historically being feme covert, which is to say literally the property of their husbands, without once acknowledging the potential for abuse or neglect that concept entails. I'm sorry, if you're going to argue that women literally being owned by their husbands equals literary freedom, you're going to have to give me a little more than "because I said so" as a reason. She also talks about women in romance novels having power over men by virtue of their inherent qualities, e.g. on p. 133: "The heroine tames him through her inexperience, her danger, and her simple presence", without acknowledging the fact that such a depiction denies the heroine of the story any real agency. Here and elsewhere, the book raises far more problems than it puts to rest.
I checked this out from the library and got about 3/4 of the way through before it was due, but I'm not bothering checking it out again. Don't get me wrong; I'm a fan of romance. I would love to see this topic tackled by someone with the logical chops and the breadth of evidence to do it justice, especially from a feminist bent. I think there are strong literary and feminist arguments to be made for romance as a genre; unfortunately, this is not the book to make them.
I checked this out from the library and got about 3/4 of the way through before it was due, but I'm not bothering checking it out again. Don't get me wrong; I'm a fan of romance. I would love to see this topic tackled by someone with the logical chops and the breadth of evidence to do it justice, especially from a feminist bent. I think there are strong literary and feminist arguments to be made for romance as a genre; unfortunately, this is not the book to make them.
belle_north's review
4.0
An interesting, academic history and defence of the genre. Got a little repetitive at the end, but has given me a bunch of classics to get stuck into!
sieben's review
3.0
An interesting read that unfortunately flounders under the haphazard way in which it's put together. At points, I became convinced that I'd skipped back a few pages while reading, only to check and realise no, the author just repeated herself almost verbatim within a few pages in the same chapter. Basically, this book would have been much better at two-thirds of its current length.
I can't really judge the argument of the novel itself, since the discourse around Romance novels has changed quite a bit since its publication. Basically, I didn't need convincing that Romance is not a "lesser" genre or that it speaks to quite a central aspect of the human condition. Still, I'm a bit disappointed that this "natural history" didn't make any real attempt to chronicle the changes in author and reader tastes over the decades and how they express themselves.
Still, overall an interesting read for the subject matter, though not necessarily for the writing.
I can't really judge the argument of the novel itself, since the discourse around Romance novels has changed quite a bit since its publication. Basically, I didn't need convincing that Romance is not a "lesser" genre or that it speaks to quite a central aspect of the human condition. Still, I'm a bit disappointed that this "natural history" didn't make any real attempt to chronicle the changes in author and reader tastes over the decades and how they express themselves.
Still, overall an interesting read for the subject matter, though not necessarily for the writing.
teodorapenoiu's review against another edition
This was interesting, but it took me much longer than it should've to read a 200 page book. The writing style is very dense and boring and the author likes repeating the same info over and over and over again.
lucyhargrave's review
5.0
A Natural History of the Romance Novel by Pamela Regis has been on my to be read pile for so long, and I finally got around to reading it for university!
I thought Regis made some interesting comments about re-defining the genre, extending it past just modern day romances all the way back to Pamela by Samuel Richardson (1740). I particularly enjoyed her chapter on the defense of the romance novel. She made some interesting points about previous academics who have written on the romance genre, highlighting some of the problems with their arguments. Even the famous Radway didn't escape Regis's attention, showing how her small pool of readers and the books they read were used to make general statements about the romance genre.
Regis then analyses literary books that can be considered romance books, before moving onto contemporary romance authors in an attempt to establish a canon.
Overall an interesting read and an important book for modern romance criticism.
I thought Regis made some interesting comments about re-defining the genre, extending it past just modern day romances all the way back to Pamela by Samuel Richardson (1740). I particularly enjoyed her chapter on the defense of the romance novel. She made some interesting points about previous academics who have written on the romance genre, highlighting some of the problems with their arguments. Even the famous Radway didn't escape Regis's attention, showing how her small pool of readers and the books they read were used to make general statements about the romance genre.
Regis then analyses literary books that can be considered romance books, before moving onto contemporary romance authors in an attempt to establish a canon.
Overall an interesting read and an important book for modern romance criticism.
k_gregz's review
1.0
As a married feminist, I was all ready to be convinced that romance novels are not anti-feminist. I mean, I obviously agree that marriage is the not the death of female individualism or liberty, and of course I do not think that any story line that ends in marriage is by definition oppressive; however, 200 pages later, I am not convinced. First of all, Regis criticizes the feminists who label Romances as anti-feminist for using too formulaic of a definition of romance, oversimplifying gender relations, and generalizing broadly based off of a few texts. She then proceeds to do all three of these things in defense of the Romance novel. She lists 8 "essential" elements and 3 "optional" elements that each romance must possess or else it is not a romance...hmm, that sounds very formulaic. She then sketchily defends the heroine-marries-her-rapist trope by saying that Pamela--a story about a maid who married the man who imprisons and repeatedly attempts to rape her-- "can be called oppressive only if one believes that marriage itself is an institution so flawed that it cannot be good for a woman." Hmm, or it can be called oppressive because it endorses the idea that a man may legitimize his desire to rape a woman by offering her money and property through marriage or that a man capable of imprisonment and rape will really make a charming husband once he's calmed down. So, first, I disagree with her argument and the way she tries to prove it. Then, the last 50 pages of the book consist of plot summaries of 20 or so contemporary romance novels. The point of all this summary? These women possess "affective individualism" and "financial liberty," and they choose to marry the Hero. That's all fine and well, but I really did not need to read 5 chapters of plot summary in order to gather that. So, overall, I am not convinced and I am not impressed, but I would be interested to see this argument made more eloquently and less problematically.
teopeo's review
This was interesting, but it took me much longer than it should've to read a 200 page book. The writing style is very dense and boring and the author likes repeating the same info over and over and over again.
deepblueseamonkey's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
3.0
Interesting but repetitive in parts.
More...