Scan barcode
treeme's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
3.0
Reading this was like pulling teeth
__niii__'s review
challenging
informative
medium-paced
Content Warnings
Minor: Rape, Violence, and Sexual violence
sarahanne8382's review against another edition
4.0
This paper was for a class and a little more academic than most of my reviews, but it's still a book review, so it's getting included here.
Janice Radway received her BA (with highest honors) in and 1971 and her Ph.D. in English and American Studies in 1977 from Michigan State University, and her M.A. from the State University of New York at Stony Brook. When Reading the Romance was published in 1984, she was an associate professor in the American Civilization Department at the University of Pennsylvania. While at Pennsylvania she was editor of American Quarterly, the journal of the American Studies Association. She is currently the Frances Fox Professor of Humanities and chair of the Department of Literature at Duke University. Her second book entitled A Feeling for Books: The Book-of-the-Month Club, Literary Taste and Middle Class Desire, was published in 1997 and continues her interest in popular reading habits.
Reading the Romance is Radway’s report of her study of a group of approximately 50 romance novel reading women in a suburban Midwestern community she calls Smithton. The first three chapters of the book outline the romance publishing culture, the community and social situation of the women Radway interviews, as well as an explanation of her interview procedures. The final three chapters explore the results of Radway’s surveys and interviews. She shares the Smithon women’s favorite and least favorite romances and draws conclusions about what these preferences and the act of romance reading mean.
Radway’s argument is interesting, especially for the time that it was published, because it places as much significance on the interpretation of the act of romance reading as it does on the content of romance novel. Many of the Smithton women faced at least mild disapproval of their romance reading habit and Radway explains that this disapproval is proof of the slightly rebellious nature of romance reading. Her analysis of the text further explains that the women are rebelling, albeit subtly, from their role as the primary nurturer in patriarchal society by taking time for themselves to read about heroines who fall in love with masculine, yet kind and caring, heroes.
Her argument is interesting to read because she cites several sources that both support and disagree with her. While the works of Nancy Chodorow and several other researchers support her claims of the nutritive effective romance reading has for the Smithton women, she also makes sure to point out the flaws in the arguments of those such as Ann Douglas, whose works claim that romance novels are simply female pornography that shows the desire of some women to be mistreated by men (p. 77).
While her take on the importance of romance reading was new at the time, Radway finds more than sufficient evidence to support her claims by piecing together research on general reading habits, the role of popular entertainment in culture, studies of housewives, as well as the significant assistance of “Chodorow’s feminist reinterpretation of Freud” (p. 13).
With the assistance of Dot, the bookstore clerk who helped the Smithton women find appealing romance titles, Radway was able to distribute a pilot questionnaire to approximately 50 of Dot’s customers, as well as conduct two initial focus groups with 16 of Dot’s most loyal customers, and individual interviews with Dot and five of her most enthusiastic and articulate customers. After analyzing this data, she sent a revised questionnaire for Dot to distribute to roughly the same number of regular customers as the pilot. Radway returned to Smithton to spend time observing Dot’s interactions with her customers and to conduct more personal interviews to test the validity of the conclusions she had begun to draw. Dividing her data collection into two distinct periods allowed Radway the flexibility to adjust to problems in the pilot questionnaire, as well as returning to her sources after beginning to draw conclusions from their original input gave her a chance to test the validity of her possible argument before publishing (pp. 47-8).
After examining her data, Radway concludes that the reason the Smithton women hunger for the opportunity to temporarily leave their lives for the nurturing experience of reading romances is because these women subconsciously desire a return to their initially nurturing relationship with their mother. While this claim initially appears far-fetched at best, Radway managed to find sufficient evidence (mostly from Chodorow) to explain how women’s desire for a nurturing relationship with a male hero actually has to do with an adolescent girl’s wish to disassociate from her mother, requiring her to find emotional fulfillment in a member of the opposite sex. The popularity of Green Lady by Leigh Ellis, a romance in which the heterosexual romance is significantly overshadowed by the attempt for a reunion of the mother and daughter, seems further evidence that Radway’s claim is at least plausible. The safer argument still appears to be the more general assertion that the Smithton women read romance novels to achieve emotional fulfillment not possible in their daily routine.
The study of reading habits is always of interest to Library and Information Science as understanding our patrons’ reading habits ensures that we will supply them with books they will read. Radway’s choice to research the reading habits of those reading popular literature at time when such research wasn’t popular, also reminds librarians of the importance of understanding that our patrons should play a central role in defining our collections, even if we think they really should be reading something else.
While some of the arguments made in Reading the Romance may be dated by their Second Wave Feminism and preoccupation with psychoanalysis, the trailblazing role it played in the study of popular reading habits, as well reevaluating reasons for female romance reading make it an important book in its field. Radway’s account of her study of the Smithton women is also very readable, partly because her explanation of the appeal of romance reading forces a reexamination of the patriarchal structure of our society, something of interest to a much wider audience than just literary scholars. This book is a fascinating look at the way a patriarchal society affects some of its most undervalued members.
Janice Radway received her BA (with highest honors) in and 1971 and her Ph.D. in English and American Studies in 1977 from Michigan State University, and her M.A. from the State University of New York at Stony Brook. When Reading the Romance was published in 1984, she was an associate professor in the American Civilization Department at the University of Pennsylvania. While at Pennsylvania she was editor of American Quarterly, the journal of the American Studies Association. She is currently the Frances Fox Professor of Humanities and chair of the Department of Literature at Duke University. Her second book entitled A Feeling for Books: The Book-of-the-Month Club, Literary Taste and Middle Class Desire, was published in 1997 and continues her interest in popular reading habits.
Reading the Romance is Radway’s report of her study of a group of approximately 50 romance novel reading women in a suburban Midwestern community she calls Smithton. The first three chapters of the book outline the romance publishing culture, the community and social situation of the women Radway interviews, as well as an explanation of her interview procedures. The final three chapters explore the results of Radway’s surveys and interviews. She shares the Smithon women’s favorite and least favorite romances and draws conclusions about what these preferences and the act of romance reading mean.
Radway’s argument is interesting, especially for the time that it was published, because it places as much significance on the interpretation of the act of romance reading as it does on the content of romance novel. Many of the Smithton women faced at least mild disapproval of their romance reading habit and Radway explains that this disapproval is proof of the slightly rebellious nature of romance reading. Her analysis of the text further explains that the women are rebelling, albeit subtly, from their role as the primary nurturer in patriarchal society by taking time for themselves to read about heroines who fall in love with masculine, yet kind and caring, heroes.
Her argument is interesting to read because she cites several sources that both support and disagree with her. While the works of Nancy Chodorow and several other researchers support her claims of the nutritive effective romance reading has for the Smithton women, she also makes sure to point out the flaws in the arguments of those such as Ann Douglas, whose works claim that romance novels are simply female pornography that shows the desire of some women to be mistreated by men (p. 77).
While her take on the importance of romance reading was new at the time, Radway finds more than sufficient evidence to support her claims by piecing together research on general reading habits, the role of popular entertainment in culture, studies of housewives, as well as the significant assistance of “Chodorow’s feminist reinterpretation of Freud” (p. 13).
With the assistance of Dot, the bookstore clerk who helped the Smithton women find appealing romance titles, Radway was able to distribute a pilot questionnaire to approximately 50 of Dot’s customers, as well as conduct two initial focus groups with 16 of Dot’s most loyal customers, and individual interviews with Dot and five of her most enthusiastic and articulate customers. After analyzing this data, she sent a revised questionnaire for Dot to distribute to roughly the same number of regular customers as the pilot. Radway returned to Smithton to spend time observing Dot’s interactions with her customers and to conduct more personal interviews to test the validity of the conclusions she had begun to draw. Dividing her data collection into two distinct periods allowed Radway the flexibility to adjust to problems in the pilot questionnaire, as well as returning to her sources after beginning to draw conclusions from their original input gave her a chance to test the validity of her possible argument before publishing (pp. 47-8).
After examining her data, Radway concludes that the reason the Smithton women hunger for the opportunity to temporarily leave their lives for the nurturing experience of reading romances is because these women subconsciously desire a return to their initially nurturing relationship with their mother. While this claim initially appears far-fetched at best, Radway managed to find sufficient evidence (mostly from Chodorow) to explain how women’s desire for a nurturing relationship with a male hero actually has to do with an adolescent girl’s wish to disassociate from her mother, requiring her to find emotional fulfillment in a member of the opposite sex. The popularity of Green Lady by Leigh Ellis, a romance in which the heterosexual romance is significantly overshadowed by the attempt for a reunion of the mother and daughter, seems further evidence that Radway’s claim is at least plausible. The safer argument still appears to be the more general assertion that the Smithton women read romance novels to achieve emotional fulfillment not possible in their daily routine.
The study of reading habits is always of interest to Library and Information Science as understanding our patrons’ reading habits ensures that we will supply them with books they will read. Radway’s choice to research the reading habits of those reading popular literature at time when such research wasn’t popular, also reminds librarians of the importance of understanding that our patrons should play a central role in defining our collections, even if we think they really should be reading something else.
While some of the arguments made in Reading the Romance may be dated by their Second Wave Feminism and preoccupation with psychoanalysis, the trailblazing role it played in the study of popular reading habits, as well reevaluating reasons for female romance reading make it an important book in its field. Radway’s account of her study of the Smithton women is also very readable, partly because her explanation of the appeal of romance reading forces a reexamination of the patriarchal structure of our society, something of interest to a much wider audience than just literary scholars. This book is a fascinating look at the way a patriarchal society affects some of its most undervalued members.
laertes's review against another edition
5.0
Radway's study is a treat among academic books. Her style is highly accessible, and she presents her findings in a sensitive, interesting and engaging way.
Reading the Romance presents the results of Radway's study of a group of female "popular romance" readers. From her discussions with them, and their responses to questionnaires, she pieces together their likes, dislikes, and motivations, presenting a surprisingly interesting insight into why "popular romance" is so popular. She also offers a characterisation of what constitutes the ideal romance, and the failed romance, and goes on to examine the effect continuous romance reading might have.
This is an ideal starting point for anyone researching contemporary romantic fiction. Radway doesn't start with a bias either for or against the genre, so this is likely as impartial a study as one could hope to find. It might also appeal to readers of romance themselves, who are interested in discovering why this form appeals to others, or who are looking for some recommended reading.
Genuinely interesting, genuinely readable -- a fantastic study, from a fantastic critic.
Reading the Romance presents the results of Radway's study of a group of female "popular romance" readers. From her discussions with them, and their responses to questionnaires, she pieces together their likes, dislikes, and motivations, presenting a surprisingly interesting insight into why "popular romance" is so popular. She also offers a characterisation of what constitutes the ideal romance, and the failed romance, and goes on to examine the effect continuous romance reading might have.
This is an ideal starting point for anyone researching contemporary romantic fiction. Radway doesn't start with a bias either for or against the genre, so this is likely as impartial a study as one could hope to find. It might also appeal to readers of romance themselves, who are interested in discovering why this form appeals to others, or who are looking for some recommended reading.
Genuinely interesting, genuinely readable -- a fantastic study, from a fantastic critic.
mangliu0130's review against another edition
4.0
不记得上次读非虚构作品读得如此飞快是什么时候了，阅读速度果然还是跟语境有关，语境熟悉自然就能快读。
这是一本非常有趣的书，主要研究两个方面：浪漫小说的普遍架构和阅读浪漫小说的行为背后的意义。
第一章写的是出版行业的大背景，有点无聊，略过了不感兴趣的部分。收获最大的点在于：最先兴起的是哥特浪漫小说，出版商第一次归类出了一个单独的genre，并且像卖肥皂一样定期并持续地出售给一个长期的受众群体。
第二、三章讲诉的是浪漫小说的读者。史密斯顿的阅读群体的出现给浪漫小说的受众提供了各种指导，不仅根据读者爱好来推荐书，还教这些因阅读浪漫小说而备受鄙视的妇女如何去反击、为自己辩护，鼓励阅读离经叛道的女性主角的小说。女性主义在此中悄悄萌芽。
作者觉得阅读浪漫小说某种意义上来说是一种补偿性文学，“呵护和照顾子女以及丈夫的良母贤妻职责让女性出现了情感枯竭（emotional drain）”，女性反复消费浪漫小说的根本原因，因为它有代入感愉悦以及短暂疗愈的功能。
70/80年代就已经出现出版商为了销量而把非浪漫小说营销成浪漫小说而引起读者的愤怒，类似强奸的不堪入目的情节也有出现——“浪漫小说中的暴力或许也是一种持续存在的无能为力（inability）的产物——他们无力想象出一个可让女性获取并利用各种资源应对男性的压制和强迫的情境。”一针见血！
第四、五章论述的是浪漫小说为什么是父权社会的一个人造梦，从各种浪漫小说情节（主要是情色描写）来解释其中的男权文化，女性只有选择顺从才能得到好的结局。不管男主角做出多么厌女的行为，最后只要处理得当，都能得到谅解。“事实上，她们从中获悉了父权制的本质，并了解了它对于身为女人，也即是说，身为一个在男人占主导地位的社会中未掌握权力的个体的她们意味着什么。这些浪漫剧不只让她们意识到，拒绝按照这个文化所框定的女性形象来塑造自己所将引发的实质性后果，同时也展示了循规蹈矩的惊人好处。”
第六章是我最喜欢的一章，阅读浪漫小说和阅读文学作品本质上的不同：“简单的句法规则、初级的现实主义风格、重复的词汇以及作者的诠释——浪漫小说的这些特征共同创造了一种根据此前就已精通的文化编码和习俗惯例便可将其轻易且快速“解码”的语言结构……读者由此成了一个被动的接受者，只会接收由这些特征所预先选定的意义。于是，她们也就永远不可能在被迫释意的过程中认识到，事实上正是她的积极参与才赋予了那些词语以意义。”读者只是在接受充斥于文本内的意义，因为所有的故事情节都已听闻过，意义出现之前已被小说作者和小说读者了然于心。浪漫小说讲诉的故事就像是一个核心和框架永不变的神话，读者好似被扔进一个新的故事，不知道接下来怎么发展，其实在故事的每一个阶段她总是提前知道答案。
女性阅读浪漫小说可以看作是一个温和的反抗文化，又由于她们在书里获得了短暂的满足感，反而减少了在现实生活中做出实际改变的动力。浪漫小说创造出了一种假象：女性不需要大刀阔斧地改变男主角或者她的生活就能获得美满结局，男主角常常从冷酷无情就转变成柔情的另一半。阅读的行为并没有让女性向不平等的社会角色发出挑战，“它还粉饰婚姻制度，暗示要如何才能让它保鲜，使其一直处于追求期。”女性因不满足而阅读，最终融合回归制度化中。
“即便是在一个日渐受物质和消费支配的世界里，创造意义这一必不可少的人类实践活动仍在继续。”
创造意义而不是依附于有缺陷的意义。Love it!
这是一本非常有趣的书，主要研究两个方面：浪漫小说的普遍架构和阅读浪漫小说的行为背后的意义。
第一章写的是出版行业的大背景，有点无聊，略过了不感兴趣的部分。收获最大的点在于：最先兴起的是哥特浪漫小说，出版商第一次归类出了一个单独的genre，并且像卖肥皂一样定期并持续地出售给一个长期的受众群体。
第二、三章讲诉的是浪漫小说的读者。史密斯顿的阅读群体的出现给浪漫小说的受众提供了各种指导，不仅根据读者爱好来推荐书，还教这些因阅读浪漫小说而备受鄙视的妇女如何去反击、为自己辩护，鼓励阅读离经叛道的女性主角的小说。女性主义在此中悄悄萌芽。
作者觉得阅读浪漫小说某种意义上来说是一种补偿性文学，“呵护和照顾子女以及丈夫的良母贤妻职责让女性出现了情感枯竭（emotional drain）”，女性反复消费浪漫小说的根本原因，因为它有代入感愉悦以及短暂疗愈的功能。
70/80年代就已经出现出版商为了销量而把非浪漫小说营销成浪漫小说而引起读者的愤怒，类似强奸的不堪入目的情节也有出现——“浪漫小说中的暴力或许也是一种持续存在的无能为力（inability）的产物——他们无力想象出一个可让女性获取并利用各种资源应对男性的压制和强迫的情境。”一针见血！
第四、五章论述的是浪漫小说为什么是父权社会的一个人造梦，从各种浪漫小说情节（主要是情色描写）来解释其中的男权文化，女性只有选择顺从才能得到好的结局。不管男主角做出多么厌女的行为，最后只要处理得当，都能得到谅解。“事实上，她们从中获悉了父权制的本质，并了解了它对于身为女人，也即是说，身为一个在男人占主导地位的社会中未掌握权力的个体的她们意味着什么。这些浪漫剧不只让她们意识到，拒绝按照这个文化所框定的女性形象来塑造自己所将引发的实质性后果，同时也展示了循规蹈矩的惊人好处。”
第六章是我最喜欢的一章，阅读浪漫小说和阅读文学作品本质上的不同：“简单的句法规则、初级的现实主义风格、重复的词汇以及作者的诠释——浪漫小说的这些特征共同创造了一种根据此前就已精通的文化编码和习俗惯例便可将其轻易且快速“解码”的语言结构……读者由此成了一个被动的接受者，只会接收由这些特征所预先选定的意义。于是，她们也就永远不可能在被迫释意的过程中认识到，事实上正是她的积极参与才赋予了那些词语以意义。”读者只是在接受充斥于文本内的意义，因为所有的故事情节都已听闻过，意义出现之前已被小说作者和小说读者了然于心。浪漫小说讲诉的故事就像是一个核心和框架永不变的神话，读者好似被扔进一个新的故事，不知道接下来怎么发展，其实在故事的每一个阶段她总是提前知道答案。
女性阅读浪漫小说可以看作是一个温和的反抗文化，又由于她们在书里获得了短暂的满足感，反而减少了在现实生活中做出实际改变的动力。浪漫小说创造出了一种假象：女性不需要大刀阔斧地改变男主角或者她的生活就能获得美满结局，男主角常常从冷酷无情就转变成柔情的另一半。阅读的行为并没有让女性向不平等的社会角色发出挑战，“它还粉饰婚姻制度，暗示要如何才能让它保鲜，使其一直处于追求期。”女性因不满足而阅读，最终融合回归制度化中。
“即便是在一个日渐受物质和消费支配的世界里，创造意义这一必不可少的人类实践活动仍在继续。”
创造意义而不是依附于有缺陷的意义。Love it!