A review by k_gregz
A Natural History of the Romance Novel by Pamela Regis

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.