The Smut Report has a fascinating review of
Happily Ever After by Catherine M. Roach, an analysis of Romance through a feminist, modern lens.
I’ve decided that in order to deal with my mixed emotions about not being part of Academic Romacelandia (a combination of regret, pining, and acknowledgment that I don’t really like doing research), I’m going to try and at least read academic monographs about romance. And then write about them.
Happily Ever After: The Romance Story in Popular Culture spoke to me as someone who is kind of between worlds. Or, rather, as someone who is familiar with both Academia and Romancelandia, even if I have imposter syndrome when dealing with both of them. (Self-analysis for another time.) Roach set out to explore romance fiction – and as part of her project, acted as a participant-observer. Not just as a fan, but also as an author. (Fun fact! Her first book, a historical romance called Master of Love, culminates with the heroine pegging the hero.) So her book is…
View original post 813 more words
Jacqueline Diaz Romance 
This is a fascinating article. I too, feel as if I am stuck between two schools of thought/sympathies/ideologies about romance and literary critcisim. I find the current defensive attitude towards it by it’s defenders – ie, Pamela Regis – off putting, but I don’t find the dismissive attitude by many male critics towards romantic love and love stories generally any more congenial. I write stories myself which are to some extent like historial romance spoofs, so I’m interested in your approach.
LikeLiked by 1 person