Maggie Jaimeson, a.k.a Maggie McVay-Lynch, President of Rose City Romance Writers and published author of non-fiction while daringly also throwing her hat into the romance fiction ring, got into this mess, uh, was forced to blog- well, let's just say she asked a question, so I asked her to answer it for us. She kindly assented after really minimal arm-twisting, and here's the result.
You can check Maggie and her books out at her website here:
http://www.maggiejaimeson.com/
and her blog here:
http://maggies-meanderings.blogspot.com/
As a reward to herself for finishing a book, Maggie makes herself a "faux" cover for it. You can see her covers below. As a reward for Maggie for being my first daring blogger, I made her a "faux" cover for this blog. You can reward Maggie by dropping by and reading what she has to say, and arguing or agreeing with her thoughts. It's a really interesting question, and a thoughtful answer. (Unlike my punny faux cover).(And no, Maggie doesn't write Georgians.)
Great Expectations: What About My Marriage?
I have been a romance reader since about the age of eleven or twelve. I began with the gothics by Victoria Holt and Phyllis Whitney in my youth. Thank goodness in those days there wasn't a lot of sex to worry or confused the rather sheltered adolescent I was. In High School I joined a couple of the Harlequin book clubs and had my eight books a month to devour. In college, I would occasionally pick up a romance at the bookstore but they were no longer the category ones. They tended to be what is now called Women's Fiction. But more often I would pick up a Science Fiction book because I was taken with the exchange of ideas. Then there was a long period of time, about 15 years when I didn't read a romance at all. I returned in my fifties to find, to my great delight, that the romance genre had changed drastically and I could now combine my desire for a mystery or SF story with a romance.
As I have watched the divorce rates rise, and have been divorced and remarried myself, I've wondered how my early upbringing with romance novels may have impacted my expectations of marriage. When I see many women today, young and old alike, choosing not to marry (either choosing to live with a partner or to retain independent households even when they are in committed relationships) I've often wondered if the romance genre or any media portrayal of romance has had a negative impact on our ability to be satisfied in a romantic relationship. Have we set the expectations too high? Are novels and media so powerful as to make us dysfunctional? Or is it the dysfunctional who seek out the salve of unrealistic love?
I came of age in the late 1960's and early 1970's with the rise of feminism. In that era there was a great deal of discussion about the portrayal of women in fairy tales as magical figures who are often defined by beauty, danger, innocence, malice, and greed. Researchers called fairy and folk tales the primary source of information about a culture, and argued that humans cannot help acting out roles taught to them by these tales, which specify gendered romantic roles. Because women are depicted as either evil or saintly, the real terror of fairy tales lies in the romantic message--that is, a woman who is not passive, innocent, and helpless must then be evil. And I still find that these fairy tale type roles continue to be the primary images of women in movies and TV. I believe those early romance novels I read also reflected those fairy tale gender roles. Women were usually innocent and men were experienced. Women were passive and men were the leaders.
Though our novels have now changed to reflect more equal gender roles, romance novels still serve as a powerful source of expectations about love relationships. For the most part, romance novels still depict "alpha" heroes. That is take charge men who are larger than life and, of course, physically perfect. Though many novels have "wounded" heroes, they are still able to overcome their pasts and be amazingly whole, particularly in their relationships with their romantic partner. Yes, it is true that now the female protagonists are also take charge women who are larger than life and, at least in the heroe's eyes, physically perfect. I must admit, for myself, though I can be just as interested as younger women in the spectacularly masculine phallic power, for me what really truns me on is the hero's capacity for tenderness, self-reflection, and attentive concern.
When I look at my own marriage, particularly if we've had a bad day together or a bad week, I know I often wonder why my DH isn't more like the romance heroes I read. Why can't he rise above the banality of every day life? Why can't he put aside whatever perceived perturbance ruined his day and still worship the ground I walk on? Or for that matter, does he ever worship the ground I walk on? Uh, I don't think so. On the other hand, often when reading a book with a strong alpha hero I also know there is absolutely NO WAY I could have a long term relationship with that type of man. In fact, it is when my DH acts like those typical alpha heroes -- the I-can't-see-past-my-immediate-needs behavior that I want to walk out the door. So both in the novel and in real life I find that my expectations and the clash of reality and fantasy certainly set up a strong cognitive dissonance for me.
In 1991, Shapiro (a researcher and marriage counselor) did a large survey on the impact of media images around romance and, as expected, she found that respondents with more unrealistic beliefs about romantic love reported significantly less satisfaction with their current relationship than those who endorsed more realistic views. There was a statistically significant trend for married women who reported more exposure to popular media to rate themselves as less satisfied with their current intimate relationships. No significant differences were found based on age. Granted her study included all media, not just romance novels. But still...it makes me wonder.
I've found a way to embrace that dissonance in my life. Perhaps it is a matter of age and perhaps it is a matter of having been married before and so entering the next relationship with different expectations. However, I do still want more. I do still want and expect some of what I read in romance novels. A part of that expectation is that things are bigger, better, get resolved faster and that makeup sex is amazing. Sometimes I get it. Often I don't. I think that's the way life is and if it was perfect all the time I would probably not recognize it or take it for granted. Maybe having high expectations is a good thing. Maybe it makes both of us strive for more. Who knows?
Do you feel that romance novels set up unrealistic expectations for your relationships? If so, how do you bring yourself down to earth? How do you manage to be satisfied in the long term? If you believe that the romance depicted in the novels is, in fact, not only possible but probable then please share how you've seen that reinforced in your own relationships. Happy reading!
I don't expect my married life to follow a romance novel any more than I expect my car to suddenly want to kill me, or to be shuttled off to a school for witches and wizards. Books are about escapism for me.
ReplyDeleteGreat post! And, yes, I do sometimes have to stop and remind myself that my guy is not a romance hero any more than I’m a heroine. Of course, that doesn’t stop me from putting his face onto the current hero I’m reading about.
ReplyDeleteGreat post, Maggie!
ReplyDeleteHi Kristen! Hi Gemma! Glad you dropped by.
Fantasies are fantasies, and everybody has them. They always have. Whether it's about love and romance, or fame, or adventure and danger, we love our daydreams. Novels are just a more sophisticated form of a long tradition of story-telling, and only stories that reach to the core of our beliefs and dreams are truly successful as novels.
Romance novels were not the beginning of women's fantasies. They're an expression of them that couldn't have existed before women had the kind of freedom to be themselves that started developing in the 20th century. Previous to that time, romantic novels, such as one of my favorite oldies, DOROTHY VERNON OF HADDON HALL by Charles Major, were more aimed at men's romantic fantasies.
I think women's ability to vote, own property, and kick a loser to the curb is what raised our expectations. You settle because you have to, not because you want to.
ReplyDeleteWhen you ask if romance novels lead to unrealistic expectations, that's like asking if fantasy overrides reality. Sometimes that qualifies as mental illness; but sometimes it leads to necessary and desirable paradigm shifts.
Great post. And Delle, I love the architecture pix. Dreamy.
When my daughter was young and I used romance novels as a means of escape, sometimes the return to reality was particularly jarring. When my husband didn't have the sensitivity and mind reading skills of the hero I'd just enjoyed, I would be cranky for the rest of the day. I no longer have that problem -- and even then I recognized it as a problem. Now I read the novels for pleasure or escape, and turn to my husband for the comfort I know he'll give me if I let him know what it is I need from him.
ReplyDeleteSo, I think seeing the big picture in your relationship, combined with maturity, makes it possible to enjoy the thrill of a perfect romantic relationship in a book, then enjoy a soft landing when you return to reality. The dirty dishes on the counter and the thatch of gray chest hair belong to the man I fell in love with almost thirty years ago. Reality is the HEA our characters seek.
Test for blog moderation- DJ
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely right, Jessa! I remember a few years back (all right, so time flies) a male friend who complained about not being able to get a job because he had to compete with women. My response was, "Women have always had to work twice as hard as a man to get and keep their jobs, so why don't you try working AS HARD as a woman and maybe you won't have a problem?"
ReplyDeleteNo, we don't need our SIG-O's to have perfect abs, but we do want decent behavior from them, and we have every right to expect not to be treated like we're inferior. Any man who pulls that deserves to not have a relationship with a woman. And we didn't learn that from romance heroes. We learned it from ourselves.
Kristen, do you mean there is no school for witches and wizards? Darn! Darn! Darn! I was so counting on finding platform 9-1/2. Gemma and Debra thanks for admitting to the occasional slip. I didn't want to feel I was the only unreasonable one. :) Debra I really hear you on the sulk around for a day part. I've been there too but have decided it's not worth wasting a whole day anymore when I can get a good sulk in for two hours and still do the job. Jessa, such a feminist. You go girl! Actually, I ultimately agree with you. There are those who want to go back to "simpler" times or "the good old days" when gender roles were so well defined. I'm not one of them. I like knowing that I can be in charge too and don't have to pretend that the DH is the one making all the decisions.
ReplyDeleteThanks everyone for playing!
Kristen, do you mean there is no school for witches and wizards? Darn! Darn! Darn! I was so counting on finding platform 9-1/2.
ReplyDeleteGemma and Debra thanks for admitting to the occasional slip. I didn't want to feel I was the only unreasonable one. :) Debra I really hear you on the sulk around for a day part. I've been there too but have decided it's not worth wasting a whole day anymore when I can get a good sulk in for two hours and still do the job.
Jessa, such a feminist. You go girl! Actually, I ultimately agree with you. There are those who want to go back to "simpler" times or "the good old days" when gender roles were so well defined. I'm not one of them. I like knowing that I can be in charge too and don't have to pretend that the DH is the one making all the decisions.
Thanks everyone for playing!
Delle,
ReplyDeleteCongratulations on your book release!
Now, for 'Guess the Hero'. For 'Lorenzo and Isabella', it's the dog, who obviously adores her! (Plus, she let him put his head on her lap.) Seriously,Beside-Her Guy gazes at her w/confidence and affection, and he's feeding her, so he WANTS to be the hero. But Seated-Across-from-Her Guy's body language says he's ready to fight for her, and the use of two phallic symbols (his outstretched leg and the cigar? stick? he holds roar "She's mine!" He exhibits the passion of a Hero.
In 'Second Chance', I'd say Standing Guy, because although she's leaning on Sitting Guy, she holds the side of her body touching him stiffly. Her arm on that side is in a guarded position. Arm towrds Standing Guy? Relaxed and open. And her eyes and smile are all for him. Standing Guy=Hero in her eyes.
2 Strings to her Bow- I say, take her down, the cocky !#$@%! She hasn't decided. Hero is No Hat Guy, based on current body language (Fancy Dresser isn't interested; he's turning away, hat on and ready to go, while No Hat Guy plans to stay-plus, we can see his chest! But, if she likes a challenge, she may pursue Fancy Dresser and dump No Hat Guy.
In 'The End of the Song, I'd give Hero status to King, bedause he has fire in his eyes. Harper has low morals, else he wouldn't be wooing a woman who's not available. King wins.
Think I forgot one, but I gotta go. It's been fun!
Sarah McDermed