Tuesday, October 30, 2007

The Muse Online Writers Conference


The Muse Online Writers Conference is an annual adventure of info overload. It offers free registration and over 100 free workshops for one entire week attracting many of the writing world's professionals in their fields. This year the conference was attended by close to 2000 writers from around the world. Every imaginable writing topic--from Writing for Children to How to Promote Your Book was covered. Learn more about the conference and to see a list of this year's workshops and presenters at www.freewebs.com/themuseonlinewritersconference/

THE 2008 MUSE ONLINE WRITERS CONFERENCE
OCTOBER 13 - 19, 2008
REGISTRATIONS NOW OPEN.

To Register as an attendee, go to
For more information contact Lea Schizas
Copyright © 2009 Arrow Publications, LLC™. All Rights Reserved.

Saturday, October 27, 2007

Dominating Heroes

A long time ago, my husband read a romance novel I had lying around. He was appalled that the character I called the hero acted like a villain. The romance cliché of the day was the dominating hero and the oppressed woman. I had a hard time explaining that my seemingly helpless heroine was going to bring this arrogant guy to his knees. And that I, a feminist, was going to enjoy the process.

Though there still are some romances like that one, in which the hero has excessively hard qualities, today’s typical romance hero is considerably softened. Even the alpha male types; I doubt a man reading a romance would mistake today’s hero for a villain. Even the Navy SEALS are mannerly. In part, this is because the women in romances are stronger now than they ever have been, reflecting the improved position of women in our society. And marriage is far less important as an ideal relationship than it has ever been. Since the marriage question is no longer the magic question, the romantic relationship in romance now depends on different power dynamics. Basically, on how these two people get along, not who holds the power.

Most romance nowadays is conducted more or less between equals. The man shows his feelings along the way, too, instead of hiding them under angry outbursts or drunken binges, or whatever. He doesn’t patronize the heroine. If his behavior is suspect, he’ll beg for her trust, not necessarily demand it. If he isn’t giving her a rational reason to trust him, he’ll admit it and ask for her trust anyway. Old-style romances relied on the man’s superior strength, his social and economic power, knowledge of the world, and more. The heroine was pretty much at his mercy, and always unable to fight him on her own terms because she simply never was his equal. This led to lots of stories in which men got away with being physically cruel. (Yes, I’m referring to marital rape.) And the only effective level on which the heroine could resist was that intangible, the emotional. But today a hero who uses such power over a heroine is seen as a creep. Though pushy, arrogant heroes still exist in romances, they’re been taken down a substantial peg. Even in the most old-fashioned stories now being published, heroes show more physical respect for the heroines, and it’s a good thing, too.

This had to happen, because the inclusion of sexual details drastically altered the dynamics of romances. Previously, the men held all the power because the heroines were all virgins who knew nothing and were always caught off guard and shaken by the force of their own sexual response. Heroines did not know or understand their own sexuality, and thus they had no hope of controlling it. They became victims of it instead. So their only option in old romances was to withhold sex. If forced into sex anyway, they then withheld affection. Eventually, the men capitulated. This was negative power only, a double-edged sword of deprivation. By contrast, today’s romances rely on an elaborate expression of the consciousness that both the hero and the heroine have of their sexuality. The heroine has full knowledge of her body, and is able to participate fully in sexual behavior and to control herself and her suitor if she wants to. The result is fairly equal roles for both hero and heroine, though the hero usually remains the aggressor.

The old-style romance hero got away with casual cruelties, and often he succeeded in breaking the heroine down. But she broke him down, too. In our culture, this conflict is less and less popular because we don’t need it. We don’t need to see situations in which the passive-aggressive woman wins the conflict with an overbearing man. We don’t need to see situations in which the heroine triumphs over a competing other woman because getting the guy is the only thing either woman can do to succeed in life. We don’t need to see situations in which a hard-done-by heroine gets revenge (however modestly denied) against every one who has sinned against her. As American women gain a more equal role in our culture, we simply don’t find this power dynamic as appealing as we used to.

Unfortunately, even though the mainstream of American women have moved on to more equal relationships and better economic prospects, there still are plenty of women in our culture who feel trapped and lacking power. For them, the story of a sweet young woman who manages to disarm the heart of a sophisticated man of the world through her sheer goodness is empowering. In a kind of negative manner, true. It seems to encourage them to accept bad situations in the belief that if they just keep smiling, sooner or later the mean boyfriend, cruel husband, or selfish kids will change. On the other hand, it also reminds these downtrodden women that happiness is their right and that it can be found in even the most intimidating and negative circumstances. As with many stories, readers will take the message they find most appealing to them at the moment.

Of course this negative power dynamic still resonates strongly in the rest of the world because the position of women is much worse elsewhere. So that’s why stories like “Trapped by the Billionaire” (I made that up) still sell. Because there still are women who want to experience what it is like to fight against unfair odds and win anyway. There are moments in most women’s lives when they feel downtrodden and trapped, no matter how egalitarian their relationships or personal situations seem to be. And sometimes, as un-trapped and un-helpless and un-dominated as I am, I enjoy reading these stories, too. Because no matter how unfair the battle is, the heroine always wins.
Copyright © 2009 Arrow Publications, LLC™. All Rights Reserved.

Monday, October 22, 2007

Bradley Interchangeable III

Recently I was given a link to a comic book site that was knocking an old DC romance comic, Girls’ Romances #132, from 1968. It had a story inside in which the shy heroine literally never speaks to the stranger hero, who also never speaks to her. Even though at one point they sit at the same table with each other! Then, when all hope is lost, and she thinks she’ll never see him again, her family introduces him to her. And love is in the cards at last.

This is a version of the longing from afar that is a typical experience of adolescence. But without any personality to the characters, it can seem quite silly. There was a good deal of caustic commentary on the web site about this story. I tend to come down hard on these Internet pans, because I think old romance comics are just too easy a target. But I had to admit that Funny Books: Dubious Moments in Comic History” had its hilarious moments. Especially when the writer referred to the unnamed romantic object of the heroine’s desire as “Bradley Interchangeable III.” Because to tell the truth, that’s exactly what that ilk of romance hero was. A guy who was vaguely upper middle class, who dressed like the squares did, and who had no personality. So little personality that when he is seated with an attractive girl his age, he says not one word to her. Lame. So old-fashioned, too.

Or is it? Don’t we see exactly this kind of behavior today, when we read the “Desperately Seeking” personal ads, in which people sigh over individuals they have seen just once on a subway train, or in a traffic jam, or walking down the street? Or with whom they exchanged 30 seconds of idle chatter over their dogs in a park? Or in passing at a bar? And now they’ve decided this is their one true love and they are desperate to find them again? The instant attraction that is not followed up at the moment, but is regretted later, is not merely fiction. An exchange of glances alone is enough to make today’s singles pay to place an ad in a newspaper (or online) on the very slim hope that the object of their inarticulate adoration will respond. So maybe this old comic book story is not quite as lame as the we’d like to think.

But back to the comics and the past. Dressing like a square. Technically, “square” is an earlier term, applied during the beatnik period and after it in the 1950s. It’s used in “West Side Story,” for instance, which debuted as a musical in 1957. But how else to describe the chasm between dressing like a hippie and an adult in the late 1960s? Oh, that’s right, they were called “straights.” But later on, that term came to refer mostly to sexual orientation.

There was a huge generation gap between young people and older people in the late 1960s. It had many components, most of them political. And it was symbolized by clothing and hair styles. Some young people advertised that they were going along with the establishment program by dressing like younger versions of adults. Thus, Nancy Sinatra in her go-go boots and Jane Fonda in her sex object movies. And other young people showed in their dress that they weren’t: Thus the Beatles’ Sgt. Pepper look, and the scruffy one after it, and college students wearing old fur coats from thrift stores and straggly long hair and beards. The Mamas and the Papas and other American musicians at the time sported bizarre headgear or costumes, but ordinary young people wore items just as outlandish and mismatched, a way of saying that they were not part of the establishment.

Romance comics were all drawn by the older generation, though. These guys might have started off as kids in the comics business in the 1950s, but by the 1960s, they were married men with mortgages who lived in the suburbs. They were members of the establishment. So they drew the romantic heartthrobs in romance comics to look like the young men they wanted their own daughters to date: Short-haired, suit-and-tie types whose financial future was assured and who wouldn’t be getting arrested during anti-Vietnam War protests. Never mind that just about any young man wearing a suit at that point was probably a suave con artist type you should never trust with your daughter.

Since there was a distinct political divide between young people, and style indicated politics, this meant that romance comics, all featuring versions of Bradley Interchangeable III, were only likely to please part of their potential female audience. Even when comic book stories tried to include the scruffy youth of the day, they tended to polish people up and match their clothes, and make them look far too fashionable. Again, not the visual style that would attract the counterculture part of the potential romance audience. And in most cases, those hippie types were portrayed as the loser villains, not the romantic heroes. Most romance comics in their last years of publication still featured boys or men who looked like the kinds of men Annette Funicello might have dated in a beach movie 10 years before. As popular as those movies were in the early 1960s, they were always inane. By the late 1960s the world had moved on, and by the early 1970s, when romance comics were in their death throes, everything was different.

(Romance novels didn’t have quite the same problem because a reader could ignore the cover and the initial character description and imagine that the hero looked like whatever she wanted. Still, lots of change was happening in the romantic novel field. But that’s another story for another day.)

Back to the beach. The clean cut, sexually-on-the-make, wink-wink hero in beach movies was a boring hero. The same type, sexually restrained by the censorship of the Comics Code Authority and by the bland personality conventions that still held in romance comics, was a boring comic book lover. So it was a double whammy: The guys were boring to look at, and their range of personality was slender. And that’s another reason why romance comics eventually just tanked. They were offering less and less, to a smaller percentage of the romance audience.

Does MyRomanceStory.com do a better job of offering a range of romantic heroes? We think so. We do like them rich or at least financially comfortable, and in a prior post I’ve explained why. But we’ve featured men who dedicated their lives to saving endangered species (Going Batty), men who risked their lives to help people in Third World countries (Coming Home), men working undercover to rescue a family member (Summer Love), geeky science guys who can’t get dates (Love Potion), men who have made mistakes in the past and now want to make up for them (Theater of Fright), and many more. We try to find interesting romantic situations between interesting people in interesting locales. We don’t just have one personality type for our heroes. (Nor for our heroines.)

I wonder if 40 years from now, someone will be holding one of our graphic romance novellas to scorn as they now laugh at 40-year-old romance comic books? But on what basis? Will people still be putting down romance just because it is romance? Or will male-female relationships change so much that even what we create today as honestly as possible will seem totally stilted and contrived? I don’t have a crystal ball. But it’s nice to think that romance will get better, isn’t it?

Of course, by then we might have live holographic “Desperately Seeking” ads spamming our homes. Ack!
Copyright © 2009 Arrow Publications, LLC™. All Rights Reserved.

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Romance or Duty?


What on earth does romance have to do with opera? A lot more than you might think. I’m about to go see a favorite Verdi opera, “La Forza del Destino.” Why is it a favorite? Because somewhere between pity and terror, a grand exercise of all the emotions takes place, with an emphasis on the struggle between personal happiness and family duty. And that is a key theme of romance.

Of course, operas no longer feel like romances because so often all the principal characters die. Here’s the plot of Forza: The secret boyfriend accidentally kills his beloved’s dad, setting off a long and miserable chain of events during which the vengeful son of the dead man kills his sister and causes the boyfriend to kill himself, but not before the boyfriend manages to get in a lethal thrust and kill the brother. Got that?

Why does this all happen? Because the boyfriend is not of pure enough blood to please the girl’s family. No matter that he is an Incan prince (they made that one up), the brother calls him various nasty names. And even though they become good friends in war and swear eternal brotherhood while not recognizing each other (you don’t want to know), the brother still tries to kill the boyfriend to avenge the family honor. And the brother also kills his sister for polluting their family’s honor.

This plot might be considered curiously antique, except that versions of such honor killings are still happening in some of the more backward parts of the globe. In societies in which individual personalities are ignored and rigid codes are a way of life, nothing is as important as family identity, especially bloodlines. So any threat to the family honor via a possible pollution of bloodlines is violently rejected. The pitiful songs in Forza, in which the sister begs for peace, or the boyfriend begs for mercy and calls his enemy his brother, thus still ring true.

But it’s not just the honor killings that still resonate. It’s the issue of loyalties. Not so long ago, a French movie director made a blatant reference to Forza that was the key to the entire two part movie, “Jean de Florette” and “Manon of the Spring.” In “Jean de Florette,” a French village coldheartedly treats newcomers from the city like dirt and some villagers actively collude to starve them out. It opens with music from the Forza scene in which the suitor begs for mercy as brother to brother, “O, fratel, pieta, pieta.” And since the answer in the opera is a sword thrust towards his heart, we know from the first moments of this movie that Things Are Not Going to End Well. The villagers view the newcomers as outsiders because blood ties are more important in their society than individual personality. Fairness and decency are not extended to strangers. And the irony is that the supposed strangers actually are related to the very villager who actively causes their downfall, as the second movie, “Manon of the Spring,” reveals. But don’t worry. Manon gets her revenge.

In modern romances, these situations still happen, but usually without the revenge component. Instead, we have the happily ever after ending. The heroine who tries to start a medical practice in a small town that is against her gender or youth eventually wins the people over. The heroine who has been raised in an immigrant family and is being pressured to marry only within that same ethnic group finally secures the support of an influential family member in her choice to marry as she pleases. The heroine who has a dream of living a different life, of bettering herself, gets encouraged to follow that dream. The heroine of ordinary blood marries the handsome prince. The heroine who is weighed down by supporting orphaned siblings finally cuts the apron strings. The heroine who is the constant victim of a selfish parent escapes the toxic situation. And so on.

The element that ties these romance themes to operas is the dramatic dilemma that causes all the passionate outpourings. Operas frequently illustrate struggles to attain personal happiness by being more than a cipher, more than a name and a position in life, and yet to do one’s duty. And operas show the tides that run against such individualism, that doom one good man to take the life of another, and that doom a romance to frustration and tragedy. Sometimes, as in “La Forza del Destino,” these forces are described as fate or destiny. It’s powerful stuff, just as romances are.

But wait, you say. Romances aren’t like operas. Romances end happily. Not so. Throughout history, the great love stories have usually been tragedies. Tristan and Isolde, a story that resonated for hundreds of years, is about forbidden love versus family loyalty. Lancelot and Guinevere is much the same. Heloise and Abelard is an even more blatant honor situation and it really happened. But most modern romances as fiction end happily because in our society we value the individual over the family or social codes, and we have the wealth of opportunity that allows personal feelings to be followed.

Of course I have to cite the recent Diana-Charles-Camilla British royal scenario as a spectacular and amazing piece of old-fashioned, classic romantic tragedy based on a clash between family honor and individual feelings. Yet as strange as it seems, in a few decades, popular sentiment will probably swing to this being a romance with a happy ending. Remember that in Gothic romances, the beautiful but evil/wimpy first wife often gets killed so the plain-looking but sincere governess gets to be the second wife. As memories fade and new generations look at this royal soap opera, and as the survivors get to rewrite history as the winners always do, the judgment of history may be different from what we think it is right now. Diana evil or wimpy? Camilla a heroine? It could happen. Regardless, this romantic story is operatic to the core.

To me, the passionate outpourings of operatic characters, their attempts to connect with each other, are absolutely transporting. I find the passionate outpourings of romance heroines and heroes in novels to be similar; each takes me to the same emotional place. Although the outcomes often may be different, the central dilemma in many romances and operas is the same: How to attain personal happiness yet balance it with larger issues of honor and duty. We’re just so lucky today to have cause to believe that every romance can have a happy ending.
Copyright © 2009 Arrow Publications, LLC™. All Rights Reserved.

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Bad Language in Romances

Recently there has been some discussion (okay, argument) in the romance world about using bad language of any sort in romances. Some romance readers and writers object to heroes or heroines using bad words under any circumstances. Of course there are several varieties of words that are included as objectionable: References to god, scatological words that refer to bodily functions or parts, sexually suggestive words that refer to behavior, and racial slurs. That’s a big list and I still might have forgotten something. Oh, chauvinism. There’s probably more.

Right off the bat, romances eliminate the scatology and the racial slurs; we just don’t have characters who do that. We don’t do homophobia, either. Our characters either live in a completely hetero world or the sexual orientations of their friends, relatives, or acquaintances are not a cause for discussion. Romances also do pretty well at avoiding national chauvinism; if a romance takes place in a country notorious for its lousy government or even its slow postal system, no disdainful reference is made to that. Even desperate romantic adventures happening in drug-infested countries, where the governments often are corrupt, usually are placed in mythical countries instead of named real ones. Or if in a real country, the bad guys are specifically described as outlaws. Romance writers are so nice. We don’t want to offend anybody. And we do try to look on the bright side.

That includes avoiding using sexual terms that are degrading, negative, or nasty, including the “F” word, of course. In a romance, it’s making love, not “effing.” Descriptions of lovemaking may be colorful, but always, romance writers strive to paint a romantic picture, not a vulgar one. Perhaps this avoidance of the degrading, the nasty, and the vile is what turns a story romantic. Certainly there is a very definite line of demarcation between the language used in romances and what is common or acceptable in our culture today.

In our culture we’re now used to many various instances of bad language in public. We’re also used to sexually suggestive titles for everything, and suggestive advertising linking sex to products that clearly have nothing to do with sex. So it may come as a surprise to hear that in olden days, a lot of people didn’t talk this way. I am told there was a day and age (I think it was the Victorian age, and my goodness, what a long time ago that was!) when people did not ordinarily try to include sexual innuendoes and references in their daily chat and their written work. Somehow, I think that part was a lie; I think people just love to talk about sex, no matter how obliquely. But it is true that for a limited number of people at any time there have been polite standards of language that did not include swear words and all manner of other bad language, and those people adhered to them fairly scrupulously. A hundred years ago, acceptable public language for mixed company (what we now call a “family audience”), used not to include words like “hell” and “damn.” I remember going to a play with my great-uncle when I was a teenager, and he was outraged at the dirty language: Yep, it was “hell” and “damn.” And that’s all. I already thought the language was very mild, despite having never heard worse in our household while growing up. In fact I barely ever heard those words, period. Grown-ups I knew did not use any swear words around women and children. Television did not use them. Radio did not use them. Movies did not use them either. This has all changed since I was a child. But we did have a high school teacher—briefly—who said those two bad words. We kids were totally titillated. Then we did our sanctimonious best to get him in trouble for saying them. In college it was different; all the teachers used the two bad words, and some others. The big revelation there was that the students, especially the prep-school girls, used really filthy language. Until then, because I had a sheltered upbringing, I had never known that a word for defecate (yes, the “S” word) could be declined like any regular verb. My big college accomplishment was to learn to swear like the rich girls!

The world has moved on, and I would be surprised if a young girl entering college today would be shocked by bad language she might hear around her. But in the romance world, we exact higher standards of behavior from our characters than we usually do in real life. This is fine for the romantic moments in a story. But what about other moments?

The big problem is that if the men do not say even one tiny bad word here or there, it is hard to cast them as believable alpha males in macho occupations. I know a very tolerant lady who says she had to beat up on her husband when he came home from the Navy; he was swearing a blue streak, as was typical of servicemen. And although she was willing to accept a certain amount of bad language in her home, the Navy level was way over the top. So, why do romances about Navy SEALS sanitize their probably rough language? Because, for one thing, nobody really wants to hear it in a romance. For another, these instances of bad language no longer have much meaning.

Imprecations, that is, curses, used to invoke the power of god, the devil, fate, or whatever against the person being cursed. The person cursed thus felt under attack by unseen forces. And for millenia people have believed in the power of cursing; think how many have accused enemies of the evil eye, or of hexing their family or their animals, or the like. The power of cursing was real in the past. Today, there are not many people in our culture who would worry if someone said, “I hope you get run over by a bus.” Yes, the hostility in the thought comes through. But the enemy has no power to make the bus run you over. (Unless this is happening on the weird TV show, “Lost.”) Cursing just doesn’t carry much weight for most of us anymore.

Similarly, profanity, taking god’s name in vain, has also lost its power. Not only is being damned to hell meaningless to many of us—plenty of people do not believe there is a hell or a god, for that matter—there is little aversion to using the name of god in a non-religious context. That’s what profanity really is. People may not like it. But we just don’t see instances of a god striking someone dead for mentioning her name irreverently.

But people do say bad words. So what is a romance writer to do? Well, one method is to say that the hero “cursed.” Not to write out the curses as actual dialogue. This can work very nicely because, just as we have learned to tolerate a lot of bad language, the meaning of the language itself has been lost. The hero who curses isn’t trying to make the villain’s cow stop producing milk. The hero is just trying to express his frustration and anger. It’s not likely that a man’s man, an alpha male, is going to use soft-edged terms from pop psych self-help books to describe his feelings: “When you try to kill me, that upsets me. We should discuss this problem in a neutral setting.” Alpha men don’t talk like that. A few viciously delivered curses cover the emotional territory much more believably. And yet, the reader and the heroine don’t really need to know the details of those words. Only that they were spoken. Sometimes, though, romance writers don’t want to pull back from active dialogue to deliver the curses as descriptions. It can stop the flow of the scene. And therein lies the creative problem. Should the actual words be used?

Comics have long since solved this dilemma quite beautifully, by using the symbols of the keyboard. When a comic character says “@#$%^&*!” it is understood that these are bad words. The effect is there, but not the specific detail that might be offensive. Usually, though, these symbols are used for humorous effect, not to be serious. Either way, at MyRomanceStory.com, since we use the graphic format we have that option. But we have chosen to take the high road and try to eschew all bad language. When our characters get emotional, though, they might say a word or two that some people today still don’t like to see.

Ideally behaved people do not say bad words, do not use coarse language, do not ever denigrate another person, and so on. But in romantic fiction as in real life, people are not ideal, although we certainly edge them a lot closer to ideal than in, say, gritty street fiction. So bad language is likely to be with us forever. The debate continues to rage about where and how to draw the line. Meanwhile, don’t be giving me the Internet version of the evil eye, a flamethrown response.
Copyright © 2009 Arrow Publications, LLC™. All Rights Reserved.

Thursday, October 04, 2007

People Like to Put Us Down

And I’m not just talkin’ about my generation. Every generation that reads romances gets the same put down from someone: “When are you going to read a real book?” “Why do you read those sex stories?” “You should read something important.” “Why don’t you read about real life?”

Uh, excuse me? Real life? What could be more real than feelings that develop between two people that are so overwhelming they are willing to forsake their families and even lose their lives for love?

It’s worth bringing up Romeo and Juliet, because they were famous lovers whose desperate feelings we find it easy to dismiss today merely because they were young teenagers. Yet in their time, they were of marriageable age. Throughout history, families have married off their children as it suited the family, not the individual, no matter how much personal misery ensued. Romeo and Juliet epitomize personal rebellion against centuries of social tradition. No wonder they ended up dead.

It has only been in the last century or so in the western world that both men and women have had the luxury of arranging their own lives and choosing their own mates. The difficulty of choice in an open field should not be underestimated, since we do not have thousands of years of social history to guide our freedom. Maybe divorce holds out hope that mistakes can be left behind. But most of us don’t want to make mistakes in the first place.

Given this situation, you could say that romances are a tool to help people figure out how to recognize the right mate. Even though romances are about an area of human feeling that has always existed, that has frequently been sung about, and that has inspired countless poems, plays, paintings, and myths. Because classical artistry is based on life situations in which the commanding interference of others is a key element in the romantic relationship. We still suffer interference from interested family members, but modern romance is pretty much up to just the two people who fall in love.

Yes, it is natural to fall in love, but it is not logical. Loving feelings simply are not rational. And every person falls in love a different way. When those irrational feelings and high emotions strike, how do we decide what to do? How do we distinguish between infatuation and love? Between sincerity and flattery? Between protectiveness and power plays? We need a road map. And because every person is unique, we need many variations on this road map. Hence, all manner of romances. It’s so simple when you think about it logically: We need romances!

Of course a romance about a lonely billionaire and a spunky sculptor isn’t an exact blueprint for a happy future. If it were, we’d have fewer unhappy billionaires and starving sculptors. But learning how to recognize the person with whom you could happily spend all your life is important. Learning how to negotiate conflicts with that person in an era in which you could just walk out the door and find someone else is also important. Romances present many varieties of scenarios in which the heroines learn more about themselves and about the men for whom they care. What to fight over and what to let go. How to fight fair, for that matter. It’s marriage counseling in advance, if you will.

Do romances present plans for saving the world? Actually, yes, sometimes they do. Sometimes there’s an environmental or political issue at stake, and often there is a serious moral situation, too. Romance heroines and heroes frequently are shown asking themselves what is right and what is wrong. Many romances also deliver an inspiring message of hope in a troubled world. The characters love and survive despite hideous odds against them.

Romances are rooted in the personal, and because they are, they have tremendous emotional impact. Which means that as teaching mechanisms, they are unmatched. I guess the spoonful of sugar theory comes into play here, too. For many of us, it is easier to confront difficult life choices when they are embodied by someone else and prettied up a bit, too. Romances fulfill a very useful function of drawing us in while at the same time engaging us in a safe manner.

So, when people try to put you down for reading romances, don’t let them. You don’t have to reply with a snarl or a sneer at their ignorance. But you don’t have to feel defensive, either. Romances are big in more than one way.
Copyright © 2009 Arrow Publications, LLC™. All Rights Reserved.