What do you think?
Rate this book
A Natural History of the Romance Novel
The romance novel has the strange distinction of being the most popular but least respected of literary genres. While it remains consistently dominant in bookstores and on best-seller lists, it is also widely dismissed by the critical community. Scholars have alleged that romance novels help create subservient readers, who are largely women, by confining heroines to stories that ignore issues other than love and marriage.
Pamela Regis argues that such critical studies fail to take into consideration the personal choice of readers, offer any true definition of the romance novel, or discuss the nature and scope of the genre. Presenting the counterclaim that the romance novel does not enslave women but, on the contrary, is about celebrating freedom and joy, Regis offers a definition that provides critics with an expanded vocabulary for discussing a genre that is both classic and contemporary, sexy and entertaining.
Taking the stance that the popular romance novel is a work of literature with a brilliant pedigree, Regis asserts that it is also a very old, stable form. She traces the literary history of the romance novel from canonical works such as Richardson's Pamela through Austen's Pride and Prejudice , Brontë's Jane Eyre , and E. M. Hull's The Sheik , and then turns to more contemporary works such as the novels of Georgette Heyer, Mary Stewart, Janet Dailey, Jayne Ann Krentz, and Nora Roberts.
Pamela Regis argues that such critical studies fail to take into consideration the personal choice of readers, offer any true definition of the romance novel, or discuss the nature and scope of the genre. Presenting the counterclaim that the romance novel does not enslave women but, on the contrary, is about celebrating freedom and joy, Regis offers a definition that provides critics with an expanded vocabulary for discussing a genre that is both classic and contemporary, sexy and entertaining.
Taking the stance that the popular romance novel is a work of literature with a brilliant pedigree, Regis asserts that it is also a very old, stable form. She traces the literary history of the romance novel from canonical works such as Richardson's Pamela through Austen's Pride and Prejudice , Brontë's Jane Eyre , and E. M. Hull's The Sheik , and then turns to more contemporary works such as the novels of Georgette Heyer, Mary Stewart, Janet Dailey, Jayne Ann Krentz, and Nora Roberts.
240 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2003
37 people are currently reading
762 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews
May 7, 2022
I read this for a project I’m working on, and I would say it’s a dated but convincing argument for reading romance novels critically and seriously as literary texts (it seems to be at least partly a response to earlier academic books on the romance novel, including Reading the Romance by Janice A. Radway). There is some really useful history of the romance novel and its antecedents here, and Pamela Regis also lays out what she has identified as eight essential elements of the romance novel, which I think mostly hold up. Her close reading of various canonical romance authors’ work to prove the presence of those essential elements gets tedious, and her argument that romance heroes must always be either “tamed” or “healed” feels really dated (and actually made me think a lot about whether the current romance novel dynamic, at least in contemporaries, is that the hero/heroine help each other through their respective Trauma Plots…hmm). Not an essential read, but I did appreciate how seriously she takes the genre and that her analysis also illustrates how flexible and dynamic (but also stable!) the romance genre has been for 200+ years.
December 18, 2017
This book filled in certain gaps in my knowledge about the evolution of the romance genre, in particular from the American publishers, but what I really appreciated were the recommendations. I never know where to start with old-school romance, but now I have some ideas.
The first chapters are a defense of the romance genre, but I kind of skimmed though it to Part II, where the actual history starts.
The first chapters are a defense of the romance genre, but I kind of skimmed though it to Part II, where the actual history starts.
June 20, 2020
I would ask any indignant defender of the 'anyone expressing criticisms of the genre of romantic novels or its defenders must be speaking from ignorance or doesn't understand that genre' school please to refrain, because I have read many romances, and sometimes, even write them.
To go to the positive, which normally I put first, I did think the style was lucid and would be very helpful for someone not familiar wiih the classics.
On the book in general, the style is concise and makes for an easy read. It was writtten, of course, circa 1999, and so naturally seems dated. It was written before so many romance writers went on the offensive about the literary value of the romance novel. Therefore, if some of the arguments seem unoriginal now, then I assume that they were more so at the time. The structure is well thought out, too.
Three stars, because I don’t believe in giving low star ratings because I disagree agree with a writer’s arguments, even when I think that they are weak and even absurd, as some of the ones stated here frankly are. I don't normally write such scathing reviews, but this book's soft treatment of rapist heroes really dismayed me.
The author falls over backwards to justify the heroine of ‘Pamela’ in her idiotic choice of marrying her one time would be rapist Mr B. In this, she makes the following astounding statement: - ‘The story can be called oppressive, I think, only if one believes that marriage is an institution so flawed that it cannot be good for a woman.’
Excuse me! What sort of an argument is this? (Steam bursts from my ears…) I can't dispute that Professor Regis does think that, but it's not a valid inference. The story can be called oppressive because it romanticizes the relationship between a would be rapist and his victim in the most distasteful way. The story can be called oppressive, because the heroine is wholly oppressed by Mr B both before he puts the relationship on a nominally respectable basis, and afterwards, when he controls her every behaviour.
Not only that, but Regis has unfortunately neglected her research on Richardson's later views on the matter. I have come across a letter quoted from Richardson in another work which totally disproves that Pamela in any way finds 'affective individualism' or 'companionate marriage' even if she does obtain, through that distasteful alliance, 'property rights'.
I will return to that in a moment, and the quote from Samuel Richardson’s correspondence, which shows why even the author the arch patriarch Puritan Samuel Richardson disagreed with Ms Regis over that.
On the structure, the author outlines this at the beginning. There’s a bit on the critics and the romance novel, and Ms Regis considers that these criticisms didn’t have a broad enough base. Very possibly that is true; I do think, however, that the critics have generally had more experience of reading romance novels generally than might appear, as I think there are probably very few women in Western Europe or the US who haven’t read a few when they were growing up – whether they are prepared to admit it or not.
Anyway, leaving that aside as irrelevant here, Regis promises some thoroughgoing research – and then limits her own research, too. Lack of time, perhaps?
She argues that the feminist critics’ complaint that the Marriage as Happy Ending extinguishes the heroine’s freedom and confirms the values of patriarchy, is untrue because through making the marriage choice, the heroine in the notorious HEA in all romance novels finds independence, both emotional and monetary. In her choice of the hero, Regis inists that the heroine finds 'freedom'. This freedom is in fact, never defined except as 'affective individualism' a rather pretentious and vague term.
She argues that regarding the feminist critics' charge that in reading romances the reader is reconciled to patriarchy through the mechanism of the fantasy HEA, that the romance novel isn’t powerful enough to ‘relegate woman to patriarchy and marriage’ because readers are free to skip text, reject it, etc.
If so, then surely it is not powerful enough either to serve the function which she ascribes to it – to encourage women to think in terms of emotional fulfillment, choice and independence, as she argues later on, either. There's a strong contradiction here.
She sets out the eight features that she suggests are essential to the romance novel, and then goes on to analyse a number of novels which are argued to be classic examples of romances using this definition. She picks ‘Pride and Prejudice’ ‘Jane Eyre’ etc from the nineteenth century, novels by Georgette Heyer and Mary Stuart from the twentieth century and then moves her area of interest over to the US and analyses the works of successful romance writers, the pre-plagiarist era of Janet Dailey, the work of Nora Roberts and so on.
When I came on the chapter 'The limits of romance', I hoped that we might come to some true literary criticism where the author points out some problems with the genre; but no, there is none in the book, and as for the quality of the writing, the novels of Janet Dailey are treated with the same uncritical admiration as the work of Jane Austen and Charlotte Bronte.
As Noah Berlatsky says, 'Regis’ difficulty is that she wants to defend all romance. She is fighting for the honor of romance as a genre, or as a whole. She never, once, in the entire book, admits that any single romance, anywhere, might be formulaic, or badly written. '
It can certainly be argued from her first premise that if one accepts the eight points she outlines as the definition of a romance novel, then works of literature acknowledged as great can be defined as romance novels. It also imposes a rigid formula on a genre which is already generally criticized as being too formulaic, and trapped into unreality and light fiction through the necessity of the fantasy Happy Ever After.
Through this definition, too, various books which many people do regard as exceptionally good examples of the genre are excluded - ie, 'Rebecca'.
Unfortunately, for a book which is meant to be a work of literary criticism, there is no more criticism in it than might be found in some work of positive thinking from a New Age guru. Pamela Regis at no point makes one critical remark about the writing of any of the authors – from Richardson to Nora Roberts. Her ‘analysis’ consists generally of praise for all of the writers, applying the eight factors to these novels, and saying that they all depict the heroines finding emotional satisfaction at the ending in their invariable choice of the hero - which she equates with 'empowerment' and 'freedom'. I don't quite see how it can be argued that there can be much freedom for the heroine within a genre which by definition gives her no choice - she must accept the hero and this must lead to 'affective individualism'.
This is why I think that insistance on the 'HEA' does a great disservice to the romance novel as an literary form, and a conditional happy ending would be a much more flexible option, or perhaps the 'HFN'. The same is true of the fantasy aspect which precludes realistic or inconvenient sordid details. I know that many, if not most romance readers would disagree with that.
The author, in fact, puts herself in an impossible position; in arguing that there have been some romances written which are great literature, pointing to the ‘canonical’ texts of Jane Austen and Charlotte Bronte, but never admits that comparison means just that. If there have been excellent romances written, then by definition there have to have been some far from excellent ones churned out. But as a defender of romance, this is an admission that she cannot make. All that she can do, is to maintain a deafening silence on the topic.
This 'closing ranks' out of defensiveness and equating all criticism with negative criticism is an attitude of the romance community which contradicts the desire of its members for their genre to be taken seriously. Criticism by definition cannot all be positive.
For some reason, Pamela Regis makes no mention of the late Victorian/Edwardian best seller, Charles Garvice. Perhaps he is too much of an embarrassment to acknowledge as an ancestor of modern romance: but perhaps, too, she would have been able to discuss his work with the same obliviousness to its notorious defects as she does that infamous novel by E M Hull, ‘The Sheik’.
This, of course, features a rapist ‘hero’. Pamela Regis does indeed quote a small piece sharp criticism of this, and then two women writers who somehow manage to find ‘female liberation’ in this story of women who becomes so attached to her violator that she chooses to attempt to kill herself rather than live without him. This wish to destroy herself is equated by the author with 'affective individualism'.
I would call it 'Stockholm Syndrome' myself.
Quoting a defence of the prevalence of rapist heroes in romances written before the 1970’s on the grounds that it was the only way to make readers accept the heroine’s engaging in pre-marital sex, she goes on to find the heroine strong and independent.
This brings me on to her depiction of Pamela, the heroine of the original best selling romantic novel who is happy to marry the man who has abducted her and subjected her to at least one rape attempt and many sexual assaults.
I’ve read this, and its tedious sequel, ‘Pamela in Her Exalted Condition’ (and also, Clarissa, but that’s irrelevant here) and I do not know how anyone who has, could seriously argue that Pamela obtains any sort of independence through her marriage with Mr B. I can't hep wondering if the author is relying on many reader's attention wandering during the long and tedious Pamela (and believe me, it is very tedious), let alone the dull sequel, to make the assertions that she does about the supposed liberating potential of Pamela’s marriage to Mr B.
When their relationship is put upon a nominally respectable basis, Regis is at pains to point out that Mr B makes Pamela over some money in the marriage settlements, holding this as evidence of her future independence. He also begins at once to lecture her upon wifely duty and obedience – a theme to which he frequently returns in ‘Pamela in Her Exalted Condition’. She is not even allowed to suckle her babies, as he thinks that this will take up too much of the time she should be spending on entertaining him.
But as for Pamela achieving any sort of freedom through her particular Happy Ever After with Mr B, her is the quote Samuel Richardson himself. This is a quote from one of Richardson’s letters of 1749. This says: -
'It is apparent by the whole tenor of Mr B’s behaviour, that nothing but such an implicit obedience, and slavish submission, as Pamela showed to all his injunctions and dictates, could have made her tolerably happy, even with a reformed rake.’
This quote from Richardson’s ‘Selected Letters’ comes from page 90 of Terry Eagleton’s book, ‘The Rape of Clarissa’ and is surely a refutation of Pamela Regis’ claim that Pamela in any way achieves independence of any sort through her marriage with Mr B.
I am astonished that Ms Regis could make the assertion that I quoted in the beginning of my review in defence of Pamela marrying the man who has attempted to rape her. The story can be defined as oppressive because it celebrates the union of a would be rapist and his victim in one of the most distasteful 'HEA''s one can imagine. After this he continues, as Richardson admits, to be totally controlling.
I find the defence of the HEA’s in romance novels that they all lead to great happiness for the heroine in her achievement of ‘affective individualism’ in her choice to marry the hero, plus financial independence, unconvincing.
Regis admits to the ‘frankly individualistic’ nature of these, but she finds the ideology of individualism above criticism anyway, perhaps forgetting that all ideologies are an aspect of the thinking of a particular historical epoch.
It is arguable that the romance novel as it stands is a form of literature peculiarly suited to a form of society (advanced capitalism) and its ideology of individualism, just as the Grail legends were appropriate to the ideology of feudalism. Pamela Regis brings this out. The HEA for the main couple is an indication of this, though she goes in for some vague talk about the ‘transformation of society’ by their coming together.
For many uncritical fans of the genre – and the literary critic Pamela Regis writes as one, the fantasy element of the HEA is its chief delight. I am of the persuasion that a move to a more realistic, conditional HEA would be one of the factors that would lead to its acceptance as literature.
To go to the positive, which normally I put first, I did think the style was lucid and would be very helpful for someone not familiar wiih the classics.
On the book in general, the style is concise and makes for an easy read. It was writtten, of course, circa 1999, and so naturally seems dated. It was written before so many romance writers went on the offensive about the literary value of the romance novel. Therefore, if some of the arguments seem unoriginal now, then I assume that they were more so at the time. The structure is well thought out, too.
Three stars, because I don’t believe in giving low star ratings because I disagree agree with a writer’s arguments, even when I think that they are weak and even absurd, as some of the ones stated here frankly are. I don't normally write such scathing reviews, but this book's soft treatment of rapist heroes really dismayed me.
The author falls over backwards to justify the heroine of ‘Pamela’ in her idiotic choice of marrying her one time would be rapist Mr B. In this, she makes the following astounding statement: - ‘The story can be called oppressive, I think, only if one believes that marriage is an institution so flawed that it cannot be good for a woman.’
Excuse me! What sort of an argument is this? (Steam bursts from my ears…) I can't dispute that Professor Regis does think that, but it's not a valid inference. The story can be called oppressive because it romanticizes the relationship between a would be rapist and his victim in the most distasteful way. The story can be called oppressive, because the heroine is wholly oppressed by Mr B both before he puts the relationship on a nominally respectable basis, and afterwards, when he controls her every behaviour.
Not only that, but Regis has unfortunately neglected her research on Richardson's later views on the matter. I have come across a letter quoted from Richardson in another work which totally disproves that Pamela in any way finds 'affective individualism' or 'companionate marriage' even if she does obtain, through that distasteful alliance, 'property rights'.
I will return to that in a moment, and the quote from Samuel Richardson’s correspondence, which shows why even the author the arch patriarch Puritan Samuel Richardson disagreed with Ms Regis over that.
On the structure, the author outlines this at the beginning. There’s a bit on the critics and the romance novel, and Ms Regis considers that these criticisms didn’t have a broad enough base. Very possibly that is true; I do think, however, that the critics have generally had more experience of reading romance novels generally than might appear, as I think there are probably very few women in Western Europe or the US who haven’t read a few when they were growing up – whether they are prepared to admit it or not.
Anyway, leaving that aside as irrelevant here, Regis promises some thoroughgoing research – and then limits her own research, too. Lack of time, perhaps?
She argues that the feminist critics’ complaint that the Marriage as Happy Ending extinguishes the heroine’s freedom and confirms the values of patriarchy, is untrue because through making the marriage choice, the heroine in the notorious HEA in all romance novels finds independence, both emotional and monetary. In her choice of the hero, Regis inists that the heroine finds 'freedom'. This freedom is in fact, never defined except as 'affective individualism' a rather pretentious and vague term.
She argues that regarding the feminist critics' charge that in reading romances the reader is reconciled to patriarchy through the mechanism of the fantasy HEA, that the romance novel isn’t powerful enough to ‘relegate woman to patriarchy and marriage’ because readers are free to skip text, reject it, etc.
If so, then surely it is not powerful enough either to serve the function which she ascribes to it – to encourage women to think in terms of emotional fulfillment, choice and independence, as she argues later on, either. There's a strong contradiction here.
She sets out the eight features that she suggests are essential to the romance novel, and then goes on to analyse a number of novels which are argued to be classic examples of romances using this definition. She picks ‘Pride and Prejudice’ ‘Jane Eyre’ etc from the nineteenth century, novels by Georgette Heyer and Mary Stuart from the twentieth century and then moves her area of interest over to the US and analyses the works of successful romance writers, the pre-plagiarist era of Janet Dailey, the work of Nora Roberts and so on.
When I came on the chapter 'The limits of romance', I hoped that we might come to some true literary criticism where the author points out some problems with the genre; but no, there is none in the book, and as for the quality of the writing, the novels of Janet Dailey are treated with the same uncritical admiration as the work of Jane Austen and Charlotte Bronte.
As Noah Berlatsky says, 'Regis’ difficulty is that she wants to defend all romance. She is fighting for the honor of romance as a genre, or as a whole. She never, once, in the entire book, admits that any single romance, anywhere, might be formulaic, or badly written. '
It can certainly be argued from her first premise that if one accepts the eight points she outlines as the definition of a romance novel, then works of literature acknowledged as great can be defined as romance novels. It also imposes a rigid formula on a genre which is already generally criticized as being too formulaic, and trapped into unreality and light fiction through the necessity of the fantasy Happy Ever After.
Through this definition, too, various books which many people do regard as exceptionally good examples of the genre are excluded - ie, 'Rebecca'.
Unfortunately, for a book which is meant to be a work of literary criticism, there is no more criticism in it than might be found in some work of positive thinking from a New Age guru. Pamela Regis at no point makes one critical remark about the writing of any of the authors – from Richardson to Nora Roberts. Her ‘analysis’ consists generally of praise for all of the writers, applying the eight factors to these novels, and saying that they all depict the heroines finding emotional satisfaction at the ending in their invariable choice of the hero - which she equates with 'empowerment' and 'freedom'. I don't quite see how it can be argued that there can be much freedom for the heroine within a genre which by definition gives her no choice - she must accept the hero and this must lead to 'affective individualism'.
This is why I think that insistance on the 'HEA' does a great disservice to the romance novel as an literary form, and a conditional happy ending would be a much more flexible option, or perhaps the 'HFN'. The same is true of the fantasy aspect which precludes realistic or inconvenient sordid details. I know that many, if not most romance readers would disagree with that.
The author, in fact, puts herself in an impossible position; in arguing that there have been some romances written which are great literature, pointing to the ‘canonical’ texts of Jane Austen and Charlotte Bronte, but never admits that comparison means just that. If there have been excellent romances written, then by definition there have to have been some far from excellent ones churned out. But as a defender of romance, this is an admission that she cannot make. All that she can do, is to maintain a deafening silence on the topic.
This 'closing ranks' out of defensiveness and equating all criticism with negative criticism is an attitude of the romance community which contradicts the desire of its members for their genre to be taken seriously. Criticism by definition cannot all be positive.
For some reason, Pamela Regis makes no mention of the late Victorian/Edwardian best seller, Charles Garvice. Perhaps he is too much of an embarrassment to acknowledge as an ancestor of modern romance: but perhaps, too, she would have been able to discuss his work with the same obliviousness to its notorious defects as she does that infamous novel by E M Hull, ‘The Sheik’.
This, of course, features a rapist ‘hero’. Pamela Regis does indeed quote a small piece sharp criticism of this, and then two women writers who somehow manage to find ‘female liberation’ in this story of women who becomes so attached to her violator that she chooses to attempt to kill herself rather than live without him. This wish to destroy herself is equated by the author with 'affective individualism'.
I would call it 'Stockholm Syndrome' myself.
Quoting a defence of the prevalence of rapist heroes in romances written before the 1970’s on the grounds that it was the only way to make readers accept the heroine’s engaging in pre-marital sex, she goes on to find the heroine strong and independent.
This brings me on to her depiction of Pamela, the heroine of the original best selling romantic novel who is happy to marry the man who has abducted her and subjected her to at least one rape attempt and many sexual assaults.
I’ve read this, and its tedious sequel, ‘Pamela in Her Exalted Condition’ (and also, Clarissa, but that’s irrelevant here) and I do not know how anyone who has, could seriously argue that Pamela obtains any sort of independence through her marriage with Mr B. I can't hep wondering if the author is relying on many reader's attention wandering during the long and tedious Pamela (and believe me, it is very tedious), let alone the dull sequel, to make the assertions that she does about the supposed liberating potential of Pamela’s marriage to Mr B.
When their relationship is put upon a nominally respectable basis, Regis is at pains to point out that Mr B makes Pamela over some money in the marriage settlements, holding this as evidence of her future independence. He also begins at once to lecture her upon wifely duty and obedience – a theme to which he frequently returns in ‘Pamela in Her Exalted Condition’. She is not even allowed to suckle her babies, as he thinks that this will take up too much of the time she should be spending on entertaining him.
But as for Pamela achieving any sort of freedom through her particular Happy Ever After with Mr B, her is the quote Samuel Richardson himself. This is a quote from one of Richardson’s letters of 1749. This says: -
'It is apparent by the whole tenor of Mr B’s behaviour, that nothing but such an implicit obedience, and slavish submission, as Pamela showed to all his injunctions and dictates, could have made her tolerably happy, even with a reformed rake.’
This quote from Richardson’s ‘Selected Letters’ comes from page 90 of Terry Eagleton’s book, ‘The Rape of Clarissa’ and is surely a refutation of Pamela Regis’ claim that Pamela in any way achieves independence of any sort through her marriage with Mr B.
I am astonished that Ms Regis could make the assertion that I quoted in the beginning of my review in defence of Pamela marrying the man who has attempted to rape her. The story can be defined as oppressive because it celebrates the union of a would be rapist and his victim in one of the most distasteful 'HEA''s one can imagine. After this he continues, as Richardson admits, to be totally controlling.
I find the defence of the HEA’s in romance novels that they all lead to great happiness for the heroine in her achievement of ‘affective individualism’ in her choice to marry the hero, plus financial independence, unconvincing.
Regis admits to the ‘frankly individualistic’ nature of these, but she finds the ideology of individualism above criticism anyway, perhaps forgetting that all ideologies are an aspect of the thinking of a particular historical epoch.
It is arguable that the romance novel as it stands is a form of literature peculiarly suited to a form of society (advanced capitalism) and its ideology of individualism, just as the Grail legends were appropriate to the ideology of feudalism. Pamela Regis brings this out. The HEA for the main couple is an indication of this, though she goes in for some vague talk about the ‘transformation of society’ by their coming together.
For many uncritical fans of the genre – and the literary critic Pamela Regis writes as one, the fantasy element of the HEA is its chief delight. I am of the persuasion that a move to a more realistic, conditional HEA would be one of the factors that would lead to its acceptance as literature.
September 30, 2016
I was really hoping for a lot more out of this book. I understand it's a decade old, and was prepared for some of the arguments to be old-hat or out-of-date, but the problem is deeper: the arguments are weak, disorganized, and illogical. The author makes statements of opinion and expects the reader to take them as fact. She dismisses a lot of criticism out-of-hand, with little more than a "Nuh-uh". For example, in response to critics' accusations of romance novels glorifying the flawed institution of marriage, she argues that marriage in romance novels represents freedom because it's what the heroine wants, without even touching the fact that in real life, not all women desire marriage. It's the presentation of the desire for marriage as a given for all women that's the problem, and she ignores it entirely. She also fails to acknowledge any of the problematic aspects of marriage as a concept (especially historically). She goes so far as to discuss the concept of married women historically being feme covert, which is to say literally the property of their husbands, without once acknowledging the potential for abuse or neglect that concept entails. I'm sorry, if you're going to argue that women literally being owned by their husbands equals literary freedom, you're going to have to give me a little more than "because I said so" as a reason. She also talks about women in romance novels having power over men by virtue of their inherent qualities, e.g. on p. 133: "The heroine tames him through her inexperience, her danger, and her simple presence", without acknowledging the fact that such a depiction denies the heroine of the story any real agency. Here and elsewhere, the book raises far more problems than it puts to rest.
I checked this out from the library and got about 3/4 of the way through before it was due, but I'm not bothering checking it out again. Don't get me wrong; I'm a fan of romance. I would love to see this topic tackled by someone with the logical chops and the breadth of evidence to do it justice, especially from a feminist bent. I think there are strong literary and feminist arguments to be made for romance as a genre; unfortunately, this is not the book to make them.
I checked this out from the library and got about 3/4 of the way through before it was due, but I'm not bothering checking it out again. Don't get me wrong; I'm a fan of romance. I would love to see this topic tackled by someone with the logical chops and the breadth of evidence to do it justice, especially from a feminist bent. I think there are strong literary and feminist arguments to be made for romance as a genre; unfortunately, this is not the book to make them.
September 13, 2013
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.
June 26, 2009
This book is referenced in Beyond Heaving Bosoms: The Smart Bitches Guide to Romance by Sarah Wendell and Candy Tan, which I recently read & reviewed. Unfortunately, after reading their outspoken opinions, this well-researched book on romance novels can seem a bit dry. It is not without its merits however.
As promised in the title, Pamela Regis does go through the natural history of the romance novel from its not-so-humble beginnings to now. Pamela Regis uses examples from the early days of romance to today's books to explain the genre and its evolution. She also take time to defend its readers, who are often mocked by the world at large.
I thought this was very well done and if a romance reader is every in need of a defense of her (or his) reading choices, this is far more eloquent style than Wendell and Tan's 'Yeah. So?" approach.
As promised in the title, Pamela Regis does go through the natural history of the romance novel from its not-so-humble beginnings to now. Pamela Regis uses examples from the early days of romance to today's books to explain the genre and its evolution. She also take time to defend its readers, who are often mocked by the world at large.
I thought this was very well done and if a romance reader is every in need of a defense of her (or his) reading choices, this is far more eloquent style than Wendell and Tan's 'Yeah. So?" approach.
July 18, 2023
Sadly not that well-put together in terms of its argument, and doesn't seem to add much to the existing scholarship on the romance. Interesting in terms of what it tries to do, but seems to rather miss the boat by falling into the exact same 'errors' that it points out in other scholarship (the use of single examples to stand for the whole, what is effectively a structuralist/formalist approach to a multi-faceted genre, etc.). It wouldn't have been an issue if these 'errors' weren't presented as such, but the writer does judge these to be failings, and therefore the piece seems deeply ironic.
October 11, 2009
Really enjoyed this- would prove very helpful for those involved in Romance Discussion Groups. Nice overview of the genre from historical perspective as well as pointing out necessary narrative elements & changes to the form over time. She won my approval for noting one of my favorites (The Sheik) as the first "modern" romance novel.
December 17, 2024
As a response to criticisms of the romance novel, this book is rather weak and of little nuance. As an overview of the form's history, it was very informative but got a little bit repetitive in its analysis.
October 21, 2021
An interesting, academic history and defence of the genre. Got a little repetitive at the end, but has given me a bunch of classics to get stuck into!
February 26, 2013
If you write romance, then read this book. Period. It's really great in giving the history of the genre. It teaches you the rules so that (I hope) you can break them.
Granted, I don't agree with all of the exact elements the author mentioned or her opinions on Civil Contract, but I found the information to be really helpful in understanding the craft of romance writing.
Granted, I don't agree with all of the exact elements the author mentioned or her opinions on Civil Contract, but I found the information to be really helpful in understanding the craft of romance writing.
December 11, 2007
An insightful, encompassing definition of the romance novel. Great look at the particulars of the genre without too many value-judgments (often a problem with pop. fiction studies). Great resource for any pop fiction fan or scholar.
November 11, 2010
This book is absolutely essential for anyone who wants to write romantic fiction.
November 18, 2010
The barrier and the ritual death: cool.
May 21, 2011
A thorough atempt. Sadly, biased.
December 25, 2025
This was a serviceable history and explanation of the romance novel and its conventions. For me, it suffered from two main problems the first of which is completely subjective:
1. I am absolutely allergic to the academic style of writing employed here— which is on me given that this was written for an academic press. But I just can’t stand the tortured, convoluted sentence structure of academic writing. I’ve hard to read several sentences repeatedly and still left wondering what the author was trying to say.
2. This book, especially the first few chapters, was written from a defensive crouch and it really suffers for it. It forced the author to make some arguments that weren’t really necessary and I don’t think even the author was interested in making them.
There really isn’t an argument here except “Guys, take romance seriously!” I understand the impulse to want to defend a beloved genre but at the same time I think the popularity and longevity of the genre speaks for itself and trying to defend it rather than just explaining it because it deserves to be understood just weakened the book.
That said, I don’t think the criticism I’ve seen elsewhere that the author maintains marriage or betrothal as necessary to romance novel is a fair one. She pretty explicitly says it’s not necessary in contemporary novels so long as it’s understood that the couple are together. She uses it as short hand given its history and prevalence in romance novels. But she also uses the phrase “barrier-less” relationship to describe the same point in the narrative a few times. Also, yes, it’s dated. But it’s hardly the book’s fault that time marches on.
1. I am absolutely allergic to the academic style of writing employed here— which is on me given that this was written for an academic press. But I just can’t stand the tortured, convoluted sentence structure of academic writing. I’ve hard to read several sentences repeatedly and still left wondering what the author was trying to say.
2. This book, especially the first few chapters, was written from a defensive crouch and it really suffers for it. It forced the author to make some arguments that weren’t really necessary and I don’t think even the author was interested in making them.
There really isn’t an argument here except “Guys, take romance seriously!” I understand the impulse to want to defend a beloved genre but at the same time I think the popularity and longevity of the genre speaks for itself and trying to defend it rather than just explaining it because it deserves to be understood just weakened the book.
That said, I don’t think the criticism I’ve seen elsewhere that the author maintains marriage or betrothal as necessary to romance novel is a fair one. She pretty explicitly says it’s not necessary in contemporary novels so long as it’s understood that the couple are together. She uses it as short hand given its history and prevalence in romance novels. But she also uses the phrase “barrier-less” relationship to describe the same point in the narrative a few times. Also, yes, it’s dated. But it’s hardly the book’s fault that time marches on.
December 17, 2017
3.5 Stars.
It's a "textbook" book for those interested in the genre, not just reading romance books. Regis quotes a lot of other authors Romance Lit Crit on the subject. I do like Regis' "Eight Essential Elements of a Romance Novel," because it made sense. She used Pride and Prejudice as the example (she belabored the point with almost too many details and examples).
Then she took five more literary classics that follow what she believes supports her eight elements (each a chapter). Again, I felt she belabored the point and wasn't sure who she was writing for because times it was textbook and other times attempting to win over the non-textbook readers. A list of books would have sufficed. Then she jumped to modern day, and I found that interesting.
The middle the recaps got long but skimmable and readable if you haven't read the books.
It's a "textbook" book for those interested in the genre, not just reading romance books. Regis quotes a lot of other authors Romance Lit Crit on the subject. I do like Regis' "Eight Essential Elements of a Romance Novel," because it made sense. She used Pride and Prejudice as the example (she belabored the point with almost too many details and examples).
Then she took five more literary classics that follow what she believes supports her eight elements (each a chapter). Again, I felt she belabored the point and wasn't sure who she was writing for because times it was textbook and other times attempting to win over the non-textbook readers. A list of books would have sufficed. Then she jumped to modern day, and I found that interesting.
The middle the recaps got long but skimmable and readable if you haven't read the books.
July 15, 2024
I was curious to find out more about the evolution of the romance novel over time (it's a genre I know next to nothing about, and I'm curious to learn more and to find good recommendations), and this book sounded like a great starting point.
I don't think I've ever read a more insecure piece of writing in my life. Like the first 50 pages are just defensive beyond belief, and I kept thinking, are we going to actually talk about the natural history of the romance novel? Once we finally do some deep dives into the books, the reviews/analysis is so difficult to parse that I eventually just gave up and googled the books she mentioned. It did at least give me somewhere to start, though, so points for that.
I don't think I've ever read a more insecure piece of writing in my life. Like the first 50 pages are just defensive beyond belief, and I kept thinking, are we going to actually talk about the natural history of the romance novel? Once we finally do some deep dives into the books, the reviews/analysis is so difficult to parse that I eventually just gave up and googled the books she mentioned. It did at least give me somewhere to start, though, so points for that.
November 10, 2022
I really wanted to love this, but other than the whole “romance is undervalued and disregarded for crap reasons” bit, there was just so much to disagree with. Her definition of romance revolves around heroines (so M/M romance novels aren’t romance novels?), and she insists that the culmination of a romance novel is marriage or betrothal, despite numerous examples in this very book where marriage is used at other points of the plot, showing that the important resolution is some kind of commitment between the protagonists -- marriage is incidental.
Anyway, I’m sure I’ll revisit this over the years and am glad to have read it, though disappointed in the content.
Anyway, I’m sure I’ll revisit this over the years and am glad to have read it, though disappointed in the content.
September 5, 2023
A Natural History of the Romance Novel by Pamela Regis defines the 'romance novel' as a story that describes the courtship and betrothal of one or more heroines. It examines romance novels throughout history, identifying eight essential elements of the story and analysing several famous examples. It also talks about different types of romance novels throughout the latter half of the 20th century.
For a quite dense and academic book, this was very engaging, very interesting and surprisingly funny in places! I enjoyed all the analysis and came away wanting to read more romance of different types.
For a quite dense and academic book, this was very engaging, very interesting and surprisingly funny in places! I enjoyed all the analysis and came away wanting to read more romance of different types.
February 28, 2023
Some minimal history between some literary criticism of noteworthy work between Pamela and the modern day. Rather dependent on Anatomy of Criticism
February 13, 2021
I've never read any literary criticism in the past, so I don't have anything to compare this to, but I enjoyed learning about the history of the romance novel. I've been particularly interested in structure recently, so I appreciated the author's in depth analysis of the structure of the romance novel.
September 22, 2023
A lovely, short, academic text laying out what defines a romance novel and providing case studies from both the classics and contemporary authors. I especially like the way the author critiques the critiques of the genre, and points out that centering the heroine and the female reader actually makes them quite feminist.
May 14, 2017
I used this book as a way to argue against Jane Austen being a romance novelist. Overall, I find Regis' argument to be biased. There are so many factors she failed to include in her definition of the romance genre, which set her argument on shaky ground.
Read
February 12, 2021This was interesting, but it took me much longer than it should've to read a 200 page book. The writing style is very dense and boring and the author likes repeating the same info over and over and over again.
December 5, 2023
useful for the learning about the romance genre to an extent. she repeats herself many times and yet also contradicts herself occasionally. the majority of these 200+ words were just quotations from other critics that she then never truly responded to and just dismissed. not great.
Read
July 12, 2025Kirja on ansiokkaimmillaan peratessaan romanssin muotoa ja historiaa. Kirjailija on hyvin avoin lähtökohdistaan, eli romanssin puolustuksesta, mutta välillä se näkyy niin, että romanssiin kriittisesti suhtautuvia tutkijoita suorastaan väärinymmärretään tahallisesti.
March 1, 2021
Interesting but repetitive in parts.
January 15, 2024
not exactly thrilling but a great read for my independent study on historical romance
April 15, 2024
Educational and highly entertaining
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews