What do you think?
Rate this book
Dangerous Men and Adventurous Women: Romance Writers on the Appeal of the Romance
In Dangerous Men and Adventurous Women, Jayne Ann Krentz and the contributors to this volume--all best-selling romance writers--explode myths and biases that haunt both the writers and readers of romances.
In this seamless, ultimately fascinating, and controversial book, the authors dispute some of the notions that plague their profession, including the time-worn theory that the romance genre contains only one single, monolithic story, which is cranked out over and over again. The authors discuss positive life-affirming values inherent in all romances: the celebration of female power, courage, intelligence, and gentleness; the inversion of the power structure of a patriarchal society; and the integration of male and female. Several of the essays also discuss the issue of reader identification with the characters, a relationship that is far more complex than most critics realize.
In this seamless, ultimately fascinating, and controversial book, the authors dispute some of the notions that plague their profession, including the time-worn theory that the romance genre contains only one single, monolithic story, which is cranked out over and over again. The authors discuss positive life-affirming values inherent in all romances: the celebration of female power, courage, intelligence, and gentleness; the inversion of the power structure of a patriarchal society; and the integration of male and female. Several of the essays also discuss the issue of reader identification with the characters, a relationship that is far more complex than most critics realize.
200 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 1992
28 people are currently reading
1177 people want to read
About the author
Jayne Ann Krentz
398 books7,178 followersThe author of over 50 consecutive New York Times bestsellers, JAYNE ANN KRENTZ writes romantic-suspense in three different worlds: Contemporary (as Jayne Ann Krentz), historical (as Amanda Quick) and futuristic (as Jayne Castle). There are over 30 million copies of her books in print.
She earned a B.A. in History from the University of California at Santa Cruz and went on to obtain a Masters degree in Library Science from San Jose State University in California. Before she began writing full time she worked as a librarian in both academic and corporate libraries.
She earned a B.A. in History from the University of California at Santa Cruz and went on to obtain a Masters degree in Library Science from San Jose State University in California. Before she began writing full time she worked as a librarian in both academic and corporate libraries.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews
October 27, 2024
Romans od dawna jest najlepiej się sprzedającym gatunkiem literackim, w 2022 był wart 1.44 miliardów dolarów, podobnie było 30 lat temu, czego dowiedziałam się z tejże książki (autorka jednego z felietonów informuje - z przypisem ofc - że romans odpowiada za 30-40% sprzedaży z całego rynku książki w USA, co już wtedy było warte uwagi), a jednak przez lata utarło się, że romans jest głupi, że nawet czytelniczki wciąż często odpowiadają, że czytają głupie romansidło.
Ja romanse czytam, dają mi dużo przyjemności, i chociaż nie są głównym gatunkiem literackim jaki czytam, to trochę są tym najbardziej interesującym z teoretycznego punktu widzenia i stąd lektura niebezpiecznych mężczyzn (xD).
Przede wszystkim: przestarzała jest ta pozycja, miejscami dość mocno i zupełnie nie chodzi o to, że dane się pozmieniały, raczej chodzi o podejście autorek. W wielu kwestiach jest to oczywiste - na książka traktuje li jedynie o romansie heteroseksualnym - w niektórych niekoniecznie.
To co najbardziej rzuciło mi się w oczy to defensywność wielu autorek, ale może po kolei. Dangerous Men and Adventurous Women to książka z krótkimi felietonami napisanymi przez autorki romansów, wydana 1992 - to dawno, jesteśmy prawie równolatkami (łezka) - o tematyce przeróżnej - od kodów zawartych w romansie, poprzez zrozumienie perspektywy narracji, bohatera i bohaterki, dlaczego bohaterki to często dziewice, na krytyce romansu i feminizmie kończąc. I tutaj wchodzi pierwsza kwestia, nad którą często posapywałam z frustracji, ale na ten moment to moje bardzo subiektywne odczucie, bo 1. nie żyłam w tamtych czasach, czy też może żyłam, ale srałam w pieluchy i do czytania romansów było jeszcze daleko, 2. nie czytałam wszystkich krytyk, do których odnoszą się autorki. Otóż - wiele felietonów jest bardzo defensywnych (a to rzadko kiedy wychodzi dobrze) i ma straszny ból dupy jeśli chodzi o feministki krytykujące romans. I nie mówię, że tak nie było, bo z pewnością było, tylko że w wielu kwestiach (jak często zresztą), autorki nie za bardzo wiedzą, czym jest feminizm, bo często płaczą, że no mnie to sprawia radość, a jestem kobietą, więc to feminizm. No nie, Linda, nie jest. Ale żeby nie było to mam na liście czytania o romansie kilka książek z tamtego czasu i z pewnością po nie sięgnę. Widać też, że wszystkie felietonistki pisały romanse bardzo klasyczne, ale już zaczął pojawiać się inny typ romansu, którego z kolei one zupełnie nie akceptowały, bo dobry bohater to tylko ten gwałtowny brutal, którego trzeba okiełznać, a te nowe autorki piszą o dobrych ludziach, no bójta się boga, kto to widział.
Autorki często zauważają, że o romansie mówi się źle, że nie wiadomo dlaczego ludzie się czepiają, że to, o czym piszą jest nierealistyczne, A JAKOŚ NIKT SIĘ NIE CZEPIA AUTORÓW SCI-FI CZY FANTASY. No nie wiem, koleżanki xDDD chyba żadna z was nigdy nie czytała fantasy i nie oberwała w gębę tekstami o niedojrzałych piwniczakach co to czytają bajki i nie znają życia lol. I dlaczego nikt nie krytykuje mężczyzn, którzy czytają brutalną literaturę, gdzie bohaterowie są tratowani przez konie i uczestniczą w bójkach i strzelaninach ( I tutaj z jednej strony fair point bo pulpowa literatura "męska" nie dostaje w połowie takiego gnojenia jak romans, z drugiej - ci bohaterowie nie wchodzą w relacje z tymi tratującymi końmi i wrogami od strzelanin). Pojawiła się jedna, dosłownie jedna autorka, która po prostu stwierdziła, że romans jest krytykowany, bo jest pisany przez kobiety dla kobiet (teraz często też przez queery dla queerów) czyli najprościej, grupę marginalizowaną przez system patriarchalny i serio, to tyle, nie trzeba więcej.
Pojawiło się też sporo o kodzie romansu, że romans odnosi się w wielu kwestiach do mitologii, że bardzo często od razu wiemy, kto będzie TYM JEDYNYM (ten najwyższy xD), że Hades i Persefona, że empowerment bohaterki, że może sama o sobie decydować (ale ta jedna, a nie że ogół kobiet xD), że Westalki (to się pojawiło w rozdziale o dziewictwie), ale zapomina jak mocne są kody chrześcijańskie w romansie, szczególnie tym pisanym przez zachodnie autorki. Serio, o tym nikt się nie zająknął i w wielu momentach to było biegnięcie wprost na konkluzję, żeby na sam koniec zrobić gwałtowny zwrot, że niee, to na pewno mitologie przedchrześcijańskie, lol.
Defensywność objawiała się bardzo często, czasem bardzo słusznie wskazując, że romans przestał być poważany, kiedy zaczęły go pisać kobiety, że często romanse są nazywane literaturą piękną, żeby zmyć z niego "skazę" - np. przy Jane Austen i tutaj też przyznaję się do winy, że mówiłam kiedyś, że no tak, to nie są romanse, tylko powieści satyryczne xDDDD lol ja. Ale już oburzanie się, że romans jest pisany ładnym językiem a literatura piękna to nie bo krótkie zdania i brak przymiotników, to trochę słabe. Tak samo bronienie się, że w romansie to wolno robić tell not show, bo MY KOBIETY TO TAK LUBIMY jest po prostu usprawiedliwianiem kiepskiego pisania (zamierzam przeczytać romanse tej autorki. Tak, złośliwie, ale jak zawsze jestem gotowa przyznać się do błędu). W ogóle w wielu momentach sprowadzano to wszystko do jakichś absurdalnych wojen płci, że romans to piszą kobiety, a tę zimną i niedostępną "poważną literaturę" to chłopy.
Ale żeby nie było, dowiedziałam się wiele ciekawego. Tego, że w romansie to często nie chodzi o bohaterkę, tylko o bohatera (pojęcie androgynicznej czytelniczki, która jednocześnie zdobywa i jest zdobywaną), że emocje romansu bardzo często pochodzi z wyobrażania sobie co czuje bohater (yep, spójrzmy na sukces wszystkich książek typu hero's POV - jak Midnight Sun albo chociażby rozdział 54 ACOMAFu), że romans eksploruje często trudne i wstydliwe fantazje i osadza je w realiach, które są na tyle odległe, że wszyscy doskonale wiemy, że to JEST fantazja, więc dopierdalanie się jest objawem ignorancji (królują tutaj romanse sci-fi, fantasy i romanse historyczne, bo czas i miejsce są tak odległe, że łatwiej jest patrzeć na wszystko z dystansem). To też dało mi do myślenia, dlaczego jestem tak surowa w stosunku do dark romansu w realiach współczesnych (chujowe pisarstwo w każdym przypadku stawiam trochę z boku).
Chyba powiedziałam wszystko co miałam, generalnie nie polecam, bo miejscami trochę jest nudno i trochę jojczenia jest, ale w sumie dało mi to dobry pogląd na to jak wyglądał światek romansu pod koniec ubiegłego wieku, pozwoliło zrozumieć wiele mechanizmów rządzących tym gatunkiem i też widzę, że niektóre tendencje, które widzimy teraz, zaczęły się już wtedy. Kolejne książki o romansie przede mną, obiecuję pisać recenzje, chociaż nie wiem, czy kogoś to obchodzi (crying for attention) i nie umiem jakoś ładnie podsumowywać własnych wysrywów, ale to moje recenzje, więc będę z nimi robić co chcę.
I na koniec: Czytajcie romanse, są super!
Ja romanse czytam, dają mi dużo przyjemności, i chociaż nie są głównym gatunkiem literackim jaki czytam, to trochę są tym najbardziej interesującym z teoretycznego punktu widzenia i stąd lektura niebezpiecznych mężczyzn (xD).
Przede wszystkim: przestarzała jest ta pozycja, miejscami dość mocno i zupełnie nie chodzi o to, że dane się pozmieniały, raczej chodzi o podejście autorek. W wielu kwestiach jest to oczywiste - na książka traktuje li jedynie o romansie heteroseksualnym - w niektórych niekoniecznie.
To co najbardziej rzuciło mi się w oczy to defensywność wielu autorek, ale może po kolei. Dangerous Men and Adventurous Women to książka z krótkimi felietonami napisanymi przez autorki romansów, wydana 1992 - to dawno, jesteśmy prawie równolatkami (łezka) - o tematyce przeróżnej - od kodów zawartych w romansie, poprzez zrozumienie perspektywy narracji, bohatera i bohaterki, dlaczego bohaterki to często dziewice, na krytyce romansu i feminizmie kończąc. I tutaj wchodzi pierwsza kwestia, nad którą często posapywałam z frustracji, ale na ten moment to moje bardzo subiektywne odczucie, bo 1. nie żyłam w tamtych czasach, czy też może żyłam, ale srałam w pieluchy i do czytania romansów było jeszcze daleko, 2. nie czytałam wszystkich krytyk, do których odnoszą się autorki. Otóż - wiele felietonów jest bardzo defensywnych (a to rzadko kiedy wychodzi dobrze) i ma straszny ból dupy jeśli chodzi o feministki krytykujące romans. I nie mówię, że tak nie było, bo z pewnością było, tylko że w wielu kwestiach (jak często zresztą), autorki nie za bardzo wiedzą, czym jest feminizm, bo często płaczą, że no mnie to sprawia radość, a jestem kobietą, więc to feminizm. No nie, Linda, nie jest. Ale żeby nie było to mam na liście czytania o romansie kilka książek z tamtego czasu i z pewnością po nie sięgnę. Widać też, że wszystkie felietonistki pisały romanse bardzo klasyczne, ale już zaczął pojawiać się inny typ romansu, którego z kolei one zupełnie nie akceptowały, bo dobry bohater to tylko ten gwałtowny brutal, którego trzeba okiełznać, a te nowe autorki piszą o dobrych ludziach, no bójta się boga, kto to widział.
Autorki często zauważają, że o romansie mówi się źle, że nie wiadomo dlaczego ludzie się czepiają, że to, o czym piszą jest nierealistyczne, A JAKOŚ NIKT SIĘ NIE CZEPIA AUTORÓW SCI-FI CZY FANTASY. No nie wiem, koleżanki xDDD chyba żadna z was nigdy nie czytała fantasy i nie oberwała w gębę tekstami o niedojrzałych piwniczakach co to czytają bajki i nie znają życia lol. I dlaczego nikt nie krytykuje mężczyzn, którzy czytają brutalną literaturę, gdzie bohaterowie są tratowani przez konie i uczestniczą w bójkach i strzelaninach ( I tutaj z jednej strony fair point bo pulpowa literatura "męska" nie dostaje w połowie takiego gnojenia jak romans, z drugiej - ci bohaterowie nie wchodzą w relacje z tymi tratującymi końmi i wrogami od strzelanin). Pojawiła się jedna, dosłownie jedna autorka, która po prostu stwierdziła, że romans jest krytykowany, bo jest pisany przez kobiety dla kobiet (teraz często też przez queery dla queerów) czyli najprościej, grupę marginalizowaną przez system patriarchalny i serio, to tyle, nie trzeba więcej.
Pojawiło się też sporo o kodzie romansu, że romans odnosi się w wielu kwestiach do mitologii, że bardzo często od razu wiemy, kto będzie TYM JEDYNYM (ten najwyższy xD), że Hades i Persefona, że empowerment bohaterki, że może sama o sobie decydować (ale ta jedna, a nie że ogół kobiet xD), że Westalki (to się pojawiło w rozdziale o dziewictwie), ale zapomina jak mocne są kody chrześcijańskie w romansie, szczególnie tym pisanym przez zachodnie autorki. Serio, o tym nikt się nie zająknął i w wielu momentach to było biegnięcie wprost na konkluzję, żeby na sam koniec zrobić gwałtowny zwrot, że niee, to na pewno mitologie przedchrześcijańskie, lol.
Defensywność objawiała się bardzo często, czasem bardzo słusznie wskazując, że romans przestał być poważany, kiedy zaczęły go pisać kobiety, że często romanse są nazywane literaturą piękną, żeby zmyć z niego "skazę" - np. przy Jane Austen i tutaj też przyznaję się do winy, że mówiłam kiedyś, że no tak, to nie są romanse, tylko powieści satyryczne xDDDD lol ja. Ale już oburzanie się, że romans jest pisany ładnym językiem a literatura piękna to nie bo krótkie zdania i brak przymiotników, to trochę słabe. Tak samo bronienie się, że w romansie to wolno robić tell not show, bo MY KOBIETY TO TAK LUBIMY jest po prostu usprawiedliwianiem kiepskiego pisania (zamierzam przeczytać romanse tej autorki. Tak, złośliwie, ale jak zawsze jestem gotowa przyznać się do błędu). W ogóle w wielu momentach sprowadzano to wszystko do jakichś absurdalnych wojen płci, że romans to piszą kobiety, a tę zimną i niedostępną "poważną literaturę" to chłopy.
Ale żeby nie było, dowiedziałam się wiele ciekawego. Tego, że w romansie to często nie chodzi o bohaterkę, tylko o bohatera (pojęcie androgynicznej czytelniczki, która jednocześnie zdobywa i jest zdobywaną), że emocje romansu bardzo często pochodzi z wyobrażania sobie co czuje bohater (yep, spójrzmy na sukces wszystkich książek typu hero's POV - jak Midnight Sun albo chociażby rozdział 54 ACOMAFu), że romans eksploruje często trudne i wstydliwe fantazje i osadza je w realiach, które są na tyle odległe, że wszyscy doskonale wiemy, że to JEST fantazja, więc dopierdalanie się jest objawem ignorancji (królują tutaj romanse sci-fi, fantasy i romanse historyczne, bo czas i miejsce są tak odległe, że łatwiej jest patrzeć na wszystko z dystansem). To też dało mi do myślenia, dlaczego jestem tak surowa w stosunku do dark romansu w realiach współczesnych (chujowe pisarstwo w każdym przypadku stawiam trochę z boku).
Chyba powiedziałam wszystko co miałam, generalnie nie polecam, bo miejscami trochę jest nudno i trochę jojczenia jest, ale w sumie dało mi to dobry pogląd na to jak wyglądał światek romansu pod koniec ubiegłego wieku, pozwoliło zrozumieć wiele mechanizmów rządzących tym gatunkiem i też widzę, że niektóre tendencje, które widzimy teraz, zaczęły się już wtedy. Kolejne książki o romansie przede mną, obiecuję pisać recenzje, chociaż nie wiem, czy kogoś to obchodzi (crying for attention) i nie umiem jakoś ładnie podsumowywać własnych wysrywów, ale to moje recenzje, więc będę z nimi robić co chcę.
I na koniec: Czytajcie romanse, są super!
August 12, 2009
Why do "trashy" romance novels make up forty percent of mass market paperback sales each year? Are they simply an opiate or escapist strategy for millions of women? Many critics have dismissed them as such, but a closer reading reveals far more.
The romance novel is primarily written by women, for women. In contrast to the man's world that we currently live in, this is a woman's world, containing the values and relationships that our society often lacks. There is true love and happy endings in these novels-- why shouldn't there be? Perhaps the problem is not with the romance genre, but the world that we live in.
One of the more controversial aspects of these novels is the depiction of both men and women. The male lead is usually tall, dark, handsome, aggressive, exciting, dangerous, and erotic. The heroine struggles with him at first, but she has a powerful allure about her that he finds irresistible. She shows him how to love without emasculating him, thereby "taming the wild stallion." The love between them heals them and enhances their lives together. This fantasy has a powerful appeal to many women.
How does the fantasy relate to reality? Should romance writers have to answer this question any more than authors of mystery or crime novels? We should not forget that the primary function of popular novels is to entertain. The male equivalent to romance novels is watching sports. Human drama, comradery, emotional highs, escapism, heartbreak, and happy endings are just a part of sports as the novels that critics mock. There is something amazing about watching larger-than-life humans act out a drama scripted according to certain rules (athletic or literary), where outcomes are predictable but the details are never the same.
There is a lot that men and women can learn from each other. We may not chose to read dozens of romance novels or watch the playoffs, but we can learn to understand and appreciate why others do. This book is a good start for those who are curious.
The romance novel is primarily written by women, for women. In contrast to the man's world that we currently live in, this is a woman's world, containing the values and relationships that our society often lacks. There is true love and happy endings in these novels-- why shouldn't there be? Perhaps the problem is not with the romance genre, but the world that we live in.
One of the more controversial aspects of these novels is the depiction of both men and women. The male lead is usually tall, dark, handsome, aggressive, exciting, dangerous, and erotic. The heroine struggles with him at first, but she has a powerful allure about her that he finds irresistible. She shows him how to love without emasculating him, thereby "taming the wild stallion." The love between them heals them and enhances their lives together. This fantasy has a powerful appeal to many women.
How does the fantasy relate to reality? Should romance writers have to answer this question any more than authors of mystery or crime novels? We should not forget that the primary function of popular novels is to entertain. The male equivalent to romance novels is watching sports. Human drama, comradery, emotional highs, escapism, heartbreak, and happy endings are just a part of sports as the novels that critics mock. There is something amazing about watching larger-than-life humans act out a drama scripted according to certain rules (athletic or literary), where outcomes are predictable but the details are never the same.
There is a lot that men and women can learn from each other. We may not chose to read dozens of romance novels or watch the playoffs, but we can learn to understand and appreciate why others do. This book is a good start for those who are curious.
March 6, 2011
This landmark 1992 book, edited by Krentz, is for all those people wishing to understand why women read romance. There are several good discussions here and one can learn (or reminisce) about the advancement of this genre of past authoresses through analyses and debates of various essayists. However, IMHO, the best line in the book comes from Daphne Clair in her submission of ‘Sweet Subversions’.
That last line was so good I had to e-mailed it to my sister-in-law when I informed her that romances, with its ever expanding sub-genres, comprise 55% of the current paperback market. I don’t favor rape scenes in my romance books, I think because I identify too much with the heroines, and I have no desire to re-read Sweet Savage Love. However, there are notable exceptions where the author is so talented she can pull it off (as I mentioned in in my review of The English Heiress by Roberta Gellis). But, alas, now fortified with Ms. Clair’s words, I no longer have to feel guilty for having thatawfully embarrassing wonderful ‘bodice-ripper’ The Flame and the Flower on my ‘all-time-favorites’ bookshelf. What an enormous relief! :-)
Half a century later, in the very teeth of women’s liberation, Kathleen Woodiwiss’s The Flame and the Flower and Rosemary Rogers’s Sweet Savage Love generated a flood of immensely successful rape-romances that enraged feminists, created guilt in many avid readers, and were cited as perpetuating the notion that women really do like being forced. (We might assume then that men, major consumers of thrillers, westerns, and detective fiction, enjoy being beaten up, tortured, shot, stabbed dragged by galloping horses, and thrown out of moving vehicles.)
That last line was so good I had to e-mailed it to my sister-in-law when I informed her that romances, with its ever expanding sub-genres, comprise 55% of the current paperback market. I don’t favor rape scenes in my romance books, I think because I identify too much with the heroines, and I have no desire to re-read Sweet Savage Love. However, there are notable exceptions where the author is so talented she can pull it off (as I mentioned in in my review of The English Heiress by Roberta Gellis). But, alas, now fortified with Ms. Clair’s words, I no longer have to feel guilty for having that
April 9, 2023
Definitely dated, and there are arguments in many of the essays that I don’t agree with even if they AREN’T dated, but there’s also plenty that are at least thought-provoking whether they convinced me or not. I’d say it’s worth a read for anyone wanting to explore romance more critically (bearing in mind that it was published in 1992)
August 17, 2019
Is the romance writer guilty of distorting reality? Of offering women a false view of their own power in the world? Guilty as charged, and thank God. Creating a fantasy world is one of the primary functions of all popular fiction. The mystery novel gives us a world of perfect justice, the western a world with no moral ambiguities. And the romance novels gives us two empowered and integrated human beings.” - Susan Elizabeth Phillips, "The Romance and the Empowerment of Women"
Dangerous Men and Adventurous Women is a splendid collection of essays by romance authors about the popularity of romance novels. It is not a defense of the romance novel, but a complex exploration of its enduring appeal. Published in 1992 by the University of Pennsylvania Press, it is an accessible and academic exploration that is very much of a product of its times.
For example, Krentz's essay, "Trying to Tame the Romance" - absolutely fascinating- on the "PC" romance and the pressure of young editors fresh from east coast colleges that wanted to clean up romance in their contempt of it, is amusing. While using the word "PC" does a disserve to both bodice rippers and vanilla regencies, it is amusing when you compare it to Dangerous Books for Girls by Maya Rodale, a book that is a clear call back to Krentz's edited collection. Published in 2015, Rodale tries hard to sweep bodice rippers under the rug, instead pointing towards the popularity of vanilla romances to indicate changing reader appetites... But anyhoo.
Romance is triggering for men and women. The idea that women have sexual fantasies that include aggressive seduction by dangerous, brutish men is triggering. People freak out - What does it *say* about women that we read about heroes that are rapists? That the story always ends in a happily ever after that means marriage and babies? Is that what we truly want deep down? (Short answer: no).
When you compare the romance genre to the mystery genre, it's really no different from the passive hardboiled detective seduced against his will by a femme fatale. The difference is that the woman is the centre of the universe, and we are not comfortable acknowledging the reality that women who want to read about sex and about love can separate their fantasy life from their real life.
Romance is a fantasy, and romance readers all know this. I don’t know if I would agree that reading a romance is, ultimately, a revolutionary act of feminism, but I am definitely convinced from reading the essays in this collection that reading romance has no bearing whatsoever on a woman’s intellect, social status or marital status.
None whatsoever.
It may be as useless an indicator in predicting a reader’s lifestyle, as it can be for any genre - western, science fiction etc.
Yet we are scared of what it means for an independent woman to choose to read a romance - we fault her for having a fantasy, and we take that fantasy as an indictment of herself as a person.
Jayne Ann Krantz does an excellent job of explaining how to read a romance, and decoding what romance readers get out of it. I absolutely loved the essay, “Beneath the Surface”, co-written by Linda Barlow and Krentz, that discusses the language of romance to create “a vision of an alternative world and to give mythical dimension to its landscape and characters.” For example, the hero and heroines are described in rich and lush detail - cliches that form codes both authors and readers understand in connection to myths and archetypes (the devil, Hades and Persephone). Very compelling and astute.
In terms of understanding the brutish hero, there are several understandings of the hero that reflect on the reader and who the reader is identifying with. Laura Kinsale argues in "The Androgynous Reader" that the reader does not automatically identify with the heroine. In fact, the reader wants to know what the hero is thinking. The heroine is oftentimes a placeholder - we go along the ride with her but we will accept or reject her actions, “asking the character to live up to [our] standards, not vice versa.” Not only that but the hero carries the book.
Why?
Because the reader identifies with both the heroine and the hero. Like Barlow in "The Androgynous Writer", Phillips too argues that the hero and heroine symbolize the integration of the self, of feminine and masculine elements: “[The reader] is experiencing herself as hero, and as heroine, completely within her own personality.”
We may never permit those tough guys in our real lives but they are central to the empowerment fantasy. And beyond the male a symbol of the fractured self, this tension we must reconcile about the domineering hero can also be explained, as Elizabeth Lowell writes in "Love Conquers All" about what readers want from their romances: "Romance readers, like mystery readers, take their intensity from the journey itself rather than from uncertainty as to the ultimate outcome... they want love to be tested to the limits of its power to heal and transcend. They want the power of creation to battle with the power of destruction. And then they want to soar in triumph, their belief in love's constructive power." Therefore, a hero must be a little outrageous and definitely not IRL material to create the necessary emotion in the story.
And even if you take out all the theory, I simply enjoyed reading about romance authors - also fans of the genre- talk about their reading habits. Kathleen Gilles Seidel in "Judge Me by the Joy I Bring" simply discusses the settings of romances and how she is "surprisingly rigid about what settings [she] choose[s] to read about" , which is so spot on and true.
There were only 2 essays that were fluffy and didn't add much to the conversation. Overall, Krentz does a great job of setting out what she intended to do here. Although the romance community is so complex and niche, this collection hosts a broad range of perspectives to chat knowledgeably, comfortably and relatably about the genre we all love to hate!
Dangerous Men and Adventurous Women is a splendid collection of essays by romance authors about the popularity of romance novels. It is not a defense of the romance novel, but a complex exploration of its enduring appeal. Published in 1992 by the University of Pennsylvania Press, it is an accessible and academic exploration that is very much of a product of its times.
For example, Krentz's essay, "Trying to Tame the Romance" - absolutely fascinating- on the "PC" romance and the pressure of young editors fresh from east coast colleges that wanted to clean up romance in their contempt of it, is amusing. While using the word "PC" does a disserve to both bodice rippers and vanilla regencies, it is amusing when you compare it to Dangerous Books for Girls by Maya Rodale, a book that is a clear call back to Krentz's edited collection. Published in 2015, Rodale tries hard to sweep bodice rippers under the rug, instead pointing towards the popularity of vanilla romances to indicate changing reader appetites... But anyhoo.
Romance is triggering for men and women. The idea that women have sexual fantasies that include aggressive seduction by dangerous, brutish men is triggering. People freak out - What does it *say* about women that we read about heroes that are rapists? That the story always ends in a happily ever after that means marriage and babies? Is that what we truly want deep down? (Short answer: no).
When you compare the romance genre to the mystery genre, it's really no different from the passive hardboiled detective seduced against his will by a femme fatale. The difference is that the woman is the centre of the universe, and we are not comfortable acknowledging the reality that women who want to read about sex and about love can separate their fantasy life from their real life.
Romance is a fantasy, and romance readers all know this. I don’t know if I would agree that reading a romance is, ultimately, a revolutionary act of feminism, but I am definitely convinced from reading the essays in this collection that reading romance has no bearing whatsoever on a woman’s intellect, social status or marital status.
None whatsoever.
It may be as useless an indicator in predicting a reader’s lifestyle, as it can be for any genre - western, science fiction etc.
Yet we are scared of what it means for an independent woman to choose to read a romance - we fault her for having a fantasy, and we take that fantasy as an indictment of herself as a person.
Jayne Ann Krantz does an excellent job of explaining how to read a romance, and decoding what romance readers get out of it. I absolutely loved the essay, “Beneath the Surface”, co-written by Linda Barlow and Krentz, that discusses the language of romance to create “a vision of an alternative world and to give mythical dimension to its landscape and characters.” For example, the hero and heroines are described in rich and lush detail - cliches that form codes both authors and readers understand in connection to myths and archetypes (the devil, Hades and Persephone). Very compelling and astute.
In terms of understanding the brutish hero, there are several understandings of the hero that reflect on the reader and who the reader is identifying with. Laura Kinsale argues in "The Androgynous Reader" that the reader does not automatically identify with the heroine. In fact, the reader wants to know what the hero is thinking. The heroine is oftentimes a placeholder - we go along the ride with her but we will accept or reject her actions, “asking the character to live up to [our] standards, not vice versa.” Not only that but the hero carries the book.
Why?
Because the reader identifies with both the heroine and the hero. Like Barlow in "The Androgynous Writer", Phillips too argues that the hero and heroine symbolize the integration of the self, of feminine and masculine elements: “[The reader] is experiencing herself as hero, and as heroine, completely within her own personality.”
We may never permit those tough guys in our real lives but they are central to the empowerment fantasy. And beyond the male a symbol of the fractured self, this tension we must reconcile about the domineering hero can also be explained, as Elizabeth Lowell writes in "Love Conquers All" about what readers want from their romances: "Romance readers, like mystery readers, take their intensity from the journey itself rather than from uncertainty as to the ultimate outcome... they want love to be tested to the limits of its power to heal and transcend. They want the power of creation to battle with the power of destruction. And then they want to soar in triumph, their belief in love's constructive power." Therefore, a hero must be a little outrageous and definitely not IRL material to create the necessary emotion in the story.
And even if you take out all the theory, I simply enjoyed reading about romance authors - also fans of the genre- talk about their reading habits. Kathleen Gilles Seidel in "Judge Me by the Joy I Bring" simply discusses the settings of romances and how she is "surprisingly rigid about what settings [she] choose[s] to read about" , which is so spot on and true.
There were only 2 essays that were fluffy and didn't add much to the conversation. Overall, Krentz does a great job of setting out what she intended to do here. Although the romance community is so complex and niche, this collection hosts a broad range of perspectives to chat knowledgeably, comfortably and relatably about the genre we all love to hate!
March 2, 2014
This collection of essays is a little dated but illuminating. The most telling thing for me is how the romance authors love their craft and their readers, in spite of enormous pressures to "write real books".
Sadder still is all the scorn these women endure from those who feel entitled to tell them the correct way to be, especially when it comes from so-called feminists who seem to want to exchange patriarchal norms for their own, no doubt, more enlightened feminist creeds.
Sadder still is all the scorn these women endure from those who feel entitled to tell them the correct way to be, especially when it comes from so-called feminists who seem to want to exchange patriarchal norms for their own, no doubt, more enlightened feminist creeds.
August 7, 2021
I knew going in that this book wouldn't be diverse (all the contributors are white ladies as far as I can tell), but the heteronormativity and gender essentialism threw me for a spin. Several essays at the beginning and end are what I was looking for - literary analysis of why the romance genre appeals - and others are fluff or simply did not age well.
Valuable in my quest to understand the Old Skool romance, but an uneven collection overall.
Valuable in my quest to understand the Old Skool romance, but an uneven collection overall.
May 9, 2008
An excellent book for those who have either authored or are writing romantic suspense novels. Excellent tips!
October 9, 2017
I'd love to read an updated and/or expanded edition--the romance genre has changed a lot in the last 25 years.
January 15, 2020
This was a fascinating book all about why we read romances and what others say about romances. Dangerous Men and Adventurous women is a collection of essays written by romance authors all about romances and their appeal.
I tell you after reading the book I am convinced we women who read romances are the adventurers, the ones who will take risks, we are intelligent and amazing. And it made me realize that we are a strong group of women we read romances no matter how people deride us or slander us we read romances and continue to believe in love. We are a strong, amazing bunch of women.
I tell you after reading the book I am convinced we women who read romances are the adventurers, the ones who will take risks, we are intelligent and amazing. And it made me realize that we are a strong group of women we read romances no matter how people deride us or slander us we read romances and continue to believe in love. We are a strong, amazing bunch of women.
February 11, 2010
This is a collection of short discussions from romance authors about why their stories are popular. Most of them use their own books and feelings as reference, so if you like the authors listed you may enjoy it. If you're looking for a more scholarly examination of the appeal and themes of romance, don't bother as this isn't very rigorous. At some points I was even a bit embarrassed by the weakness or illogic of certain claims.
June 9, 2024
Devo raccogliere le idee e poi ci scrivo qualcosa su 🔥
July 30, 2017
This book is the example of authors seeking to legitimize their work and in the process making it more deeply but also more openly problematic. My own familiarity with genre fiction, including romance fiction, is fairly well known and probably somewhat amusing to many people [1]. This book takes square aim at those who believe that there is nothing substantial or notable about romance fiction despite its popularity, and in proving that there is, it merely proves that there is something deeply dark and unpleasant in women's fiction. I'm not sure that was the intent that was in mind--this book is written in short chapters and sort of assumes that it is written to fellow women who are either already in on the matter or would do well to be, and few men are likely to be reading this book or giving it the sort of critical reading that I have. Those men who do read this book are likely not to find it to be all that enjoyable as a read, as this book is pretty openly and relentlessly written from a female perspective in ways that are contradictory and generally repellent.
About twenty essays fill this book of less than two-hundred pages, and given the amount of biographical information included about each essayist, one can imagine that these essays are fairly small and for the most part relatively undemanding on readers. That is not to say that the essays are not revealing, though, as they discuss issues from the androgyny of the reader, who is asked to identify with both the male and female character of the romance plot, the mythic importance of the romance novel that takes advantage of the sacred feminine and common dualistic views of nature that go back to heathen religions, and the subversion of masculine power by showing female sexuality to be a greater power. Even the common trope of virginity is used to look at the power of female agency in choosing a worthy male lover. I cannot promise that a reader will like this book--I found much to dislike--but there is no question that the writers of these essays take romance literature very seriously and are intent on showing its involvement with the sacred feminine and with the larger body of mythic and religious writing.
Ultimately, it was the attempt of many of these authors to crown their romance writing with glory by appealing to heathen religious thought and practices that ultimately bothered me the most about this book. Romance in general is a genre where women triumph over men by showing them that developing intimacy is ultimately better than the dark visions that many men (and women) are drawn to as a result of life in a fallen world. Yet I am extremely hostile to the praise of vestal virgins and heathen myths that populate the master plots of the romance genre. Many of these writers have read too much in the way of Joseph Campbell and others of his ilk and do not understand that a massive part of romance literature deals with Christian romance and includes readers (and likely authors) who are quite hostile to the viewpoint expressed here. The fact that the writers rather openly consider their writing to be palliative and escapist and have no particular desire to make the world less intolerable for those people who would be drawn to escapist literature is somewhat disappointing as well. This is not a bad book--to be sure, it is a worthwhile book one should read to get a feel for the deeper roots and worldview of romance literature, but that does not mean that this book wins over its readers in the way its authors might have wished.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2013...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2014...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
August 8, 2012
This book, edited by Jayne Ann Krentz, was a fascinating gathering of opinions and essays by twenty well-known romance authors. Although the book is a little on the old side (originally published in 1992), many of the themes are still true today. Themes such as fantasy, fun, and strong women (heroines) finding their equally strong mates (heros).
When I first moved to Connecticut, my employment prospects were not as great as I had hoped, and I found myself with more time on my hands than I had ever had before. Even applying to jobs all day, I still needed to find something that relaxed me at the end of the day, or at least took the edge off the constant worry I had about finding a job. I remember going to the library, which was only a few blocks walk, and I wandered around the stacks trying to find a book that would peak my interest. I chose a few mysteries and a few general fiction books, but nothing did the trick. I remembered that my mother had a Nora Roberts book by the back door the last time that I was home. She’s an avid reader, so I thought I’d give this author a go and see if I liked her. It was quite literally as if the world opened up to me. I found that I couldn’t put the book down–I had to know what happened next. I had to know how the book ended. I was compelled to see if the hero figured out how much he loved the heroine.
Sometimes it’s tough for me to use words like “hero” and “heroine,” especially in contemporary romance contexts, which is where most of my reading hours are spent. These characters seem so normal and every day in many ways that often “hero” sounds more archaic than contemporary. Yet that is what they are and the changes that happen to both characters over the course of the story make that title true.
I know many people believe that romances are “trashy” or go against the feminist agenda. I heartily disagree with both points, and this book does, too. Romances have strong women (only a strong heroine could love a strong hero) doing amazing things. Unlike other genres, women in romance do, rather than are. They may be beautiful, but that’s secondary to their inner strength, character, and tenacity. Beyond all these points, is that romance is written for women, by women, about women doing amazing things. It’s fantasy, that’s for sure, but why would a book about a win-win situation be a bad thing to read? The hero learns by the end of the book that he loves the heroine and can be loved in return, without losing any of the aggressive traits he demonstrated at the beginning of the book.
If you are looking for a book to help you understand why readers flock to Romance and why it’s an important genre, I strongly urge you to give this book a read. Yes, some of the content is a little dated, but the general themes are still quite true today.
When I first moved to Connecticut, my employment prospects were not as great as I had hoped, and I found myself with more time on my hands than I had ever had before. Even applying to jobs all day, I still needed to find something that relaxed me at the end of the day, or at least took the edge off the constant worry I had about finding a job. I remember going to the library, which was only a few blocks walk, and I wandered around the stacks trying to find a book that would peak my interest. I chose a few mysteries and a few general fiction books, but nothing did the trick. I remembered that my mother had a Nora Roberts book by the back door the last time that I was home. She’s an avid reader, so I thought I’d give this author a go and see if I liked her. It was quite literally as if the world opened up to me. I found that I couldn’t put the book down–I had to know what happened next. I had to know how the book ended. I was compelled to see if the hero figured out how much he loved the heroine.
Sometimes it’s tough for me to use words like “hero” and “heroine,” especially in contemporary romance contexts, which is where most of my reading hours are spent. These characters seem so normal and every day in many ways that often “hero” sounds more archaic than contemporary. Yet that is what they are and the changes that happen to both characters over the course of the story make that title true.
I know many people believe that romances are “trashy” or go against the feminist agenda. I heartily disagree with both points, and this book does, too. Romances have strong women (only a strong heroine could love a strong hero) doing amazing things. Unlike other genres, women in romance do, rather than are. They may be beautiful, but that’s secondary to their inner strength, character, and tenacity. Beyond all these points, is that romance is written for women, by women, about women doing amazing things. It’s fantasy, that’s for sure, but why would a book about a win-win situation be a bad thing to read? The hero learns by the end of the book that he loves the heroine and can be loved in return, without losing any of the aggressive traits he demonstrated at the beginning of the book.
If you are looking for a book to help you understand why readers flock to Romance and why it’s an important genre, I strongly urge you to give this book a read. Yes, some of the content is a little dated, but the general themes are still quite true today.
January 23, 2018
There is something wonderful about hearing all the writers speak about their genre proudly and fearlessly. Loved this collection .
May 10, 2025
Maggie Shayne recommended this book to me before Twitter became the bad place, and I bought it immediately and then put off reading it until I was watching TikToks and saw chels_ebooks quote Anne Stuart's essay from this very collection and basically fell in love.
DANGEROUS MEN AND ADVENTUROUS WOMEN is a very dated collection of essays. It's from the early 90s, and as other readers have pointed out, it's both heteronormative and white. And yet, despite all of that, it's very interesting how many of the gripes that plague Romancelandia as hot takes now were still as hotly debated twenty-plus years ago: romance makes big money but isn't taken seriously, people don't realize that the rape elements of bodice-rippers and romances with forced seductions are a form of CNC because the act of reading is itself consensual, and perhaps most infuriatingly, outsiders to the genre refuse to understand the genre conventions or what makes the books appealing. I also thought it was interesting how many of these authors claimed that the heroines really didn't matter as much as the hero, because based on many criticisms I've seen of contemporary romances now, that seems to be true. Readers are far more likely to write off the heroine as irrelevant; it's the hero's actions that drive an MF romance.
Anne Stuart's essay was an easy five stars. It made me realize that I would happily read an entire collection of essays from that woman herself. She, more than any contemporary author I've read, understands the appeal of the villain and what drives women to want to tame the seductive menace of a man who really doesn't mean them any good. Some of the essays I liked less, although I found it interesting how important virginity is to these authors (and their readers). One of the authors said that when she started writing non-virgin heroines, one of her readers actually took the time to write into her and complain. I also found it interesting how against "the feminists" some of these authors were, because it mirrors the hostility that so many dark and spicy romance authors and readers have now towards "the purists," who are busily shaming people for reading and enjoying spice as if it were some sort of moral deficit. According to some of these authors, feminists are doing the same. I guess it just goes to show about how "tHeY'rE rUiNiNg ThE gEnRe" is always going to be the rallying cry whenever there's change, and how sexism itself is far more insidious and long-lasting than most people would probably be willing to admit.
P.S. Anne Stuart, please write a collection of essays about romance. I would buy the shit out of it.
3.5 stars
DANGEROUS MEN AND ADVENTUROUS WOMEN is a very dated collection of essays. It's from the early 90s, and as other readers have pointed out, it's both heteronormative and white. And yet, despite all of that, it's very interesting how many of the gripes that plague Romancelandia as hot takes now were still as hotly debated twenty-plus years ago: romance makes big money but isn't taken seriously, people don't realize that the rape elements of bodice-rippers and romances with forced seductions are a form of CNC because the act of reading is itself consensual, and perhaps most infuriatingly, outsiders to the genre refuse to understand the genre conventions or what makes the books appealing. I also thought it was interesting how many of these authors claimed that the heroines really didn't matter as much as the hero, because based on many criticisms I've seen of contemporary romances now, that seems to be true. Readers are far more likely to write off the heroine as irrelevant; it's the hero's actions that drive an MF romance.
Anne Stuart's essay was an easy five stars. It made me realize that I would happily read an entire collection of essays from that woman herself. She, more than any contemporary author I've read, understands the appeal of the villain and what drives women to want to tame the seductive menace of a man who really doesn't mean them any good. Some of the essays I liked less, although I found it interesting how important virginity is to these authors (and their readers). One of the authors said that when she started writing non-virgin heroines, one of her readers actually took the time to write into her and complain. I also found it interesting how against "the feminists" some of these authors were, because it mirrors the hostility that so many dark and spicy romance authors and readers have now towards "the purists," who are busily shaming people for reading and enjoying spice as if it were some sort of moral deficit. According to some of these authors, feminists are doing the same. I guess it just goes to show about how "tHeY'rE rUiNiNg ThE gEnRe" is always going to be the rallying cry whenever there's change, and how sexism itself is far more insidious and long-lasting than most people would probably be willing to admit.
P.S. Anne Stuart, please write a collection of essays about romance. I would buy the shit out of it.
3.5 stars
May 4, 2020
3.5 stars
A dated but still interesting collection of essays. Some are, unsurprisingly, better than others. Laura Kinsale’s essay about the reader identifying solely with the hero is a highlight. I don’t agree with her but it’s a well-written and compelling essay that I’ve seen cited elsewhere. Some of the other essays that focused on the role of the hero were redundant. I will say I generally found the reasoning of why readers enjoy romance novels to be dated. The virgin heroine is a thing of the past and not all of the heroes are super alpha these days.
Most relevant are Sandra Brown’s and Kathleen Gilles Seidel’s essays. Brown argues that women love romance novels because they’re fun. Her essay is brief but hard to disagree with. Seidel argues at more length that the reason women are drawn to romance novels, and more broadly why people are drawn to genre fiction, is for the fantasy. So while some of the essays in this collection are super dated or just not necessary there are other in the collection that are well worth a read.
A dated but still interesting collection of essays. Some are, unsurprisingly, better than others. Laura Kinsale’s essay about the reader identifying solely with the hero is a highlight. I don’t agree with her but it’s a well-written and compelling essay that I’ve seen cited elsewhere. Some of the other essays that focused on the role of the hero were redundant. I will say I generally found the reasoning of why readers enjoy romance novels to be dated. The virgin heroine is a thing of the past and not all of the heroes are super alpha these days.
Most relevant are Sandra Brown’s and Kathleen Gilles Seidel’s essays. Brown argues that women love romance novels because they’re fun. Her essay is brief but hard to disagree with. Seidel argues at more length that the reason women are drawn to romance novels, and more broadly why people are drawn to genre fiction, is for the fantasy. So while some of the essays in this collection are super dated or just not necessary there are other in the collection that are well worth a read.
July 10, 2020
There were things to take from this book in terms of tropes, writing compelling romances, and connecting to the readers. But hoo boy was it dated and...heteronormative was the warning I was given, but that doesn't even seem to cover it. I disagreed with the essays about what makes a compelling love interest, why readers care about romances, etc., on a lot of points but to be fair, I write fantasy with side romances in them more than genre romance. The constant laments about how feminists just didn't understand genre romance and how genre romance is so openly mocked got old, though. And this is coming from someone who has plenty of respect for genre romance.
I'll agree with the main thesis of the book - genre romance is meant to be a fantasy in the same way adventures and mysteries are. It's not meant to be a depiction of the kind of romance that the reader WANTS, and that misconception is how you get into so much of the "how dare you like this character they're so problematic" discourse around romances.
I'll agree with the main thesis of the book - genre romance is meant to be a fantasy in the same way adventures and mysteries are. It's not meant to be a depiction of the kind of romance that the reader WANTS, and that misconception is how you get into so much of the "how dare you like this character they're so problematic" discourse around romances.
September 19, 2024
5 stars because I genuinely enjoyed reading every essay in this book. They were all so human, interesting, digestible, and stimulating in various ways. Diana Palmers essay made me emotional at times. The final essay by Kathleen Gilles Seidel was the perfect ending. I enjoy seeing a collection of very accomplished romance writers directly engaging with the criticism of the genre. It demonstrates the intelligence and wit so many romance writers have, which is exactly what early critics of the genre were adamantly convinced against. The collection of essays also demonstrates the relationship that existed/exists between so many classic category and single-title romance writers of the 80s and 90s and their readers. There is a genuine consideration of the reader by the author, something that is often void in impersonal (arguably judgmental) early criticisms of the genre and its readers/writers. If you can’t tell I am someone who is very pro romance novels
August 29, 2021
Many of the arguments made here I am in full accord with. There was recently a discussion on author Julie Anne Long's Facebook page about the heroization of men and the need to portray a realistic and vulnerable side, and this book seems to echo that. But then it champions Clayton Westmoreland, the alpha of "Whitney, My Love", and yes, he adores Whitney...but he also rapes her and treats her abominably every time he gets a temper or misinterprets a situation. It saddened me that he's the paragon so often referred to. Why aren't we heaping praise on more forward-thinking gentlemen? I really thought we evolved beyond bodice-rippers, addicting as they are.
Best essay belongs to author Laura Kinsale.
Best essay belongs to author Laura Kinsale.
June 23, 2018
This is an interesting collection of essays by romance writers. I'm not familiar with all the writers in this collection and some of the articles were about topics that don't personally interest me. The highlight of the collection for me was Susan Elizabeth Phillip's essay, probably because I'm writing an essay about one of her novels and it was interesting to get her feelings on the topic.
I found some of the other essays to be a little dated now, making it difficult for me to understood or enjoy what the author was trying to express.
Overall a decent collection of essays.
I found some of the other essays to be a little dated now, making it difficult for me to understood or enjoy what the author was trying to express.
Overall a decent collection of essays.
Currently reading
July 7, 2024Introduction by Jayne Ann Krentz
The Androgynous Reader: Point of View in the Romance by Laura Kinsale
The Romance and the Empowerment of Women In Romance by Susan Elizabeth Phillips
Love Conquers All: The Warrior Hero and Affirmation of Love by Elizabeth Lowell
Welcome to the Dark Side by Mary Jo Putney
Trying to Tame the Romance: Critics and Correctness by Jayne Ann Krentz
The Risk of Seduction and the Seduction of Risk by Sandra Brown
The Androgynous Reader: Point of View in the Romance by Laura Kinsale
The Romance and the Empowerment of Women In Romance by Susan Elizabeth Phillips
Love Conquers All: The Warrior Hero and Affirmation of Love by Elizabeth Lowell
Welcome to the Dark Side by Mary Jo Putney
Trying to Tame the Romance: Critics and Correctness by Jayne Ann Krentz
The Risk of Seduction and the Seduction of Risk by Sandra Brown
March 7, 2022
read for uni
I enjoyed some articles in this collection, but found for the most part that it felt like a broken record. Considering the difference in context though, I still enjoyed some key arguments.
I enjoyed some articles in this collection, but found for the most part that it felt like a broken record. Considering the difference in context though, I still enjoyed some key arguments.
January 14, 2023
This book of essays written by some of the most well respected and prolific romance authors was thoughtful, well researched, and made me@think about what I read and how it impacts my life. While definitely dated, published 1992, I appreciated the honest and smart perspectives shared.
April 27, 2018
Fascinating essays by authors of the Romance genera.
December 24, 2018
Needs some updating. Good stuff though.
Read harder task: Read an essay anthology.
Read harder task: Read an essay anthology.
March 20, 2019
A must read if you want to justify your love of this genre.
December 5, 2019
More Jung than Freud... women rationalizing their smutty minds.
December 7, 2021
If you've ever wanted to read a book of academic essays on romance novels, this is a great book to start with ... and one of the only ones out there. Edited by romance legend Jayne Ann Krentz!!
July 22, 2024
Very insightful. It helped me understand a lot about writing romance.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews