This is the response I posted to Palash Ghosh’s apology. I’m not trying to pile on, but I think he’s still missing the point. You should also read Amelia’s comment on the post. It’s a lot smarter than mine.
We got the point. We just didn’t agree. The problem is that you’re making broad assumptions about the genre and you clearly haven’t read much of it. Many modern romance novels—even those set in different historical periods—feature varied personal dynamics and characters that stray far from the molds of the domineering hero and the virginal damsel in distress. The central convention—a couple who fall in love (or fall back in love) and enjoy a happily ever after wouldn’t seem to undermine a woman’s desire for independence and has little to do with traditional gender roles. It’s not that the type of romance you describe doesn’t still exist, but it’s a small part of a diverse genre.
Two other things you should know:
1. The genre is plenty critical of itself. There are forums and web sites where romance novels are discussed and reviewed at length, and where issues like the alpha male, forced seduction, and other tropes are addressed. The difference is that it’s done without the condescension found in your piece.
2. Every few months, someone writes a piece like this about readers of romance, or more recently young adult. The approaches vary slightly (women are stuck in a prolonged adolescence, girls can’t tell the difference between reality and fantasy, these books are not edifying and are poisoning female minds) but they all amount to the same thing: a way to demean and infantilize the audience. There are plenty of genres that indulge in wish fulfillment, but curiously, it’s the genres that predominantly women consume (and frequently write) that incite these responses.
Congratulations on your traffic.
This reminds me of an image I saw in one of my high school history text books. It had was a wood carving illustration of a doe-eyed young girl look wistfully up from her book but it bore the caption, “Don’t let your daughters be corrupted by romantic novels!”.
But this was printed during the early 1800’s.
Of course, the term “romantic” was meant to be applied more broadly, but it’s funny how this actually hasn’t changed. In two centuries.
Fanboys: She’s so lame why is she on this team she doesn’t even have any superpowers!
Fangirls: Her outfit is too tight. She is just there to be a pair of boobs. Ugh.
RE: LOIS LANE
Fanboys: She’s not hot enough to be Lois!
Fangirls: She’s only there to be a damsel for Superman to save. Ugh.
RE: WONDER WOMAN
Fanboys: Batman Superman Batman Superman. Batman? Superman.
Fangirls: The actress is too skinny and sexy so clearly she’s just going to be there for sex appeal. Ugh. They’re just gonna mess her up. I wish they wouldn’t put her in at all. Ugh.
RE: TAURIEL
Fanboys: THIS WASN’T IN THE BOOK ASDSLFKHJDLSGJHSD
Fangirls: She’s just there to shoehorn in romance. She’s a Mary Sue. These movies are a sausage fest but that’s just how they’re supposed to be. I wish they’d taken her out. Ugh.
But…but WHY aren’t there more female characters in geek properties???
Because it’s too hard to look at female characters as human beings, as we do male characters. Female characters always have to represent some sort of feminist or anti-feminist agenda. We can’t just look at them as characters and accept how they are, they have to be nitpicked and overanalyzed.
so I’m really bad at taking compliments, here’s an example: I bumped into this guy downtown and he just handed me this poem he wrote and he said, “Speaking of poetry, your eyes are incredble, there are so many colors!” and all I could say back was, “Yeah they do that” tHAt wAS ALL I SAID beFORE TURNING AROUND AND LEAVING.
그리고 영어가 불편하신분들을 위해서 간단하게 작성을 했습니다: “My art was uploaded without permission on Tumblr, and I would like the post removed. This is the original link to my art (소스링크) . This is the post I would like deleted (불펌링크) .”
