Wiscon Panel Notes: Feminist Romance
May. 31st, 2010 08:18 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
coraaAnd another one. This was a fun way to start the day, although I got in late (spent a lot of time wandering around looking for the Caucus room before I realized I was on the wrong floor) so I missed the introductions. Accordingly, I think I may have messed up the attributions for some of the early quotes, before I figured out which nameplate went with which person. Corrections are welcome.
Mod: Robyn Fleming
Panelists: Neesha Meminger, Katharine Beutner, Emily Horner, Megan (meganbmoore)
Everybody's attributed by initials; 'Q/C' means a question or comment from the audience.
As always, written fast, edited only glancingly, everything is paraphrased unless it's bracketed by quotes, and it's probably best to assume that mistakes are my own and not the panelists'. :)
RF: Start off with the big problematic things we have to work against for feminist romance. (Roadblocks)
M: If the woman has had sex, or has had a lot of sex, that's bad; for the man, the more sex the better.
RF: Differences between genres/subgenres?
M: Contemporary "allows" women to have sex more, but sex before "the one" is always worse than sex with "the one."
RF: Golden hoo-ha, magic cock. (Terms from "Smart Bitches, Trashy Books.")
NM: Hero has to rescue the heroine.
RF: Example?
NM: Twilight.
EH: Woman as "the prize," mostly in romantic storylines in non-romantic works (since romance focuses more on the woman).
KB: If the man is in love with the woman, she'd damn well better be in love with him. Man's emotions privileged over woman's. If the man decides that it's time for the relationship to be romantic, it's the time, whether or not the woman agrees.
RF: If the man wants the woman to change something in the relationship and she doesn't agree, she's a bad girlfriend. If the woman wants the man to change something in the relationship and he doesn't agree, she's a bad girlfriend. [Ha.]
RF: Compare/contrast: woman as "prize" and man's emotions privileged seem to show up more in romantic storylines in non-romance books. Why?
EH: Romance tend to focus on the woman's POV.
M: Arc of man's self-actualization. Focus on the woman bends the arc more toward the woman, even if the man still does more things outside the romance.
KB: "The Grand Sophy," regency, "spunk as character," and then when the woman marries the spunk goes away. Sophy is like "Emma on speed:" motherless, rich, doesn't quite obey the dictates of society, unconventional, but not as much at the end. Spunk is the way you make your characters appealing
NM: "Red Lines and Deadlines," Ellora's Cave blog. Survey asking readers what their turnoffs are: female/female sex (male/male sex was okay), mention of birth control,
KB: at least you can avoid one if you write the other! [general laughter]
NM: Other stuff... It was all stuff that I thought "how can that be possible?" Difficulty with that, because it's what she writes and not something she wants to change. Lack of strong interfemale relationships, even those that are non-sexual. Lack of strong bongs between women. Another women should not simply be a device.
RF: It's painful how many romance novels fail the Bechdel Test. There are usually more than one female character in romance novels, but they are often protag and antag, and they usually just talk about the man.
M: Connected to that: most romances, especially regencies, do have strong relationships, because they're setting those up for sequels/a series.
RF: Rape in romance.
M: Something required by the editors, because the women were having sex but it wasn't "their fault." They could still be considered "pure."
EH: Man is so passionately attracted to the woman that he can't help it.
KB: Not as familiar with the rape-seduction books, but does note the appeal of aggression to romance readers. "Barely-leashed" hero. Paranormal romance: "dating the monster."
NM: Appeal of the stalker.
RF: "Please...? Please...?" as attempt to convince a woman, seen as attractive [because it shows how much he wants her]. When the woman
Q/C: Joanna Lindsay/"Warrior Woman": woman from a "civilized" country (an "in space" story), was a martial artist of some kind, had to hide in a "barbarian country". Whenever they see a woman they can "claim" her, fighting/challenges as connected to sex. Threw her right out of the whole genre.
Q/C: "The Duke and I," includes female-on-male rape. "Wait a second, it's not okay if we do it, either!" People didn't even recognize that the rape was a rape.
Q/C: Why do people appreciate this? They sell like hotcakes. Is it going to change as more people get to where they don't feel that a woman has to be forced to enjoy sex.
RF: Are we going to get to a place in our culture where we don't think rape is sexy? (70s-80s, heyday of rape in romance)
KB: Sociological study of romance readers [I missed the person who authored the study] based on subscribers to a romance newsletter. Developed a theory of what people look for in romance. (Study had some problems, including looking down on the readers.) Things she found, ideal storyline: destruction of female chracter's social identity (orphan, divorce, etc), meets an aristocratic male and has an antagonistic response to him, he has an ambivalent response to her ("she's attractive, but..."), there's some kind of misunderstanding (often rape), she punishes him, he does something tender to her, she reinterprets their relationship based on that response, he declares his love, restoration of social identity (through marrige, usually), happy ending. The study author disliked romance because it teaches women to "settle in their own relationships", because the women hunt down those tender moments in order to perform the same reinterpretation.
KB: If you sample romance readers right now, would you get the same narrative development?
M: As regards the "moving past the rape" part. "Some people may have a problem with this, but I didn't", common comment referring to rape or other questionable sex in romance novels. Acknowledgment that there *may* be a problem, but generally not the reviewer having that problem themselves.
NM: Will the tropes change? Probably not. Wild success of Twilight, which is problematic. In order for there to be change in romance novels, there needs to be change on a deeper societal level. Societal messages are omnipresent and that constantly teach women (and young girls) to be objectified and highly sexualized. The romance reflects the message, not teaches it. And since women are taught that they are (and should be) vulnerable and should not rely on society to fail-to-assault them. The strong, aggressive male figure is a stand-in fantasy protector who can make the young woman safe. In Twilight, the hero is literally indestructible; fantasizing about being protected by Edward provides the emotional "safe space" where they don't have to have sex and can be protected. Lack of a safe space
RF: *puts a pre-emptive moratorium on Twilight discussion, since it could easily eat the panel*
Q/C: when the fiction hits the reader, it's out of the control of the author. If those stories [the narrative KB said] are really the dominant romance narrative, what's appealing about it?
EH: agrees with NM's "safe space" idea, also provides a narrative where the heroine has some agency
KB: an idea of improving the problems with male/female relationships. rape still exists, but it's made "okay" by its motive (man does it because he's passionately attracted)
M: place of freedom from ideas of being the sexual gatekeeper; if she can't help it, she's not "at fault"
Q/C: insidious idea that "you can change the bad guy"
Q/C: question on a blog, "is seduction sexy?" (where "seduction" is understood to mean "seduction of someone who is resisting you") saying "no" as foreplay vs. enthusiastic consent. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? do these books create the tropes ("rape is sexy" etc) or are they a response to it?
RF: Both. Cultural products feed from culture but also reinforce it.
Q/C: What can we do/what can we substitute?
RF: Also, what new things are developing?
NM: Hungered for a model of different things, play with different ideas. Erotic romance provides some of that: m/m, f/f, menage, other ideas of sexuality. Female protags who are in control of their own destiny, who enjoy their own sensuality/sexuality, who experience sexuality as a life force that can be used to create.
KB: push toward making f/f relationships acceptable in romance. Her book [title?] involves the idea suggested by a prof of hers that Odysseus wasn't really at fault for his infidelities because "goddesses happen", so she wanted to write a book where a goddess happens to another woman. [sounds interesting.]
EH: need to be careful about assuming that queer romances are necessarily feminist: yaoi is m/m but is usually highly gendered (active/passive, "masculine"/"feminine") and contains a lot of rape.
RF: Happy thoughts! Ideas about specific things that can make romances more feminist/less misogynist/more woman-friendly.
M: "Ash", setting where homosexuality is considered as acceptable as heterosexual, and all the heroic myths (about the "Huntresses") are about women (both heterosexual women and lesbians)
EH: "Fire", level of analysis of human relationships, heroine won't settle for a romance that's posessive/controlling.
KB: "Fire" is interesting because it's not set in a world where the rules are different.
KB: Sarah Waters, "Tipping the Velvet," positive romantic storylines in non-romance.
RF: using alternate history/alternate storylines to allow/enhance feminist romance
EH: using meta--making explicit things about healthy vs. Unhealthy relationships
NM: "His Own Where," romantic storyline in a non-romance book, alternate depictions of masculinity, allowing/depicting tender, nurturing, loving men. Using different values to tell the same story.
Q/C: Can you think of good ways to create strong, feminine characters, without falling back on spunk or being pseudo-male.
KB: Making complex characters rather than shortcuts, don't rely on "she's spunky" or "she stamps her foot a lot." What's a strong female character for you outside romance, and write a romance character that way.
RF: Let her be awesome at the things she does, whatever those things are
RF: Ebooks, what have they done to the romance genre? Epublishers have less invested so they can take more risks. Look for epublishers for fat characters, f/f romance, older people, etc. Check out Circlet Press, Ravenous Romance (very hit-and-miss).
Mod: Robyn Fleming
Panelists: Neesha Meminger, Katharine Beutner, Emily Horner, Megan (
meganbmoore)Everybody's attributed by initials; 'Q/C' means a question or comment from the audience.
As always, written fast, edited only glancingly, everything is paraphrased unless it's bracketed by quotes, and it's probably best to assume that mistakes are my own and not the panelists'. :)
RF: Start off with the big problematic things we have to work against for feminist romance. (Roadblocks)
M: If the woman has had sex, or has had a lot of sex, that's bad; for the man, the more sex the better.
RF: Differences between genres/subgenres?
M: Contemporary "allows" women to have sex more, but sex before "the one" is always worse than sex with "the one."
RF: Golden hoo-ha, magic cock. (Terms from "Smart Bitches, Trashy Books.")
NM: Hero has to rescue the heroine.
RF: Example?
NM: Twilight.
EH: Woman as "the prize," mostly in romantic storylines in non-romantic works (since romance focuses more on the woman).
KB: If the man is in love with the woman, she'd damn well better be in love with him. Man's emotions privileged over woman's. If the man decides that it's time for the relationship to be romantic, it's the time, whether or not the woman agrees.
RF: If the man wants the woman to change something in the relationship and she doesn't agree, she's a bad girlfriend. If the woman wants the man to change something in the relationship and he doesn't agree, she's a bad girlfriend. [Ha.]
RF: Compare/contrast: woman as "prize" and man's emotions privileged seem to show up more in romantic storylines in non-romance books. Why?
EH: Romance tend to focus on the woman's POV.
M: Arc of man's self-actualization. Focus on the woman bends the arc more toward the woman, even if the man still does more things outside the romance.
KB: "The Grand Sophy," regency, "spunk as character," and then when the woman marries the spunk goes away. Sophy is like "Emma on speed:" motherless, rich, doesn't quite obey the dictates of society, unconventional, but not as much at the end. Spunk is the way you make your characters appealing
NM: "Red Lines and Deadlines," Ellora's Cave blog. Survey asking readers what their turnoffs are: female/female sex (male/male sex was okay), mention of birth control,
KB: at least you can avoid one if you write the other! [general laughter]
NM: Other stuff... It was all stuff that I thought "how can that be possible?" Difficulty with that, because it's what she writes and not something she wants to change. Lack of strong interfemale relationships, even those that are non-sexual. Lack of strong bongs between women. Another women should not simply be a device.
RF: It's painful how many romance novels fail the Bechdel Test. There are usually more than one female character in romance novels, but they are often protag and antag, and they usually just talk about the man.
M: Connected to that: most romances, especially regencies, do have strong relationships, because they're setting those up for sequels/a series.
RF: Rape in romance.
M: Something required by the editors, because the women were having sex but it wasn't "their fault." They could still be considered "pure."
EH: Man is so passionately attracted to the woman that he can't help it.
KB: Not as familiar with the rape-seduction books, but does note the appeal of aggression to romance readers. "Barely-leashed" hero. Paranormal romance: "dating the monster."
NM: Appeal of the stalker.
RF: "Please...? Please...?" as attempt to convince a woman, seen as attractive [because it shows how much he wants her]. When the woman
Q/C: Joanna Lindsay/"Warrior Woman": woman from a "civilized" country (an "in space" story), was a martial artist of some kind, had to hide in a "barbarian country". Whenever they see a woman they can "claim" her, fighting/challenges as connected to sex. Threw her right out of the whole genre.
Q/C: "The Duke and I," includes female-on-male rape. "Wait a second, it's not okay if we do it, either!" People didn't even recognize that the rape was a rape.
Q/C: Why do people appreciate this? They sell like hotcakes. Is it going to change as more people get to where they don't feel that a woman has to be forced to enjoy sex.
RF: Are we going to get to a place in our culture where we don't think rape is sexy? (70s-80s, heyday of rape in romance)
KB: Sociological study of romance readers [I missed the person who authored the study] based on subscribers to a romance newsletter. Developed a theory of what people look for in romance. (Study had some problems, including looking down on the readers.) Things she found, ideal storyline: destruction of female chracter's social identity (orphan, divorce, etc), meets an aristocratic male and has an antagonistic response to him, he has an ambivalent response to her ("she's attractive, but..."), there's some kind of misunderstanding (often rape), she punishes him, he does something tender to her, she reinterprets their relationship based on that response, he declares his love, restoration of social identity (through marrige, usually), happy ending. The study author disliked romance because it teaches women to "settle in their own relationships", because the women hunt down those tender moments in order to perform the same reinterpretation.
KB: If you sample romance readers right now, would you get the same narrative development?
M: As regards the "moving past the rape" part. "Some people may have a problem with this, but I didn't", common comment referring to rape or other questionable sex in romance novels. Acknowledgment that there *may* be a problem, but generally not the reviewer having that problem themselves.
NM: Will the tropes change? Probably not. Wild success of Twilight, which is problematic. In order for there to be change in romance novels, there needs to be change on a deeper societal level. Societal messages are omnipresent and that constantly teach women (and young girls) to be objectified and highly sexualized. The romance reflects the message, not teaches it. And since women are taught that they are (and should be) vulnerable and should not rely on society to fail-to-assault them. The strong, aggressive male figure is a stand-in fantasy protector who can make the young woman safe. In Twilight, the hero is literally indestructible; fantasizing about being protected by Edward provides the emotional "safe space" where they don't have to have sex and can be protected. Lack of a safe space
RF: *puts a pre-emptive moratorium on Twilight discussion, since it could easily eat the panel*
Q/C: when the fiction hits the reader, it's out of the control of the author. If those stories [the narrative KB said] are really the dominant romance narrative, what's appealing about it?
EH: agrees with NM's "safe space" idea, also provides a narrative where the heroine has some agency
KB: an idea of improving the problems with male/female relationships. rape still exists, but it's made "okay" by its motive (man does it because he's passionately attracted)
M: place of freedom from ideas of being the sexual gatekeeper; if she can't help it, she's not "at fault"
Q/C: insidious idea that "you can change the bad guy"
Q/C: question on a blog, "is seduction sexy?" (where "seduction" is understood to mean "seduction of someone who is resisting you") saying "no" as foreplay vs. enthusiastic consent. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? do these books create the tropes ("rape is sexy" etc) or are they a response to it?
RF: Both. Cultural products feed from culture but also reinforce it.
Q/C: What can we do/what can we substitute?
RF: Also, what new things are developing?
NM: Hungered for a model of different things, play with different ideas. Erotic romance provides some of that: m/m, f/f, menage, other ideas of sexuality. Female protags who are in control of their own destiny, who enjoy their own sensuality/sexuality, who experience sexuality as a life force that can be used to create.
KB: push toward making f/f relationships acceptable in romance. Her book [title?] involves the idea suggested by a prof of hers that Odysseus wasn't really at fault for his infidelities because "goddesses happen", so she wanted to write a book where a goddess happens to another woman. [sounds interesting.]
EH: need to be careful about assuming that queer romances are necessarily feminist: yaoi is m/m but is usually highly gendered (active/passive, "masculine"/"feminine") and contains a lot of rape.
RF: Happy thoughts! Ideas about specific things that can make romances more feminist/less misogynist/more woman-friendly.
M: "Ash", setting where homosexuality is considered as acceptable as heterosexual, and all the heroic myths (about the "Huntresses") are about women (both heterosexual women and lesbians)
EH: "Fire", level of analysis of human relationships, heroine won't settle for a romance that's posessive/controlling.
KB: "Fire" is interesting because it's not set in a world where the rules are different.
KB: Sarah Waters, "Tipping the Velvet," positive romantic storylines in non-romance.
RF: using alternate history/alternate storylines to allow/enhance feminist romance
EH: using meta--making explicit things about healthy vs. Unhealthy relationships
NM: "His Own Where," romantic storyline in a non-romance book, alternate depictions of masculinity, allowing/depicting tender, nurturing, loving men. Using different values to tell the same story.
Q/C: Can you think of good ways to create strong, feminine characters, without falling back on spunk or being pseudo-male.
KB: Making complex characters rather than shortcuts, don't rely on "she's spunky" or "she stamps her foot a lot." What's a strong female character for you outside romance, and write a romance character that way.
RF: Let her be awesome at the things she does, whatever those things are
RF: Ebooks, what have they done to the romance genre? Epublishers have less invested so they can take more risks. Look for epublishers for fat characters, f/f romance, older people, etc. Check out Circlet Press, Ravenous Romance (very hit-and-miss).
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-05-31 02:40 pm (UTC)IIRC, I was attempting to quote "Beyond Heaving Bosoms" which has the line "The point of the narrative was the heroine's achievement of autonomy and self-actualization." Or something very close.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-01 05:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-31 02:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-06-01 01:33 am (UTC)Ash is Lo's first book.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-01 02:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-06-01 02:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-06-01 02:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-06-01 05:45 pm (UTC)I'm really glad that my posts are working as a reading recs list!
no subject
Date: 2010-05-31 04:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-06-01 05:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-31 05:41 pm (UTC)At least some of the ideas towards the end are hopeful! I agree that Beutner's book based on "goddesses happen" sounds fascinating. Is it published? I'd like to see a romance experimenting with some of the notions from queer heterosexuality. Admittedly, my interest is primarily in f/f romances, which seem to be the rarest, so I appreciate more writing in that area.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-31 11:47 pm (UTC)Alas, Romance is obsessed with extraordinarily excessive stereotyped gendering. The hyperfeminine woman meeting the hypermasculine man and being made to feel even more feminine by him.
Wtfever.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-31 11:53 pm (UTC)Oh for world enough and time!
no subject
Date: 2010-06-01 01:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-06-01 05:55 pm (UTC)(I actually do sort of comprehend the prejudice against birth control/STD protection, even if I don't agree with it: for some people, the realism of having to worry about that kind of thing destroys the fantasy. That's now how I think at all [and in fact I sometimes get concerned for the heroine if she doesn't use something], but I'm pretty sure that's where a lot of the offputtingness comes from.)
Beutner's book is called Alcestis
It sounds like a good place to get more non-mainstream romance is the online ebook sellers. If I find any good stuff there, I'll post a recs list.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-01 09:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-31 09:44 pm (UTC)Hee. Bong. Yeah, I'm twelve, sorry.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-01 05:56 pm (UTC)Oh, the perils of typing fast....
no subject
Date: 2010-06-01 12:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-06-01 05:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-06-01 08:13 pm (UTC)(A Few) Resources for Analyzing and Exploring Romance Novels
Sarah Wendell and Candy Tan, Beyond Heaving Bosoms: The Smart Bitches' Guide to Romance Novels - A fun read with lots of humor. Takes a very heteronormative approach.
Janice Radway, Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy, and Popular Literature – The author's methods and attitude toward her research subjects are pretty hotly debated, but there's interesting stuff here.
Pamela Regis, A Natural History of the Romance Novel
Margaret Atwood, Lady Oracle - Not a romance, but very much about romance and feminism.
And Some Romance and Erotic Romance Novel Recommendations!
Nalini Singh, CARESSED BY ICE
Lorie O'Clare, the Malta Werewolves series
Kama Spice, KESSA'S PRIDE
Cecilia Tan, the Magic University series
Mercedes Lackey, the Tales of The Five Hundred Kingdoms series
Sarah Kuhn, ONE CON GLORY
Tate Hallaway, the Garnet Lacey series
no subject
Date: 2010-06-01 09:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-06-04 03:31 pm (UTC)Thanks, again!