By the way, can we call for a moratorium on journalist-cracks about the contemporary Romance genre? Leaving aside the fact that many literary scholars count P&P as the first modern romance novel (and that it gave birth to the genre and MANY of its conventions), I know of no other literary genre about which journalists and critics feel free to pour forth ridicule. Neither courtroom thrillers, Westerns, techno-thrillers, or "pulp" horror (interestingly, all genres marketed towards men) inspire this level or frequency of mockery. I can only presume--as do some femininst scholars--that it is the Romance genre's status as a genre largely written by and for women that has bred such contempt (similar to the prejudice against Soap Operas, a genre that has been left out of many undergrad courses on pop culture and media).

I propose that Zacharek, Rebecca T., and other Slate writers critical of so-called genre fiction read and review 2-3 (single-title, non-series) books in each genre, all published within the last two years. If Zacharek argues that she is a film ,not literary critic, she should in her movie reviews refrain from making comparisons to and comments about entire literary genres.

There's been so much criticism leveled at Harlequin romance novels that entirely new romance genres have sprung up in the last two decade. Mainly this is so the authors of chick lit and dark romances can differentiate themselves from mainstream romance novels. Of course, as chick lit has moved into mainstream popularity, it now gets knocked around quite a bit.

Many romance writers have openly bragged about writing a first draft in two to three weeks and mailing unedited draft to Harlequin editors. Their first drafts were immediately accepted. Perhaps to them, this is a sign of their genius and hard work, but to writers in other genres with a smaller market of readers where they labor unacknowledged for several years, this is annoying to hear. This is why Harlequin romance novelists are belittled. If they weren't going on telling writers in other genres this, the romance genre would have more respect.

...involves, as I stated, "single-title, non-series" novels in the romance genre; the majority of Harlequin/Mills & Boon/Silhouette novels are, according their own published stats, shorter books conceived of as part of an ongoing series or mini-brand. These houses have tried to branch out into single-titles, but still pour most of their resources into (and get most of their $ from) the traditional series.

Single-titles (or "mainstreams" as they're often known in publishing) have had their own distinct identities since the early 1970's. Single-titles (not traditional Harlequins) also constitute the single highest-selling book type in Romance. Yet for some reason, Harlequin series still occupy the most space in the general public's consciousness.

Series authors (whether in romance or other genres such as Western) are often bound by stricter conventions and time restraints than other writers ; perhaps you are referring to series authors. I am unaware of any single-title authors who would boast about rattling off a manuscript in record time. Most single-title authors with whom I have spoken pride themselves on putting just as much time and effort into characterization, plot, etc. as a writer of any other type of fiction.

However, even if some single-title authors have spoken of quick composition, I would argue that the general public is almost certainly unaware of this; hence, my hesitation to endorse Anonymous' suggestion that the public "slams" the Romance genre accordingly. Several scholars have published their arguments (summarized in my earlier post) of more likely reasons behind journalists/literary critics' unschooled opinion of Romance. See Pamela Regis' "A Natural History of the Romance Novel" for a good bibliography.

As something of a Jane fanatic (rereading her far too small oeuvre every year or so), I will probably see this film.

But what I am waiting for is for someone to film the wonderful series of mysteries starring Jane as a kind of genteel detective, written over the past 10 years or so. If you are not familiar with these -- amazingly true to the period, once you get past Jane's gallivanting around the countryside going to inquests and such -- do go to author Stephanie Barron's website at http://www.stephaniebarron.com.

This review, as well as the one for the 2005 P&P, seem to favor the exchange of quietly nuanced accurate portrayals for the modernized, sexed-up versions. The movie sounds trite, what with the alpha hero introducing sex and mixing with the lower classes to show his manliness and fire, and I don't disagree with not liking it for some very good reasons.

Approaching it with blatant snobbery toward romanticism and the people who like fiction that falls into that genre has biased the review to the point of it being useless. Instead of finding the good points and groaning at the couple of dumb things that felt tacked-on to show Americans how non-stodgy the characters are, the whole thing is an elitist piece against the women who want to believe in the sort of love in Austen's novels. So what? The movie doesn't seem to be presenting itself as Art or Film in a way to merit it being examined as such.

The point of the review isn't about how it compares to the biography it was based on, but about how stupid women have to be to buy into it. Just because some women want romantic stories and love to get lost in Austen's (or anyone's) novels doesn't mean that they aren't intelligent or cultured. It's ironic that this movie is panned for heavy-handed modernizations, while the 2005 P&P is praised for removing the slow subtleties of the culture for faster and more blatant shortcuts.

Anonymous wrote:

Many romance writers have openly bragged about writing a first draft in two to three weeks and mailing unedited draft to Harlequin editors. Their first drafts were immediately accepted

Really? Name one. Name ONE romance writer who has bragged about this. Provide a source. Is it in the last ten years? The last five? Doubt it.

My "little Harlequin" romances and those written by my Harlequin and Silhouette colleagues and I can be every bit as entertaining, deep, emotional, soulful, fun, frivolous, exciting, sexy, (in other words...all the things a romance reader is looking for) as a "single-title" romance. Those of you who are trying to defend romance by kicking the Harlequin authors--we are not amused.

Stephanie, if you want to read a real Harlequin before you bash us again in a cliched generalization, send me an email. I'll send you a free book.