If you write romance, or even simply read it, you might find it enjoyable, but struggle to defend its value and significance. When the RNA began in 1960, the founding members were mocked for their work (not proper writing) and that attitude is still around today. But over the last few years there has been a growing interest in romance as an academic study, and more and more universities are running courses which offer a serious study of the genre. There’s even a peer-reviewed journal on the subject and, unlike many journals, it’s available free online. The Journal of Popular Romances Studies now has eight issues up for viewing, and each includes several articles and reviews.
It requires a strange mental contortion to view some of the books I’ve read and enjoyed in the context of the textual criticism and analytical deconstruction familiar to any student of English. But it’s a very interesting exercise, and it made me see some of my favourites in a new light. There’s an excellent essay by Laura Vivanco on Georgette Heyer’s ‘The Nonesuch’ (one of her quieter works, and a favourite of mine) which links it to Walter Scott’ ‘Guy Mannering’ and other contemporary works, and makes a claim for it not just as an enjoyable read but as a clear moral guide to the times. And an even more academically titled article is ‘Who the devil wrote that?’: Intertextuality and Authorial Reputation in Georgette Heyer’s Venetia. If you’ve ever played the same game yourself, you’ll enjoy the analysis of Damerel and Venetia’s conversations.
The one thing good criticism will do is drive you back to the book, to consider it again in a fresh light. I’m already making a note of books I want to reread. And I might even find a new favourite if I tried A Masculine Romance: The Sentimental Bloke and Australian Culture in the War- and Early Interwar Years
by Melissa Bellanta or one of the other intriguing articles available on the website.