Lit Theoro paper # 4 Kareq novivLllo April 7, 1999 For Dr, Thomas The romav~ce viovel is the hottest thivig in pklishivig, Fortq percent of the paperback market (sold) is romawe ? pure, uvadulterated fluff, Escapism ? avdl Usually badlo writtevi escapism ?? at its height The plots are formulaic; the writing is cliched; the endings are predictable; the marker trends are uniform, C3Ut not oval q are the buoers plentiful; they are local, Repeat readers of romance make up the ma)orito of the market, and quite oftevn these readers will read three novels a week, The question is, `4th?' Who do readers (USUallo women) seek to read, essevnfiallh the same storo, the same badlo written storo, over and over and over again? Who have romance_novels become so evrtrenched and so successful In our popular culture? Is it perhaps that these novels are expressing some archetypal vLeed that women have? Is there some kind of hidden art Value in romance vroveb that the hteraro populace has not recognized ? Perhaps they offer 'a way for women to resist the patriarchal strucllnres imposed on their lives' as anice Radwah believes (Rivkivn & Khan 1026)? Or is it a Marxist phenomenon in which these novels are marketed so well ]go the publishivlg business so as to ivnduce readers to buo them, thus allowing certain patriarchal, chauvinistic ideas that manipulate the readers of these novels in order to perpefiwrte those cultural dispositions which are advantageous to the busivLssmen and owvLrs (Horkheimer & Adorvio 103 7)? Or are the readers of these novels residents of a Mcnovald's, K?Mart, Lean Cuisine, sitcom, HolfYwo0d movie sequel kivd of world, just topical cltlzevls of our 5ocleti~ with 'stuntfed l' imagivations, lack of 'sustaivLd thought', and 'semi automatic percepf ons', so removed from avng i?9pe of appreciation of quality in anothing, especially good art and good writing, so as to not recognize bad art nor desire good art (HorkheivvLer and Adorno 1039)? Or are then just products of a 'soft' socleto, a society of instant gratification, with instant credit, that wants the comfortable routine, the predictable plot, the happo ending, and is reluctant to face more challevrgivq less pleasant material that ovL often finds in'befer' novels? Or are these readers just more stupid less cultured than the restof us (theq are, after all, primarilo womm)?j The answer to these qwsHoV15 mUSt be ~~UV~r~ bl~ lr5t examiVIIVIg what is good art avid bad art, and then examining the naNre of the romance novel, THEORIES OF ART Mavno different theories of what art is, and the standard bh which one Judges good art and bad arfi, abound. Expressionistarrtheories sah that good art is the effective avd clear expression of an ivdividual (Unique), specific, avid sivrcere emotion that the arfist is feelivrq (Tolsto4 Collingwood), The feeling is travismitted through the medium (the work of ark poem or novel or storo) vero effectivelo to another person (the reader), A sincere artwork recreates reality (of the emotion) through the arr, and that is ovL of the reasons that the poem/artwork is so moving, The reader feels the emotion, as much as he can since it is not his/her emotion, but it is reminiscent of emofiovns the reader has felt or is capable of feeling, the artist's pain and loss or happivLss and Job, and the mist's emotionaf straggles, C30 covfast poor arrseems markedly insivicere. It mah be more of a poetic/ieellecid exercise, or it? mad be a commoditj marketed to earn movq or to sell goods (commercials, print ads) and the artist does not seem to be experieYLcivg avno depth of ?? emotion or transmitting it well if he is. For 5tolvnitz, art can be avnothing which the observer/reader perceives as art, a problematic theorg as it 15 highly subjective, 5imibr4 ciccordibq to Dodo, art is that which is :?? cevisidered art bo the art world, avid good art is that which the art world iLdges sUCCessfrnl or good, For others, good arr can be that which presevit5 itself a5 arr bo the artist, or that which / `~ reveals itself to be art bh Using accepted arr forms, sUCh as rhhme, rhtjthm, and harmovq (Belt Aristotle), Also, in good art, memo theorists believe the artwork conve0s some trMrth about human realith in some wah. There are truths covnvehed about basic hLAmavl inner motivatiovLs (Arlstotie) ~..,' or Universal psochological laws (expressing the unmet vLeeds of the artist and viewer/reader)(FreLd), Pert is theV7 avI imitation of the reality a human being normally experiences, So, combining the expressionist theories with the more objective vicwv that the art is in the qualith of the artwork itself, good arr successfUllh avid Cleario Covnqs GM ividiMidual, specific, particular, sincere emotion, and it also covve~s a Universal reatith and MO about the psocholog~ of all men and women (kristofe, Freud), ?art imitates life, HORK44EIMER AND ADORNO Horkheimer avid AdlorvIo's view of art (good art) is aligwd with the above theories, They condemn todao's culture 'ivdu5W of the masses which markets to the public art that is formulaic, cliched, avid tjped, meefivng the vneeds of the 'maviagemevr for commercial (mo&taq) purposes. When the good art, from the RovmavnHics to the expres5ioviists, was alive, it was `rebellious, , .asserted itself as free expression,' and had unlquevess and sincerity (Horrk heimer & Ad orno 103 9), That was lost in todao's culture industro which is concerned exclusivelg with effects, ",makinql them lartl5t5l51k5ervievitto the formula, which replaces the worfe" (1039). The unlqL4eness vnecessaro for good art is not present in mass culture; Hollywood turves out sequels when the first movie works in order to get good box office returns; the public is not fooled, but still goes to the movies anowao, TV sitcoms (bad to begin with) have spinoffs and copTats, poplar mU5iC is determined bo trends. `Not onlo are the hit sovqs, stars, and soap operas chcllcall~ recurrent and rigidlh invariable thpes, but the specific content of the entertainment Itself 15 derived from them and ovnl~ appears to change` (Horkheimer & Adorvio 1039), Their discussion of mistrust of stile (1040) is this same valuing of the unique, and devaluing of uniform sameness, `The inferior wore of art has alwa0s relled on its similarity with others ? on a surrogate ldentity' (1040?1041), THE ROMANCE NOVEL Perhaps the perfect example of all the faults Horkheimer and Adorvno attribute to mass culture can be found in the romance viovel, The plot is not only formulaic but unabashedlo so, In fact, the publishing houses specialize in Horkeheimer's and Adorno's `invariable topes`, and the most infamous of the romance novel vmarkeeter5, Harlequin and Silhouette, have four to six different types of `lines`, each of which publish four to six booke5 a month, so the avid reader can read close to one novel a dah from a single publishing house if she has the time and the inclination, (Avd mano bored housewives do have such an inclination?and the novels are simple enough to read in one dao and still have time to clean the house) Each line has its own particular specified plots, specified heroes/heroines (b~ age, class, etc), specified time periods and places (Regency Enqland, Middle Ages, modern America), specified amount of sex (none to hot and steam), specified number of pages (100 for some, 220 for others), and even specified trends (ghosts, athletes, etc,) attributed variablh to each line, Even characterizatiovi is rigidly determivned b~ the formula. Ten to twenty Tars ago, the big debate in the romance novel world was the characteriatbvn of the hero; should he be the 'Alpha Male' (macho and brutish) as had been the vnorm, or the 'Alan AIda MaL' (sweet and r sensitive), as the cultural trends, and the feminist breakthroughs of the sixties aM sevevrfes, advocaredl Publishers and editors tried to determine reader's tastes and boughtovil~ Alan Ada heroes from their authors to sell to the reading public. Readers, however, bought moshh 'AIPAG Male" novels, and as a result today we see that publishers have Learned their lesson avrd far more 'Alpha Male' heroes proliferate 'live romance novels than 'Alan AIdas'I from this prime example of mass culture, the marketing of the romance novel, there is a challe~ to two of Horkeimer and Adorvno's poivrtsl First of all, the 'compavno directors' did not _~ g,, choose to market a particular type of product for their own profit and move tartj gala; these ompavno directors tried to modify the product then marketed out of ethical considerations they e wanted their consumers to desire a different (more sociallo acceptable) type of man So the Marxist thesis that the CEO/owners are concerned onto with making moneo fails (at least parhallo) ` in the romance novel example, Secovdlh, the thesis that It is the upper class that determines the taste of the lower class in order to manipubte and control them, in order to keep them ivy their place, fails in this example, The readers were the ones who determined the trend; the readers `T' Chose the 'Alpha male over the more liberated and liberating 'Alan AIda' male, The publishers evevntuallo gave in to the readers demands after thwarted attempts to 'liberate` them. Ivy this example at least, the market was not determined bh the owners/compavno directors, it was determined bg the readers (as well as the authors, who wanted to keep writing'AIpha males'). Also, romance novels, which one might at first glance view as non?liberated, non?feminist, reading material, are read almost eniirelo 190 woman, written almost evntirelg for women, and " edited 190 a large number of women as well, From ovne point of view, it is a business that is beneficial to all ivvolved, editors, authors, publishers, readers ? women working so other women can enioh and appreciate their work, so that the previous women havrahve means of income and perhaps a source of (arfsfic~) expressiovt This business is not the Marxist oppressive means of domination of one social class b0 another, Nor i50W5OClGlCla55 (IE; a rich white patriarchal male upper class) manipulating another in order to 'keep them in their place', 18LAallo , editors, authors, and readers are viot so far apart socially and culturallh, and often readers become the writers, and writers become the edlfiors, quite easilo in the romance vnovel bu5lne5sl .One might argue that these women have alreado been so socialized avd enctnltUred so as to accept the °conventional social forms" handed to them without question and without finrrher coercion bh the more sociallh privileged gender, The argument goes; then are oppressing themselves bh reading these novels, imprisoning themselves in a paradigm and a cultural role 190 identifhing with the weaker, struggling heroine being saved bo the strong, capable hero who marries her in the end, over and over again, Marriage is the final goal of the novels, and it alwaos happens, JUSt as most societies throughout the ages have handed marriage down to women as their most desirable, and msuallq in the Scope of human historo, their ONLY, alternative, often these (real, not fictional) marriages are miserable dine to the power tradifionallo ivnvested in men bo societh to dominate and subdue women, (Onlo as receKlo, as the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, have women had ano legal rights; their psochobgical liberation is much farther behind DIRE ROMANCE NOVELS PART? Romance novels actuallo do, as Aristotle says, imitate life", however badlo, i?rel4d'5 view that good art reveals universal ps9chobgical truth, and To[srN'5 and Collivqwood'5 view that art must express the artist's emotion clearl7 a~reh to the sbectator is mbheld ih the workings of the romance novel, The truth expressed is NOT the woman's universal desire to Marro, jwhich feminists argue is socall0 and not biologicallo or essentiallo a part of the wowian, It is the desire to have the inevitable marriage be a happy one, in light of a woman's weaker, more svb5erVievrt statms in societo, and in light of the svbtle if not overt emotional, verbal, mental, or phoscial domination that he was experiencing, that she expected to experience, or that She saw ,;w"her mother experience vd, one might argue, that a woman wishes to Marro simplo because it is a human experience to long for a lifetime friend, lover, and companion, but the man's acquiring of that companion is not so traurflatIC avid humiliating that a whole market, (a discourse?), has been created that addresses the inner turmoil and conflict accompanhing such an acquisition, TALns, the faiUre of the editors and publishers to market the sweet, sensitive guo. The omance hero MM9 be the Alpha male; he is of no psochobgical (artistic) " a5 the Alan AIda ma ~i0 winning and marring the dictating, domineering, arrogant hero, who becomes sweet and considerate and thoughtful to our heroine's ever need, she resolves her fears of an oppressive, tmhappo marriagel~5he has cohtrolled her sitWtioh, dowiivafied avid s[AbdWd the vmah ivistead of becovviivig the rrre~cipievrt f his domiVlalloVl, thrmgh (or despite) her femiviiN, Horkheimer avid Adorvio are right that the defiviition thiformit~, avid "demarcatiovig of the market avid of the product reduce the qLvlN of the art (1038). However, the Lnviderloivig ps0chological truth in the message of romance vioveb is strovig eviotAgh that 40% of the paperback bmoivig public will evdtnre bad writivig over avid over agaivi avd still fivd some valme ivi it, Freud believed that art was a vietArotic activity, avi expressiovl of fAVlmefi Weds, if so, the popLnlaritj of romavice viovels shows feMliVIi5m still has a lovIg wao to go,