Nicola here. Today I’m talking about the sort of words that people use to describe romance and romantic fiction. Back in 2019 I wrote a blog piece (more of a rant!) about attitudes to romantic fiction. I’d just finished my term as chair of the Romantic Novelists Association and had been deeply involved in the business of romance. Now, only seven years on, I’m no longer a member of any organisations that promote romantic fiction, several of which have been through seismic changes in the meantime. Now, instead, I’m a bookseller with a different perspective on all sorts of fiction. I’m still a reader of romantic fiction in all its forms, however, and I’m curious whether anything much has changed, attitude-wise to romantic fiction, in the last seven years. But first, here is a taste of the original rant:
“One of the issues of which I have become hyper-aware over the last couple of years is that of the language that is used by critics to describe romantic fiction. I’ve always been aware of romantic fiction’s literary reputation – at the very start of my writing career a friend told me how she covered my books in brown paper bags because they were a guilty pleasure. (At least she was eco-friendly about it!) This is hardly a new phenomenon. My grandmother used to hide her genre fiction at the back of her wardrobe.
Why then is this such a difficult prejudice to shift, and does it matter? Well, for a start it matters to me when I see the reading
choices of millions of people publicly scorned. It’s disrespectful and rude. It’s also ill-informed but I’ll come on to that. In one sense I don’t care; as a veteran author of romantic fiction I have a hide almost as thick as a rhino and I’ll read and write what I want, thanks. But I didn’t always feel like that, and not everyone can be so hardy. Criticism can get to anyone at times. I try to embrace the idea that if people dismiss romantic fiction that’s their loss and I don’t need their good opinion of my reading choices anyway.
This is where we come on to the ill-informed part, because as we all know, romantic fiction can be as inspiring and emotionally true as any classic. Romantic fiction holds up a mirror to relationships and to human nature. It can be profound, or joyous or a happy escape, or all of those. It is nuanced, varied, and broad in scope. Not everyone recognises this though.
Take the ubiquitous “What to read on your holidays” lists with which the newspapers and magazines fill their pages. In the UK at least, and probably in a number of other countries, romantic fiction features very rarely in the review pages of the main papers. When it does, it’s usually either written by a man – and referred to as a “love story” rather than a romance – or it is by someone so super-famous that it’s newsworthy. On the subject of summer beach reads, a leading article in The Times of London in July 2019 stated:
“For some it must be a novel that is both immersive and low-stakes, nothing too heavy, nothing too cerebral… The publishing industry floods the shelves with frothy modern fairy tales with titles such as “The Long Third Date or August in Arles… (I was seriously disappointed BTW to find that these didn’t actually exist – I thought they both sounded intriguing.)
They continued: “The popularity of this sort of fluttery summer read goes back a long way. “I really
believe, wrote American pastor T De Witt Talmage in 1876 (pictured) that there is more pestiferous trash read among the intelligent classes in July and August than in all the other ten months of the year.” Of course this last quote was the Times quoting someone else, someone historical, so that makes the criticism okay, doesn’t it?
They concluded: “Others reject the idea that a good summer book must be a drinkable flibbertigibbet. (Sorry, what?) “To each his own, then. Whether one prefers a sober historical tome or a fizzy romance, summer reading is one of the joys of the season. Grab a deckchair, hope for sunshine, and tuck in.” In other words: “We’re denigrating your reading choices through our use of language but hey, enjoy!”
Yes, the language. The deliberate use of certain words to judge and disparage is fascinating. Frothy and fizzy are the sort of words we often see associated with romantic fiction to imply frivolousness and shallowness. Fluttery is a curious choice. “Be still my beating heart!” I’m surprised that fluffy wasn’t mentioned as well. Then we have “flibbertigibbet” which Webster’s dictionary defines as “a silly flighty person.” Yes, they are all “F” words.
I’m not even going to go near Mr De Witt Talmage’s comments but I will ask since when were romance books low-stakes? I would say that the depiction of love in all its many forms is one of the most high-stakes subjects that a book can tackle.
Incidentally, the only word I find remotely interesting when applied to romantic fiction is “cheesy”. We all know what that means in this context but where on earth did it come from? Being a nerd, I looked it up and was fascinated to find that it’s nothing to do with cheese. It derives from the Urdu word “chiz” meaning “a thing.” The British in India picked this up in the early 19th century and used it to mean something big, fine and showy – “the big chiz.”
Earlier on I asked why the literary prejudice against romantic fiction is such a difficult thing to shift, and does it matter? In my opinion the first part is to do with value judgements of the sort of fiction that is “worthy” and a dismissal of happy and uplifting books as in some way “lesser.” There is definitely a gender element to it as well, not to mention the hypocrisy of newspapers who welcome income from lonely hearts advertising on one page and then diss romantic fiction on the next.”
Clearly, I felt very strongly back in 2019! Have times and opinions changed in the meantime, I wonder? I think they have a little,
largely due to the immense success of the romantasy sub-genre. I believe that booksellers and commentators have slowly and reluctantly caught on to the fact that the genre is financially valuable (What too them so long, I wonder?) and therefore accord is a certain respect. A recent review of Sophie Irwin’s Heyer-inspired Regency “Henrietta” in the Times was positive. There are still not many reviews of romantic fiction and especially historical romance though; it does feel as though there is a lingering “academic elitism” with regard to happy endings. Which is very illogical since Shakespeare wrote: “All’s Well That End’s Well.”
If I were to choose some words to describe historical romance, I’d go for atmospheric, immersive and emotional, amongst others. What about you? What words would you say describe your favourite books? And do you think that attitudes to romantic fiction have shifted at all recently?
Great post, Nicola. I think attitudes are changing but perhaps mainly among readers who have really taken romantasy to their hearts. Lots of readers clearly love it. And here come my sour grapes. I once had a novel (which is now doing quite well as a self-published book) rejected because it was a big too ‘bodice-ripperish.’ That was the word used. I call the story passionate. The very same publisher is now actively looking for romantic fiction. Oh, could it possibly be that they see nice profits hovering on the horizon?
Thanks so much for your comment, Maggie. Yes, I do agree that romantasy has made a difference to attitudes towards romance although it does rather feel restricted to that sub-genre.
I absolutely cannot stand the epithet “bodice-ripper” with its ghastly echoes of 1970s forced seduction. Urk. Passionate is a far more appropriate description to my mind. How typical that that particular publisher is now actively seeking romantic fiction; I’m sure you’re right about the profits – not that we are cynics!
For Wench readers who would like to read Maggie’s own great piece about romance, here is the link: https://historiamag.com/defence-romance-history/
PS: I meant ‘bit’, not ‘big’!
As a reader I just think of romance as love stories that end well. And why not? If the author does their job right you know that although the couple has their HEA they will still face challenges in their future but they have a connection that is strong enough to see them through those times.
I always thought the term “bodice ripper” came about because of the covers on those books. I remember a few years back my little niece pointing to the cover and asking me why that lady was taking her clothes off. The picture was the back view of a woman with her dress undone to her rear end. I told my niece she was actually trying to put her clothes on but was having a hard time (smile).
Loved the post.
LOL, I can totally identify with not being able to do up my dress at the back, Mary! Without a maid, it’s hopeless
What a thought provoking post, Nicola. I find it sad that romances are so often denigrated while other genres such as mysteries are not. (One could wish that love was ranked more highly than murder.)
I did enjoy learning about cheesy!
Thanks, Kareni! I find language so interesting. The words used to describe things like romance or crime novels or all sorts of things is a sort of shorthand that it pretty deeply embedded, I think. That’s one of the reasons its hard to shift. But we can keep on being positive about it!
Nicola, I loved your description of where the term “cheesy” came from!
hank you, Mary Jo. It’s an interesting derivation, isn’t it, and not at all what people using it probably think it means.
Confession. I read my first romance novel when I was 66 years old. It was Loretta Chase’s Mr. Impossible, and I hadn’t had so much fun since I was a kid reading Nancy Drew.
Why hadn’t I ever tried Romance before? Two reasons. I couldn’t afford to buy all the books I read, so most of my reading came from the public library, and they didn’t usually carry paperbacks. Where I did see romance novels was at the supermarket, and they had those ludicrous embossed Fabio covers, so I assumed the contents were as cheesy as the packaging.
So I’m inclined to suspect that the denigration of romance novels is at least in part because of the way they were presented. And it takes a long time for that kind of reputation to fade.
Absolutely right, Lil, reputations can take decades if not centuries in some cases to be revised or changed. Romance publishers did the industry no favours in that respect.
Thank you, Nicola, for addressing this idea. I would use words like informative, insightful, hidden, intrusive, mature, grief, love, kindness, adaptable, fulfilling.
A few years ago, I was at a meetup and mentioned I enjoyed romance novels. I was speaking to two librarians. What a look they gave me. It was one of pity and condescension. Then, one of them said they liked vampires. I couldn’t think of the word, paranormal, otherwise I would have told her that was a form of romance.
In 2026, the snobs still put down anyone who reads romance or romantasy. I keep it private and still continue to enjoy both.
Those are excellent words, aren’t they Patricia and reflect the full romance reading experience. That’s funny about the librarians! I guess it’s a bit of a surprise that one of them even admitted to enjoying paranormal romance!
Wow, that’s weird about the librarians. Nothing like the ones I know….or even like me(i am a retired librarian) . Sometimes i think many people don’t like to admit they resd genre fiction , but many people do especially to relax and enjoy themselves.
No one shoukd have to apologize for what they read! At least they are reading!
An interesting post, Nicola.
I agree with Lil, that it js the way romance novels were and to some extent still are presented to the public.
I would say, like many other genres, there are many different kinds of Romance novels, from steamy to closed door or traditional, and anything in between, but they all had those same bare chested men and half dressed women on the covers so one couldn’t tell them apart. Publishers have begun to differentiate the book covers a bit more now so one has an idea what one is getting. It seems to me that writers had gone overboard In adding sex scenes to their novels so that too many romances read like sex manuals with so many detailed descriptions of the act that went on for many , many pages.
I don,t find detailed descriptions of sexual acts very romantic, on a table, in an alley, on the floor, in a hay loft, anywhere and everywhere to the point that you wonder if they do anything else. What plot there js is almost nonexistent. I prefer “slow burn” romances where the relationship develops as people spend time doing things together, being in each other’s company, conversation, riding out together, eyeing each other across the table at meals, etc. , even solving a crime or mystery together, getting to knkw one another, or resolving their differences , even if they don’t take to each other at first.
If romance novels want respect then they have to tell a good story, have their characters be more than sex machines and create characters that are more real.
There are plenty if romantic novels out there that do this (the Wenches romances for one) but too often they are lost in the slush pile of the poorly written ones and hard todiscover.
Oh, and the term bodice ripper is from the covers that showed a woman with her dress torn from neck to waist, being ravaged by a bare chested “hero”
Very interesting, thank you, Jane. I’m with you on preferring more history, proper romance and less explicitness in my reading. In my experience of publishing it started with editors always pushing authors to add more and more “inventive” sex scenes because that was what they thought the market wanted. That was one of the reasons I stopped writing Regency historicals, because my editor was always nagging me for more sex in a manner of speaking. Rather like publishers’ decisions to put bodice-ripping covers on books! They do the genre no favours sometimes. And then there is also the issue of good books not getting the coverage(!) they deserve because there is so much out there… It’s amazing the good books get through at all, really, and thank you to loyal readers for picking them up!
Well, i have to admit, wheni tried to sell my first historical novel, all the publishers i sent it to said there weren’t enough “sex scenes” so it wouldn,t sell because it wasn,’t commercial enough because of that. And these weren’t small unknown publishing houses either. Thus was in the late ’70’s and most of the 1980’s. Even my brother in law’s agent said the same thing. She did say, though, that the story and writing were good, but the lack of enough sex scenes made it a non starter. So I gave up and put the two novels away. I had fun writing them, though and it was their loss. My friends who read it loved the characters a d the story…but, well what do we knkw…we are only readers and buy books😊😉
What a shame that was, Jane. It confirms this ridiculous bias agents and editors had (have?) with sexy historicals. Thank goodness there is self-publishing as a way around this now, but it’s annoying that there are still “gatekeepers” who really don’t know best.
Historical’s are my favourite reads but from my mid teens to my late thirties I read a lot of Mills and Boon books and yes you get lambasted for it. I also used to attend lots of table quizzes and the amount of questions on geography that I could answer was because of all the information from the settings in these books!! It was amazing because it was one subject in school I was useless at.
I adore Georgette Heyer and when people brush her off as a romantic novelist I tell them they don’t know what they’re missing. She’s a master at comedy and the cant in the books is fabulous!!! In some ways the romance is secondary in her books.
Now a days I read what I want, where I want and I’ll thumb my nose at anyone who has anything disparaging to say.
Great post Nicola and great to learn about the term ‘cheesy’!
Thanks, Teresa! I love that we all embrace our reading choices happily these days, knowing how much people are missing out if they denigrate romantic fiction!
Made me think of the book Dangerous Books For Girls: The Bad Reputation of Romance Novels Explained by Maya Rodale.
Oh yes! Thank you for reminding us of that one, Minna. There are some great books on the subject.
Great post, Nichola. I agree that the romance genre covers have a lot to answer for but like you I have grown a rhinoceros hide over the years. On one occasion, at a lunch thrown by an international charity for with high achieving women in Wales, one woman asked me why I was there. When I replied that I wrote romantic fiction she took a sharp step back. Maybe she thought it was catching. Then she said was “I suppose someone has to…” before turning around and walking away. I never found out why she was there. The judge I sat next to at lunch, on the other hand, was not only charming, but interested. We also shared a love of shoes. The sad fact is that there is an element that loves to sneer. It makes them feel superior. I don’t think there’s anything we can do to fix that.
ROFL! If only it were catching – we could all charge to infect aspiring authors! But how very rude of her, Liz. Sadly you are right – there will always be people who will judge and sneer at all sorts of things. Their loss…
When I decided to try my hand at writing historical romance, my brother looked a bit shocked and said, “Well, I suppose that could take you a weekend.” The sneer factor is always with us.
Yikes! And yet people who do try when their heart isn’t in it often give up, admitting defeat. Little do they know!
How rude! No manners, that one. And sadly, you are right, there are always thise whi feel superior and need to sneer. They are nit worth bothering with. So glad you had a better experience with the judge, who had infinitely more sense and was good company.
So,e people,don’t knkw what they are missing! 😊
Nicola… corrective text, sorry.
Hope, friendship, emotion, love.
I like most genre’s and find that a streak of romance enhances all!
Publication statistics don’t lie and reliably guide where demand (and profit) can be found. I think self publishing will serve minority interests better though and e-books and audio are diminishing the impact of covers. Fascinating discussion Nicola!
Quantum, that’s exactly right, I think. The addition of romance will enhance most good books because it makes them more human.
I do feel that the impact of the old covers is slowly dying away, which can only be a good thing. Many things that were “of their time” should be let go of now…