I find I kind of want to jump to romance novels' defense... except I know the novels you're talking about. They exist. Hoo-boy do they exist. I remember once a very long time ago throwing away a Catherine Coulter trilogy and being asked why and my saying "because of all the damn rape." Because I don't care how she tried to dress it up... that was rape. And I had had enough.
And Shadowkat mentions Kathleen Woodiwiss, and I remember one of the first romances I ever read was Woodiwiss' "The Flame and the Flower" which, at the time I read it as a 13 year old, seemed very scandalous, but in retrospect... oh my god. She was forced to marry her rapist! (No wonder I always disliked that books' hero and always found myself wishing the heroine would run off with his brother.) But that book was written in the early 1970s. It was fifteen years out of date when I read it in the late 80s. And I do sort of see where the whole pre-feminist mindset of "good girls don't want it... but it it's forced on them...?" influenced those original 'bodice rippers'. It was basically okaying female erotica... which hadn't been 'okay.' Perverse? You betcha. But I sort of see where those early novels developed that trope (which isn't a reason for that trope to continue to exist.) But, oddly, in the original... I actually think it was sort of a perverse rebellion against a culture that wasn't allowing female erotica because 'women aren't supposed to like it." (And I always find myself comparing Woodiwiss' "The Flame and the Flower" with her "Shanna", because...other than the fact that Shanna is bitchy as all hell, it's pretty unambiguous that she's the one with all the power for the majority of the book. So...yeah... not sure where I'm going with that. Weird factoid, I guess.)
On the other hand, not all romances are like that and not even all older romances were like that. Out of sheer curiosity a year or two ago I ordered an out-of-print book from Amazon which was in fact the very first romance I ever read as a young girl. It's actually... still pretty interesting. In modern fiction, I'm not at all sure that it would still be categorized in the romance department rather than Young Adult, because there's really nothing but implied sex in it and the majority of the book is more travel/mystery/adventure about a young orphan in Tibet who was sent to England for education, and then was returned to Tibet... and there was some mystery that I've forgotten now. But it was still entertaining and non-offensive.
And, though I haven't read romances in years, I can think of several that deliberately try to subvert genre tropes (I tended to have a thing for that so many of the ones I read were about that subversion... some more successful with it than others). (cont'd because I ran REALLY long...)
no subject
And Shadowkat mentions Kathleen Woodiwiss, and I remember one of the first romances I ever read was Woodiwiss' "The Flame and the Flower" which, at the time I read it as a 13 year old, seemed very scandalous, but in retrospect... oh my god. She was forced to marry her rapist! (No wonder I always disliked that books' hero and always found myself wishing the heroine would run off with his brother.) But that book was written in the early 1970s. It was fifteen years out of date when I read it in the late 80s. And I do sort of see where the whole pre-feminist mindset of "good girls don't want it... but it it's forced on them...?" influenced those original 'bodice rippers'. It was basically okaying female erotica... which hadn't been 'okay.' Perverse? You betcha. But I sort of see where those early novels developed that trope (which isn't a reason for that trope to continue to exist.) But, oddly, in the original... I actually think it was sort of a perverse rebellion against a culture that wasn't allowing female erotica because 'women aren't supposed to like it." (And I always find myself comparing Woodiwiss' "The Flame and the Flower" with her "Shanna", because...other than the fact that Shanna is bitchy as all hell, it's pretty unambiguous that she's the one with all the power for the majority of the book. So...yeah... not sure where I'm going with that. Weird factoid, I guess.)
On the other hand, not all romances are like that and not even all older romances were like that. Out of sheer curiosity a year or two ago I ordered an out-of-print book from Amazon which was in fact the very first romance I ever read as a young girl. It's actually... still pretty interesting. In modern fiction, I'm not at all sure that it would still be categorized in the romance department rather than Young Adult, because there's really nothing but implied sex in it and the majority of the book is more travel/mystery/adventure about a young orphan in Tibet who was sent to England for education, and then was returned to Tibet... and there was some mystery that I've forgotten now. But it was still entertaining and non-offensive.
And, though I haven't read romances in years, I can think of several that deliberately try to subvert genre tropes (I tended to have a thing for that so many of the ones I read were about that subversion... some more successful with it than others). (cont'd because I ran REALLY long...)