Fantasy and Reconciliation: Contemporary Formulas of Women's Romance Fiction
Book by Kay Mussell; Greenwood Press, 1984

Preface
I first became interested in romances and romance readers in the mid-1960s when I asked a group of high school juniors why they liked to read novels by Mary Stewart, Phyllis Whit- ney, Victoria Holt, and Georgette Heyer. When they replied that their mothers and older sisters recommended romances, I caught my first glimpse of the romance underground: read- ers who share copies of favorite novels with friends and rec- ommend books and authors to each other. Later, in graduate school, I wrote a paper on the modern gothic romance for- mula, contrasting it with the gothic novels of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. That paper, much expanded, be- came my dissertation, "The World of Modern Gothic Fiction: American Women and Their Social Myths." While I worked on my dissertation, the contemporary wom- en's movement began to influence scholarship and led to a new academic interest in women's studies. In every field, research- ers began to study the experience of women, but romances and feminist scholarship have little in common. Romances rarely challenge the social order, and they do not urge women to rec- ognize oppression or to revolt; instead, they reinforce the value of traditional roles in a changing society. Somehow, it didn't seem to fit. John Cawelti wrote in 1976:

There seems little doubt that most modern romance formulas are af- firmations of the ideal of monogamous marriage and feminine do- mesticity. No doubt the coming age of women's liberation will invent significantly new formulas for romance, if it does not lead to the total rejection of the moral fantasy of love triumphant.But readers have not rejected the romance fantasy; for de- spite significant changes in the life-styles of American women, romances sell more widely now than in 1960 when Gerald Gross of Ace Books coined the term gothic to describe a new paper- back series of women's mysteries. 2 Romance formulas exhibit astonishing resilience and flexibility over time, most recently in the accommodations of romance publishers to feminism and the ual revolution. Although gothics sell less widely today, romances remain popular, most notably in the two dominant formulas of the 1970s: tic and series romances. Some re- cent romances feature women with career commitments and ual experience, but the essential characteristics of ro- mances remain constant, even though the relative popularity of specific formulas may have shifted.

All romances take place in a similar fictional world. The es- sential assumptions of romance formulas--belief in the pri- macy of love in a woman's life, female passivity in romantic relationships, support for monogamy in marriage, reinforce- ment of domestic values--have not faded or significantly al- tered. How can such apparently conservative and traditional stories be especially popular today, when we see many women casting off old roles and values and choosing to live more in- strumental lives in the world? This book addresses that par- adox.

Although I have read many hundreds of romances, this study will not deal with all or even with a large number. I have cho- sen to concentrate on a few major authors within each for- mula, and I have limited discussion to key works by those au- thors. For the series romance, I cite more authors than in the other formulas because of the tighter publisher control over content, significant recent formulaic variations, and prolifer- ation of new series. Janet Dailey and Charlotte Lamb write for both Harlequin and Silhouette, and both are popular writ- ers of the traditional series formula. Amii Lorin ( Candlelight), Brooke Hastings ( Silhouette), and Karen van der Zee ( Harle- quin) exemplify the new series romance. For tic romances with historical settings, I use Rose- mary Rogers, an early and popular writer in the formula. For contemporary tics, my examples include Janet Dailey and...