We know there are people that apologize or are sheepish to say they read romances. I think the simple statement in the Reading that Emotional qualities are what makes the romance genre unique. So, can we use that concept that it's valuable for people to meet their emotional needs and romance does that, would that help our customers or is that also patronizing (in the way I'm using this concept). Will have to try this out. Understanding also that women may read romance because the romances feature women as the lead character, often the strong character with the power to change their lives, are true to their principles, and in contemporary romances have a strong career orientation are also positives that should give value to romance reading for those who need to assign a value. These are also viewpoints we as librarians can talk about as positives for women to appreciate.
Before reading the chapter I'd assumed that my romance reading inntroduction was Gone with the Wind. I'd really not considered the classics like Bronte and Austen. And the formula for in the Reading (meet, attraction . . . happy ending) existed in these early classics too.
It still seems like the labels regarding sexuality are awkward for customers and librarians to discuss. You hear steamy or hot or trashy said dismissively while on the other end "no sex" -- "innocent" and other publisher labels don't help much either. Who has some better suggestions or ways to broach talking about sex - we don't want the reader getting the wrong book . . . ? Did readers ever come in and say I want a bodice ripper or were they left to find new books based on their covers?
It was very helpful to be introduced to the sub-genres like paranormals, fantasy, time travel, westerns, family sagas (I hadn't thought of those as romances - I have read Barbara Taylor Bradford), and historical.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment