(Réédition du 22/08/10)

Chi-Chi

We talk a lot about romance here… I admit that’s pretty strange on a blog run by two princesses, but sometimes you have to force yourself! But what exactly is a romance novel?

For a start, I said romance, but I could also say "sappy books" or "a beach read" or "sentimental novels" or I don’t know what. All these terms are somewhat pejorative, I find, and I can not bring myself to use them. Let’s say Romance, then. If I look up the precise definition in a dictionary, it says "a play in verse, naïve, based on folklore, which deals with love in a melancholic way and can be set to music". OK, the connection with the books we read is not obvious. Plus, in French we use this word because it is a direct translation of the English word.

So, if we look in the dictionary for the definition of "sappy"? Answer: mushy, bland, insipid, sentimental.

Ah.

According to this, a romance is a story where sentiments are associated with being mushy, bland and insipid. Yet I do not find the books I read mushy, bland and insipid. Yes, they are sentimental sometimes. Definition of sentimental: Which attaches importance to love and affection. That’s a pretty vast definition, wouldn’t you say? That means that you can find romance in some books which are not usually put in that category, like the infamous "fake romances" which I have already talked about.

Let’s forget the definitions. What is it about a book which makes this Royal Highness call it a romance, even if the cover doesn’t mention it?

The most obvious answer is, of course, that the book talks about love. However, love is the main subject treated by many writers. If we look at classical literature, there are loads, whatever period or country we choose. Romeo and Juliette, for example. Okay, that was an easy one, I admit. Even if I limit myself to French writers, because otherwise we will still be here next Christmas… Yvain, the Knight with the Lion, Andromaque, la Princesse de Cleves, The Barber of Seville, Le Cid, The Charterhouse of Parma, Madame Bovary, La Petite Fadette, Sentimental Education, Dangerous Liaisons… I could go on and on… Who would dare to claim that these books didn’t talk about love and affection?

And who would think of calling these books romances? Not me, that’s for sure, but why? Because they are classical books? Probably. There is something sacred about a book which has stood the test of time, and I am not referring to the tourment suffered by those which I carry around in my bag! Let’s look at contemporary literature. There must be some books which are published under the heading of general literature and which correspond to my idea of a romance, aren’t there? Yes, of course.

First and foremost, talking about love is not enough to qualify as a romance! Many of the classics I mentioned end badly, and I can not find anything romantic in that. Wait, a voice "off" is reminding me that I called them sentimental, not romantic. These books are sentimental, so are romances, but romances have something extra: the famous happy end! From Disney to Harlequin, from fairy tales to the classics, and even to some French editors, for me, a romance is a sentimental story which has a happy end, nothing more, nothing less!

The only problem is that 8 out of 10 books published in the past three years end badly. Either they peter out, or they are a let-down, or they end in some monumental catastrophe which I am unable to describe with my polite ladylike vocabulary. In short, today’s writers seem to like unhappy ends.

Why, cruel universe, why?

It seems as though a sad ending is the sign of the literary quality of a novel. Romances are criticised as being light reading. Why should it be easier to write a happy ending than a sad one? Many poorly written books end badly, whereas some very fine works have a happy ending! In a romance, the woes of the world may fall on to our heroes’ shoulders, but everything ends well, and if the author is a good writer, it will all be done without feeling too contrived and unconvincing.

What I like, finally, in an "official" romance, is that it is out in the open. It talks about love, but not about silly, mushy, bland or insipid emotions. It talks about relationships and about the influence that our feelings can have on our lives. The style of a good romantic novelist is no less refined or poetic than that of any other writer. She has simply chosen a publishing house which can be clearly recognised by its readers, since this is another way of recognising modern romance, by the publisher.

A few years ago, when Harlequin France started to develop the Mira collection, large trade paperbacks, one of my male friends received two books by Nora Roberts, quite dark thrillers, as a present. He despised romances and called them "airport novels". He was ashamed if I read a Harlequin romance in public, but had no qualms about reading "Sacred Sins" in front of other people, until the day when he realised who had published the new book he was enjoying so much.

So, a book can be a Harlequin, a romance, but it is not necessarily mushy. I have checked every page for mushiness, looked at the bottom of my bag, behind the bookshelf, under the bed, no sign of mushiness whatsoever…

Finally, I think that romance is not a category, nor a literary genre. It is a state of mind.

Chi-Chi