I was struck by a sentence written by romance novelist Adriana Herrera in the Washington Post this week. Herrera, in an article entitled The 10 Best Romance Novels of 2022, wrote:
For me, this year has been a reminder that the personal is always political, and I’ve found myself reaching for romances with protagonists who are not only looking for that glorious HEA but also healing, showing up for their communities, being courageous enough to fight for justice and striving to live authentically.
The books Herrera picked, I assume, reflect that. On her list are:
You Made a Fool of Death With Your Beauty by Akwaeke Emezi (rated 4.2 at Amazon and 3.72 at Goodreads)
Before I Let Go by Kennedy Ryan (rated 5.0 at Amazon and 4.70 at Goodreads)
The Very Secret Society of Irregular Witches by Sangu Mandanna (rated 4.5 at Amazon and 4.27 at Goodreads)
Heartbreaker by Sarah MacLean (rated 4.5 at Amazon and 4.18 at Goodreads)
A Proposal They Can’t Refuse by Natalie Caña (rated 4.2 at Amazon and 3.82 at Goodreads)
Mistakes Were Made by Meryl Wilsner (rated 4.5 at Amazon and 4.12 at Goodreads)
Something Wilder by Christina Lauren (rated 4.1 at Amazon and 3.72 at Goodreads)
American Royalty by Tracey Livesay (rated 4.2 at Amazon and 3.70 at Goodreads)
After Hours on Milagro Street by Angelina M Lopez (rated 4.3 at Amazon and 3.88 at Goodreads)
Pride and Protest by Nikki Payne (rated 4.7 at Amazon and 4.22 at Goodreads)
I’ve only read one of these–I could barely get through it–but have several others on my TBR. It’s an interesting list and anyone who thinks romance isn’t a diverse genre is flat out wrong. Many of them, as described, deal with weighty topics. They have a moving portrayal of depression and grief, incisive observations on gentrification, racism and the immigrant experience, heavy themes like generational trauma and classism, and more.
As much as I admire books with emotional depth and social criticism, right now I’m not as up for stories of anguished people trying to change a cruel and unforgiving world. It makes me feel shallow to admit it, but, currently, what I want from romance is escapism. I love stories with depth but–at this point in my life–not with devastation. But that, dear readers, is just me.
How about you? Do love stories with political heft and emotional loss call to you? If so, what’s your favorite you’ve read this year? And if this is not your jam, why not?
Impenitent social media enthusiast. Relational trend spotter. Enjoys both carpe diem and the fish of the day.
I’ve noticed that I notice preachiness more if it’s something I disagree with or am not interested in. For example, I usually don’t read inspirational romances because they literally preach a specific religion. I do not condemn them, they just aren’t my taste. I also read only one mystery/thriller by a certain popular author because I didn’t care for the political views threaded throughout the book. OTOH, I’ve read books by authors I’ve agreed with and the political or other POV doesn’t pull me out of the story because I’m not arguing with the author in my head. Does that happen to others?
Yes.
Very much. there is a middle of the spectrum where I just disagree a bit, and then I can enjoy, but if the values / views expressed are just too far from mine I get pulled out – it does not even have to be preaching, just a worldview that people live that I cannot get into.
For example:
A lot of thrillers, or suspense books, where a lot of violence is taken for granted, just disagrees with me.
I stopped watching Miami Vice ages ago, because people just getting shot because they were in the apartment where a drug dealer was when the police came in – I could not really take it for granted that the stupidity of a young woman who fell for a bad guy warranted death – or that the young boy who got into bad company just died – they were simply collateral damage.
I understand that this is just a different standard, but for a Central European like myself, it simply pulls me out of the romance, it is too far from my benchmark – a hero(ine) like that rarely works for me.
I read for escapism and to manage stress. My interests are diverse spanning paranormal romance, romantic suspense, fantasy, science fiction, historical romance, historical fiction, adventure, mystery and steampunk. My criteria are straightforward: a 4.0+ rating and avoiding personal triggers (e.g. cheating, OW).
N.B. Adrianna Herrera is the author of A Caribbean Heiress in Paris (Las Leonas #1). I greatly enjoyed this diverse historical romance with unique aspects and think it deserves a better rating on Goodreads…but we like what we like.
We gave it an A. She’s gotten very strong grades here for almost everything she’s written!
I really appreciate having lots of options in my romance reading. There are so many choices, and depending on my mood, I love being able to pick up something which is simply a fun escape or diving into something more substantial which makes me think while still giving me an HEA. Romance is a $1.44 Billion dollar industry, and its readers are getting younger. Gen Z is driving a ton of book sales, influenced by BookTok and other social media. Younger people are more diverse, socially aware and politically active, so it makes sense that there are more books coming out designed to appeal to them. I also think authors are coming from younger generations, and their books reflect their life experiences and interests as well. That being said, 92% of romance novels published in 2021 were written by white authors, so there is room for more diversity.
https://www.npr.org/2022/08/29/1119886246/gen-z-is-driving-sales-of-romance-books-to-the-top-of-bestseller-lists
https://wordsrated.com/romance-novel-sales-statistics/
(This second article lists the 10 best-selling romance novels of all time— it’s fun to take a look!)
I’m not sure that Anna Karenina, Romeo and Juliet, Gone with the Wind, or Love Story meet the definition of a romance–no HEA in any of them!
I agree— I would call them love stories, but not romances. Not even healthy or happy love stories.
It’s just always annoying to me when best ROMANCES list include books that aren’t!
Not sure I can agree that Gen Z are either more socially aware or politically active than other “generations”. It could be argued that they are only on the cusp of social awareness purely through youth and shorter life experience. When looking at political activity, it’s often older generations who do the donkey work. Younger people just shout louder – I know I did when the same age as Gen Z. Now in later life, I am one of those countless older folk manning back office engines in both charity and political endeavours. I do agree wholeheartedly that Gen Z are more receptive to diversity and this gives me hope that when they are more socially aware through life experience, societies in general will be better and more welcoming to all.
Good point about the older generations doing the hard work. I don’t have time to dig for the statistics, but I have seen that Gen Z volunteers more (charities, political groups, climate change, etc) at their age, than prior generations did, but I am not sure which generations they are comparing them to. I would imagine that those who came of age in the 60s would have been quite active here in the US, due to the Vietnam War.
Not only in the US. In Europe we had the so called 68er, a very politically engaged Generation (very left too). Mao and Ho Tshi Minh demonstrations in every university.
At least in 2022 Midterms, Gen Z voters turned out in larger number than the age group has in past elections at the same age. Early data shows there was a 7 to 10% increase. So they are at least voting. When you combine Millennials, Gen X and Gen Z, they now vote in larger numbers than the Boomer and older groups. That started in 2018 and has continued. Boomers are a huge age group with a lot of influence remaining, but they no longer are the majority voting block.
Not the case in the UK where turn-out correlated to age shows turn-out percentages rise through age gradations. Figures from the last genetal election in 2019 show this though it will be interesting to see how this will manifest in the next one. By and large older groups make up the largest group of voters in local elections which generally do not seem of interest to most voters, young and old and turn-out is often poor. This may be related to property owners feeling that local issues affect them more.
Sorry! I shouldn’t lose sight of the many places represented here. Thanks for the insight.
Younger voters didn’t make up a significantly larger share of the electorate in the 2022 midterms, they did skew more Democratic than past cycles.
Teach Me by Olivia Dade had a nice slow burn romance in it, and I DNFed it at 53% and swore off the author due to the preachiness? lecturing? of it.
It is a testament to how awful things are in the US that words like “political” and “justice” can conjure such negative feelings/reactions, including my own first reaction to this post. I don’t like being “hit over the head” with anyone else’s opinions about anything, either. But in clicking through the specific titles, it would seem the words used to describe them as a whole are more about marketing than the content of any one of the novels, per se.
At least two of these titles were given A- and B+ reviews here at AAR. And I see a lot of plot lines that sound very familiar and have been written many times in the romance genre: moving on from traumatic events like the death of a partner or child, May/December relationships, arranged marriages, second chance romances, etc. Specifically:
Mistakes Were Made and You Made Death . . . both sound a lot like NR Walker’s May/December Thomas Elkin series and LaVyrle Spencer’s Family Blessings (falling in love with a child’s best friend not to mention building a new life after the death of a child).
After Hours on Milagro Street (to which AAR gave an A- review) reminds me of Pamela Morsi’s Red’s Honky Tonk Bar.
Pride and Protest (in addition to being a retelling of Pride and Prejudice) is the same basic plot of the relatively popular Sandra Bullock/Hugh Grant rom-com Two Weeks Notice.
I guess it is all in the eye of the beholder and what you are in the mood for as a reader/viewer. Sandra Bullock’s character in Two Week’s Notice is a social justice lawyer and Hugh Grant is a playboy real estate developer with plans to destroy her childhood neighborhood’s community center. Does that make it less desirable to watch at this moment in time?
Basically, I’m saddened to think that the titles on Herrera’s list are now going to be automatically avoided because the marketing of them as a whole make them sound like they are about negative “weighty” issues.
I don’t think that the titles on this list should be discounted.
I do think that there is a trend in modern romance to make social justice issues more prevalent than they were a decade ago. I’m curious how people feel about that.
Additionally, my bet is that Herrera’s list at the WaPo is perfect for that audience and that the way she described those books will make readers there more interested in them rather than less. I feel the same way about Olivia Waite/Dade’s romance column in the NYT–the romances she champions are not the ones–usually–on the bestseller list but rather books that are curated for the NYT readership.
I don’t think authors (romance or otherwise) are making social issues any more prevalent in their fiction today than in the past. I think we readers are just more sensitive to it (actually everything) at the moment.
I respect and understand what you are saying. Our viewpoints shift with age/time and that can definitely cause us to be more sensitive to issues that we glossed over before. Speaking strictly for myself, I don’t know what anyone else is reading/seeing but in many of the volumes I am picking up there is a notable difference between books from the 90s and nones and those being published now. It becomes glaringly obvious when I do a reread of an old favorite and compare it to something recently published. I do think young people are more involved politically than we were a couple of decades ago so it makes some sense to have that be a larger part of the character’s lives in a contemporary. However, I’ve noticed it more in historicals than contemps (and its pretty darn prevalent in contemps). Caz mentioned the change in Courtney Milan books, which I think is a good example. I’ve noticed it in many Inspirational novels, where the political viewpoint has essentially replaced the narrative on faith. Even a recent non-Christian book contained a slap-you-in-the-face prolife message which was jarring in the text. So I’m seeing and feeling a change myself but of course YMMV.
As someone who has been reading romance for decades–and as someone who reads over a hundred books a year–I’d say that the last time books were this overtly preachy was in the late 70s.
I respectfully disagree; I think there’s a bigger focus on social issues in romances today than there was, say, twenty years ago. That said, I think that some of that arises as a natural result of romance becoming more diverse, so we’re getting more books by and about authors and characters of colour and authors and characters of differing abilities etc. etc. , and those will of course have some element of politics/social commentary in them in the same way that queer books will. But regardless of whether one thinks that political/social issues are appearing for that reason, or because authors are wanting to appeal to a particular audience, I think they’re definitely a lot more prevalent now than they were before.
I’m happy they are more prevalent. There are still plenty of fluffy books to read, which I probably enjoy more than you do, so no one is going to force anyone to read books where social issues are a main part of the story. No, I don’t like heavy-handed writing, of ANY kind, but that poor writing more than poor subject matter.
Personally I want to learn about people who face different challenges than I do. I haven’t dealt with body shaming in my life, so having a character in a book go through that helps me understand it. I do have experience with mental and physical health challenges in my family, but I still want to see it written about because it affects so many people.
I love fluff! But, like dessert, I can’t take a steady diet of it. I would bet there are still many, many more romance authors writing books without social commentary than ones that are.
I’m really happy for the shift towards more diversity, and I agree a lot of it is propelled by younger readers. I like that if I don’t want to read something (I rarely read m/f romances) that there is plenty of authors out there writing what I do want to read.
I think there’s a difference between diversity and preachiness. I like reading diversity. The successful authors do so in a way where it’s just people living their lives. To me the unsuccessful authors are the ones that want to hit you over the head with Diversity! Inclusion! Social Issues that the hero or heroine must be advocating for/against!!!! I’m sorry but I am exhausted enough by the current world. I don’t want more of it in Romance. I have an ever expanding list of authors that I will not read for this reason.
*nods in agreement*
It is arrogant to write like your audience is too blinkered to see the true world. I get POd whenever books admonish me to “get it.”
I’m in agreement with pretty much everything that’s been said. I suppose that because I read so much m/m romance there’s always a political/social commentary aspect to the story because of the prejuduce queer people still face, but I don’t want to be hit over the head with ‘issues’ at the expense of strong storytelling and characterisation. As Maggie says, it’s important that authors don’t lose sight of the fact they’re writing a romance, despite whatever challenges their characters may be facing. I used to be a massive fan of Courtney Milan’s historicals and her Brothers Sinister books are real highlights of the genre, but whereas those books were romances which had a very strong grounding in the social and political issues of the time, her subsequent Worth series is/was one that reversed that, so that the issues were paramount and the romances became mere vehicles for a degree of authorial tub-thumping.
I read and listen to news and podcasts for my dose of reality, and although I don’t object to authors raising ‘issues’ in their books, I don’t like being preached at, or being taken out of a story because of obvious ‘teaching moments’. I like stories and characters with depth and complexity, and I like angst, but I like it best when those things arise organically because of the situations and personalities of the protagonists and not because an author feels I need to be told how to think.
Agreed about Courtney Milan, she went from truly great with Brothers Sinister having all 4 books on my reread list, to Worth and Wedgewood with all DNFs for me.
The two or three Worth books I read broke my heart… I was so very disappointed.
I feel exactly the same (except I gave up on Milan much earlier than you did). I like my love stories to be romantic; it’s as simple as that. Yes, I have learned about many interesting issues through reading romance but that is not why I read the genre. If the characters don’t tug at my heartstrings and make me care about their happiness then no amount of historical research, funny banter, clever plotting or beautiful prose will save a ‘romance’ from being a failure for me. Exploration of social issues or putting the characters through an emotional wringer will definitely not make up for a tepid or unconvincing relationship, either.
It really depends on what we mean by dealing with issues. For example to me, a beautiful heroine who experiences sexism/sexual abuse in the workplace ala Elle Woods from Legally Blonde enriches the story telling and romance. Her tale wasn’t about sexism nor did this take up a lot of the story time but it did highlight some of the sexism women experience as part of their everyday lives. In Jasmine Guillory’s Drunk on Love the hero had a tough workplace environment and finally realized that he was experiencing a form of subtle racism. The heroine also spoke of how being a Black winery owner meant that many people responded with subtle racism to her product or even just her presence in the industry. Dealing with that amounted to less than 3% of the tale and I felt added a lot of authenticity to the story. As a Hispanic person, I am aware that our race is very much a part of how people view us and respond to us and it would erase an important aspect of life from our perspective if that was simply washed out of a text. However, Guillory also made her story sexy, funny and just a downright pleasure to read. She never forgot she was writing a romance, albeit one with characters who faced this unique challenge.
But there is a big difference between a book about racism, where the h/h spend page after page lecturing us on the issues, and reading a romance that shows this is an unfortunately normal part of the h/h’s lives. I want the latter but won’t pick up the former. When I want to learn about issues, I turn to nonfiction. There I get a studied, in-depth look at the topic.
That’s very much how I feel about it.
In Anne Calhoun’s Uncommon Passion, both leads have experienced trauma. The hero’s brother is gay and the discrimination he faces is sad and believable. The heroine was part of a patriarchal religious cult. Both contexts are well limned but they’re not hectoring or really depressing. The book is about hope, love, passion, and redemption. I’m here for those kinds of stories. But stories where modern life is grim, hope is in small supply, and individualism trumps connection just aren’t my current jam.
I don’t like reading about politics generally. I do like books with emotional depth and that explore topics that illuminate the human condition, but politics is just so much blah, blah, blah. Escapism is great, maybe not a steady diet of it though. I think that is why I prefer historicals. The politics of the (past) time are removed enough from the current political chaos that I can lose myself in the story. While I have read some great books that use politics as plot lines, I don’t like it when authors hammer you over the head with whatever the political issue is. The best authors are more subtle.
I’m exhausted enough by our current political situation to want it to play a front-and-center role in my romance reading. I like to read romances where the angst & emotional conflict develops from the characters’ interactions not from external political/social/cultural struggles. I’m not being an ostrich: I read plenty of non-fiction about what is happening in our country and world, but when I’m reading for pleasure and entertainment, I don’t need a primer on how awful things are.
That’s me. I read four newspapers a day, subscribe to the Atlantic, and have a peer group that discusses the world endlessly. I don’t need more doom and gloom in my fun reading.
When I started reading genre romances about 30 years ago, humor was my strongest selection criterion. With the growth of the PNR & SFR sub-genres, I now also get a lot of romances that overlap with my F&SF genre preference without necessarily expecting as much humor. I tolerate suspense if it is leavened with humor like the works of JAK, but don’t seek it out. I avoid angst-fests. With these preferences, I rarely buy issue and political stories without a review or other strong recommendation that says the story includes features I want.
I made a comment, posted, made an edit, and then got a message saying it was spam, and now it’s gone.
I think I found it… :)
Restored!
Thank you both! I’m not sure what I did wrong. :-)
It probably wasn’t anything you did. It got trapped in the spam filter for no reason that I can see!
While I read mainly for entertainment and escape, I appreciate the diversity of the genre and that many authors and readers want to tackle difficult issues in their fiction. At least in romance genres, as opposed to literary fiction, you are generally guaranteed some sort of happy ending. No, I don’t want to be preached to, nor do I enjoy angst for angst sake, but I do enjoy books that broaden my awareness and challenge my ideas.
Examples that have worked for me:
Jay Hogan’s Painted Bay series. The books dealt with chronic illness, past abuse, family disfunction, and more. Her Flare series has three books that deal with different aspects of sexual abuse/harassment and its aftermath. At times hard to read but well done all around.
Jay Hogan’s Digging Deep (Chron’s Disease) and C.S. Poe’s Momento Mori series (traumatic brain injury) all deal with chronic illness. All of these books give insight into living with chronic illness and were very informative.
There are books that deal with fat-phobia, and the stigmatism around mental health issues, struggles of immigrants and POC. They aren’t always easy to read but provide compassionate insight into people you probably interact with daily.
So I’d say I want a mix of books. The fun, fluffy ones and the ones that make me squirm a little and rethink my outlook on life. Since I tend to read fiction, but rarely non-fiction, this is one way I get exposed to new ideas.
Agreed about those particular books – and to paraphrase what Maggie has said, what’s so great about all of them is that the authors NEVER forget they’re writing a romance (or in CS Poe’s case, a romantic mystery) and do a wonderful job of integrating those particular issues seamlessly into their stories.
Part of what makes me uninterested in using romance to experience trauma and healing–and again this is just ME–is that it too often feels facile while also facilitating choices that aren’t likely to lead to happiness. Too often the process of self-actualization is one that stresses a lead’s own personal happiness independent from obligations to others especially if those obligations are to flawed family members and friends. Furthermore, by caging everything in the language of psychology, authors are freeing their characters to look inward in a way I’m not sure really leads to life satisfaction and joy.
We know that it is relationships that bring the most joy to people. Romance has traditionally championed connection over the individual. I, cranky old lady that I am, want my romances to be about how we can connect rather than how we can, on our own, feel content.
…. “traditionally championed connection….” Indeed. For me that connection means (a) I am at ease in the heroine’s head; and (b) I can visualise being in love with the hero. If (a) and (b) can’t happen in romance fiction because of truly divergent world views with either the MCs or the author, then that story just can’t work for me. This means, therefore, that certain subgenres, despite trying, are off the table for me. Nor do I wish to revisit in romantic fiction certain trauma or issues in my past that I have sucessffully put to bed.
I think, like almost everything in fiction, it just depends on if it’s done well. A lot of romances are kind of facile in how they address trauma (and often it seems like they’ll have an obligatory “going to a psychologist and realizing something profound scene”), but there are some that do it really well. And I think all of them show how positive relationships can help someone heal. For instance, Rainbow Rowell’s Simon Snow series I think does a good job of dealing with Simon’s trauma (although that is a 3 book series). Or to use an old school example, there are a few Laura Kinsale’s that did this in interesting ways (Seize the Fire, For My Lady’s Heart). In Kinsale’s work the main characters were often trying to avoid thinking/dealing with their trauma and I liked how you could slowly start to see how it was affecting their behavior and choices as the character revealed more to the reader.
Honestly, I would say that romances where people recover from trauma (even just a little) or are able to keep going more positively after trauma are probably my favorites. I find them very hopeful and it’s probably one of the things I most connect with in romances and other fiction (for instance in the Murderbot Diaries, which only feature platonic relationships, but which are very much about forging friendships after an extremely traumatic past).
I feel guilty saying this, but I’m more and more in the mood for escapism these days. When I read for comfort, I just want to forget about things that are happening in the world today, and if a romance tackles meaty issues like racism, it’s just too much of a reminder of reality. Plus, there’s little guarantee that a story will handle those issues well.
So I’d prefer to read romances with a different focus.
I agree with you, Marian. I read enough non-fiction and national and international print media to keep myself informed about all of the “important” issues du jour. My fiction and, ergo, romantic, preferences are for escapism, thanks, and preferably a nice HEA with a nice couple who love each other and aren’t trying to save the world according to their personal ethics and written by an author who is not trying to force their own world views down my throat.