A romance blogger was inspired by me to write a whole post on defining sweet romances. I must say I was flattered: link.
The irony is that she was critical of me in a way that made no sense, and it was quite apparent from the comments. The phrase “sweet romance” is a simple marketing strategy that works well enough for now.
Sweet romances with no explicit sex scenes as implying that there is something wrong with sex? Not at all, some writers and readers just have different preferences regarding what they write and read.
So my characters are young women who go to college in the hope of getting good grades and jobs upon graduation. They also want to get their Mrs. Degree, marriage to a serious boyfriend before graduation or immediately afterwards.
She critiqued sweet romances as indicating a political perspective packaged as a matter of personal choices. I scratched my head upon reading that one: “It never questions why certain women should want such things, or what role public policies and institutions might have played in shaping private, ‘personal’ decisions.”
In what universe would this be seen as something worthy of political analysis?
Most women don’t live their lives based upon a scorecard whether their personal choices developed through specific public policies and institutions. They just live their lives in the way they believe best fits them and their needs.
I posted in her comments: “I’m so glad I inspired you!”
She was glad to hear from me, because I make her think. It is good to have these types of conversations, where we can critique and encourage.
Copyright Barbara James. All rights reserved.