Book banners are coming after romance novels

They’re going after Nora Roberts (lols) but still…

My husband really knows how to get my heart racing: he sends me links to articles about people trying to ban romance novels. He recently sent a link to a Washington Post article that describes the efforts of an activist group,  Moms for Liberty, to get any books with “pornography” in them banned. As a result, a school district in Florida decide to pull eight Nora Roberts novels from their library circulation. The Post writes: “This signals a new trend: Book banners are increasingly going after a wide variety of titles, including romance novels, under the guise of targeting “pornography.” 

I have already written about romance novels and porn (Please turn to page 121 in your copy of Dangerous Books for Girls, chapter “Lady Porn”), so this will not be a post about that.

My heart rate slows slightly when I read that this group went after Nora Roberts. It is a truth universally acknowledged to never start a land war in Asia and to never go after Nora Roberts. You will not win. 

Also do not fuck with Romancelandia. 

However, I am still concerned because, as we’ve seen in many XO Interviews, a Nora Roberts book is often “The One” that first captivates a reader and introduces them to romance. And that new romance reader likely found that book at the local library. Yes, there is an endless supply of romance novels to be discovered in attics, garages, bookshelves, bedside tables and closets all over the world. But removing these books from the library shelves diminishes the chance of a young reader discovering the romance genre and all that it offers: compelling and empowering storytelling for folks who need to hear it.  

I’m glad Nora Roberts commented on the matter but I’m a little troubled by one thing she said. Speaking of the censors, she to the Post: “I’m surprised that they wouldn’t want teenagers to read about healthy relationships that are monogamous, consensual, healthy and end up in marriage.”

Look, I know Nora is poking at the hypocrisy of these people. She is not surprised. I can just hear her making the remark in dryly sarcastic raspy smokers voice (love!). But I have reservations about using this line of argument because it opens the door to judging or banning books that don’t any of that. 

Relationships should be consensual. Full stop. They don’t need to be monogamous, though—that’s up to the couple. And they certainly don’t need to end in marriage—and increasingly, they don’t. I previously wrote about the “requirement” for an HEA to have a baby and how that inadvertently shuts the door on a range of stories and misunderstands what the HEA is really about—an emotionally uplifting and optimistic feeling because the couple has resolved what issues or obstacles have kept them from being the truest version of themselves and are now loved and accepted “just as they are” by their romantic partner, friends, family and society. 

It’s not the the marriage and the baby carriage that make an HEA. It’s the sense that a couple is committed to each other in a way that no church or government can touch. The romance genre is moving fully in this direction. (Yes, I have a half written piece “Does the HEA need to end in marriage?” stay tuned.

I really have trouble with the justification that because romance ultimately reinforces “traditional family values” it can’t be bad. To me that implies that anything can be forgiven if the couple gets married in the end. I’m looking at you, The Flame and the Flower. 

And I’m not surprised that these censors don’t want teens reading about “healthy relationships” because healthy relationships are egalitarian relationships based on mutual respect and love. It’s probably not the pornography that has their unmentionables in a twist; it’s the equality. Because it’s hard to stomach inequality in the world when you have had a taste of it at home—and vice versa. 

This particular effort to ban Nora’s books is “largely prompted by objections from a single woman who also happens to be a Moms for Liberty activist.” One person is making the outraged phone calls, fueled by what is likely a small group of individuals likely funded by an even smaller group of individuals. 

And then there is this: “One oft-cited feature directs school officials to privilege removal if they would not be “comfortable” reading something aloud in public.”

Romance novels are famously something people are uncomfortable in public (I wrote a book about that). 

It all makes me think that a bunch of us need to show up en mass to these school board and library meetings and sit down and read romance novels in public.