As a man reading romance novels... I don't think I would like them as much if they were written "for me" (or for some imagined idea of what I'm supposed to want). I think you're on to something with the idea that particular qualities don't need to be "for men" or "for women" - but furniture, for example, can be sized for people who are taller or shorter. And books can be written for people who like grumpy heroes or cinnamon rolls, magical shifters or normal people, ridiculously wealthy people or (like Mia Hopkins' Eastside Brewery series, which I recently enjoyed) people who are scraping to get by. People from history or people from the near future. None of those things *need* to be coded "for men" or "for women".
That said, I will admit that being able to read on my phone or e-reader - where nobody can see the covers of my books - does a lot for opening up the genre for me.
I think getting away from the idea of "for men" or "for women" is the secret key to happiness for all here...Along with considering what makes people feel comfortable and safe and striving for that. I think the phone and e-readers help with that for many of us! :-)
I've shared some romance novels with my husband, and he has enjoyed them - some Mary Balogh (which I feel is very interior-character focused), as well as Sarah MacLean's "Bareknucked Bastards" series - which he really loved. Men are people too (as evidenced by the other comments here!) and I think a good story - exciting, emotional, with characters you care about - can appeal to any reader. I don't think authors need to have "will men like this more?" shadowing their writing process, but I do think that adding a bit of variability to male protagonists would be great. I really enjoyed a historical featuring a hero who was severely disfigured by war - and his overcoming of the emotional wounds related to the disfigurement is one of the challenges in the storyline. Even for female-identifying readers, showing a hero who isn't brawny, tall, rich, etc. can be a thrill.
A lot of great thoughts here. A lot of men read my books. I think this is partly because the steampunk/fantasy elements appeal to readers of other genres. (I sometimes think non-romance readers often don't realize the extent of subgenres available to them. There's absolutely something for all sorts of tastes.) But I do also wonder if the fact that I don't write only the traditional romance hero makes the books accessible. I know that I get really excited when I find characters that reflect some aspect of me. So maybe the skinny, awkward guy or the former athlete with a bit of a gut would be equally exciting to readers who can see a part of themselves reflected. Regardless of whether it would draw in more men, I think it's important to keep expanding the range of male protagonists depicted, just as we are striving to depict different women, various sexualities and identities, more BIPOC characters, and so forth.
So much truth here, thank you! I especially love this: "Regardless of whether it would draw in more men, I think it's important to keep expanding the range of male protagonists depicted, just as we are striving to depict different women, various sexualities and identities, more BIPOC characters, and so forth."
To me it gets to the fun of romance. So much of the genre is formulaic and should hit certain emotional notes and deliver certain feelings (that HEA glow!)...but what keeps it fun and interesting and eternally exciting is all the different types of characters, all the different subgenres, all the possible combinations.
1. “If this is unrealistic, then the problem is reality not the books.” Ouch! 2. Yesterday I finished reading Barbara Kingsolver’s Demon Copperhead in a three-hankie meltdown. Audible sobs at the HOA moment, not just manly sniffles. Same with Ann Patchett’s State of Wonder, at the end. No pink cover in sight, but an emotional workout and reckoning nonetheless. Is that romance-adjacent?
Patchett and Kingsolver are both brilliant at giving their stories an emotional setting in addition to the physical kinds. Their work nestles in my heart and mind and takes me places with people I’d never meet elsewhere. Women! You can’t read without ‘em!
As a man reading romance novels... I don't think I would like them as much if they were written "for me" (or for some imagined idea of what I'm supposed to want). I think you're on to something with the idea that particular qualities don't need to be "for men" or "for women" - but furniture, for example, can be sized for people who are taller or shorter. And books can be written for people who like grumpy heroes or cinnamon rolls, magical shifters or normal people, ridiculously wealthy people or (like Mia Hopkins' Eastside Brewery series, which I recently enjoyed) people who are scraping to get by. People from history or people from the near future. None of those things *need* to be coded "for men" or "for women".
That said, I will admit that being able to read on my phone or e-reader - where nobody can see the covers of my books - does a lot for opening up the genre for me.
I think getting away from the idea of "for men" or "for women" is the secret key to happiness for all here...Along with considering what makes people feel comfortable and safe and striving for that. I think the phone and e-readers help with that for many of us! :-)
I've shared some romance novels with my husband, and he has enjoyed them - some Mary Balogh (which I feel is very interior-character focused), as well as Sarah MacLean's "Bareknucked Bastards" series - which he really loved. Men are people too (as evidenced by the other comments here!) and I think a good story - exciting, emotional, with characters you care about - can appeal to any reader. I don't think authors need to have "will men like this more?" shadowing their writing process, but I do think that adding a bit of variability to male protagonists would be great. I really enjoyed a historical featuring a hero who was severely disfigured by war - and his overcoming of the emotional wounds related to the disfigurement is one of the challenges in the storyline. Even for female-identifying readers, showing a hero who isn't brawny, tall, rich, etc. can be a thrill.
Yes! Thank you! Cheers to sharing books with your husband :-)
I feel I've read that book about the disfigured war hero but can't seem to find it in my Read list. Would you happen to remember the name?
Hi MK, The one I was thinking of specifically is 'Simply Love' https://marybalogh.com/portfolio-posts/simply-love/ but there are others I have read with "less than perfect" heroes.
There are many. I know Tessa Dare has one (can't recall the name of course). Sorry!
It's The Duchess Deal and I'm pretty sure that's the one I was thinking of! Thanks.
A lot of great thoughts here. A lot of men read my books. I think this is partly because the steampunk/fantasy elements appeal to readers of other genres. (I sometimes think non-romance readers often don't realize the extent of subgenres available to them. There's absolutely something for all sorts of tastes.) But I do also wonder if the fact that I don't write only the traditional romance hero makes the books accessible. I know that I get really excited when I find characters that reflect some aspect of me. So maybe the skinny, awkward guy or the former athlete with a bit of a gut would be equally exciting to readers who can see a part of themselves reflected. Regardless of whether it would draw in more men, I think it's important to keep expanding the range of male protagonists depicted, just as we are striving to depict different women, various sexualities and identities, more BIPOC characters, and so forth.
So much truth here, thank you! I especially love this: "Regardless of whether it would draw in more men, I think it's important to keep expanding the range of male protagonists depicted, just as we are striving to depict different women, various sexualities and identities, more BIPOC characters, and so forth."
To me it gets to the fun of romance. So much of the genre is formulaic and should hit certain emotional notes and deliver certain feelings (that HEA glow!)...but what keeps it fun and interesting and eternally exciting is all the different types of characters, all the different subgenres, all the possible combinations.
1. “If this is unrealistic, then the problem is reality not the books.” Ouch! 2. Yesterday I finished reading Barbara Kingsolver’s Demon Copperhead in a three-hankie meltdown. Audible sobs at the HOA moment, not just manly sniffles. Same with Ann Patchett’s State of Wonder, at the end. No pink cover in sight, but an emotional workout and reckoning nonetheless. Is that romance-adjacent?
(Also I have not read these books but maybe I will check them out!)
Patchett and Kingsolver are both brilliant at giving their stories an emotional setting in addition to the physical kinds. Their work nestles in my heart and mind and takes me places with people I’d never meet elsewhere. Women! You can’t read without ‘em!
They might not fit the genre conventions of romance, but sounds like they might be doing some of the same work! It's all good!