Women Read the Romance" Summary and Analysis

After reading Janice Radway's Women Read the Romance: The Interaction of Text
and Context it is interesting to see how women react and relate to romance novels on
a daily basis. Dorothy Evans, a Smithton bookstore owner and author of her own
newsletter which advises romance novels to women, is analyzed and discussed all
throughout this chapter. Dot enlightens Radway with stories of her customers, mostly
white, middle aged, married women, and discusses her customer's preferences,
thoughts, and reactions to romance novels.
To begin, Smithton women read romance novels in order to relax and escape from
reality. Reading these stories helps a woman get her mind off of the tensions and
pressure she goes through in her day to day life. In addition to this unique and stress-
free world, women simply read to educate themselves. Women in Smithton enjoy the
time to themselves to just read and relax.
When discussing the types of romance novels women enjoy reading, there seems to
be a common thread. The novels that Radway analyzed all consist of a relationship
between a beautiful naive woman and a strong handsome man. The women do not
prefer novels in which the man abuses the woman or is involved with another
woman, even if they end up happily together. These types of novels are considered
"bad romances". A woman's "ideal" novel would be one that satisfies her
psychological needs.
It is interesting to see the commonalities in the preference amongst these middle aged
women. I also think it is quite fascinating that women not only read for the pleasure
of escaping reality but to escape psychological burdens. Another point Radway
mentioned was that since women do not get full emotional attachment and support
from their husbands, they must nurture in their children and the novels that they read.
Overall, I thought Radway's article was quite interesting and was very different than
anything we've read thus far.
Summary of Chapter 7--Women Read the Romance: The Interaction of Text
and Context
In the essay “Women Read the Romance: The Interaction of Text and Context”,
Janice Radway interviews Dot Evans, a bookstore owner from a small midwestern
town called Smithton. Evans reveals that the majority of her customers that buy
romance novels are middle aged housewives. Many of the Smithton women preferred
romantic novels rather than other genres because they provided a way for them to
“escape their present surroundings”(Radway, 58). In addition to this, the Smithton
women view the romance novels as a “legitimate way of denying a present reality that
occasionally becomes too onerous to bear” (Radway, 59). By reading rather than
watching television, the women feel as if “the cultural value attached to books permits
them to overcome the guilt they feel about avoiding their responsibilities” (Radway,
59). Radway goes on to discuss how many of the Smithton women seem to share a
similar sadness because they are disappointed with many aspects of their lives and by
reading the romance novels, they are able to fantasize about how they wish their lives
actually turned out. One of the final points that Radway brings up in this essay is that
many of Dot’s customers turn to the romance novels so that they can create a
“fantasy world” in which they feel nurtured and “attended by a man who reassures
her of her special status and unique identity” (Radway, 61). Many of the Smithton
women feel unappreciated and yearn for “intense affective nurturance”. Radway
explains that many men are not able to support women emotionally because male
children have a tendency to completely separate themselves from their mothers
because they “associate mothers with femininity” (Radway, 61). This suppression of
emotions causes grown men to struggle when it comes to caring and nurturing
women. In conclusion, Radway shows readers that many women like to indulge in
romance novels because the fantasies give them a sense of comfort and provide them
with an escape from reality.
Women read romance
Dorothy Evans resides in the community of Smithton, as does her posse of
regular romance readers who depend on her for advice about the best and worst
romances. Dot’s followers are married, middle-class mothers with at least a high
school education, and more than 60 percent of them are between the ages of twenty-
five and forty-four. When these Smithton women were questioned why they read
romances, they collectively attribute their motives to escape and relaxation. However,
there may be deeper roots behind their obsession. According to Radway, “Romance
reading, as Dot herself puts it, constitutes a temporary ‘declaration of independence’
from the social roles of wife and mother” (61). This falls under the belief that men
cannot satisfy all of a woman’s emotional needs, so women turn to romance reading
to vicariously live through the heroine who has an ideal relationship. Radway
mentions that, “…when they [the Smithton women] commented on their favorite
romantic heroes they made it clear that they enjoy imagining themselves being
tenderly cared for and solicitously protected by a fictive character who inevitably
proves to be spectacularly masculine and unusually nurturant as well” (62). Dot and
her followers agree that the ideal romantic fantasy revolves around the heroine and
how the hero treats her. Essentially, the escape provided by romance reading is a brief
denial of the demands these women identify as a vital part of being a mother and wife.
Society should realize that romance reading is driven by a lack of affection. Women
want the life of the heroine—a life where the hero is capable of empathy, realizing the
woman’s intrinsic worth. Patriarchal marriage’s failure to fulfill all of a woman’s needs
results in a sense of longing—reading romance novels can only do so much to satisfy
this emptiness. When romance readers understand why they yearn for tenderness that
will likely never be achieved under current gender arrangements, they can transform
their longing into a strong force for change.

Reading Radway Reading the Romance

On page 5 of her new (1992) introduction to Reading the Romance Radway
acknowledged that "even what I took to be simple descriptions of my interviewees'
self-understandings were mediated if not produced by my own conceptual constructs
and ways of seeing the world" (5). Furthermore, she observes that
Whereas he [another scholar] notes his excessive concentration on the single variable
of class and the rather simple way in which the concept itself was constructed, so I
might point in my own study to the exclusive preoccupation with gender and to the
use of a fairly rigid notion of patriarchy. (9)

What Radway notes here is, I think, something that it is important to remember when
reading all the existing attempts to understand romance readers. Each author's
interpretation is likely to be shaped by her or his "conceptual constructs." Like an
invisible set of glasses, these interpretative lenses can colour the author's perception
of the situations she or he sees, and may make her or him more likely to focus in on
aspects of the problem which are more visible through those interpretative lenses.
Radway was looking at the small group of Smithton readers through a pair of lenses
created by "the psychoanalytic theories of Nancy Chodorow" (9): "through its use of
psychoanalytic theory, the book attempts to explain how and why such a structured
'story' might be experienced as pleasurable by those women as a consequence of their
socialization within a particular family unit" (11). Individuals' identities are a
composite of superimposed layers, and one lens alone may not suffice to understand
the complexities of an individual's choices. Radway, in her new introduction, states
that "I would now want to organize an ethnography of romance reading
comparatively, in order to make some effort to ascertain how others social variables
like age, class location, education, and race intersect with gender to produce varying,
even conflicting, engagements with the romance form" (9). Having brought in those
variables, she might have needed to add a few more lenses to her set of glasses:
psychoanalytic theories about gender might have relatively little to say about racism or
economic inequality, for example.
And, of course, not all readers are identical to the Smithton readers, nor do we all
share their reading preferences. As Radway herself acknowledged,
It is clear that the Smithton group cannot be thought of as a scientifically designed
random sample. The conclusions drawn from the study, therefore, should be
extrapolated only with great caution to apply to other romance readers. (48)
A lens, or set of lenses, which work well with one set of readers may not work so well
with other readers, or may even render them invisible. The Smithton readers were all
women, for example, but there are male romance readers.
Bearing all this in mind, when Radway writes that she was struck by the urgency,
indeed by the near hysteria, with which romance authors assert that the newly active,
more insistent female sexuality displayed in the genre is still most adequately fulfilled
in an intimate, monogamous relationship characterized by love and permanence (15)
it seems legitimate to wonder which of Radway's own "conceptual constructs and
ways of seeing the world" were shaping this view of romance authors' assertions. It
also seems deeply ironic for a feminist scholar to employ the rather loaded term
"hysteria," so often used to dismiss women's experiences, to dismiss romance authors'
statements about their own work.
Her own statement seems to insist that female sexuality should not be displayed in an
intimate, loving and permanent monogamous relationship. I find it difficult to
understand what is so wrong about loving and permanent intimate relationships. I
suppose it's possible she was objecting to monogamy and she wanted greater
recognition for polyamorous relationships. Or perhaps she was not really thinking of
the full range of possible "loving and permanent intimate relationships" but was only
critiquing the versions of these relationships which exist in "patriarchal marriage" (14).
Whatever she meant, her lenses, the romance authors' lenses, and the lenses I'm
wearing myself make it rather difficult for me to untangle what Radway and the
romance authors really meant when they made their statements about the genre.
Radway's a lot clearer elsewhere. For example, she concluded that there was a deep
irony hidden in the fact that women who are experiencing the consequences of
patriarchal marriage's failure to address their needs turn to a story that ritually recites
the history of the process by which those needs are constituted. [...] the Smithton
women are repetitively asserting to be true what their still-unfulfilled desire
demonstrates to be false, that is, that heterosexuality can create a fully coherent, fully
satisfied, female subjectivity. (14)
There's certainly a "deep irony" in the fact that, as Radway noted, the Smithton
women made a "universal claim to being happily married (a claim I did not doubt)"
(13) yet, while claiming not to doubt them, she remained certain that they were
"experiencing the consequences of patriarchal marriage's failure to address their
needs" and in particular their "desire for the nurturance represented and promised by
the preoedipal mother" (14).

Interestingly, when the Smithton readers were asked "whether romance reading ever
changes women" (101) they emphatically answered that it did because "their self-
perception has been favorably transformed by their reading" (102) and they were
"convinced [...] that romance fiction demonstrates that 'intelligence' and
'independence' in a woman make her more attractive to a man" (102). More
nurturance from their husbands would not necessarily have achieved these results: it
might have made the women feel more cared for, but would it have changed their
self-perception and made them willing to show their intelligence and independence?
Just as an experiment, I'd like to take two different sets of interpretative lenses and see
how they might shape one's view of the Smithton readers' responses. What happens if
one asks whether it is economics which shaped these women's reading choices? It has
been argued by feminist economists that
Economics has divided life into two separate categories: the economic realm and the
household realm. The economic realm focuses on the market: producers, buyers, and
sellers, while the household realm includes all the range of unpaid work that is
necessary for the functioning of life. Because economics only counts production that
produces items that can be sold in the market, the household is seen as being outside
of the economic realm and therefore 'unproductive.' In contrast, the buying and
selling and trading that takes place in the economic realm, is 'productive.' This
assumption that households are not sites of production has meant that within the
traditional household of male breadwinner, female caregiver, and children, only the
male breadwinner is seen as being 'productive.' Women's work of bearing and raising
children, maintaining a home, providing food, and providing emotional support for
everyone, is simply assumed despite the fact that the economy is absolutely dependent
on it.
Perhaps the Smithton romance readers, "women who saw themselves first as wives
and mothers" (7) were taking a well-deserved break from their work in order to read
books in a genre which recognised the value of that work? These were, after all,
women who "referred constantly and voluntarily to the connection between their
reading and their daily social situation as wives and mothers" (9), who "are angered by
men who continue to make light of 'woman's work' as well as by 'women's libbers'
whom they accuse of dismissing mothers and housewives as ignorant, inactive, and
unimportant" (78) and, as Radway herself has written, "the romance readers of
Smithton use their books to erect a barrier between themselves and their families in
order to declare themselves temporarily off-limits to those who would mine them for
emotional support and material care" (12). Even workers who enjoy their jobs require
some leisure time, but because the work in which these women were engaged is often
not considered to be "work," and because it is carried out within the home, there may
be no provision made for "clocking off" at the end of a long shift. If one looks at the
Smithton readers through the lenses of feminist economic theory, one might suggest
that they were finding in these books both a physical means of asserting their right to
leisure time, and validation that their work as wives and mothers is indeed of crucial
importance. This might explain why "their self-perception has been favorably
transformed by their reading" (102).

Furthermore, it could be argued that the general lack of respect for women's unpaid
work is revealed in the way that the Smithton readers "are often called to task by their
husbands for their repetitive consumption. [...] The women wonder [...] why they
should have to adhere to standards of thrift and parsimony with respect to books
when other family members do not observe the same requirements" (103). Feminist
economics might answer this question by pointing out that household work is unpaid.
These Smithton readers were, in a sense, attempting to take their wages in the form of
books, and their spouses, in querying the expenditure, were demonstrating that
women's work in the home is not seen as deserving of pay, either in cash or,
indirectly, via the cost of leisure activities.
Or how about another lens, this time that of a different school of psychology, which
Eric Selinger described at Romancing the Blog:
There seems to be a whole branch of psychological inquiry out there called Positive
Psychology: not some fuzzy set of platitudes and bromides, but (in Seligman’s words)
“a science that seeks to understand positive emotion, build strength and virtue, and
provide guideposts for finding what Aristotle called the ‘good life.’” My hunch, which
I plan to test across the next few months, is that romance novels are often primers in
positive psychology, in ways that measure up quite well against current research.
After all, Radway herself "found it impossible to ignore" the Smithton readers'
"fervent insistence that romance reading creates a feeling of hope, provides emotional
sustenance, and produces a fully visceral sense of well-being" (12). She also relates one
reader's comment:
"Optimistic! That's what I like in a book. An optimistic plot. I get sick of pessimism
all the time."
Her distinction between optimistic and pessimistic stories recurred during several of
the interviews, especially during discussions of the difference between romances and
other books. (99)
Perhaps, then, there is a good reason why Dot, when asked "What do romances do
better than other novels today?" (87) answered: "It's an innocuous thing. If it had to
be ... pills or drinks, this is harmful" (87). Perhaps these readers were treating their
psychological problems with a dose of optimism, rather than resorting to more
dangerous substances.
I'm just trying to demonstrate how a different set of interpretative lenses could lead to
very different conclusions. I'm not stating here that either feminist economics or
positive psychology provide the key to correctly understanding what the Smithton
women told Radway. It might be that neither of those lenses are helpful or, and I
think this is more likely, it might be that those lenses are helpful but individually
cannot explain the Smithton readers' choices and reactions.

Summary of “Women Read the Romance” by Janice Radway

Radway’s purpose in this article, published in 1983, was to demonstrate how
patriarchal institutions, the systems of society controlled by male-dominated gender
themes, were dysfunctional and thereby, causing dissatisfaction for women. While the
focal point of the article was a study of how and why women escape their
disappointments through romance novels, the existence of novels was not to blame.
Radway did not intend to criticize women’s interest in romantic fiction nor chastise
their collective dissatisfaction with performing unappreciated, mundane tasks. Instead
the author was condemning societal dogma, which held that women be ultimately
satisfied with the role of wife and mother as the pinnacle of their competence. Janice
Raday adeptly crafted her ‘call to arms’ for social awareness around the central
question: What urge drives women to escape into romance novels? She skillfully
illustrated the need for social change using the reading preferences of Smithton
women and the central character, Dot Evans, a protagonist who understood women’s
romantic fiction preferences.
Dot Evans was almost 50 years old when the 1980s interviews were
conducted by author Janice Radway. Thereby, Dot was born and raised during the
Great Depression in the 1930s and 40s, and would likely have been married after
WWII, when the model of a women’s success was to be supported by her husband,
run a household, and raise children in a safe neighborhood. Husbands at that time,
who were also raised during the Depression and served as soldiers during WWII,
would have been thought themselves successful if they could be ‘providers’ of the
family’s basic needs for sustenance and security. The men and women of Dot’s era
did not strive for Maslow’s esteem or the pinnacle of self-actualization; their focus
was on fulfilling basic physiological needs and safety – bottom rungs of Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs. Thus, as America changed in the post war years, while Dot was
raising her family, the needs of its citizens changed yet the social institutions had not
kept pace. Radway was underscoring this in “Women Read the Romance.”
 We know from the article that Dot was extremely bright and articulate. So,
Dot would say that the women of her generation gladly assumed a role in society with
which they were satisfied initially, but once their fundamental needs for safety and
security were met, they soon discovered their role did not nourish their growing needs
for a healthy self-identity – concepts which arose after WWII and evolved as the
country entered the social revolution of the 1960s.
From the article, it was clear that Dot and her peers were unprepared for the
arduous, and oftentimes unrewarding, work of the caregiver. They temporarily
escaped feelings of overwhelm and inadequacy through romance novels, which
allowed them to embrace fictional women, and vicariously project for themselves, as
entities to be nurtured. Unlike their husbands, who had not been raised as (nor did
they evolve into) nurturers, romantic heroes were able to express emotional closeness
and connectivity. Romantic heroines sought a pathway to identify the root cause for
their husband’s indifference. As such, Radway explained that Dot’s peers best
identified with a romantic heroine whose husband was disconnected at-first,
oftentimes cruel or aloof, but who transformed into someone tender and passionate
after having his wife free him from a previous hurt, which had been hindering his full
range of emotional engagement in the relationship. Dot’s peers identified with this
circumstance because it answered women’s need to awaken their husbands’
consciousness, gain their emotional connectivity, and engage them in helping to
realize their wives’ fullest potential (self-actualization).
On the surface, Radway’s article appears to be a dissection of Smithton
women’s preferences in romantic novels, their reasons and rationale for escaping their
everyday toil and frustrations into a fantasy world of astonishingly masculine, yet
fundamentally compassionate heroes. However, caught in marriages of convenience,
and stifled by expectations that do not allow them to realize their potential, Smithton
women are a vehicle for the author to reflect on the male hegemony that limited
women’s aspiration to childrearing and wifely duties. Radway’s article used a
discussion of women’s need to fantasize through romantic fiction as a way to rally for
the need to raise collective awareness that change in social institutions was needed.