Skip to main content

#RomanceClass: Genre World, Intimate Public, Found Family

Abstract

#RomanceClass is a community which encompasses the authors, readers, actors, and artists who consume, produce, and enact mostly self-published English-language romance fiction in the Philippines. Drawing on fieldwork undertaken in 2019, this article explores the key characteristics of #RomanceClass, including the ways in which positions itself in relation to the dominant North American conception of the romance novel and publishing industry, so as to build new understanding of how romance fiction is created and negotiated outside of this hegemonic context. It finds that #RomanceClass operates as an “intimate public” [Berlant in The female complaint: the unfinished business of sentimentality in American culture, Duke University Press, Durham, London, 2008], which intrinsically affects the community’s texts and practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. 1.

    About #romanceclass. RomanceClass,https://romanceclassbooks.com/about/. Accessed 10 Mar 2020

  2. 2.

    Aquino S, Coates R. Interview with the authors, October 2019.

  3. 3.

    Bautista B. Interview with the authors, October 2019.

  4. 4.

    Becker HS. Art Worlds. 25th ed. Berkley: University of California Press; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Berlant L. The female complaint: the unfinished business of sentimentality in American culture. Durham, London: Duke University Press; 2008.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Curthoys A, Docker J. Popular romance in the postmodern age and an unknown Australian author. Continuum. 1990;4(1):22–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/10304319009388179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    De Guzman C, Tanjutco L, Mori B, Tan M. Interview with the authors, October 2019.

  8. 8.

    Deller R. Ethics in fan studies research. In: Booth P, editor. A companion to media fandom and fan studies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2018. p. 123–142.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Esguerra MV. Interview with the authors, October 2019.

  10. 10.

    Fletcher L, McAlister J. The paratextuality of category romance: the branding of short shelf life fiction. Washington DC: Paper presented at the Popular Culture Association annual conference; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Fletcher L, Driscoll B, Wilkins K. Genre worlds and popular fiction: the case of twenty-first-century Australian romance. J Pop Cul. 2018;51(4):997–1015. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpcu.12706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Fletcher L, McAlister J, Temple K, Williams K. #loveyourshelfie: mills & boon books and how to find them. Mémoires du Livre/Studies in Book Culture. 2019;11(1):1–33. https://doi.org/10.7202/1066945ar.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Frejas T. Interview with the authors, October 2019.

  14. 14.

    Gahol G. Interview with the authors, October 2019.

  15. 15.

    Jameson F. Magical narratives: romance as genre. N Lit Hist. 1975;7(1):135–63. https://doi.org/10.2307/468283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Modleski T. Loving with a vengeance: mass-produced fantasies for women. London, New York: Routledge; 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Parnell C. Models of publishing and opportunities for change: representations in Harlequin, Montlake and self-published romance novels. Aust Lit Stud, 2018. 10.20314/als.1cd73e2f68.

  18. 18.

    Radway J. Reading the romance: women patriarchy and popular literature. Chapel Hill, London: The University of North Carolina Press; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Ripped B. The State of Racial Diversity in Romance Publishing Report. The Ripped Bodice. https://www.therippedbodicela.com/state-racial-diversity-romance-publishing-report. Accessed 10 Mar 2020.

  20. 20.

    Rodriguez CY. Interview with the authors, October 2019.

  21. 21.

    Rosenwein B. Emotional communities in the early middle ages. Ithaca, London: Cornell University Press; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Snitow AB. Mass market romance: pornography for women is different. Rad Hist Rev. 1979;20:141–61. https://doi.org/10.1215/01636545-1979-20-141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Squires C. Publishing’s Diversity Deficit. CAMEo Cuts 2017;2:1–12, https://le.ac.uk/~/media/uol/docs/cameo/cameo-cuts/cameo-cuts-2-v1.pdf?la=en. Accessed 10 Mar 2020.

  24. 24.

    Tapper O. Romance and Innovation in Twenty-First Century Publishing. Publishing Research Quarterly. 2014;30(2):249–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-014-9363-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Uy, Gela. Interview with the authors, October 2019.

  26. 26.

    Wendell S, Tan C. Beyond Heaving Bosoms: The Smart Bitches’ Guide to Romance. New York: Fireside; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jodi McAlister.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McAlister, J., Parnell, C. & Trinidad, A.A. #RomanceClass: Genre World, Intimate Public, Found Family. Pub Res Q 36, 403–417 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-020-09733-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • RomanceClass
  • Romance fiction
  • Romance publishing
  • Intimate public
  • Genre world