Your Garage Editors' Picks Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Happy Belly Coffee Totes Amazon Cash Back Offer PilotWave7B PilotWave7B PilotWave7B  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis DollyParton Shop Now
Customer Review

14 of 23 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Circular reasoning, December 9, 2007
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: A Natural History of the Romance Novel (Paperback)
Pamela Regis' book, A Natural History of the Romance Novel, is a remarkable example of circular reasoning in literary analysis. She sets up a very specific definition of the concept "romance novel" -- namely "a work of prose fiction that tells the story of the courtship and betrothal of one or more heroines."

In Chapter 4, The Definition Expanded, she then narrows this definition by defining eight aspects which she perceives as necessary to the form: Society Defined, The Meeting, The Barrier, The Attraction, The Declaration, Point of Ritual Death, The Recognition, and The Betrothal.

It should be noted that in this context, she presumes that the "betrothal" will occur between the hero and heroine, thus eliminating from the "romance novel" category an immensely popular work such as Anthony Hope's 1895 The Prisoner of Zenda, which followed the trope of love between hero and heroine sacrificed to the more imperative needs of honor and duty.

Given these tight limits on what the author is willing to consider to be a "romance novel," she focuses on tracing the form from Joseph Richardson's 18th century epistolary blockbuster, Pamela, through Jane Austen, Charlotte Bronte, and other selected 19th century authors, picking up Georgette Heyer in the first half of the 20th century, and continuing through Janet Dailey, Jayne Ann Krentz, and Nora Roberts.

From the perspective of the historian rather than the literary critic, the major deficiency of the book lies in its lack of attention to authors who, in their own time, were blockbuster bestsellers. While she explains why Daphne du Maurier's Rebecca and Margaret Mitchell's Gone with the Wind do not meet the criteria she has adopted for being "romance novels" (Chapter 5, The Genre's Limits), she still ignores completely quite a number of writers who were, in their own day, multi-title blockbusters in the romance field, such as George Barr McCutcheon, although devoting a full chapter to his contemporary E.M. Forster's 1908 A Room with a view.

A better title than "Natural History" of the romance novel would have been "Literary Analysis" of the romance novel.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in


Track comments by e-mail

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-4 of 4 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Mar 9, 2008 11:29:45 PM PDT
Customer says:
Thanks for your review. Although this book does contain literary analysis (and quite happily so, in my opinion), this does not preclude it being a natural history; many "natural histories" are not exhaustive and offer only a survey of the major types of a form, genre, or object. The romance novel is fairly old as the (English) full-length novel form itself goes, and this long period of time, coupled with the huge 20th cent. explosion in r. novels, makes it fairly implausible for any author to in one book include all major examples of the genre. I find the author's definition of the genre to be reasonable and convincing, expecially in light of the Classical ideas of comedy and tragedy. I think most literary analysis of Du Maurier's Rebecca, for e.g., focuses rightly on the gothic and mystery elements of that novel (and from what I have read of Du Maurier's non-fiction, she would probably would not have agreed with Rebecca's being called a romance novel, anyway).

If one is of the mind that any novel with a central love story (irrespective of ending) is a romance novel, then that would broaden the genre to include much of literary, mainstream and "women's fiction." Some might say this would provide a much-needed incentive for the public to view with more respect the romance genre. But others might consider it a dilution of a genre that deserves careful analysis in its most popular and--for most loyal readers--most emotionally liberating form.

Posted on Apr 5, 2010 2:30:59 PM PDT
It's Samuel Richardson, not Joseph.

Posted on Oct 31, 2010 12:27:26 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 31, 2010 12:28:31 PM PDT
Jane Jones says:
The modern definition of a romance novel requires a happy ending- that is, whatever is impeding the full expression of the relationship is overcome, and some form of commitment between the main characters is made. Any story with a central theme of love sacrificed for a greater cause, is by definition not a romance.
This no doubt excludes many excellent stories, but if the couple do not end up together, it doesn't belong here.

Posted on Jul 9, 2016 4:29:17 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 9, 2016 4:32:36 AM PDT
Mary Ann says:
A very astute review.
Jane Jones:
I may be wrong, but as someone from the UK, over here,, I don't think the RNA does insist on the 'HEA'.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›

Review Details



Location: Arlington, VA USA

Top Reviewer Ranking: 55,977