"He couldn't imagine a simple coat of paint could chase away his father's gloomy taint"

Some readers may find it difficult to believe but there remains a dismissive attitude towards romance fiction, despite the best work of Mills & Boon, publishing those thousands upon thousands of books, and Bewildered Heart, for we also try in our own captious way. Much like this beloved weblog there are others taking the fight to the critics who argue that the romance genre is formulaic, sexist, tawdry, clichéd, stereotypical, worthless, dumb, and written by bored housewives for pathetic idiots with unrealistic expectations of men, love and life. Without any evidence to back those statements up they still sound legitimate, so thank goodness for Australian author Anne Gracie, who wishes to stop this completely reasonable scorn with a dignified, finely-considered retort.

First of all, a popular misconception is that there exists a Mills & Boon Formula setting forth, in detail, exactly what an author must do and when to do it, yet says Gracie, 'There is not and never has been "a formula". Nor are there computer generated plots or any nonsense like that.' Mills & Boon do have guidelines which explain the differences between their many subgenres, but the guidelines merely state the preferred length of the novel, the tone, and the sexual content. 'Apply a little logic to The Formula: HM&B publishes more than 50 new titles each month. They've been doing that for more than 50 years. If there was a kiss on page 28 or a sex scene in chapter 5 of every book, do you think readers would keep buying, month after month, year after year?' Gracie may be over-estimating her overly-derided readership, but she is in no mood to contemplate the accusation that romances are blandly predictable and all the same, but their lack of drama and comforting trustworthiness are fundamental to their appeal.

For the sake of doing so, however, let us challenge that second myth anyway. Not all romantic fiction is the same. 'They are the same in that each story has a relationship between a man and a woman at its heart, and a satisfying ending, but it's like chocolate -- we all know what chocolate tastes like, but there are also many different kinds of chocolate and many ways to present and eat it. And people return time and time again to their favourite.' So, if it is good enough for chocolate then it is good enough for art. Romance novels can change the names of their characters and set each tale in a different location, and even go as far as to use different words to describe the same acts and emotions, but deep down they are stories printed on paper and they are successful and people keep buying them, so why should we bother analysing anything as if it's broken?

Next. 'Myth #3— they're soft porn for women. I don't know how many times I've heard critics of romance read out salacious passages from a sexy M&B. I dare say I could pick out passages from almost any novel and mock it out of context. Cheap laughs.' Yes, what kind of bastard uses out of context sentences from a Mills & Boon for an easy joke? 'The focus of a romance is not the sex but the relationship. In any case, how many of us would say that sex played no part in our relationships? If sex belongs anywhere, it's in a romance.' Exactly, Anne Gracie, and what would soft porn be without sex?

Against a standard criticism of paper-thin characters and simplistic writing style, Gracie argues, 'In every genre, there are novels that are clichéd and poorly written, and some books that are wonderfully written with unforgettable characters and prose that sings. Romance is no different. It's a huge genre, with an enormous range and variety. Don't judge a whole genre by a few books.' There is no conclusive proof that there is an inherent flaw in romantic fiction that causes every example to be typically base, shallow and amateurish. Gracie admits that romance is entertainment and should not be confused with literary fiction, which no one finds entertaining. People are stupid, she implies, somewhat caustically, and it is the public, not the authors, who are responsible for the shortcomings in every genre. We cannot help it if you are fools who have no idea what is good for you. Gracie goes on to include a quote from Robertson Davies, 'It is dangerous to condemn stories as junk which satisfy the deep hunger of millions of people. These books are not literary art, but a great deal of what is acclaimed as literary art in our time offers no comfort or fulfillment to anybody.' Therefore, cheer up, undiscerning masses, you are not entirely at fault. Talented authors writing great works of art should share the blame.

'Romance is for dumb or pathetic women. Yeah, and crime novels are for repressed murderers and violent types with a taste for necrophilia. And science fiction is for sad geeks who dress badly and have no grip on reality. And thrillers are for people who live dull, restricted lives. And people who read Literature are pretentious snobs.' You go, girl! Call those crime novel enthusiasts out for their secret fantasies. What kinds of sexual deviancies do you imagine Point Horror fans are into? 'There's nothing pathetic about wanting to read books that celebrate love. There's nothing dumb about reading books that makes you feel good at the end.' Indeed. Gracie has successfully countered Gracie's claims that Gracie is desperate and ignorant. Still, she has become so angry at these hurtful remarks she should probably stop making them up in the first place. Be that as it may, her statement does require a little further exploration because crime novels can be enjoyed by murderers with healthy attitudes, and even well-dressed nerds may find science-fiction is for them.

Therefore, is romance only suitable for dumb, pathetic people, or solely targeted at women of varying degrees of stability and intelligence? Does the genre render their fans pathetic and dumb, or do pathetic and dumb readers seek the genre out? Romance is seen as a woman's market, presumably because men are too cerebral for such simple pleasures. However, no one could possibly turn unsubstantiated fury into feminist tirade. 'In past centuries it was claimed that women should not be taught to read because they had small brains and the poor dears couldn't cope with all the extra learning. In the Victorian era men were warned not to let their womenfolk read because novels brought about a spiritual and moral decline in the feeble female constitution. And caused them to neglect their housework.' Still, men let it happen and look where we are today. Some women do no housework at all, instead endlessly reading romance novels, unable and unwilling to discern real from fantasy and causing fanatical medical health professionals to blame romance fiction for many of our modern psychological problems. Now, at least, we know where all this tragedy began, if only Gracie would give up the sources of her historical anecdotes.

As for filling women's heads with unrealistic expectations of life, 'Do science fiction novels make people believe the aliens are coming? Do crime novels cause people to murder? Do fantasy novels make us believe we can fly or perform magic?' Well, those examples may be as illogical as they are irrelevant, but causing females to believe love exists wreaks destruction our therapists just cannot keep up with, and is far more serious than watching the skies or wearing spectacles and waving a wand in restaurants. 'Some of the grittier, more "real life" romances often portray people coping with difficulties many women cope with — illness, divorce, death, career crises, elderly parents, problems with children , and so on. No easy solutions are presented.' As we have discovered through our reading and critiquing of the genre, no real life difficulty is a match for a wedding and the patter of tiny feet, as problems quickly disappear once the happy couple declare their love at the end, and this all-defeating power of love is the key selling point of the romance genre. Therefore, authors do themselves a disservice to argue both sides, as once you had Robertson Davies backing you up, and now you are suggesting romance occasionally offers depth beyond shallow fantasy. Clearly someone has been listening to the critics they claim to be ignoring.

There remain two myths that require dispelling, now that we have so easily dispelled the initial eight. Most importantly of all, writing romance fiction is not as straight-forward as one may think from reading romance fiction and concluding that anyone could do that. 'Even Harlequin Mills and Boon, that urban myth claims is so easy to 'crack', receive 20,000 unsolicited manuscripts each year from all over the world. They contract perhaps 30 new writers.' If by some miracle your work is selected do not expect money for jam. In fact, contrary to popular belief while there are financial rewards for succeeding in the most widely-lucrative genre of fiction the world has ever known there is no guarantee you will see any of that cash. Advances are small, and royalties are made up of a tiny percentage of the book's cover price. While Gracie ends her article with a glowing reference of romance fiction for both writers and readers, there are easier ways to make money, for example any job besides author. Passion fuels this career rather than the financial proceeds, so those thinking Mills & Boon is the way to make a quick, easy fortune are well-advised to try elsewhere. We fans can sense the cynicism within the opening sentences, and if there was ever an antithesis of romance it would be cynicism, as Bewildered Heart continues to discover to its benefit.