"He didn't think Jewel was the type of women to care that he was royalty"

Every so often someone speaks out in defence of Romance Fiction. This is usually unnecessary, apropos of nothing and achieving of little. Despite this, as long as there are those who negatively criticise there will be others responding with the positivity and evidence that not everything is awful. To coincide with the month of St. Valentine, National Public Radio have offered Don't Hide The Harlequins, an essay by Wisconsin's favourite daughter, Bobbi Dumas, a reviewer for Kirkus Media and a founding contributing editor of HowToWriteShop.com. Let's meet her. 'Hi, my name's Bobbi.' Hi, Bobbi! 'I read romance.' This is an excellent start, but enough small-talk, we should begin the article by naming the first romantic novel we ever read at the tender age of twelve. 'I saw the book — The Fortunes of Love by Caroline Courtney — in a library, and I was hooked by the cover. Something about that man and that woman — his enigmatic hover, her sideways glance — spoke to me. This was a couple who was meant to be together but hadn't figured it out yet. They were attracted but distrustful.'

Caroline Courtney was an early pseudonym of the late Penny Jordan and The Fortunes of Love was first published in 1980 by Warner Books. It tells the tale of The Duke of Strathavon, who may have the ladies of Bath all agog, but his charms have no effect on Davinia Sinclair, because a gypsy had told her she would marry a man whose name began with M, possibly the dashing treasure-hunter Lord Maunsell. What unfolds is presumably predictable, the feisty Regency heroine and her wealthy pursuer finding love against all the odds. Nevertheless, the child Bobbi Dumas was hooked. 'This book was what I'd been looking for, a glimpse into the commingled elation and vulnerability of falling in love, losing that love, regaining it.' Finally, a tawdry nineteenth century-set love story every twelve year old girl can relate to.

What was it that struck such a chord with Bobbi Dumas that her affection for romance has lasted a lifetime? 'It was emotional and sweet and scary, and the moment those characters admitted their love for each other in the end, after everything, in spite of everything — because of everything — I felt such bittersweet joy. They were together, happy, in love.' This sounds delightful and not dissimilar to what Mills & Boon authors often attempt in their own novels, but just as in real life one happy ending is never enough. 'It was a romantic rush, but the book was over — so I went to find another one.' Dumas' brief autobiographical insight will sound familiar to anyone fighting on the battleground either for or against addiction to romance fiction. Dependency begins innocently enough, a trip to the library, an intriguing semi-erotic photograph, some staring at words, a dizzying high and then the painful withdrawal. Like jazz music or the films of Michael Bay, Romance is the pinnacle of the literary medium. 'Once you go romantic you'll never go back tic,' as the saying goes. Reading is no longer reading unless it concludes with two people locked in an eternal embrace, blissful and perpetually pregnant.

As we know from bitter experience, of course, a romance fan's journey is never complete without a little antagonism from the usual places. 'My mom, a teacher, thought romances were beneath me. My school librarian gave me her disapproving look when I checked out more romances from the bookmobile. And my best friend's mother told me I should be ashamed for reading such trash.' Romance is not all roses, chocolates, thick eyelashes, sunshine and glistening forearms. No guilty pleasure comes without a certain amount of guilt attached. Peers and superiors are sure to find fault with reading habits that fall below an intellectual threshold of their own definition. Unless we are challenging ourselves how shall we ever improve? Bobbi Dumas has found a strong defence, however, by using impressively long words and casually insulting other genres. 'I was fascinated, by the road-to-love storylines, and the psychological metamorphoses that had to take place in order to overcome internal and external conflicts, so that these two people could earn their happily ever after. To me, those were every bit as interesting as my mother's whodunnits or my sister's sci-fi and fantasy excursions — and far more touching!' Precisely, there are no emotional journeys in genres besides romance, unless by psychological metamorphoses Bobby Dumas means a character arc, because those are a fundamental cornerstone of every story.

Nevertheless, pointing out that Pride and Prejudice is a romance, with all the alpha masculinity, nipple pebbling and supermarket baby cooing fans have come to expect from the genre, does not alleviate the guilt from all the negative connotations associated with Mills & Boon. But why? 'Why is our devotion to this lovely, affirming storytelling something we should hide, or apologize for?' Exactly, Bobbi. Why? 'Why this intellectual idea that romance is something to look down on? We know that many intelligent, educated women read it.' The sales figures speak for themselves, thus explaining why articles have stopped quoting the large sums of money earned last year. There are indications that Dumas is building towards the perceptive piece of wisdom that will reveal why romance is enjoyed by billions of people and scorned by everyone else. Unfortunately, expecting a Happily Ever After from an essay about romance fiction is misguided, at best.

Perhaps there are no reasons because there is no actual problem. If Dumas ever did feel ashamed it was probably due to being twelve. She certainly does not feel ashamed nowadays. Instead she is so proud to proclaim her love for romance fiction that she has penned an editorial for NPR. Generally, her fellow love junkies are not embarrassed by their bookshelves either. Equally importantly, perhaps, the genre is not critically disparaged, although the blandly homogenized, mass produced mainstream of it is, but this is the case with every area of culture. When it comes to the most fervent voices of disdain and ridicule the solution is the obvious combination of saturation and political manipulation. 'Even if you don't read romances, there's a lot to be proud of in a successful industry that is so dominated and influenced by women. In romance, we are the creators, the intended audience and the receptive consumer, showing our appreciation through astronomical sales. Female writers writing for female readers about traditionally female interests.' The advice for those who avoid the genre due to the negative opinions of teachers, mothers and school librarians is to ignore all that and try reading one for yourself. As for those dismissive teachers, mothers and school librarians, who knows what their problems are. Maybe they are bad feminists or science fiction fans, or a mixture of the two. Dumas may not be able to offer any explanations, but she does suggest further reading for anyone convinced enough by a message of follow your heart, ignore your elders and just stop pretending you are better than this.

"You don't strike me as the type to carry lucky stones in his pocket"

Valentine's Day happened, as inevitable and aggressive as always, leaving everyone with little choice but to try and enjoy it. While the cynical and desperately alone might wish to see the non-holiday as a commercial enterprise pushed by a capitalist elite to fleece money from the masses through emotional bribery, those who know what is good for them invariably partook in romantic declarations of affection using greeting cards, flowers, chocolates, restaurant tables or small acts of kindness, which are free and therefore worthless. Naturally assuming cheapskates and the unimaginative may turn to the internet in search of inspiration, romance outlets offered their own timely insights, articles and essays on fictional loving. There are reasons for this besides it being early February, as Harper's has noted that the industry is worth $1.4 billion, and thus a suitable subject for a subscription-only magazine. Last summer they sent their intrepid editor, Jesse Barron, to the Romance Novel Convention in Las Vegas where, 'Professionals and novices alike pool resources, share ideas and generally have a love fest.' Described more accurately, 'The convention is a five-day smattering of trite classes, cheesy entertainment and a costume ball.'

Over at the thankfully free National Public Radio, Arun Rath asked Barron several questions concerning the experience, copied down the responses and submitted the series of words to the website. Barron appeared particularly interested in the male cover model who emceed the event, but within the numerous facts and anecdotes about what it takes to be handsome and often shirtless there are a handful of other points that can be copied from NPR and turned into an article for Bewildered Heart, to coincide with Valentine's Day and satisfy a necessary obligation for a weblog about romance fiction. First and perhaps most important is the nature of the female protagonist. Who is she? Where is she going? What is she buying from that supermarket? What's wrong with her hair? Is it because of the hot weather?

According to Barron, newest and thus foremost, expert on all things romance, 'She's gotta be tough, but she can't be cold, she can't be whiny ... and if she's got those walls up, you must show her vulnerability. She is just like the reader.' Unlike the reader, however, she has to be desirable to billionaires, and tough. The walls in question are proverbial walls that the hero must knock down with his sledgehammer of empathy. When the heroine's father abandoned both her and her determined single mother she retreated into a shell, refusing to trust her heart to anyone else in case it was broken once again. Her pursuer must become a surrogate by means of being male and older, while proving through the repeated use of a penis that he will never leave, allowing her to cast off the protective layer of emotional insensitivity and love with her entire self. While this example is just a single potential option it appears to be the only one authors have chosen to use.

On the topic of the writing craft, or the craft of writing, Barron explains that there is one thing we all have to understand. 'One thing that you have to understand if you're gonna get into writing romance is that the things that are valued in that genre are not the same things that are valued when we read something like literary fiction. So you're gonna want to hone your prose until its extremely clear, it's very, very fast, the dialogue is funny and the plots are really engaging.' All seemingly important things, and while comprehensible prose, funny dialogue and engaging stories are not rated significant for works of literary fiction, we must recognise that romance and literature are different, with value systems that are not the same, and should be treated accordingly. From there, naturally, we turn to infidelity. 'Heroes and heroines in romances never, ever cheat ... it's really about the relationship between two people and the way that they gradually become more vulnerable to each other over time.' By cheating Barron means casual dating, and by ruling out alternative suitors the author is able to concentrate on the actual plot, which deals with the initially emotionally-frozen characters slowly recognise their estranged parents in the manner of their prospective partners and allow themselves to indulge in intense feelings before married life rather takes the edge off.

With the latest trends of the genre covered it is time for business and the real reason for all this lovely intimate sweetness. Money. 'It's estimated that about 60 percent of all romance novels are e-books, and that's compared with about 40 percent of trade fiction. Literary fiction does not get along well with e-books and self-publishing because it takes too long to write, and e-books are cheap. So e-books will favor writers who can write schematically, quickly.' No one writes more quickly than the authors of Mills & Boon, and if, by chance, Barron uses such words as schematic and quick as euphemisms for bad or amateurish, this is not problematic either, as no one writes more ineptly than the authors of Mills & Boon. Bearing this potentially good news in mind, however, the chances of an upturn in quality appear ever dimmer, but at least now there is alternative to blaming the publisher. The fault clearly lies with the consumers and the internet. Thanks, internet.

We conclude, as we always seem to, with photographs of handsome men. 'Romance is published, written, edited, bought by women. Ninety to ninety-five percent of romance readers are women. The one exception in the industry is male cover models.' When it comes to cheap imitations of a smouldering Hugh Jackman, positioned provocatively and somewhere glamorous, in a clinch with a female equivalent of Hugh Jackman, such a stock picture can cost anywhere from $15 to $300. As to how this wide a range of price is possible Barron does not elaborate, but beauty beholders will no doubt acknowledge the vast handsomeness divide between a Hugh Jackman and a non-Hugh Jackman. Did you know that, 'Authors have even figured out what kinds of cover poses are more likely to make customers swoon?' Apparently they have, thus explaining chin-holding, finger-pointing, distance-staring, torso-bearing and crotch-emphasis that has become the standard over these last few decades of tinkering. For genuine interests on romance fiction, Harper's Magazine is willing to share Barron's investigation in exchange for a small annual fee. For a retread of what you already know, lovers are advised to stay with the one they are with. Sound wisdom, whatever disappointment that befell you this Valentine's Day.