There are several uncomfortable realities about being a novelist — 
specifically, a male novelist. One such reality is the preponderance of female novelists. If feminists are still pining for professional equality, they need look no further than the publishing industry, especially the Christian fiction industry.
This tilt toward women has many possible explanations, one of them simply being the masculine constitution. Men aren’t wired to read. Compounding this genetic drag is the startling fact that 80% of the novels out there are romance. So not only must men struggle against their Neanderthal nature, they must do so in an industry satiated with emotional yuck.
Becky Miller recently revisited this complicated and controversial issue in a post entitled Women in Fiction:
I heard a startling figure this last weekend—fully eighty percent of all books (not just Christian books) sold in the US are romances. Accurate or not, I think the perception is telling—we are a culture seeking relational bliss, women with men.
Yes, there are coming of age stories featuring guys. Hatchet comes to mind as does Peace Like a River. And there are some action-adventure stories mostly about guys. Alton Gansky has written at least one such book. So has Ted Dekker.
But for the most part, women show up in fiction, if not in the protagonist’s role, then in a role demanding her own subplot.
So I wonder. Is this why men notoriously don’t read fiction? Do guys really not want to read the romance, just as they do not want to go to movies identified as romantic comedies?
Do they not read because they don’t want to know what Jo and Meg and Beth and Amy were whispering about in their attic? Do they not read because they don’t care how Ann Shirley felt as a little orphan girl arriving in a home that expected a boy.
Do men not read because books are too cerebral and not visceral enough? Or manly enough?
And if women protagonists become tougher, more clever, stronger, and independent, will men want to read about those women more? (emphasis mine)
The connection between men not reading fiction and the market’s glut of romance is perceptive. Could it be that men simply don’t read more fiction because most of the fiction out there is romance? Ask me, and that’s a no-brainer.
Personally, I have no problem following a female protagonist. None. And to answer Becky’s question, I don’t require fictional females to “become tougher, more clever, stronger, and independent.” In other words, a more “manly woman” is not attractive and definitely would not coax me into reading a straight romance novel. In fact, I’d suggest it’s women who want “manly women” — confident, strong-willed, independent, professional females — in their tales, not men.
And re: romance — “getting the girl” is the stuff of boys (and men!). Heck, that’s practically all the guys at my work talk about. (Of course, what that means for them is a whole other story.) Still, men want to be with women… it’s just that that means two different things for men and women. Which could be part of the divide. With women at the wheel of the romance industry, they are free to define “romance” in whatever terms they want. Maybe that’s why some equate today’s romance genre as “emotional porn.”
So here I’ll offer three reasons why male readers do not read romance:
- Men fear complicated emotions — Deal with it. We don’t process feelings, nor express them, very well. It’s the downside of our left-brainedness. So entire novels based on processing emotions scare the crap out of us!
- Men define romance differently than women — Sorry. You’re dealing with genetics here. Candlelit dinners and fireside snuggling must lead to the bedroom… which puts Christian romance at an even greater disadvantage. Furthermore, reading about romance / sex is not satisfying to a species preoccupied with the physical, as opposed to the emotional, side of the dance.
- Men view romance as only part of their story — Males — especially males who read — are driven by things other than just romance. Career, competition, adventure, technology, food (okay, maybe food is just my drive), are bound up in the male psyche. Romance is just a compartment in your man, not his whole world.
Of course, it doesn’t help that the majority of chick lit and chick flicks follow such a similar, predictable, cliched arc. (My wife recently saw the latest Nicholas Sparks’ film, The Last Song, and with only seeing the trailer I successfully predicted the entire plot. Okay, so it’s not that challenging.) So in answer to Becky’s question, I agree that men don’t read fiction because most fiction is geared toward romance. I would also add that it’s not female protagonists, strong or weak, that keep men from reading romance, but a view of romance that is lop-sided (defined by female novelists and their fans). But this is just one Neanderthal’s opinion.
80% sold is a misleading statistic, however. If you don't account for the romance book hoarders, you would get the impression that 80% of readers are romance novel readers.
This is not true.
Romance readers are, by far, the heaviest consumers of book quantities. The average romance reader buys 3 or 4 books per month, in contrast to the general population of readers, which may not buy that many books in a year. Part of this is due to the rabidity of the fan base, part of this is due to the structure of the romance novel itself, and another part is due to the production process.
A little more on this:
Romance novel readers are serial serial readers. They consume the books quickly, purchase series and themes in order, and often have massive libraries of paperbacks. Pulp fiction never died: it just got romantic. Romance is an addictive genre with a fan base that can easily consume, on balance, a greater quantity of books than all other genres.
Soap operas are great television because you can pick them up anywhere, get your bearings, engage in the characters, have the impression of movement, drop out, even, if you must, and return to the familiar. Romance works the same way. The structure of the books are such that you could open it up to page 87, find the characters in an exotic location with an interesting obstacle before them, but know who is good, who is bad, and where the relationships are heading. It is a familiar framework, but also can be adorned in such a way as to stay fresh. The romance book is designed to be purchased, consumed quickly, and pre-sell the next book.
Finally, romance can be produced much quicker than other genres, in part due to a good bottom-line focus by publishers, but also in part due to the structure of the book. This isn't to say romance writing is easy: it isn't. It is just faster. If you are good at it, a romance novel can be knocked out in half the time (or faster) than other books, primarily because the framework provides a skeletal template that shouldn't be fussed with.
So the market can be flooded to a consumer base that will meet the engorged supply with a ravenous demand. Ahem.
This is also why romance novelists, on balance, are paid less per book, but may make as much or more as other novelists.
It isn't the gender, its the economy!
I don't mind romance as a sub-plot, which is a good thing since it is in almost all the mysteries I read. But I need something other than romance to keep my attention. Something I can't predict the outcome of from page one. I mean, is there ever a romance where the hero and heroin don't wind up together at the end?
Okay i get that i am also sometimes not in the mood to read somthing predictible thats when i turn to classics but sometimes i just want somthing predictible not complicated that i know is complete bulshit because romance novels are mostly based on love changing you which i don’t believe is or even should be the case in real life.I figure it is the same reason we watch so many ation movies where the main charecter allways maneges to either kill or put the bad guy in jail even though thats not allways the case in real life.
Mike, you knew I'd be chiming in, didn't ya? I love hearing your valid points along with Mark's and xdpaul's. Good stuff. And I basically agree.
I'm kinda proud to say in spite of the romantic nature of my novels which I label "non-traditional" romance just because they deal with the male as much as the female POV, my second one (The Famous One) has appealed to men as much as to women, but it's more in a format of a fictional biography. And it definitely would offend some CBA readers because it looks honestly without judgment at men and women without the Lord. Others of my stuff are more geared toward women, but I still like to think I capture the male POV vs. the female's accurately, and I think it's a direct result of having lived in the world for 30 years without Jesus.
Anyway, excellent points, Gentlemen.
It makes one wonder — why do so many women read so much romance?
That's easy…because we, their husbands and significant others, are not reading it. In other words, they want the fairy tale that is not their reality — and, frankly, never will be. If it could really happen that way, there would be no need for the genre.
Can men be romantic? Yep. But do remember, the fairy tale isn't only unreal on the male side of the equation. It's also unreal on the female side.
"Men view romance as only part of their story."
Ding ding ding! We have a winner. This and Mark's comment above hit the nail on the head, I think.
I’m chiming in way late on this, but this has been on the forefront of my brain–okay, actually not about men not reading romance, but about us gals who want to read something other than romance. I visited FictionFinder.com today and found a sum total of *3* books that MIGHT not have a romance thread in the historical fiction category (my preferred genre). So instead of getting to read in my chosen genre, I often have to stray outside of it to read Special Ops focused books (example: Jeff Struecker/Alton Gansky’s “Certain Jeopardy”), or secular market westerns, or spy books.
I’m a guy and I make stories. Not really books. Just long tail online that people can read chapter by chapter as I pump them out. I have many female readers that love my stories. But the odd thing is I only throw in small romantic relationships here and there. Most of the time there is either fighting or fleeing going on. What I think brings so many women to my stories is that I have so many women in my tales. I don’t try to do this it just so happens by the end of the stories there will probity be two or three female characters for every male character. I also try to make my stories being shown in a real world setting at first but they slowly entwine with fantasy. Basically it starts out normal but then later on someone or a group of people may get caught up in the occult or find some mystical item and before you know it magic slowly creeps its way into the story and it changes into a twisted tale with a lot of dark humor and fantastical creatures and characters all with their own distinct personalities.
I’m a guy and I make stories. Not really books. Just long online tales that people can read chapter by chapter as I pump them out. I have many female readers that love my stories. But the odd thing is I only throw in small romantic relationships here and there. Most of the time there is either fighting or fleeing going on. What I think brings so many women to my stories is that I have so many women in my tales. I don’t try to do this it just so happens by the end of the stories there will probity be two or three female characters for every male character. I also try to make my stories being shown in a real world setting at first but they slowly entwine with fantasy. Basically it starts out normal but then later on someone or a group of people may get caught up in the occult or find some mystical item and before you know it magic slowly creeps its way into the story and it changes into a twisted tale with a lot of dark humor and fantastical creatures and characters all with their own distinct personalities.
Yepp wemon like reading about other women as the main charecter probably as much as they like the romance genre.Your stories sound cool where do you post them?