Naive camp is The Most Perfect description of the super popular stuff I’ve attempted to love but can’t and probably why I am a huge J. Cruisie fan. Thanks for this!
This absolutely SANG to me: “While the public perception of romance novels and their readers is categorized as a paternalistic stereotype and results in pity, the private consumption of romance does tend to be high-spirited and unpretentious, as long as the reader is able to restrain any of their own internalized prejudice.”
j’adore- because of this genius piece of substack writing, I will henceforth be reframing flop romances as merely Karlie Kloss-esque pieces of literature.
Lovely post!! And I like how romance novels are not categorised by the genres/ sub-genres (although it does play a major role in the plot and romantic dynamics), it is categorised as different camp. I love that and I totally agree that romance novels are not not real, they are fictional as we all know. A lot of people say they read because they live vicariously through these characters. To me, yes to a certain extent but it’s more like watching it like a movie in third person and letting a character live out their/ part of our fantasy that we will never do in real life and being ‘hopeful’ about the reality: ‘if she finds love, I’ll certainly find it as well’. Now I have to read the book! Happy reading📖💕
I’m fascinated by the taxonomy of camp (naive vs failed vs successful) and I’m going to have to think about how it applies to books I like vs books I don’t
I just wrote about Fourth Wing (and will definitely be reading the third one this week), and I think the way you described it through a camp lens was chefs kiss! This whole essay in fact gave me a better way to explain why I love the romance genre.
Naive camp is The Most Perfect description of the super popular stuff I’ve attempted to love but can’t and probably why I am a huge J. Cruisie fan. Thanks for this!
This absolutely SANG to me: “While the public perception of romance novels and their readers is categorized as a paternalistic stereotype and results in pity, the private consumption of romance does tend to be high-spirited and unpretentious, as long as the reader is able to restrain any of their own internalized prejudice.”
Great analysis!
j’adore- because of this genius piece of substack writing, I will henceforth be reframing flop romances as merely Karlie Kloss-esque pieces of literature.
Lovely post!! And I like how romance novels are not categorised by the genres/ sub-genres (although it does play a major role in the plot and romantic dynamics), it is categorised as different camp. I love that and I totally agree that romance novels are not not real, they are fictional as we all know. A lot of people say they read because they live vicariously through these characters. To me, yes to a certain extent but it’s more like watching it like a movie in third person and letting a character live out their/ part of our fantasy that we will never do in real life and being ‘hopeful’ about the reality: ‘if she finds love, I’ll certainly find it as well’. Now I have to read the book! Happy reading📖💕
I’m fascinated by the taxonomy of camp (naive vs failed vs successful) and I’m going to have to think about how it applies to books I like vs books I don’t
I just wrote about Fourth Wing (and will definitely be reading the third one this week), and I think the way you described it through a camp lens was chefs kiss! This whole essay in fact gave me a better way to explain why I love the romance genre.