The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy, and Popular Literature.
Abstract
Originally published in 1984, Reading the Romance challenges popular (and often demeaning) myths about why romantic fiction, one of publishing's most lucrative categories, captivates millions of women readers. Among those who have disparaged romance reading are feminists, literary critics, and theorists of mass culture. They claim that romances enforce the woman reader's dependence on men and acceptance of the repressive ideology purveyed by popular culture. Radway questions such claims, arguing that critical attention must shift from the text itself, taken in isolation, to the complex social event of reading. She examines that event, from the complicated business of publishing and distribution to the individual reader's engagement with the text. Radway's provocative approach combines reader-response criticism with anthropology and feminist psychology. Asking readers themselves to explore their reading motives, habits, and rewards, she conducted interviews in a midwestern town with forty-two romance readers whom she met through Dorothy Evans, a chain bookstore employee who has earned a reputation as an expert on romantic fiction. Evans defends her customers' choice of entertainment; reading romances, she tells Radway, is no more harmful than watching sports on television. We read books so we won't cry is the poignant explanation one woman offers for her reading habit. Indeed, Radway found that while the women she studied devote themselves to nurturing their families, these wives and mothers receive insufficient devotion or nurturance in return. In romances the women find not only escape from the demanding and often tiresome routines of their lives but also a hero who supplies the tenderness and admiring attention that they have learned not to expect. The heroines admired by Radway's group defy the expected stereotypes; they are strong, independent, and intelligent. That such characters often find themselves to be victims of male aggression and almost always resign themselves to accepting conventional roles in life has less to do, Radway argues, with the women readers' fantasies and choices than with their need to deal with a fear of masculine dominance. These romance readers resent not only the limited choices in their own lives but the patronizing atitude that men especially express toward their reading tastes. In fact, women read romances both to protest and to escape temporarily the narrowly defined role prescribed for them by a patriarchal culture. Paradoxically, the books that they read make conventional roles for women seem desirable. It is this complex relationship between culture, text, and woman reader that Radway urges feminists to address. Romance readers, she argues, should be encouraged to deliver their protests in the arena of actual social relations rather than to act them out in the solitude of the imagination. In a new introduction, Janice Radway places the book within the context of current scholarship and offers both an explanation and critique of the study's limitations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011) · GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences · doi:10.12759/hsr.36.2011.4.273-290 · Cited by 3,559
Think Practically and Look Locally: Language and Gender as Community-Based Practice
Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992) · Annual Review of Anthropology · doi:10.1146/annurev.an.21.100192.002333 · Cited by 1,859
Rogers, R. A. (2006) · Communication Theory · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00277.x · Cited by 469
Literacy and Identity: Examining the Metaphors in History and Contemporary Research
Moje, E. B., & Luke, A. (2009) · Reading Research Quarterly · doi:10.1598/rrq.44.4.7 · Cited by 444
Sex differences in sexual fantasy: An evolutionary psychological approach
Ellis, B. J., & Symons, D. (1990) · The Journal of Sex Research · doi:10.1080/00224499009551579 · Cited by 432
Metadata
- Authors
- Davidson, C. N., & Radway, J. A.
- Venue
- American Literature
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1985-10
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 526
- ISSN
- 0002-9831 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1974626437
- Cited by
- 2,910
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 530.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy, and Popular Literature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2925808
- The paper
- Davidson, C. N., & Radway, J. A. (1985). Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy, and Popular Literature. American Literature. https://doi.org/10.2307/2925808
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.