The History of the YA Romance Novel

So, I've written this "romance" novel for my creative thesis. It's not done, done. I still have to edit and get feedback for how to improve it from friends/family/thesis advisor, but basically the story is done. I've given it to someone to look at already.

Anyway, the other half of the thesis, however, requires that I write like 15 pages or something like that, explaining how my novel fits into the history of children's literature. So, I've got to talk a little about the history of children's romances--(psst. teenagers are still children). The problem, however, is that I can't find a book that discusses the history of teen romances.

I did find a book whose title indicates it's a history of romance novels; however, the title is a lie. It is a book that attempts to justify the critical study and respect of romance novels by demonstrating that not all romances are smutty. It does this by looking at a few historical romances, such as Pamela and Pride and Prejudice, whose mention actually make the need for a booklength explication seem superfluous, but what can you do?

In the first few chapters, which is as far as I've been able to choke down, she's mentioned a few contemporary romance authors, but even as far as I've gotten, it seems she's slighting the history of the genre by only discussing two historical pieces and mentioning a bunch of contemporary ones. I suppose I might do that, but I've only got 15 pages. She had 200 some.

But aside from that, she's got some other problems. First, she repeats several times and with only slight variations in her nuance, her definition of the romance novel, which she seems to have invented herself because she is unable to support with any kind of authority beyond herself, refuting other authorities just because they don't match up with the definition she gave the genre. Hm. Sounds fishy.

Now because her rhetoric lacks any of the classical qualities, I would probably still be bugged by her definition, because it slights history by obliquely ignoring a large portion of the genre--the young adult romance. Her definition insists on the fact that the ending is a happy one in which the couple either become betrothed or married; and in the teen romance, I must say the audience is going to be much happier if the couple don't end up betrothed or married--unless they're like nineteen, and even that's questionable.

(My character is actually nineteen, and it is a happy ending in which the heroine is understood to be "hooked up" with the hero, but they're not betrothed or married.)

Now, if that weren't bad enough, she also slights another portion of the history with her definition because she insists that it be the story of a heroine. Though she hasn't come out and said it, this implies "as opposed to the story of a hero." She's mentioned a few historical type of stories in which the hero is the main character and she has classified these simply as comedies, the broader scope under which romances fall. But, her mention of these hero-based stories doesn't mention specifically that they are only comedies because they are the stories of heroes, she qualifies this type of story with a few other details, such as the passing of thrones and stuff. Anyway, I'm just not sure I can buy the fact that a romance is only a romance if it's the story of a woman. A man can definitely have a romance story as well. Jack Weyland has written a few that are from the male perspective. Interestingly, he has named these novels after the heroines; nonetheless, they are first person from the point of view of the men, so they are his stories, and yet they can be nothing but romances. They are not just comedies. Some of them aren't even that funny! (Okay so I know that comedy doesn't necessarily imply funny, but by golly it should. 99% of the time, it does.)

So, what's a person to do? During a great part of my writing the young adult romance, I was actually including the man's half of the story from his first person point of view. I eventually cut that part out, but it wasn't because I thought doing such would exclude my book from the romance genre. (Not that I was purposely trying to include myself in the controversial genre in the first place, but anyway).

So how can a person like me write this critical portion of her thesis when the genre is an oxymoron, or nonexistent? Maybe I can redefine the genre or maybe create a new word and make a bunch of stuff up, just like her, eh? Although I might get in trouble for writing two fictions. Hm.