Your English Professor Lied: Romance Novels Outsell Tolstoy for a Reason

Somewhere right now, a person with a literature degree is sneering at someone reading a romance novel on the subway. They clutch their dog-eared copy of *Anna Karenina* like a holy relic, radiating superiority from every pore. And here's the delicious irony they'll never admit: *Anna Karenina* IS a romance novel. Tolstoy just had better PR.

Let's talk about the dirtiest open secret in the literary world — genre snobbery. That peculiar disease where otherwise intelligent people convince themselves that a book's worth is determined not by its craft, emotional power, or cultural impact, but by which shelf Barnes & Noble puts it on. It's the literary equivalent of judging wine by the label instead of actually drinking it. And it's been rotting the conversation about books for centuries.

Here's a number that should make every literary snob choke on their artisanal coffee: romance novels account for roughly $1.44 billion in annual sales in the United States alone, commanding about 23% of the fiction market. That's more than mystery, science fiction, and literary fiction combined. Now, the snob's reflex is to say, "Well, McDonald's sells more than Michelin-star restaurants." Cute analogy. Wrong analogy. Because we're not comparing fast food to haute cuisine — we're comparing two restaurants that both serve steak, except one has white tablecloths and the other has checkered ones.

Let's rewind to the 19th century, that supposed golden age of Serious Literature. Charles Dickens? Published in serialized penny magazines — the airport paperbacks of Victorian England. His editors demanded cliffhangers, romantic subplots, and melodrama. Critics of the time called him vulgar and commercial. Edgar Allan Poe was dismissed as a hack who wrote sensational horror for the masses. The Brontë sisters published under male pseudonyms partly because women writing passionate, emotionally raw fiction were considered beneath serious literary discourse. Jane Austen — now canonized as a genius — spent decades being patronized as a writer of "domestic trifles." Every single one of these authors was, in their time, a genre writer.

The machinery of literary canonization is not some objective quality filter. It's a social process driven by university curricula, publishing gatekeepers, and cultural politics. When F. Scott Fitzgerald died in 1940, *The Great Gatsby* was considered a commercial flop and a minor work. It became "the great American novel" largely because the U.S. Army shipped cheap paperback editions to soldiers during World War II, and postwar English departments needed a compact, teachable American text. That's not merit ascending. That's logistics and academic convenience.

Now let's actually dissect what makes genre fiction supposedly "lesser." The usual charges: formulaic structure, predictable endings, emotional manipulation. Let's take these one at a time. Formulaic structure? Shakespeare wrote within rigid dramatic formulas — five acts, iambic pentameter, comedies end in marriage, tragedies end in death. Homer's *Odyssey* follows a hero's journey template so predictable that Joseph Campbell literally built a career mapping it. Formula isn't a flaw. It's a framework. What matters is what you do inside it. Predictable endings? Tolstoy's *War and Peace* ends with — spoiler alert for an 1869 novel — the characters finding domestic happiness after the war. Dickens almost always delivered poetic justice. Literary fiction that ends ambiguously isn't braver; it's just a different convention, no more inherently honest than a happily-ever-after. Emotional manipulation? Every piece of fiction manipulates emotion. That's literally the job. When Tolstoy spends fifty pages on Prince Andrei's death to make you weep, that's craft. When Nora Roberts builds tension across three hundred pages to make you feel the rush of a love confession, that's also craft. The mechanism is identical. Only the target emotion differs.

And let's address the elephant in the room: sexism. Romance is the most female-dominated genre in publishing — written overwhelmingly by women, for women, about women's desires and inner lives. Literary fiction, historically gatekept by male critics and male-dominated prize committees, has consistently devalued exactly the themes romance centers: emotional intelligence, relationships, domestic life, female agency. When Philip Roth writes obsessively about male sexual desire, it's "unflinching." When a romance novelist writes about female sexual desire, it's "trashy." If you don't see the double standard, you're not looking.

Consider Colleen Hoover, who dominated bestseller lists and became one of the most-read authors on the planet. Literary Twitter had a collective meltdown. "But is it GOOD?" they asked, clutching their pearls. Meanwhile, Hoover was doing something most literary novelists can only dream of: making millions of people who don't normally read pick up a book. She was creating readers. And a reader who starts with *It Ends with Us* might eventually pick up *Beloved* or *Middlemarch*. A snob who mocks that reader's starting point ensures they never pick up anything again.

Ursula K. Le Guin — who spent her entire career fighting genre snobbery from the science fiction trenches — said it best: "We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings." She was talking about economic systems, but the same applies to literary hierarchies. They seem natural and eternal. They're not. They're constructed, maintained, and enforced by people with specific cultural interests.

This doesn't mean all books are equal in quality. Of course they're not. There are brilliant romance novels and terrible ones, just as there are brilliant literary novels and insufferable, self-indulgent ones. I've read prize-winning literary fiction that had the emotional depth of a puddle and the narrative drive of a parked car. I've read romance novels with prose so sharp it could cut glass and character work that would make Chekhov nod in approval. The point isn't that everything is equally good. The point is that genre is not a reliable indicator of quality. Never has been.

The real question isn't "Is this literary fiction or genre fiction?" The real question is: "Does this book do what it's trying to do, and does it do it well?" A romance novel that delivers genuine emotional catharsis, complex characters, and beautiful prose is a better book than a literary novel that delivers pretentious navel-gazing dressed up in fancy sentences. Full stop.

So the next time you see someone reading a romance novel on the subway, and you feel that little flicker of superiority — sit with that feeling for a moment. Ask yourself where it comes from. Because it doesn't come from having read more or understood literature better. It comes from having absorbed, uncritically, a hierarchy that was built to keep certain stories — and certain readers — in their place. Tolstoy wrote about love, betrayal, desire, and the desperate search for meaning. So does every romance novelist working today. The only difference is the size of the font on the spine and the number of flowers on the cover.

And honestly? The flowers are prettier.