Content Feed

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.

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

Here's a dirty little secret the literary establishment doesn't want you to know: more people have cried over a Nora Roberts novel than over 'Anna Karenina.' And those tears are no less real. Genre snobbery — the quiet, insidious belief that some books are inherently 'better' than others based purely on their shelf placement — is the most persistent con job in the history of letters. It's time we talked about it honestly, without the tweed jackets and the posturing.

Let's start with a number that makes literary critics break out in hives. Romance fiction generates over $1.4 billion in annual revenue in the United States alone. It commands roughly 23% of the fiction market. That's more than mystery, science fiction, and literary fiction combined. Now, you can dismiss a million readers as idiots. You can dismiss ten million. But at some point, you have to stop and wonder if maybe — just maybe — those books are doing something right.

The hierarchy we accept without question — literary fiction at the top, genre fiction groveling somewhere beneath — is an invention, and a fairly recent one at that. Shakespeare wrote crowd-pleasing entertainments full of dick jokes, sword fights, and cross-dressing hijinks. Charles Dickens serialized his novels in cheap weekly magazines, right next to advertisements for patent medicines. Edgar Allan Poe invented the detective story as a kind of intellectual parlor trick. These writers weren't trying to be 'literary.' They were trying to pay rent and keep audiences coming back. The pedestal came later, erected by academics who needed something to justify their tenure.

Consider the case of Jane Austen — now universally revered as one of the greatest English-language novelists. What did she actually write? Love stories. Romantic comedies, to be precise. 'Pride and Prejudice' is, stripped to its chassis, a will-they-won't-they romance between a witty woman and a brooding rich man. Swap the Regency setting for a contemporary one, and you've got a book that Barnes & Noble would shelve in Romance without a second thought. Yet somehow Austen gets the stamp of 'literature' while a modern author writing structurally identical stories gets a patronizing smile.

The double standard is breathtaking. When Cormac McCarthy writes about violence, it's 'an unflinching examination of the human condition.' When a thriller writer does it, it's 'pulp.' When Kazuo Ishiguro writes a novel set in a dystopian future ('Never Let Me Go'), it's longlisted for the Booker Prize. When Margaret Atwood writes 'The Handmaid's Tale' — undeniably science fiction by every possible metric — she famously insisted it wasn't sci-fi, because she understood the stigma. Even authors internalize genre snobbery. That's how deep the rot goes.

Here's what really grinds my gears: the assumption that emotional impact is somehow inversely proportional to literary merit. A romance novel that makes you feel butterflies, that makes your chest ache, that keeps you up until 3 AM because you need to know if these two fictional people get their happy ending — that book has accomplished something extraordinary. It has hijacked your nervous system with nothing but words on a page. That is craft. That is skill. The fact that it targets the heart instead of the intellect doesn't make it lesser. It makes it different.

Tolstoy himself would probably agree. The man wrote 'War and Peace,' sure — but he also wrote 'The Kreutzer Sonata,' a novella so melodramatic and scandalous it was banned in the United States by the Postal Service. Tolstoy wasn't above sensation. Dostoyevsky's novels are essentially psychological thrillers. 'Crime and Punishment' has more in common with a Patricia Highsmith page-turner than with the ponderous, chin-stroking 'literary fiction' that populates today's prize shortlists. The Russian masters were genre writers. We just retroactively pretended they weren't.

And let's talk about craft for a moment, because this is where the snobs really lose the argument. Writing a good romance novel — one that readers actually finish and recommend — requires mastery of pacing, dialogue, emotional escalation, character voice, and structural architecture. You have to deliver on the genre's central promise (the Happily Ever After) while making the journey feel fresh and unpredictable. That's a technical challenge as demanding as anything in so-called literary fiction. Beverly Jenkins has been doing this brilliantly for decades, weaving African American history into her romance narratives with the kind of research depth that would make any historical novelist envious. Courtney Milan writes heroines with the psychological complexity that critics claim genre fiction lacks. These books are invisible to the literary establishment not because they fail, but because they succeed at something the establishment has decided doesn't count.

The genre snobbery machine runs on a simple fuel: insecurity. People who loudly proclaim that they 'only read literary fiction' are performing taste the way others perform wealth. It's a class signal. In 1860, critics sneered at sensation novels — the thrillers and romances of the Victorian era — calling them dangerous trash for women and the working class. In 2026, the vocabulary has gotten politer, but the contempt is identical. The subtext is always the same: certain readers (educated, male, upper-class) have good taste, and everyone else is consuming garbage.

Let me hit you with one more inconvenient truth. The most influential storytelling innovations of the last century have come from genre fiction, not literary fiction. Science fiction gave us the conceptual framework for the internet, artificial intelligence, and space travel decades before they existed. Mystery fiction perfected the unreliable narrator long before literary fiction claimed it. Romance fiction pioneered the female gaze and stories centered on women's desire and agency at a time when 'serious' literature treated female characters as furniture. Genre writers were doing the real experimental work while literary fiction was still writing novels about middle-aged professors having affairs.

None of this means that all romance novels are masterpieces, or that quality doesn't vary wildly within any genre. Of course it does. Sturgeon's Law applies everywhere: 90% of everything is mediocre. But here's the thing — 90% of literary fiction is mediocre too. For every 'Beloved,' there are a hundred forgettable novels about sad academics in New England that got reviewed in The New Yorker and promptly disappeared. The difference is that nobody uses those forgettable literary novels as evidence that the entire category is worthless.

So the next time someone at a dinner party smirks when you mention you're reading a romance novel, try this: ask them what they think of 'Wuthering Heights.' Watch them rhapsodize about Brontë's genius. Then gently point out that 'Wuthering Heights' is a gothic romance about an obsessive, borderline-abusive love affair featuring a brooding bad boy and a headstrong heroine. It was dismissed by critics in 1847 as 'coarse' and 'disagreeable.' Sound familiar?

The line between Great Literature and genre fiction isn't a line at all. It's a velvet rope at a nightclub, maintained by bouncers who decide, arbitrarily and after the fact, which books get to be 'important.' The sooner we tear that rope down, the sooner we can have an honest conversation about what makes writing good — not what makes it respectable. Read Tolstoy. Read Nora Roberts. Read both on the same afternoon. Your brain won't explode, I promise. It might even expand.

Here's a dirty little secret the literary establishment doesn't want you to know: Anna Karenina is a romance novel. A woman falls for a dashing officer, abandons her husband, society punishes her, and she throws herself under a train. Strip away the Russian surnames and the 800-page existential padding, and you've got the plot of a Harlequin paperback — just one that takes four times longer to break your heart. But mention this at a dinner party, and watch the wine glasses tremble with indignation.

Genre snobbery is the most resilient virus in the literary world. It survived the printing press, the paperback revolution, and the Kindle. It will probably survive the heat death of the universe. The symptoms are easy to spot: a reflexive sneer at any book with an embossed cover, the compulsive need to mention that one is "currently reading Proust," and the unshakable belief that suffering through difficult prose is morally superior to enjoying a page-turner. It's the literary equivalent of ordering black coffee and judging everyone who takes cream.

Let's get specific. In 2023, the romance genre generated $1.44 billion in revenue in the United States alone, making it the single highest-earning fiction category. Literary fiction, that hallowed ground of "serious" writing, didn't even crack the top five. Now, sales don't equal quality — nobody's arguing that — but they do prove something important: romance writers are doing something extraordinarily well. They're connecting with millions of human beings on an emotional level so powerful that readers come back month after month, year after year. If that's not a form of literary mastery, I don't know what is.

The roots of genre snobbery run deep, and they smell suspiciously like class warfare. When the novel first emerged as a literary form in the 18th century, critics dismissed it entirely. Samuel Johnson called novels "the entertainment of minds unfurnished with ideas." Sound familiar? The same argument gets recycled every generation, just aimed at a different target. Gothic novels in the 1790s. Sensation fiction in the 1860s. Detective stories in the 1920s. Science fiction in the 1950s. Romance in every decade since forever. The pattern is always the same: popular with women and the working class, therefore not real literature.

And there's the quiet part said loud. Genre snobbery has always been, at its core, a war against what women read. Romance is written overwhelmingly by women, for women, about women's inner lives and desires. The genre that centers female pleasure and emotional complexity gets dismissed as "trash," while male-dominated genres like literary fiction — where protagonists stare at walls and have affairs with graduate students — get canonized. When Philip Roth wrote obsessively about sex, he was exploring the human condition. When Nora Roberts does it, she's writing "guilty pleasures." The double standard is so blatant it would be funny if it weren't so exhausting.

Consider the craft involved. A romance novelist must create two fully realized characters, give them genuine chemistry, build escalating tension across 80,000 words, and deliver an emotionally satisfying resolution — all while making the reader believe that these two specific people belong together despite every obstacle thrown in their path. That's not easy. That's engineering-level precision applied to human emotion. Tolstoy, for all his genius, couldn't even give Anna a happy ending. He was too busy punishing her for wanting things.

And let's talk about Tolstoy for a moment, since he's the poster child for Literary Seriousness. The man was a gambling addict who lost his family estate at cards. He made his wife Sophia copy the manuscript of War and Peace by hand — seven times. He wrote endlessly about the peasant soul while his own serfs lived in misery. In his later years, he decided that all art was basically sinful, including his own novels. Shakespeare? Garbage, said Tolstoy. King Lear was "stupid and verbose." This is the guy we're supposed to use as the gold standard for measuring literary worth? A man who would have burned his own books if his wife hadn't physically stopped him?

None of this means Tolstoy wasn't brilliant — he was. War and Peace contains passages of such luminous beauty that they make your chest ache. But brilliance isn't a zero-sum game. The existence of great literary fiction doesn't diminish great romance, any more than the existence of Michelin-starred restaurants means your grandmother's cooking is worthless. Different dishes, different hungers.

The real damage of genre snobbery isn't to the bestselling authors who cry all the way to the bank. It's to readers. Millions of people have been made to feel ashamed of what they love. They hide their Kindle screens on the subway. They preface recommendations with "I know it's not serious, but..." They internalize the message that their taste is inferior, their pleasure suspect, their emotional lives less worthy of exploration than whatever Jonathan Franzen is brooding about this decade.

Meanwhile, the literary canon keeps quietly absorbing genres it once despised. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein — once dismissed as Gothic trash — now anchors university syllabi worldwide. Raymond Chandler, sneered at as a pulp hack, is studied alongside Hemingway. Ursula K. Le Guin, ignored by the Nobel committee her entire life, is now recognized as one of the 20th century's essential voices. The pattern is clear: today's "guilty pleasure" is tomorrow's classic. It just takes the gatekeepers a few decades to catch up.

So here's my modest proposal: read what you love. Read it loudly, proudly, without apology. If that's Dostoevsky, magnificent. If that's a werewolf romance set in a small-town bakery, equally magnificent. The only bad reading is no reading at all. And the next time someone at a party raises an eyebrow at your book choices, smile and ask them when they last read something that made them feel something — anything — without checking first whether it was on an approved list.

Because here's the truth that keeps genre snobs up at night: the romance novel will outlast us all. It was here before the printing press, carried in ballads and folktales and whispered stories by the fire. It will be here long after the last MFA program closes its doors. Love — messy, desperate, ridiculous, glorious love — is the one story humanity never gets tired of telling. And no amount of snobbery has ever been strong enough to make us stop wanting to hear it.