Are Jane Austen's books romances or not is a question wrapped up in so much misogyny and bias that it's very hard to answer without a thousand caveats. The almost knee-jerk reaction of some Austen fans to insist that the novels aren't romance is because we are all well aware of the negative associations (romance = stupid girl stuff that isn't worth educated men's time). However, most people who say this, I really believe, mean no offense to romance as a genre that many people love.
And what is romance? Do all the heroines in Austen's novels end up married by the end? Well yes, but lots of books that are definitely not romances end with the main character married. Is Emily Brontë only included in this list because she's a woman, because I read Wuthering Heights as a revenge Gothic tragedy:
A romance or romantic novel is a genre fiction work focused on the relationship and romantic love between two people, often concluding with an emotionally satisfying or optimistic ending. Authors who have significantly contributed to the development of this genre include Samuel Richardson, Frances Burney, Maria Edgeworth, Jane Austen, Charlotte Brontë, Emily Brontë, and Anne Brontë.
I would personally say, and many agree, that a modern romance must have a happy ending (HEA), but the exact definition is hard to pin down even by experts. One of the common things in pulp fiction romance is a hyper focus on the two leads, to the point that most other characters feel two-dimensional. I don't think Jane Austen fits that genre convention at all. She does great side character building and her worlds feel lived-in in a way that makes her stories become real.
Anyway, definitions aside, there are some very real reasons not to call Austen's novels romance, at least some of them:
Emma and Mansfield Park especially don't fit the definition at all, in my opinion. Those novels are far more interested in the growth of the main character than their end romances. They are both coming-of-age novels and not primarily romance
The novels are all heavy on social satire
Just because a novel was written by a woman and is mostly in a female point of view, it doesn't have to be classified as a romance. Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest ends in three marriages and is almost entirely about the relationships between the four main love interests, and yet it's mostly classified as a comedy. "Woman wrote = romance" can be very annoying
It's hard to fully articulate, "Yes, Jane Austen's novels have romance, but they have so much more, like satire and social commentary and women coming of age, so it feels reductive to classify them as only romance, and also, I'm afraid you are shoving her into the box of Stupid Women Novels which is a stupid, false category to begin with, but I don't want her in that box, not that I have anything against pulp fiction romance as a genre, but that is very much not what she wrote." and so you end up with, "Jane Austen didn't write romance" even though, well she did, but-
Lost in Austen: as long as sex was not involved, a girl’s reputation is perfectly okay even if she elopes with a man!
Actual Jane Austen: the simple act of eloping renders Lydia compromised and the best thing for her is to get married to the man she eloped with, even if he is a scoundrel
Another example from Jane Austen: Marianne’s reputation is compromised because she and Willoughby behaved like they were engaged when they were not, and the news of Willoughby’s engagement to another girl does not help her
Jane Austen, again: an engaged Maria and Henry flirted with each other shamelessly and it would have ended horribly if someone important paid attention or Sir Thomas had not come back from Antigua
Ouida-kidding, still Jane Austen: Captain Wentworth and Louisa Musgrove pass so much time together that people expect them to announce an engagement soon, and Wentworth back-pedalling and not doing so would ruin Louisa’s reputation
I always get the feeling when I argue that yes, Willoughby and Henry Crawford did feel real love, but love does not conquer all, that it's very... strange for Austen readers to believe that love conquers all because she is pretty focused as an author on the fact that love really shouldn't be the only thing one considers in marriage. Morality is a big factor but the other one is money.
Edward and Elinor are very much in love, and yet, "they were neither of them quite enough in love to think that three hundred and fifty pounds a-year would supply them with the comforts of life" and do not marry until Mrs. Ferrars chips in. Elinor assures Marianne that even if Willoughby had married her, his love would turn to resentment because of their poor financial situation. Anne Elliot enthusiastically confirms to Captain Wentworth that she would have accepted him... with a few thousand pounds, and... posted into the Laconia. Then they would have been financially secure enough to make a go of it even without her family's approval.
Even Lydia's unfortunate marriage to Wickham is mostly described in financial terms instead of something like abuse. Lydia and Wickham remain in a constant state of want and instability. This is why their marriage is a failure, though the lack of affection is also undesirable.
Love is a factor, Maria's marriage with Rushworth based on money alone is a total failure, but I really don't think that Austen thinks love is sufficient on it's own to keep a marriage going. It cannot fix principals and constant want might wear it away. The fact that love didn't save Henry Crawford doesn't mean his love wasn't real. Willoughby choosing money over Marianne doesn't mean his love wasn't real. It just means it wasn't enough.
Henry Crawford: You can fix me!
Everyone: You can fix him!
Fanny Price: No, I can't and I don't want to! You have a conscience! You have what it takes to fix yourself!
reread mansfield park recently and it was so much better than i had remembered. i hadn't read it since i was a teenager and at the time i didn't like it because i had expected it to be like pride & prejudice. but rereading it as an adult, i have to say it fucking slaps. there's something quietly revolutionary about a sheltered eighteen year old who is often praised for her "gentleness" and her "submission" point blank refusing to marry a man who doesn't meet her standards.
So many people reading my post about Fanny Price having rickets and i love to see people talking about the idea. One of the people who reposted it (@gcballet) got to talking in the tags about disability which is obviously a major theme in Mansfield Park (which makes sense given the number of chronically ill relatives Jane Austen herself had) but also mentioned Fanny's parentification in that book.
Which then got me thinking about parentification more broadly in Austen's works. And to be clear, I know some people think "Parentification" is a buzzword for "children being expected to help out" or "children being expected to be mature" or anything like that. It most certainly isn't, especially when used in a professional context, and it's not what I mean. Parentification is extremely unhealthy to a young person, and it can really screw with their sense of self, among other aspects of mental health it can do a number on.
Children forced to take care of their sick or mentally ill parents. Very young children being forced to take care of younger siblings before they have the knowledge and skills to do so. That is parentification and it shows up a LOT in Austen if you go looking. It was definitely a phenomena Austen was aware of and paints negatively, and whether she condemned it or not, I think she found it wrong just based on how she paints it.
Starting with Mansfield Park. Before moving to Mansfield, Fanny was helping her mother with the care of the house and all her siblings, despite being a small child herself (I've even seen speculation that part of the reason Mrs Norris might have suggested that they take in Fanny instead of any of the others is because it would be depriving Mrs Norris's hated sister of her most helpful/able child and and forcing her to take on all that extra responsibility herself). Then, when she gets to Mansfield, the physical labor may be less, but she's still a full-time babysitter to Lady Bertram: fetching and carrying and running errands and messages; arranging her sewing work so it will be easier to do; and just generally keeping her entertained, happy, and calm.
The way others see her is so strongly tied up in those duties that even her favorite (and most loving) brother William is convinced that her return to Portsmouth will magically make life in the Price household quieter and more orderly and comfortable than it has been since her departure a decade ago. Lady Bertram's desire to have Fanny back after Tommy's injury isn't about Fanny or Tom, but about her ladyship's personal comfort and peace of mind.
Fanny's not the only character to get that treatment to a greater or lesser degree, either. Susan Price becomes Fanny 2.0 both at Portsmouth and then later at Mansfield. She probably considers Mansfield a lucky escape, but she's still a child babysitting a grown woman (I am deliberately not getting into whether Lady Bertram was in any way disabled because an adult who needs a caregiver needs an ADULT one).
In Mansfield, it's not just the girls being parentified, either. I'm going to leave aside William Price being sent at 12 to undertake the life of a sailor (a very dangerous and uncomfortable life that left his father disabled and bitter). Children in hard, dangerous jobs is a different discussion to parentification. At that time, I doubt anyone saw that as anything other than an apprenticeship he was lucky to have landed, and there was no taking care of adults involved for him. If anything, he was (HOPEFULLY!) being taken care of and educated by the other adults on ship. At the very least, he doesn't seem to have been required to support his parents and siblings to any great degree (he probably does give some money to his parents, but he feels no guilty about using some of his money to buy Fanny what was probably a rather expensive amber cross.
But Edmund, despite living a much safer, easier life than Willian, does seem to have been stuck with more of a paternal role. When Sir Thomas leaves for Antigua, not only is it Edmund who is relied on to keep his siblings in check (including his elder brother who by the standards of the time should have been the de facto head of house and who got zero pushback for being an irresponsible wastrel instead), but he is the one his mother relies on to, among other things, deal with the servants (which may even mean he's directing his fathers stewards and by extension all the incoming and outgoing cash and possibly even some of his father's tenants as well). As silly as it seems for him to try to stop the others from having their play, he is the one who was left in charge. And, with everything else he would have had on his plate, he probably wished his aunt or mother would have put their foot down and saved him the hassle.
All this is part of the reason I've always said that one of the major themes of Mansfield Park is neglect. The younger generation are either left to run wild or forced to be the adults in the room. There is no in-between.
~~~~~
But parentification shows up in other Austen books, too. Although i won't go on about them in quite as much length, I do just want to point out some obviously examples of it that occur to me off the top of my head. And I also want to point out that none of these make the parents in question bad people. I quite like some of the parents mentioned.
Sense and Sensibility: No hate for Mrs Dashwood because child parentification is not always the result of evil or neglectful children, but because Mrs Dashwood seems to think she lives in a romantic novel, 19 Elinor does most of the intellectual heavy lifting for the family, including reminding her mother that they live on a budget now, and trying to keep Marianne from setting her life on fire. When Marianne and Willoughby are making spectacles of themselves in front of the whole neighborhood and Mrs Dashwood finds it very sweet and harmless, it's Elinor who needs to remind her the risk to Marianne's reputation, trying to protect her sister in a way their mother should be. When Marianne wants to chase Willoughby to London, Elinor warns her mother against it. Her mother ignores her and things go to shit almost immediately. And it's Elinor there in London to pick up the pieces for her sister.
Pride and Prejudice: I won't be going in detail into my opinion on Mr Bennet (it is not high), but the one thing we can all agree, I hope, is that he didn't do much to take care of his kids. When his wife didn't bother to educate the kids, he didn't try to force her, and he didn't hire a governess or tutor. He actively encouraged his kids (and everyone else) not to respect his wife, and the result is that none of the kids listened to a thing Mrs Bennet said unless it was something they wanted to hear. This left the only two children he actually likes (Jane and Lizzie) to try to keep their younger sisters in check (Jane by example and advise, Lizzie by cajoling, and by trying to make her sisters and parents see reason). They do their best, bless them, but it is seldom enough. When Lydia wants to go to Brighton, Lizzie begs her father not to allow it. She knows Lydia will make a fool out of herself AT BEST and tells her father so. And Mr Bennet, contender for Father of the Year, flat out responds with "look, she's going to make an ass of herself at SOME point, at least this way she's doing it on someone else's dime where I don't have to watch" ... Cue Lydia running away with a serial seducer who fully intends to leave her ruined and alone and facing a life of prostitution. And when Lizzie tries to comfort her father over it later, his response was "yeah, you were right. i should have restrained her. but don't worry, i'll get over it" 🤦 Whatever you think about Mr and Mrs Bennet, Lizzie and Jane were the parents in that family.
Emma: So, in Emma's case, it's not a sibling she's taking care of, it's her own father. He's a sweet, loving old man without a mean or pushy bone in his body. And he is needy like a fretful toddler. I won't even get into whether there's actually anything wrong with his health or not because that's not really the point. The point is that for much of Emma's life, she's lived with a father who needs constant reassuring and cheering up, and the fact that she doesn't MIND consciously doesn't change the fact that that responsibility of hers has gotten so far into her head that she can never imagine leaving him, not even to marry. Her own sister thinks she'll never marry while their father is alive. By the end of the story, there's a compromise. Emma is allowed to get married, but the condition is that she stays at home and continues to be her father's fulltime caregiver while her husband moves in with them.
Persuasion: Much more subtle than the others (especially given her older age), and I know some people will argue that Anne Elliot isn't parentified. To that, I can only point out that after her mother dies, she spends literal years trying to remind her father to behave well and not overspend, all while trying to cope with her own heartbreak and the complicated business of growing up into her own person. When the family gets too far in debt, she once again leads the efforts to economize, even if she's ignored at every turn. When her adult sister, with a husband and servants gets sick, it's Anne who is expected to drop everything and look after her. She is always forced to be the voice of reason (a voice which is seldom heeded) and is always expected to look after everyone else, even an injured child whose parents are Right There. She has all the responsibilities of motherhood and none of the respect, (to borrow and heavily modify a line from another of Austen's novels).
Northanger Abbey & Lady Susan: None. Wait! None at all? In the two books featuring overtly evil parents? omfg 🤯
Yeah, English people in Jane Austen's time felt there was nothing wrong with cousin marriage, but you know what WAS considered incest? Marrying your widow's sibling. Because that was your sister/brother-in-law, which meant that WAS your sister/brother! This was actually made illegal in the UK from 1835 to 1907/1921.
Before 1835, you COULD marry them, but if somebody challenged your marriage in court, the marriage could be voided. After 1835, you just literally couldn't legally marry in England.
The thing is, this did not stop people from marrying their siblings-in-law. It was very normal for a wife to die, and the wife's sister moves in to help take care of the kids, and then the sister and the widower fall in love, and marry. After 1835, couples like this would be forced to have essentially a destination wedding so you could be legally wed in someplace like France or one of the English colonies where it was still legal. If you weren't wealthy enough to travel out of the country you were in a spot of trouble.
Another fun fact is that a man marrying his sister-in-law was made legal in 1907 (with the "The Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act"), but a woman marrying her brother-in-law wasn't made legal (with "The Deceased Brother's Widow's Marriage Act") until 1927???
Jane Austen heroines exist on a sliding scale of "You are always right, and no one ever listens to you" (Fanny Price) to "You are never right, and everyone always listens to you" (Emma Woodhouse.)
Please call your representatives: VOTE NO on the FEDERAL BOOK BANNING BILLS HR 2616, HR 8705, and HR 7661!
Transcript below the cut.
Page 1:
There are currently THREE FEDERAL BOOK BAN BILLS aiming to ban all TRANS BOOKS from U.S. public schools! HR 2616, HR 8705, HR 7661
June 2026 / Maia Kobabe (a trans author, for three years in a row the most challenged author in the U.S.)
Page 2:
HR 2616 threatens to cut federal funding from public schools if they “teach or advance concepts related to gender ideology,” as defined by an Executive Order signed by Trump in Jan 2025. It would also cut funding from schools unless they require “parental consent before changing a minor's gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form.” HR 2616 HAS ALREADY PASSED IN THE HOUSE! Please call your Senators to say NO ON HR 2616!
Page 3:
HR 8705 threatens to cut federal funding from public schools which teach “discriminatory equity ideology or gender ideology,” as defined by two Executive Orders aimed at suppressing “critical race theory” and trans representation. This bill is named after the late far-right activist Charlie Kirk, “The Charlie Act.” HR 8705 has passed out of committee, but has not yet been introduced in the House. Please call your House Reps to say NO ON HR 8705!
Page 4:
HR 7661 threatens to cut federal funding from public schools which offer material deemed “sexually oriented," treating any LGBTQIA+ identity as sexual content. It specifically forbids “gender dysphoria or transgenderism,” and “lascivious dancing” (drag). This bill, titled “Stop the Sexualization of Children Act,” has 22 co-sponsors and has passed out of committee but has not yet been introduced to the House. Please call your House Reps to say NO ON HR 7661!
Page 5:
CALL SCRIPTS
“My name is [name] and I’m calling from [city, state, zip code]. I’m asking [Senator] to vote no on HR 2616. I oppose HR 2616 because it would restrict student’s access to books and it would specifically harm trans, nonbinary, and intersex students. Please stand against book bans and protect queer students!”
“My name is [name] and I’m calling from [city, state, zip code]. I’m asking [Rep] to vote no on HR 8705 and HR 7661. I oppose these bills because they would restrict student’s access to books and accurate history, and would especially harm BIPOC, trans, nonbinary, and intersex students. Please stand against book bans and support public education funding!”
Page 6:
Author Maia Kobabe: If HR 2616, HR 8705, or HR 7661 pass, it would be almost impossible for any public school in the U.S. to offer or teach my books, unless they’re willing to risk their federal funding. Students would be even less likely to learn about trans stories or accurate U.S. history.
Page 7:
Please call your representatives: VOTE NO on the FEDERAL BOOK BANNING BILLS HR 2616, HR 8705, and HR 7661!
Follow AUTHORS AGAINST BOOK BANS on insta & bluesky for updates on these bills!
insta / patreon / portfolio / etsy / my books / print store / bluesky
you will never catch me complaining about an actress on a tv show having an imperfectly concealed pregnancy or a character going on a sudden trip somewhere while her actress is on maternity leave. so many actresses (and women working in any other field) are fired, punished and pressured into making reproductive decisions for their employers' convenience & if i have to try a bit harder to suspend my disbelief then that's absolutely what i'm going to do if it means people are getting to exercise reproductive & bodily autonomy without punishment
my petty gripe about anachronism in historical/fantasy/spec-fic worlds is attraction language.
We’ve all heard the “should you use modern queer labels or not” argument but honestly even when people go “true, they wouldn’t use the labels ‘aromantic’ or ‘asexual,’” so often the characters describe their experiences as “I never felt romantic attraction” or “I don’t feel attracted to anyone” in ways that makes me go. You are stilllllll thinking about this in an extraordinarily modern online way. That 19th century steampunk detective man will NOT be angsting about having never felt romantic attraction, he would be angsting about being unable to feel moved by the beauty or charm of a woman, or something. And I do think that “attractiveness” language is different from the identity-level idea of experiencing attraction—Sherlock Holmes does not talk about not experiencing attraction, but when Watson says “What a very attractive woman!” Holmes responds “Is she? I did not observe.” (And then Watson calls him an inhuman automaton and calculating-machine and Holmes calls Watson’s judgement biased). Never swayed by the attractiveness of a man or woman, never desirous of marriage, never charmed by the delights of love, all of these feel like some of the variety of ways that someone in this milieu might describe an ace- or aro-spectrum identity more than “never felt attraction” does. Mostly because, like the terms for aromantic and asexual themselves, nailing down an exclusively attraction-based definition of a-spec identities is a relatively new and extremely post-AVEN thing. And yet in fiction everybody knows to articulate their experience as feeling sexual/romantic attraction. And I always want to go nooo how would THIS character think about it?? Not how you think this character SHOULD think about it, how would THIS person in THIS context articulate their feelings?
This is going to be controversial and mean but I need my fellow trans people to know that if you are not Native, your opinions on Two Spirit are NOT needed. Ever. Seriously.
Nobody needs your hot take about how actually Two Spirit is a transphobic label or how "third genders" in Native cultures are bad or whatever. You have not been invited to those conversations. Anything you have to say about Two Spirit and cultural genders and the treatment of trans people in Native communities is already being said by Two Spirit and/or trans Natives in ways that are far more respectful and more informed than whatever you have to offer.
I am so sick of seeing other trans people make blatant statements about how all "third gender" and cultural gender identities and roles are all bad or transphobic, by people who usually aren't even FROM a single culture with gender roles like that. It's exhausting.
