The Part of the Iceberg That Doesn’t Show: Romance, Good Husbands, and Mr Julia Child

Here's the abstract:

This chapter looks outside the script of popular romance to find more progressive approaches to what constitutes an ideal life-partner. For this purpose, it concentrates on Julia Child’s husband, Paul Child, as he is portrayed in Norah Ephron’s film Julie & Julia (2009) and in biographical works devoted to Julia. Given Julia’s towering presence and the immensity of her media persona, Paul was literally the man behind the woman, an arrangement with which he was seemingly happy. Underlying this analysis there is an interrogation of romance as a genre that nurtures women’s fantasies of love and lovers and an attempt to work towards an understanding of what constitutes a good, anti-patriarchal man through Paul Child’s supporting and supportive role as a husband.

---

See in particular the section titled "The Hero of Popular Romance: Old Patterns" which contrasts Julia and Paul Child's relationship with that of romance novels ("Julia and Paul’s relationship fits the definition of romance provided by the Romance Writers of America") and then contrasts that relationship with the majority of relationships in romance and, in particular, how Paul Child differs from the majority of romance heroes:

When scrutinised through the narrative of romance, Julia and Paul’s relationship is, therefore, remarkable because it flourishes and grows beyond their wedding, and thrives in and celebrates life together as a couple. It also shows that romance can accommodate different types of men and still be romantic, an issue that has concerned critics trying to come to terms with the appeal of the traditional hero of popular romance. (287-288)

---

In the case of romance, therefore, genre and gender work hand in hand to legitimate the appeal of traditional masculinity, which then has to be tamed and reconstituted to meet the needs of women, so that the genre can bask on the transformative power of love. Whether the transformation is real and men can be (or are worth being) kept in a loving relationship is not for us to know, since the stories end the moment the lovers start living together and do not go beyond that point. Consequently, the process of being a good husband is not contemplated in a genre whose plot revolves around finding a partner for life. One may argue that what happens in a romance narrative is dictated by the romance formula, so the genre’s main function is not to educate women, romance’s main target readership, but to entertain by exploiting a story that women clearly enjoy. Women can distinguish between fiction and reality, so they know that popular romances are fantasies. (289-290)

---

And from the conclusion:

In the last decades, there have been conscious attempts to reformulate notions of patriarchal masculinity in different popular genres. However, romance fiction remains one of the most recalcitrant areas since the excitement of the story is served by a plot in which the love of the heroine turns a brute into a prince. It seems there is no romance story in loving and being loved by a good guy, so women’s romantic fantasies are fed by texts that focus on relationships with unreconstructed men.

Julie & Julia is an interesting exception. As I have argued, the plotline devoted to Julia and Paul Child’s relationship proves that marriage can be romantic and that sensitive, caring, and supportive husbands can function as heroes of romantic stories. (295)