Thanks for the thoughtful response. I really appreciate the opportunity to have a discussion.

First, my intention with this post was not to disparage the romance genre, but rather to give a close reading of four paragraphs to argue:

1.) because nobody actually time travels, time traveling stands in for a kind of labor, where Henry is taken away from Clare for extended periods of time while she waits at home

And

2.) the figure of Henry is a woman’s fantasy of what a man might be, who thinks of the woman he loves constantly, even when he’s literally being chaotically displaced through space and time

I admit that I don’t read a lot of romance, but it seems like these claims aren’t inherently offensive? At least I didn’t intend them to be. I think a lot of literature is a fantasy of one form or another: a fantasy of romance, a fantasy of intellectualism, a fantasy of violence, what have you.

It seems like people believe that I’m trying to make sweeping claims about TTW, when my only purpose with this post was to jot down some preliminary observations about romance based on the language used in the prologue to the book.

I hear you that many readers don’t consider this a pure romance. I think I consider it a hybrid between the romance genre and the science fiction genre (specifically HG Wells). I still think it’s interesting to think about how the science fiction elements in the book affect the romantic entanglement described in the prologue.

Anyway, thanks again for the conversation in good faith. I really appreciate it.