First, l’Shana Tova to all our Jewish readers. Since it’s Rosh Hashana, I am required by Jewish law to visit all the relatives and eat all of their food. At nine months pregnant, I am up to the task. But before I go, a question inspired by the discussion of the origins of romance:
What do you consider the Classics of romance? If you were, say, designing a course around the origins of the romance novel, or were looking to trace the finest examples of romance backwards through the library, what books would you choose?
On my list, which I’m still mentally building: Evelina by Fanny Burney, and Pride & Prejudice (particularly if Colin Firth is reading or at least featured prominently on the cover – yowsa!) certainly fill the bottom of the rotation, but picking my 20th century examples is going to be hard.
At least I have ideas for a list to make in the car!
I love Pride and Prejudice! I saw a stage version last Saturday where Mr Darcy was extremely swoon-worthy. And there is a new movie version out on 18 Nov. But I digress. One of my favorite romances is Ivanhoe. Such star-crossed lovers! Such forbidden passion! Such chivalry! Gotta love it! I adore Sense and Sensibility as well.
I would include Ivanhoe (because I am a mean bitch) and The Mysteries of Udolpho (again, because I am a mean bitch.) I would also suggest Provencal love songs and Tristan & Isolde as well as the love letters of Abelard & Heloise.
Then I would recommend Jane Eyre. Say what you will, but it has all the elements- hero, heroine, HEA, obstructions, jealousy, etc. JE is probably the absolute avatar of all romance novels as well as giving a beautiful example of how the field achieved literary success.
Then we would take a trip through Gothic short stories (gothic and romance fiction share very important traits) and detour with tragic opera (very important when it comes to romance), then head into Keats, Shelley and end up diving into romance lit of the early and mid 1920s. The Great Gatsby would have to be addressed, and then we could move into reading early Harlequins and analyzing…
hmmm… must go think about this some more… I sincerely believe that all the works I’ve listed above are important when it comes to the romantic tradition (not Romantic as in the poets but romantic as in romance fiction) Then agian, maybe I’m just a literary prude.
Embarrassed to admit that as a lover of romance novels AND an english lit major, I have het to read Jane Austen. I know, I’m horrible. As for the classics, I still love Flame and the Flower and all those old Kathleen Woodiwiss novels. Not necessarily classics in the literary sense , but groundbreaking in terms of establishing today’s market.
I might try to trace a few of the archetypes. For instance, I’d do something about the Bad Girls in the 19th and 20th century Romance precursors, and I’d have them read and pay attention to the conduct and character of Becky Sharp, in “Vanity Fair,” Scarlett, in “Gone With the Wind” and Amber in “Forever Amber.” I’d talk about “cautionary” tales a little. And then I’d probably complain about heroines not being able to get away with as much these days. Don’t know why they’ve always gotta be moral exemplars lately. For my money, nothing beats the entertainment value of a bitch. [Compliment toward this Web site and those who frequent it fully implied.]
For my money, nothing beats the entertainment value of a bitch.
Amen to that! Hmm, what would be the original Bad Girl in literature? (Don’t say Eve. That’s cheating. Besides, she was framed.) Maybe Salome?
Of course. If we are going back into biblical times for our bitches, why, any good list would be headed up by Salome.
But aren’t you forgetting your namesake, Lilith? (She’s apocryphal, though, isn’t she?—wait, don’t answer that—anyone else frequenting this board knows more about Bible studies than me, because I was nearly raised a heathen.)
I’d want to talk about Gothic romances, and I’d throw in one Victoria Holt or Phyllis Whitney.
We’d all have to genuflect once before Heyer.
We’d have to touch upon historicals, written by the “ladies with three names,” and we’d end up with Anya Seton’s “Green Darkness” and “Katherine.”
Now that I am writing this, I wonder if the definition of Romance has gotten awfully narrow and nearly petrified into rock somehow, as the years have passed.
But aren’t you forgetting your namesake, Lilith?
Well, actually… she was one hell of a goddess, and in the Hebrew tradition refused to submit. I wonder if she counts as a bad girl because she’s prepatriarchal?
What constitutes a “bad girl” anyway? Can a bad girl and a bad hero (like a villainous antihere) a romance novel make?
Pamela by Samuel Richardson 1740
Evelina by Fanny Burney 1778
Persuasion by Jane Austen1817
Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte 1847
Wives and Daughters by Elizabeth Gaskell 1866
Devil’s Cub by Georgette Heyer 1932
I’m sure I’ll want to add to this . . .
Lilith, do you maybe mean, like Merteuil and Valmont?
My purely unscientific, untested definition of a “bad girl” would be: A female character who acts as a foil to another female character, to bring out her admirable qualities. Becky does this for Amelia, Scarlett for Melanie, and Amber … well, it takes a while for Bruce’s wife, Corinna, to show up in “Forever Amber.” The Bad Girl’s behavior is the “What Not to Do.” She is the Goofus to the other female’s Gallant.
Lately, Romances having been using the Bad Girl as the Evil Other Woman.
I think that Romance genre is in love with the idea of the antihero (as long as he’s not too bad) but are really afraid of the antiheroine. Because of that old agenda, buried deep within the origins of the genre, of serving as moral instruction and modeling good behavior for females and demonstrating the proper choices of a mate.
Romances have more than one point of origin, and there is no one source that can be pointed to with certainty as being “the one.” Personally I agree re. fairy tales, particularly European fairy tales such as Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty and Beauty. In my opinion they are one of the major sources of inspiration for romance authors.
Oops, above should say “…and Beauty and the Beast.” That’ll teach me to check my posts more carefully.
Since no one has coughed it up, “The Flame and the Flower.” It changed the industry, and while a terrible freaking book, it’s a relic for the genre.
Lilith, do you maybe mean, like Merteuil and Valmont?
I must admit to liking Mertuil better than the pale insipid thing Valmont falls in love with. But hey, that’s just me. I sincerely think Mertie should have accepted Valmont, but the fact that she didn’t was as a result of her own character, she had to win at all costs even if it was against the man she really did have more in kinship with than anyone else. And DAYUM, but wasn’t John Malkovitch FINE as Valmont?
Here’s the thing: we love the bad girls. Scarlett and Becky and Merteuil are compelling because they do the things we wish we could. We wish we could be unapologetic, powerful, bitchy. Unfortunately, most of the time we punish strong women. There’s not a single strong heroine in fiction I can think of that hasn’t been horribly treated.
I’m getting distracted from romance novels here. I don’t think fairy tales are the precursors to romance novels. For one thing, they are in their original form far too dark and gruesome (the current paranormal romance trends notwithstanding); fairy tales belong for me in the category of myth instead of discussion. To me, romance is the discussion of social mores and gender roles; myth is the revelation of initiatory cycles and psyche processes.
Now, fairy tales have been harnessed to provide grist for romance (Disney, anyone?) but I don’t think they were precursors. I think madrigals and the courtly love tradition in Provence is much more likely to be the seed from whence Romance sprang.
Romance goes way back. Daphnis and Chloé and other Greek stuff, have a look here.
Valmont—I love that in a sick kind of way. He was such an asshole, and yet I couldn’t tear my eyes from that movie.
But wait…John Malkovich? I saw the movie where Annette Bening was the “bad woman” and the woman Valmont falls in love with is played by Meg Tilly. Don’t John Malkovich and Glenn Close star in the Dangerous Liasons version?
But anyway, I like the Meg Tilly/Annette Bening version the best. The dude who plays Valmont in that one is sexy, but I find myself revolted by him at the same time.
Melanthe in Kinsale’s “For My Lady’s Heart” is the Bad Girl. Of course, she’s a shrinking almost virgin, as well, but she’s still pretty much a bitch at the end and is STILL a bitch in …. brain fart—Allegretto’s and Elena’s story that just came out with the yummy SM scenes.
Just thought I’d throw that out there.
But wait…John Malkovich? I saw the movie where Annette Bening was the “bad woman†and the woman Valmont falls in love with is played by Meg Tilly. Don’t John Malkovich and Glenn Close star in the Dangerous Liasons version?
Yep. With Uma Thurman as Cecile and Michelle Pfeiffer as the good-girl duchess (a pallid role, ‘tis true, but she could have acted like she had a pulse.) I haven’t seen the Meg Tilly version. Off to Netflix!
But Malkovitch did that same “make-yer-skin-crawl” thing. Couldn’t take your eyes off him.
Colin Firth played Valmont.
What no Shakespeare? Surely we have to have Shakespeare if we’re developing a history of romantic lit course.
Other than that I like the sugestions so far. I’d like to propose that the section that covers Woodwiss (and we’d have to include Rogers/Busbee) be called The Rapacious Years.
I left the bard off as I was only going with the history of romance NOVELS, not the history of romance in literature. Two very different topics . . .
Tom Jones by Henry Fielding
I can’t believe no one’s mentioned __The Scarlet Pimpernel_! Sure, they’re already married when the book begins, but dude, it’s all about rediscovering the romance and getting that HEA ending!
I took an Ideaology of Romance class in college and here are some of the titles we read that semester:
Tristan and Isolde – Gottfried Von Strassburg
Pamela – Samuel Richardson
The Lover – Marguerite Dumas
Lolita – Vladimir Nabokov
We also read a contemporary Harlequin romance (different titles).
It was a great class. If I can remember the other titles, I’ll add them.
OK, I can’t spell. That’s Ideology of Romance
And there is a new movie version out on 18 Nov.
Heads up on the new Pride and Prejudice. Lovers of Firth beware. It’s like trumped up BBC. BBC on speed. BBC on …fast-forward. Okay I’m out of ‘speeded up’ metaphors. Either way it all happens waaaaay to fast. And the end line is all like ‘what?!?!’. Anyways moving on:
What about those lovely gothic novels? Ann Radcliffe, The Castle of Otranto by Horace Wadpole, and etc?
I’m dating myself but – Rosemary Rogers anyone? Sweet Savage Love? I think she pretty much started the sexy romance genre.
And I loved Mary Stewart – Airs Above the Ground and The Moonspiners are my favorites.
Roberta Gellis – Roselynde series and Bond of Blood.