Bitchin' Blog Posts
Romance, Erotica, and Political Correctness
by SB Sarah | by SB Sarah | September 27, 2006 | Wednesday at 8:35 pm | 140 CommentsLaura Kinsale sent us a link to a rant she wrote on her own BB, wherein she discusses political correctness clashing with her desire and goal to write a good story.
Kinsale’s frustration is with readers who expect enlightened heroes (read: not ‘old fashioned’ alpha heroes) but bemoan the lack of good stories:
I read a lot—a LOT—of reader commentary on the various romance sites regarding things like alpha heroes and “rape” and “forced seduction” and how all that is so 1970’s (or 80’s or 90’s, take your pick depending on your age) but we’re all enlightened modern women now and we just don’t like that sort of thing. Then in the next thread will be complaints that the genre just isn’t as compelling or interesting as it used to be and readers can’t find books they really enjoy, and gee, why are all the heroes vampires now?
The trend, as she calls it, of self-conscious political correctness in romance is somewhat stifling to Kinsale as a writer, and a recent review in Salon gave her the context to express what had been irritating her.
The book being reviewed was a discussion of eroticism and emotional intimacy in real-world marriages, but when applied to romance protagonists, the discussion takes on different significance:
Erotic desire, Perel argues, thrives on mystery, unpredictability and politically incorrect power games, not housework battles and childcare woes…. “The challenge for modern couples,” she writes, “lies in reconciling the need for what’s safe and predictable with the wish to pursue what’s exciting, mysterious, and awe-inspiring.”
Kinsale writes: “It sometimes begins to seem to me that a goodly percentage of present day romance readers are actually frightened of reading about a real conflict in a book.” Moreover, “Romance IS an erotic genre. And Perel has pointed out the elephant in the room: Erotic desire…thrives on mystery, unpredictability and politically incorrect power games.”
Kinsale argues that readers have become self-conscious about their own erotic fantasies, and the genre itself has been divided into two camps: the “safe Regency settings” that provide emotional depth, while “the erotic drive has been channeled over to vampire and fantasy books where realism is a non-issue,” leaving folks who prefer neither to complain that there’s nothing to read.
This long-ass summary of a really thought-provoking rant caused me to turn to my husband of six years and ask, “Can you have your emotional security cake and hump it too?” He of course, had no idea what I was talking about but was pleased that I’d mentioned both “cake” and “humping.”
I don’t know in all honesty what I think about the idea of the divide of the genre, or the idea that readers don’t want to read real conflict. But I do have to wonder about the idea that erotic desire “thrives on politically incorrect power games.” Is erotica as a genre then a subversion of current standards of societal correctness, particularly in America where we can watch ten men get shot before 9pm eastern but God forbid we see a naked breast during prime time?
When I consider the responses to our discussions of heroes, heroines, and plotlines on this site, I haven’t necessarily read a great deal of shunning of the alpha hero, though our discussion on rape scenes in romance was long and infinitely absorbing, even as most of those commenting on the topic agreed it was a cliche that was better left in the past. but are we uncomfortable with conflict and sexual power plays in romance, unless they are shelved under the erotica genre?
I’m still formulating my reaction, to be honest, but Kinsale’s rant gave me a lot to think about in terms of erotica, romance, and expectations of the genre. And I very much want to read what you think.
Filed: Random Musings, The Link-O-Lator
Ann Aguirre said on 09.27.06 at 09:08 PM • [link]
For me it’s all about context.
A scene where it doesn’t matter if the woman sincerely says no is going to turn me off, regardless of how well it’s written. If it’s more of a role-playing thing, where the woman has made it clear she wants to be “tamed” and the man is obliging, then I don’t have a problem with “forced seduction.” I guess for me it crosses the fine line between consentual play and rape her til she likes it. I simply can’t find the latter appealing under any circumstances.
Christine said on 09.27.06 at 09:15 PM • [link]
I think there is definitely a line between the titilatingly taboo and the offensive, but it’s highly subjective.
I can’t stand old movies where the more the hero is an alpha asshole, the more the heroine loves him, and I’m the same way with books. I don’t think it’s political correctness - I think that implies the superimposing of values from outside - but my own idea of what is right and wrong. If it reeks of “wrong” to me, I’m not enjoying it, I can’t get into it.
Of course, I may just be an old, withered prude.
Rinda said on 09.27.06 at 09:26 PM • [link]
I’ve noticed this discussion going on often. I’ve heard over and over from lots of die-hard romance readers that there just isn’t anything good to read anymore.
I don’t agree, but I do think that in the new popularity of the “kick-ass” heroine, some think that a strong heroine needs the balance of a weaker hero.
Uh no. I’ve put down many a book because that just doesn’t ring true for me.
Now, this is a personal preference, but I love a book with two strong character finding balance. I love the push and pull of that strong attraction and see nothing wrong with either character going after what they want—or letting them take turns. (g)
But it does sometimes feel that we are PC-ing our fiction to death. I can agree on that one.
Lorelie said on 09.27.06 at 09:29 PM • [link]
I know this makes me un-PC, but I sometimes like a well written “seduce her til she likes it” scene. Yeah, it’s a fine line to rape, but if an author plays it right, it’s a great pay off for me.
I’m also one of those who’s had a problem finding stuff to read in main line publishing lately. As a result, I’ve moved to reading a lot of e-books. It seems like the online publishers just take more risks. It doesn’t always work out, but sometimes it’s great.
Ann Aguirre said on 09.27.06 at 09:32 PM • [link]
Don’t ask me why I have this double-standard, but if it’s flipped, if it’s the hero saying, “No, no, we can’t,” and the heroine seducing the hell out of him, I am so there. I love that almost as much as a cross-dressing heroine and “am I gay?” angst on the part of the hero.
Christine said on 09.27.06 at 09:37 PM • [link]
Even better would be a man in dress being seduced by a woman.
...Or is that not PC?
Christinuviel said on 09.27.06 at 09:50 PM • [link]
First, hi! Am a relatively new reader both of romance and of this site, and it’s been great to find out that the genre is discussed seriously (IRL, I’ve pretty much only encountered the stigma).
I agree with what was written above - there’s a big difference between the hero sweeping a heroine off her feet, and actual non-consensual sex. And the novel is the ideal medium in which to make that difference. The reader is privy to the heroine’s thoughts, emotions and actions, so we can be sure that she consents. Even if the scene is a man pulling a woman to him - an action that can fit both the non-con rape and consensual seduction scenarios - we know which one it’s meant to be because her choice can be written in.
Also, the hero can know perfectly well whether she consents or not. Part of the ideal is this sort of connection between the two lovers, both caught up in the same moment - so again, it can be made clear by the author as to whether he chooses to force himself on her, or whether he does it only with her consent.
One of the classic romance-type stories (from what I’ve seen anyway) is the couple who get carried away by the force of their passion, even if they’re “unwilling” in any of the usual ways: don’t want to trust someone, don’t want to give up independence, don’t want to give up single lifestyle, object of lust is entirely unsuitable, etc etc. So the unwillingness is part of the deal in those scenarios. The above reasons are all good ones, and for the character to work, their objections have to ring at least partly true. I don’t want to read about an annoyingly coy heroine who only pretends to want independence: for the scenario to work, she has to really feel she’d be giving something up, and she has to maintain some part of that independence by the end.
Am not sure if I’m making it clear but I guess what I’m saying is that the “swept off your feet” archetype story means the heroine has to believe herself unwilling to some extent, else there’s nothing to sweep away. But the important thing is that another part of her - a fully conscious and active part - IS willing, and will convince the whole of her to let go. It’s not that the hero knows best, it’s not “rape her till she likes it”, it’s that she DOES want it and the novel allows us the vantage point to see that she does, that it’s her CHOICE to allow herself to get swept away even if it’s not logical.
It is being able to have your fantasy cake and eat it too ... it seems to me that the romances I’ve read have that element of mind-reading where the lovers instinctively know what they want from each other and so all the embraces can be consensual even if they seem rough, even if the heroine isn’t exactly consulted in words, even if she delights in feeling “overwhelmed” or “helpless” (as happens in some of the Nora Roberts clinches I’ve read) ... Because she isn’t helpless, and everyone knows it (both inside and outside the book).
For an author to go out of their way to make it non-consensual, to make it rape, is to destroy that fantasy connection, the wish-fulfillment ideal where emotions and wishes are exchanged without having to be carefully thought out or verbally expressed. The hero DOESN’T know what the heroine wants, not truly, not even if the story has her fall in love with him later, because some part of her really didn’t want him to do that and that part has been ignored rather than convinced by strength of feeling.
Have no idea if that was expressed clearly, and in any case it’s just my own opinion and preference, but well. =)
Candy said on 09.27.06 at 10:11 PM • [link]
I have lots more to say about this—oh yes, lots and lots, but no TIME, argh—but for now, here’s what immediately comes to mind: I disagree with Kinsale. (Yeah, yeah, those of you in the peanut gallery can pick yourselves up from the floor, now.) There’s a difference between political correctness and homogenization, and she’s complaining about homogenization. There’s no doubt that political correctness can drive art towards homogeneity, but an even stronger force is market demand. Was the market any more diverse back then? Maybe, but maybe not. I’ve read pretty extensively in that time period, thanks to my sister’s collection of old romance novels, and I can break down well over 90% of what I read as follows:
- Historical sagas, most of which involved rape and long separations
- Contemporary sagas set in high-falutin’ corporate settings or some kind of glamorous industry, like fashion or Hollywood, most of which also involved rape and long separations
- Doctor/Nurse romances
- Boss/secretary romances
And there’s also a difference between political correctness and speaking up about what one thinks is fucked-up shit. But then, I’m kind of touchy about the use of the term “politically incorrect,” thanks to douchebags like Regnery Publishing.
I agree with her arguments regarding the distancing mechanisms required for us to partake in tittilating power plays, but I’m not sure I agree with her conclusions. Yeah, vampires and werewolves and demons, oh my, allow us freer reign for some of our darker fantasies, but I’d argue that the sweeping historical saga of the 70s and early-to-mid 80s served much the same purpose and provided a similar element of fantasy. Not too many romances were written back then about the mousy truck-stop waitress being wooed and raped and then wooed and raped again and then abandoned and then raped and then having a secret baby and then raped and then finally falling in love with one of the truckers at her restaurant.
(Hell, not too many romances are written about that NOW. Romance novels largely deal with characters who occupy niches that are viewed as glamorous (aristocrat, multi-billionaire), dangerous (thief, spy) or honorable (doctor, teacher). Next time you read Kathleen Woodiwiss or Rosemary Rogers, try to picture the heroine as an administrative assistant and the hero as the manager of Purchasing and Inventory Control. I can guarantee that the magic wouldn’t be the same.)
OK, I’m rambling on, and I’ve kind of lost my point in there somewhere, but I desperately need to get some work done. Rar. More later. Hopefully it’ll be more coherent, if not more concise.
Laura Vivanco said on 09.27.06 at 10:13 PM • [link]
Erotic desire, Perel argues, thrives on mystery, unpredictability and politically incorrect power games
I think different people will find different things erotic. While some people may think mystery is exciting, others will find it offputting. Some people thrive on unpredictability and uncertainty, others don’t. Some people like power games, whereas for others this might recall real-life situations of abuse (whether physical, emotional or verbal). It’s like some people think of a candle-lit dinner and red roses as romantic, whereas for others this might seem trite and therefore insincere.
Similarly, when it comes to romance novels, different people will have different fantasies and enjoy reading about different types of relationships. I don’t know that it’s got to do with ‘PC’; while there are some people who long for the novels of the past, I’ve also read plenty of comments by people who say that, when they’ve gone back to read old favourites, they no longer see their appeal. It could be that nostalgia is affecting some people’s recollections (though of course that won’t be true for all people). And I also wonder if readers are becoming more demanding. Each reader, with her/his different preferences can email authors, post on message boards etc and so the authors, like Laura Kinsale, will receive mixed messages, because they’re getting different messages from different readers.
Laura Vivanco said on 09.27.06 at 10:24 PM • [link]
Just one other comment on Kinsale’s post. I noticed that she says:
So now we have scads of safe Regency settings, while the erotic drive has been channeled over to vampire and fantasy books where realism is a non-issue.
I thought there were quite a lot of erotic romances set in the Regency?
Tonda/Kalen said on 09.27.06 at 10:25 PM • [link]
For me, rape is never ok, but I’m still not sure what “forced seduction” is (though I know we discussed it into the ground on this site a while back). The length of that discussion leads me to believe that it’s not a term with a clear definition. The entire concept of “seduction†implies that you have to overcome some kind of resistance on the part of the suducee (ok it’s not a word, but I’m gonna use it that way anyway!). If some of that seduction is physical does it cross the line into “forced†seduction? I have no idea.
I only know what I’ve experienced and what turns me on. And a guy I like being a little forceful WORKS for me. It makes me feel feminine, sexy, desirable. A guy I think is an asswipe doing the exact same thing makes me want to grab his dick and twist. A woman’s response to the overtures of the seduction are a red light/green light that most guys on the planet seem to be able to read (the ones who can’t are the dudes who end up in jail).
Sex in a public place? Naughty and fun, and even more fun when one partner is a little hesitant . . . Sleeping with someone you KNOW you shouldn’t (brother’s best friend, best friend’s brother, sister’s ex, etc.)? Totally dirty, and kind of fun when it involves someone really having to stretch to achieve the seduction.
And I don’t see any reason why this kind of thing has to be limited to erotic romances. Seduction is a mental thing. It can be achieved in a perfectly chaste way. After all, it’s true when they say the most powerful sex organ is the mind . . .
Kerry said on 09.27.06 at 10:31 PM • [link]
I don’t have an answer to the whole rape/forced seduction thing and usually find I know where a scene falls for me personally on a case by case basis.
However I have wondered if the motivation is a factor. If the hero’s actions are about power rather than love, then it’s definitely rape imo. When it really is about love, it gets a lot less clear cut.
Someone commented above that being able to see inside the characters heads makes a difference and I think that’s true. But for me the motivation should be positive on both sides for the sex to be a positive act.
Don’t know if this makes any sense. Just throwing out a thought that came to me after the big discussion finished the last time, so I missed out on tossing in another idea.
Laura Vivanco said on 09.27.06 at 10:49 PM • [link]
I only know what I’ve experienced and what turns me on. [...]
Sex in a public place? Naughty and fun, and even more fun when one partner is a little hesitant . . . Sleeping with someone you KNOW you shouldn’t [...] ? Totally dirty, and kind of fun when it involves someone really having to stretch to achieve the seduction.
But like you’re saying, these are your personal feelings about what’s erotic. It’s not going to be everyone’s idea of what’s erotic. For example, if someone has had a negative experience of coming across strangers having sex in a public place, that person might not consider sex in a public place ‘erotic’. They might, instead, think of it as a public nuisance and an eyesore for other people who are going past. Or with the example about sleeping with someone you shouldn’t - say the best friend’s ex. That might be sexy to you, but if you were someone who’s best friend had slept with your ex, and the result was emotional heartache, you might find that scenario extremely unsexy.
So it seems to me that what’s ‘erotic’ to one person may not be to another, and so authors are bound to upset some readers for whom the particular scenario the author has written is unappealing.
Rosemary said on 09.27.06 at 10:58 PM • [link]
First off - I second what Tonda said.
Second - I’ve thought long and hard about the concept of “rape” fantasy and I think that a lot of people are confusing the basic premise of the fantasy aspect of it. (I missed the first discussion, so I apologize if it seems I’m plagiarizing someone else.)
There is a HUGE amount of space between “not being in control of a situation” and “not having any control of a situation.”
There can be excitement in the mild amount of fear that can be brought about in thinking, “Ooo! He’s holding down my hands and licking me just right! Will I like what he does next?” There is NO excitement to be had (for me, at least) in thinking, “Oh God, this is going to hurt and leave me bleeding and crying and feeling ashamed and dirty and vomiting and not wanting to be touched in even the most innocuous manner even by my own damn mother.” That is rape in the truest sense of the word for me.
I’ve read books that have both of these scenarios, and ANY situation that has the heroine having the second thought process SHOULD NOT BE PRINTED. The first scenario? Rock on.
Rosemary said on 09.27.06 at 11:00 PM • [link]
Fucking a woman who’s crying out of fear is never hot.
sleeky said on 09.27.06 at 11:12 PM • [link]
Yawn. Blaming political correctness is so damn lazy.
Tonda/Kalen said on 09.27.06 at 11:21 PM • [link]
If the hero’s actions are about power rather than love, then it’s definitely rape imo. When it really is about love, it gets a lot less clear cut.
But then you’re saying no sex, lust, or desire without love, and I just can’t go along with that. So much of human interaction is about power. Power over ourselves. Power over others. Power over where our life is going. I can see understand that some readers would prefer that love come before seduction, but if we all stuck to that golden rule what a homogonous world it would be (to use Candy’s term).
So it seems to me that what’s ‘erotic’ to one person may not be to another, and so authors are bound to upset some readers for whom the particular scenario the author has written is unappealing.
Obviously no one writer is going to be able to match their kink to everyone else on the planet’s kink. That’s impossible, and I don’t think I was implying that everyone had to buy into my kink, just that one person’s “forced seduction†might be someone else’s aggressive demonstration of attraction. I guarantee that every book on the planet has upset or disappointed someone, somewhere. Just as every book has delighted someone, somewhere. There are plenty of writer’s whose books I don’t read because our world views simply don’t overlap enough for me to enjoy them (e.g. I don’t buy “Inspirational†romances as overt godliness is something I can’t identify with, and I skip over a lot of erotic romances cause anal sex is a real turn off for me, personally).
There is a HUGE amount of space between “not being in control of a situation†and “not having any control of a situation.
EXACTLY! This sums it up perfectly for me. Big honken difference between being convinced to do something and being forced to do it.
Lauren said on 09.27.06 at 11:25 PM • [link]
I’m going to have to disagree with Kinsdale here.
If PC is the reason we’re not seeing the romanticization of rape, go PC.
Sorry, rape isn’t romantic. Forced sex isn’t romantic. Rough sex within boundaries? Oh yeah, very sexy. A man seducing the hell out of the woman? Very sexy.
Even studies about rape as fantasy fail to really get at the underlying issue - which is letting a woman put the responsibility for her desires that she’s deemed unacceptable or inexpressible onto the man. That’s not rape. That’s something else entirely and it’s really exciting if it’s written right.
Strong characters of both genders are sexy and compelling. A strong character can be vulnerable too. Blaming the lack of compelling characters on PC does nothing to convince me that it’s anything other than lazy writing that creates cardboard characters in some romance novels.
I don’t bemoan the good old days when heroes were asshole rapists and if the heroine got uppity he’d give her a little what for to put her in her place.
Just write a good story with strong characters who don’t abuse each other. It’s not that complicated and PC isn’t stopping that from happening.
Kerry said on 09.27.06 at 11:28 PM • [link]
But then you’re saying no sex, lust, or desire without love, and I just can’t go along with that. So much of human interaction is about power. Power over ourselves. Power over others. Power over where our life is going. I can see understand that some readers would prefer that love come before seduction, but if we all stuck to that golden rule what a homogonous world it would be (to use Candy’s term).
Very fair comment. Clearly, what I said didn’t come out quite as I meant it.
I’m perfectly happy for there to be sex if both parties want it and agree to it. (Oh yeah, I’m there.) So using “love” was incorrect terminology in my example.
I’m not quite sure now how to say what I was trying to.
So I take the whole statement back.
If I can figure it out better at a later date, I might try again.
Maybe I’m thinking in terms of all negative reasons for the act as opposed to positive ones, whether it’s that the characters want to have a good time, if they’re madly in love or anything in between.
I’m not sure and since I obviously didn’t make myself clear - and I guess that’s difficult when I don’t have it clear myself - I’ll just shut up and sit back and read everyone else now.
Kerry said on 09.27.06 at 11:30 PM • [link]
P.S. I knew there was a reason why I’m usually a lurker. You’re all much better at this than me.
Ann Aguirre said on 09.27.06 at 11:32 PM • [link]
Aw, don’t say that, Kerry. Your view is just as valid as anyone else.
There’s some debate on the whole sex vs love thing. Like purists say that sex shouldn’t have anything to do with the process and it comes as a result of falling in love. But in my books, the h/h enjoy lots of bouncy-bouncy for its own sake, just for the pleasure of it, because they find each other hot, on the way to discovering that there could be more.
Kerry said on 09.27.06 at 11:50 PM • [link]
Thanks Ana. But it does help if I can actually manage to put across my view rather than something that isn’t clear enough to show what I’m trying to say.
When I have something to say that I’m sure I can say clearly, I promise I’ll jump right in and contribute to the conversation.
Nora Roberts said on 09.27.06 at 11:53 PM • [link]
I think the loss of control on either side, or on both sides, can be both romantic and erotic if written well—as suits the characters.
I also think there’s a wide, wide difference between being convinced to do something, and being pressured to do something. Forced takes it to another level entirely.
Losing control, emotionally or physically can be part of the rush and thrill. Being convinced, seduced, persuaded, can be very sexy.
I don’t consider it a matter of being PC not to want a hero who would physically or emotionally force the heroine—or visa versa—to have sex or perform a specific sex act.
It may work within the framework of the book if the writer is really skilled, and it fits the characters and the storyline. But redeeming a character who’s used force is, for me, damn near impossible.
I didn’t like it back in the day either.
Nora Roberts said on 09.27.06 at 11:55 PM • [link]
~So using “love†was incorrect terminology in my example.~
Maybe respect is a better term. To my mind, one doesn’t abuse—and forcing sex is abuse—someone one respects.
Susan K said on 09.28.06 at 12:02 AM • [link]
I’m with Candy and have to say that I grit my teeth whenever someone (even Laura Kinsale) blames lack of quality/excitement/variety on “PC”. I’m one of those who generally finds relationships far sexier if the H/H achieve some kind of balance. I’m not talking about her hymen and innocence balanced against his strength, wealth, and power. Nor do I mean that the H/H are always equally strong or smart or whatever. I just mean that my personal fantasies aren’t fulfilled by young girls overpowered by men twice their age and size but instead by H/H who are smart (but may make mistakes) and strong (but may have periods of doubt and uncertainty). It’s telling that my favorite romances include Loretta Chase’s “Lord of Scoundrels”, Taylor Chase’s “The Thief’s Mistress”, and (yes) Laura Kinsale’s “For My Lady’s Heart”.
Tonda/Kalen said on 09.28.06 at 12:06 AM • [link]
Kerry, please don’t leave me feeling you’re lurking cause we disagreed. You expressed how you saw it (or thought you saw it). I responded. You came back with “Ok, I wasn’t clear” and tried again. BRAVA! That’s how this discussion thing works. LOL!
From your last post it sounds to me like we actually agree on this one, and that Ana’s (and my) characters are free in your opinion to play “bouncy-bouncy†as much as they want as they want so long as both parties want to (and that was really all I was saying . . .).
But to digress back to Kinsale’s comments, I really don’t get the “safe Regency settings†comment. I think there is much of a muchness in ALL the subgenres. And, yes, the rampaging alpha hero of the past is not much in vogue currently (unless he’s fanged). You don’t see a lot of “fuck her till she likes it†books being published today (maybe you do in epubs, I have no idea), and if that’s the thrill the reader is looking for I don’t know where to send them (and I’m grateful not to know). What I do see is a lot of “tease her, or manipulate her, or paranormally seduce her until she admits she wants you†books.
I think that the attitudes that readers like/accept at a certain point in time are much like the hairdos of historical films: They say more about the time the film was made (or book was written) then they do about the time when the film or book is set. Those classic “bodice rippers†were being penned at the same time that Warren Beatty and Clint Eastwood were tossing their costars around on screen and the women sighed over it.
Men, in our books and in real life, struggle with their identities (maybe they always have, but certainly not so vocally and so obviously as they do right now). Much as women struggle with the virgin/whore dichotomy, and the working woman/SAHM dichotomy, and the good girls don’t like sex stigma, or good girls don’t like THAT kind of sex stigma, etc. Men struggle with conflicting messages, too: Be a MAN, but be gentle; Defend your woman, but don’t be a raging jerk; Never hit a girl, but what to do when the girl is the one hitting you?
It’s hard to be people (so ungrammatical, but I can’t think of any other way to say it).
I think it’s hard for people to figure out who they are, how they’re supposed to act and react, what is ok and what isn’t, and I just see the grey area getting larger and larger . . .
--E said on 09.28.06 at 12:15 AM • [link]
It seems to me that the real issue isn’t what the characters do—it’s how the author handles it afterward.
Back in the day, a hero could force himself upon a heroine, and the author seemed to be saying the heroine really didn’t want to, and the hero wasn’t doing it as point of power, but rather as sex (I hope I don’t need to explain to the Bitchery that rape is a power thing, not a sex thing). However, the authors didn’t necessarily make this clear. I think it stemmed from what Lauren was saying: ”...letting a woman put the responsibility for her desires that she’s deemed unacceptable or inexpressible onto the man. That’s not rape.”
No, it’s not. But it looks a whole lot like it in the hands of a writer who isn’t spelling it out. I suspect the audience of the 70s and 80s already knew the subtext and didn’t need to have it explained, or at least felt the same way he author and/or heroine did, even if they didn’t quite understand the underlying reasons for what they felt. I’ve read those books. They never bothered me; I understood what was really going on.
But the fact is, this is the 21st century, and one hopes that women today are allowed to own their sexuality, allowed to say, “Yes, I wanna!” and not be thought less of. If it’s PC-ness that demands that women be allowed to have sexual feelings, then hoo-rah for PCness.
Does this mean there’s no place for the “forced seduction” in today’s writing? I dunno. I like to think that no options should be outlawed, and despite my hopes, there are no doubt plenty of women who still need that fantasy because they are not comfortable saying “Yes, I wanna!”
I think I would just like to see it handled…better. More smoothly? More attention paid to the underlying psychology? More repercussions, more consequences?
Sometimes I think authors, despite all their head-hopping omniscient POVs, really fail to show character psychology…or perhaps they just fail to make characters as complex and contradictory as real people. Too many authors have a very neatly mapped out profile of the hero and heroine’s psychological baggage, and how to deal with it—but real people are just not that simple.
Real people have twelve reasons for everything they do, not one. Real people don’t “heal” from psychological injury—they learn to cope, they learn to work through or past, they develop into different (hopefully better) people. But as anyone who’s broken a bone knows, it’s never, ever as good as it was before. 99%, maybe, but never 100%. Why should the mind be any different?
Feh, I’m blithering. I guess what I’m saying is, if an author tackles a complex, serious, psychological scenario, then she owes it to her readers to not simplify it and diminish it.
—————-
On a lighter note,
He of course, had no idea what I was talking about but was pleased that I’d mentioned both “cake†and “humping.â€
and
Next time you read Kathleen Woodiwiss or Rosemary Rogers, try to picture the heroine as an administrative assistant and the hero as the manager of Purchasing and Inventory Control.
both made me spit half-chewed, expensive Leonidas chocolates onto my monitor. You wasted chocolate! Bad, naughty, wicked Bitches! ;-)
Kerry said on 09.28.06 at 12:19 AM • [link]
Thank you Nora. Yes, I think respect does work better.
Tonda, yes I’m all for the bouncy-bouncy. And don’t worry, I won’t back off because I disagree wth someone (although I think we’re actually on very close pages if not the same one), only if I feel saying more isn’t going to advance anything. I struggle to get what is in my head out into words that show it clearly - that’s partly just me and partly the fact I have CFS and my brain doesn’t stay focused as well as I could like.
Okay, going to read the nice, long comments above this one that I skipped to reply.
DS said on 09.28.06 at 12:28 AM • [link]
So what happened to the intrepid author who presented such unconventional heroes as the one in Seize the Fire where the hero was on his knees to ther heroine not once but twice!
I have to agree that I think she missed the boat with the hero in Shadowheart. The relationship did not work for me. I have no idea if she watered the character down at the urging of her editor/publisher or if it was just too long between the time she conceived him in the first novel and when she trotted him out again in Shadow Heart. Maybe it would have been better for the story if she had created an entirely new character.
Robin C. said on 09.28.06 at 12:33 AM • [link]
I have to say, that when Kinsale says:
My instant reaction is to ask, is it readers who want everything, or is it Kinsale who’s running around in circles trying to please everyone> because honestly, if there’s one thing the recent rash of posts at this site has taught me, it’s that the romance readership is a pretty wide and varied group of people. It seems to me that what Kinsale is finding frustrating may actually just be the diversification of the genre, and the fact that while individuals may know what they want, there is no one way to please the whole romance audience since there are so damn many of us.
I think it’s ALSO making a difference that now *everyone* has access to a computer, so the author is much more likely to hear (or seek out, or stumble upon) feedback from someone other than her immediate circle and the loyal fans who write in; in that sense she hears criticism that the hero was too much of a fop (read: not to my tastes) or the heroine suffered too much (read: not to my tastes), and thus tries to please the casual reader as well as the loyal one. Suddely there’s a lotof reader-author interaction where before there was very little, and a whole bunch of the new stuff is coincidental rather than direct. Now it’s way way easier for a reader to voice an opinion publically, and the author has a much wider range of opinions to read and consider.
Case in point: I tend to think I’m pretty consistent in my tastes - love KA heroines, not real big on dark heroes, and not so much a fan of erotica (not that I don’t read it, but I don’t get overly excited about it often), but compare me against, say, my friend D who loves a good degree of sensuality (I could take it or leave it), prefers Blazes to Bombshells (unlike me), and likes heroes I’d consider darker. Like me, she ALSO has a computer and an opinion and is just as well spoken. If one were to lump us both together as “the romance readership,” when I like combat and she likes an sensuality, well, I can see how “readers” as a whole might come across as a little contradictory.
But the thing is, we have separate buying habits. Our books are all labeled romance, though, and shelved right next to each other. We’ll read the same things sometimes (we both love Lunas), but our opinions do differ quite dramatically at points, and we both have access to a keyboard.
I think part of what people who miss the gold old days miss is that then, when you picked up a romance, you more or less knew what you were getting. You didn’t ten pages in discover that the hero was a sensitive poet with a secret baby, or your heroine’s KA labeling didn’t prevent her from needing to be rescued every 30 pages. I think that the increased diversity (or at least, the shift away from certain elements and towards others), plus the fact that on the internet all arguments hold equal weight, has simply left authors confused about where exactly they’re supposed to go to please the most people, and readers confused about what exactly will best suit their tastes. But, while no-one wants to exlude potential “readers,” and plenty of readers are willing to experiment outside their favorite genre, you can’t exactly please the whole world.
So in short, I don’t know that it’s so much that our tastes are inconsistent as individuals; I think that it’s more a problem of, as an author, separating the people who *will* read you and “get” your stuff from the people whose cup o’ tea you’ll never be, but who’ll stumble across your book and feel free to express their opinion anyway.
Joyce Ellen Armond said on 09.28.06 at 01:07 AM • [link]
These sorts of conversation threads always befuddle me.
What the proponents of “forced seduction” describe is just a BDSM scene without the careful fetish rituals to safeguard everyone’s boundaries.
Which is why I personally find them distasteful.
I also find distasteful the idea that a good romantic conflict = rape, forced seduction or an alpha asshole hero breaking the heroine’s heart and then apologizing at the end, making it all better.
I mean, honestly, which is more interesting and emotionally engaging:
(1) Being kept from love because the objet d’couer is an undead monster who might drain all your blood if he fucks you, or
(2) Being kept from love because the objet d’couer is an asshole.
Not a hard choice for me.
azteclady said on 09.28.06 at 01:24 AM • [link]
Joyce Ellen Armond said[quoteWhat the proponents of “forced seduction†describe is just a BDSM scene without the careful fetish rituals to safeguard everyone’s boundaries.
Isn’t this just too broad a generalization? I am no expert on BDSM myself, but I live in a world where there are many shades of gray between the extremes. In that world, forced seduction does not BDSM mean.
Laura Kinsale said on 09.28.06 at 01:24 AM • [link]
Well, I’ve only read the first half of the comments, and it’s all devolved into that “rape” thing again, which is NOT ‘effin what I’m talking about.
I was talking about what Ester Perel wrote; her quotes.
But never mind.
LK, author behaving badly and going back to writing
P.S.
This actually offends me.
Nora Roberts said on 09.28.06 at 01:32 AM • [link]
A writer who writes with a reader—internet, snail mail, fan or critic—over her shoulder is a writer who will shortly be in drooling in a padded room.
It’s all about the story. Because what Reader A loves, Reader B despises. And both will vocalize it. Both will be absolutely right. Because it’s personal and it’s subjective.
The only voices a writer should listen to are the voices of her characters—then her editor, because every writer needs an editor.
However much we love The Reader, you are legion, you are diverse and you are opinionated. And you cannot, under any circumstances, be inside our heads.
We can’t please all of you, and if we try, we’re fucked.
Maybe, on one level, this is what Kinsale was trying to get across. For me, it’s basic stuff. Certainly it can be frustrating if a writer listens to all the opinions, all the reasons, all the perfectly rational debates—and tries to incorporate them into the work.
PC has nothing to do with it. Trends have nothing to do with it. Character and story have everything to do with everything.
Candy said on 09.28.06 at 01:46 AM • [link]
No, it’s not what you talked about—or at least, it’s not the core of what you talked about. I made a hasty, sideways swipe at addressing some of the points you made, I think, and so did some of the other people. But here’s the thing: rape in romance looms so large that people have a hard time letting it go once it pops up in any context. It’s like opening a carefully crammed closet: everything just spills out and buries you, even though you just meant to take out one small thing.
(And this particular derailment is not even close to being as spectacular as some of the other derailments we’ve seen on this site. Not yet, anyway.)
Kristin said on 09.28.06 at 01:58 AM • [link]
I will say I am the old-fashioned type. I think part of the reason historical romances appeal to me is that the expectation is the woman tends to be very naive about sex. And the man usually is not. I like that. I like the idea of losing one’s innocence about things carnal to a really hot, sexy man.
Alpha *doesn’t* mean asshole, by the way. Alpha just means the hero is a protector, he is more of the ‘traditional’ male, he is action-oriented.
I guess I just like men who are men…who know how to fix things, chop wood, fire a gun, laugh in the face of spiders and bats and mice.
So, I must agree with Laura Kinsale. Part of what makes a romance enjoyable is the giving in to desire…and how can you do that if the woman can take care of everything herself? Why not just give the heroine a vibrator and a carton of ice cream and call it romance?
My least favorite thing is reading that agents are looking for ‘strong heroines.’ What exactly does that mean? I want my heroines to have a strong sense of self and to want to be independent, but I also want them to realize the usefulness of having a strong guy around once in a while. Men and women are inherently different—physiologically and emotionally. Why deny it?
I say bring it on!
Becca said on 09.28.06 at 02:28 AM • [link]
Because Ms. Kinsale posted that the conversation here was veering away from her point, I read her original post. One thing struck me in her quote from Ester Perel:
And eroticism thrives on something very different. It thrives on the unknown and the mysterious, on the unexpected. It’s not what you want in a long-term, secure relationship.
I’m a great fan of the In Death books and it seems to me that Eve and Roarke have a long-term secure relationship… and a highly erotic one. Nora Roberts manages to keep the heat up between two strong and independent characters… so it can be done. There’s very real conflict between the characters, in their world views and where they draw the line, and this adds to the romantic tension between them. and so far there’s not a single vampire in the entire series.
So it is demonstrably possible to have dark heros and dark heroines - or at least those with their own demons - without bowing to Political Correctness or feeling the need to stick a vampire into the series to create erotic tension.
What it does require is creativity and thought and effort to break away from the formulaic.
This may not be the type of book Ms. Kinsale writes: I haven’t read any of hers, not being a fan of straight romance in general. I don’t read many paranormal romances, either. Oddly, I rarely feel that I have nothing to read - excpet those times between paychecks when I’m out of money to buy more books.
(I don’t know whether I’m making my point or whether I got distracted by praising my much-loved In Death books - I’m not as eloquent or clear-thinking as most people here, which is why I rarely post.)
Candy said on 09.28.06 at 02:37 AM • [link]
That’s all well and good…though it’s good to remember that gender roles and definitions of masculinity tend to vary from era to ear and culture to culture.
What most people in Westernized cultures think of nowadays as “real men” seem to stem from late 19th/early-to-mid 20th century ideals of manliness—though I’m not exactly on the up and up on my gender studies, so I’m probably talking out of my ass here.
I’m reading a lot of interesting conflation in this one small paragraph. There’s conflation between the sort of sexual release achieved via masturbation and the type of release achieved with a partner; between sex and love; between independence/strength (which is what most people mean when they talk about strong heroines, I think) and a lack of need or desire for sexual/romantic companionship.
Estelle Chauvelin said on 09.28.06 at 02:45 AM • [link]
Maybe part of the question is terminology here, because I don’t immediately equate “alpha” with “protector,” I equate it to “in charge.” It’s entirely possible that a physically stronger person might be a protector to the person who is more “in charge” of the relationship as a whole, isn’t it? Because I read more books whose primary genre is fantasy/science fiction or historical than that are romance first, I’m going to have to reach into fantasy for an example: Sir Dog in Sky of Swords by Dave Duncan, whose immediate reaction to his queen and lover complaining of any potential threat is offering to kill the guy for her (even when that would be conterproductive). He’s the protector, but she’s in charge in every way. Obviously, first because she’s the Queen, and second because this is a King’s Blades book, and Blades like Sir Dog are enchanted to have absolute loyalty to their wards. However, also because he has Issues and doesn’t think he’s worthy of happiness or her. It takes a lot of convincing for him to accept that the queen really is asking him to sleep with her (initially because she’s afraid the council is going to want her to marry this rather nasty noble who has gone through a long string of wives and insists each one be a virgin) and that she wouldn’t prefer one of her prettier or more charming Blades. Protector, yes. But I certainly wouldn’t consider him an Alpha.
desertwillow said on 09.28.06 at 02:46 AM • [link]
I’m not sure I’m going to add anything useful to this discussion but I’ll try.
First, I read one Kathleen Woodwiss (sp) romance back in the seventies (Shania, I think). It was so irritating to me I swore I would never read another romance again as long as I lived. (took me over thirty years to get over that book) So I don’t get the term ‘forced seduction’ at all. But it sounds like a date-rape drug is required, I could be wrong. I don’t understand the concept of fluffy heroine falling in love with asshole-hero inspite of the fact that he’s an asshole. Sounds like she needs a lot of therapy.
But I do know that romance starts with attraction, sometimes very intense attraction, sometimes a little complicated, and sometimes a little twisted. Seems to me that’s a good start for a good writer. Maybe I’m naive.
I have noticed by reading these blogs, groups and boards that a lot of readers interject their own issues into romances. I read one comment someplace by a reader that she thought the hero was cheating on the heroine (IHO) and would quite reading a series if the heroine was reunited with the hero. How does the author keep up with that? It’s not possible.
Of course, I do that too. I am sick to death of the victimization of women being used as a plot device in books, movies, and television. That why I don’t rush out and get any more D. Gabaldon books. Don’t mean to make things harder on writers but to me there’s a larger issue.
So there you go…
Kristin said on 09.28.06 at 02:55 AM • [link]
But, Candy, isn’t that part of LK’s point? That writers are tryng to veer away from traditional anything in books for PC reasons?
I was just saying that is what *I* prefer to read about when reading historical romance. And I get annoyed when authors try to bring PC concepts into a book that supposedly took place over 100 years ago. I don’t need 100% societal accuracy, but the reason I read an historical vs. contemporary romance is that there is something appealing to me about traditional male/female relationships. And why should I be made to feel bad for enjoying that kind of book? or why do writers have to change stories with this dynamic because it is not considered PC in today’s ‘enlightened’ world?
As far as the ice cream/vibrator comments goes, perhaps I bounced around a little too much there. What I meant by that was sometimes women are made to be so strong in books that there doesn’t seem to be a point in having a man around at all. She seems to be able to do everything on her own. I find that kinda boring. I’d like a little vulnerability and a little bit of acknowledgment that sometimes, you *do* need a man.
Like I said, I’m an old-fashioned kinda gal…
Candy said on 09.28.06 at 03:07 AM • [link]
Kristin: of course you shouldn’t feel bad about enjoying what you do. And for what it’s worth, I’m as irritated as anyone else by heroines in historicals who are essentially modern women in corsets and hoop skirts. (Mary Jo Putney is especially guilty of this sin, much as I enjoy her books.) It’s possible to create strong female characters who still ring true, who are reasonable products of their time. Most historical romances fail miserably at this, both the ones with irritatingly headstrong modern heroines AND the ones with, for lack of a better term, more traditional attitudes.
I also just wanted to point out that what people tend to think of as “traditionally male” or “traditionally female” change with time, and they’re not necessarily what we think they are. To pull up an old example: Lace, satin and poetry certainly weren’t shunned by aristocratic men of the 18th century, though they have extremely fruity connotations in modern society. Again, no condemnation, just analysis and academic interest. For example: what do you mean by “traditional”? That’s a pretty vague yet loaded word.
I will say this, though: I am sick unto death of people using the term “PC” to mean “wimpy” or “modern,” and “un-PC” to describe brutality that they happen to find sexy. Not everyone does it, but enough do to drive me up the friggin’ WALL.
Rinda said on 09.28.06 at 03:37 AM • [link]
From Candy—“I will say this, though: I am sick unto death of people using the term
“PC” to mean “wimpy” or “modern,” and “un-PC” to describe brutality
that they happen to find sexy. Not everyone does it, but enough do to drive
me up the friggin’ WALL. “
I came back to clarify an earlier statement and comments appear faster than I can articulate here. Or try to at least. Like Kerry, I don’t always feel I make myself clear and find it more comfortable to lurk. (g)
This from Becca:
â€So it is demonstrably possible to have dark heros and dark heroines - or at least those with their own demons - without bowing to Political Correctness or feeling the need to stick a vampire into the series to create erotic tension. “
This is exactly what I tried to say earlier in my oh-so-inelegant way. I used strong instead of dark. When I said that it sometimes feels like we’re PC-ing our fiction to death, I didn’t actually mean it to sound as it did. Oops. Sorry bout that. What I did mean is that maybe in an effort to be as politically correct as possible—- to try and please so many readers who are so vocal on the Internet, writers and even editors are taking fewer chances. I don’t know this for sure—it’s just a thought. Actually, homogenized is a great term for what I think I was trying to get across.
Heh heh—now I’m not even sure of my point. I’m a way better lurker.
But, I do believe strong heroines are a great thing about today’s books. I love them. I had many a romance manuscript turned down in the nineties because my heroines were too strong. I’m jumping back into the game now because maybe what I write will work now.
Strong doesn’t necessarily have to mean “kick ass” (even though most of mine can and do)—it can mean so many things. Strength of character—of will. And I think that a lot of readers might be feeling disappointment in their kick-ass heroines because sometimes, the very things that make women strong end up absent. I believe a woman can kick-ass and still show compassion… and still be turned on by a strong, alpha male.
I once had a reader point out the strength of my heroine and say I’d have to make the hero weaker to balance the book properly. Why?
From this conversation, it sounds as if the real struggle is terminology. What does alpha mean to each of us? To me it can mean “in charge” but it can also mean protector or just plain strong-willed with all those great manly qualities. I see no problem with a well-written romance about two strong alpha characters. What’s missing, IMO, for some readers is the strong “compelling” elements. The heavy emotional elements. At least that’s what I hear in conversations.
Am I even making sense? I need coffee or something…
Michelle said on 09.28.06 at 04:40 AM • [link]
I think Nora said it perfectly. A hero can be an alpha, masculine, arrogant, protective, studly kind of guy without being an asshole or a rapist. To me nothing sexy or provocative about rape/forced seduction. Too close to the she means yes even though she says no argument.
rebyj said on 09.28.06 at 05:22 AM • [link]
In past novels it was often the mans anger and him forcing himself on the woman.
time has passed, we’ve evolved, why dont we see women forcing men in novels?
because… piss a woman off and the last thing we want to do is get naked!If she’s mad enough you may not see her naked for WEEKS!
we don’t force sex on men to assert our dominance. And rape/forced sex in novels are written in for just that reason, to show that MEN are dominant to women and we should submit to them.
However, I realize its all fiction and if the book is good enough and the story can carry the episode well, I can move past it and not hold it against the author.
Rape by villians is another topic all together.. diane gabaldons outlander series included male / male rape and male/female rape. both were handled well i thought and added to the story.
Robin said on 09.28.06 at 06:45 AM • [link]
So what happened to the intrepid author who presented such unconventional heroes as the one in Seize the Fire where the hero was on his knees to ther heroine not once but twice!
STF is my favorite Kinsale. I just hope the author who so passionately wrote not that long ago about how she didn’t care what any of us thought hasn’t gone away.
Actually, I’ve seen Kinsale make some of the points she made in her latest post before, and I think the core of her position is in her comment about the “literalization” of Romance. If I understand Kinsale’s argument, it goes something like this: while so many of our fantasies, archetypes, myths (she’s mentioned Leda and the Swan on AAR, which is contributing to my inferences here) relate to the taboo, to violence, to dark eroticism, etc., in our Romance novels, we’ve moved farther and farther away from honoring those symoblic and metaphoric and mythic levels and have instead grounded all this stuff by inappropriately writing and talking about it in the same way we’d talk about real life issues. So in the issue of rape, for example, instead of looking toward the mythic and symbolic levels and aspects and functions of this trope, we act like “forced seduction” or what I call “Romance rape” is virtually the same as real-life rape, which, in Kinsale’s paradigm (as I understand it) is fully distinct from the trope of forced seduction or rape in Romance.
Based on this understanding of her position (which I stand ready to be corrected on), I don’t fully agree with Kinsale, because I do not think you can choose the either or in the material - mythic relationship. For me, anyway, taboos, for example, have their power not only because of their long-standing connections with archetype and myth, but because of their material implications. That rape, for example, has strong symbolic and mythic elements does not, IMO, distinguish it from its real-world counterpart, because IMO part of the power of the mythic derives from the vulernability and threat inherent in the material existence of rape (and vice versa).
That’s why in my own reading of forced seduction or Romance rape, I tend to think that part of the power of that trope is that it makes safe something that women find terribly unsafe in real life. And that it allows for a different identification of power, that it touches on all sorts of self-control and responsibility issues (this element, of course, has been well documented by Nancy Friday and others), etc. But I don’t think it can function symbolically without all of its real-life significance and potency serving as a counterpoint and a conscience.
I also think that women who HAVE experienced sexual assault have a very legitimate reason to find the device prolematic and objectionable in Romance. Because while Kinsale tends to take the deep view of these things, I don’t think hers is a universal approach, and so when she laments to lack of imagination, risk, and boundary pushing in Romance, she’s using criteria that aren’t applicable universally across the genre.
Perhaps because I read calls all the time for more boundary-pushing in Romance, I guess I’m not so imbued with the idea that Romance readers, per se, are guilty of such a glaring double standard (although I’m not saying we’re easy to please or innocent of double-standards in our expecations of the genre at times). Further, I think there is some Romance for which it IS appropriate to ask the question of whether certain books are romanticizing certain behaviors and values in a real-world material kind of way—in other words, where the mythic and the mystical are not invoked or evoked (however they might function in the individual reader’s imagination—or not).
I do, though, think Kinsale is right about the mystery inherent in understanding all of the nuances of desire and attraction and sexuality, etc. And I think this even extends to the writing of Romance. Because while I find some of Kinsale’s comments to be aesthetically conservative, I find her books to be very subversive in certain ways. And that combination, which remains somewhat mysterious to me as a reader, doesn’t necessarily compute logically, but it does produce some mighty fine Romance.
dl said on 09.28.06 at 06:45 AM • [link]
PC in novels means something a little different for me: 1)Like Suzanne Brockman’s last couple of books she has slipped in snide references to how it’s apparently OK now for the US Military to torture prisoners (like it wasn’t stopped, prosecuted, and punished?) 2)Or Linsay McKenna and her native american heroines that are so full of angst and feelings of be misunderstood, that I doubt they are mentally capable of sustaining a relationship. I don’t want to read about them, I just want to send them to counseling.
Another hot button for me is the same as Kristin…authors who write historical novels, but insist on including modern political correctness. Totally heave that puppy out in the yard for the dog to pee on.
Rebyh..so true I’m still laughing, “Piss a woman off and the last thing we want is to get naked! If she’s mad enough you may not see her naked for weeks!”
Robin said on 09.28.06 at 06:57 AM • [link]
Another hot button for me is the same as Kristin…authors who write historical novels, but insist on including modern political correctness.
I think I’m less convinced than other people that this is actually occuring; too often, I think the no-PC argument is used to justify heroes of the past who are bulying bastards and heroines who are dainty doormats. But I don’t think it’s always the case that history bears out our popular perceptions of it, especially when it comes to how we think men and women are being re-written according to current day standards.
As for Brockman’s side references—having spent an entire semester studying the so-called enemy combatant situation, all I can say is . . . THANK YOU, Suzanne Brockman!
rascoagogo said on 09.28.06 at 07:08 AM • [link]
Perhaps the problem of strong heroines so strongly dominating weak heroes is more a problem of the pendulum swinging too far away from the worst sort of hero. This mercifully isn’t the case with all but a very few novels I’ve read. It’s no more a desirable or believable setup than the simpering women with beastly heroes from the past. PC isn’t an excuse in and of itself, but I can certainly see that it would give authors some pause.
Equal partners whose strengths/weaknesses are so lovely to observe, in novels or real life. Like Nick and Nora in the Thin Man movies, the combination of wit and love and play is hard to beat. In comtemporary novels, it seems that this equal partner role is relgated to the Best Friend who brings ice cream and snark. Such inequal M/F matching takes away most of the sex appeal for me because the comfortable, fun outlet for power play has been removed.
The woman can certainly be in the heroic role without having to weaken the male. Nora Roberts’ Key trilogy is a good example of the women being strong, brave and entirely femme. Their men are appropraite matches, all strong and successful. Most importantly, the men are supportive equals and not the ones who come in at the last moment and fix the mess the women made. They’re proud like good boyfriends should be. ;-)
Candy said on 09.28.06 at 08:34 AM • [link]
I don’t really see much evidence of correctness, political or otherwise, in the vast majority of historical romances that have been published in the past 30-35 years. I’m with Robin: I tend to read “politically incorrect” as code for “hero is a brutal asshole but we’re going to try and pass him off as historically accurate because EVERYONE knows all men of yore were brutal assholes, and y’all are just too politically correct to appreciate his True Manliness.” And look, it’s OK to admit we like brutal assholes in our romance fiction. Hell, I have a huge soft spot for heroes who display distinctly asswipish behaviors, like Sebastian Dain in Lord of Scoundrels and Sheridan Drake of Seize the Fire. To veer into a tangent: I think for me, the extent to which I can buy into and forgive a hero’s bad behavior is often predicated on how well I understand what drives them to act so pathologically. Chase and Kinsale provided fairly detailed looks into their heroes’ pasts, so even while I winced and gasped at some of the things they did, I could sympathize. It’s not about political correctness or incorrectness for me, it’s about how convincing the motivations are for the characters.
Bla bla bla UGH how’d it get so late? More babbling tomorrow. Yeah, exciting stuff. Hang on to your panties.
Lorelie said on 09.28.06 at 09:12 AM • [link]
“You can please all the people some of the time and some
of the people all of the time but you can’t please all the people all of the time”
And that’s why message boards and comment threads are fun.
Lia said on 09.28.06 at 09:32 AM • [link]
I guess I just like men who are men…who know how to fix things, chop wood, fire a gun, laugh in the face of spiders and bats and mice….how can you do that if the woman can take care of everything herself? Why not just give the heroine a vibrator and a carton of ice cream and call it romance?
I like men who can do that, too. But my grandma could do all the things you mention, and she had several husbands (sequentially, not all at once)in her 92 years. She threw a couple back because they weren’t strong enough to keep up with her. She was an old-fashioned Southern girl—really old fashioned, born in the 19th century. But she was a farm girl, not a sheltered lady. She grew up working hard and expected a man to do the same. And if he didn’t respect her, he could go look somewhere else for a doormat. I do think a lot of the women in realistic historicals would have that same attitude. Those were the frontier gals who survived and raised kids who were survivors.
Physical competence doesn’t have to be ‘unfeminine.’ I think it’s more romantic to be with a guy because you want to be, not because you think you can’t survive without him.
But that’s where we get into different strokes—different styles of femininity. My father-in-law would be horrified if his wife invaded his workshop, and she never lets him use her stove. The gender roles work for them, and that’s great. They just don’t always work for everyone… variety is spice.
I’m not sure what an ‘alpha’ male really is, but I suspect most of the guys who are always trying to prove they are, aren’t.
December said on 09.28.06 at 11:38 AM • [link]
Okay, I just posted a huge long reply with links to where I blogged about these topics and it all went blooey. So I’m going to go cry and try again later.
Selah March said on 09.28.06 at 03:53 PM • [link]
I’m disturbed by the idea that by authors scuttling “politically incorrct behavior” (read: characters abusing one another) we’ve somehow lost the ability to set up genuine conflict in our stories.
Yes, romance IS, by it’s nature, erotic (no matter what certain—not all—Inspy authors would have you believe) but is it impossible to have erotic conflict without one character—usually the hero—humiliating/hurting/disrespecting the other in some way?
I’m not buying it. But I never liked the “politically incorrect” books, anyway. I’ve met enough jerky, macho men in my real life. I don’t need to read about them, too. My definiton of “Alpha” is someone who is so strong, he doesn’t need to be abusive to get the job done. An abusive asshole “Alpha” is just a weak man with a big mouth and a desire to punish those who threaten his sense of self.
And yes, I HATE all this “it’s all the fault of PC” crap, no matter who is spewing it. I’m sorry, Ms. Kinsale, but as an excuse for having trouble coming up with good stories, it rings false. Particularly when you follow it with “I don’t give a damn what the readers think anyway.”
And so long as I’m shooting off my own big mouth…
1)Like Suzanne Brockman’s last couple of books she has slipped in snide references to how it’s apparently OK now for the US Military to torture prisoners (like it wasn’t stopped, prosecuted, and punished?)
Abu Ghraib is one of the incidents we KNOW about, in terms of US military/CIA torture of prisoners. To assume it is an isolated incident is naive, considering how hard the current administration has lobbied to have the strictures on torture as a tool for interrogation eased.
They failed, due to pressure from a bi-partisan coalition that insisted it put our own service-people in considerable danger and produced extremely unreliable information. (Plus…you know…it’s WRONG, and we’re supposed to be the GOOD GUYS. A “Christian nation,” according to the President.)
Pardon my rabid cynicism, but I think the folks that particular “tool” are just working a little harder to not get caught these days. No cameras on the cell blocks would be a fair start, I imagine.
I just can’t WAIT for the hate mail on this one. :)
SB Sarah said on 09.28.06 at 04:16 PM • [link]
You know someone is going to read this thread and get to the end where Laura Kinsale steered us back on topic and thing, ‘But I wanted to talk about raaaaaaaaape!’
But not me!
Oddly enough, and I said so to Ms. Kinsale, I’m reading The Dream Hunter right now, so when I saw her name in my email inbox, I was a little startled. Is she looking in my handbag?
Now that I’ve read her page and have chewed on it, what sticks in my mind is the question: Alpha heroes and questions of PC aside, are readers afraid of conflict? Do we dislike and vocally decry romances that feature heavy emotional conflict between the protagonists? Are we afraid of confrontation and conflict in any venue? Do we look down on characters who emotionally don’t have their poop in a group?
In a completely unrelated thought, I’ve long suspected that while the internet is the best thing that happened to me in a while, it has done a grievous damage to our collective ability to interact in person. It’s safer and easier to interact via monitor and chat room, because we don’t have to hear our own words or deal with awkward communications or tensions - just shut off the screen and walk away. Problem of emotional entanglement in the immediate? Solved.
Perhaps that tendency to eschew conflict has carried over somewhat to our reading material. Our hesitancy over conflict could also be related to the minor advent of the ass-kicking heroine - conflicts when the heroine is ass-kicking are often external as well as internal to the relationship. Sure there’s the desire to remain independent but the forces acting against the couple are more easily defined by the mystery to be solved, the antagonist’s efforts against her, etc. Does the ass-kicking contemporary heroine have any deep emotional issues to work against (Eve Dallas excused from this hypothesis) or can she focus her considerable talents on the case at hand, thereby avoiding any wrenching emotional difficulties? But I could be talking out of my ass here, so I’ll move on.
I am still stuck on the question of conflict: does it make us uncomfortable in our fiction? I have to keep asking myself, because I am not a big fan of the awkward conflict, and tend to hyperanalyze my communications with anyone, verbal or written.
As a total aside, and I should make this a separate comment: I am so bemused by the idea that a strong heroine has to be “balanced” by a weak hero. What kind of outdated heterosexist alpha-beta-standard asshattery is that?
Also, off-topic, I love discussions like this because, woodamn, y’all are some smart people, and I love reading our conversations where there’s conflict that’s respectful and reasoned. Thank you.
Maggie said on 09.28.06 at 04:34 PM • [link]
Oh wow and yet again…I’ve never read any of Laura Kinsale’s books and now I’m all eager and things. She’s making scarily good points and that gets me excited.
Look, rape is ugly. Rape is horrible. Rape is one of the worst things that can ever happen to a woman. But these are freaking books. Rather like I don’t get squicked by the tentacle ugliness in hentai, I can’t get emotionally worked up over a fictional character having a traumatic experience. Do I get involved in a good book? Sure. I am going to get out the signage and picket because somethign icky happened? No.
But as Ms. Kinsale pointed out, that wasn’t her point. So I shall endeavor to grope my way back to her point. Someone on here (and I go look, but that’s a lot of work) talked about NR’s Key trilogy and the “good boyfriends” contained therein. I think that’s the problem.
We’re overindentifying here. Nothing wrong with that per se, that’s supposed to be a sign of a good book, right? That you identify with and feel for the characters. But at a certain point, you have to realize, not everything in a book is going to be all hugs and puppies. It’s gotten so the H/H can’t even have a good fight without a huge discussion of emotions. Sometimes, love means having to say “are you out of your fucking mind?” We can’t use any book as a way to act out our dreams of perfection. Conflict is a necessary part of a good book and a good life.
Rinda said on 09.28.06 at 04:51 PM • [link]
“As a total aside, and I should make this a separate comment: I am so bemused
by the idea that a strong heroine has to be “balanced” by a weak hero.
What kind of outdated heterosexist alpha-beta-standard asshattery is that?”
Exactly? What’s up with that? I ignored the statement, btw. (g)
But from this discussion alone, it’s easy to see that different people look at adjectives in different ways.
Weaker to some could mean he isn’t physically as strong—or it could mean he’s physically strong but not the leader type—more the bodyguard type. He doesn’t mind standing back when he needs to.
Who the hell knows? (g)
But, I do know that I once wrote a scene where a former rape victim stood up for herself with some arrogant yoohahs and the hero stayed in the background. He knew she “needed” to deal with the situation herself and yes, he had a hard time standing in the shadows, but he was more than ready and willing to kick ass when needed. He later got to bring out his “protector” mode—but in that particular scene he was smart enough to realize she had internal demons to fight.
An editor told me I’d ruined the romantic fantasy—that he should have jumped in front of her immediately.
Everyone wants something different.
Nora’s quote about the padded room hits it dead center—we’ll go nuts trying to please everyone. So write what appeals to you and go from there.
Carrie Lofty said on 09.28.06 at 05:10 PM • [link]
SB Sarah said: I have to keep asking myself, because I am not a big fan of the awkward conflict, and tend to hyperanalyze my communications with anyone, verbal or written.
Perhaps this is part of the bifurcation that was mentioned wherein romance is splitting into “safe” Regency types and erotically charged fantasy/paranormals. The former category might be considered safe because whatever happens in those pages – be it rape, murder, etc. – can be neatly tucked away into a thought that says, “It’s in the past.” No conflict. The latter is safe because of fictional world-building where the characters exist by entirely author-created standards. Any squicky parts can again be thrust into “it’s just fantasy.” Also, the erotica aspect brings about conflict on a sexual level, in that the H/H play out their games in the bedroom rather than throwing beer bottles at each other on the front porch. Because the erotica is SO over the top, the conflict they stage in those parameters is avoidable because of its gratuitous nature.
I had a bigger point, but I haven’t had coffee yet. Will try again later.
Tonda/Kalen said on 09.28.06 at 05:36 PM • [link]
elephant in the room: Erotic desire…thrives on mystery, unpredictability and politically incorrect power games.
the genre itself has been divided into two camps: the “safe Regency settings†that provide emotional depth, while “the erotic drive has been channeled over to vampire and fantasy books where realism is a non-issue,†leaving folks who prefer neither to complain that there’s nothing to read
It sometimes begins to seem to me that a goodly percentage of present day romance readers are actually frightened of reading about a real conflict in a book
The trend, as she calls it, of self-conscious political correctness in romance is somewhat stifling to Kinsale as a writer
Trying to get back to whatever it was LK was actually saying . . .please note SHE introduced the idea that rape/forced seduction somehow is the missing ingredient that makes the “safe Regency settings†so bland and boring:
alpha heroes and “rape†and “forced seduction†and how all that is so 1970’s (or 80’s or 90’s, take your pick depending on your age) but we’re all enlightened modern women now and we just don’t like that sort of thing. Then in the next thread will be complaints that the genre just isn’t as compelling or interesting as it used to be and readers can’t find books they really enjoy, and gee, why are all the heroes vampires now?
Somehow I don’t feel stifled as a writer by some looming cloud of PCness. I’m not aware of any such thing when I’m writing or plotting. I’m with la Nora on this one (PC has nothing to do with it. Trends have nothing to do with it. Character and story have everything to do with everything.). I write, that is all (yes, I hear George Sands in my head as I type that). My characters, their issues and needs, drive the story. And since I write historicals some of those needs and issues might be extremely un-PC. But as long as they’re motivated (I’ll also refrence Lord of Scourndrels which I just read for the first time this past weekend) I think un-PC, even asshole-ish behavior, is more than welcome in Romancelandia.
Ok, this is getting long, but I also want to add that I agree with the numerous people who mentioned the pressure some writers feel to please everyone. The pressure is real. No one likes those 1-Star Amazon reviews. Julia Ross said something really brilliant about this in her interview on Risky Regencies: “my stories and definitely not for everyone, so I don’t troll the Internet looking for negative comments from readers who prefer a different style. One of the greatest attributes of romance is that there’s enough variety to suit all of us, so no author needs to please every reader, and it’s far better that way.”
I have that printed out and hanging in my office. It’s a mantra of sorts . . .
mirain said on 09.28.06 at 05:47 PM • [link]
I think the dilemma here (“here” being the original complaints that Kinsale was referring to) lies in the difference between fantasy and reality, or realistic fiction. No woman wants to be raped, and even what are sometimes called rape fantasies are usually more along the lines of domination and kinky sex. This probably stems from what someone already mentioned:
“letting a woman put the responsibility for her desires that she’s deemed unacceptable or inexpressible onto the man. ”
So this type of scene works erotically for readers as a fantasy—but then, if the author has done a good job and the reader is identiying with the character or at least finds the situation believable—we start thinking about how in real life this would so NOT be cool, acceptable, sexy, etc because if a woman is struggling and saying no than in real life that is rape! Only in ficiton a good author can set it up so that hero somehow “knows” what the heroine really wants and thus it isn’t rape. It’s the disparity between what is erotic in fantasy and what would be acceptable in reality that, if not handled very well, can make this approach problematic for readers.
azteclady said on 09.28.06 at 06:09 PM • [link]
Rinda, I would have loved that scene myself.
Elizabeth Lowell wrote a couple of books, a decade or so ago, which involved a shady organization by the name Risk, Ltd. The head of this was a woman, and her lover and second in command was very much an alpha man. I loved the interactions between those two characters, because as much alpha as he was, she led and stood her ground. Her more recent series with Rarities Unlimited follows the same pattern. I love the idea, and wish she would write the stories of those two couples.
I don’t like kick ass heroines with wimpy heroes—even if she’s the body guard and he’s the geek, by golly he has to be strong and kick ass in his own way.
What I want is characters that are fleshed out enough and consistent enough that I can see why they react the way they do, that I can believe why they are feeling the way they do. Good characterization should be plenty enough for conflict—just look around you. People are not black and white.
Oh and with Robin I say, Thank God for Suzanne Brockmann!
Rosemary said on 09.28.06 at 06:12 PM • [link]
I dislike them, but I don’t decry them. My friend loves the books that are (to me) overly emotional and dramatic. What she loves, I hate and won’t read.
I’ve tried vampire and fantasy books, but they tend to have characters that I can see “Shatner Acting.” I picture them having the same overly dramatic tone and inflections as William Shatner, and I just can’t enjoy them.
I’m not frightened of reading about real conflict, I just don’t want to. I don’t enjoy it. When everyone in the book is brooding over some shitpile that they’re dealing with the entire time and can’t find anything pleasant going on in their life until the last 10 pages, I don’t want to read about it.
My own life has enough emotional shit that I have to deal with. Why should I read a book that leaves me depressed and angry? (The anger tends to be directed at myself for finishing the damn fool thing.)
For me, conflict has to be balanced out with joy. 10 pages of happy at the end of a book can’t balance the 340 pages of despair and anger. And I appreciate that I’m essentially asking for the moon because that’s a difficult balance to achieve. I have discovered that there are a few authors who can wrap up the moon in a 350 page book.
(That’s not to say that I haven’t ever enjoyed overly emotional books just jam packed with conflict, but it’s a rare author who can make me like the characters enough to get over the Shatner-esque qualities of it all.)
And I had no idea that I thought this much about William Shatner, but apparantly I do.
Carrie Lofty said on 09.28.06 at 06:22 PM • [link]
Azteclady said: I don’t like kick ass heroines with wimpy heroes—even if she’s the body guard and he’s the geek, by golly he has to be strong and kick ass in his own way.
Did anyone watch “Firefly” or see the film Serenity? This comment brough to mind the married couple in that world, Zoe & Wash. Zoe was literally an Amazonian-style bodygaurd, the captain’s second-in-command, while Wash was the ship’s pilot and a self-confessed coward when it came to a firefight. However, when the team needed him, he was the best pilot they could ever ask for and his (literally) ass-kicking wife’s admiration ran-eth over. I loved that balance, in that each had their own sphere of command. But that’s Joss Whedon for you. A tangent, I know - just loved that series. **sniffs in woe **
Rinda said on 09.28.06 at 06:28 PM • [link]
I loved that couple in Serenity!!
They had an excellent balance and he didn’t seem wimpy in the least. They both knew their strengths and used them!
Excellent example. Joss Whedon is my hero!
For that matter, look at Farscape. Two kick-ass characters who complimented each other. I miss that show!
Carys Weldon said on 09.28.06 at 06:51 PM • [link]
I write a lot of werewolf and vampire romance—I like characters that get pushed up against the wall, or into a corner, (virtual or otherwise) and struggle with the best way to handle it.
But I like to give the characters a way to deal with the threat so that they aren’t total victims. Sometimes they play the victim, waiting for the moment to strike. Sometimes they goad the attacker—so they’ll have something to use against them later.
I’m with Rinda…It is too weird to read a book with a strong heroine and a weak hero. A chick like that isn’t looking for a wimp to take care of. She’s risen to the top of her game because she wants to be equal to the best mate she can find.
On another note, this whole convo reminds me of the funny but sensual scene in a 70’s movie ODE TO BILLY JOE where he’s kissing her, and she’s loving it but she keeps saying no, no, no—and she tells him that she has so many pages of no’s to get through before she can say yes…because she reads romance stories.
So, that begs the question…how much do we protest because it seems to be the standard? And how much do we protest because it actually offends us?
I’m offended when a woman is held down until she gives in because she has no choice. I’m offended by books that have an older hero that falls for a woman that doesn’t look like a woman at all because she has such a youthful appearance…that smacks of pedophilia.
I’m also offended by older men spanking a woman like she deserves an attitude adjustment…but not offended by a consenting couple who toy with smacks on the ass as foreplay. (Haven’t written that myself, but…)
I will drop a book cold if the man spanks the woman by taking her over his knee. That’s as bad as rape to me, or worse.
At least with the vampires and werewolves, sometimes the cornering is posturing, or set-up to see where the emotions really are. In the case of werewolves, the women are always equipped to rip a man’s belly or genitals with a claw, or snag a carotid out of his throat. It equals the playing field. They can play a little rough because the danger isn’t just in her court, it’s in his, too.
azteclady said on 09.28.06 at 06:58 PM • [link]
Way off topic, but mentioning Joss Whedon practicaly begs for this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYaczoJMRhs
Enjoy!
Candy said on 09.28.06 at 07:11 PM • [link]
OK, seriously, I have a pretty dim view of Romancelandia, but even I don’t think there’s a dearth of conflict in romances (I’d say that there’s too much contrived conflict, in fact), or that fights between the protagonists devolve into discussions about their Feelings. There is sometimes a distressing tendency for the characters to muse endlessly over their feelings (one Cheryl Anne Porter book I read a few years ago was absolutely TERRIBLE about that—the action would literally stop mid-gesture to have the hero ponder about his fucked-up relationship with his dad), but they rarely discuss them with each other.
But maybe I’m reading entirely different romance novels from the rest of youse?
Now, setting all that aside, I can agree that there’s a lot of anachronistic navel-gazing in Historical Romancelandia. But I’m not convinced it’s a problem with PC, I think it’s a problem with sloppy writing. Historicals from Days of Yore were anachronistic in other ways, and I’m sure Historicals of the FUTAR will be anachronistic in new ways as our filters for perceiving our present change. Even good writers can create excellent characters who don’t really ring true for their time periods—not for me, anyway. Judith Ivory is an example. This problem with characterization is inherent in the way we deal with books set in the past, and unless it’s particularly egregious, I don’t let it bother me too much.
Dude, what is with this thread and the derailment of points I try to make? RAR.
OK, more work to do, so I have to stop writing. Dammit. Though I’ll obsessively refresh this window to read new comments, because they’re fascinating.
Raina_Dayz said on 09.28.06 at 07:18 PM • [link]
Thanks for the Joss Whedon link, I had never seen it. I didn’t think I could admire him more, but damn. That man gets it!
Carys Weldon said on 09.28.06 at 07:27 PM • [link]
I know exactly why you’re seeing more of those scenes stopped in the middle for introspection or inner dialogue of the characters…I just went through edits on a book (2 1/2 years of going back and forth, I kid you not) and the editor INSISTED I put that in.
I argued that it stopped the action and that the players don’t always hesitate to think about their motivations. Why should the reader know more than the character itself really has gone into?
But the book is STILL not out because of those type of insistences from the editor.
Candy said on 09.28.06 at 07:35 PM • [link]
Carys, that’s fucked-up. Knowing a character’s motivations is good, but insisting that it interrupt the flow of action like that? NOT a good thing. It’s downright jarring, as a matter of fact.
Robin said on 09.28.06 at 07:40 PM • [link]
Now that I’ve read her page and have chewed on it, what sticks in my mind is the question: Alpha heroes and questions of PC aside, are readers afraid of conflict? Do we dislike and vocally decry romances that feature heavy emotional conflict between the protagonists?
You make some great points, Sarah. I think I understand this aspect of Kinsale’s argument the least, and I’ve really be struggling through it.
Here’s her quote:
And she follows is a couple of paragraphs later with this:
Now I personally think that WOMEN have ALWAYS felt self-conscious about our fantasies, because our sexuality has always been connected to social norms and standards of morality that attach in a patriarchal culture. I don’t think my statement is either “PC” (term used under protest) or a “literalization;” I think Kinsale and I may just have different aesthetic sensibilities.
But, when I read her comments, combined with the reference she made some time ago on AAR regarding Leda and the Swan and mythology mroe generally, I get the sense that what she’s talking about when she mentions “conflict” is clashes of the more epic variety (in a ‘clash of the titans’ sort of way—without the hideous image of Harry Hamlin in a toga, of course). That she’s seeing Romance as a stage or a forum upon which the action of the novel provides the reader with an opportunity to play out some of our own internal conflicts. This is why, I think, she uses the sexual fantasy aspect of Romance in her comments, because there’s so much dark, mysterious, and uncontrolled (and perhaps uncontrollable) stuff in our individual and collective psyches, and what better genre to play that out but Romance? What better place to have these epic struggles both portrayed and catalyzed within us than Romance, where so much of the genre seems to implicate desire, fantasy, mythic struggles, dark and stormy nights, etc.?
IF I’m understanding that correctly, I think that point is wonderfully provocative and worthy of discussion. Why has Romance become so much less epic—and I’m not just talking about the epic scope of the novel, but about the thematic and psychological elements and struggles it has at times presented—and so much more narrow and terrestrial in its focus? My first answer, of course, would be limited word and page counts (!), but is it only publisher limitations or something more? Do publishers and editors have it wrong in what they’re guiding writers to write (and is that why so many Romance readers seem to be migrating to other genres, namely sci-fi and fantasy), or do readers no longer want to explore the deep waters of their own psyches in Romance?
Where I get thrown off is in the comments Kinsale makes about the “therapy session”—unless she’s just referring to the resistance in Romance to an open-ended ending vis a vis the interior conflicts the characters experience (I can’t help but think about the HEA discussion going on over at Dear Author in regard to this question). Or maybe she’s referring back to her point about “literalization” and saying that the overt psychologizing is cheapening those mythic levels, flattening them out and making them too much a part of real world experience.
In any case, I do think the kernel in Kinsale’s argument is related to this litera - symbolic, material - mythic distinction, but I’m still grappling with the way she’s putting that together and articulating it relative to Romance (and in this, of course, deciding on the extent to which I agree and disagree with her position).
dl said on 09.28.06 at 08:00 PM • [link]
Robin & Azteclady…my point being that if I want somebody’s heavy handed political opinion, I will read the newspaper. I read fiction for escapism, so politics in my fiction is a big turn off.
Carys Weldon said on 09.28.06 at 08:22 PM • [link]
I think the readership is split on this issue, and that’s why erotica is climbing dramatically in popularity through the romance readership. Erotic novels often don’t have the HEA. Happy for now sometimes is a relief to the modern reader because it gives satisfaction and hope without falling into sappy disbelief.
There have always been the romances that are safe and tame. Those where the heroine discusses all her feelings with a friend, or even the hero—and the reader gets that feeling of “therapy”, that this is a healthy relationship, and it’s all good. (How many real relationships are ALL GOOD, though?)
In my experience, erotic heroines tend to be dealing more with issues that women really have: depression, loneliness, weight, abuse, loss, feelings of inadequacy or urges for revenge, and lust—and the conflict of that with moral/religious upbringing.
A Harlequin heroine, for example, can’t be revengeful. That’s just not done. She could defend herself, and be hurt, but to act on anger?
In an erotic novel, the story starts when she picks herself up and looks around for something to knock her abuser in the head with. Or where she realizes that she CAN walk away, or run away and start a new life…but she still deals with the emotional aftermath. It doesn’t get swept under the rug or ignored, it directs her actions and reactions.
But that’s just my take on it.
Zeek said on 09.28.06 at 08:55 PM • [link]
Azteclady! THANK YOU for that Whedon link! I’m snagging it for my blog!!!!
bebe said on 09.28.06 at 08:59 PM • [link]
I think the question has alot to do with the nature of escapism. Escapism doesn’t have to be about escaping to a BETTER place—just to a different one. The romance genre, though, is defined as being a better place—or at least one where everything ends up as it should. (And I realize this is an issue of debate. And probably something that is evolving as we speak. Regardless, many publishers still define romance as having a happy ending- among other things, of course ;) If you take the issue of rape though, as modern readers we feel that a story with rape in it could never really end HEA because rape is unforgivable. When we read, we seek to escape from circumstance- from our immediate surroundings and problems. But it is way harder to escape from our own concept of the world- our morals- our ideas of right and wrong. We take those with us.
I mean we as modern people seem to all agree that rape is a crime and is wrong. We would also agree that murder is a crime and is wrong. But do we complain about murder in our romances? Is that even an issue? Yes, too much violence is sometimes an issue. But crime in general? No. And I think the difference is that the expectations of physical intimacy in the romance genre are very specific. If we were reading a rape scene in a Stephen King book or in a memoir by a rape victim, we wouldn’t be so up in arms about it because our expectations for those books are different.
Really this is a kind of catch 22 issue though. We want the genre defined—that way we can find what we are looking for and authors will write what we want and publishers will publish it. BUT we don’t want it so defined that it becomes repetitive and strict and not open to any changes. Which makes me think- no you can’t, in fact, “have your cake and hump it too.”
But we shouldn’t just focus on rape. To include rape or not to include rape wasn’t really the only point of Kinsale’s argument. She was talking about sacrificing a good, well-written story in the interest of being morally perfect. Or said another way, making the story suffer for the modern reader’s sensibilities. Personally I’m tired of all the repetition in the genre. I love romance—but it is getting harder and harder as someone who is not interested in paranormal to find something that isn’t easily confused with something I’ve already read. I’d like to see romance where the relationship is the central focus—but there is no guarantee of a happy ending, no guarantee that you won’t be disturbed or saddened or angered by what you read. I mean, one of the very coolest things about reading is that it gives us the opportunity to challenge our own ideas with little to no consequence. And, honestly, I think that’s what is often missing from the romance genre.
azteclady said on 09.28.06 at 09:16 PM • [link]
I do want a happy ending in my romance. That’s one of the reasons I read romance, in fact.
The thing is, I don’t define happy ending necessarily as marriage, kids, perfect rosy future. Having the protagonists inequivocably on the road to solving whatever issues separate them, or simply at the beginning of a committed relationship, is more than good enough for me.
Do epilogues with babies and flowers work? Some times—Cry No More by Linda Howard is an example of the (for me) perfect epilogue. For the most part, though, I’d rather not have the too perfect ending tacked on after the conflict resolution.
And I do want conflict in my romances, by the way. In case, you know, I hadn’t hammered that point enough earlier.
Becca said on 09.28.06 at 09:19 PM • [link]
Rinda wrote:
But, I do know that I once wrote a scene where a former rape victim stood up for herself with some arrogant yoohahs and the hero stayed in the background. He knew she “needed†to deal with the situation herself and yes, he had a hard time standing in the shadows, but he was more than ready and willing to kick ass when needed. He later got to bring out his “protector†mode—but in that particular scene he was smart enough to realize she had internal demons to fight.
see, now that’s exactly the kind of book I like to read.
-becca
Tonda/Kalen said on 09.28.06 at 09:59 PM • [link]
[W]e as modern people seem to all agree that rape is a crime and is wrong. We would also agree that murder is a crime and is wrong. But do we complain about murder in our romances? Is that even an issue?
Since we were talking specifically about the hero raping the heroine, I’d have to apply the same rules to murder. If the hero murders the heroine, it’s a problem for me. LOL!
But to take the issue more seriously, I don’t think crime, of any kind, is verboten in romance. I think it has to be really well motivated if it’s being perpetrated by the hero or heroine, or it has to be committed by one of the villains of the piece. The beauty of villains is that they can do anything to anyone.
azteclady said on 09.28.06 at 10:03 PM • [link]
Zeek, you are very much welcome—I’m always happy to spread the Whedon love!
spam foiler: police53 *giggling*
Robin said on 09.28.06 at 10:18 PM • [link]
Thanks for clarifying, dl. I have to say, though, that it’s difficult for me to disconnect politics from any Romance set in, connected to, or featuring the military. That’s why I assumed it was the (what would probably be called Liberal) tone of the remarks that wrankled you, especially since that’s what people usually mean when they refer to “PC” these days.
I’m a reader who looked initially to erotic Romance to break some of the more entrenched Romance stereotypes—i.e. the virgin heroine and her magical hymen to heaven, a pasted on HEA, hero as savior, etc.—for exactly some of the reasons you point out, Carys. Unfortunately, my experience of reading erotic Romance has been that’s it’s much more traditional than I would have thought, and when it starts out so subversively, the trek back to traditionalism frustrates me even more. I’ve commented extensively on Pam Rosenthal’s A House East of Regent Street as examplifying my argument about this. I HOPE, though, that over time there will be more opportunities to interrogate some of these traditional Romance devices and stereotypes, and I’d love it if that happened in erotic Romance.
I feel the same way, bebe, and one of the thing I have trouble with in Kinsale’s argument is the idea that “readers” don’t want this. SOME readers don’t—perhaps the readers publishers and editors imagine when they put out books (would Harriet Klausner be that reader, do you think?)—but not ALL readers feel that way. And a lot of us who don’t have tried to make ourselves heard.
I’ve commented on this here before, but I’ve tried twice now, unsuccessfully, to get a letter to Avon indicating the untapped market for historical Romance in those of us who want more diversity in the genre. The first note I emailed yielded a note that the person no longer worked there, and the second one—forwarded very graciously by Julia Quinn on my behalf—yieldeda response indicating that she would have the submission guidelines sent to me so that I could properly submit my MS! Too bad I DON’T want to WRITE a Romance novel!
I also agree with Candy that if you surveyed Romance from the 70s, 80s, 90s, or whenever, that you’d find a lot of chaff among the wheat, and that the books we keep re-reading from those decades are memorable because they were exceptional even then. We have standouts published now, too, although I think it’s far tougher for authors to write deep books in such ridiculously limited page and word counts limits. But as readers, I don’t think we have much control over that, do we?
Nora Roberts said on 09.28.06 at 10:47 PM • [link]
There are plenty of novels available that have strong relationships, romantic elements and no promised happy ending. You’ll find them in Fiction.
Romance is a genre, and genres have constants and frameworks. If I’m writing a Mystery, I’m going to have a puzzle or crime, clues, suspects, and a resolution which solves the mystery.
If I’m writing a Romance, I’m going to have a love story, sex or sexual tension, internal, external conflict or both, emotional commitment and a happy ending. Which doesn’t mean a wedding or a brood of babies. It means the lovers are together, in love, and commited to each other.
I don’t understand why someone would feel the HEA needs to go or be ambiguous in order to create more diversity within the genre. There are plenty of ways to twist and turn and build on that framework without removing one of its main supports.
The genre doesn’t have to deny itself its main structure in order to be creative—it’s the writers who’re responsible for making the story fresh, compelling and creative. And who must do so by understanding and appreciating the reader’s expectations for the genre.
As for the reader who wants to a story without that structure, there are plenty of choices outside of Romance that offer it.
Alison said on 09.28.06 at 10:48 PM • [link]
I’d like to see romance where the relationship is the central focus—but there is no guarantee of a happy ending, no guarantee that you won’t be disturbed or saddened or angered by what you read.
I love this, but aren’t these books called general fiction? Even women’s fiction? Or is the romance in the periphery in most of these? Pondering ...
“thinking37” <—spam foiler
Alison said on 09.28.06 at 10:49 PM • [link]
Oops. Cross-commenting with Nora!
Nora Roberts said on 09.28.06 at 11:49 PM • [link]
I’d like to see romance where the ~relationship is the central focus—but there is no guarantee of a happy ending, no guarantee that you won’t be disturbed or saddened or angered by what you read. I mean, one of the very coolest things about reading is that it gives us the opportunity to challenge our own ideas with little to no consequence. And, honestly, I think that’s what is often missing from the romance genre.~
It’s missing from the Romance genre, because without it, it ISN’T the Romance genre. It’s Fiction, or Women’s Fiction or possible Chick-Lit or maybe Erotica—depending on the elements contained in the story.
Genre=a category of artistic, musical or literary composition characterized by a particular style, form or content. Webster’s.
If you want a romantic novel, that’s different. If you want a Romance novel, you want one of a particular style, form or content—as it’s a genre—and that includes the constant of a HEA.
Writers and readers are free to go outside the genre if the desire to create or to read outside the genre form is a factor.
I read lots outside the genre, and I wager the majority who post here do, too. But if I’m reading or writing Romance, I understand the framework, and the constants of the genre that comprise it.
It’s such a fluid genre, easily accepting elements from every other area of fiction—as long as the constants are maintained. From the bodice rippers of the 70’s, to the H/S early traditional categories, to romantic suspense, comedy, meledrama, paranormal, fantasy, sf, contemp, historical, futuristic, erotic romance. It flows and it absorbs—inside the genre framework.
If you’re not satisfied by what’s out there under the Romance umbrella, on any of its varied spokes, it may be the fault of the writers. We’re not finding enough fresh ways to address those constants or creating characters compelling enough that you’re pulled into their story.
Or it may be that you need to step out from under the umbrella for awhile.
Fair said on 09.28.06 at 11:58 PM • [link]
For me, explicit and erotic are opposites. I think it’s true that romances have become increasingly explicit to compensate for the declining eroticism because of the lack of a significant power struggle between hero and heroine.
“Power struggle” does not equate to RAPE. Rape is one sided. Power struggle means there is a struggle between two strong characters. Romance heroines today often are very, very, very wimpy. The hero gets tamed by the power of her perfection. Geez, how dull, for me.
Think of Sam and Diane in Cheers. That is a power struggle. Watch any old movie and you will see the hero and heroine at odds right up till the end. (Have you seen “It Happened One Night”?) Think of Princess Leia and Han Solo. They’re downright insulting to each other. It’s sexy. That’s what’s being lost. Two characters who can dish it out and take it.
I’m not attracted to wimps and I’m not terribly nice and sweet to every man I meet. Everyone’s different and more power to the people who aren’t like me, but for me, yes, there is a power struggle inherent in sexual attraction and it’s just human nature not to surrender yourself without a fight. Why does the discussion have to be reduced to the lowest common denominator (rape)?
Robin said on 09.29.06 at 12:10 AM • [link]
For those of you who oject to bebe’s formulation, are you objecting to 1) the guarantee of an HEA or 2) her point about having no guarantee that you won’t be challenged by what you read. Because IMO those are two VERY different things.
Although I don’t believe the HEA is definitionally required by Romance (albeit expected by many readers), I’m willing to accept the HEA if I can only have some more ambiguity, thoughtfulness, provocative themes and characters and issues, complexity, moral contemplation, and subversion in my Romance. I don’t like absolutely EVERYTHING to find a neat little resolution, even in Romance. I realize not every reader is like that, but for me, anyway, entertainment and thinking are not mutually exclusive (except, of course, if I’m thinking about school or work or the Middle Eastern crisis).
Nora Roberts said on 09.29.06 at 12:33 AM • [link]
~For those of you who oject to bebe’s formulation, are you objecting to 1) the guarantee of an HEA or 2) her point about having no guarantee that you won’t be challenged by what you read. Because IMO those are two VERY different things.~
The HEA. I think many books in the genre challenge or have challenged the reader. But that reader, when selecting, specifically, a Romance novel, knows the framework, knows she will get a HEA. She doesn’t know how the writer, and the characters, will take her there.
And the HEA is, absolutely, a definitive constant of the genre. Whether it’s subtle or overt, complex or by that point simple depends entirely on the writer—and always most importantly—the story.
You don’t have to accept the HEA. You simply have to accept that in Romance, the genre of Romance, you’re going to get it.
In the early 80’s Silhouette opened, hoping to revolutionize category Romance. They did. But they did so by twisting the category framework—maintaining that framework—but Americanizing it. The constants remained constant.
If in my the first book of my current trilogy where I killed off a sympathetic character, I’d chosen to kill off the hero, I would have betrayed the genre and the reader expectation thereof. If I had needed to do so, story-wise, then I would, without question, have made it as clear as I could, in as many ways as I could, that this book was NOT Romance.
If you don’t have the HEA, the story slides off that umbrella of Romance into another area. And that’s fine.
I guess I don’t understand why any reader, dissatisfied with the framework, the form, the constants of the genre feels the genre itself should adjust for her needs, rather than she seek her satisfaction in another area of fiction.
azteclady said on 09.29.06 at 12:36 AM • [link]
Robin, for me it’s the first. I need some sort of happy ending to be satisfied myself with the romance.
In fact, and as long as the conflict is realistic in my eyes, you can make the protagonist go through as many and as high hoops as you want. Give me all the intensity you want, all the grittiness you want, and as long as I know there will be a happy ending, I’ll be happy myself. The perfect example of this is, again, Cry No More by Linda Howard. Or for more realistic obstacles and conflict, something like Flowers from the Storm, by Laura Kinsale. Justine Davis has a couple of old categories in which the hero is handicapped (Left at the Altar, The Morning Side of Dawn). Suzanne Brockmann has one too (Frisco’s Kid). I don’t want the author to shy away from the realities of life, but I do want to know, when I start a romance, that the protagonists will find happiness—preferably the kind that lasts.
But to make me love these people just to leave them hanging? I, personally, can’t take it. (My one gripe with Joss Whedon’s Serenity is about Wash, to give you guys an idea) That, incidentally, is why I can’t read Nicholas Spark’s books. Beautifully written or not, romantic as hell or not: they are too sad for me. Casablanca is a wonderfully romantic movie, but it is more romantic fiction than romance, IMO.
Robin said on 09.29.06 at 01:00 AM • [link]
Here’s where I’m coming from on the HEA debate: when Jan Butler came forward arguing that by definition Romance was about one man and one woman, the RWA definition was forwarded as rebuttal. So now, when I argue that Romance does not, by definition, require an HEA, and I put forward the RWA definition, which only requires an “optimistic” and “emotionally satisfying” ending, I’m guilty of torquing the genre to fit my own requirements? No offense, but I have a problem with that.
Michelle said on 09.29.06 at 01:26 AM • [link]
In my opinion Romance as meant today does require a HEA. That is what separates it from general fiction or chicklit. I know Katie MacAlister warned her readers that her Aisling Gray series should not be considered romance but more adventure/paranormal because each book most definately does not end happily/more like a cliff hanger.
In regard to an earlier post, if the hero murders the heroine he better have a pretty damn good explanation.
In regards to heros being asses, Mercedes Lackey’s The Fairy Godmother handles this really well. To teach the hero his lesson, he is actually turned into a donkey/ass. Pretty funny.
cassie said on 09.29.06 at 01:52 AM • [link]
Heh. Well, it is Whedon. I figured something like that would happen, and I think it was necessary. Whedon has said that if there’s a sequel the entire cast will be part of it.
Um, nothing to add to the actual topic. Except that I’ve always thought that romance novels have an HEA, and that sometimes I like hopeful or ambiguous endings that are not entirely HEA. I’ll pretty much go with whatever fits the story.
snarkhunter said on 09.29.06 at 02:10 AM • [link]
I just don’t have time to read this entire fabulous discussion (work is calling…), so if I’m just repeating everyone, I apologize.
Ana, Tonda, Nora, Kerry, Lorelai—I think all of you have made fantastic points.
I was thinking about the term “forced seduction,” which I think is in itself a little misleading. Using the term “forced” automatically stacks the deck against the concept for most of us, I imagine, b/c it is laden with images of physical assault. “Force” implies total unwillingness, for me at least, on the part of the person being forced.
Seduction, however, automatically implies a certain (often psuedo-)reluctance on one side. If the other person was ready to go straight off, you wouldn’t need the seduction. The power plays are still there, if you’re into that. There’s definite persuasion. But persuasion means that the other person capitulates totally under their own power. So even when the seduction is more physical, when Character A has stopped struggling against Character B’s embrace and has started kissing Character B back, Character A is almost always responding in a way that says she’s willing, she’s ready to go, she’s not being forced, though it may look that way at first. (Unless, of course, she’s only trying to lower his defenses so that she can knee him in the balls. I like my heroines kick-ass, too.)
Does that make sense? I’m all about the seduction, but adding the term “forced seduction” just seems a little bit risky, as to me, at least, that’s just a veiled rape.
Alison Kent said on 09.29.06 at 02:29 AM • [link]
So now, when I argue
that Romance does not, by definition, require an HEA, and I put forward the
RWA definition, which only requires an “optimistic” and “emotionally
satisfying” ending, I’m guilty of torquing the genre to fit my own
requirements?
The RWA definition defines the genre for the organization’s needs only. They have no sway on what a publisher puts on the spine of a book. The organization doesn’t define the genre for the market. Readers do that, and readers (for the most part) want an HEA - which can run the gamut of “let’s see where this goes” to “let’s get married and have babies.”
Nancy Gee said on 09.29.06 at 02:33 AM • [link]
Conflict? Yes, please, because there’s no story without it. To paraphrase, happy people are all alike; reading about a happy couple meeting, recognizing that they love each other, and proceeding smoothly to the romantic denouement would be, well, boring. I’d like to see them fighting the relationship, or each other, before the Grand Realization.
But a HEA? That requires a heavy investment in the fantasy, and I’m not always up to it. I’d rather read the “emotionally satisfying” ending. They’re less likely to have me thinking later, “Well, sure, they’re happy NOW, but wait until Real Life kicks in…” I want a realistic ending, and if that’s a wedding, fine, but if it’s a “see you next year”, then that’s fine, too.
Part of that is my preference for not knowing the ending of the book in advance. It lessens the pleasure of the reading for me, at least on a first read, to not be able to anticipate how the plot will work out. I much prefer the uncertainty of something that’s not predetermined.
And to be frank, I can only take so much “love conquers all” before I scurry back to other genres. Love doesn’t conquer all, at least not in my neck of the woods, and it gets depressing to read book after book that insists it should.
Like candy, or wine, or any rich/sweet food, it’s fine in moderate doses. But not as the whole diet. So *some* HEAs for me, but on the whole, I’d prefer something more “satisfying.”
bebe said on 09.29.06 at 02:41 AM • [link]
I definitely get the point that a genre is defined- and needs to be defined- which is why I really don’t think you can have your cake and eat it too (i.e. we can’t define the genre and give authors absolute freedom at the same time). But you only have to whip out the OED to see that definitions themselves evolve. If the strictures of the genre become tedious—who says they have to stay the way they are? Of course, if they are just tedious to me—I know there are plenty of other choices out there. But there is a difference between reading general fiction and reading romance—and I like the difference. I just don’t like everything about the difference. That may be bending the genre to fit my needs, but aren’t the readers’ needs what make the genre what it is? They’ve got to be at least 50%. The other being the writers. You have to have both to make it work. Naturally, it would be the readers’ needs that fall into the majority that would actually get met. But it’s no reason for those of us in the minority to not speak up.
That being said. Maybe the real question is whether or not the genre would still exist were the HEA stricture to be removed. I don’t see why it wouldn’t. There is still a big difference between general fiction and romance without taking the HEA into consideration.
Robin said on 09.29.06 at 03:03 AM • [link]
The RWA definition defines the genre for the organization’s needs only. They have no sway on what a publisher puts on the spine of a book. The organization doesn’t define the genre for the market. Readers do that, and readers (for the most part) want an HEA - which can run the gamut of “let’s see where this goes†to “let’s get married and have babies.â€
So if tomorrow readers (for the most part) say that they want only virgin heroines that’s the generic definition of Romance? Or how about readers saying that want only heterosexual relationships to account for Romance? Same rules apply? What about only white people falling in love? Or LIVING people (no more vampire Romance)?
I agree that reader expectations help shape a genre, but are you seriously arguing that a genre is defined by what the presumed majority expects? That seems even more unstable than the broad definition offered by the RWA. And I’m not sure what it means for a writer’s organization to have a generic definition only for “organizational purposes,” especially if one of the purposes of said organization is to represent the genre to the public (via the fascinating press packet they offer). Granted, I’ve found some of the ways in which the RWA does its polling to be a little whacky, but the RWA generic definition is the only formalistic one we seem to have—from the official Romance writers organization—such that even Wikipedia uses it.
What I personally like about the RWA definition is that while it comfortably allows for the HEA and is specific enough to exclude LOTS and LOTS of other types of fiction, it seems open enough that if the genre continues to evolve, a novel that focuses on the romantic love relationship but ends with anything less than HEA (and let’s keep in mind that HEA means happily ever after, which is a pretty high standard of happiness and perfection) can still formalistically be Romance. I don’t understand what’s so threatening about that, especially since I imagine that there will still be plenty of books written and published that will have that HEA. It seems to me that the central focus on the romantic love relationship has always been the core of the Romance genre, and that, coupled with an optimistic ending, is a clear enough definition of Romance to distinguish it from other genres.
One of the things I liked about SEP’s Ain’t She Sweet, is that in the Epilogue (I usually hate those, but she does something clever with hers) the narrator insists that Sugar Beth and Colin’s life was “good but not perfect”—because happiness did not come gently or easily to either of those characters, together or apart, and I appreciated that SEP honored what she has created for those two to begin with.
I used to want Laura Kinsale to write an epilogue to Seize the Fire that showed Sheridan and Olympia in their “happy” place—but as I’ve read more in the genre, I’m glad she ended the book where she did, because I think it suits the characters and the story. But you’d never convince me that STF ISN’T a Romance. IMO it’s one of the most romantic books I’ve read in the genre.
martina said on 09.29.06 at 03:10 AM • [link]
First, I have to say I agree completely with Bebe and Robin, especially on this:
“I’m willing to accept the HEA if I can only have some more ambiguity, thoughtfulness, provocative themes and characters and issues, complexity, moral contemplation, and subversion in my Romance.”
The reason why I’ve almost abandoned the romance genre is because everything is too safe, too plain, too linear, almost mechanical.
Yes, I want a story where I know there’s going to be a HEA, and I want a story where the relationship between H/H is the main focus.
But that doesn’t mean I want a tired repetition of the same plot devices and standard characters over and over again.
I can’t find what I want in FICTION because fiction is not giving enough space to the RELATIONSHIP (=love story).
And when I find one that actually does, it happens to be a saga that can’t even get regularly published in the US. (I’m referring to the Paullina Simon’s saga that starts with The Bronze Horseman).
I believe that what I want should be found in romance, not in FICTION. If what I want is essentially a love story, why shouldn’t I expect it from the romance genre? Isn’t romance about love?
The romance genre right now is choke full of limitations: historical limitations (the WW1 and WW2 period is forbidden), geographical limitations (why 90% of historicals has to be set in England?!), word count limitations (god forbid we don’t finish our book in one evening), PC limitations (and the issue is not only rape), and the list could go on.
The romance genre has so much potential, but I believe that too many people (editors, publishers, readers, authors) are simply killing it.
It IS possible to create romances like those described by Robin and Bebe, and still follow the 2 “great rules of romance” as defined by RWA.
If anyone wants to believe the opposite, I’d say this person is only trying to belittle and stifle romance as a genre.
Alison Kent said on 09.29.06 at 04:08 AM • [link]
And
I’m not sure what it means for a writer’s organization to have a generic
definition only for “organizational purposes,”
This was all discussed a couple of years ago when the first talks of defining were making the rounds. I don’t have time to search all the blog posts about it, and I don’t keep my RWR magazines, but it has something to do with the organization’s status as a non-profit and what that entails about what they offer and to whom, etc. A board member would have a real answer.
So if tomorrow readers (for the most part) say that they want only virgin
heroines that’s the generic definition of Romance? Or how about readers
saying that want only heterosexual relationships to account for Romance?
Same rules apply? What about only white people falling in love? Or LIVING
people (no more vampire Romance)?
Isn’t that what trends are? Vamps are here today and will be gone tomorrow, etc.? Majority rule? :)
Bowing out now because I have books to write!
sherryfair said on 09.29.06 at 04:21 AM • [link]
Rant on, Laura Kinsale, rant on—even if I disagree with some of the particulars of your rant, particularly about political correctness. Do everything it takes to protect whatever it is inside you that inspires you to write your wonderful books. Please, avert your eyes from any posts on this site or any other that might cause you to dumb down your wonderfully complex characters or change in any way the books you’ve been writing. Keep giving me characters like Xenia and Allegreto and Jervaulx. Don’t think about the readers at all, if you don’t want to. Or scold them periodically, if you think they deserve it. I’ll put up with that, yes, even if we don’t see eye-to-eye, because I’m fascinated by the people you’ve created. I’m not looking in the pages of your books for the hero of my dreams or even someone who’s marriage material as I’d define it in 2006. What I’m seeking is an amazing character study of two really interesting, rather flawed people in love, and their interplay as they figure out how to make a relationship work.
As a matter of fact, I’ve often loved books where the relationship **didn’t** work, or the characters parted at the end. And yes, this means I don’t read as much in the genre as some true devotees. But when I find a writer in the genre whom I do like, I’m a very reliable sale every time she publishes a new book. It’s a Kinsale I’m after, not a romance. I don’t care where they shelve you. This reader’s buying by the author, not by the genre or the HEA.
So I’ll agree to disagree with some of your theories, Ms. Kinsale—some, though probably not all, but most definitely a good part of the theory that’s linked to here. But damn, I love your books. You believe whatever you need to believe, to get them written. And I’ll believe whatever I need to believe, to get by in this life. And I’ll keep buying anything I can find with your name on the spine, so long as the quality remains the same.
ammie said on 09.29.06 at 05:35 AM • [link]
Wow, I came late to the party again, drat.
I’ve actually thought about this. Here’s my train of thought. Written sex scenes are boring when it’s just about sex, because, really who wants to read about two people just gettin’ on. I mean you have, we all have, and it’s dreadful. I usually just skip it. But when an author injects conflict into the sex scene… now that’s sexy. Because there’s actually something at stake… someone may lose, someone may lose, something has to change afterwards, it moves the plot forward, reveals something about character… This is what books are about—conflict. Why should sex scenes be exempt from that requirement? You wouldn’t plot a book with no turning points, no conflict.
On a side note: I’m not talking about rape scenes. I know that the rape thing is a poor way to express conflict, we know to much about its actual affects, and reconciling it involves preposterous convolutions, but personality driven power plays—I’m all for it, well, not full on BDSM, but more subtly…sure.
ammie said on 09.29.06 at 05:51 AM • [link]
Okay, I’m going to do one more because I read Candy’s post and at first I thought you were spot on. Attributing this to PC sensibilities is totally off the mark. It reduces the whole discussion to differences of opinion rather than what it should be about: GOOD WRITING. Which could lead to your argument about homogeni.uflecting? Homogenizing? Oh, pass, you know what I mean.
I disagree with that. I don’t think that’s what it is. I think it’s this new trend to express woman power by having heroines treat sex as if it merited as much thought as accepting a dinner date.
If there’s nothing at stake, there’s no conflict, and the whole thing is boring.
But, I would like to ask—Is it just me? Is it because I’m forty? Am I just missing something? Do young women today think of sex as something to liven up a boring evening? Do young women actually behave like the heroines of Blaze, Temptation romances? Just fall into bed on a bet or a whim?
ammie said on 09.29.06 at 06:04 AM • [link]
I mean sober.
Wry Hag said on 09.29.06 at 08:20 AM • [link]
There’s a clear and simple, albeit cynical, bottom line here: Readers get what they deserve. All the shrieking and sniveling in the world—by individual writers and/or readers and/or critics—is not going to change what publishers put out there. Once they determine, based on sales, that certain types of fiction elements—plots, characters, conflicts, etc.—have broad appeal, they’re gonna pump out the pap for which people are shelling out the biggest bucks and sweep the rest aside, smugly assuming the rest has little or no appeal or might even be repellant.
Any preference analyses that aren’t reduceable to dollars don’t realistically mean shit. So if you want to shake things up, put your money where your mouth is.
Robin said on 09.29.06 at 08:22 AM • [link]
Isn’t that what trends are? Vamps are here today and will be gone tomorrow, etc.? Majority rule?
But aren’t trends different than rules? Rules are about can and can’t, while trends about about variations within a form. Right now we have multiple trends within the genre, but when someone says that Romance is defined by the HEA, and that the definition is based on what readers say, that’s a whole different thing, isn’t it?
This was all discussed a couple of years ago when the first talks of defining were making the rounds. I don’t have time to search all the blog posts about it, and I don’t keep my RWR magazines, but it has something to do with the organization’s status as a non-profit and what that entails about what they offer and to whom, etc. A board member would have a real answer.
Oh, I completely believe that there was a procedural element to the creation of a definition; after all, in order to be a constitutional democracy, the US had to go through the procedure of writing and ratifying a constitution. But there are also substantive aspects to it, at well (just like we don’t say that what’s written in the US constitution isn’t important); otherwise, why would it have been such a big deal that some folks wanted it changed to specifically limit the definition to m/f couples?
I realize that a lot of people don’t really pay attention to the formalities of generic definition, but coming from a Humanities background, I’ve found such definitions to be pretty important when it comes to classifying forms of literature. Sonnets, for example, have really strict formal requirements, while literary fiction doesn’t. But then again, a lot of people don’t even see lit fic as a genre, which may have to do with the lack of articulated formal limits. With so much hybridization of different genres (fantasy with Romance, sci-fi with mysteries, etc.), it will be interesting to see how—and if—generic defintions evolve. As far as I can tell, Romance is the only genre where the central focus is on a romantic love relationship, which IMO is what makes it essentially distinctive.
Lorelie said on 09.29.06 at 09:02 AM • [link]
Whim? Not quite. “Wow, he’s yummy, I’ll take some of that” with no thought towards long term or even anything resembling a relationship? Sometimes. I ended up marrying one of mine. :D
(P.S. I’ve found myself quite offended by some of the asides that have come up about the military and enemy combatants. We are not all scum. The actions of a few should not reflect on the rest. I used to be in the Army and I know a lot of soldiers and the vast majority are good men and women doing the best they can. Romance readers get pissed if we’re all categorized as brainless idiots, don’t do it to other groups.)
Nora Roberts said on 09.29.06 at 12:48 PM • [link]
~It IS possible to create romances like those described by Robin and Bebe, and still follow the 2 “great rules of romance†as defined by RWA.
If anyone wants to believe the opposite, I’d say this person is only trying to belittle and stifle romance as a genre.~
I don’t think I’ve ever, by word, work or deed done anything to belittle or stifle Romance as a genre. Got a big, giant objection to this statement.
I maintain that the HEA is and always has been a constant in the genre—and by HEA, I maintain that the lovers are, at the end of the story, commited to each other, are together. It’s rare that I’d say an epilogue showing wedding bells or the baby boom to be necessary. I want the characters to convince me during the course of the story that they’re going to stick.
Perfect isn’t part of the deal, or one of the constants that frame the genre. Relationships aren’t perfect, and ideally, the characters would have shown they will love, they will stick despite imperfections. People do.
If you read exclusively or primarily Romance, odds are you will get tired of it from time to time simply because of the framework, and seek stories on another. And odds are you’ll come back to it from time to time because as a reader, you’ll want what Romance offers.
I’d wager that the `emotionally satisfying’ ending as defined by RWA wouldn’t include—for the vast majority of those who read and write it—one of the lovers dying, or the lovers parting at the end of the book.
I’ll point out that my books have Fiction on the spine, but are shelved in Romance. This, I’d think, goes right back to reader expectation, which goes in the largest part to defining the genre. The reader expects the constants of Romance in my books. How I work those constants, how I build on that framework is my job and my concern.
Nancy Gee said on 09.29.06 at 01:11 PM • [link]
And yet… some of the most romantic tales have distinctly UNhappy endings, or at least endings in which the protagonists do not wind up together. The Ghost and Mrs. Muir. Truly, Madly, Deeply. Both end with separated lovers. Even (shudder, because it’s such a horror of teen stupidity) Romeo and Juliet. Or Titanic.
All of those (except R&J, of course) have the survivor continuing without the loved one, but the endings are considered appropriate, and yes, romantic. (Especially TMD, with Alan Rickman weeping at the window. *sniffle*)
So what we have is some people saying that a romantic, very romantic, story that validates the strangth of a loving connection is not necessarily Romance, right? Which blows my mind.
Nora Roberts said on 09.29.06 at 01:52 PM • [link]
I’ll say first that if you’ve watched a movie or read a book, you can call it whatever you like. It’s your experience.
But while, say R&J, is romantic, it’s not a Romance. It’s a love story. More accurately a tragic love story. Those crazy kids.
TMD—just fabulous. I love this movie. It’s wrenching romantic, but essentially the story of how these two people—TMD in love—have to learn to move on. Gorgeous love story.
The Ghost and Mrs. M—not a favorite of mine, and I’ve only seen the movie. In that, they do go off together at the end. They’re just both dead.
Titanic? Why the hell didn’t she pull Leo onto that raft? Why the hell didn’t she donate that big, fat diamond to charity or something instead of tossing it in the ocean? Think of all the little children without shoes who could have been shod in kiddie Manolos. THAT’S a tragedy, imo.
All the above indicate to me that there are wonderful, romantic, well-done, love stories outside the genre to satisfy those who want the emotion, the romance without nec requiring the HEA.
Laura Vivanco said on 09.29.06 at 02:17 PM • [link]
So what we have is some people saying that a romantic, very romantic, story that validates the strangth of a loving connection is not necessarily Romance, right? Which blows my mind.
In the UK there’s the Romantic Novelists’ Association. They include writers of both romantic and romance fiction. In the UK it seems that there must be more people who prefer ‘romantic’ fiction than in the US, i.e. stories which are about romantic relationships but without the necessity for an optimistic ending for the 2 lovers, and maybe more sagas (i.e. ongoing stories focussed on the heroine’s life and loves). In the US, it seems that romance, as strictly defined by the RWA is more popular than it is in the UK. That’s just my impression from comparing what’s available bookshops in the UK with the lists of romances published in the US that I can see online, and from comparing the RNA with the RWA.
Something romantic can be tragic, but ‘romance fiction’ guarantees a happy feeling for the reader at the end.
martina said on 09.29.06 at 03:24 PM • [link]
~I maintain that the HEA is and always has been a constant in the genre—and by HEA, I maintain that the lovers are, at the end of the story, commited to each other, are together. ~
I think I haven’t made my point clear, and I’m sorry. What I meant is that even with a traditional HEA it is possible to get a romance such as described by Robin:
~if I can only have some more ambiguity, thoughtfulness, provocative themes and characters and issues, complexity, moral contemplation, and subversion in my Romance.~
or by Bebe:
~no guarantee that you won’t be disturbed or saddened or angered by what you read. ~
My point was never on the ending, but on the 400 pages that come before :D
I’ve always read many genres of novels and still I had to abandon the romance genre because there was too much similarity between plots, characters and even writing styles and voices. Because of the limitations and the plainness I’ve written about in my previous post.
This is something I’d notice regardless of how many mainstream or literary novels I’ve read.
Reading other genres didn’t erase from my mind what romances usually are like. It’s that simple :D
Actually, it’s reading FICTION that made me realize even more how the romance potential has been stifled. And again, my problem is not with the ending, but with the entire book.
Of course there are exceptions, but in my opinion they’re not enough.
Ann Aguirre said on 09.29.06 at 05:28 PM • [link]
I don’t think too much of, “Will readers like it?” when I’m writing. That doesn’t occur to me until it’s in my agent’s hands and I’m supposed to be writing something new. Even then, I can’t think of it much or it will torpedo my ability to move forward with the new project.
Tonda/Kalen said on 09.29.06 at 05:37 PM • [link]
<styles and voices.
This can be applied to pretty much every genre. There will always be stellar writers in every genre that rise to the top and then a slew of imitators who ride their coattails. Look at sci-fi/fantasy (which is what I grew up reading). So much dreck over there, but so many gems as well. You just have to accept that if you’re reading genre fiction you’ll have to wade through some books that won’t please you to find the ones that will (of that’s been my experience, anyway).
The formula is isn’t the problem, mediocre writing and derivative plots are.
Mistress Stef said on 09.29.06 at 05:47 PM • [link]
I took the rant to mean that being put under constraints keeps authors from being able to write the books they want. Should that be the interpetation…
A prime example is a book I just published. Bearing in mind I’m erotica/erotic romance, romance epress, which others have said do tend to be more relaxed.
The author wrote it originally with the heroine meeting a very nasty end—a harsh rape scene by the “establishment”. It fit the storyline—it’s a sci fi with a similar feel to 1984.
The previous publishers required the ending be changed. The new ending didn’t suit the story at all, or the writer’s style. It was certainly more PC, but not as good a piece of writing. The author had done a magnificent job with that scene in context with the story and getting into the heroine’s head, and it was a literal shame when it was replaced. You could SEE the cuts.
When she offered me the title, I told her I wanted the original ending.
She was fine with it, but told me I’d probably get a public flogging for pubbing it.
Another notch on my GSTH belt. I’m cool with that. I was told that by another author previously, and instead of being attacked by hate mail, it was a great seller.
I refuse to sacrifice good writing just because somebody might not like it. There are places I will not go, but I think if you gag writers from the start, you’re not getting their best work.
In a very long nutshell, if it’s good writing and truly has to do the with the story and isn’t just in there so people will go whoo-hoo, I think it should be at least considered. Even if it may squick some people.
In all honesty, I’ve seen freakier stuff going on in mainstream books. Anyone else remember the scene in Kiss The Girls involving the the warm milk and the snake? Hello.
However—knowing your market is a good thing to keep in mind. If you want to write a Regency and market it as a Regency, then you may have to accept those boundaries. If you want to write something else, find the right genre and hit it.
Ann Aguirre said on 09.29.06 at 05:50 PM • [link]
What is GSTH?
I’m sure my first guess is wrong. (Gay Superhero Tastes Hotdogs)
azteclady said on 09.29.06 at 05:59 PM • [link]
Tonda/Kalen said,
Precisely.
Probably because I read less volume—tight budget makes for highly selective purchases—my experience has been much more satisfying than that of many voracious romance readers. I have managed to find many more excellent (IMO—this is, after all, subjective) romance novels in which the writer has managed to push boundaries and break ground, all the while guaranteeing me a happy ending, as defined earlier by Nora Roberts:
By the way, I have been careful in this discussion to say protagonists vs hero/heroine, and happy ending vs HEA precisely because I don’t want cookie cutter, rose-colored glass perfection. I want more. And my favorite authors have so far delivered in spades.
spam foiler: ever46—think the universe is telling me something? ;)
Mistress Stef said on 09.29.06 at 06:00 PM • [link]
Reference to a previous thread on here about those of us who belong to the Going Straight To Hell Club. I have my art department working on tees.
Ann Aguirre said on 09.29.06 at 06:08 PM • [link]
Ohhh! Yeah, I signed up for a shirt. I didn’t recognize the acronym. My next guess was Girl Scouts Take Hostages.
Robin said on 09.29.06 at 06:42 PM • [link]
I’m sorry that you’ve felt offended, Lorie. Where have you seen any comments here suggesting that the military “are all scum” or that soldiers are scum? Any of us who have or do read Brockmann’s books can’t be military haters, can we (what a masochistic experience that would be!)? I agree completely with your characterization of most soldiers and respect anyone who is willing to give their life to defend this country.
But there are aspects of the “war on terror” that, as an American, offend and appall me. And then there is a veil of secrecy, an admonition not to talk about it, that, IMO, violates the most sacred thing about being an American, namely the right to political dissent that brought this country into existence in the first place (the Founding Fathers would have been hanged in Britain as traitors). The Congressional Research Service report on enemy combatants has expressed concern over the administration’s position on the Geneva Convention. Even the Supreme Court has weighed in on the “enemy combatant” issue (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507) with concern over how far the government is going. I actually felt some warm tinglies for Scalia after that decision, which, I can honestly say, has never happened before.
This politics business is no easy thing, but please understand that my criticism of certain actions of the military and the administration do not translate to a disrespect for the duties of the soldier. Quite the opposite in fact—but that’s a wholly different discussion.
Nora Roberts said on 09.29.06 at 07:38 PM • [link]
~Anyone else remember the scene in Kiss The Girls involving the the warm milk and the snake? Hello.~
This was the last scene I’ve ever read by Patterson. Shut the book right there, never opened another. I know my limits as a reader.
~However—knowing your market is a good thing to keep in mind. If you want to write a Regency and market it as a Regency, then you may have to accept those boundaries. If you want to write something else, find the right genre and hit it. ~
Absolutely agree—just as I’d say if you want to read something else, do the same.
The genre doesn’t constrain good writing, good characterization. It doesn’t negate interesting conflicts or squeeze out complexity. All those things are up to the writer—and the demands of the story to be told.
Not all books—even maybe the bulk of books—published in any genre are going to be wonderful. And what’s wonderful is subjective, per the readers’ wants, mood, taste, expectations.
Stef said on 09.29.06 at 07:42 PM • [link]
Mistress Stef, where do I send my money for the tee?
I’m a bit cross-eyed from 3 - or is it 4 now? - days of straight reading. Last count, I’m up to 12 books. All romances, all historicals, all Regencies. I won’t get into which ones, but it does strike me odd that the very best I read has a copyright of 1994. Twelve years ago. Not sure I’ve ever re-read a book, but damned if I don’t think I’ll pick this one up again in a few months and do just that, it was that good. (Loretta Chase - okay, so I’m behind a little…)
I read/skimmed a new to me author last night that would, I suppose, be considered a wallpaper historical. She incorporated a lot of history, however, so maybe not? I wound up skimming the second half of the book because it just wasn’t a satisfying read. To be frank, I was astounded that it got published. But it did, and this author evidently sells well, if her backlist is anything to go by.
The difference in romances, even within the same subgenre, is wide and varied. I’ve been thinking this morning about why the Loretta Chase appealed to me so much more than the book I read last night - in the context of LK’s essay. I guess I can sum it up by a food analogy - I seem to do that a lot. It’s like the difference between a five star restaurant and McDonalds. If you’re hungry, McDonalds will make you not so. But if you want an ‘experience’, something memorable, a feast for the senses, the five star joint is miles away from Mickey D’s.
On the face of it, these two books are very similar. Regency setting, high flying aristocrats, scandal, etc. The difference is all in the telling - Chase’s book was clever, the characters three-dimensional, the dialogue - OMG, the dialogue! - was fabulous. The sex scenes made sense - they fit with the characters. The other book? I wish I’d counted how many times I said, aloud, “Oh for God’s sake, you’ve GOT to be kidding me!”
Still, I can’t say that the Chase book pushed any envelopes, or that the hero and heroine were hugely different than those in other Regencies. So why the gigantic spread in my opinion?
It really is all about the writing. That’s not to say that I don’t agree with a large part of what Kinsale said. But to go a step further, if books are now held to a standard of current sensibilities - PC, if you have to go that far - it can still be an interesting, stay up until 3 a.m. to finish it kind of book.
I would therefore put forth the idea that there’s not so much a shortage of non watered down romances as there’s a perhaps a shortage of truly talented writers. That sounds harsh, and I don’t mean it to be, but really, with the number of romances published each year, can every romance writer pen a riveting, stay up all night read? Odds are, no.
Mistress Stef said on 09.29.06 at 08:59 PM • [link]
‘Mistress Stef, where do I send my money for the tee?’
I bugged my financial officer to make some designs and get our store up—I’ll holler when it’s ready.
‘This was the last scene I’ve ever read by Patterson. Shut the book right there, never opened another. I know my limits as a reader.’
Shame, too, because he’s great at the mystery part, once you get past the freaky stuff.
‘Not all books—even maybe the bulk of books—published in any genre are going to be wonderful. And what’s wonderful is subjective, per the readers’ wants, mood, taste, expectations.’
You just perfectly summed up the publisher’s dilemma and an often asked
question: what is a good book?
Answer: Depends.
NOBODY knows what the next big seller is, which is why chances need to be taken. JK Rowlings, Stephen King, James Patterson—rejected by many, then one took a chance.
The Publisher Lottery. You got to be in it to win it.
Ann Aguirre said on 09.29.06 at 09:24 PM • [link]
I saw the movie, didn’t read the book. Angelina Jolie, Morgan Freeman, yeah? Did the cut the snake thing for the movie? Because I can’t remember anything about that.
Ann Aguirre said on 09.29.06 at 09:25 PM • [link]
No, that was Ashley Judd. Angelina was in the other one. Still, what gives on the snake?
Mistress Stef said on 09.29.06 at 09:29 PM • [link]
‘No, that was Ashley Judd. Angelina was in the other one. Still, what gives on the snake?’
The Bone Collector? Different author.
Nah, there’s no way they could have put it in the movie. The victim was tied up and given a milk enema. The snake followed, mouth sewn shut.
Robin said on 09.29.06 at 09:43 PM • [link]
OMG, Mistress Stef, I wish you have put a warning on your last post. I am one of those people who cannot stand (i.e. I am a wimp of the first order) to read about a lot of the sick things people do to one another (especially involving snakes), and while I’m sure actually reading that scene would have been way more traumatizing, WARNING to anyone else squeamish who is viewing this thread in reverse (Laura V, this means you!)— you may want to skip Mistress Stef’s post that begins with the reference to Ashley Judd.
Mistress Stef said on 09.29.06 at 09:48 PM • [link]
Oops, sorry, my bad.
Maybe the SBs can put a foot in mouth warning on that one.
Lorelie said on 09.29.06 at 09:55 PM • [link]
and
These are the two comments that tripped my trigger. And now, having stepped back a few hours and chilled out a bit, I see my response was a bit excessive. For that, I apologise. I’ve been a bit stressed out lately, since my husband was injured on an airborne operation and can’t help much around the house.
And yet, I think sometimes that the public in general sees the military as Bush’s puppet, with never a thought that many of us don’t agree with his politics or policies. . . .
Lorelie said on 09.29.06 at 10:01 PM • [link]
It probably says something very disturbing about me that I now want to go read Kiss the Girls. . .
Mistress Stef said on 09.29.06 at 10:05 PM • [link]
‘And now, having stepped back a few hours and chilled out a bit, I see my response was a bit excessive. For that, I apologise.’
Well, at least you didn’t freak Robin out by posting about snakes. So you’re not too bad off.
‘It probably says something very disturbing about me that I now want to go read Kiss the Girls. . . ‘
No, just shows the marketing basis behind epubs pushing the envelope on content.
Laura Vivanco said on 09.29.06 at 10:45 PM • [link]
WARNING to anyone else squeamish who is viewing this thread in reverse (Laura V, this means you!)— you may want to skip Mistress Stef’s post that begins with the reference to Ashley Judd.
Thanks, Robin, it was very kind of you to think of me. For this thread, though, I’d signed up to the ‘notify me of follow-up comments’, so by the time I got to your comment it was too late. Luckily, I have no visual imagination, so I don’t have any horrid images in my head. And the situation sounded so weird I couldn’t actually work out what was going on - and as I don’t want to work it out I just deleted the post. But thanks again for the warning. I really appreciate it.
Nancy Gee said on 09.29.06 at 11:03 PM • [link]
Well, hmm. Gotta have the HEA?
I guess I have to just admit that I’m not really a romance reader, then. I like romantic fiction, yeah, but none of my favorites (the ones I reread when I need a guaranteed good read) would conform to the classic HEA pattern.
I’ve had more enjoyment lately reading *about* romance novels than from reading the novels themselves. Must be getting jaded in my old age.
dl said on 09.29.06 at 11:25 PM • [link]
Eeew, that’s disgusting. Not sure I could enjoy a book that included that snake scene.
Ammie…Makes me wonder where the market is, who reads that stuff anyway? When I see a “Who’s Your Daddy” title, I imagine a market of pregnant readers that do not know who is the father of their child, are there that many of them? Is there a subculture of pregant woment running around having indescriminate sex? Are there still women who think a Sheik (sp?)is sexy? Foreign men of a different religion, who’s home country will not acknowledge American wives? Hmmm…doesn’t push any romantic buttons for me. Am I the only one that entertains myself imagining reader profiles for this stuff?
Anna…don’t feel bad, I didn’t catch the GSTH either and I’m in line for a shirt also. Especially deserve one now, our bible study speaker this week specifically mentioned the evils of romance novels from the podium…wonder what she would think of the gay romance I read last week?
Becca said on 09.29.06 at 11:51 PM • [link]
me, when I read romance or romantic suspense I gotta have that HEA - or at least happily for the forseeable future. I don’t require perfect bliss for the protagonists, just the sense that after all that work (i.e. conflict) that they’ll be happy. That’s partly why I read romance or it’s sub-genres, because I want that reassurance.
But I want it to be realistically happy: There has to be some basis in the characters’ personalities that makes me believe that they *can* be happy together in the long run, that their romance isn’t just hormones and endorphins.
(ps: reading the reviews of Laura Kinsale’s books, maybe I’ll go and look one up and try it. I’m a sucker for complex and rich characterizations. But I think I’ll avoid The Dream Hunter, however: too angsty for my tastes. Hell, Buffy was too angsty for my tastes sometimes.)
Lila Dubois said on 09.30.06 at 02:44 AM • [link]
I agree with Rinda (and many more I am sure) that I don’t want a romance where the characters can’t find a balance. The my-way-or-the-highway-bitch heroes make me want to stab the next Y chromosome possessor I see.
Maggie said on 09.30.06 at 05:08 PM • [link]
Maybe the genre definition is too small… because I see several clear definitions of romance books here. I’m sure there’s going to be intense disagreement with this, but I fear not the rant!
There’s this whole discussion of the HEA, but doesn’t that mean different things in different relationships? I noticed someone mentioned Buffy as being “too angsty” or something along those lines. Well, angst is at least real. I have to agree with Candy, I’m tired of the contrived feeling of these romances. Stop spinning the wheel and make it more realistic.
Why do we have to separate romance and erotica? Or romance and angst? Or romance and the hundred other issues we’ve been talking about? Aren’t they all components of a relationship, which is ostensibly what these books are about? Darkness and angst and “erotica” should be part of at least some “romance” novels.
Some people have very clear ideas about what they do and don’t want in a romance novel. That’s good. It’s always good to know what you like. Me? I like a good book. I’m just tired of seeing romance novels stuck into straitjackets, forced to fit a formula.
Mickle said on 10.02.06 at 03:14 AM • [link]
“Do young women today think of sex as something to liven up a boring evening?”
Sometimes.
Is this a bad thing?
Eva Gale said on 10.03.06 at 01:38 AM • [link]
First let me preface this by saying I did not get a chance to read ALL of the comments.
My thoughts are this.
When Kinsale’s Shadowheart came out she caught the shitstorm full in the face for having Allegreto enjoy Elena biting him while they nasty tangoed.
Women on her board called her sick, she even had a shrink yammering at her about how it was gross.
So, her post taken in that context comes out completely different, at least to me. I would venture to guess that alot of her readers think that BDSM is some horrid sexual torture and that a sub needs to have an exorcisim. Apparently her readership was not scarfing down EC BDSM titles. Maybe after that they did. Who knows?
Mistress Stef said on 10.03.06 at 01:43 AM • [link]
First designs for the GSTH (Going Straight To Hell) Club per requests:
http://www.mojocastle.com/store1/store1x.html
More to come.
Val said on 10.03.06 at 03:34 AM • [link]
RE: “Do young women today think of sex as something to liven up a boring evening?â€
Sometimes.
LMAO!!!! LOL LOL LOL You go girl!
Is this a bad thing?
Hell NO!!!!! LOL
Had to come out of lurkdome for this! Thought the same thing when I read that comment the other day.
dlr said on 10.03.06 at 12:14 PM • [link]
About a decade ago, after 20+ years as a romance reader, I started to drift from mainstream romance novels to Japanese romance manga because I felt the single title romance was shifting from the archetypal to the mundane. I realize how pejorative the latter term sounds, so I apologize in advance to readers whose preference is for sustainable, mutually supportive relationships between accomplished professionals. One sounds ridiculous arguing AGAINST that formula, but I missed the feisty virgins and the dissolute heroes they reformed. Manga publishers seem more willing to cater to the id.
Care to comment?
Comments are now closed for this post.
Subscribe to These Comments