Laura 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.
‘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.
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.
No, that was Ashley Judd. Angelina was in the other one. Still, what gives on the snake?
‘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.
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.
Oops, sorry, my bad.
Maybe the SBs can put a foot in mouth warning on that one.
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. . . .
It probably says something very disturbing about me that I now want to go read Kiss the Girls. . .
‘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.
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.
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.
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?
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.)
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.
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.
“Do young women today think of sex as something to liven up a boring evening?”
Sometimes.
Is this a bad thing?
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?
First designs for the GSTH (Going Straight To Hell) Club per requests:
http://www.mojocastle.com/store1/store1x.html
More to come.
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.
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.