Candy: Have you noticed that people, from loved ones to strangers on the Internet, will say things to you like, “Oh, you’ll like [X movie or Y book], it has a romance in it,” or make a disclaimer like “You might like this book, but it’s not really a romance.” It’s as if Romance as a genre has defined my media consumption patterns in many people’s heads, and they assume either that romances are all I like, or that I won’t enjoy something unless it features a love story.
Which is far, far, far from the truth. I enjoy reading love stories, yes, and I don’t have the spontaneous allergic reaction to girl cooties that seems to plague many people whenever a moment of tenderness rears its head in movies or books, but I can’t abide love stories that don’t fit.
Two recent examples that come to mind:
1. Silver and Leo in Lois McMaster Bujold’s Falling Free. The premise for the story was fantastic, the book as a whole was so-so, but the romantic sub-plot made me go “Buh?” It appeared out of nowhere, kind of toddled along half-assed, and then the curtains came down before we got to see the two of them actually interact in any substantial, romantically meaningful way.
2. Evie and V in the movie version of V for Vendetta. Now, I really, really like the movie, despite some of the incredibly muddled messages it sent and its lack of critical examination of V and his methods, but having Evie fall for V so abruptly and after all he’d put her through was unexpected and completely unnecessary—and not just that, it was CREEPY.
I don’t like romances that feel tacked on. If the arc and characters would’ve been fundamentally unchanged or actually improved if the romance hadn’t taken place, odds are good I’ll feel cranky, because I’ll feel manipulated. It’s as if the storytellers wanted to yank me around emotionally and went for one of the guaranteed cheap shots (the other major one being cute kids/animals in danger).
It’s not that I mind being manipulated—I’d argue that art attempts to manipulate very specific reaction from its viewers/consumers—but it peeves me when the storytellers are so unsubtle that I catch them in the process. This is why I don’t, as a general rule, like romantic comedies unless they’re kind of oddball, like Harold and Maude or The Royal Tannenbaums, or unless they’re really, really well-written and acted, like Say Anything.
In short: I’m perfectly happy enjoying stories that don’t feature romantic sub-plots. And it intrigues me that once people find out I like romance novels, they’re all “Oh, she must like X, Y or Z, because it has a romance in it.” Enjoying a good romance doesn’t mean I’ve lost all sense of discernment, and it certainly doesn’t mean that I won’t like something unless it’s heavy on the romance.
(Wow, I had to go back and count the negatives in that last clause to make sure I had it right. Hee.)
What do you think?
Sarah: I’ve been mulling your question for a few minutes and it’s odd. I rarely GET recommendations because people assume all I like is romance. My mother used to buy them by predominant color on the cover, ostensibly because they’re all the same and there’s no variation in quality (oh, for that to be true!) so they’re interchangeable. And really, if you read the cover copy, they do sound pretty much identical: There’s love! And hot sexx0ring! But there’s a problem! Will it survive? Of course it will but that’s not the point.
I agree with you, though, that love stories that Do Not Fit make me seethe with rage and ire. The example that stomps to the front of my brain is the shitfully awful Kate Beckinsale movie Underworld, which was so bad we call it ‘Underwear,’ where there was so much potential for coolness and it just sucked sucking suckyness. Vampire hunters, werewolves, war on the streets – and a love scene wedged in with one of those wood blocks you hold the door open with. The whole theatre groaned, and man did it bother me. I was kind of insulted as a fan of romance (even though this wasn’t your original point, bear with me) because you can just tack the lovey-dovey on expecting that it’ll fit, like all romance is, as I said, interchangeable (and as an overly-sensitive corollary, all us romance fans are too dumb to know the difference).
I agree with the “cheap shots” idea – like wedging a romance in with the elephants in the funny car won’t make a difference because romance sells in movies and books and tv (see above about how romance fans = too stoopid to know the difference between good and bad romance – hence the existence of our site).
And I’m with you that I’m perfectly happy to enjoy stories that aren’t romance. I have a love of crime dramas and forensic shows – this is because I can eat spaghetti and meatballs while watching an autopsy on tv – and I’m perfectly happy to watch them without the unneccessary and often stupid addition of workplace romance between the characters. (That said, I’m pleasantly surprised by the secrecy and low-key revelations of Grissom and Sara on CSI and I find myself praying the writers don’t wonk it all up. )
But is the over-addition and shoehorning of romance into any plot a question of attitude that romance is dumb and romance fans are dumb ergo it makes no nevermind to toss it in like a spice that makes little difference except in huge quantities? A question of potential profit, like romance + action = sex + gunfire and explosions = Big Money No Whammies?
Candy: I think it’s a bit of both, honestly. A shoehorned romantic subplot is often an attempt to appeal to a wider audience (usually the female portion), and let’s be honest here, most purveyors of mass media don’t tend to over-estimate the intelligence of their audiences, romance readers or not—think of all the gratuitous explosions and T&A they stick into action movies to draw the guys in. But I think there are two other aspects:
1. Laziness. The storytellers need to pad the story for 50 more pages (or 50 more minutes), so they stick in a romance.
2. Like I said before, it’s shorthand, an attempt to draw forth a familiar response from people, because awww, who HASN’T been in love before? And lookit the wacky lovers! Aren’t they sweet?
I think my negative reaction is so strong because my gag threshold is really low, which tends to surprise people who know how much I enjoy romance.
Also, while I can totally understand why people who write to me because of this website make mostly romance recommendations, I wonder why people who have actually looked at my bookshelves (which hold a whole lot of romance, true, but they also hold a whole lot of Other Stuff), still insist on having the romance genre predominate their assumptions of what I’ll enjoy. Some people don’t fall into this trap and twig onto other things that I’ll love, like Nina Merill, who gave me a book on pathoparasitology, bless her heart. Frankly, in terms of out-of-the-blue “Hey, you gotta read THIS!” sorts of recommendations, I’d much rather that people point me to SF or literary fiction, because I’m picky about my romance. It’s as if being a Romance Reader is napalm of sorts: once it gets on you, it sticks, and it burrrrrns, oh, it burrrrrrrns, and it ends up consuming your identity.
Sarah: The idea of shoehorning romance makes me think of the movie Jerry Maguire. A friend of mine said to her boyfriend and his friends while they were in line waiting for tickets (at the theatre – given the cost of tickets they must have REALLY wanted to see it) that she was so amazed they’d all be so into the idea of seeing a romance movie.
They said she was nuts, that it was a sports movie.
Some reviews at the time said it was a hybrid, but when I saw it, I never bought the romance between Cruise and Zellweger. I thought it was klutzy and too filled with cliches – cute kid! single mom! that weird face Zellweger makes when she’s trying to emote something – and didn’t really make it for me as a romance in the slightest. I wondered at the time if it had been an afterthought to make it more appealing to a much wider audience.
Or maybe the story was meant to be that way and the movie just did the rendition poorly. Either way, I thought the romance was glued on to what would otherwise have been a good transformation story.
But then, consider the Bond series – EVERY Bond movie has a heroine “Bond Girl,” and that’s never really a romance. More like added sex to go with all the gadgetry and violence and explosions (and hot Bond actors, depending on the movie you’re watching). Is that decorative romance? Is that somehow ok? With Bond, I just take the added sexual figure as part of the formula, and never really invest that much in it anyway. It’s Bond, for heaven’s sake.
However, you are totally right that once you’re “outed” as a fan of romance, it’s tough to get recommendations for anything else. But I’ve noticed a flip side corollary to that – I’m pretty up front that when I’m hormonal (like I am now, boy howdy) all I want is romance. Seriously? I can’t even watch the news without bursting into sobby tears. I want a Happy Ending and I want it NOW GODDAMMIT and PASS ME A GLAZED DONUT TOO!
So various people I know have said, “Oh, I know a book you’ll like- ” and they’ll recommend a serious heart-string-yanker like Jodi Picoult. Now, no knocks to Picoult in the slightest. For one thing I haven’t read her books and for another, anyone who attempts fictional examinations of school shooting has big big balls. But just because something is hyper-emotional in subject matter doesn’t mean that it’s (a) like a romance, or (b) going to appeal to a romance fan [ or (c) something you should offer a very very overemotional pregnant lady]. Some people just don’t get what romance IS, and why it’s good in and of itself.
Candy: Awww, Sarah, Jerry didn’t have you at hello? *snrk*
Also, Bond Girls make sense once you understand that all of James Bond’s paraphernalia basically serve as penis accessories. Nifty high-tech gadgets? Penis accessory. Sleek new car? Penis accessory. Gun? Major penis accessory. Bond girl? ULTIMATE penis accessory.
Oh oh oh! And that’s an excellent point regarding how people who don’t read the genre just don’t get that many things that are conflated with romance novels really aren’t romance. I get cheesed off when people think “romances are all the same” and start recommending all sorts of sort-of-but-not-really romance titles to me, too—Danielle Steel and Nicholas Sparks recommendations, in particular, drive me batty. Just because it’s maudlin tripe doesn’t mean it’s romance.
And then these outsiders see me making fun of Danielle Steel books, glance my Fabio-titty-beladen bookshelves, and look at me with cocked brow, and I stammer helplessly “I know it looks really bad, but…but…I swear…no, really…they’re…ARGH.”
Sarah: I completely agree with Bond girls: No one expects a romance. They expect sex and more penis-y satisfaction, even though there’s always a hint the Bond is “falling for her” and sometimes you see her get killed off in the beginning of the next movie (or am I, as usual, misremembering?) – which of course he gets over VERY quickly after a few solemn looks. It’s totally an accessory. With breasts. None of Q’s Bond gadgets have breasts.
The other thing about romance from outsiders is that not only do they assume that Danielle Steel is to Nicholas Sparks is to Cassie Edwards… is to Susan Elizabeth Phillips is to Jennifer Crusie is to Nora Roberts but there’s no acknowledgment that there’s any subgenres. Vampire romance is just like historical is just like contemporary slapstick romance, right? Sure. It’s all the same – and really, the fact that folks outside the genre don’t recognize that there’s variations in quality just like there’s variations in quality in any other mega-popular genre drives me nuts.
And moreover, just because a novel has a great deal of emotional draw and seeks a heavy emotional reaction from the reader does NOT mean it’s a romance. Just because a book is described as “tugging on the heartstrings” does not mean that I, as a fan of romance, am going to love it. It’s not the same thing. I can’t figure out if the emotional impact recommendations are sent my way because as a fan of romance I must be after any and all emotional payoff in my reading, or if people really don’t see the intricacies of the difference between such books and a romance novel.
Thank you, THANK YOU for making the point that romance novel readers aren’t automatically confined to romance in all their entertainment! I, for one, uniformly hate romantic movies, with very very VERY few exceptions. And chick flicks? Make me puke.
I had someone try to give me a huge box of mysteries the other day. Now no knocking of genres, but mysteries just aren’t my cup of tea. I politely told her this, and she said, “But most of them have a love story in them, too.” Well, that’s nice, but it’s STILL A MYSTERY. And I’m still not into that.
My boyfriend and i go through this all the time-the first time he saw me reading a romance novel,he was surprised-and basically said something to the effect that since I pride myself on reading good books,what was I doing with junk. Argh.
SB Candy-I did send you a recommend for a romantic graphic novel-should I apologize?
I think this happens outside of genres, no matter what your genre is. When I was a massive fantasy fan who rarely if ever read sci-fi, everyone kept recommending all this sci-fi to me as if it were the same thing. I would gently point out to them that, no matter what Waldenbooks says, or how they shelve the bastards, Sci-Fi is NOT Fantasy, and vice versa.
To be fair, I’m sure there are just as many subgenres to legal thrillers, I just don’t particularly care enough to find out. :-p God help us all if we tried to sort out general fiction!
Perhaps this is just a fiction reader’s curse in general, and not solely restricted to romance?
The only “relationship” in Jerry Maguire that worked for me on any level was that of Cruise and Gooding. And I don’t mean that in a slash-y way, although I’m sure there must be some Jerry/Rod fanfic floating around out there on teh Interweb somewhere.
First: Barely anyone who is close to me (including family) realizes how much I love romance and how committed I am to my romace reading, except of course, for the hubster. I fear the *ahem* Fabio-cover backlash, which is extremely hypocritical. So sue me. Friends and family know me as the Battlestar, CSI-and-Heroes-loving type who refuses to see maudlin or romance comedies in theaters because it’s a waste of $20 and a babysitter.
Second:
I think we’re on the same cycle. As the month goes on, the reading gets smuttier, then cycles back to the H/H barely kissing. Must be the NJ water.
Enjoying a good romance doesn’t mean I’ve lost all sense of discernment
Is it wrong that what pops into my head is Lorelei Gilmore saying to her daughter (upon finding her dressed as Dona Reed), Did it involve a blow to the head?
Just because it’s maudlin tripe doesn’t mean it’s romance.
*snerk* The next person who tells me that I’ll just love The Notebook (which has at least thankfully replaced The Bridges of Madison Country in this particular role) is so gonna get whacked upside the head with something large and hard and “tomey†(like maybe my well-worn copy of Plato’s Republic or any one of George R. R. Martin’s books)! Recently they’ve started recommending that I just watch the middle part where the characters are young. You know, forget that the “love story†is bookended with total smarm cheese.
I hate, hate, hate the will they/won’t they/when will they—they love, hate, love each other—between a male and female lead in a movie or tv show.
The archetypal example would have to be Moonlighting. But as far as I was concerned x-files became a lot less interesting and complex as their friendship swirled down that drain—And yes, I agree that CSI has done a good job so far. Or maybe I just enjoy people bitchin’ and moanin’ because they weren’t in on the consummation.
I think ‘Doxy’ could approximate ‘whore’ in regency novels
PB
I am a sap for romance in movies, but they have to be approrpiate and well-done. Sense & Sensibility—high end. The sugar-shock horror that is Christian Slater in Bed of Roses, which I just watched last week—swirling down the toilet at the low end. I have standards, but in all honestly, they are probably lower with regard to film because of a) the time involved in reading a book means the book must strike me as more satisfying and rewarding, and b) the myriad individuals involved in films, particularly the actors, can make up for a multitude of cliched scripting sins.
Luckily, my reputation before outing myself as a romance fan was that of a nose-in-the-air lit and history nerd, so the recs and pressies I receive from family and friends are still varied. My girls, however, will probably grow up thinking I have a brain the size of a dried-out pea.
I can’t believe you liked Harold and Maude. The movie was creepy and gross.
But other than that, I agree with everything else that’s been said.
I also don’t like when they try to make infidelity romantic. On what planet is sneaking around and violating your vows sexy?
Oh, and The Notebook and The Bridges of Madison County both made me throw up.
Lordy lordy lordy, romance shoehorned into a movie has been a hot-button issue with me for years. I DESPISE when that happens…and it seems to happen far more regularly than it should.
The film that put me on a rant I’m still on to this day was Titanic. (Excuse me? This story isn’t dramatic enough as it stands? Gee, I guess not. I guess it needs a bozoner of a screenwriter to slather it with some shit-frosting of a so-called love story that’s not only pluperfectly ludicrous but cheapens the real tragedy of the event. Yeah, that’s what it needs to move people.)
I hate it, too, when a horror or fantasy or psychological-thriller author pulls in romance by the shorthairs. That is not why I read such books. Some animal magnetism or occasional nookie or maybe even a bit of pervy squick, fine, but not the whole balla HEA crap. Ruins the whole damned story for me, I swear!
My sister still has problems remembering that I’m not a fan of the romantic movie. Romantic comedy, as long as it’s got some good comedy (The Matchmaker, anyone?), I’m good with. I’m always explaining to her that my imagination isn’t as engaged when watching as it is when reading. Give me a good action/adventure, comedy any day of the week.
The movie that MOST offended my “romance” sensibilities was “Entrapment” with that cheesy and completely unnecessary romance between Sean and Catherine. Honestly, that would have been a *much* better movie if they’d let that plot thread die on the editing room floor.
I don’t know, I enjoy romantic movies often. To a certain extent, it depends on my mood- I can watch something like the Wedding Planner, but I have to be not really paying attention too closely. I think in terms of romantic comedy, I prefer something like watching Friends, which has romance but is more focused on the funny.
I need reader friends who understand my particular romance preferences. Random Fabio cover is not necessarily going to work for me. I also dislike getting books lent to me unless I request them, since then I HAVE to read it. I hate that.
I love reading romance.
I love reading mystery.
Elizabeth Peters and Mary Stewart spoiled me rotten.
I hate romantic movies.
I hate mystery movies.
I think everyone is so confused about what I like and what I don’t like, they just don’t bother anymore.
I loved Harold and Maude.
I too love Harold and Maude. Own it on DVD and watch it at least a couple times a year. Love it.
Just because it’s maudlin tripe doesn’t mean it’s romance.
I think I have a new signature.
Random Underworld comment: there was a frequent complaint about it, which can be summarized as “The commercials made it out to be Romeo & Juliet with a vampire and a werewolf, and it turned out that they just randomly fell for each other out of nowhere!” I find that to be hilarious, because that’s exactly like Romeo & Juliet, which I like even less than Underworld. At least Underworld had that werewolf scientist guy. I wish he had a movie. I’ll put up with it now and then when the boyfriend wants to watch it.
Also, I haven’t seen the movie Harold & Maude, but a local theatre is currently putting on the first Midwestern production of a musical version written by the same guy who did The Fantasticks, and I love it.
Man, I agree a thousand, thousand times.
I can’t imagine what the love lives of movie producers must be like, since they seem to assume that if a male character and a female character spend any amount of time alone together, they are destined to have lots of sex and babies for a long, long time. Are they all married to women they met in elevators or men from the dentist’s waiting room or women who looked at them briefly during a hostage crisis??
I tend to like romantic comedies – although not Rom-Com heroines, oddly enough. I’d love to drag Meg Ryan, Ashley Judd, and Kate Hudson into Bad Movie Court and charge them with the heinous (HEINOUS, I say!) crime of MAKING HUGH JACKMAN/LUKE WILSON LOOK STUPID!
I had to watch “Someone Like You,” about a month ago (for Jackman, naturally – and because I’m writing a rom-com-tweaking screenplay) and I thought the romance between Ashley Judd/Hugh Jackman felt forced – EVEN THOUGH IT WAS SUPPOSEDLY SUPPOSED TO BE THE POINT OF THE WHOLE MOVIE. The first hour and a half makes them out to be nice friends (well, Jackman a nice friend, Judd a damp weeping mess), and then suddenly they’re all hot kissin’? Bad, baaad film.
I’ve just recently actually started reading romance (first romance evah: Bet Me by J. Crusie! LOVED IT! Anyone But You and Getting Rid of Bradley are in the mail!), but most of my family seemed to misunderstand it as well. Lots of people thought I was “lowering” myself.
My family members, however, don’t care a whit for the genres (fantasy and now romance) I read. My grandparents, especially, continue to make attempts to “rescue me” from the horrors of popular fiction. Whether I’m reading fantasy or romance, it doesn’t matter – they’ll keep sending over Faulkner, Hemingway, and Forster.
So much hate for The Notebook! I loved it (the movie not the book have never liked any of his books). But I have a thing for Ryan Gosling so, it wouldn’t have mattered if the movie was actually good or not.Although, one thing that’s always bothered me about it-the girl, Allie, her lipstick always appeared to have an orangeish tint to it. That annoyed the bejezus out of me.
And the hostility for Underworld…! I also liked it…. Scott Speedman-lordy, what a hottie, but I like anything with vampires and werewovles, so sue me! 🙂
Zeta/Connery combo- INAPPROPRIATE on sooo many levels, ugh!
I have never read a Danielle Steel book and never intend to!
I have a Batchelor’s Degree in Literature and am about a month away from earning my J.D. People who know this about me are shocked and appalled when they see my bookcases: romances all interspersed with Dickens, Faulkner, Hemingway, and assorted law casebooks. They question my good taste. Then they question their friendship with me. I’ve wasted more time than was probably prudent trying to explain to the uninitiated that not all romances are the same and not all are poorly written. Some romance writing even stands up to that of the dead white dudes of the traditional english cannon. It’s nice sometimes to talk to people who get it.
Also…
Harold and Maude is indeed awesome.
Those of you who only caught the first Underworld movie really missed out on the wonder that is Underworld II. I say “wonder” in a very literal sense, as in, the sex scenes were so mechanically impossible I had to wonder where exactly he was putting it.
I just saw that new movie, 300, over the weekend. It was horribly violent and gorey. I loved it. My husband couldn’t figure out why I loved it. He asked and I told him: it was like an extremely bloody, violent romance novel. It had all the action guy go for, plus a love story that fit into the plot in a way that made sense, with a few appropriately steamy scenes to top it off. I highly reccommend it to those of you who aren’t bothered by a lot of blood.
Must agree – there’s only a few romances in film I really like, and mostly they’re British.
Out of curiosity, are there romantic films that you would unhesitatingly recommend, besides Sense and Sensibility? Is that a post for another day? Two of my favourite films are The Scarlet Pimpernel (the Jane Seymour, Anthony Andrews version) and Moulin Rouge.
I read the “V for Vendetta” comic when it first came out, and ISTR there was no love story at all in it. Waaaaay too grim for that. I have a feeling that was movie madness. Also, Falling Free and Ethan of Athos are my least favorite Bujold novels. You want romance? Read Shards of Honor and A Civil Campaign.
People know better than to recommend romance novels or movies to me, but they seem to think because I liked The Foundation Trilogy and go to Worldcon that I also dress up in Spock ears and love “Star Trek”. To them it’s all the same science fiction stuff.
I get that with vampires. “Oh, you’d love this book, it’s about vampires.” And the thing is, I really don’t read very many vampire books anymore.
Actually, that’s how I ended up watching Underworld. 🙁
To be honest, though, I do that with people. I tell them, “Oh, you’ll like this book because it’s sci-fi” without knowning what *kind* of sci-fi they like.
I guess I’ll have to stop doing that.
A retraction! There is one romantic movie I love: Shrek!
I am looking forward to seeing 300, I have heard great things.
Finallay, for the record, the storyline for Underworld was stolen.
I totally agree with V for Vendetta!!! I thought it was a good amazing gloomy movie but then out popped this weird love. I was like Stockholm syndrome? She was all of a sudden in love with him and i didn’t like it. Quite disrupting. I also agree about the assumption. People are always saying things like “Oh. well its a slutty and bodice ripper type. You will love it!” I always think, thanks, but get a grip! Good honesty and wit, keep it coming.
Gulp… I liked Underworld despite it’s horrid reviews, but da-yamn if werewolf boy wasn’t hot.
I get the reverse stigma. Since I’m not partial to chick flicks and I don’t *tend* to like books where the primary conflict is created by the relationship between a romantic couples, I get the “Oh… you won’t like ________. There’s romance in it” as if the sight of a man and woman in love is kryptonite and will send me shrieking away from Lord of the Rings or Office Space.
I like my romances where I feel like the couple almost has earned it.. I like old Dean Koontz for that. “Well honey, we’ve nearly been killed seventeen times by unspeakable horror. Wanna do it?”
Though I was one of those evil X-Files shippers that thought the tension was hawt and endlessly wanted the characters to fall into the sheets (hey, they earned it). Sadly, the way that it was handled was… yai, and seemed to mostly involve completely assassinating Scully’s character until she’d turned into a whiny she-demon.
I have HUGE problems with watching romance movies (Shrek being the notable exception) because I just can’t get with the hero, oh 99% of the time. I’m sorry, you think HE is attractive? *snort*
I like intelligent, wry, bald men with chest hair who don’t go in for child molesting (Connery…yum! Connery/Zeta-Jones…yuk yuk yuk). Not gonna have much luck anytime soon, am I?
Who are Harold and Maude?
You like Harold and Maude.
You win.
Trip and T’Pol in Enterprise – after about two episodes into the ‘romance’, I had to give up watching the show. It just seemed to me like a ‘romance’ stuck in by a scriptwriter who had no idea what might actually attract two people to each other. For me, it Did. Not. Work. Bigtime.
(I’m not a big Star Trek fan, but used to watch it with DH – until the Trip and T’Pol debacle. Just about anybody else, for either of them, I could have gone along with, but those two? Bleurgh.)
Harold and Maude, oh yeah. One of a kind. Love that Cat Stevens score, too. Love Ruth Gordon even more.
As several people have said, this is a general problem with being a fan of a genre—any genre. And also a problem with outsiders not being able to tell genres apart. No, I’m not going to appreciate a hard-core horror book for a birthday present just because I like those weird books (science fiction and fantasy)…
Those of you who only caught the first Underworld movie really missed out on the wonder that is Underworld II. I say “wonder†in a very literal sense, as in, the sex scenes were so mechanically impossible I had to wonder where exactly he was putting it.
Did you watch it in slow motion and conclude that he was humping her navel, too? My mom and I got thoroughly giggledrunk off that!
And luckily the Scully-character-assassination happened after I turned off my TV for good. I didn’t see any episodes after the movie came out. Now I’m glad! I totally had a girl-crush on Scully and didn’t want to see her lose that sexy-hot super intelligence and logic.
Nina A…wanna share your graphic romance novel recommendation? Been thinking of trying one, but not real sold on graphic novels, so hoping to experiment on a good one.
Underworld…humm. #1 had some romantic elements, and that hottie werewolf. Took the kids (teens) to #2, big mistake. And no romance. Underworld #2 opens with some wonderful costuming, then quickly moves into wall to wall violence & gore that continues the remainder of the movie…except for one porn clip in the middle. AMY E…you caught that also? If they were having sex, his junk was shoved into her bellybutton…totally embarrassed my kids (& friends), they sat in a row with hands over eyes…all of them.
300…Speaking of the offspring…my three teens (girl 18, boys 16 & 14), scheduled a bonding afternoon and went to see 300 together. They all loved it (except for the sex scenes), and declared it all time favorite. Then again they are all history buffs, and the boys are fans of Sparta and this battle. I hear the cinamtography is wonderful.
Cinamatogrophy?
Movies…I watch a few when not reading. I like romance in movies, but not usually as the only storyline. Examples would be The Mummy, The Saint, even Armageddon (despite Ben Affleck or because of Bruce Willis?).
Interesting that this conversation happened just before I read this review. As I’m perusing the latest issue of Library Journal, a cover catches my eye at the beginning of the Fiction review section. I flip to the review. Interesting summary, definitely not in my general purview of reading though. The book is “The Moonlit Cage” by Linda Holeman which looks to release on Tuesday. The thing that gets me about the review though is this:
Fans of romantic historical fiction will be recommending it to their friends. Recommended for public libraries, especially those with large historical fiction/romance collections.
Now, I would posit, from the summary, that someone who’s a fan of historical romance as Stephanie Laurens, Julia Quinn, Lisa Kleypas and Elizabeth Hoyt write ‘em, would not necessarily be a fan of this book. Though I haven’t read any of her books, from what people have told me about Sara Donati, it seems like she would be the better match. Which leads me to this: at what point do you stop calling a story a romance and start calling it romantic?
My girls, however, will probably grow up thinking I have a brain the size of a dried-out pea.
Oh, lovelysalome, they are going to think that anyway. {EG}
And, Monica and Wry Hag, I am in total agreement that infidelity is not sexy nor is “Titanic”. I’m not saying hero or heroine must be perfect and never break their vows or otherwise do anything ‘bad’, but so-called love stories that are all about folks cheating on their SO’s and calling it grand love – yuck. Over it.
That said, people seem to have made the book connection more than anything else with me. So, I get books because people know I read. No genre-typing of yet.
Nina: No worries about recommending the graphic novel to me. Like I said, people who recommend me romantically-themed stuff and the like as a result of this website get a pass because a) they’re generally romance readers, so they get that James Pratt and Nicholas Sparks aren’t going to float my boat, and b) this is a site about romance novels and the romance genre, after all.
Those preparing to see 300—if you don’t mind violence and gore, then see it. It is full of pretty, pretty men. More six-packs than a Super Bowl party.
The error of Hasty Generalization is endemic in all genres. People like to classify people, and “what you like to read” is an easy touchstone to create. Unfortunately, if the person making that hasty generalization doesn’t know much about the category they’re sticking you in, they’ll make all kinds of mistakes. I confess, the only reason I know about the zillions of subcategories of Romance is because I work for a large, commercial publishing company.
Romance in particular gets seen as the Genre of Badly Written Bodice Ripper because when the genre initially exploded as a publishing category, there were so many badly-written bodice rippers published. Further, publishers were shoving anything they could into the genre (Danielle Steele) because that helped boost sales and positioning.
That the genre has matured and expanded is not obvious to people who don’t pay attention to it. I’m waiting for the publishers/editors/marketing guys to catch on to the “romance” novels that appeal to men. I have male friends who are perfectly happy to read a hawt sex scene, but they are not happy to read a book where the whole point is to show how Boy and Girl end up with a HEA.
For a movie with good romance elements… The Mummy. That whole story could have been told as romance novel, with the danger and intrigue as additional complications driving Rick and Evie together (though they would have stuck a Big Misunderstanding in the middle…probably Rick thinking Evie was interested in Ardeth Bay (Oded Fehr) or something).
But rather, The Mummy was a fun adventure movie, with a well-paced and believable romance occurring between the two lead characters.