While at WisCon (World’s Leading Feminist SciFi conference) I sat in a session about romance…no one actually on the panel wrote romance, or, I don’t think, read it. This made for some interesting misconceptions. A particularly appalling one was the definition one panelist offered of a romance. Something along the lines of “boy meets girl, some kind of misunderstanding occurs..” NO!! My friends and I didn’t actually scream but it was darn close.
Then, just a few days ago, I got a review at Amazon titled, “very good for a romance novel.” And while I completely appreciated the 5 stars and that the reviewer enjoyed the book, the title was a little unsettling, as were some of the things she had in the past expected of a romance: virgin heroines and heroes who are more powerful than the heroine.
This started me thinking, we have changed a lot, but do we (as a genre) change enough day to day? Is that why readers become bored with one sub genre and move en masse to another? For example paranormal. Why did it take off like it did? Is it because romance readers were so hungry for something different they latched onto it like a new vampire on a willing neck? Would those same readers have stayed with their preferred sub genre if more risks were being taken there? How often have you picked up a book in your favorite sub genre and thought…”well I know where this is going.” Almost as if you had read the book before?
And finally, if all of this is true…what can authors do to offer something new? What qualifies as new? What risks would you like to see authors take? And what is completely off limits?
Here’s a list of a few romance tropes. Which ones have to stay and which are you tired of? What would you add to the list?
- Rich hero
- Older hero (than the heroine)
- Hero more powerful than the heroine
- Hero’s endowments are HUGE!!! (Like he’s smuggling a Dachshund in his pants huge.)
- Hero is tall. (You need a little height on you to stay upright if you’re smuggling that Dachshund.)
- Heroine’s waist is so tiny, hero can span it with his hands. (That’s right Scarlett, suck it in.)
- Attractive people (and giving someone a scar that just makes them appear more dashing and dangerous does not get you out of this)
- Virginal heroine or at least not one who is overly experienced
- No Love triangles (Unless it is darn obvious from the beginning who the hero and heroine are going to be)
- If hero or heroine has a previous spouse he/she probably cheated on the h/h and the h/h most definitely didn’t love him or her. Oh, and the heroine? Her previous spouse very likely had “issues” leaving her…well, you know…untouched.
- Happy ending (yeah, that’s a biggie)
What else? I know you’ve got ‘em. Unload your favorite or not so favorite romance cliches. Then fess up. Are there some you just love, trite or not?
One you didn’t mention was the “soul mate” thing. That has reached the point where agents and editors are saying, “If I see another soul mate or the equivalent, I’m going to puke.” I’m tired of it because it feels like lazy writing to me. Those characters are stuck together no matter what you do to them, so there’s no relationship building necessary. I find “I choose to spend the rest of my life with you” much more romantic than “Well, I’m stuck with you forever, might as well make the best of it.”
I appreciate the sentiment behind the Datsun - um, I mean, Dachshund - in the pants (who wants to read about the hero’s “cute wittle Vienna sausage”?), but it definitely gets too much page time. Does it really have to be discussed in detail every time it, well, comes up?
I haven’t personally read a Barbie doll heroine in ages, or maybe I just don’t pay a huge amount of attention to physical descriptions unless you beat me over the head with them. Give me hair color, eye color, distinguishing physical characteristics and I get my own picture, which is never wasp-waisted (she said, lovingly patting the place her waist used to be).
Even in real-life romance, the players have to be attractive, at least to each other. You can have the greatest personality in the world, but if your love interest finds you physically repulsive, you’re stuck in “just friends” territory forever. Trying to convince a reader the heroine wants to make passionate love to kind and noble Quasimodo could probably be done by a skillful writer, but most probably find it a better use of their word count to go with generically attractive characters and focus on other elements of the story.
I think the reasoning behind the heroine who hasn’t had ten thousand lovers stems from the belief that a reader will find her stupid and reckless (there are these things delicately called Social Diseases, ya know?), aside from whatever moral issues they may have with her. I just read a fantasy novel with a heroine who bumped nasties with every male she came across (surprisingly, her name was not Anita), and I cackled gleefully when she was imperiled because she could have avoided it if only she’d kept her pants up once or twice. Promiscuity just isn’t an endearing trait.
On the other hand, you don’t get through puberty without knowing what your own parts do, so the “surprise” orgasm is a ridiculous concept.
Why is the HEA so maligned? Does anyone really want to spend 300 pages reading a romance that doesn’t work out in the end? I think a lot more readers would be pissed if the ending was “It’s been an adventure Steve, but I think I’m going to keep looking. Good luck to ya.”
P.S. I love scars!
by Kerry Allen June 16th, 2007 at 7:25 amRich hero is one I could do without. And in the case of English historicals - titled heroes. Enough already.
Attractive characters - they don’t have to be gorgeous and this has definitely changed for the heroines where they’re allowed to be ‘normal’ save probably for one defining trait like hair, eyes, lips, moles etc (which, is pretty much true to life when it comes to attraction between people where you can focus on one element of beauty that makes the entire package attractive). But the men, oh I could do with reading about an ‘average’ guy. Gimme gimme.
Happy ending I must have. And by happy ending I mean hero/heroine *are together* (marriage definitely not required, neither is epilogue featuring children). If the novel is a slightly tortured one, maybe not together right then but it is CLEAR once he gets out of rehab and she leaves the psych ward, they will be.
by Dalia June 16th, 2007 at 7:30 amI tend to fall for the older man who knows how to treat a woman, and he rescues the 30-ish heroine from the bad marriage or bad divorce.
by Lisa June 16th, 2007 at 7:32 amKerry, one of my favorite parts of the Dachsund bit…is the heroine’s FEAR of it. Oh, no! It will never fit! (groan)
by Lori Devoti June 16th, 2007 at 8:17 amDalia, I am a bit over the rich and titled too. We know there were other people around in the world. Why can’t a historical romance feature a sexy blacksmith or something?
The only thing I absolutely count on in a romance is a happy ending. If it ain’t happy, Cindy ain’t happy.
by cindy June 16th, 2007 at 8:27 am:roll:Trash them all!:roll:
Preferences vary, but here’s more of what we’d like to see:
Older Heroines (35 plus)
Sex actually resulting in pregnancy
Heroes actually sticking around to help raise resulting offspring
:idea:African American Heroes!:idea: (regardless of the heroine’s race)
Multi-cultural characters
Heroines with robust bodies
I think every author wants to build on her strengths, but many have a hard time identifying what they are in the first place. Even when they do figure it out, it takes self-confidence to build on them. Instead, they try building on the strengths of others or just using what’s always worked before.
by Kimber An June 16th, 2007 at 8:44 amI could really do without the Dachshund. I’ve said it before: Just once I’d like the heroine to say “Um, gee. You must have gotten a lot of ribbing in gym class.” Or, more realisticaly, have him worry before the reveal, maybe relive being laughed off the stage in college when he auditioned for “Equuis.”
Physical perfection I could really do without. Hero or heroine, I like people who look like people.
As far as I’m concerned, most of the tropes can go. For me the only thing a romance has to have to be a romance is: Love wins.
by KeVin Killiany June 16th, 2007 at 9:27 amI don’t really have a problem with the hero’s Dachshund-sized endowment, but I do have one with the heroine’s tiny waist- definitely don’t want to read about those! For me, the only non-negotiable is a happy ending.
by Tricia Jones June 16th, 2007 at 9:44 amThis isn’t really what you’ve asked, but I think the reason romance isn’t respected as a genre is the same reason why Hostess Snacks aren’t respected as deserts. They may be tasty, you may love them, may even prefer them to something like tiramasu, but they fit within a narrow band of possibilities: Twinkies, HoHos, Ding Dongs. You know what you’re going to get, and if you bite into a Twinkie to discover some sort of coffee-flavored chocolate filling, you’re going to say, “This is not a Twinkie.”
For better or worse, Harlequin, et al, have put themselves in the business of turning romance into a small number of recognizable and reproducible shapes. It constrains the author but it also means that a reader knows exactly what she’s getting when she picks up a novel. The publishers further refine this by coming up with narrower labels. Say, Silhouette Intimate Moments, or Harlequin Intrigue.
The thing is, romance fits so nicely into all those other genres. You can put it in science fiction, in adventure, into suspense. You can make a startling, unexpected movie, like Shakespeare in Love, that is, at its heart, a romance story. The non-Romance reading public simply would not see a connection between a movie like this and the bare-chested, bulging pants heroes they see in the racks of romance novels they see at the supermarket.
by Michael June 16th, 2007 at 10:02 amIf it doesn’t have a happy ever after,
I’m not reading it
(yes I read the ending before buying the book).
I’m buying a happy feeling
(just like when I buy a chocolate bar,
I’m buying a happy feeling).
I like to read about successful people.
They don’t have to be rich,
though in today’s society,
that usually goes hand in hand.
Why would I want to fantasize about someone struggling to make the rent?
Not sexy.
I find it interesting all this moaning
about romance and respect.
Candy gets no respect either.
You don’t hear those manufacturers complaining.
(Might have to do with Non-chocolate candy being
an $8 billion business in North America.)
Hhhmmm…maybe this has to do
by Kimber Chin June 16th, 2007 at 10:39 amwith the illusion that art can’t be profitable
so if it is,
it can’t be art.
I may have misunderstood something, but I don’t think saying romance has tropes is the same as saying it doesn’t get respect, or complaining about that. All genres have tropes. Mystery has their own version of a happy ending…the crime must be solved. Fantasy has a ton too.
by Lori Devoti June 16th, 2007 at 11:57 amBut I think writers and publishers hang onto tropes long past the time readers are tired of them. Look at the no sports hero thing. That was something people were told over and over…but now you have a number of books with just such heroes.
Sometimes I get a little tired of seeing a hero that couples with women on a mass scale. I mean, if it’s frowned upon when the heroine does it, why the double standard of allowing the hero to get away with it so much?
by Cassie June 16th, 2007 at 1:02 pmThe “no love trianges” one is the most stifling in my opinion. Especially if it’s romantic suspense — doesn’t a triangle add to the suspense? But I’ve been told again and again that romance readers want to know who the hero is by page one, if possible — and that if a sexy guy who is not the hero is introduced first, the reader will imprint on him (like a baby duck) and refuse to accept the real hero.
I’m glad you included it in your list, Lori. I hardly ever hear it mentioned, except when I’m being rejected!
Kate
by Kate Donovan June 16th, 2007 at 1:51 pmLove the baby duck analogy, Kate.
I have a friend who recently got rejected for the same reason.
by Lori Devoti June 16th, 2007 at 2:01 pmI like a book where I don’t instantly know who is the “good” guy–has that kind of gray thing going. But I have to admit in something labeled a romance, probably, am doing the baby duck thing. Quack. Quack. That’s me.
Hmm…
Although I’ve definitely written some rich guys, and a couple of virgin heroines (not for a while, though), I’ve also presented for public delectation:
– Blue-collar, middle-class and flat-broke heroes
– Plenty of (very) experienced heroines
– Heroes and heroines whose first marriages were just fine, thank you
– Gals who are pudgy, skinny, and assorted sizes inbetween
– Heroines over 35. Or even 40.
– Heroines older than hero
– Sex that definitely results in pregnancy
– Average height heroes
And almost all of this in category romance, BTW. Intimate Moments, Special Edition, the old Yours Trulys.
Now, the HEA is non-negotiable, if I’m writing something that’s going to be marketed as a romance. And it’s going to be a pretty solid, committed HEA. My chick lits were a bit more iffy, but not much. And I have to admit, if I’m gonna spend three months with a guy, I’d prefer he be more than average-looking. My gals aren’t all super-model gorgeous, however (except to the heroes, of course). So I guess my fantasy is sexy hunk falls for average-looking gal.
As for the triangle thing…actually, it occurs to me I just skirted that one in an upcoming book, because the heroine’s ex-hubby is still lurking on the fringes of her life. Although there’s no question who the hero is. So maybe…not so much?
In any case, it always amazes me, a bit, when I see lists like this — lists based, I’m guessing, on tropes seen primarily in historical and Harlequin Presents stories? Because the thing is, plenty of contemporaries — including the lowly relation, category romance — have been working outside those tropes for years.
by Karen Templeton June 16th, 2007 at 2:51 pm“if a sexy guy who is not the hero is introduced first, the reader will imprint on him (like a baby duck) and refuse to accept the real hero.”
Well, from my perspective,
I check who the “hero” is in the first chapter
and then see if the “hero” in the last chapter are the same.
If they aren’t…I figure its another one of those “romances” where the heroine pairs up a few times (being burned reading a historical where the first “hero” died and then the heroine remarried).
If I’m reading a great romance
(and not a suspense book with romantic elements),
I get emotionally attached to both characters,
especially the hero
(since I’m, in my mind, the heroine).
Sometimes I don’t think authors truly realize what they’re accomplishing in romance novels,
by Kimber Chin June 16th, 2007 at 3:36 pmnot only are the heroines falling in love with the hero
but the readers are also.
“I may have misunderstood something, but I don’t think saying romance has tropes is the same as saying it doesn’t get respect, or complaining about that.”
Lori, my comment had to do with
the backhanded compliment given to your novel
about it being “very good for a romance novel.”
I jumped to the assumption that
you were saying that the tropes
(never heard of that word before today,
at first I thought it was some sort of mushroom)
had to do with this comment.
Just a simple lass here.
by Kimber Chin June 16th, 2007 at 3:42 pm(Not to mention it being Saturday)
Figured one post, one topic.
Sorry!
Kimber I actually picked up trope at Wiscon.
And I used it because I wasn’t sure how to make the little slashy thing to show up over the e in cliche. 
by Lori Devoti June 16th, 2007 at 3:49 pmNo apology needed…just wanted to clear up that I wasn’t whining. I mean I KNOW romance often doesn’t get respect. But personally, I couldn’t care less. I write what I write and I read what I read. Big shrug to people who don’t get it.
The romance genre is destined for triteness. It’s very roots lie in conformity and being a cash cow, and it continues to be to this day. Griping about things you’d like to see and not to see doesn’t change anything because it will only disappear when readers find something else to latch onto in hordes until we’re fairly drowned in it.
As much as I love the genre and appreciate its brightest and its best, it isn’t here to challenge and it isn’t here to make people speculate. It is, as Kimber An said, candy. We may rattle our sabers and strike up the band, but I don’t think the genre will grow and enable critical looks at its tropes and mores the way sf/f fans are able to until everyone admits that romance novels are what they are: novels of escapist fantasy.
But even then, I don’t think the genre will change and develop because there is no faction within the genre fighting for anything. Within sf/f, women and people of color are fighting for equal inclusion into the genre, whereas in the romance genre, its readers, writers, editors and main organization are mainly made up of (white) women–so for the genre to be made up of mostly women, “The Man”(symbol of any type of oppression) does not exist to stir the waters. (And because of this white majority, no one questions why 99% of characters are WASP’s and neither do they care that the black writers are marginalized by their skin color).
by Angela June 16th, 2007 at 3:51 pm:grin:Karen, I read one of your books and loved it for the reasons you listed!:wink: Probably would have read more, but I actually read very few books in a contemporary setting. Gotta have my wringwraiths and warp drive, yanno!:grin:
by Kimber An June 16th, 2007 at 3:54 pmGood point about the lack of motivators for change, Angela. However, I don’t think it’s so much a question of triteness as comfort.
British cozy mysteries which have nothing to do with real crime or westerns set in a world no one from the 19th century American west would recognize, Star Trek or Star Wars fiction which never questions the unrealistic premises of the show, and romances which offer up love stories that do not match the life experiences of 99% of the readers. These are all comfort reads, and nobody wants to mess with their comfort read. After a brutal day a choice between a no-brains required action-adventure yarn and, say,Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Infidel, I’m going with the escapist lit.
Because 50% of all fiction sales in the US is romance, there’s a wide spectrum within the genre. BUT books — and subgenres — which buck the norms of mainstream romance tend to be marginalized; often under a specialized imprint. And, for the majority of book-buying romance readers, that’s just fine. They like knowing exactly what they’ve got in their hands before they crack the cover. And because those buyers drive the market, there’s little likelihood the publishers are going to change. (Except, if the numbers look good enough to take the chance, to open a specialty imprint and see how it sells.)
by KeVin Killiany June 16th, 2007 at 5:08 pmI definitely want them both to be less perfect, particularly in their physical attractiveness. That still means they can find each other hot while still drawing the reader into fantasy. You don’t have to find everything immediately sexy about your one true love! You can have favourites e.g. favourite things physically about my love is his voice and his eyes…
I want this more realistic love, and thus more engaging love, to be written about.
Oh, and as mentioned, I definitely like a bit of ambiguity about the hero, which I found in a Georgette Heyer. Jane Austen has also done it in Emma. These are classics of the Romance genre! Romance should try that…!
by B June 16th, 2007 at 5:14 pmLori Devoti Says:
Dalia, I am a bit over the rich and titled too. We know there were other people around in the world. Why can’t a historical romance feature a sexy blacksmith or something?
Return with me now to the thrilling days of yesteryear and read Beltane the Smith by Jeffery Farnol.
As for unlikeliness, Jayne Ann Krentz’s Whispering Springs duology has a hero who has been divorced three times and a heroine who is an escapee from a mental hospital. And I once wrote an entry for Stella Cameron’s Scarlet Boa Contest in which the hero first appeared at the heroine’s door dripping green slime. (Turned out he’d just dived into a ditch to save a drowning kitten. To no one’s surprise, I didn’t win.)
by talpianna June 16th, 2007 at 5:52 pmtalpianna, not sure if you are liking my blacksmith idea or hating it.
by Lori Devoti June 16th, 2007 at 6:19 pmHmmm, on the escapee. Was she put there falsely?
And I like the green slime too. Was he naked under it? I think that may have been what was missing…
You know what would be fun? A list of the most uncliche romances. Uncliche and good. Is there a list like that anywhere?
Regarding nobility: In my futuristics, I do mostly nobles, but last year’s Heart Quest had commoners and lowly nobility and this year’s Heart Dance has a noble heroine-fallen-on-hard times and a noble hero treated like dirt by his grandmother.
In the Luna books, I do average American women who turn out to be not so average once they’re Summoned to another dimension. I got whammed by a reader at amazon for Protector of the Flight because the hero and heroine weren’t nobles, more like common folks.
As for soul mates, it’s fun working out WHY they can’t be together even if they are “destined” to be together, and that isn’t always taking the easy writing path.
Robin
by Robin D. Owens June 16th, 2007 at 6:59 pmA flat broke hero who stays flat broke would work if the heroine had some bucks. But, having been flat broke once upon a time, I can say it was not sexy, and it didn’t make for warm fuzzy feelings. Living on that kind of edge is not exciting, it is nauseating.
A heroine who gets pregnant and a hero who sticks around to raise the kid–I actually have that in a story I’m working on for the Brava contest. Only mine is an altered earth futuristic, and the hero isn’t really human… neither is the baby to be…
by Becca Furrow June 17th, 2007 at 1:09 amRegardless, readers seem to like them.
by Bernita June 17th, 2007 at 8:55 amI think the tropes are simply born from finding the easiest ways to present the “classic” hero/heroine qualities, no? And certainly, there are plenty of ways around them. For instance, if the classic hero qualities are, say, power, honor and courage, those qualities get thrown in there just to “show” these. The rich hero, the height, the title — all those are just to show power, and are easy ways to do it. But power can be shown in other ways, too, and some writers get this right on the money with creative ways of showing power. (Maybe he’s just a great leader; or maybe he’s “in charge” but not of a corporation, maybe just two nieces who rely on him, etc.) I feel like this is how writers can be creative or “different,” and I love it when I see it. (And I do see it! Great new stuff out there!)
The attractiveness, too, is just the easy way out — I mean it’s easier to say he used to be a male model than to explain what she finds attractive about him — but many writers are creative about this, too, having a hero with a three-times-broken nose, or whatever, but building upon why he’s simply attractive to her. And by the time we read about his personality, if well developed, he becomes attractive to us (the reader) as well.
The lack of partners is also just a simple way of having to explain why THIS one is special, but a writer can do that in other ways, too, if he/she works at it. It can be different because it’s the first time it involves love, or trust, or the first time she doesn’t care what her thighs look like, or whatever, but it always works if the writer handles it well.
So the tropes are the “givens,” sort of the easy ways out — but the best books usually show the heroic qualities in more creative ways, IMHO.
by Laurie S. June 17th, 2007 at 11:41 amwe have changed a lot, but do we (as a genre) change enough day to day? Is that why readers become bored with one sub genre and move en masse to another?
For me? Absolutely, that’s a large part of why I get bored. Too many similar themes, too little sense of newness.
I know many readers say they look specifically for the familiar plots and themes, but I suspect some of them share this experience with me. As I get bored, I devour books at an ever-increasing rate because they’re not satisfying to me, so I gallop through each book and try the next. I also find that my reading picks up pace because so many books so thoroughly signal “this book is just like Book Type X” that I hardly have to read them to know what happens. I can skim and still follow the book.
It’s not the way I like to spend my reading time, and it sends the wrong message with my book-buying dollars, but I get caught in this situation over and over. I’m often not aware of the degree of my boredom until I find something new, and then it’s a revelation. Then I look back and realize how irritated I’ve been with my genre reading, and how much I needed a change.
by catan June 17th, 2007 at 1:39 pmThe answers of Laurie S. and catan both resonated with me.
First, Laurie S, I do think some authors tend to rely on the tropes rather than relying on their own self-confidence in telling their own stories. There are no new stories, only new ways of telling them. It all started with the origin of our species and is called mythology. Since then, brilliantly imaginative storytellers have been turning them over and over.
Second, catan, I’ve seen that happen with readers I know too.
It all makes me wonder how much research authors, agents, and editors do into what their readers really want. I don’t think there’s any substitute for getting out and actually :idea:listening:idea: to people. Sales numbers can be extremely misleading.
by Kimber An June 17th, 2007 at 4:02 pmMost of those tropes could go away and I wouldn’t miss ‘em. Particularly the rich hero and the older and more powerful hero. Hell, all of them really. Yet I love romance. Go figure.
by Barbara B. June 18th, 2007 at 12:19 amI’d like more realism, while keeping the HEA of course. Some Romance novels seem to imply that true love can only be found by attractive people where the hero is successful and the woman is a virgin. Spare me! Oh, and they have perfect sex, of course, because that’s a sign of true love, duh! (Sex could also use more realism, IMO. Nothing makes me roll my eyes more than virgin heroines who have multiple orgams as soon as the hero looks at them.)
Selene
by Selene June 18th, 2007 at 4:57 amAngela said:
“As much as I love the genre and appreciate its brightest and its best, it isn’t here to challenge and it isn’t here to make people speculate. It is, as Kimber An said, candy. ….until everyone admits that romance novels are what they are: novels of escapist fantasy.”
I’m not admitting that. And I don’t know why - it seems just with romance - that it has to be labeled. Why can’t it just be good fiction. Why is romance any different than a Clive Cussler novel, Robert Ludlum, Nelson Demille? How is it different from other good stories?
I think with romance there is just MORE. More writers, more books, and yes maybe we rely on cliches sometimes because that’s what readers want. They want good stories told in ways that they like them.
I don’t have to pigeonhole the genre by calling it candy or fluff or “nothing more than…”
Good books are good books. Bad books are bad books. Regardless of the genre.
by Stephanie Doyle June 18th, 2007 at 9:47 amI think romance is escapist fantasy, but I think a good mystery or scifi/fantasy novel is too. Escapist fantasy is a good thing to me. It’s what I want to read and what I want to write.
by Lori Devoti June 18th, 2007 at 10:10 amI don’t necessarily want any of the books I read to be too based in reality. I want to read about bigger than life characters in bigger than life situations. That’s what for me makes reading exciting. If I’m reading about some regular woman doing laundry and dealing with her cheating husband…I want her to DO something. Something a normal person probably wouldn’t do. Strangle him with his girlfriend’s G-string or something!
To me that’s what makes for good fiction. I always find it funny when people get too caught up in what a real person would do…there is some validity to that, but you also have to realize reading about perfectly normal people doing perfectly normal things would be darn boring.
JMO.
I´m late to this party, but anyway:
in regards to the HEA… Two books I´ve read recently have made me question whether I find it necessary to have the traditional HEA in a romance. The Girl with a Pearl Earring is most definately a romance and while they have no HEA, the painting immortallizes their emotions and that´s good enough for me to be in love and heartbroken at the same time.
by wherethewild June 19th, 2007 at 3:04 amThe second book is The Time Travellers Wife. Their HEA is a lifelong love certainly, but..well, I don´t think I´ve cried that hard in many years. Again I was in love, I was heartbroken and it counts to me as the best romance I´ve read in a long time.
I’m another late party guest. I don’t always need the HEA, but it depends on the way it’s marketed. If I’m reading a ST romance and there’s no HEA, I’ll be pissed. If I’m reading a WF and there’s no HEA, that’s fine with me.
Lori, you have some great examples of clishes, but my fav is the dachshund in the pants.
Please, people, don’t do that any more. The first time I read it I was titillated. After that, not one bit.
by Edie June 19th, 2007 at 9:36 amI’m not admitting that. And I don’t know why - it seems just with romance - that it has to be labeled. Why can’t it just be good fiction. Why is romance any different than a Clive Cussler novel, Robert Ludlum, Nelson Demille? How is it different from other good stories?
I’m not saying that romance novels are not good stories, but the fact that readers like to defend the genre from its detractors to disabuse them of the notion that romances are “bodice-rippers” and “porn for women”, when they get together and squee over what outsiders mock the genre for. Like historical romance: historical fiction readers look down on them because the books are basically set in fantasy historical eras, but historical romance reader rebuttal is “it’s fantasy” to one another when the topic of historical accuracy is brought up within romance forums, yet they are insulted when a historical fiction reader dares to insult the genre for its lack of some form of accuracy.
by Angela June 19th, 2007 at 12:32 pmreaders like to defend the genre from its detractors to disabuse them of the notion that romances are “bodice-rippers” and “porn for women”, when they get together and squee over what outsiders mock the genre for.
I occasionally wonder why bodice-rippers and porn are necessarily bad things. Those are loaded terms that are clearly meant derogatorily when used by non-romance readers to critique the genre, so naturally we spring into defensive action when we hear them. But are those phrases pejorative, in an absolute sense? Why are we ashamed if sometimes we do like the bodice-ripping aspect of a romance, or the porn aspect?
Note that I’m not saying nonconsenting sex is OK in real life, and I’m not saying the porn industry treats women well in real life. But the pornographic or sexual fantasy aspects of romance fiction perhaps don’t always merit the degree of shame and defensiveness that we accord them.
by L. Portnoy June 19th, 2007 at 1:19 pmHaving spent a lot of time reading and loving comic books–long before anyone was willing to call any form of them, graphic novel or otherwise, worthwhile as literature–I simply do not believe the argument that romance is garbage. Most of everything is garbage. But romance per se is no more likely to be garbage than dime novels or futuristic fantasies or mysteries or Nazi thrillers or codependency self-help tomes or third editions of bad college textbooks. It just takes time to get recognized as legitimate. So stop with the poor me stuff, already, romance people. Your time in the sun is coming, if it has not already dawned.
As to content, like every other form of art, romances are a moving target. The romances written today are not the same as the romances written 30 years ago. Re-read a batch and you’ll be forcibly reminded how romance heroes used to be two-pack-a-day guys whose main method of showing their frustrated emotions was to go on week-long alcoholic benders. After they raped or almost raped and certainly physically bullied or threatened the passive-aggressive, virginal heroines. Child-women who would not have recognized an erection to save their lives, most of whom majored in being Too Stupid To Live.
A large part of consumer culture is a cycle of greed and ennui, and romance readers definitely have gorged and then become bored with fashion after fashion. We are seeing it now in the various splits in the market, with paranormal and erotica currently in the ascendant, and chick lit apparently on the wane. And surely we all are waiting to figure out what the next big thing is, and pounce on it, and beat it to death–by both writing and reading too much of it. And then we will complain that we are bored by it.
by Poison Ivy June 19th, 2007 at 8:15 pm[...] Michelle jumped the penis gun on me yesterday with Lynne Simpson’s Chekhov’s Gun blog, but it’s worth mentioning twice. If you haven’t read it, here’s your second chance. This leads me to Lori Devoti’s Romancing the Blog blog on Killing the Trope … or not? She writes about romance cliches, which includes a penis mention in a way you’ve probably never thought of it. [...]
by Magical Musings » Blog Archive » Do the blog hop June 21st, 2007 at 8:09 amThere are reasons why heroes are usually tall, why they are rich, why heroines have problems they have to solve on their own, but being helped by some big guy isn’t all that bad.
by Irene June 22nd, 2007 at 3:20 pmWe’re told to write them that way.
We’ve come a long way from the bodice-rippers. Our heroines are smart and sassy and even though circumstances may have them down, they won’t be counted out by any means.
Are these women role models?
Yep, they sure are. There are plenty of women out there who need strong, positive role models and they find them in new romances. They also get an idea of alternate career choices and educational possibilities from romance novels because we have to make the stories different somehow. Yes, there are only so many ways a plot can twist, but it’s the journey and those who take us on that journey that makes romances worth reading.
My personal weirdness, or trope if you must, is virginal orgasm. Quite a feat. But, I guess if you are into dachshunds, it’s possible….
Everything I’m about to say is based on my own preferences… even if it sounds otherwise.
Reading about size never did it for me. I’ve always been more in the “size doesn’t matter, knowledge does” camp. In fact, the romances I’ve enjoyed the most have focused more on the relationship than the physical, and yes, HEA is required.
I personally don’t mind reading about an older hero and younger heroine as long as she’s not Too Stupid To Live. If she’s a match for him intellectually and emotionally, heck yeah, I’ll read it. Same for a vice versa age difference.
The subject of power is an interesting one. We can each be powerful in our own ways: I don’t think it’s always necessary for the hero and heroine to be evenly matched in the same area as long as their strengths can check/balance each other. That said, I don’t like stories where the only strength the heroine has is her “bewitching beauty”. Even the opening of Gone With the Wind makes it clear Scarlett’s strength wasn’t in any natural beauty (though more than one guy thought she was) but in a pragmatic intelligence that made use of whatever surrounded her.
I don’t care for either heroes or heroines who have a lot of “experience”. Like another commenter said, to me that just screams Reckless. In line with this, I don’t care for soulmates and would rather see that it is possible for the guy to commit (i.e. a good first marriage, or long-term relationship) instead of keeping him a bachelor in spite of several short-term relationships. I sometimes get the feeling it’s like the author wants an experienced man who’s still a virgin when it comes to his heart. To me, that’s just as bad as saying the heroine has to be a physical virgin.
I also would love to see more “average” heroes: I don’t care for the hero so ripped you wonder how he can find anything to wear that doesn’t chafe. Some strength is good, but the guys I’ve known who were that buff weren’t usually relationship material. Besides, when I read about guys who are as thick as Arnie (pre-gubinator) with dark hair and enough money to buy a small island (in cash), I find myself yawning then snuggling up to my average sized, highly intelligent, moderately successful and absolutely amazing husband.
Um, wait a minute. Maybe being bored isn’t so bad after all…
by cavamil June 22nd, 2007 at 4:59 pmNostalgia, irony, incest, legitimacy
We sometimes read to reexperience a specific feeling–not for a new experience or to learn someone else\’s story (see comments on RtB, on male stereotypes and happily ever after).
by Read for Pleasure July 2nd, 2007 at 7:02 pm