I went to church this Sunday (an unusual enough occurrence!) and we sung a hymn (well, we sang many, considering it was an Episcopal church). The hymn that caught my fancy last Sunday was a typical British hymn (i.e.: it sounded more like a dirge than a joyful celebration), but as I was singing it, I became fascinated with the lyrics. (Beware dirge-like music in the link to the hymn!)
I love to tell the story of unseen things above,
of Jesus and his glory, of Jesus and his love.
I love to tell the story, because I know ’tis true;
it satisfies my longings as nothing else can do.Refrain:
I love to tell the story, ’twill be my theme in glory,
to tell the old, old story of Jesus and his love.I love to tell the story; more wonderful it seems
than all the golden fancies of all our golden dreams.
I love to tell the story, it did so much for me;
and that is just the reason I tell it now to thee. (Refrain)I love to tell the story; ’tis pleasant to repeat
what seems, each time I tell it, more wonderfully sweet.
I love to tell the story, for some have never heard
the message of salvation from God’s own holy Word. (Refrain)I love to tell the story, for those who know it best
seem hungering and thirsting to hear it like the rest.
And when, in scenes of glory, I sing the new, new song,
’twill be the old, old story that I have loved so long. (Refrain)
I am not trying to proselytize — truly, as a non-Christian, I’m the last person on earth to do that — but as I sung more and more of the song and sunk deeper and deeper into the lyrics, I was convinced that what dear Katherine Hankey was trying to tell us about the Good Word in 1866 also explains a lot about why we read romances today.
Hankey is talking about the “story” of Jesus and his love. If we substitute “romance” or “love story” for Hankey’s “story,” we can see how this might refer to our modern romances and the way we read them, as well as to Jesus’ love.
Hankey (don’t you love her name!) loves to tell “the story” because it’s the revelation of a mystery. Love is intangible, whether the Lord’s love if you believe in that, or the love between two (or three) people attracted to each other physically and emotionally. It’s intangible, but it’s vital to life if you believe in it. Or, even more importantly, the characters will be taught during the story that it’s vital to life whether or not you believe in it.
Hankey loves to tell “the story” because “it satisfies my longing as nothing else can do.” It’s her comfort story, her story to fall on in times of trouble, the story that renews her and makes life worth facing day after day. “The story” has done so much for her, she wants to pass that comfort on to others. She is almost compelled to tell “the story” to others, to pass it on for their comfort and happiness. Even though it’s an old story that’s been heard so many times before, each time she hears it, each time she tells it, it’s new and it renews her. “The story” is larger than life, but is still absolutely real. Every time she hears it, the story is better, and she wants everyone to hear it, especially those who haven’t yet heard it. But then, even those for whom it’s a favorite story seem to need to hear it again and again.
Romance is often derided for being addictive to its readers and for being repetitious. Critics argue, “How can you tell what’s basically the same story again and again without repeating yourself?” and the implied answer is that romances obviously ARE all the same and it’s precisely the repetition that’s addictive, and that the addiction is a bad thing.
Our analysis of this hymn can show us that romances provide us the comfort and the excitement of repetition with a difference. We’ve got the security of the “formula” or conventions of romance (the meeting, the conflict, the happy ending), with the interest and uniqueness of a new story each time we read a new romance. The details ARE important because the details make every story different. The details determine whether you’re reading a Georgette Heyer or a Robin Schone, an inspirational or an erotica, but the fundamental story is assured.
The fundamental story of love is the same, but the joy is in “witnessing” a new story, a new way into the light of love, a new way into the “truth” of love.
What about you? Do you like the repetition with a difference of romance or does something else draw you. Personally, I can’t get enough of alpha males being taught to admit to the necessity of love in their lives. You could tell that story a thousand times and I’ll read it again and again. Do you have a favorite storyline, a favorite version of “the story” that you read again and again? What makes it worth reading for you?
Yeah, romance is repetitive. And in every mystery, a crime has been committed and will be solved by the end. Guess there’s no reason to read those, either, since I know what’s going to happen.
Hasn’t it been said that there are only 7 plot archetypes in all of fiction? When you boil it down to the bones, there are no new ideas, only fresh execution.
It’s the words between “Chapter One” and “The End” that are important, the words in this presentation of Archetype #4 that make it different from the last 20 books you’ve read with the same basic premise.
Hi, my name is Kerry, and I’m addicted to words.
And proud of it.
Beats the hell outta crack.
by Kerry Allen September 5th, 2007 at 6:40 amGreat post.
I like re-living the “first moments.” The first glance, first kiss, first fight, first apology, first time saying I Love You. Reading about those times when a relationship is just starting is like looking through an old beloved photo album.
by Robyn September 5th, 2007 at 7:36 am:shock:I’ve been married a long time and have lots of children (three on Earth, one in Heaven.) I’ve experienced real romance in many ways. Boy-Meets-Girl bores me to death. I like the whole thing and the Romance genre, nowadays, is All That!:grin: You want Boy-Meets-Girl, you got it! You want Hardworking Dad, it’s there! Faithful Husband when his wife has Breast Cancer, yes! Boy-Meets-Alien Princess. Girl-Discovers-True-Feelings-For-Longtime-Rival-Cyborg. It’s all there, so dig right in.:wink:
Love is a many-splendored thing.:lol:
by Kimber An September 5th, 2007 at 8:17 amAn excellent analogy!
by Bernita September 5th, 2007 at 8:18 amI love reading about people connecting with their feelings and the ones they love. Hero or Heroine, doesn’t matter.
by Eva Gale September 5th, 2007 at 9:00 amI get into arguments all the time with my mother over this. She likes suspense novels. Every time she picks up one of my romances, she sighs and gives me the, “But I know that she is going to end up with this guy, what is the fun in that,” speech.
And I constantly have to say, “It’s not about the what and who, Mom, it is about the why and how.”
Yes, they will fall in love. Yes, it will be with the guy you thought it was going to be with. But why they fall in love and how they fall in love is the interesting part. It is the part I can relive again and again and never get tired of it.
by Chessie September 5th, 2007 at 1:30 pmChessie, I think that’s a wonderful way of putting it! Very succinct and very true!
And Kerry Allen, I certainly don’t want to be “cured” of my addiction! Way better than crack!
by Sarah S. G. Frantz September 5th, 2007 at 1:57 pmIt’s not an addiction. It’s just like the people who watch sit-coms on TV. Raymond and Deborah are going to get into an argument and his mother will interfere while his father makes snide comments. It’s the same every week from episode to episode. Viewers know what they’re getting every Thursday at 8pm. By reading a book I don’t have to sit through any commercials.
For the sake of argument, if one does think it’s an addiction, there are two points to consider: 1. It’s free with the help of a public library, and 2. depending on what I choose to read I might learn about something or somewhere new. Free and educational.
Chessie’s comment that it’s the why & how they fall in love is exactly the point. (Thanks Chessie, I’m going to say that the next time my husband asks what keeps me interested book after book.)
I read sf, mystery, literary fiction, thrillers, but I keep coming back to romance novels every couple of books because I like the happily ever after endings.
As Kimber An notes, the sub-genres within romance offer lots of variation. I tend to read in streaks: read lots of historicals, read lots of paranormals, toss in a pirate novel here and there, etc., etc. All the genres follow the formula; the creativity of writers is in how our true loves get from point a to point b.
Speaking creativity, I found Geri Russell’s “The Warrior Trainer” particularly fresh, which I hadn’t expected from a debut book.
by Susan September 5th, 2007 at 5:32 pmReal life is fraught with uncertainty. Repetition is what keeps human beings sane. And it’s ingrained — what parent hasn’t read the same picture book night after night after night to a young child? Or listened to that child sing the same song over and over? Why? Because repetition is comforting.
And that doesn’t change when we’re adults. From expecting traditional fare on the holiday table to, yes, watching a sitcom every week in which each episode is basically a variation on the same theme, more often than not we *want* to know what to expect going in. Not always — sometimes, surprises are nice, and some of us are more come-what-may than others — but generally speaking, we humans prefer order to chaos, in our lives and in our entertainment.
The core promise of any romance — no matter its form — is an assurance that, by the end all will be well. We don’t read (or write) romance *despite* its repetitiveness, we read/write it *because* of it — because we crave the balm to our souls that a happy ending provides. Besides that, not only do we pick up a new book with that expectation, but look how many of us re-read favorites, or eagerly pounce on a new production of JANE EYRE or PRIDE AND PREJUDICE?
Like those little kids, sometimes you just wanna hear a favorite story over and over, simply because it makes you feel good.
by Karen Templeton September 5th, 2007 at 5:53 pmWhat Karen said! It’s only in the last 200 years that “uniqueness” and “originality” in everything has been so highly prized. The uniqueness of the “how” and “why” isn’t enough. Everything has to be new. That doesn’t work for me.
by Sarah S. G. Frantz September 5th, 2007 at 7:55 pmSarah, I agree! Many new writers struggle so much with the idea that they aren’t original enough because the stories they long to tell have classical themes, but most of our favorite books are not the ones where the plot was completely alien. Every well-crafted character provides a new set of eyes through which to view the world. How can anything be too repetitive and familiar if it’s seen through the eyes, heart, and mind of someone new?
by Kate Moss September 5th, 2007 at 11:13 pm[...] Joseph Campbell penned The Hero with a Thousand Faces. In the book, Campbell opines that every myth is essentially the same. It features the same hero, the same myth cycle and the same ending. Only the execution differs. So yes, romance is asking the same universal question over and over again. How do two people fall in love despite internal or external conflicts? Dr. Frantz of Teach Me Tonight refers to this as “repetition with a difference.” [...]
by Romance Isn’t for Everyone and It Doesn’t Have to Be | Dear Author: Romance Book Reviews, Author Interviews, and Commentary September 20th, 2007 at 4:19 pm