L&R fic rec and self-absorbed meta on structure, &c.

[glossing]

Rec! jadelennox wrote a Love & Rockets/BtVS crossover. It's this human face is just your disguise, Oz and Hopey after WAH and during Wigwam Bam.
*
Navel-gazing! I'm editing the last full-blown section of Nice Shirt. It's got me thinking about

Comments

[kindkit]

I think that at the heart of what's bugging you are two conflations that are very common in fandom.

Conflation 1: A happy ending = schmoop.

Conflation 2: A relationship fic = a romance novel.

The first of these, as you know, is a real pet peeve of mine. "Schmoop" as used pejoratively (it isn't always, of course) means gooey, unearned sweetness--two characters who call each other "baby snoogums" all the time. Or who are eternal soulmates destined for one another since the beginning of time. Or some such. It's possible to write two people who are happy together without descending into this kind of nonsense. Good writers, in fanfic and mainstream fic, do it all the time. So I don't think people should be deterred by the "schmoop" straw man. And I think we should all be careful to distinguish between "schmoop" or cheap saccharine happiness, and . . . good, well-written happiness.

The second, like the first, is in my view completely unfair. Romance novels are literally formula fiction--various publishers' lines have quite specific guidelines for the kinds of characters and plot that they allow. But not every love story is formulaic. There's a world of difference between, say, Wuthering Heights and the latest drugstore bodice-ripper about a stormy beauty and the bad boy she loves. Similarly, there's a world of difference between fanfic that really is formulaic (abused!Xander is healed by Spike's [or Giles', or Angel's] magic cock) and "Moonlight and Van Helsing" or "Paving Stones" or "Book of Daniel," all fine stories about love that don't follow any formulas.

The other thing that bothers me about the "romance novel" comparison is that it suggests it's vaguely lowbrow and girly to be interested in stories about relationships. And I don't buy it. Why should we be more interested in, say, a plotty demon-of-the-week story than in a love story? Love is a big ol' subject, one of the foundations of human experience. And I think it's damned interesting in all its permutations.

[glossing]

Excellent clarification on all points. Can I submit my *brain* to you for beta'ing?

gooey, unearned sweetness
Schmoop's so my nemesis. This despite the fact that I'm way more interested lately in mellower, maybe even happier, side of things. I wish my term mellowfic would catch on; I'd feel a whole lot better.

Romance novels are literally formula fiction--various publishers' lines have quite specific guidelines for the kinds of characters and plot that they allow. But not every love story is formulaic.
Remind me to tell you about my inadvertent quest to become a junior editor at Harlequin. Because, yeah, you're absolutely right. Love stories !=formula, let alone romance (though when one is interviewing for such a position? It is best not to do as I did and name Lolita as your favorite book. Just saying). Gaddis' work -- hell, even Dale Peck's -- contain love stories, but they're about as far from romance novels as you can get.

*sigh*
Where are you? I tagged and pinged you. Now I pine.

[julia_here]

I'm most familiar with this kind of thinking in the world of visual arts; I've had long wrangles in group critiques over the false concept that pictures of flowers are inherently less artitic than pictures of buildings, and pictures of people are less intellectually valid than pictures of machinery. It's a very old-fashioned version of Modernism, I think.

Julia, one can be sentimental over death and destruction (see remark above re Heinlein)