Musings on genres
(originally posted in my journal, someone pointed out that it would be pertinent to this community - especially to anyone interested in writing romance, whether in the genre or as part of a different sort of novel)
Not all Bodice-Rippers are Bad
or : Why I read Romance Novels, a Smart Girl's Guide to a Cliché Genre
I get a lot of flack for liking romance novels. And I do understand that they’re not everyone’s cup of tea. I do have a problem, however, with a few of the reasons usually cited for the dislike. People tend to dislike romance novels for one of three reasons: they simply do not like romance storylines, they think they’re trite/cliché/stupid/cheesy/unrealistic, or they think that anything remotely romantic dehumanizes women and romance novels are going to toss up back to the middle ages, equality-wise. I’m only going to rebut one of these, the second one.
The first is a matter of personal taste and is a completely valid opinion. People have different taste, and if that sort of storyline doesn’t interest you, you’re not going to enjoy it. Period. End of story. And people who like romance novels should learn not to argue this point and accept that some people just will never enjoy their favorite books. Just like some people aren’t dog people or cat people, some people aren’t romance fans. And that’s fine! Variety is good! As long as they aren’t jerks about it and say nasty things to you for your taste (more on this later), live and let live. You probably don’t like some of their favorite books, too.
The third point is unarguable, but for another reason. I’m not going to say the people that feel this are bat shit insane, but… well, there it is. These tend to be the type of militant feminists that, frankly, I’m not sure anything would make happy short of a world completely devoid of men. Are there romance novels that demean women? Of course, just like there are movies and songs and every other genre of book out there that does the same thing. But does reading such a book set back feminism fifty years? Of course not. Don’t be silly. Just like playing Lego Star Wars as Darth Maul doesn’t turn me into an evil, black-hearted villain intent on destroying everything (made of Legos) in sight, reading a novel where the main character is a simpering, kow-towing wimp won’t make me less independent. In fact, I might even enjoy the sense of superiority I get when reading it, so I can say, “You silly bitch!” And, to be honest, if you’re reading a historical romance novel it’s a fact: that’s the way it was back then. Most romance novels are completely unrealistic in the amount of power they do give women! But I said I wasn’t going to argue it, and I should stop now. Because no ground can be made up there, you either agree or you don’t. Sure, there are some books that make me uncomfortable with the ‘relationship’ (there are some non-consensual ones that are a bit… weird) and I will say I don’t like them, but censorship (as in the wiping out of an entire genre) is not the answer.
The second point… now that’s where some reasonable arguments can be made. We’ll start with them being ‘trite and cliché.’ I admit, here’s the basic plot of 99.9% of romance novels:
* Hero and Heroine meet; there’s an instant attraction (and/or the classic love/hate relationship)
* Obstacles arise (other people, mysterious circumstances, misunderstandings)
* High jinks ensue
* Everything is ironed out, they live happily ever after
That’s it. That’s a romance novel in a nutshell. Sure, the circumstances and settings and characters vary, but there’s your storyline. But see, that’s the point. The circumstances and the settings and the characters. There are plots within the overall plot (Okay, we know she’s going to end up with the pirate captain, but what about this mysterious treasure? How do they figure that out, and what about the skeevy first mate and how does he tie into all this?) that are the real point of the story. And, of course, the characters. Nothing makes or breaks a romance novel like the characters. The way they interact with one another can be a joy to read… or it can set your teeth on edge. They can be fun and different and brilliant… or boring and two-dimensional. Just like… oh, every other genre out there. You have good books and bad books of every genre.
But, you say, not all genres are so predictable! Really? Really?
With the exception of Science Fiction and Fantasy (more on that later) - yes, all genres are predictable. That’s… what makes them a genre. Here’s a mystery novel for you:
* A crime is committed
* Either a police person or a gifted amateur sleuth sets about to solve the case
* There are misdirecting clues, sometimes the investigator’s life is in peril
* The case is solved.
So, why would you ever read a mystery again? You know how it ends. They solve the case! Oh, you say, but the cases are all different! Well, I argue, so are the romance novels. Sure, she’ll end up with him in the end - but how and why? I mean, people read non-fiction history books all the time (here’s a hint: Lincoln gets shot and the Titanic sinks!) and they know the ultimate ending, but they want details and interesting tidbits. It’s all in the details.
So don’t tell me you won’t read it because you know how it ends, because that’s not the point of the story. You want another example? I’ve been to both Seattle, Washington and Washington DC (point A, the beginning, and point B, the ending). Does that mean that, if I set off in my car from Seattle I might as well zone out as I drive cross-country? I mean, I know my destination - point B - well enough, what’s the point of paying attention to the journey? Even if I’ve driven it before, there might be new sites, or I might take a different route or a detour, or any number of things. It’s asinine to assume there’s nothing worthwhile between points A and B.
I think I’ve beaten that point to death. Moving on to the fact that they’re ‘stupid and cheesy.’
Here I will contend that you’re reading the wrong romance novels! Are there stupid, cheesy, horridly written romance novels? Yes. There are also stupid, cheesy, horridly written mysteries, science fiction/fantasy novels, and westerns. And plenty of stupid, cheesy, really horridly written chick-lit. Perhaps romance does have a bit more than its fair share, volume-wise, but because of the sheer number of romance novels written I’d hazard a guess that the percentages aren’t that far off. If you argue that the romance is the cheese factor, I contend that you belong to group one, and simply do not like romance in your fiction at all. And no amount of reading good romance will change that. But admit that it’s just not your cup of tea, please don’t say that you don’t like them because they are stupid and the people that read them are morons. ‘Stupid’ is the person who, after shocking themselves a dozen times on a frayed electrical cord, decides to grab it one more time because the result might be different this time. A person who doesn’t share your taste is not a moron, just different. More on that in ‘I'm okay, you read dumb books’, though.
Finally, the argument that romance novels are unrealistic. Here I completely agree. They are utterly unrealistic. They are the height of unrealistic. No one expects them to be realistic. That’s why it’s fiction. Do you honestly believe that all the armchair detective novels are realistic? Perhaps the mysteries involving the police, okay, but not the ‘average citizen’ who fights crime more efficiently and smartly than an entire police force. And science fiction and fantasy are inherently unrealistic (there’s a common belief that science fiction, being ‘based’ on science is more realistic than fantasy, but I don’t buy into that - uh-oh, it’s another segment… let’s see… ‘The Magic of Science: Technobabble and Spells as a way to explain the unexplainable in Science Fiction and Fantasy’, coming soon to a blog near you!). If I wanted realism I’d watch the news. Or read non-fiction. Sure, there’s a scale of realism in fiction, sliding from a lot of the nearly normal ‘general fiction’ to the height of absurdity (I think this title has to go to sci-fi/fantasy, and they should be proud of it!). Some people are only happy at the bottom of the scale, others disdain normality and heard straight for the upper bounds. But romance falls somewhere in the middle - sure, there are bits that aren’t historically accurate (in the historical romances) and there are some ‘yeah, right’ moments in all of them, but outside of the ‘paranormal romances’ they contain human beings acting rather humanly in a society we know. That’s pretty normal. Comparatively, that’s pretty realistic. To use this as an argument against romance as a genre isn’t particularly effective, unless you’re one of those people that hugs the bottom of the scale for dear life. In which case you also must dismiss all fantasy, almost all sci-fi, and a good percentage of mysteries, westerns, and chick-lit, plus a fair amount of the general fiction. So just say that you can’t abide unrealistic storylines, and leave the genre out of it.
Can romance novels be trite and cliché? Yes. Are there romance novels that are stupid and cheesy? Sure. Are romance novels unrealistic? Sometimes. But are they all that way? No. So, you ask, what are they?
They are fun. They are humorous. They can have characters that make you laugh and tug at your heartstrings. They can make you root for a character… or against a character. They can make you twist your brain to try to solve the mystery or misunderstanding before the author gives you the answer, or they can simply transport you to another world for a few hours. They are what you get out of them. Even if it’s just escape, and that alone is enough. We all need that from time to time, and of all the ways to do it, what’s wrong with indulging in a little brain candy with a happy ending? When did it become taboo to enjoy something nice? Why, in a world filled with enough misery and crap to drown you, is a whole genre designed to do nothing but make you feel good disdained? When did people decide that everything we read has to be deep, and dark, and moody? When did ‘intellectual’ become nearly synonymous with ‘morose’? What the hell is wrong with enjoying something at face value and simply having a good time?
I read romance novels.
I like romance novels.
I believe, deep in my cynical little heart, in happily ever after.
And I’m proud of that.
Not all Bodice-Rippers are Bad
or : Why I read Romance Novels, a Smart Girl's Guide to a Cliché Genre
I get a lot of flack for liking romance novels. And I do understand that they’re not everyone’s cup of tea. I do have a problem, however, with a few of the reasons usually cited for the dislike. People tend to dislike romance novels for one of three reasons: they simply do not like romance storylines, they think they’re trite/cliché/stupid/cheesy/unrealistic, or they think that anything remotely romantic dehumanizes women and romance novels are going to toss up back to the middle ages, equality-wise. I’m only going to rebut one of these, the second one.
The first is a matter of personal taste and is a completely valid opinion. People have different taste, and if that sort of storyline doesn’t interest you, you’re not going to enjoy it. Period. End of story. And people who like romance novels should learn not to argue this point and accept that some people just will never enjoy their favorite books. Just like some people aren’t dog people or cat people, some people aren’t romance fans. And that’s fine! Variety is good! As long as they aren’t jerks about it and say nasty things to you for your taste (more on this later), live and let live. You probably don’t like some of their favorite books, too.
The third point is unarguable, but for another reason. I’m not going to say the people that feel this are bat shit insane, but… well, there it is. These tend to be the type of militant feminists that, frankly, I’m not sure anything would make happy short of a world completely devoid of men. Are there romance novels that demean women? Of course, just like there are movies and songs and every other genre of book out there that does the same thing. But does reading such a book set back feminism fifty years? Of course not. Don’t be silly. Just like playing Lego Star Wars as Darth Maul doesn’t turn me into an evil, black-hearted villain intent on destroying everything (made of Legos) in sight, reading a novel where the main character is a simpering, kow-towing wimp won’t make me less independent. In fact, I might even enjoy the sense of superiority I get when reading it, so I can say, “You silly bitch!” And, to be honest, if you’re reading a historical romance novel it’s a fact: that’s the way it was back then. Most romance novels are completely unrealistic in the amount of power they do give women! But I said I wasn’t going to argue it, and I should stop now. Because no ground can be made up there, you either agree or you don’t. Sure, there are some books that make me uncomfortable with the ‘relationship’ (there are some non-consensual ones that are a bit… weird) and I will say I don’t like them, but censorship (as in the wiping out of an entire genre) is not the answer.
The second point… now that’s where some reasonable arguments can be made. We’ll start with them being ‘trite and cliché.’ I admit, here’s the basic plot of 99.9% of romance novels:
* Hero and Heroine meet; there’s an instant attraction (and/or the classic love/hate relationship)
* Obstacles arise (other people, mysterious circumstances, misunderstandings)
* High jinks ensue
* Everything is ironed out, they live happily ever after
That’s it. That’s a romance novel in a nutshell. Sure, the circumstances and settings and characters vary, but there’s your storyline. But see, that’s the point. The circumstances and the settings and the characters. There are plots within the overall plot (Okay, we know she’s going to end up with the pirate captain, but what about this mysterious treasure? How do they figure that out, and what about the skeevy first mate and how does he tie into all this?) that are the real point of the story. And, of course, the characters. Nothing makes or breaks a romance novel like the characters. The way they interact with one another can be a joy to read… or it can set your teeth on edge. They can be fun and different and brilliant… or boring and two-dimensional. Just like… oh, every other genre out there. You have good books and bad books of every genre.
But, you say, not all genres are so predictable! Really? Really?
With the exception of Science Fiction and Fantasy (more on that later) - yes, all genres are predictable. That’s… what makes them a genre. Here’s a mystery novel for you:
* A crime is committed
* Either a police person or a gifted amateur sleuth sets about to solve the case
* There are misdirecting clues, sometimes the investigator’s life is in peril
* The case is solved.
So, why would you ever read a mystery again? You know how it ends. They solve the case! Oh, you say, but the cases are all different! Well, I argue, so are the romance novels. Sure, she’ll end up with him in the end - but how and why? I mean, people read non-fiction history books all the time (here’s a hint: Lincoln gets shot and the Titanic sinks!) and they know the ultimate ending, but they want details and interesting tidbits. It’s all in the details.
So don’t tell me you won’t read it because you know how it ends, because that’s not the point of the story. You want another example? I’ve been to both Seattle, Washington and Washington DC (point A, the beginning, and point B, the ending). Does that mean that, if I set off in my car from Seattle I might as well zone out as I drive cross-country? I mean, I know my destination - point B - well enough, what’s the point of paying attention to the journey? Even if I’ve driven it before, there might be new sites, or I might take a different route or a detour, or any number of things. It’s asinine to assume there’s nothing worthwhile between points A and B.
I think I’ve beaten that point to death. Moving on to the fact that they’re ‘stupid and cheesy.’
Here I will contend that you’re reading the wrong romance novels! Are there stupid, cheesy, horridly written romance novels? Yes. There are also stupid, cheesy, horridly written mysteries, science fiction/fantasy novels, and westerns. And plenty of stupid, cheesy, really horridly written chick-lit. Perhaps romance does have a bit more than its fair share, volume-wise, but because of the sheer number of romance novels written I’d hazard a guess that the percentages aren’t that far off. If you argue that the romance is the cheese factor, I contend that you belong to group one, and simply do not like romance in your fiction at all. And no amount of reading good romance will change that. But admit that it’s just not your cup of tea, please don’t say that you don’t like them because they are stupid and the people that read them are morons. ‘Stupid’ is the person who, after shocking themselves a dozen times on a frayed electrical cord, decides to grab it one more time because the result might be different this time. A person who doesn’t share your taste is not a moron, just different. More on that in ‘I'm okay, you read dumb books’, though.
Finally, the argument that romance novels are unrealistic. Here I completely agree. They are utterly unrealistic. They are the height of unrealistic. No one expects them to be realistic. That’s why it’s fiction. Do you honestly believe that all the armchair detective novels are realistic? Perhaps the mysteries involving the police, okay, but not the ‘average citizen’ who fights crime more efficiently and smartly than an entire police force. And science fiction and fantasy are inherently unrealistic (there’s a common belief that science fiction, being ‘based’ on science is more realistic than fantasy, but I don’t buy into that - uh-oh, it’s another segment… let’s see… ‘The Magic of Science: Technobabble and Spells as a way to explain the unexplainable in Science Fiction and Fantasy’, coming soon to a blog near you!). If I wanted realism I’d watch the news. Or read non-fiction. Sure, there’s a scale of realism in fiction, sliding from a lot of the nearly normal ‘general fiction’ to the height of absurdity (I think this title has to go to sci-fi/fantasy, and they should be proud of it!). Some people are only happy at the bottom of the scale, others disdain normality and heard straight for the upper bounds. But romance falls somewhere in the middle - sure, there are bits that aren’t historically accurate (in the historical romances) and there are some ‘yeah, right’ moments in all of them, but outside of the ‘paranormal romances’ they contain human beings acting rather humanly in a society we know. That’s pretty normal. Comparatively, that’s pretty realistic. To use this as an argument against romance as a genre isn’t particularly effective, unless you’re one of those people that hugs the bottom of the scale for dear life. In which case you also must dismiss all fantasy, almost all sci-fi, and a good percentage of mysteries, westerns, and chick-lit, plus a fair amount of the general fiction. So just say that you can’t abide unrealistic storylines, and leave the genre out of it.
Can romance novels be trite and cliché? Yes. Are there romance novels that are stupid and cheesy? Sure. Are romance novels unrealistic? Sometimes. But are they all that way? No. So, you ask, what are they?
They are fun. They are humorous. They can have characters that make you laugh and tug at your heartstrings. They can make you root for a character… or against a character. They can make you twist your brain to try to solve the mystery or misunderstanding before the author gives you the answer, or they can simply transport you to another world for a few hours. They are what you get out of them. Even if it’s just escape, and that alone is enough. We all need that from time to time, and of all the ways to do it, what’s wrong with indulging in a little brain candy with a happy ending? When did it become taboo to enjoy something nice? Why, in a world filled with enough misery and crap to drown you, is a whole genre designed to do nothing but make you feel good disdained? When did people decide that everything we read has to be deep, and dark, and moody? When did ‘intellectual’ become nearly synonymous with ‘morose’? What the hell is wrong with enjoying something at face value and simply having a good time?
I read romance novels.
I like romance novels.
I believe, deep in my cynical little heart, in happily ever after.
And I’m proud of that.