Romance Novel Rant
Related to my last post, one of my pet peeves is people who think romance novel == stupid fluff (and the corollary to that, that romance novel reader == stupid bimbo). Outlander is not a romance novel, but I’ve certainly devoured more than my fair share of romance novels.
Here is a new flash: romance novels range from absolute trite nonsense to brilliant works of literature just like any other genre. Shocking. Just as in other maligned literary genres (such as sci-fi, fantasy, graphic novel, suspense), there is a lot of dross to wade through before hitting gold. In each genre, there is a certain focus or theme that makes the genre what it is, and in the case of romance, the focus is on relationships, whether that means people falling in love for the first time or people examining their evolving relationship over a course of decades.
My two favorite “comfort reading” genres are historical romance novels and British cozies (term for murder mysteries that take place in tiny quiet British towns). Historical romance novels are interesting to me because unlike many other historical fiction, they spend a lot of time also covering tidbits like local customs, social hierarchies, and styles of dress, rather than focusing solely on politics.
Ok, so now we’re cooking with rambling! 😀 Anyway, the second point I was going to make is that even if you are hung up over the idea that something called a romance novel must be shallow fluff, the books of the Outlander series were seriously miscategorized anyway. They were originally published under romance, but got moved to historical fiction, then moved again to literary fiction, then again to romance, then for a bit to paranormal. I think it depends on your bookstore. My feeling is that it belongs in historical fiction because so much of the stories is about the major historical events and politics and how they impacted the people involved. The book also deals with love, relationships, and sex, which is why it is/was in the romance section.
One of the elements that I love the most (aside from the detailed descriptions of 1700s medical practices) is that it’s like real life: there is laughter, there is pain. Really bad things happen to good people and you hope they get through them. Some do, some don’t. But it’s all written in an engaging way. Some you root for. Some you hope never get mentioned again in the stories. There is moral ambiguity, questions of honor, loyalty, oaths, merciful killings? The stories are full of grit of the daily routine of life. I hate books that are just one-note: all suspenseful or all serious or all humor. They feel so lifeless to me.
Blah blah blah.
But that’s like saying, in a murder mystery, someone dies and either it will be solved or it won’t.
Or reading/watching something like Lord of the Rings and saying they will either be successful or not successful.
And many romance novels don’t center around just the two people – they serve as the crux of the story, but the more interesting stories have families and friends who might depend on them or are going through crises that create conflicts for the characters. Then there is the internal conflict of personal growth, which is the most interesting for me, no matter what the genre. If the focus character does not grow but is merely a vessel for the plot, then I have almost no interest in it.
It would be similar to me saying that the Batman Begins movie was uninteresting because it was just about Batman, and we already know he ends up as Batman.
There is so much in what happens between the covers that makes a good story transcend any one or two word description, which is assigning genre does, or that makes a good premise with a ultimately poor execution.
Smacked down by the romance fiction fan!
I didn’t read the comment. Chad will either get smacked down, or he won’t.
lmao!
Chad’s a bastard!
I read all the time and all varieties of books. I loved Outlander even though I’ve yet to start the second book in the series. It’s all about the author, either they can write really well or they’ll make any subject into trite drivvle.
lol
I’m man enough to admit when I’ve been pwnd, and you Eingy, have pwnd me.
I don’t know what it is then, but I just don’t like romance stories at all. Whenever I see a “chick flick” on TV or in the theater, my brain just wants to shut off.
Whatever it is, it’s not just romance stories. I really can’t stand any kind of reality tv, soap opera or similar personal drama.
I haven’t been able to stop thinking about this, but now I think I understand what I don’t like about personal drama type stories – it’s that they seem so easily avoidable. The conflicts always seem like a simple misunderstanding or miscommunication. Dude, just tell her you love her, end of story.
It could also be that because I avoid “chick” stories like the plague, that I’ve missed out on the good ones. I swear, if I have to watch another movie where the girl finally realizes she loves him 10 minutes from the end, but now he’s headed to the airport, blah blah blah, I’ll shoot myself.
It could also be that you have no heart or feelings, robot!
As a fellow romance novel fan, I think one of the problems is that the really great writers aren’t getting the same sort of publicizing that people like Danielle Steele and her like are. Jennifer Weiner has a really great post on her blog right now about the movies (her book, “In Her Shoes” was recently turned into a movie and she wonders why it didn’t do better in theaters) and why chick flicks will never do better than slasher or bad comedy films. I think there’s a general assumption that romance novels are trite pieces of shit. And the truth is, many times they are.
Would you consider Jane Austen romance, and thus trash? I highly doubt it. But it’s true – her novels are mostly centered around a central relationship between a man and a woman and the trials and tribulations of getting that relationship to work – yet she’s heralded as one of the greatest writers ever.
Oh, and as a sidenote – at the Borders on Union Square, Diana Gabaldon’s books are in the Sci-Fi section which threw me for a big old loop when I went to buy The Fiery Cross.
– Becky
I wouldn’t know a good romance novel from a bad one even if it bit me on the ass. Of course, if it did in fact bite me on the ass, I probably wouldn’t notice whether it was good or not since a novel had just bitten me on the ass. That would be pretty surprising and probably painful.
But I digress. I can’t stand them. No, I can’t say that since I’ve never read one. I should say, romances have little to no interest for me and sromance movies, in general, bore me to tears.
However, I do like the Jane Austen/Merchant Ivory films. And “You’ve Got Mail” eventually won me over.
I think Chad describes, in his later post, describes why I don’t like 90% of “chick flicks” or JLo movies.
Fuck. I forgot I like those British movies like Love Actually, Four Weddings and a Funeral, and Notting Hill.
O.K. THAT’S ALL. I hate the whole rest of them.
Was Groundhog Day a romance? No, right?
Goddamit. In the Mood For Love is one of my favorite movies ever. 2046 too.
Sweet jesus. Stop me before I like more romance movies…
Wow. A_B totally pwned himself. LOL!
You, my dear Ei-Nyung, are the reason I had to stop taunting romance novels years ago. I think I borrowed Rememberance in college and it totally changed my perception.
My issue with many “romance” novels was that pop culture mocked them as excuses to come up with 100 euphemisms for penis and have women act dumb and desparate. But I hadn’t *read* one, so how could I know?
But after reading the book, I appreciated all the social and historical details, and the fact that the heroine wasn’t dumb.
Also, I *like* thinking about the nuances of social interactions and communication and so on.
I still don’t think I would pick up a book in the romance section without a recommendation from a trusted friend 🙂 and now you’ve got me curious about outlander!
And chad, I understand that your brain turns off for chick flicks. Mine turns off for sports. I find ants running around on the ground more fascinating.
Although I don’t really understand the appeal of pro sports either, I’d much rather watch a hockey game than sit through a Julia Roberts movie.
Just put on PBS or Discovery and let me watch science shows all day. [/geek]
Chad, you might then find this interesting about the author.
/hard sell 😀
Roopa, awesome! A copy of Outlander is now on its way to you, as I threatened in my other blog entry (which you shouldn’t read now).
Chad, I think Thou Dost Protest Too Much. Clearly, in your heart of hearts, you are a total sap.
ROFL!
To me, romance stories don’t seem like they could be nearly as nuanced or original as in most other genres, for the simple fact that you’re essentially dealing with only two characters, and so the possible scenarios are limited. First, there are only two possible outcomes; either they’re together in the end or they’re not. It also seems to me that pretty much every possible path leading to either of those two outcomes has been beaten to death.