What is a Romance?
A schism seems to be growing among romance readers and authors these days over what does or does not constitute a romance. One side of this discussion adheres to the traditional definition, which is that a romance is a tale involving a man and a woman in events which lead to adventurous happenings and culminates in a happy ending. The opposite view, one that has evolved in the last ten years or so, is that a romance is a story which concentrates solely on the emotional involvement of the hero and heroine. The first allows for creation of setting, character and complex action while building a relationship that progresses to sensual accord and, finally, love. The second requires constant association of the hero and heroine and the exploration of their intense sexual rapport. Readers of the first type enjoy the mental stimulation of a plot which may include well-researched historical or contemporary incidents and political machinations against a backdrop of authentic sights and sounds. Readers of the second care little for accurate depiction of settings or events but enjoy the emotional stimulation of high dramatics and titillating and/or explicit love scenes.
The inevitable result of this difference of opinion is that many of those judging contests or writing critiques for other purposes are raising the cry of, “This is not a romance!” The question I ask is: Who says it isn’t? By whose standard are they judging?
A romance is a story wherein the main focus is the relationship between the hero and heroine--be that relationship social, political, historical, emotional, physical or any and all these things. Within these parameters, the events which carry the story forward can be as different as the writer creating it. Attempting to narrow the definition of a romance to suit one’s own preference is a good way to kill off the genre completely. The best romances, best stories of any kind, are written by those who are freest to make them what they will.
“I think perfectionism is based on the obsessive belief that if you run carefully enough, hitting each stepping-stone just right, you won’t have to die. The truth is that you will die anyway and that a lot of people who aren’t even looking at their feet are going to do a whole lot better than you, and have a lot more fun while they’re doing it.”
--Anne Lamott
posted by Jennifer Blake at 9:20 AM
5 Comments:
Please don't shut up, Maria. What you have to say is important! As with any movement with freedom as its goal--in this case freedom of expression--those with a strong view need to be heard.
I'm so glad to know that you enjoy the long build up to a single love scene since I’ve been leaning that way of late. It’s a little like Hitchcock’s view on terror: An explosion isn’t that exciting; it’s waiting for it to happen that makes your heart pound. And I do get bent out of shape over romance novels, particularly in historical context, where characters leap into sexual intimacy as if they can't think ahead, are so in lust that they have no self control or lack all concern for the conventions of the time period. This isn't exciting; it’s plain stupid. If they consider all the problems then make love anyway, for good and sufficient reason, that's another thing altogether. But don't get me started...
Yes, diversity is necessary for evolution in the romance genre. And evolution is necessary for its survival. If romance novels can’t, or don’t, change enough to hold the changing interest of readers, then they will be doomed
Best, Jennifer
We are such romantics, Maria! I say this because I can't stand to watch movies with sad endings, either. Sommersby? Devastating. Loved Somewhere in Time, but absolutely refuse to watch it again. I watched Phantom of the Opera the other day--after seeing it once live--and agonized tearfully all over again for the poor phantom. Haven't watched Cold Mountain because somebody said it "didn't end right." Never saw Love Story for the same reason. And so on, and so on. I can't even read the scene in my own Dawn Encounter where the poet says good-bye to Lisette before the duel without breaking down, and I killed the young gentleman off myself! But it's my personal belief that sensitivity is a good thing, that the world is better off for people who are able to empathize with fictional characters as if they were real. The problem is in those who are too callous, too unsympathetic to feel anything.
Oops, Maria, I didn't mean to be a spoiler--I'd forgotten you hadn't read Dawn Encounter yet. Sorry!!! Don't let my comments put you off, however. This duel has a strong point for the story and also sets up the whole situation for book #4, the one I'm working on now. It was included as a cautionary note as well, in comparison to the favorable attitude toward dueling elsewhere.
Thanks for the warning about Million Dollar Baby. I'll avoid that one, too. Don't watch Denzel Washington in Man on Fire without a tissue box handy. I think what kills me is nobility in action, the sacrifice for love--whether it's for a woman, a child or a cause. Hey, I've never seen King Kong, old version or new, but I suspect I'd probably cry for the ape. Pity the poor beast, rather like the phantom of the opera in a way. Another heartbreaker is the "things that might have been." I'm thinking of Message in a Bottle and Bridges of Madison County here. For obvious reasons, I don't read Nicholas Sparks any more. He's the Danielle Steele of male authors, going straight for the tear ducts.
My favorite movies are romantic comedies--love Hugh Grant and will watch anything he does just to hear him throw away lines with that wonderful English style. Pierce Brosnan as well--I just like English actors in general. Despite the mayhem, I always enjoyed watching Brosnan save the day as 007--so I will watch some suspense. But I can't stand prison/convict movies, hit man/hit woman movies, car chase movies, war movies, horror movies, werewolf/ghost/demon movies, movies about snakes or sharks or anything with blood and gore that splashes. You can tell why I read so much...
Howard Keel: ever see him in Show Boat? And Annie Get Your Gun? I think we just may be dating ourselves...:-) He was one of the few guys appearing in musicals who was actually good looking and could sing as well. I mean, Frank Sinatra,Fred Astaire and Dean Martin had great voices and good moves, but were not exactly hunks, at least IMHO. LOL! Of course, they weren't quite my generation either, but we won't go there.
Have a great weekend!
Best, Jennifer
I couldn't help but glancing right off the bat at what Maria said in her post to you and her first sentence totally summed up my thoughts as I read your post.
And after reading your post I've decided that you're right - there are two different kinds of romance and I love them both. It just depends on the day or my mood. (Imagine that - a woman with differing moods:))
So I guess I'm really glad that there has been a developing or newer section of romance type books. For days that I just want a quick 'fix' of romance I can grab it and go. And for the times that I want to curl up and be there for awhile... I know where to go as well.
Funny thing was, I've been doing this for quite awhile and just didn't realize that there was pattern to it!
Cole
Very balanced idea, Cole!--reading different types of romances according to mood. I can relate to that with no problem. And I certainly think there's plenty of room for all kinds of romances. Nothing like variety! What gets me are the people who try to hem in the genre with rules and regs advanced according to their own personal preferences. They need brain expansion surgery...
Thanks for weighing in on this discussion!
Best, Jennifer
Post a Comment
<< Home