Jo here, using a romantic picture.
I'm springboarding off another blog, the excellent Teach Me Tonight, which is based around the academic study of romance novels. It truly is most interesting and at times thought provoking.
Link to Teach Me Tonight.
In the most recent message there, Laura Vivanco, who also posts here in Wenches, addresses the question of accuracy in romance novels, which, of course, we've also talked about here. She references recent debate at All About Romance, another excellent site, this time mostly reader driven.
Link to the discussion boards.
There are two threads on historical accuracy here and a thread on poll results here.
Having got through that preamble...*G* I was struck by a particular part of Laura's blog.
Laura quoted MarianneM at AAR: "There have always been rebels, like Lady Hester Stanhope, who are willing to go outside the rules of society, and pay the social price, to defy the rules and triumph. But first the writer needs to know the 'rules and regs' of the society in which his hero or heroine developed in order to show what a triumph his protagonist has achieved in going against those rules."
(Apologies to Marianne if I'm quoting out of context here. Secondary quoting. Bad, bad.)
That got me thinking in so many ways at once my head was spinning like that kid in The Exorcist! First, I really wish people wouldn't pull out the unusual characters as excuse for there being a plethora of oddities in historical novels. If there were many such people, they wouldn't have become so famous that we know about them!
What's more, and more important to me, if characters are social misfits, what sort of happy ending will they have? I have this problem -- I want them all to live socially contributive lives from comfortable homes in pleasant and congenial communities, and have ample friends and laughter. Not all that much to ask, is it, after we put them through hell?
But that raises one the the questions I'm asking today. Do you want to read about the really, really odd people of a time and place or about the interesting ones among the normal ones? (I'm assuming no one wants to read about the boring ones, odd or not!)
(I put in those pictures because they're a set, I believe, so probably married or to be, and they look like ordinary people.)
Second, Lady Hester Stanhope is to me just as interesting for her life before she went a-wandering, but that gets little press. At age 27 she became hostess and household manager for her uncle, Pitt, the Prime Minister. She was known for her skills in these tasks and for her lively, witty conversation. In other words, qualities that were exceptional, but didn't make her peculiar, and which an excellent heroine of a romance novel could possess. Uncommon, but not odd, and not breaking rules every which way.
This was the bit that really got me thinking, though. "But first the writer needs to know the 'rules and regs' of the society in which his hero or heroine developed in order to show what a triumph his protagonist has achieved in going against those rules."
True, but why, I ask, is going against rules a triumph? Couldn't one write, "But first the writer needs to know the 'rules and regs' of the society in which his hero or heroine developed in order to show how clueless the protagonist has been/what destruction (s)he has caused/how they've made any sort of decent future impossible in going against those rules."
Sometimes it is admirable to break rules, but the rebellion in romance novels, especially on the part of the heroine, is too often not for social justice, to bring about necessary reforms, or even to struggle against her own oppression, but a "don't wanna!"
(I'm thinking about this even more because I'm reading through page proofs of two older books right now
-- The Fortune Hunter and Deirdre and Don Juan, which will be out together as Lovers and Ladies next April. These are all conventional people living conventional lives. In both cases, the protagonists are acting within the rules and regs and do the right thing. But I don't think the books are boring, even read now. DADJ won a RITA.)
What's wrong with a heroine who's really good at being a woman of her time? Who includes in her skills running a household brilliantly and being an elegant and gracious hostess. A woman who looks forward to devoting a lot of her time and energy to being a mother and who enjoys the commoner leisure activities of music, art, needlework and good company.
Any idea why some readers don't want that?
Isn't the basic story of the romance novel -- the sparks of attraction and conflict, the challenges of circumstances or society the triumph of pulling it all together and making it work -- interesting enough? Yes, clearly it is as so many bestselling historical romances fit into that group. But what is it with the other sort?
It's probably in keeping here to mention the song I have playing on my My Space space. The Old Fashioned Way, by James Kasper. You can hear it here without belonging to My Space.
Go to My Space.
"I want to do it the old fashioned way.
With chivalry and grace
Tenderly with taste
With a romantic chase....
Let all your violent ways
Useless angry days, wash ashore.
Have a little quiet time
Leave temper tantrums behind
Push away the wars...."
So, let's hear it for good old fashioned romance.
Unleash your comments!
Jo :)