The 2008 RITA Winners have just been announced (and congratulations to all of them!) but what I found even more interesting (from my admittedly rather odd point of view) was an announcement I saw this morning that RWA's online chapter will be holding a workshop (more details here) for romance authors based on Pamela Regis's A Natural History of the Romance Novel:I was instantly reminded of a recent comment made by AgTigress who, although she's "really encouraged to see the genre being subjected to serious scholarly analysis" canThe Natural History of the Romance Novel:
How Understanding our Roots Can Help Today's Authors
Write a Compelling Romance Novel
Presented by Teresa Bodwell
August 11 - September 12, 2008
Registration for this class is from July 21, 2008 - August 10, 2008.
CLASS DESCRIPTION:
This course will track the eight essential elements that define a romance novel according to A Natural History of the Romance Novel by Pamela Regis. Participants will learn how to apply the essential elements to create a compelling, romantic page-turner.
According to Regis, the eight essential elements of a romance novel are:
Society Defined; The Meeting; The Barrier; The Attraction; The Declaration; The Point of Ritual Death; The Recognition; The Betrothal
The workshop will discuss all of these elements using examples from several romance novels. Participants will submit excerpts from their works in progress for comment. Assignments will include: the meeting, the barrier, the attraction and the point of ritual death.
To get the most out of this course, participants should read the following books:
* The Natural History of the Romance Novel by Pamela Regis
* Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
* Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte
* Montana Sky by Nora Roberts
* Ain't She Sweet by Susan Elizabeth Phillips
* Scent of Roses by Kat Martin
see some dangers, too. The unselfconsciousness of a genre that is outside the limits of 'serious' consideration has strengths as well as weaknesses: one of the reasons for the sheer inventiveness of romance, the blending with fantasy and fairy-tale, with science fiction and suspense, had to to do with the fact that there were not too many perceived rules, beyond those imposed by the publishers, who had their own ideas (often mistaken) about what would sell.As is apparent from my response to her comment, I'd never thought that we as academics could have much impact on the genre that we write about. Somehow I'd assumed that although what we said might be of interest to some romance authors, it wouldn't really affect their writing. It seems clear I was very wrong.
I am encouraged, though, by what I have learnt about the people who are involved in this more conscious study of the genre. It seems to me that there are many people involved who have a good deal more insight than the traditional literary critic.
I'm sure it's a compliment to Pamela that her work is being considered to have useful, practical, applications by and for romance authors but how do you feel about this feedback loop between romance authors and the academics who study and appreciate the genre?
The image of an "ideal feedback model" came from Wikipedia.
Ah, this is an interesting one.
ReplyDeleteFirst, let me say that I heard Pam Regis speak at the 2003 RWA conference in New York, met her, and bought and read her book. I think that her analysis of the essential elements of the traditional romance novel is masterly, and that she has shed a lot of light and made a major contribution to the study of the genre (and no doubt continues to do so).
I also think, as I said, that from the author’s point of view, it is crucial not to feel constrained by ‘rules’ or even ‘norms’, because if one is, innovation can be completely stifled.
The key, to me, lies in the function and nature of classification, which should be descriptive rather than prescriptive. In order to study anything in detail, whether it is a concrete object or an abstract, conceptual one, one should learn about its function, its history (which is why I think that the workshop you describe is a Very Good Thing), its evolution, its future directions, and the types and sub-types and sub-sub-types that it has, will, can or may engender. The classificatory framework is just that, a framework, a mental filing system into which one places the different classes or types one perceives in the existing examples. What the framework should not be is a set of limiting rules; the framework can be augmented, reduced, conflated, tweaked and altered according to the actual examples that exist and that will exist in the future. The framework is essentially mutable.
Let me use (predictably) an archaeological example. If I have set out to create a typology of Roman finger-rings, have identified 14 major variants and numbered them Types 1 to 14 (many of these with sub- and sub-sub types), each showing some regional and/or chronological variation, some occurring only in certain materials (e.g. gold, silver, bronze), others in a wider range (e.g. also in iron, bone, jet, glass), my classificatory framework will already be quite complex. There will be examples that may be hybrids; if I get enough ‘Type 4/8’ hybrids, they will perhaps form a class in themselves. Other scholars will argue about the parameters, and say things like, ‘your Type 14 is really just a regional variant of Type 3, so you should call it ‘Type 3 g’’, or, ‘there is enough morphological difference between bronze rings of Type 6 and jet rings of Type 6 to warrant giving the latter a separate number’, and a good time will be had by all. Then sooner or later a Roman ring will turn up that doesn’t fit in at all, even as a sub-type. It becomes Type 15. Of course, many archaeological typologies start by giving a different symbol to each of the cross-cutting variable parameters, which for Roman rings might be material, hoop form, shoulder form, bezel form, decoration and a few dozen others, and one may designate these in Roman caps, Roman lower-case, Greek letters, Roman numerals, (upper and lower case), Arabic numerals and so forth. Referring to ‘Type II A f gamma 6 iii’ theoretically provides a detailed picture of the form – but these kinds of typology usually just give people a severe headache. They are not good to use, but they are huge fun to do, and may lead to new insights just through the processes that one applies.
My point (at last) is this; typological classification is an enormous aid to study, and can help us make sense of things that are otherwise apparently chaotic and inchoate. Its history in the natural sciences goes back to the 17th century and for those of us who think pictorially, rather than verbally, it is essential. But classification systems are not laws of nature; they are simply a way of studying nature – and art. As soon as we say, ‘that can’t be a Roman ring, because it doesn’t fit into my typology!’, we are letting the classification rule reality rather than serve reality. If the thing is Roman, and a finger-ring, never mind that it is unique and doesn’t fit the typology. The typology must be adjusted to accommodate it.
My answer to your final question is that scholars, readers and authors will all benefit from this kind of analysis and feedback, as long as they all remain aware of its purpose, its essential imperfection, and the fact that it not only can, but should, change and evolve with time.
A Daniel come to judgment!
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the details about rings, Tigress, and the broader point about "the function and nature of classification, which should be descriptive rather than prescriptive."
ReplyDeleteI know there have been plenty of discussions among romance authors about some individuals who take advice and guidelines and somehow convert them into rigid, inflexible "rules" which they are certain will ensure success.
I wonder if some people, particularly if they're new to a subject, can be a bit awed by whatever/whoever represents authority in that field, and so they don't realise that all knowledge is a work-in-progress which, as you say, "not only can, but should, change and evolve with time."
For my own part, by regularly admitting to my mistakes and the many gaps in my knowledge, I do my very best to dispel any impression that I could possibly be an infallible authority. ;-)
By coincidence Robin posted something at Romancing the Blog today which explores the idea of who makes up the romance community, and she too expresses surprise at how influential her voice might be:
Despite the persistent debates over who should and shouldn’t attend the [RWA] conference, the fact that so many different representatives of the genre and the industry attend the conference is a revelation of how intertwined the online community has become.
Most of the time I believe that everything I write is projected out into some foggy ether that a few people happen to stumble into. I am still surprised when people comment on my reviews or columns. Maybe it’s that way for everyone, but it tends to make me feel like more of a bystander than a central player.
[...] we’re all already engaged in the process of building and maintaining a common infrastructure in which everything we do and say matters.
A lot of people in the romance community got their start reading--and then writing--category romances, which DO have very restrictive guidelines. Perhaps this plays a part in their thinking?
ReplyDeleteIt's this part which worries me:
ReplyDeleteParticipants will learn how to apply the essential elements to create a compelling, romantic page-turner.
It suggests that if you apply the "essential elements" to your own romance, you will automatically write a successful story (aka one that an editor is going to snatch up). I hope Pam's book won't be turned into yet another recipe of success floating around the romance community.
As a writer I don't find these how-to books particularly helpful, even though I did buy the famous (at least in the romance community) GOAL, MOTIVATION AND CONFLICT: THE BUILDING BLOSCK OF GOOD FICTION at my first RWA conference and went to one of the archetypes workshops. Since 1999 I've also owned a copy of James N. Frey's HOW TO WRITE A DAMN GOOD NOVEL 2. I've never once cracked any of these books open. For me, at least, they are not useful when it comes to developing a story. I prefer to improve my writing through the reading of novels and through getting feedback from guinea-pig readers or from my agent and editor.
On the other hand, I have, of course, learnt about Freytag's pyramid in school and several years ago I practically inhaled Est�s's WOMEN WHO RUN WITH THE WOLVES. So it might well be that I unconsciously use those structures for my writing.
Pam's book didn't seem like a how to book from the reviews on amazon. More an academic study of romance. The tutor is using it to base her how to class. It does seem like an interesting class but all that pre-class reading kinda puts me off. It may be ok for an offline class but it seems a little excessive for a month long online class. Especially as folks tend to take them because they don't have a lot of free time.
ReplyDeleteJenna
It's been my observation that writer's of popular fiction, romance in particular, tend to "try" to write an odd combination of what they're already comfortable reading and that nebulous thing they can't find at the same time. Which is probably why it sounds so wrong to go so back to the history of romances to figure out how to write them for today's audience.
ReplyDeleteOkay, I thought I was making sense when I started typing so let me try that again. I think what I'm trying to say is that it's always good to learn from the past. It's just that I've read very few romances nowadays that follow those "eight essential elements" that she's using as a template so I'm not sure how much help the class will be. Twenty, thirty, forty years ago, maybe, but is that really going to help writers today sell their books?
I agree that if study of Pam Regis's book (which is certainly not a 'how-to' text, but rather, a careful and insightful academic study of the history and evolution of a genre) were being touted as a mechanism or template for writing successful romance novels, then the course would be a total waste of time, but that is certainly not how I read the course description. I inferred the rationale as being study of a traditional format, which goes back at least 250 years, together with study of various good recent specimens of the genre that demonstrate the same plot patterning, and the conclusions that a person might draw from those examples.
ReplyDeleteAs I said above, analysis is intended as a structure that aids study. It is impossible to have a deep knowledge of any subject without knowing something of its history.
I write non-fiction, not novels, but I am quite sure that if I ever attempted to write fiction, I would find it enlightening to study the ways in which skilled and successful authors - whether they were writing in 1805, 1950 or last year - achieved their effects and results. Not because they set out 'rules' to be followed, but simply because they demonstrate something that has worked in the past, and that may, or may not, continue to work in a changed society.
Good plotting is essential for a satisfying work of fiction, and there is certainly a specific pattern that is normal in romances, the aim and object of which is to track the formation of a human pair-bond. A pair-bond that forms without any problems or reverses, without any conflict, does not make a satisfying story; the difficulties that the main characters have to overcome to achieve their HEA are essential to the story. In my experience, modern romances - those that are being published right now - do, in general, follow the broad outlines of Regis's classification.
It is one thing to study how things work: this is interesting and mind-broadening. It is quite another to imagine that following a set of rules will bring success: that is naive and pointless.
A lot of people in the romance community got their start reading--and then writing--category romances, which DO have very restrictive guidelines. Perhaps this plays a part in their thinking?
ReplyDeleteI suppose it depends what you mean by "restrictive." Certainly each line has its own particular tone, and some specify the kinds of professions the characters should have (e.g. medical professionals in the medical romances), and there are length restrictions, but it seems to me that there's still quite a lot of variation within lines. I can see how they might appear "same-ish" to other people, though.
My hunch is that some people would like to find a "recipe of success," as Sandra puts it. They want some surefire method to follow in order to get their work published, but that sort of guarantee just doesn't exist.
Pam's book didn't seem like a how to book from the reviews on amazon.
Jenna, as AgTigress says, it definitely isn't a how-to book. It's an academic one, which is why I found it so interesting that it should be used as the basis of this course.
It does seem like an interesting class but all that pre-class reading kinda puts me off. It may be ok for an offline class but it seems a little excessive for a month long online class.
At least two of the books are classics and books that the whole of the modern genre draws on, so it doesn't seem too strange to include them, and probably quite a lot of people will have read both of them already. Also, I suspect that it's only by looking at a number of books in detail that people will be able to see how much flexibility there is within the structures that Regis identified.
It's just that I've read very few romances nowadays that follow those "eight essential elements" that she's using as a template
In her book Pam does analyse novels by Jayne Ann Krentz and Nora Roberts. I wonder if it's Pam's terminology which makes you feel that these elements aren't present in modern romances? She does say, though, that "the betrothal" doesn't literally have to be a betrothal but can just be a commitment that the couple make to each other. Admittedly it can sometimes be quite a vague, open-ended thing nowadays, but I think the readers still expect some sort of ongoing relationship, or it wouldn't feel like a HEA.
Or is it some other element you think isn't present in modern romances? I'd be really interested to know which novels you've come across which don't have all 8. Unfortunately I might not have read them, as the genre's so huge, but it would be good to know, because as AgTigress said, if something "doesn’t fit the typology. The typology must be adjusted to accommodate it."
I've seen examples of category guidelines (admittedly, not current ones) that specify things like in which chapter the h/h should first go to bed with each other. I can remember back in the day when I still read Harlequins, there was always one example of coitus somehow interruptus, before they actually Did the Deed.
ReplyDeleteI have been reading (haven't finished) the Joseph Campbell-based The Writer's Journey by Christopher Vogler and The Secular Scripture: A Study of the Structure of Romance (The Charles Eliot Norton Lectures) by Northrop Frye:
Romance, a mode of literature trafficking in such plot elements as mistaken identity, shipwrecks, magic potions, the rescue of maidens in distress, has tended to be regarded as hardly deserving of serious consideration; critics praise other aspects of the Odyssey, The Faerie Queene, Shakespeare's last plays, and Scott's Waverley novels, for example, while forgiving the authors' indulgence in childishly romantic plots. Frye, however, discerns in the innumerable romantic narratives of the Western tradition an imaginative universe stretching from an idyllic world to a demonic one, and a pattern of action taking the form of a cyclical descent into and ascent out of the demonic realm. Romance as a whole is thus seen as forming an integrated vision of the world, a "secular scripture" whose hero is man, paralleling the sacred scripture whose hero is God.
I can remember back in the day when I still read Harlequins, there was always one example of coitus somehow interruptus, before they actually Did the Deed.
ReplyDeleteI've not read enough categories written prior to the 1990s to have been able to spot a pattern like that.
I've seen examples of category guidelines (admittedly, not current ones) that specify things like in which chapter the h/h should first go to bed with each other
There are some quite amusing guidelines from the 1980s posted at the Romance Wiki. This one from Gallen Books circa 1980 really is very prescriptive, and it does state that "Hopefully, the first sex will appear within the first 50 manuscript pages."
Just read a story with really great sex and not much else and it made me think of this discussion. If a story has meeting, attraction, declaration, and betrothal all within, say, twenty pages of eighty, with a very poor attempt at barrier, PoRD, and realization that amount to little more than a really small Mis, rather than the Big Mis, then it's not a good romance, no matter how good the sex. Four out of eight elements, even if they're the four that are "obviously" romantic, don't make a story worth reading, because a romance without any barrier is not a story, it's just a nice anecdote to tell about how you met. So while I think a writing workshop using Regis's eight elements might be flirting with a little bit of absurdity (what literary critic really thinks they're writing a prescription for a "great romance?), it makes sense on some strange level, because, let me tell you, I'm not buying this author again, and an analysis of the story using Regis's eight elements would have helped it immeasurably. And Regis's elements make it easy for me to say what was missing because, wow, it's glaringly obvious that there was no "there" there, if you know what I mean. The writing (word to word) was good, with great descriptions. The character construction was meh, but mostly because they had nothing to test them, nothing for them to show their metal. I'm amazed the story got past its editor the way it is and makes me believe much more the general opinion about the slow descent of Ellora's Cave.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, all this is to say that while I think it's slightly strange in a very cool way, I understand how an author who can't figure out what's missing from her story would be helped by a workshop that uses Regis's eight elements.
Or is it some other element you think isn't present in modern romances? I'd be really interested to know which novels you've come across which don't have all 8. Unfortunately I might not have read them, as the genre's so huge, but it would be good to know, because as AgTigress said, if something "doesn’t fit the typology. The typology must be adjusted to accommodate it."
ReplyDeleteOh, I don't doubt that the elements she talks about exist or that they exist in many romances. I simply wonder if they exist in every single one and in that order. Particularly nowadays. Maybe especially nowadays. It's not something I think about when I'm reading them.
Then again, I've never been a reader who sticks with "pure" romances, i.e. those that conform to solely the relationship alone, either. There's always a little mystery, fantasy, adventure or something else happening in the romances I read, so maybe that's coloring my perceptions too. Or put another way, rearranging the elements list, maybe.
See, it's not so much that I don't expect the romance HEA, because I do, absolutely, but that the romances I'm reading also have elements from other genres added into the mix. And I'm not talking about mildly. When that happens, isn't it conceivable that this list of essentials could get interrupted or at least rearranged by crossover elements from the other genre? Cause I'm sure the other genres have their own essential lists to study, too. ;)
Does that make more sense?
the romances I'm reading also have elements from other genres added into the mix. And I'm not talking about mildly. When that happens, isn't it conceivable that this list of essentials could get interrupted or at least rearranged by crossover elements from the other genre?
ReplyDeleteYou're right to mention flexibility about the order in which elements may appear. That sort of flexibility is very important, and in fact Regis is quite clear that "Elements both essential and accidental can appear in any order" (30).
Regis doesn't say that romances must consist of her elements and nothing but her elements, so again, I think there's quite a bit of flexibility built in to her definition.
I simply wonder if they exist in every single one and in that order.
Sarah's just given an example of what happens when a particular selection of the elements are omitted:
Four out of eight elements, even if they're the four that are "obviously" romantic, don't make a story worth reading, because a romance without any barrier is not a story, it's just a nice anecdote to tell about how you met.
I've not read that story, so I can't comment on it specifically, but I think Sarah's right in thinking that there have to be some issues separating the characters, otherwise you wouldn't get any feeling of suspense or character arc.
I've also seen readers discussing works marketed as "romance" which didn't end with a happy ending. I suppose the question about these is whether they're really romances.
So yes, some of Regis's elements can be omitted, but can they be omitted in successful works which would be identified as "romances" by most readers of the genre?
There are novels with "romantic elements" that aren't romances. The RWA recognises their existence in the RITA contest, but they are considered to be different from "romances."
When the story of the relationship is extended over the course of several books, that can get a bit more complicated, but as far as I know, in Austen's time each novel was published in a number of volumes, and that doesn't stop Regis considering that Pride and Prejudice has all the essential elements. So in some cases it might be that you'd have to look at the series as a whole, rather than just one book within the series, in order to find all the essential elements.
Bev: you say, "It's not something I think about when I'm reading them." Well no, of course not. I don't suppose you think a lot about the operation of the internal combustion engine when you are driving from A to B, or the fascinating ways light-rays behave when they pass through air and glass when you take a snapshot. When something works most of us take the actual process for granted, and we don't even need to understand it on a technical level.
ReplyDeleteHowever, studying and understanding the details is interesting in itself, and can usually explain, as Sarah has pointed out very clearly with her specific example, why one example works well on a practical level and another doesn't.
Hybrid genre categories have always been common. The first mass-market novels aimed particularly at women, the 'Horrid Novels' of the beginning of the 19th century, invariably contained mystery and suspense, and normally a good deal of what we call today the 'paranormal'. Mary Stewart was writing superb romantic suspense by the 1950s (we just called them 'novels' in those days). Many whodunnits of the classic period of the 1930s contained romance elements as well as a crime and its solution. Even the 'pure' romances that you have not read much (category contemporaries written in the 1970s to 1990s) usually have elements beyond that of simply chronicling the love-story: indeed, the necessity for some element of conflict often involves adventure, crime and other matters that also occur in books that are not romances.
How to classify a given example of a type is not always clear; there will be disagreements. But if you were to read a book in which a couple met at the beginning, were attracted to each other, went through some difficulties in their relationship, resolved them, had a satisfying sexual liaison - and then, at the end, went their separate ways with a wave and 'it was nice knowing you', that isn't a romance, even though all but the last classic element might have been included.
You suggest that if romance is mixed with other genres, "isn't it conceivable that this list of essentials could get interrupted or at least rearranged by crossover elements from the other genre?" Well, yes and no. It is not so much a case of how much romance differs from other popular genres, like crime novels, suspense, whodunnits, fantasy and so on, but how much they have in common.
Traditional tales of many kinds have plots that involve conflict, a resolution at or near the end, and an evolutionary change in the characters that populate the story. Certainly it is possible to write effective fiction without all, or any, of those elements, but it will not provide the reader with the comforting sense of satisfaction that we get from the fully resolved story. If that was not the effect the author sought, that's fine: if it was, he has gone astray. Romance is a traditional format, and so are many of the other kinds of story with which it is frequently combined. There are great areas of overlap which make it easy to create hybrid forms. Between romance and suspense, we are not talking about crossing a butterfly with a lion; it is more like crossing a spaniel with a bulldog.
Better than any of our arguments would be for you to go and read Regis, and then, with her insights in your mind, carry on reading romance or quasi-romance as you already do. You will be surprised to find how often you will be able to pinpoint exactly why a particular novel will seem good or not so good.
Knowing how things work is not essential for the consumer of the product - the driver of the car, the wielder of the digital camera, the reader of the novel - though knowledge will deepen his appreciation. But it is essential for the creator of the product. If the designer of the camera doesn't understand the properties of lenses (and these days, a whole lot of other technical electronic stuff), or the writer of the book does not really understand the structuring of a plot or the key elements in moving a story forward, then the book cannot work well for the reader, either.
Better than any of our arguments would be for you to go and read Regis, and then, with her insights in your mind, carry on reading romance or quasi-romance as you already do. You will be surprised to find how often you will be able to pinpoint exactly why a particular novel will seem good or not so good.
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect, an even better idea would be not assuming that any reader of romances hasn't read her books. Their reading habits are the ones under discussion after all.
Regis doesn't say that romances must consist of her elements and nothing but her elements, so again, I think there's quite a bit of flexibility built in to her definition.
I'm simply curious as to how that flexibility works when we're talking about true crossovers, which are becoming so prevalent today. Because one can make the claim that those books have to still be a "real" romance all day but the truth is that there's only so much plot a writer can stick into a book before it gets unreadable. Sooner or later, something has to give.
We can talk about a little bit of this and a little bit of that all we want to but there has to be a blending of the genres, too, for true hybridization to occur. Now, as academics, you can claim those literary elements are indistinguishable, but from a reader's standpoint, I don't think so. I never have and I don't believe other readers do otherwise there wouldn't be such strong distinction between genres. I can sure tell a mystery, what was it, "Declaration" from a romance one. (If you want to go nitpick it out, have fun. :D )
I guess what I'm getting at is that the new crossover phenomenon is a phenomenon simply because it's not just about minor elements being added to one genre novel from another. There are true hybrid books out there today that are different from what was out decades ago, many with HEA romance endings, that I'm not sure would conform to lists like this directly. I couldn't prove it. That's up to the academics but it is something I suspect.
"...true crossovers, which are becoming so prevalent today." "...the new crossover phenomenon..."
ReplyDeleteBut it isn't a new phenomenon! New varieties of fiction are evolving continually, and this has always been the case. As I said somewhere back at the beginning of this discussion, classification does not lay down 'rules': it involves studying the structure of the existing types (within certain pre-set boundaries, in this case, novels in English over the last 200-250 years or so), and trying to identify basic patterns. Once there is a viable framework of classification, new types, sub-types or hybrids are slotted in, which involves expanding the framework and sometimes altering it slightly. It's not a problem.
The classification of anything that is at all complex - and novels are complex - has to be complex too. Not everyone will agree about which parameters are crucial, which are fairly important, and which are peripheral or even optional. Nobody will agree about the exact ordering of sub-types: say you have four 'simple' HEA love-story romances, one involving a white heterosexual couple, one a black heterosexual couple, the third a gay couple, white, and the fourth a gay couple, black. Do you place the sexual orientation higher in the classificatory hierarchy than the racial/cultural element, or vice versa? In other words, is 'black, gay' a sub-type of 'gay romance' or of 'black romance'? Not everyone would agree, including all of us who are perfectly happy to read about the love affairs of people who are of other cultures (I read about Americans all the time!) AND of another sexual orientation. Love is love, in my opinion.
This discussion started off with a question about whether the serious literary analysis of a genre could be of use to aspiring writers, and the answer has to be 'yes' - NOT as a rigid formula for success, but as a route to greater awareness and understanding. Knowing how something works can never be a bad thing.
Knowledge of the way in which novels are structured absolutely does not prevent a writer from completely ignoring the accustomed pattern and coming up with something new, but he is then doing something different deliberately, not through ignorance, and the results are likely to be better. It is not academic critiques that tend to restrict the options of novelists, but the often inaccurate market research and bottom-line thinking of publishers, which is another matter entirely.
Incidentally, this is an unfair comment: "..an even better idea would be not assuming that any reader of romances hasn't read her books". I am assuming no such thing. I am well aware that many readers and writers of the contemporary romance genre in all its multifariousness have read Regis's study since its publication 5 years ago, and have found it both enlightening and enjoyable. I had the impression, however, that you had not read it, and moreover, that you thought it would be a waste of time to do so because the existence of so many sub-types and hybrids of romance would make it irrelevant. This has been the gist of your argument here. Some of us are simply trying to explain why it is relevant, and why the emergence of new types does not invalidate well thought out basic concepts.
I'm simply curious as to how that flexibility works when we're talking about true crossovers [...] the truth is that there's only so much plot a writer can stick into a book before it gets unreadable. Sooner or later, something has to give.
ReplyDeleteI think you're right that combining genres to create a "true crossover" must be difficult, because the author has to make sure to include the essential elements of each genre, and also ensure that the genres are combined in a satisfying mixture which includes enough of each genre.
What's "satisfying" is a bit subjective, of course, but I suppose one could suggest that if it's a "true crossover" it should appeal equally well to readers who usually prefer only one of the source genres. So if it's a mystery/romance, for example, it should appeal to both romance readers and mystery readers. That's tricky to achieve, and I know there are many blended romances which appeal to romance readers but that most readers of the other genre might consider to be merely flavoured with an inadequate amount of fantasy/mystery/science fiction.
The problem seems to be getting the right focus, amount of detail and space In other words, it's about deciding things like how central the romance will be, how many pages will be spent on solving the mystery/saving the kingdom/fighting aliens, how much space is spent on world-building, how many conversations are included in which the lovers communicate about their relationship. In other words, it's about the proportions of each genre that are included.
The 8 elements of romance don't actually need to take up very much space. You could write a short story a few pages long that included them all. In addition, it would be easy enough to make the "society defined" and "the barrier" be something which is firmly to do with the non-romance genre.
I suspect that what's tricky is making the relationship convincing if the characters spend more of their time engaged solving the mystery/saving the kingdom/fighting aliens. And if the characters spend a lot of time chatting about their relationship/having sex, it'll be difficult to make the mystery, or the science fiction/fantasy world-building feel convincing.
Now, as academics, you can claim those literary elements are indistinguishable, but from a reader's standpoint, I don't think so. I never have and I don't believe other readers do otherwise there wouldn't be such strong distinction between genres.
I'm not even sure what the equivalent elements would be in other genres. I suppose most novels will have "society defined," but other than that, I'm sure the essential elements of other genres would differ considerably from those of the romance genre. A mystery, for example, will definitely need to have "mystery explained." I suppose a lot of adventure does have moments of ritual death, where the hero(ine) is faced with failure in his/her quest. But if the hero(ine)'s main commitment is to a quest, then the type of commitment, and the way the moment of ritual death might appear will not feel the same as in a romance.
I suspect that what's tricky is making the relationship convincing if the characters spend more of their time engaged solving the mystery/saving the kingdom/fighting aliens. And if the characters spend a lot of time chatting about their relationship/having sex, it'll be difficult to make the mystery, or the science fiction/fantasy world-building feel convincing.
ReplyDeleteI've always found it to be the opposite, which is why I avoid "relationship-only" books like women's fiction and chick-lit and, yes, those "pure" relationship romances like the plague. That total focus on the relationship is - to me - more tricky than setting the relationship inside another situation where the couple is otherwise "doing something" with their time. I don't mean simply living life, either.
Don't get me wrong, I've read plenty of contemporary series romances that were relationship only over the years and loved some of them. The majority just aren't as satisfying to me as those that have that something else going on, though. Rarely have I run across a single title that focused solely on the relationship that I've been able to finish, however.
I suspect that what's tricky is making the relationship convincing if the characters spend more of their time engaged solving the mystery/saving the kingdom/fighting aliens. And if the characters spend a lot of time chatting about their relationship/having sex, it'll be difficult to make the mystery, or the science fiction/fantasy world-building feel convincing.
Well, okay, but doesn't that happen inside the romance genre, too? That's part of my problem. This isn't an inside/outside proposition for me. This is a genre that includes everything already and it's been my observation that romance readers tend to fall into two fairly distinct camps - the ones who like relationship-only books and those that like more action-oriented romances. Yeah, there are books that are truly "written by women for women" relationship romances more akin to women's fiction about real women living their real lives, whatever those are. There are also, however, the romances that are in the more traditional mold of adventure ballads heavy with fantasy, mystery and everything else tossed in that most men really wouldn't have too much trouble reading if they liked to read. Baring the sensuality level they're comfortable with, of course.
And while I have no doubt whatsoever that those essential elements we're discussing are truly essential to the heavily relationship type of romances, I'm not so certain about the other type because they're already so influenced by those other genre elements. Add in the crossovers nowadays and it only increases my doubt that all these things are truly essential every single time. I suppose the reason I doubt is because when we talk about the history of the genre there always seems to be a form of tunnel vision that romance is only about the relationship and not about those other things. Yes, the relationship is paramount and we, as readers, do want that HEA. Absolutely. Does that mean that the relationship is the only thing we expect in romances however?
Put another way, is it helpful to the authors to tell them that these things are essential elements in a romance novel if they are truly only essential to the relationship in the book? What about the rest of the story the reader wants to discover within the pages? What's essential for that?
Well, okay, but doesn't that happen inside the romance genre, too? That's part of my problem. This isn't an inside/outside proposition for me. This is a genre that includes everything already
ReplyDeleteI was meaning inside the genre. I think it's a very tricky balance that true crossover novels have to strike, because to stay in the romance genre, they have to keep the romance central, but if they want to be truly cross-over, they mustn't marginalise the other genre that they're mixing with the romance. Getting that balance just right, in a way that pleases both romance readers and readers from the other genre must be difficult.
As you say, a "pure" romance would also be difficult to write, because it's necessary to sustain interest in the relationship. That's why there are so many romances which borrow quite a lot from other genres and mix them with the romance, but aren't true "crossovers" (at least in my opinion) because they're only borrowing a little bit from the other genre, just enough to add a bit of interest to the central romance. For example, Georgette Heyer wrote mysteries, but The Reluctant Widow or The Quiet Gentleman, although they include the investigation of crimes aren't mysteries, and I wouldn't really think of them as fully "cross-over" novels. Instead, it seems to me, they're romantic suspense, with the romance and relationships given priority over the mystery. I'd probably think of Dorothy Sayer's Gaudy Night as a true crossover, because the romance part is as strong as the mystery part.
I'm sure all this is quite subjective, as different people will assess the balance of the genres differently.
is it helpful to the authors to tell them that these things are essential elements in a romance novel if they are truly only essential to the relationship in the book? What about the rest of the story the reader wants to discover within the pages? What's essential for that?
Well, a central relationship's essential in a romance, and if the central relationship doesn't work, the novel's got problems as a romance. But of course knowledge of the 8 essential elements of a romance is going to have to be supplemented by lots and lots of other things. Regis's book doesn't tell anyone how to create an interesting historical setting, or how to make an action scene feel real, or how to make a sex scene convincing and also move the characterisation forward. It wasn't intended to. Knowledge of the 8 essential elements is a framework on which one can begin to build.
"What about the rest of the story the reader wants to discover within the pages? What's essential for that?"
ReplyDeleteBut this is not what we were discussing. The broader issues of structure, characterisation and plot in fiction take us into another level of debate.
Once again, the analyses set out in works that look specifically at romance, like Regis's book and the essays in Dangerous Men and Adventurous Women (edited by J.A.Krentz, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1992, and all written by successful authors of romance novels), are not intended to be how-to texts; they are intended to provide insights into what exists and how to understand and interpret it, not to be templates for novice writers to follow.
The most important thing for a would-be writer to do is to read a lot, and then to write a lot. But if she can learn, not only that she loves some books, and doesn't think much of others (and as Laura said, a lot of this is purely subjective and personal), but can also identify exactly why she has those responses - what it is about certain plot points and characters and themes that she likes or dislikes - then she will become a more aware, and therefore a better, writer. And a better reader, too.
Anyway, all this is to say that while I think it's slightly strange in a very cool way, I understand how an author who can't figure out what's missing from her story would be helped by a workshop that uses Regis's eight elements.
ReplyDeleteThis is how I use most of the "How-To" books, including Vogler's. Or maybe, especially Vogler's. I use it to analyze the plot after I've plotted it. I haven't read the Regis book, though I want to, and I can see how it would help in the same way. Because it's Analysis. And sometimes, when writing--or rather, when revising-- Analysis is what's needed. The writer has to analyze what's missing (if anything) from her story and what needs to be bumped up.
I think an excellent example of an SF/romance crossover writer is Linnea Sinclair. Some of her books have been published as paranormal romance, some as straight SF (in Bantam's premium Spectra line, at that); but you couldn't tell from reading them which are which.
ReplyDeleteWhen we speak of hybrid or 'crossover' genres, it has to be borne in mind that some crosses (like those between two breeds of the same species) are viable, and others (like crosses between totally disparate species) are not. There is nothing in the conventions of the story of suspense or a fantasy or science-fiction setting that would make it impossible to incorporate a classic romance into such a plot, either as a major element or a peripheral one, and in practice, we know that this is so because of the existence of so many novels that are blends of just this kind. Indeed, as I mentioned earlier, suspense, adventure, crime and even 'paranormal' elements have gone hand-in-hand with stories of love and courtship right back to the beginnings of popular fiction in English.
ReplyDeleteBut there are other genres of fiction, especially within the so-called 'literary' zone ('unpopular fiction'?) that are fundamentally incompatible with romance, so that a hybrid form cannot be envisaged at all. The most obvious is the kind of story that analyses destructive and dysfunctional personal relationships and deliberately aims for an unhappy, or at any rate an unresolved, ending.
Tigress, perhaps your last comment is because the contemporary novel tends to concentrate on stories of relationships between individuals, while older novels might be the story of a family's rise and fall, or the interaction between the individual and society, or (since Kipling) the individual and his work. I can see how one thread of such stories might be a romance--isn't there at least one happy marriage, overcoming obstacles, in THE FORSYTE SAGA?
ReplyDeleteTal, I don't really follow your logic, there. I think we all agree that there are, and always have been, many types of story that are compatible with a romance element. I was just saying that some are not compatible, and stories that are deliberately unresolved or unrelentingly tragic in their outcome cannot be combined effectively with a romance, unless it is so peripheral as to be optional to the plot.
ReplyDeleteThe 'family saga' type of novel will very likely include one or more romances, but they are not the primary focus of the story: the focus is on a multi-generational account of the rise or fall of a specific group of people within a changing social context. Isn't it? Goodness knows what is in The Forsyte Saga; I regard Galsworthy as unreadably boring, I'm afraid, and my attempts to read that particular specimen many decades ago were not crowned with success.
Sagas are a bit tricky, though aren't they? After all, there can be a huge overlapping with straight-forward romances. Therefore Kristin Ramsdell includes sagas in her ROMANCE FICTION: A GUIDE TO THE GENRE (at least in the 1999 edition). She also regards romance series like Roberta Gellis's Roselynde Chronicles as sagas.
ReplyDeleteI was always under the impression (perhaps wrongly) that romantic sagas were in particular a British phenomenon. Catherine Cookson is a name that comes to mind here.
It should be important that all participants in such a seminar keep in mind that a great deal -- probably the majority -- of the fiction published as "romance genre" does not meet the conditions that Regis set out in her study.
ReplyDeleteAgritigress makes a very useful distinction between descriptive and prescriptive.
Regis described a certain set of romance novels. However, would one really want to give up all of those romances in which the couple are already married at the beginning of the book (Heyer had a couple), or marry somewhere in the middle of the book?
Would we want the authors of such novels to have been discouraged in the early stages of their career development by taking a course or seminar which told them, in essence, "The plot you have designed isn't a romance," so that none of us would have ever had a chance to read the book?
a great deal -- probably the majority -- of the fiction published as "romance genre" does not meet the conditions that Regis set out in her study. [...] would one really want to give up all of those romances in which the couple are already married at the beginning of the book (Heyer had a couple), or marry somewhere in the middle of the book?
ReplyDeleteIf the elements did have to occur in precisely the order listed that would, of course, exclude a great many romances but I think you must have misunderstood Regis somewhere along the line, because she does state quite clearly that the elements can occur in any order, and I have a feeling she maybe gave marriage of convenience plots as an example of cases where the marriage/commitment precedes the declaration of love.
and I have a feeling she maybe gave marriage of convenience plots as an example of cases where the marriage/commitment precedes the declaration of love.
ReplyDeleteYes, indeed, she did: "Elements both essential and accidental [i.e., optional] can appear in any order. The wedding between the heroine and hero, for example, can occur before any of the other elements. In this case the resulting marriage of convenience must overcome barriers to become a true marriage" (30).
"However, would one really want to give up all of those romances in which the couple are already married at the beginning of the book (Heyer had a couple), or marry somewhere in the middle of the book?"
ReplyDeleteVirginia, don't forget that there was often a practical reason for this type of plot in the past. In the 1950s, it enabled a writer to let the hero and heroine go to bed together as soon as they had sorted out whatever conflict or obstacle there was between them, because, as they were already married, it was not immoral! Seriously, that was a common situation in romances (British ones, at least) 50 years ago. They are definitely still romances.
The marriage of the hero and heroine before the start of the book or in the middle of it does not necessarily disarrange the Regis guidelines at all, provided their relationship is still insecure and unresolved. The important thing is the emergence from a situation of chaos and conflict into one of stability, with a bright future: the precise position of the betrothal or marriage does not affect that pattern.