tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post115615781008103572..comments2024-03-18T00:59:28.260+00:00Comments on Teach Me Tonight: Defining the GenreE. M. Selingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00426524354823232002noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-1156326811607945462006-08-23T10:53:00.000+01:002006-08-23T10:53:00.000+01:00"feminine equivalent of the adventure story . . . ...<I>"feminine equivalent of the adventure story . . . . The crucial defining characteristic of romance is not that it stars a female but that its organizing action is the development of a love relationship, usually between a man and a woman . . . ."</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not exactly sure how he's defining 'feminine' here, and he makes it clear that 'feminine' doesn't mean 'female', but even so I'm a bit uneasy by the idea that adventure= masculine and love=feminine. Although this gendering of the genres doesn't automatically imply anything about the readership and authorship of these genres, it could be understood that way.Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-1156319027828580872006-08-23T08:43:00.000+01:002006-08-23T08:43:00.000+01:00Better, I think, to keep it broad and loose and al...<I>Better, I think, to keep it broad and loose and allow for this constant tide of change -- otherwise the rigidity of the definition will colour writer's concepts of what they should/should not be aiming for.</I><BR/><BR/>Still, for an academic study of the genre you need a definition and one that's not too loose. My favourite definition of romance, btw, is that by John Cawelti: he defined romance as the "feminine equivalent of the adventure story . . . . The crucial defining characteristic of romance is not that it stars a female but that its organizing action is the development of a love relationship, usually between a man and a woman . . . . Romances often contain elements of adventure, but the dangers function as a means of challenging and then cementing the love relationship." Since he wrote that in the 1970s, he lists gothic romance as the most popular subgenre -- which shows that, naturally, some points of his findings are dated. Yet, imo, his definition allows enough room for variations that it still fits the genre today.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Are there any other worries that people have about ways in which the academic study of romance could affect the authors (or the genre as a whole) in a negative way? </I><BR/><BR/>Frankly, I don't see how any academic work on romance could influence writers in either a negative or positive way. I mean, in the worst case we'll think "Gosh, another idotic study done by somebody who's got absolutely no clue about the genre!"; in the best case "Gosh, <I>finally</I> a study done by somebody who understands the genre!" :)<BR/><BR/>More problematic, however, are definitions put forward by RWA (because those definitions influence what counts as romance in the GH and RITA contests) and, more importantly, by agents and editors. If they determine that France as a setting for romance or first person POV is a no-no in romance, they won't buy it. And if they tell this to the people who come to publishers spotlights at conferences, these people probably won't write romances with a French setting or with a first person narrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-1156261556413957522006-08-22T16:45:00.000+01:002006-08-22T16:45:00.000+01:00"Surely, romance is romance, whether it's between ..."Surely, romance is romance, whether it's between woman/man man/man woman/woman werewolf/human, ghost/human etc?"<BR/><BR/>I tend to agree, Lynette--which is probably to say that I think of romance as a matter of structure, primarily: it's about the HOW of love rather than the WHO of it, if that makes sense. <BR/><BR/>If you spend a lot of time reading love poetry and the philosophy of love, you quickly find just how transplantable the structures of love can be. Sappho's songs of longing for women and Plato's accounts of male homoerotic affection (including some across age lines that would leave me queasy in practice) make sense, and have long made sense, to readers interested in m/f relationships. <BR/><BR/>Although I take this question up with my students in a peripheral way when we talk about human / upyr romance in Emma Holly's "Midnight" series, I'd love to add a gay or lesbian romance to my teaching repertoire, in order to address it more directly. Any suggestions for a text?E. M. Selingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00426524354823232002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-1156248495223641212006-08-22T13:08:00.000+01:002006-08-22T13:08:00.000+01:00Interesting discussion! Personally, for me, a rom...Interesting discussion! Personally, for me, a romance needs to have a HEA ending in a book, yet not in a film. I love BRIEF ENCOUNTER as a film [1945 Celia Johnson, Trevor Howard version] even though there is no HEA ending, yet, I don't know if I would have appreciated the story in book form without having a satisfying ending.<BR/><BR/>When is a romance not a romance? When it's not between one man and one woman? If that's the case then we can rule out gay romance, paranormal werewolves and ghosts, etc.<BR/><BR/>Surely, romance is romance, whether it's between woman/man man/man woman/woman werewolf/human, ghost/human etc?<BR/><BR/>LynetteLynettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15676683696180035751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-1156236499920977842006-08-22T09:48:00.000+01:002006-08-22T09:48:00.000+01:00Eric, re 'the impulse to bring older novels into t...Eric, re 'the impulse to bring older novels into the tent of "romance fiction"', I think this is a valid procedure, particularly when they share the same structure as the modern romance novels. Pam Regis wasn't trying to push comedies (such as Shakespeare's) or love-poetry into the tent. Those genres are recognisably different, though they may at times deal with similar themes.<BR/><BR/>Bringing older works into the tent occupied by modern romance fiction demonstrates that<BR/><BR/>(a) this is not a new genre<BR/><BR/>(b) it's not just about Mills & Boon. Although I love many Mill & Boon novels, it would be very misleading to think that all romances are published by M&B/Harlequin, but that's a preconception which exists, although it's probably more prevalent in the UK (and Australia and New Zealand?) because unlike in the US, there aren't any other large publishers who focus on romance and<BR/><BR/>(c) that it's a genre which can produce work of 'classic' status.<BR/><BR/>This challenges many of the stereotypes about romance by suggesting that the genre is not one which is 'formulaic' and therefore automatically bland, unimaginative etc. 'Great literature' is generally only recognised as such after it's "stood the test of time", and the "test of time" also dims the memory of all the other writers whose works were not considered so good. This means that when people discuss 'the novel' they think of 'great works' by authors such as Dickens, Tolstoy, James Joyce, Austen, the Brontes, George Eliot etc, but they don't tend to think of all the novelists who were contemporaries of these writers but who weren't considered as good. This creates the impression that all 'literature' is good.<BR/><BR/>Looking back at the history of the romance and claiming some of the 'classics' for the romance genre is saying that<BR/><BR/>(a) one cannot judge all examples of a genre by the worst examples - there will be many bad books, plenty of mediocre books, and a few outstanding books in every genre (and critical opinion can differ about which books fall into each category)<BR/><BR/>(b) it often takes time for the outstanding books to be recognised and praised, and modern romances haven't yet been through the sifting process that occurs over time.<BR/><BR/>Those are the benefits, the costs of this procedure are that some people may rush out to buy or borrow a romance, thinking they're going to find the next Jane Austen or the next <I>Room With a View</I>, and if they don't, they may well be disappointed and decide that modern romances aren't as good as the classic texts that have been claimed for the genre.<BR/><BR/>Turning to the point made by Jenny,<BR/><BR/><I>The biggest problem I see in attempting to provide a definitive 'definition' of romance is that like the rest of society, it isn't static. [...] Better, I think, to keep it broad and loose and allow for this constant tide of change -- otherwise the rigidity of the definition will colour writer's concepts of what they should/should not be aiming for.</I><BR/><BR/>Thanks for bringing this up Jenny, because it surprised me a little, and made me realise I hadn't thought about this at all. I'm used to writing about the works of dead authors. For example, when academics debate the generic features of the Spanish sentimental romance (a genre which came into being in the 15th century and died out fairly early in the 16th), there's absolutely no chance they can affect the authors in any way.<BR/><BR/>Although those of us who are trying to study modern romances in an academic way are looking at modern texts with authors who are still alive and productive, we (the academics) are still looking backwards. We can't analyse romances yet to be written, we just look at texts which are already published, unlike editors and agents, who predict future trends and select and shape the texts which will be published. Because of this, I hope we (academics studying the genre) won't have a negative effect on authors' creativity. Also, the genre definition created by the Romance Writers of America doesn't seem to have stifled their authors' creativity, and it doesn't stop people from 'pushing the envelope', so I think it is 'broad and loose'. In fact, it's maybe already too 'broad and loose' for some of their members who'd like to make it more restrictive. But I may well be wrong. Does the definition of a central love-story and an optimistic ending feel too restrictive for some people? There's nothing to stop people writing 'romantic novels' which aren't romance. I have the sense, though, that it's the love-stories with a Happy Ever After which are the most denigrated, and as they're also my favourites (because I like happy endings) I personally would prefer to concentrate on them.<BR/><BR/>Are there any other worries that people have about ways in which the academic study of romance could affect the authors (or the genre as a whole) in a negative way?Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-1156225950797057812006-08-22T06:52:00.000+01:002006-08-22T06:52:00.000+01:00The biggest problem I see in attempting to provide...The biggest problem I see in attempting to provide a definitive 'definition' of romance is that like the rest of society, it isn't static. Reading tastes change, new authors come on the scene, and trends provide new directions. And right now there has been an explosion of cross-genre fiction and technological innovation that can still be seen to meet the broader criteria.<BR/><BR/>Better, I think, to keep it broad and loose and allow for this constant tide of change -- otherwise the rigidity of the definition will colour writer's concepts of what they should/should not be aiming for.<BR/><BR/>Jenny Brassel<BR/>(outgoing President, Romance Writers of Australia)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-1156188395360095792006-08-21T20:26:00.000+01:002006-08-21T20:26:00.000+01:00Thanks for a terrific topic, a fave of mine.In my ...Thanks for a terrific topic, a fave of mine.<BR/><BR/>In my work, I concentrate solely on featuring novels with strong or strongly-implied HEAs. My viewers/readers have told me they consider those "Romance." <BR/><BR/>They use that term idiomatically to define not "literary" romance fiction, fiction that's romantic in the swashbuckling sense, or medieval romances. They mean simply the boy meets grl, loses grl, etc., construct. <BR/><BR/>They want to read strong or strongly- implied HEA romance novels and have become confused by the marketing of women's fiction, chick-lit as what look like romance.<BR/><BR/>They also "sense" immediately when a novel has only "romantic elements," and are none too pleased to have spent money on it.<BR/><BR/>I dig the "romance central/HEA" definition, and make a distinction between modern romance fiction and earlier romance literature which influenced this marvelous genre we create, read, and write about.<BR/><BR/>Michelle Buonfiglio<BR/>Romance: B(u)y the BookMichelle Buonfigliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06518257512285810829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-1156186125135240172006-08-21T19:48:00.000+01:002006-08-21T19:48:00.000+01:00What do you think, Laura (or everyone else), of th...What do you think, Laura (or everyone else), of the impulse to bring older novels into the tent of "romance fiction," as Pam does with "Pamela," with Austen's novels, and so forth? I was particularly pleased with her staking a claim to "A Room with a View," not least because this rings true with my memory of how that novel was read (and adored) by many women I knew when the Merchant Ivory movie came out. (OK, I'll admit it: I was also pleased to see another male author in the mix.)<BR/><BR/>If memory serves, this sort of retrospective re-dubbing of texts was one of the moves that academic critics of both mystery and science fiction made in the 1980s, and perhaps much earlier. What are the costs and benefits of our writing about older texts, or even recent ones like "The Time-Traveller's Wife" or "Possession: A Romance," in the context of popular romance fiction?E. M. Selingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00426524354823232002noreply@blogger.com