tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post7946915742434154439..comments2024-03-26T01:10:13.720+00:00Comments on Teach Me Tonight: Romance Novels: Literary Texts or Formulaic Stories?E. M. Selingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00426524354823232002noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-24653215876970654932011-09-30T14:03:13.731+01:002011-09-30T14:03:13.731+01:00nice postnice postAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-7888213222512641822010-02-22T19:23:02.067+00:002010-02-22T19:23:02.067+00:00Thanks, Dick. I'm glad you've enjoyed the ...Thanks, Dick. I'm glad you've enjoyed the discussion. As you say, "we've reached an impasse" now but your comments have prompted some very interesting responses, and while I've found your perspective extremely puzzling, I think it's due to the fact that you're wearing very different <a href="http://teachmetonight.blogspot.com/2010/02/viewing-world-through-interpretative.html" rel="nofollow">interpretative lenses</a> from the rest of us. I'll have to read up on formalism.Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-40053758740254752482010-02-22T18:50:43.536+00:002010-02-22T18:50:43.536+00:00@Laura Vivanco:
Sorry about the brevity of my abs...@Laura Vivanco:<br /><br />Sorry about the brevity of my absence. <br /><br />Yes, I think Austen would agree that many novels do have depths. I still think, though, that the "romance" of P&P is secondary to other purposes. In romance fiction, the "romance" is primary.<br /><br />You may have forgotten issuing the invitation to visit your site. I hope you don't regret extending it.<br /><br />dickAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-86945085337709559692010-02-22T18:42:11.875+00:002010-02-22T18:42:11.875+00:00@All:
I think we've reached an impasse, so I ...@All:<br /><br />I think we've reached an impasse, so I shall take Ms. Somerville's suggestion and withdraw from this discussion. I've enjoyed it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-11776291349828113522010-02-22T18:40:11.537+00:002010-02-22T18:40:11.537+00:00@Robin:
You're correct in thinking I'm a ...@Robin:<br /><br />You're correct in thinking I'm a formalist. Thus, you'll probably not be surprised that I disagree with the idea that form can be separated from content or content from form. Until given form, language has no meaning; it's merely sound. Yes, one can study the thematic, ideological, and character aspects of a romance separate from the form, but doing so, it seems to me, would be like separating bread from its leavening agent--the relationship and the HEA, the things that make it a romance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-64497162704399512252010-02-22T18:15:42.267+00:002010-02-22T18:15:42.267+00:00@E.M. Selinger:
Actually, I agree more than disag...@E.M. Selinger:<br /><br />Actually, I agree more than disagree with most of what you've written, particularly in the second post. Still, I think the necessity for dual protagonists and their HEA limits what can be included in a romance, just as iambic pentameter limits the stresses in a line, or requirements of a sonnet limit the number of lines...that is, of course, if everything is going to fit and work toward the HEA without leaving the reader in doubts about it.<br /><br />I also think that those works of literature often referred to as the canon, even though the inclusions may change from time to time, represent works that most people would agree have intrinsic value/worth. <br /><br />dickAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-83717475245088941062010-02-22T02:26:59.960+00:002010-02-22T02:26:59.960+00:00@dick
I think part of the issue here is that you ...@dick<br /><br />I think part of the issue here is that you are approaching these genre questions from a primarily New Critical perspective -- form determines and defines and delineates content. <br /><br />Within that context, it seems as if you see Romance as defined, delineated, and determined by its formal generic limitations as manifested (as Eric IMO correctly suggested) by current genre Romance iterations.<br /><br />What I think that critical paradigm lacks, though, is the ability to acknowledge the incredibly long and rich generic pedigree of the Romance novel, as well as the possibility that form, even the delineation of an "emotionally satisfying ending" can itself be an open and dynamic formal element, similar to line numbers in a sonnet, for example.<br /><br />The form/content issue in Romance is, IMO, and in my experience studying the genre, not so straightforward as saying that because there are certain formalistic rules to Romance that are not the same as say, SF (but are more in alignment with, say, Mystery/Suspense), there is nothing of value beyond the enjoyment of the form. Which is what I think you're basically arguing. <br /><br />If you flip the equation, so to speak, so that content is the primary focus, though, the whole significance of form and formalistic rules shift. If we see, for example, the form of Romance to operate in service to the thematic, ideological, character/plot aspects of the novels themselves, the genre opens up, rather than closes down, to a variety of critical approaches.Robinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-4108054574378288162010-02-22T00:45:42.843+00:002010-02-22T00:45:42.843+00:00If anyone's interested, I've posted a list...If anyone's interested, I've posted a list of m/m romances which deal with issues outside that of the relationship itself, and do so with no detriment to the story or romantic development at all:<br /><a href="http://annsomerville.logophilos.net/?p=2969" rel="nofollow">http://annsomerville.logophilos.net/?p=2969</a><br /><br />dick, if you don't know what "m/m" romances are, that's same sex romances, specifically between gay or bisexual men. It's a fast growing, popular subgenre of RomanceAnn Somervillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18174848179481724352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-83159908463995354312010-02-21T23:33:19.648+00:002010-02-21T23:33:19.648+00:00"I firmly believe the author is dead"
S..."I firmly believe the author is dead"<br /><br />So do I :) I believe discussing of authorial intent has a role in the historical assessment of literature, but very little in assessing the value of a work of fiction. (I can't say it's of no value because obviously knowing that Animal Farm is an allegory for the Russian Revolution is important, but it's not obvious from the text itself what Orwell intended.)<br /><br />Regardless I would dispute the bizarre assertion that P&P wasn't intended as a romance just because it covers other themes as well. There's not a jot of evidence for this statement, other than dick's obvious prejudice against the genre having an potential as a vehicle for social comment or any other purpose bar entertaining him. It's really not worth wasting your valuable hockey-watching time on trying to refute an unsupported statement.<br /><br />Enjoy the hockey:)Ann Somervillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18174848179481724352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-54485958729201595882010-02-21T23:28:06.699+00:002010-02-21T23:28:06.699+00:00So, again quickly, some additional thoughts:
&quo...So, again quickly, some additional thoughts:<br /><br />"One of the things I find most appealing about romance fiction is that it does not require anything but the ability to read reasonably well and be interested in the interactions of humans to understand it." <br /><br />--Like Elizabeth, I think this is probably true of much more literature, especially before the late 19th century, than we now realize. Or, to argue from the other side of the issue, you probably underestimate the amount of knowledge and experience needed to read many romance novels. Certainly in my years of teaching them, I've been amazed by how "difficult" some romance novels are for my students. (George Steiner's list of various sorts of difficulty may be on point here.)<br /><br />"None of the other genre fictions insist upon a specific kind of ending. In the mystery genre, a solution to the problem is not required, as the mysteries of Minotte Walters, P.D. James, Ruth Rendell and others suggest."<br /><br />--I wonder whether those would be later developments, however, in the development of the genre, in which an author deliberately flouts a convention or a reader's expectation, thus making the novel more "literary." Certainly mystery / detective fiction authors aspired, early on, to make literature of the genre, as Dashiell Hammett said back in 1928. The same was true of SF writers starting in the 1960s, at the latest. <br /><br />I'm happy to concede the point, however, that readers expect a romance novel to have an "emotionally satisfying, optimistic ending," as the RWA says, while readers in SF, let's say, don't have any particular expectation about the ending. When a love story doesn't end that way, we call it something else, which also doesn't happen in other genres. But again, this suggests that what we call "romance fiction" is a subset of comedy, but I'm not sure what else it tells us.<br /><br />I'll admit that when I look at the shelves of SF books in the library, I have a greater sense that ANYTHING could happen in one of those books (including a romance) than I do when looking at the shelves of romance, or of mystery, or of literary fiction for that matter. But this openness has a downside as well. In romance fiction, I have a much more vivid sense of how the conventions are being negotiated and played with by an author, which I quite enjoy, and when there's no strong set of generic expectations, that kind of play is no longer possible. (Other kinds are, but not THAT kind.)<br /><br />Analogy: romance fiction is like iambic pentameter? Feels limited / limiting from some outside perspectives, but is astonishingly variable and fascinating to those at home in it. And it's a form that can contain everything from the most sublime writing to utter banality; the form doesn't predetermine the quality, just the parameters within which that quality must be achieved.E. M. Selingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00426524354823232002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-79990068197685330832010-02-21T21:58:28.062+00:002010-02-21T21:58:28.062+00:00Well, Eric just expressed my view of the canon far...Well, Eric just expressed my view of the canon far more eloquently than I was about to. That's one reason Dick and I will never agree. I am pretty sure you could get a lot out of the Iliad if you could read and cared about human interaction. Sure, you'd get more if you had other knowledge. But that's true of romance, too. Since I've discovered internet Romancelandia, I've gotten much more out of my romance reading and become a far more educated and attentive (less furtive and shamed) reader of the genre.<br /><br />Another reasons I won't ever agree with Dick is that I firmly believe the author is dead (only theoretically, Ann!) and don't care what s/he intended. The fact that there's more to P and P than a central relationship and HEA doesn't mean those things don't exist in it, or that attention to them is "superficial." And that definition of romance is a minimum, not a maximum one--it doesn't say romance can't have anything else.<br /><br />My flurry of posts is due to the fact that I live in Vancouver and am on semester break during the Olympics. I should, of course, be grading papers instead of engaging in pointless arguments with Dick. But what I'm going to do is watch hockey.Lizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09566602651931306545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-89167958029094436652010-02-21T20:58:24.320+00:002010-02-21T20:58:24.320+00:00I'm going to post a few very short thoughts, i...I'm going to post a few very short thoughts, in response to the flurry of comments, but not all at once. (Such is my schedule these days.)<br /><br />The first is about "the canon."<br /><br />When I talk about "the canon" in this context, I mean the canon of romance novels that someone studying or teaching the genre would feel compelled to include or address. The broader "literary canon" doesn't interest me very much, except when I'm arguing with colleagues about course requirements. <br /><br />I've been in this business long enough to see authors enter and leave "the canon," especially when it comes to modern poetry. It's a convenient pedagogical and ideological fiction, constructed (as Hugh Kenner says somewhere) partly from the facts of literary history and partly from our desire to tell a shapely story. <br /><br />As a way to determine the worth of novels? Well, I don't find it an issue worth thinking about, except when I'm trying to decide what to require my students to read in a given context--and even then I'm as likely to go outside "the canon" as I am to re-inscribe it. So much of the interesting work in a given period (to me) is non-canonical, and often the ostensibly canonical works have been dulled by over-teaching & over-reading, and could use a rest. Often they're much more enjoyable, too. I used to teach "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" rather than anything by Frank Norris in my course on American literature from 1865-1910, and when I get the course next, I'll do it again. <br /><br />It's also hard to over-state just how deeply gendered the criteria for admission into the category of "literature" have been at various times--and perhaps especially at the start of the 20th century, when what we now think of as "the canon" gets formulated. The presence of a few women authors in that mix doesn't negate the fact that a host of authors, critics, philosophers, and the like, did their best to define "literature" specifically against the kinds of reading material that were popular with, and often written by, women--especially middle-class women. <br /><br />More on that later--must run now.E. M. Selingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00426524354823232002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-3936519514822856622010-02-21T20:35:31.208+00:002010-02-21T20:35:31.208+00:00"About P&P: On the surface, if one follow..."<i>About P&P: On the surface, if one follows only the relationship of Darcy and Elizabeth, yes, it fits the definition of romance. But the rest of the text points to a different intention entirely, as the relationships of Mr & Mrs. Bennett, Lydia/Wickham, Charlotte/Mr Collins, even the Cheapside aunt and uncle imply-- as indeed the casualness of the happy ending implies.</i>"<br /><br />I think Austen herself would have argued that, "under the surface" a lot of other novels, including modern romances, deal with much more:<br /><br />"Although our productions have afforded more extensive and unaffected pleasure than those of any other literary corporation in the world, no species of composition has been so much decried. From pride, ignorance, or fashion, our foes are almost as many as our readers [...] there seems almost a general wish of decrying the capacity and undervaluing the labour of the novelist, and of slighting the performances which have only genius, wit, and taste to recommend them. [...] “Oh! It is only a novel!” replies the young lady, while she lays down her book with affected indifference, or momentary shame. “It is only Cecilia, or Camilla, or Belinda”; or, in short, only some work in which the greatest powers of the mind are displayed, in which the most thorough knowledge of human nature, the happiest delineation of its varieties, the liveliest effusions of wit and humour, are conveyed to the world in the best–chosen language. (<i>Northanger Abbey</i> <a href="http://www.pemberley.com/etext/NA/chapter5.htm" rel="nofollow">Chapter 5</a>)Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-13063846514352254992010-02-21T19:32:25.470+00:002010-02-21T19:32:25.470+00:00"But the rest of the text points to a differe..."But the rest of the text points to a different intention entirely, as the relationships of Mr & Mrs. Bennett, Lydia/Wickham, Charlotte/Mr Collins, even the Cheapside aunt and uncle imply-- as indeed the casualness of the happy ending implies."<br /><br />So by your interpretation, if an author doesn't *intend* to write a Romance, then it's not a romance.<br /><br />The fact that Austen's novels *all* deal with romantic relationships and end with a HEA, say nothing about her intent, and are purely accidental, according to you? The fact that the novels deal with other matters other than the core relationship, means the book is ipso facto not a Romance, according to you?<br /><br />You know that you're doing, don't you? Discarding evidence which doesn't fit your theory, instead of accepting the existence of this evidence invalidates your theory?<br /><br />Lazy, erroneous thinking, dick. I have a theory as to why you're so wedded to yours, and so far nothing I've seen of you causes me to adjust it.<br /><br />"it does not require anything but the ability to read reasonably well and be interested in the interactions of humans to understand it."<br /><br />While you needs a Masters degree at minimum to read science fiction, mysteries, horror and even Dickens.<br /><br />What a *patronising* thing to say.<br /><br />"Shakespeare could have, if he wished give the those two a happy ending."<br /><br />Yes, he could and then he'd be telling an entirely different story, one which did not demonstrate the evil of unfettered, unreasoning emotion as the engine of a relationship.<br /><br />"Only romance fiction demands a specific kind of ending. "<br /><br />You've been offered specific examples to show romance is *not* unique in this, and yet you discard it. Tsk, tsk, dick.<br /><br />More than that, you don't even distinguish between different types of HEAs. You won't even admit that even this limitation inspires a good deal of inventiveness.<br /><br />You read Romance for entertainment. Fine. That doesn't mean Romance is only capable of entertainment. It doesn't mean that when an author explores themes beyond that of the relationship, that the book is no longer Romance. In every genre, there will be books which are superior in writing, execution and breadth of ambition. That doesn't mean that they are then elevated to the extent they are no longer part of that genre. You don't get to exclude Austen just because she's a good writer exploring social themes and that would interfere with your belief that Romance is only fluffy entertainment.<br /><br />"What is more sexist than the oft-repeated dictum that romance is by, for, and about women? "<br /><br />A good many things, including almost everything you've said on this post. A minority of male readers does not invalidate the very easily demonstrated claim that Romance is aimed at a female audience, and dominated by women authors. Men reading/writing it are a side-effect. You could remove every man reading or writing it and the genre would not be changed in the slightest. The same is not true for women.Ann Somervillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18174848179481724352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-44659371267520912612010-02-21T16:12:16.662+00:002010-02-21T16:12:16.662+00:00@ Elizabeth:
I don't think it was I who brough...@ Elizabeth:<br />I don't think it was I who brought up tragic drama as counter to what I state about romance fiction requiring a specific kind of ending. It's difficult to compare tragedies and romance fiction, though, because most tragedies that I can think of are re-tellings, the intent of the author was, it seems to me, to examine the events rather than create them. Perhaps "Romeo and Juliet" is an exception, but Shakespeare could have, if he wished give the those two a happy ending. But surely the intent of the authors of romance is to invent a relationship with trials but one which will nevertheless lead to a happy ending. And once that intention is set, don't you agree that the HEA, the convention which defines romance fiction, determines, in some way, everything that precedes it? <br /><br />No, I categorically deny that I think issues of love, marriage, and domestic life are issues unworthy of attention. And, although those issues are oft considered women's issues, I've never understood why that view is so widely held. Men love and marry and many of us are thoroughly domesticated. <br /><br />dick <br />About P&P: On the surface, if one follows only the relationship of Darcy and Elizabeth, yes, it fits the definition of romance. But the rest of the text points to a different intention entirely, as the relationships of Mr & Mrs. Bennett, Lydia/Wickham, Charlotte/Mr Collins, even the Cheapside aunt and uncle imply-- as indeed the casualness of the happy ending implies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-22784007765912025402010-02-21T15:22:56.766+00:002010-02-21T15:22:56.766+00:00@Ann Somerville:
Well, I think you're mis-read...@Ann Somerville:<br />Well, I think you're mis-reading what I wrote. By the "canon," I meant those works which the vast majority of scholars and readers agree are works which should be read, which range from Homer through T.S. Eliot and beyond.<br /> <br />I have never stated that romance fiction is crap. You have inferred that, unjustly I believe. <br /><br />One of the things I find most appealing about romance fiction is that it does not require anything but the ability to read reasonably well and be interested in the interactions of humans to understand it. That alone makes it a valuable kind of fiction.<br /><br />Yes, I do see distinctions between other genres and romance fiction, because those distinctions exist.<br />Most, I think, would agree that romance fiction is unusually formulistic. None of the other genre fictions insist upon a specific kind of ending. In the mystery genre, a solution to the problem is not required, as the mysteries of Minotte Walters, P.D. James, Ruth Rendell and others suggest. I don't think sci-fi does either, although I'm less well acquainted with that genre. Paranormals may end without ever determining whether what appeared to be beyond the norm in the story actually was beyond the norm. In fact, the answer is often deliberately left up in the air.<br />Only romance fiction demands a specific kind of ending. Isn't that why it's read and enjoyed by so many? Because each reader knows that, regardless of what events occur, no matter what trials and tribulations the major protagonists undergo, they will nevertheless have a happy ending?<br /><br />When and who decreed that men could not understand nor like romance fiction? What is more sexist than the oft-repeated dictum that romance is by, for, and about women? <br /><br />dickAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-84338364983444842682010-02-21T06:13:39.701+00:002010-02-21T06:13:39.701+00:00"And because love, marriage, and domestic lif..."And because love, marriage, and domestic life have tended to be seen as feminine concerns, to dismiss them as not serious/important aims could be seen as sexist."<br /><br />That's a good point, Elizabeth, though it's really the 'emotional' side of Romance which is most associated with feminine interests. Modern romances aren't so intimately bound up with the traditional female role as say, those by Austen (or even Gaskill) - and if you consider m/m a subgenre of Romance, it can't be dismissed as being only about *women's* concerns. But what modern romances do share with Austen and the m/m genre is the emphasis on intimacy, emotional openness, the importance of 'small' things like gestures and affection and tenderness - none of which are typically emphasised in any other modern genre of writing. Men's supposed and traditional lack of interest in such matters is one important reason why Romance is too 'girly' for them, and by extension, of no value to the male readership.Ann Somervillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18174848179481724352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-4162731911565627892010-02-21T00:49:12.407+00:002010-02-21T00:49:12.407+00:00Thanks Laura. I couldn't figure out how to do...Thanks Laura. I couldn't figure out how to do that!Lizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09566602651931306545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-41446641591367547082010-02-20T23:55:32.481+00:002010-02-20T23:55:32.481+00:00"RRRJessica is a perfect example of what *I* ..."<i>RRRJessica is a perfect example of what *I* mean about romance allowing these discussions in her post on moral repair today.</i>"<br /><br />For anyone who doesn't know where to find the post referred to by Elizabeth, <a href="http://www.racyromancereviews.com/2010/02/20/moral-repair-and-ritual-death-in-the-romance-novel/" rel="nofollow">here's a direct link to Jessica's post on "Moral Repair and Ritual Death in the Romance Novel"</a>.Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-67842349751962728582010-02-20T23:32:59.573+00:002010-02-20T23:32:59.573+00:00@Dick:
You said: If, to belong to a class, somet...@Dick:<br /><br />You said: If, to belong to a class, something must have a particular kind of ending, that ending influences everything that precedes it.<br /><br />But your counter-example to romance, earlier, was tragic drama, was it not? And to belong to THAT class, something must have a particular kind of ending. (The hero's fall--dead, self-blinded, not much difference). So I fail to see your logic IN THAT CASE. (I do understand that there are texts where the ending is not obvious from the start.) <br /><br />If we accept Laura's/the RWA def. of romance as requiring a) a central love story, and b) a happy ending, why are reluctant to classify *Pride and Prejudice* as one? I'd really like to know. Look, I haven't read a modern genre romance that is its equal, either. My point is simply that the conventions of the genre do not, on the face of it, exclude/preclude greatness. (Byatt's Possession, which the author sub-titled "A Romance", would be another example).<br /><br />I'd say ANY work of art is "complete in itself." And a romance, as much as any other artwork or cultural product, allows us to ask interesting questions or to reflect on its meaning after we've read it. I think some specific examples would help me understand what you mean here better. RRRJessica is a perfect example of what *I* mean about romance allowing these discussions in her post on moral repair today.<br /><br />Finally, my point about POSSIBLE sexism is a bit different from Ann's. But I wonder if you are suggesting that romance doesn't have "larger aims" in part because you do not see the issues it considers (e.g. love) as "serious" ones. And because love, marriage, and domestic life have tended to be seen as feminine concerns, to dismiss them as not serious/important aims could be seen as sexist. Whether you intend it to be or not.Lizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09566602651931306545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-39013234584573984592010-02-20T22:38:15.175+00:002010-02-20T22:38:15.175+00:00"Do I think that those texts will become a pa..."Do I think that those texts will become a part of the canon?"<br /><br />dick, *all* works in a genre under study - which of course, you disdain to do for Romance - are part of the canon, good, bad or ordinary.<br /><br />And yes, you have indicated "what literature I think is prone to greatness" by the careful - too careful - way you distinguish Classical Tragedy and Classical Comedy from Romance, and claiming that Romance's HEA requirement somehow sets it apart and <i>limits it</i>. You also said Romance wasn't worth close study.<br /><br />"In other genres, an author isn't tied to that restriction, so whatever "happens" in the novel may as readily lead to a tragedy as a happy ending."<br /><br />The 'happiness' of the ending isn't a measure of its worth. In a mystery genre, the mystery must be solved and the justice served in some way. In a action adventure, the hero/ine must triumph, however implausibly. Genre fictions impose endings all the time - just as Tragedy and Comedy do. These are not restrictions. They are conventions.<br /><br />"Pride and Prejudice--which I have great difficulty classifying as a romance. "<br /><br />Why? Because it's brilliant? P&P, S&S, and my favourite Austen, "Persuasion", are indivisible in theme and plot convention from any modern romance. Are you seriously going to argue that because we know from the moment Captain Wentworth re-enters Anne Elliot's life, that by the end of the book, they will be reunited, that this somehow invalidates or diminishes the power of the story or the value and beauty of Austen's writing? How, pray, is P&P *not* Romance?<br /><br />"I'm puzzled why or how what I wrote is sexist."<br /><br />Sadly, I believe you really are puzzled. I imagine many, many people - almost all female - have tried over your lifetime to explain why you sound sexist, and I equally imagine that you just won't ever get it.<br /><br />But here's my last attempt.<br /><br />Women write almost all Romance. <br /><br />Women are almost all the readers of Romance.<br /><br />You state "I just don't believe that looking closely at romance fiction will add much to one's understanding of the genre." So, uniquely among all academic disciplines, according to you, Romance can be understood without examining the source material.<br /><br />You also state that, uniquely among literary genres with defined conventions, Romance's convention "leaves very little room for invention." <br /><br />So you are saying explicitly that Romance texts are not worth paying close academic attention to, and you believe they are not inventive because of the HEA requirement.<br /><br />You also said "The purpose, the intent of romance fiction, as the definition of it makes clear, is complete within the bounds of the book itself." So Romance serves no higher purpose, explores no greater theme, than the internal romance itself.<br /><br />So basically, dick, you have repeatedly said an entire genre for and by women, is crap. Entertaining crap, but crap.<br /><br />More than that, when people give you examples of multiple exceptions, you either dismiss them as not truly representative or you claim they are outliers and so not representative. In other words, you disregard any evidence which would interfere with your rigid insistence that Romance is nothing by entertaining crap.<br /><br />That's not only sexist, it's stupid. Your unsupported assertions offend me not only as a woman but as a scientist, author, reader, and Literature student. <br /><br />If you are going to push this nonsensical theory, be so kind as to back it up with proper examples, as those arguing with you have done. Otherwise, you're wasting our time throwing out points which aren't worth disputing.Ann Somervillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18174848179481724352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-70343686751258298142010-02-20T17:17:13.738+00:002010-02-20T17:17:13.738+00:00@Elizabeth
I'm not sure how you're using ...@Elizabeth<br /><br />I'm not sure how you're using the term "literary." I think the romances I've read are "literature," but I've read none that I think equivalent to say, Pride and Prejudice--which I have great difficulty classifying as a romance. <br />Romance authors do consider/ explore significant problems through the relationships they describe, but that problem is rarely the central feature of the novel. And it makes no difference whether the significant problem is in any way rectified. Almost any problem will do as long as the central feature of the plot--the relationship achieving a happy ending--occurs. <br /><br />If, to belong to a class, something must have a particular kind of ending, that ending influences everything that precedes it. In other words, in order to write a romance fiction, an author must include an HEA; she has no choice in the matter. <br />In other genres, an author isn't tied to that restriction, so whatever "happens" in the novel may as readily lead to a tragedy as a happy ending.<br /><br />I'm puzzled why or how what I wrote is sexist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-21291458073644007582010-02-20T16:57:50.930+00:002010-02-20T16:57:50.930+00:00@Ann Somerville:
I don't think I've said ...@Ann Somerville:<br /><br />I don't think I've said what literature I think is prone to greatness, have I? I think some romance fictions are exceptional examples of the genre and very enjoyable reads. Do I think that those texts will become a part of the canon? I'll have to wait a hundred years as everybody must.<br /><br />dickAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-77957397964087811402010-02-20T16:52:53.255+00:002010-02-20T16:52:53.255+00:00@E.M. Selinger:
I'm not as certain that defin...@E.M. Selinger:<br /><br />I'm not as certain that definitive texts will ever be determined, myself. Books as disparate as "The Billionaire's Marriage Contract" and say, Putney's "Dearly Beloved" and/or Linda Howard's "Death Angel," and/or Karen Templeton's "Saving Dr. Alan," all fall into the class romance fiction. The only common thread amongst them is that each describes a relationship which ends happily.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-59276393383256355302010-02-20T00:31:15.108+00:002010-02-20T00:31:15.108+00:00Dick, are you arguing that romance is not literary...Dick, are you arguing that romance is not literary or not art because it does not have "a purpose beyond delineating the relationship and achieving the happy ending for the couple," because it lacks "more far-reaching aims"? (In other words, I think, that plot is most important to it?). <br /><br />I'd grant that the standard definition Laura cites is a plot-based one, but I don't know that we can jump from there to the assertion that filling out the plot structure is the only aim a romance writer/text has. At the very least, that definition raises questions of what a "happy ending" means/looks like, what love, happiness, a good life is. And to dismiss an exploration of those themes as "not far-reaching" does strike me as possibly sexist, as Ann points out. <br /><br />Perhaps because I'm a Victorianist, I find 19th-century novels a helpful comparison here. For one thing, they cared more about plot than Modernist/post-modernist writers (I think there's a reason arguments like Carroll's cite people like Updike and Woolf as their examples of "art"--it's harder to make their arguments on the back of Chaucer or Shakespeare of Dickens, as Laura pointed out).<br /><br />Lots of 19th century novels explore significant themes and resolve conflicts through their romance plots: e.g. Pride and Prejudice: the central romance plot is a major way Austen explores questions of gentility; the marriage between Darcy and Elizabeth is a symbolic marriage between the values of the gentry and the aristocracy. Gaskell's North and South: the marriage between the daughter of a southern (England) clergyman and northern mill owner "resolves" their conflict over how to view the working class and is meant to promote a new way forward in class relations. <br /><br />Arguably, this approach is unsatisfying: social problems can't really be resolved by two people falling in love. But it's long been a literary approach to addressing serious themes, which for me makes it harder to view genre romance as inherently unsuited to "far-reaching aims."<br /><br />Contemporary romances can do the same thing. Two I've read recently: the central conflict between the characters in Julie James' Practice Makes Perfect is that they're competing for one spot as partner in a law firm, and the novel discusses questions of gender discrimination and preferences in some depth. Is the main purpose of the novel to explore gender discrimination? Perhaps not, but it is a serious theme inseparable from the love story in that novel. Erin McCarthy's Mouth to Mouth has a Deaf heroine, and the conflict between the lovers involves her struggle for independence and to find her place in the world, caught between Deaf and hearing communities. <br /><br />Would I call either of these novels great art? No (but I don't care much about such value judgments). I think you may be right that a LOT of genre romance aims simply to tell a particular kind of story. But that doesn't mean it can't do more. I don't think it is constrained not to.<br /><br />Also, I don't really get your distinction between incidents determining an end and the end determining the incidents. Are you suggesting Shakespeare dreamed up Othello, Iago and Desdemona and THEN thought, "OMG, the only ending for these people is tragedy!" Because you seem to be.Lizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09566602651931306545noreply@blogger.com