For a long time I'd been a bit puzzled by the popularity of romances in which the protagonists seemed to spend most of their time tormenting each other or otherwise causing each other a lot of suffering. Then, not that long ago, on a blog not so very far away, Smart Bitch Sarah wrote a grade D review of a Charlotte Lamb novel, The Boss's Virgin, and in response Tumperkin recommended Lamb's Frustration (Lamb is a favourite of Tumperkin's). I decided that as part of my general research into the genre, I needed to read some of Lamb's novels and obtained copies of both The Boss's Virgin and Frustration. Both involve a domineering hero who forces himself on the heroine repeatedly until she finally admits both her desire and her love for him. Or, as Smart Bitch Sarah put it,
Not only are there an abundance of punishing kisses (ow) but there’s a great deal of insistence on the part of the Insane Hero that she likes it: “You little liar! You love it when I kiss you!” That pretty much sums up the hero, that sentence right there. [...] The [...] heroine vacillates between spineless - or possibly unconscious - and strong enough to run away from a hero who scares her. Insane Hero You Love It When I Kiss You is autocractic, demanding, and, dare I say, punishing in his affections, which he declares immediately and presumes she returns based on… well, based on what evidence I have no idea. Perhaps falling in love for him is based on the idea that if you insist upon it enough, it will come true? The plot goes in loopy circles that don’t spell out so much forward progression as they do plain old loopyness, and yet. I. Cannot. Put. It. Down.I could easily have put them both down. But I make noble sacrifices in the name of research, so I read on, hoping to discover what it was about these books that appealed so much to Tumperkin and rendered Sarah unable to Put. It. Down. Finally Tumperkin very kindly gave me an explanation:
I did not concern myself with [...] judging the hero's actions against 'reality'. And I think that that is the case for a lot of romance readers (although I appreciate you are reading romance as an academic - I am not). You talk about the definition of the romance novel as being two characters/ love story/ HEA. That's all well and good, but I don't think it follows that just because that is what the story is 'about' that readers (or all readers) are concerned with the authenticity of the central relationship. My own view is that for many readers, it's more about the journey - the roller-coaster if you like. A story arc contains highs and lows that deliver an emotional punch to the reader. A story with a very dark hero (abusive in the real world) might deliver a much more satisfying journey for certain readers. I tend to think of the more lurid examples of this type of story as 'emotional porn'.So it's a high adrenaline ride with a plot that performs multiple loop the loops which, if viewed logically, seem a repetitive and rather inefficient way of getting from point A to B. But then, with a roller coaster, getting to point B really isn't important. As Tumperkin said, it's all about the journey.
I began to wonder if maybe there was some correlation between reading preferences and the personality continuum which runs from Big T to Little T personalities: "Type T personality is a personality dimension which characterizes individuals along a continuum ranging from those who are stimulated by risk-taking, stimulation-seeking and thrill-seeking (Big T) to those who are risk, stimulation, and thrill-avoiding (Little t)" (from the abstract of a paper by Knutson and Farley). Certainly
research suggests that high sensation-seeking reaches into every aspect of people’s lives, affecting engagement in risky sports, relationship satisfaction before and during marriage, tastes in music, art and entertainment, driving habits, food preferences, job choices and satisfaction, humor, creativity and social attitudes.and
[...] Probing further, Zuckerman has found evidence for both a physiological and biochemical basis for the sensation-seeking trait: High sensation-seekers appear to process stimuli differently, both in the brain and in physiological reactions.
High sensation-seekers, who crave novel experiences, are at one end of the scale, while low sensation-seekers, who actively avoid excitement, are at the other end. Most people fall in the middle, with a moderate inclination to seek out new experiences, but a disinclination to push too far, he says. (Munsey, Monitor on Psychology)
In photographs, television, films, and reading, the high sensation seekers show a greater interest than the lows in morbid and sexual themes, whereas low sensation seekers find these themes distasteful and avoid them. High sensation seekers are more likely to be found among those attending sexually explicit (X-rated) movies and horror films. There is some evidence that the high sensation seekers may habituate more rapidly than lows to scenes in horror films. (Zuckerman 223)What do you think? Do you enjoy an emotional roller coaster? Do you think there's any correlation between your reading choices and your personality type?
- Zuckerman, Marvin. Behavioral Expressions and Biosocial Bases of Sensation Seeking. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1994.
That makes some sense to me. I guess when it comes to my reading choices, I am a "little t" -- I am coming to really like the "quieter" stories of personal discovery than the adventurous thriller types. And I get really annoyed if I don't get my HEA (I'm looking at you, "Friday Night Knitting Club.")
ReplyDeleteWell, I'm a Big T sensation seeker sexually, but I've only ever had one partner. I watch and read porn and sexually explicit material, and I experiment, both IRL and in my reading/watching material, on many axes of unusual sexual behavior.
ReplyDeleteBut you cannot get me to watch horror or violent movies. Refuse to watch anything by Mel Gibson anymore, or films like Gladiator. I've NEVER watched horror, although I used to read it--"used to" being the operative tense.
So where does that leave me?
Additionally, I don't think searching for the *emotional* highs and lows of a Charlotte Lamb or a J.R. Ward (modern version, methinks) correlates to the physical highs and lows of the Big T personality. But maybe that's just me.
So where does that leave me?
ReplyDeleteWell, as usual when I dip into the science on these matters, I'm speculating wildly without a great deal of background knowledge, but from what I can tell, it's certainly not the case that everyone who's more towards the Big T end of the continuum expresses that in exactly the same way, otherwise all Big T people would all be enjoying exactly the same dangerous sports and all be in exactly the same professions, and they're not.
Great post, Laura. I think the T scale is similar to one for taste that I read about once, which explained a lot. I don't know if there's any direct correlation between the two.
ReplyDeleteI don't like really hot spicy foods. They numb my mouth rather than pleasing it.. But a study showed that people who adore that mouth-numbing curry don't experience it that way. They don't get the same heat sensation at all, and so taste the food. But they also tend not to taste the subtle flavors of other foods. Such foods are bland. It's a physical reception difference, not a perception difference.
So perhaps in reading the T readers for some reason don't perceive the charms of a low-wave ride, and the t readers is overwhelmed by extreme highs and lows and can't perceive any charms that might be there.
IOW, nothing to do with happy ending versus journey or such, but the actual perception of that journey. After all, people don't ride a roller-coaster to enjoy the scenery.
I'm probably close to the center of the curve, but definitely not a T, and I've noticed that I seem to miss elements in "books I cannot read." (Well yes, but you know what I mean. *G*)
I sometimes read at least some of a book I don't like, most commonly because it's getting raves. (Sub question. Do T readers tend to rave more vigorously and openly? I've noticed that the books that get that sort of manic enthusiasm tend to be the ones that don't thrilly me, usually because of abusive or domineering heroes)
Anyway, I read at least some of such a book aware only of the horrid stuff that's hammering at me -- or so it seems. And I'm often surprised to find people saying things like, "It's actually very funny in places." or "She creates a fabulous sense of places."
Amid the "noise" of the over-the-top drama, I couldn't perceive, never mind enjoy that.
Oh, another point.I wonder if we change over time. For example people who really can't eat broccoli or brussel sprouts as children (they taste the sulphur compounds in them) often find they can as they get older.
Jo Beverley -- a medium T reader and writer, I think.
After reading your descriptions, I find that I am a drifter, who without someone disapproving of my behavior drifts towards the Big T end of the spectrum. I enjoy gratuitous violence, though I cannot stand the horror genre.
ReplyDeleteSomething that I cannot find a place for is my enjoyment of sexual undertones. I like it when a song, book, or movie has overt sexual undertones. The kind that fly over peoples head if they aren't listening carefully or thinking with that part of their mind. And I dislike the obvious porn type of sex. I find it silly and over-the-top.
I mention the disapproval above for a reason. If I am around someone who closer is to the little t side, they tend to disapprove of my tendencies, so I dampen them, drifting more to the little t side. Heaven forbid someone find out I like violence and sex.
In your cursory research have you found any indications of drifters like me?
Interesting stuff, but I suspect that there are so many variations and exceptions that, though the 'T/t' axis no doubt exists, it is one of so countless parameters in any given personality. It will modify some other traits, and be modified in its turn.
ReplyDeleteAs a reader, I am normally at the 't' end of the scale: I like subtlety and understatement, dry wit and sly innuendo. Big, bright, overstated stuff tends to bore me.
Jo's point about food brought me to a juddering halt, though, because I encompass the whole scale, without any doubt. I can eat the fiercest vindaloo with enjoyment, and habitually add harissa to dishes like scrambled eggs, but I definitely can, and do, taste and enjoy very subtle flavours as well. I love new potatoes, on their own with a little butter, just as much as a hot curry.
Maybe all this means is that I am unduly fond of food. True that one's taste perception changes with age: awareness of the bitter end of the spectrum is very much blunted in most older people.
Still, although I am totally sceptical about a clear-cut T/t axis in which everyone occupies a place on the curve, and the same place for different experiences, I still think the concept is a useful one, and is at least part of the explanation for so many people finding highly-coloured, over-the-top fiction exciting and enjoyable.
perhaps in reading the T readers for some reason don't perceive the charms of a low-wave ride, and the t readers is overwhelmed by extreme highs and lows and can't perceive any charms that might be there.
ReplyDeleteMy impression, as a tiny-t reader, is that the Big-T readers might tend to think that the books I prefer are boring. It's not that nothing happens in those books, but the emotional ride that they take the reader on isn't as extreme.
Sub question. Do T readers tend to rave more vigorously and openly? I've noticed that the books that get that sort of manic enthusiasm tend to be the ones that don't thrill me, usually because of abusive or domineering heroes
I don't know, but I think I must be a tiny-t reader and I haven't yet found anyone writing reviews who shares my tastes, whereas I have found lots of people online who rave about books I found very difficult to read/not at all enjoyable.
When I'm online I don't tend to express my personal, emotional responses to books, which might be in line with what you're suggesting. I try to stick to analysis instead, and there are lots of books which I've really enjoyed analysing but which aren't my favourites on an emotional level.
I've sometimes made an exception and said when I've enjoyed a book emotionally rather than intellectually, but as I've become more and more aware of how different my tastes seemed to be from other people's, I've begun to suspect that if I did rave about any book it would be the equivalent of sticking a great big "LAURA REALLY LIKES THIS SO IT MUST BE A BORING BOOK" label on it ;-)
I wonder if we change over time. For example people who really can't eat broccoli or brussel sprouts as children (they taste the sulphur compounds in them) often find they can as they get older.
One of the articles about the personality types mentioned that as people get older the risk-taking tendencies do become a little bit more muted. Sarah mentioned that she'd lost her taste for reading horror. Personally, I do think I'm becoming a tinier and tinier t in my reading as I get older. But that could have something to do with having a child. Francis Bacon wrote that "He that hath Wife and Children, hath given hostages to fortune; for they are impediments to great enterprises, either of virtue or mischief." Certainly it makes me aware of risk in a more intense way.
That's sort of a reply to what you asked, la: "In your cursory research have you found any indications of drifters like me?" I do think that circumstances can shape which risks/pleasures people will indulge in. I did a very quick search for more scientific evidence and found that "sensation seeking is a risk factor for drug use among high but not low sensation seekers [...]. Aspirations inconsistent with marijuana use appeared protective for high sensation seekers." Most of the other items I found about peer pressure tended to be about cases where the peer pressure pushed the people with risk-taking personalities towards taking the risks. But if having "aspirations" can be protective, then I think that would suggest that some factors may induce a person to moderate their behaviour.
although I am totally sceptical about a clear-cut T/t axis in which everyone occupies a place on the curve, and the same place for different experiences, I still think the concept is a useful one, and is at least part of the explanation for so many people finding highly-coloured, over-the-top fiction exciting and enjoyable.
I think you're right that there's not likely to be a totally clear-cut axis, but I'm glad you think it's an interesting/potentially useful way of thinking about this. I suspect it was Tumperkin's use of the roller coaster metaphor that got me pondering this, because as a child I never had any inclination to go on a roller coaster (and I've never tried one as an adult), though I could happily enjoy bumper cars and merry-go-rounds and small slides.
I think in most things I'd be a small t - I don't like taking financial/physical risks, I can't watch horror or torture movies, and don't really enjoy over-the-top emotional rides in books or movies. And in fact, I resent people that try to force me to experience them lol.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in other things I'm different - I love rollercoasters, love loud punk, techno and rap music (as well as most things in between), love watching sports and going with the highs and lows of my home team, I enjoy trying new foods, and I quite enjoy sexual themes in media - when it's a consensual thing. Hrm. I have no idea why I'm a big T in some of these things, and a small t in most others...
The only thing I can find to tie everything together is that I'm not fond of pain - the horror/torture movies, the pain depicted in extremely emotional books, the pain of non-consensual sex, the pain in my mouth with very spicy foods (that last one might be reaching a bit...). I don't know if music can be painful, maybe that's why I enjoy all types...and even though watching my sports team lose can be agonizing, it's not painful in a real way. Does this make any sort of sense? I think my quotient of non-linear thinking has been used up for today ^_^
Good post Laura.
ReplyDeleteHowever, although I like these rollercoatery-journey books, they don't characterise my tastes. I would say I like books right across the spectrum. Also, I'd definitely be a small-t person when it comes to physical sports and horror.
I've just come across another study I thought was interesting and semi-relevant, since we're discussing personality traits, and this seemed particularly interesting in the context of romance, since it's a genre which has often been described as having a sort of anti-depressant effect:
ReplyDeleteOur level of happiness throughout life is strongly influenced by the genes with which we were born, say experts.
An Edinburgh University study of identical and non-identical twins suggests genes may control half the personality traits keeping us happy.
The other half is linked to lifestyle, career and relationships.
However, another expert said despite the research in the journal Psychological Science, we can still train ourselves to be more content.
Maybe some of us "train ourselves to be more content" by reading romances? I'm thinking of what Jennifer Crusie's said about this, e.g.
Jennifer began research for her doctoral dissertation, examining the different ways that men and women tell stories. She decided to read 100 romance novels and 100 men’s adventure novels as part of the research; however, she never finished. She said she began reading the romance novels “in the middle of a very deep depression. After I'd read almost 100 of them, I felt wonderful about being a woman and very positive about the future. So I thought, ‘If romance fiction makes me feel this good when I read it, what will it do to write it?’ I tried and got hooked.”
Which is not to say that the same individual might not read different types of romances, at different times, for different reasons, or the same person might read the same book but get a different effect from it depending on their pre-existing mood.
Clearly I'm a tiny-t reader who's fascinated by the science of love and personality.
Laura, I think that your last post takes us a big step further with this. From the environmental point of view, whole communities (nations, classes, professions etc.) have rather different mores and expectations. As a very crude statement, British (especially English) society, relatively speaking, still places a high value on subtlety and understatement, and American society is generally a lot more comfortable with the overt and outgoing, the plain statement rather than the clever, ironic innuendo. These expectations sometimes require a good deal of personal adjustment. In our professions, too, we often have to do things and behave in ways that do not come naturally: a person who immensely enjoys the quiet and solitary satisfaction of analysing and studying something may be a lot less comfortable giving public lectures about it, but that may be something that is necessary for career advancement.
ReplyDeleteIn our purely leisure reading (and I am not an English lit./crit person, so fiction is only ever leisure reading for me, not work), I wonder if we seek that which helps to redress the overall balance with which we are comfortable? People's tastes in entertainment can sometimes seem out of character, such as the apparently aloof intellectual who turns out to have a love, and an encylopaedic knowledge, of hard rock or reggae - or romance novels (or all of them). The 'training ourselves to be more content' would be the indulgence of those traits that are necessarily circumscribed, if not suppressed, by the everyday circumstances of our life and work.
I can see chronological/generational elements here, too, linked with the rising popularity of fantasy fiction over the last 20-25 years, but I don't think I'll go there. Too complex.
The 'training ourselves to be more content' would be the indulgence of those traits that are necessarily circumscribed, if not suppressed, by the everyday circumstances of our life and work.
ReplyDeleteYes, I can see how that would work for some people.
It's fascinating to me how many possible variables there might be, how many different factors might influence people's choices in reading matter. We've got biology (and the spectrum of personality types that can contribute to) plus the huge differences that can be created by culture and life experiences. And then there's the more transient moods that people have - whether they happen to be looking for relaxation or excitement, a bit of drama, or something cheerful etc.
Maybe it's in response to a recognition of this variety (and, of course, in response to the personalities of the authors) that we can find such a range of different books within the romance genre?
Yes - and the changes in each individual's tastes and interests over time can also be considerable. Most of us find that there are books that we devoured with enthusiasm on first acquaintance but which seem less interesting 25 years on. We have simply grown in a different direction.
ReplyDeleteBut there are also books that we can read and re-read throughout our lives with unchanged enjoyment.
:)
What troubles me is that a number of the elements in the description of the high-T person also appear in a couple of books I recently read about sociopaths. They crave stimulation because they are fairly affectless (if I've used the word correctly) and get it in various ways, from playing GRAND THEFT AUTO on the computer to quarreling with the neighbors to extreme skiing to serial murder.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm not going to worry (much) about Sarah creeping in through my window with an axe, because the essential quality of sociopaths is that they have no empathy and cannot bond with others. It seems to me that people like this would not be reading romance novels; if anything, they'd be reading violent porn and American Psycho.
I scare VERY easily and have never gotten over reading Poe when I was ten, so I avoid any sort of horror fiction. I enjoyed reading Jaws but the film was almost too much for me. But I love big-time blow-'em-up films like ARMAGEDDON and the DIE HARD and UNDER SIEGE films. But I don't watch stuff with closeups of real live people getting gorily exterminated. The idea of attending a rock concert horrifies me,as do most sports (playing or watching). I guess I'm a tiny t (with buttered crumpets and jam) type.
What troubles me is that a number of the elements in the description of the high-T person also appear in a couple of books I recently read about sociopaths.
ReplyDeleteSociopaths, from what I can tell after a quick Google, may take risks, but as you say, "the essential quality of sociopaths is that they have no empathy and cannot bond with others". Their really defining characteristics are their lack of empathy for others, and lack of remorse when they harm others. One list of characteristics I found includes "Incapacity for Love" and here it says that "sociopaths are characterized by a deficit of the social emotions (love, shame, guilt, empathy, and remorse)." It's this emotional lack, rather than any risk-taking behaviours which set them apart.
What I was referring to was that they have a very high stimulus threshhold, so subtle and low-key are lost on them; they need strong stimuli to affect them. But as you pointed out, better than I did, it's the lack of empathy/bonding ability that is the real defining characteristic.
ReplyDeleteDo you remember the murder of two-year-old Jamie Bulger by ten-year old Jon Venables and Robert Thompson in Merseyside in 1993? Or Mary Bell, who was involved in the murder of two small boys in 1968, when she was eleven? They had the classic sociopathy-inducing childhood, with abuse from parents and siblings. (Note to Sarah: Mary's mother was a prostitute whose specialty was being a dominatrix. She allegedly tried to kill Mary several times when she was a toddler.)
Jonathan Kellerman, himself a child psychologist as well as a bestselling mystery writer and the author of SAVAGE SPAWN, the book about child sociopaths (mainly those involved in school shootings) that I've been reading, wrote a book loosely based on the Bulger case.
Word verification: noogysi
Speaks for itself. In Spanish, yet.
Tal, I can remember the Bulger case, but the Mary Bell case was long before my time (though I do remember hearing about it, because it was discussed at the time of the Bulger murder).
ReplyDeleteCan we avoid the references to Sarah, though, please? People who don't know Sarah and read "I'm not going to worry (much) about Sarah creeping in through my window with an axe" and then "Note to Sarah: Mary's mother was a prostitute whose specialty was being a dominatrix. She allegedly tried to kill Mary several times when she was a toddler" might begin to get quite the wrong idea about Sarah. Maybe I'm being humourless, but these are very serious crimes, which I'd rather we didn't joke about. I also wouldn't want any sort of stigma to become attached to either Big T personalities or anyone's reading preferences.
Laura, thanks so much for the defense. I totally understand that Talpianna was joking--or I assumed so--and didn't comment on her comments because of that, but I absolutely appreciate your defense. Just as homosexuals are no more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals, sexual dominants are no more likely to be domestic abusers than vanilla people. Yes, sexual dominance can be mis-used as an excuse for domestic abuse, but most dominants I've met are the sweetest people in the world who would kill themselves before truly harming another person, either mentally or physically (with the distinction that the english language allows us between hurting someone for sexual pleasure and truly harming them in a bad way).
ReplyDeleteSarah: I certainly didn't mean to insult you in any way! The reference to your creeping in through my window with an axe was obviously a joke (everyone knows that burrows don't have windows).
ReplyDeleteI mentioned the information about Mary Bell's mother not with any joking intent, but as a heads-up to the sort of public attitude you might have to deal with in your work--the fact that it's considered relevant by the author of the Wiki article indicates how pervasive it is. You probably don't really need the warning, but I thought you might like the quotation as something handy to refute. Certainly nothing I wrote was meant to reflect on the real-life you in any way, and I apologize if anyone read it that way.
Laura wrote: the Mary Bell case was long before my time
And I was in grad school. I'm surrounded by infants!
Talpianna, you don't want to know how old I am! ;) And thanks. I'm perfectly aware of the way BDSM is viewed in the general media and by the general public. But I don't think that means that these novels are any less worthy of being studied, and I'm sure you agree. Laura was just defending my honor! She's very good at it. :)
ReplyDeleteOh, yes, I understand where both you and Laura are coming from. I just didn't want to leave any doubt where I was coming from.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, all I know about BDSM is what I've read here and in stuff about the Marquis de Sade, which I gather are polar opposites, and occasional bits in mystery novels. It does seem that the BDSM scene would have a very great attraction for sociopaths, so I wonder how the ones who AREN'T sociopaths manage to keep them out?
P.S. Laura preparing to defend your honor:
http://tinyurl.com/yrrdyz
Yes, of course that's me, to the life! The only thing missing is my hat, which can be seen in this portrait (it was on loan to the painter, who wore it for her self-portrait).
ReplyDeleteWell, how does one keep sociopaths out of anything? ;)
ReplyDeleteIn real life, BDSM now is as much about the emotional connection and the caring between partners as it is about the physical nature of the BDSM interaction.
Then again, there are the professionals, like Mary's mother, but I have no experience there whatsoever, so can't really speak to that aspect of the life.
If you want a rec for an incredible BDSM author, read Joey Hill (Ellora's Cave and in print now). She's amazing. Rough Canvas is a m/m story, the most realistic. Natural Law is fem-dom with some slight exaggerations here and there but a brilliant representation of a BDSM relationship. Hill gets the emotions exactly right.
Well, I don't think sociopaths would be nearly as attracted to book clubs, wine-tasting groups, and philatelic societies as they would be to BDSM groups, so the others wouldn't have the problem!
ReplyDeleteSorry, but because of my own life experience of bullying, I just hate to read about any sort of constraint, humiliation, or infliction of pain on a character. I know it's not the same in the books as it is in real-life bullying, but that's how it is for me.