Erotica author, aka Elspeth Potter, on Writing from the Inside

Showing posts with label romance novels. Show all posts
Showing posts with label romance novels. Show all posts

Friday, October 1, 2010

Telepathy and Romance

Telepathy and romance are two great tastes that ought to taste great together. So why is it that, so often, a telepathic heroine or hero--finds true love with the one person whose mind can't be read?

It's part of a romance novel's plot, of course, for a couple to get to know each other better. There need to be obstacles in the way. If one person can read the other's mind, a lot of the tension is gone from the story. If one of the partners is immune to the other's ability, that creates tension and can also serve as a signal to the telepath that here is someone special.

But what if the telepathy did work? Usually, in those cases the plot tension arises from the non-telepathic character having secrets which the telepath might accidentally--or purposely--uncover. The telepath might learn things that complicate the relationship further.

But there's another way to use telepathy in romance, I think, a way that I've seen more often in science fiction or fantasy novels that happen to have a romance. Telepathy can be used as a kind of leveller, a new way of looking at how two people interact. "Normal" humans are isolated from each other in many ways. Their intimacies are negotiated and can never be total as we can't see another person from the inside. What if they weren't isolated from each other? What happens then?

If one or both characters can read the mind of the other, most of the simple romantic conflicts can be eliminated. The writer has to delve deeper for plot conflict, perhaps specifically engaging with gender roles in a relationship, or other power differentials. The writer could explore how their characters would interact on another level entirely.

Thursday, September 30, 2010

Heroine Doe

What do you look for in a romance heroine? Or the heroine of a space opera, or of a quest fantasy? What kind of heroine always makes you want to read further?

Does she need to be an orphan, or have a big happy family, or a mean and awful family?

Should her eyes be amethyst or only ever brown? Can she ever be conventionally beautiful?

Is she spunky? Angry? Sweet? Cynical? Kickass?

Can she physically defend herself? Does she have cool specialties?

Is she lonely? Vengeful? Weary? Angry?

What are the characteristics that, if you were given them in a blurb, would make you want that novel immediately?

What kind of heroine do you wish you were reading about right now?

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Types of Masculinity

What does it mean, to be a man? To be masculine? What does it mean to be a man who is the hero of a romance novel?

Romance readers, including me, often talk about "alpha" or "beta" heroes as two generalized types. The alpha can be seen as a protector and/or a provider (rich in money or at least in skills) as well as a person with a need to dominate a relationship, or at least romantic situations; often the alpha is depicted as physically large and strong and far more attractive than the norm. The beta can be equated with the "nice guy" who might or might not be the most muscular or beautiful man the heroine has ever met.

What needs do those two basic types of heroes meet for readers? Are there possible alternative models of masculinity that could satisfy readers? How do market forces affect what's available? How do reader expectations affect what sells and what writers write? How do types of romance heroes mirror what society finds normative?

Do the alpha and beta models of masculinity allow for truly equal male/female relationships? And how do those roles intersect with female alpha and beta characters in fiction?

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

How Many Sex Scenes?

I recently read a contemporay romance and got into a brief discussion about the sex scenes.

I'd been perfectly comfortable with the amount of sex that was shown. The story focused on the two characters' relationship issues and issues that were them versus society; basically, Love Against the Odds. So far as sex went, they didn't really have any issues. They were physically compatible from the moment they met, and didn't have much trouble affirming their love physically. They were shown kissing, they were shown in bed with fades-to-black. It was clear they were getting along fine so far as sex was concerned. I was okay with not knowing explicitly what they were doing.

Another reader, who'd also liked the book, wanted at least one sex scene to be slightly more explicit, suggesting that the sex scenes ought to match the emotional intensity of the rest of the book, which is quite long and definitely weighted on the emotional side of the characters' relationship. I can see that, too. Balance isn't a bad thing.

However, I think it's also okay not to have explicit sex scenes in a romance novel. This book was marketed as a romance, not an erotic romance. Enough of the characters' erotic relationship was shown, I feel, for the reader to have the necessary information about it. I think it worked...but I can also see the other reader's point. The book could have been much richer had the couple's problems in their public lives been reflected in their private lives, with commentary in both directions.

However, perhaps the book I'm imagining would have been another book entirely. After all, it's not my book I thinking about. It's someone else's book. My book would have been different in many ways.

Have you read books that you thought didn't show enough sex? What made you feel that way?

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

IASPR Call for Proposals

Just in case anyone out there is interested!

A Call For Proposals for The Third Annual International Conference on Popular Romance:

Can't Buy Me Love?
Sex, Money, Power, and Romance
New York City
June 26-28, 2011


The International Association for the Study of Popular Romance (IASPR) is seeking proposals for innovative panels, papers, roundtables, discussion groups, and multi-media presentations that contribute to a sustained conversation about romantic love and its representations in global popular media. We welcome analyses of individual books, films, television series, websites, songs, etc., as well as broader inquiries into the reception of popular romance and into the creative industries that produce and market it worldwide.

This conference has four main goals:

1. To explore the relationships between the conference’s key thematic terms (sex, money, power, and romantic love) in the texts and contexts of popular romance, in all forms and media, from a variety of disciplinary and theoretical perspectives
2. To foster comparative and intercultural analyses of these recurring themes, by documenting and/or theorizing the ways that different nations, cultures, and communities think about love and sex, love and money, love and power, and so on, in the various media of popular romance
3. To explore how ideas and images of romantic love—especially love as shaped by issues of sex, money, or power—circulate between elite and popular culture, between different media (e.g., from novel to film), and between cultural representations and the lived experience of readers, viewers, listeners, and lovers
4. To explore the popular romance industry–publishing, marketing, film, television, music, gaming, etc.—and the roles played by sex, money, power, and love in the discourse of (and about) the business side of romance.

After the conference, proceedings will be subjected to peer-review and published.

Please submit proposals by January 1, 2011 and direct questions to conferences [at] iaspr [dot] org.

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

The Journal of Popular Romance Studies, First issue!

The Journal of Popular Romance Studies has published its first issue! If only this journal had been around when I was in graduate school...but no, then I never would have gotten around to writing novels.

So far, I've read A Little Extra Bite: Dis/Ability and Romance in Tanya Huff and Charlaine Harris’s Vampire Fiction, by Kathleen Miller. Abstract: "This essay examines Tanya Huff's Blood Price and Charlaine Harris's Dead Until Dark through the lenses of Disability and Feminist Studies to suggest that in these works disability functions as a reclamation of the female body--which has often been viewed as 'always and already' deformed--even as it contributes to the reinvention of the vampire romance genre."

I found the essay fascinating because I didn't know much about Disability Studies as a discipline, and now I'm excited to know more. I was intrigued by the ways the two books worked with and against the idea that these heroines are imperfect simply because they're female, as well as because of their damaged sight or telepathy; their otherness is then heightened and explored when contrasted with their powerful, immortal partners. Read the article to learn more.

There Are Six Bodies in This Relationship: An Anthropological Approach to the Romance Genre, by Laura Vivanco and Kyra Kramer, has some really cool ideas in it as well. I never enjoyed the fact that I'd read the French theorist Foucault, until now, when it proved useful!

I was also very happy to see Pamela Regis' review of Historical Romance Fiction: Heterosexuality and Performativity, by Lisa Fletcher, as I've been thinking of reading that book.

I can't wait to read through the rest of the issue!

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Top 5 Marriage of Convenience Novels

This post was originally written for Monkey Bear Reviews.

#

My Five Favorite Marriage of Convenience Novels

It was really difficult to make this list! The "marriage of convenience" is one of my favorite romance novel plots. I made the rule for myself that for my list of five, I would not choose more than one novel by a single author, so that helped a lot, particularly since Jo Beverley and Mary Balogh have written quite a few Marriage of Convenience novels. (Do I love Marriage of Convenience novels because two of my favorite romance writers have written so many, or do I love those authors because they've written so many Marriage of Convenience novels? *ponders* *head begins to hurt*)

Anyway. Here's my list. They're not in any particular order.

A Civil Contract by Georgette Heyer: I chose this one in particular (I also like Heyer’s The Convenient Marriage) because of the class and money issues that are embedded in the story, making the conflict much more rich. The hero is in love with someone else when he learns he must instead marry an heiress for her money. The heiress is diffident, plump, and plain. Conflict! Atypical heroine! Learning to live with each other! A friend of mine once compared this novel to Jane Austen's Persuasion, which happens to be my favorite Austen novel, so that might be part of my liking for it as well.

Christmas Angel by Jo Beverley: this is one of my favorites by Jo Beverley overall, as well as a favorite Marriage of Convenience story. The thing I like best about it is the negotiation. I know that sounds odd when talking about a romance novel. But in this story, the heroine has two children from a previous marriage, and the hero actually talks to her about how he’d like to contribute to raising them, down to how to discipline their children; they discuss all manner of practical things that will relate to their future life together. This is so rare in historical romances I’ve read that I am still in awe of it. To me, that’s about a thousand times more romantic than, say, wild sex on a beach.

Dancing with Clara by Mary Balogh: Balogh has written numerous Marriage of Convenience stories, so choosing one was difficult. I finally chose this one because the hero, Freddie, is such a mess. He marries Clara for her money, and Clara marries him knowing that he’s marrying her for her money. After a lovely honeymoon, Freddie freaks out and runs away to drink and whore his way across London. He and Clara must struggle through his behavior and the reasons behind it to establish their relationship on a firm footing. Their story feels very realistic to me emotionally and is completely involving, especially given that this was a category-length Signet Regency Romance, and thus very short.

The Wedding Journey by Carla Kelly: Kelly’s books are almost all category-length, and this is no exception. It’s also one of my favorite Carla Kelly books (and she is one of my favorite writers). It’s unusual among this list because the hero was already in love with the heroine before the story began; he’d just never told her. He marries her under the guise of protecting her when her father dies. They’re both ordinary people living not-so-ordinary lives; Jesse is an Army surgeon, Nell the daughter of a common soldier, and they must travel across Spain alone in the middle of a war, facing a whole range of gritty dangers. The chief thing I love about the story is the heroine’s calm practicality and the hero’s shy-but-strong personality. As an added bonus, the book is rich with historical detail about the English army during the Peninsular Campaign.

Beast by Judith Ivory: this book is very different from the others on my list. It’s set in the early twentieth century, and the prose is much more stylistically elaborate than most other romance novels. For me, it’s also a bonus that besides being a Marriage of Convenience, it’s also a Beauty and the Beast story. Two great tastes that taste great together! What I love most about the book is that neither of the protagonists is really a nice person. Love isn’t enough. They each have conquer their own vanities and insecurities in order to make their relationship work.

Looking over what I’ve written, it’s pretty clear to me that “working at the relationship” is something I value highly in a romance novel. I think that’s because when the relationship is the conflict, it’s integral to the story in a way that a pasted-on suspense plot cannot be. And working at the relationship is what the Marriage of Convenience novel is all about.

Friday, July 23, 2010

Bearded Heroes

I'm a guest today at the Novelists, Inc. blog on "Five Ways of Thinking About a Writer's Conference."

As for my own personal blog, I've been wondering something. Where are all the romance heroes with beards? Or even moustaches?

I'm thinking about this because Maxime, hero of The Duke & the Pirate Queen, has a beard. The man on the book's cover does not have a beard; I've rarely seen moustaches, much less beards, on the covers of romance novels. Or on the characters inside romance novels. Or even in erotic novels, for that matter.

I recently read The Forbidden Rose by Joanna Bourne; it's a historical set during the French Revolution. For most of the novel, the hero is bearded, or more accurately, stubbled. It's part of his disguise. I believe, though, in "normal" life he is cleanshaven.

Three major characters in my World War One-set novel The Moonlight Mistress (Pascal Fournier, Noel Ashby, and Gabriel Meyer) have moustaches. In that case, I considered their facial hair to be an important part of the historical worldbuilding; it's early in the war, and they don't yet have the gas mask issue that led some soldiers to shave. But also, I like moustaches. Again, the man on the book's cover does not have a moustache, though I am pretty sure he represents Pascal. Maybe there's some kind of marketing thing going on with all these cleanshaven men. Or maybe models just don't tend to have facial hair.

I wonder why that is? Facial hair, I suspect, is more commmon in historical romance set in certain periods when, well, facial hair would be more common. Is there more facial hair in Western Romance? I can't bring examples to mind. Does this trend hold over time?

Do readers just not want to imagine the scratchiness?

Anybody have any thoughts on this?

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Eroticism in To Have and To Hold by Patricia Gaffney

I recently read Patricia Gaffney's To Have and To Hold for the first time. If I'd only read the first section of the book (a bit less than half), I could easily interpret it as an erotic novel, though one without much explicit sex. To explain why I think that, first I have to talk about the book as a whole.

There's a lot of discussion of this novel mostly because of its hero, aristocrat Sebastian Verlaine. Sebastian enacts a "forced seduction" of the heroine, Rachel Wade, who was imprisoned for ten years for the death of her abusive husband. Sebastian later allows his acquaintances to verbally torment Rachel; if Sebastian had not acted at the last minute, he would have tacitly allowed her to be raped by one of them. However, after and because of these actions on Sebastian's part, a switch flips in his personality and he becomes the Rake Reformed who's hoping to be Redeemed. From then on he is, like Mary Poppins, practically perfect in every way as a romantic hero; "He had two immediate goals: to make her laugh and to make her come."

I am vastly simplifying. It's difficult to do otherwise with this complex and rewarding novel, which I'm still thinking about (I'll no doubt have more to say a few months from now). Sebastian still has flaws in the book's second section but, well, I can sum up his character shift by saying he gives her a puppy. And a conservatory. Both of these are things Rachel desperately desires and was denied while in prison; he responds to her deep needs with deep acuity.

In return, Rachel gives him a copy of an opera libretto which he truly loves. Throughout, she can often interpret the motives behind his actions. She becomes an expert on him. I think part of her skill at interpreting him is that she suffers from PTSD, because of her experiences with her husband and in prison; she's hyperattentive to people who might be threats. However, she is also easily devastated by kindness and tenderness; after Sebastian's reversal, she gives him her trust, which to me is much more impressive than Sebastian's reform. The second section is the epitome of romantic fantasy; ultimate trust and ultimate knowledge of the other.

In both sections, Sebastian is extremely attuned to Rachel: first cruelly, then kindly; first focused on his own gratification through her, secondly on her gratification. But back to the eroticism. Rachel's sexual desires are shut away for the first part of the novel. She cannot fully access that part of her until Sebastian changes, so I feel her true journey towards wholeness happens more in the second section than the first, when her erotic feelings are tightly bound up with emotional/romantic feelings (something our society perceives as normal for women).

Therefore, I looked at Sebastian's erotic journey. At first, he can sense the barriers between him and Rachel. The only way he can allow himself to think of removing those barriers is with sex; he's a dissipated rake; seduction is what he does. He cannot change his character except through sex. He thus makes her into an erotic object, and seeks to break her down to his level. "Her passivity irked him." "He felt pity for her, and curiosity, and an undeniably lurid sense of anticipation." "She was in his power, a virtual slave. The situation was unquestionably provocative, but it ought to have been more so, more stimulating. He hadn't really gotten to her yet. She simply didn't care enough." "Because of her reserve, touching her seemed a daring encroachment, almost like the breaking of a taboo. But wasn't that what made her irresistible?" "...that master-servant simulation had piquant sexual overtones he found stimulating."

Then Sebastian begins to lose his emotional distance and is having trouble seeing her merely as an erotic object. He has to work harder at it. "He entertained himself by imagining her in lewd sexual situations, but the man in his fantasies was always himself; when he tried to put a deviant or a pervert in them with her, someone who hurt her or degraded her--someone other than himself--the fantasies evaporated, leaving him with a bad taste in the mouth."

His feelings of distaste lead him into a little more self-awareness, and realization that he wants more from her than her body. He's beginning to get the idea that there will be a form of exchange between them. "...he'd seen a change coming in himself for a while now. Out of boredom and cynicism, he was starting to become nasty. He didn't approve of it, but in some ways he saw it as inevitable...But the older he got, the less fun he was having. It took more every day to divert him, and lately he'd begun moving gradually, with misgivings, into excess. There were no vices and few depravities he hadn't tasted, with differing degrees of satisfaction. He worried that when he ran out, he would choose a few favorites and indulge in them until they killed him...he had some idea that if he could possess her, the essence of what he lacked and she had would be his. He would appropriate it." "...he alternated between wanting to save her and wanting to push her to her limit."

He doesn't go about seduction very well at all. His thoughts here are far from romantic. But his analysis of his seductive maneuvers made me think of erotica, the sort with a psychological bent. "Her silence and her manner--completely withdrawn--suggested that their first time together was not going to be particularly transcendent, and that his best course would be simply to get it over with. That was one way. Another would be to exploit her provocative unwillingness, use it to heighten his pleasure--and hers, too, if she would let it. For the hundredth time he wondered what her husband had done to her. Since he didn't know and she wouldn't tell him, it seemed he had no choice but to enjoy her in any way he liked...He considered stopping everything and letting her go, but only for a split second, before the thought flew off to wherever bad ideas go."

After the forced seduction (I use that term rather than rape because this is a novel, and a fantasy scenario), Gaffney complicates the encounter further with Rachel's thoughts. "She understood why her fear of him had diminished...It was because she'd discovered from the most intimate experience that, unlike her husband, he was not thoroughly corrupt. He spoke of the "piquancy" of her unwillingness, and she didn't doubt that he found it so, but he had never hurt her, not really, and she knew with a bone-deep certainty that he never would. His methods of coercion were subtler, and maybe it was sophistry to say that therefore they were kinder. But she had been used by men in both ways now, brutally and gently, and she could say without equivocation that she much preferred Sebastian's."

After they've been intimate, Sebastian tries to regain the self he was before, by encouraging himself to separate from her emotionally. While his acquaintances torment Rachel with invasive questions, he picks at the piano keys. "The unimaginativeness of his friends' preoccupations ought not to have surprised him, but it did. Had they always been this shallow and insipid? This vicious? What made him think he was any different from them?" "...this was different. This was worse. He was letting it happen, watching it grow more beastly by the minute, because he wasn't testing her anymore. He was testing himself." "The worst for Sebastian was recognizing his own soft, mocking tone in Sully's despicable cadence. He felt physically sick." "He felt the tear down the middle of himself widening, and that was wrong; it should have been narrowing. He'd just done a thing to make himself whole again."

And then emotion breaks through, and Sebastian changes. "He heard a snap in his head, exactly like a bone breaking, and at once the eerie fugue state evaporated. His past and his future had broken cleanly in two. This, now, was the present, a violent limbo he had to smash his way out of to survive."

The rest of the novel is all about emotional intimacy; even the sex scenes are about emotional intimacy. But in the first section, the sex and erotic thoughts are deeply tied with the hero's journey to self-awareness, and the heroine's journey towards feeling sexual desire through trust and intimacy.

Comments?

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Top 5 Angsty Heroes

I love angsty heroes. You might have guessed that about me at some point. Ahem.

Anyway, my top five:

1. Any Laura Kinsale hero. I mean, how can you top the boy prostitute who becomes a ninja? Or the vertiginous highwayman? Go on, try. I dare you.

2. Any Carol Berg hero, despite them probably being dead from their injuries after she gets through with them. They suffer, yet also manage to kick butt, and get happy or semi-happy endings. Song of the Beast is a standalone and good to start with. The hero has just been released from seventeen years of being tortured. Not kidding.

3. Gerald Tarrant, from C.S. Friedman's Coldfire trilogy: Black Sun Rising, When True Night Falls, and Crown of Shadows. His angst has to do with being immortal and powerful and killing his whole family to get that way, yet he is still strangely moving to me. His powerful emotional relationship with a straight-arrow priest might be part of it.

4. Bentley, in Liz Carlyle's The Devil You Know, even though I guessed he'd been sexually abused long before any one in the book did. The hotness was him coming out the other side of trauma.

5. I can't not mention Francis Crawford of Dorothy Dunnett's Lymond Chronicles, which begin with The Game of Kings and continue in Queens' Play and so on for six books total, of which the most supremely angsty is Pawn in Frankincense, but don't bother trying to read them out of order, it is totally impossible. Francis is in an angst category all his own, making over-the-top into brilliance. I still can't believe Dunnett got away with what she got away with in this series. She is the mistress to whom all writers of angstful historical epics should aspire.

How about you? Who are your favorite angsty heroes?

Thursday, June 10, 2010

Marriage of Convenience or Not?

My current novel is not a Marriage of Convenience. I'd been thinking it was. In my mind, for many months, I've been calling it "The Werewolf Marriage of Convenience."

Alas, I was wrong. My desperate desire to write a Marriage of Convenience obscured the reality. My characters know each other too well for their marriage to be one of convenience.

I think one of the major aspects of a Marriage of Convenience story is a focus on the hero and heroine (or whatever other gender pairing/grouping you choose) getting to know each other. They've been forced into intimate proximity, and have to make the best of it. If they already know each other, that can't happen, unless there's an additional layer: for example, they knew each other once, but have been separated for years; or for another example, they didn't know each other as well as they thought, because one of them was actually a spy the whole time, or harbored a secret deep angst, or was actually an alien.

In my story, the characters met in The Moonlight Mistress when they were both held captive by the villain. They're both werewolves, and both want werewolf children, so after their escape, one talks the other into marrying (very Marriage of Convenience!). They make sure they are sexually compatible before marrying (not very Marriage of Convenience) and know something already about their partner's basic personality, clearly exposed during their captivity (ditto).

The trick to this story, then, won't be the things they don't know about each other. I think it will have to be what they don't know about what they do know. (I know what I mean!)

The tensions in the story will have to revolve around what their flaws will mean for their marriage. They'll have to learn the depth of those flaws. They'll have to learn to accept and live with flaws they already know about.

So...maybe it is a Marriage of Convenience. It just has one extra layer. What do you think?

I'm thinking I'm going to think about it some more, while I work on a favorites list of marriage of convenience novels.

Related Post:
The Intricacies of Marriages of Convenience.

Monday, June 7, 2010

I Don't Read It For the Sex.

I don't read erotica for the sex.

Well, not entirely. I know. I write the stuff, so why I don't I read it for its intended purpose? Possibly for the same reason that a pastry chef might not eat pastry at home. Back when I first began writing erotica, I read a lot of it, anthology upon anthology. I read with a critical eye. For the most part, these days when I look at an erotic scene I can't help but dissect it. Only a few authors are able to engage me enough with the characters that I can be lost in the scene solely for story's sake. Occasionally, something unexpected will serve the same purpose, some new way of writing or describing, but that happens even less.

These days, when I read erotica, I read it for the story. Go ahead and laugh - I'm not lying. What I'm looking for in erotica isn't sex. I look for what goes along with the sex. I like characters having problems and finding solutions; I like characters who are having adventures; and, most of all, I like when the characters and their actions challenge the status quo in some way. To me, any story that gives me characters outside of the ordinary run of stories, or outside of society's mainstream, is interesting. In other words, I want there to be more than just sex. Otherwise, there's no meaning.

What I want is simple, but it's surprisingly hard to find. A lot of erotica focuses so intensely on a single pair that it feels insular to me. I like having a sense of what they're up against, "It's us against the world." Or against the genre. That works for me, too.

What works for you?

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Reading our Grandmothers

Jessica of Read React Review, one of my favorite blogs, recently mentioned that she had never read Jane Eyre and had decided to do so. I and several others volunteered to read or reread it along with her. I'll be posting on my re-read Friday, May 14th through Sunday, May 16th, and hopefully will manage to put in links to some of the other posts, as well, as they appear - Jessica's post is now scheduled for Sunday, May 23rd.

Because of the re-read, I started thinking about "the classics." I'm not going to try to define "classics." That way lies madness. Instead, I'm going to muse on the idea of there being "classic" romance novels; or maybe I should call them "precursors." Pamela is often cited, and Pride and Prejudice, and of course Jane Eyre. Why are these important to modern romance readers and writers?

To me, Jane Eyre doesn't fit the formula of the modern romance novel; if I had to slot it into a modern literary genre, I'd choose women's fiction instead, because in addition to Jane's relationship with Edward Rochester, the book includes complex relationships with her family, in more than one iteration. Rochester gets a lot of press, but the book is not about him, it's about Jane. (And Gothic romance, and social commentary, and feminism, etc..)

However, fitting into modern genre conventions has nothing to do with why these precursors are important. To me, as a writer, a large part of their importance relates to the genre tropes that modern romances have in common with these books. Certain plot elements in precursor books still resonate today, and are still being used and recreated. How many modern romance novels include the hero and heroine misunderstanding each other, as in Pride and Prejudice, or falling in love without realizing their beloved has a major secret, as in Jane Eyre? Or Byronic heroes, like Jane Eyre? (She's more of one than Edward Rochester, I think. She's so tormented and angry and prone to dark fits of the soul!)

Writers keep using these novels' ideas, reinterpreting them and dialoguing with them. Reading precursors, and also reading their modern descendents, to me is a form of conversation, us in the now with our sisters/mothers in the past (or fathers, in the case of Pamela). If you haven't read these novels, you can't follow the conversations. Reading them is as important as talking to a grandmother.

Among the classics I've never read are Wuthering Heights and Fanny Burney's Evelina. Evelina will probably be the next precursor I read, though it will probably be awhile before I get to it. How about you? What precursors/classics do you love, or have never read, or would like to read?

Related post:
Reading for the Writer.

Friday, May 7, 2010

The Bashful Hero

I wish more romance novels featured bashful heroes.

I've never been a huge fan of the romance novel hero who's physically large and good at everything and gorgeous to boot. Except, I don't mind that combination of traits if the hero is bashful about being good at everything, or embarrassed because he's so tall, or just interesting in some way. To me, there's no point in reading about someone who's perfect. I want to read about characters who are vulnerable. If they're not vulnerable, why should I care what happens to them? Why should I care if they have a happy ending?

Laura Kinsale excels at the damaged hero (as she does at so many things). Many of her heroes have dramatic flaws--fear of heights, Post-Traumatic Stress Disoder, vertigo--that make their stories intriguing because you, as reader, don't know what to expect. Their flaws instantly give more scope to the conflict, create more possibilities.

Not every writer can carry off flaws that are so dramatic without going over the top. But smaller flaws--like being bashful--can be exceptionally appealing when paired with more traditional hero qualities.

Unexpected qualities also get me interested. Imagine a dragonkiller. Then imagine a dragonkiller whose real interest is science and the breeding of pigs, and who wished he hadn't killed the dragon at all, as in Barbara Hambly's Dragonsbane. Isn't that more interesting?

Who's your favorite unusual hero? And why?

Related Posts:
Normative Heterosexuality and the Alpha Male Fantasy.

Wacky Story Elements and Laura Kinsale.

Thursday, May 6, 2010

Sex for the Oppositional

I'm sure I've seen another discussion, somewhere on the Internet at somewhen, a discussion of villains and sex. If I could remember where or when, I would hunt it up and post the links for your reading pleasure. But since I can't, I'll just ramble in my usual fashion.

The villain of a story doesn't necessarily need to be Evil. They usually have more depth if they're like everyone else, and don't think of themselves as bad. There are villains in romance novels, and in erotica. Often, if the villian has sex, it's not ordinary sex. It's evil sex. Or cruel sex. Or sex that just isn't very good.

Is that fair? No, it is not.

Villains--or perhaps we should call them "Oppositional Characters"--need love more than the main pairing who are, after all, guaranteed a happy ending most of the time.

I know you're asking, "What can I do? How can I help these poor, lonely characters?"

You don't need to invite them into your home, or even donate money. Simply give them a chance! Or at the very least, a nice new sex toy that they and their partners will enjoy. Let these characters find a little tenderness as they strive to destroy the protagonist's happiness, or the world. Remember, Oppositional Characters need love, too.

Thursday, April 1, 2010

Romance Series-Itis

Series-itis: there's entirely too much wordcount devoted to reminding us what happened to the hero when he was a minor character in a previous book, and setting up various other characters for their roles in future books, not to mention the obligatory mentions of previous romantic couples in the series.

I'm not sure why I like and continue to read series of linked books when what I really want is for the romantic couple of one book to go off to the jungle after their book is done so I don't have to find out that they're pregnant or that they just had twins or how happy they are now while in the middle of someone else's adventure. Their settled happiness is boring, and sucks all the lovely tension out of the current book.

And also, all the linked characters in such a series have to be Happy Together, or if they have any interesting disagreements, they must be resolved so we can eventually see them be Happy Together ("oh, he changed so much after his marriage to Julian's cousin's ward, you know the one who escaped France under the auspices of the Purple Pumpernickel--you mean Arthur is the Purple Pumpernickel? And he was in love with her? Oh, poor Arthur. Well, maybe he can find another wench, now that he's unexpectedly come into his title through that bizarre great-great-aunt accident.")

All that niceness gets a little wearing after a while. And if they're all so friendly, that means, again, that old characters have to take up space in each book that should belong to its hero and heroine. Series-itis sufferers often replace the quite useful unnamed flat character in order to shoehorn in someone from a previous or future book.

Judy Cuevas' Bliss and Dance use a better approach. The first book ends with the two brothers still not entirely settled in their relationship, and is resolved somewhat with very occasional letters in the second book. Brief, to the point, shows character change.

Related Post:
Ultra-Brother!

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Where Are the Older Heroines?

Where are the older heroines in romance novels?

Not there. Not often. Not that I've seen.

And by older I only mean, like, getting close to forty. It seems to be okay for romance heroes to be forty or above - though I've noticed the author may let you know only once or twice and then not mention it again - but heroines? Not so much. Fifty and above? Even close to fifty? Where are they? Are they there, only hidden away in specialty imprints?

I wonder if this will change, now that the world's population is aging? Or if there's some ingrained marketing belief that post-fifty people are assumed to want to read about people younger than themselves, much as kids are assumed to want to read about kids who are a little older than themselves?

My favorite romance with a post-fifty heroine is Stitch in Snow by Anne McCaffrey.

And as a side note, I'd love to read a romance novel with a heroine for whom age is a feature, not a bug. Who's perhaps happy she's grown in wisdom and self-knowledge, because it gives her more resources to fight the vampires.

What do you think?

If you have examples of romance novels with heroines past forty, please share them! I think at this point I'd even take past thirty-five.

Friday, March 19, 2010

Why Not Twentieth Century Historicals?

Why are so few (print) romance novels set in the twentieth century?

If you go to a bookstore and look at the section labelled "Romance," certain things are there and certain things are not. With the exception of occasional outliers like Harlequin's line of 20th century "decade" books-- a line of categories that some bookstores didn't carry, and which was then closed down--historicals seem to include only a few periods.

The highest proportion of historicals set in Britain and Europe are set in the 19th century, with the Regency era far surpassing the earlier Georgian period (technically, Regency is still Georgian, I know--but in Romance the distinction seems to be made that way). Medievals seem to be a much smaller slice of the market, as are Victorians. Sometimes, you get something set in the Renaissance, mostly in Italy, or in France during the Revolution. (There are always exceptions, and I love exceptions, so please tell me your favorites!)

American history seems to consist of the Civil War and the "western expansion" era of the late 19th and sometimes very early 20th century. I have seen some paranormal authors, for example Susan Krinard, write books that take place at least partly on the US East Coast in the 19th century, but that isn't common. Occasionally someone writes a book set in the American Revolution, usually including some intersection between Americans and British. Suzanne Brockmann got away with some WWII content mixed with contemporary in some of her Navy SEALS romance/suspense novels, but I note that she's stopped doing that some time ago; her current series is all contemporary. And that is mostly it, at least that I can think of.

Why is this? Who decided? Are more current time periods--the 1920s through, say, the 1970s--seen as less interesting? Are writers simply not producing books set in those periods, or is it that publishers don't want them? Have they tried them, and they don't sell? Is it just too weird for people to read about a period they lived through, or that their parents lived through? Is the recent past too close to us, and does it disrupt the fantasy aspects of the story? Do we know too much that's disturbing about our recent history?

Aside from all those issues, it may be part of the problem that one researches a romance partially by reading other romances to see the shape of the genre, and there are few predecessors for romances set during more recent historical periods (what about novels contemporary to those periods, from the 1960s and 1970s, for example?).

Or could it be the fault of readers that 20th century historicals aren't popular? Regular readers of, say, Regencies, acquire a basic grasp of that time period. In relation to periods in which one never lived, what if the majority of readers don't want to learn about a new time period, since they're happy in the one they've chosen?

Since we're well into the twenty-first century now, perhaps it's time to think more about writing books set in the twentieth.

Friday, March 5, 2010

Maintaining Sexual and Romantic Tension

I think that all Romance plots ultimately involve deferring consummation of the relationship, whether the desired consummation is intercourse, marriage, a marriage proposal, or simple acknowledgement by the couple that they are in love. If a consummation happens at the novel's beginning, then either internal or external circumstances must conspire to prevent a second, deeper consummation until the novel's end. (I hesitate to use the word climax. Heh.)

Tension, both sexual and narrative, is produced by various devices. Some of them include: The Big Misunderstanding, The Big Assumption, The Dark Moment, Seemingly Incompatible Characters, Cultural Conflict, Necessary Lies (espionage, investigation, protecting the other), Chased by Headhunting Mutants. I feel these can be divided into internal or external conflicts; the best way is to combine the two. Good authors will use personal conflict between their characters even if the base conflict is social/cultural/external; obviously, this is applicable to more than just Romance.

Similar personalities with differing goals also produce conflict; also, goals that appear to differ but turn out to be the same. If the characters have common feelings and goals, the slow growth of intimacy as they get to know each other can maintain tension, though usually at a lower level than conflict. Alternately, their similar feelings and goals can be disguised from them through external means: they are too caught up in outside events like the French Revolution, for example.

The trick is to make the romance happen among all that conflict. Though working together to survive a conflict is a good step along the way to friendship as well as romance.

Thoughts?

My thanks to coffeeandink and daedala, who helped me talk this through a while back.

Monday, March 1, 2010

Pondering the Mail-Order Bride

I had another thought about Western romances.

Does the reason the "mail-order bride" plot is so popular in Western romances have anything to do with the idea that marriage is linked to civilization? In that case, marriage could be civilization, and imposing it upon two people can be likened to imposing a farm onto a wilderness, or law upon a den of outlaws.

True, the mail-order bride isn't usually forced legally to marry, but she often takes that action under force of circumstances. Circumstances, interestingly, that usually arise in the East, supposedly a place of "civilization."

Is there a subtle commentary going on here, that the "civilized" world isn't, and that the new, improved civilization is the looser, freer world of the frontier? A commentary also, perhaps, on the European historical, particularly the rigid Regency or Victorian, versus the "new" world of America?

I am probably reading way too much into this.

Related post:
The Intricacies of Marriages of Convenience.