I read a few books on holiday and I will be reviewing them. But first, I feel compelled to blog about something else.
And BTW, I am totally not trying to steal a march on Jessica here, who has promised to blog about 'the ethics of reading' at some point. In fact, I don't even know what she plans to talk about under that heading. Chick's a philosophiser, so it could be most anything. (I have a work-friend who did a first degree in philosophy and she's disturbingly clever. Not to mention having a penchant for big rings and prostitute-coats. But that's another story. Suffice to say those philosophisers are tricksy sorts.)
Recently, I have been musing (on the bus, walking to the office) about ethical/ moral issues in my reading. I think this was started by all those polls Dear Author have been running about stuff like whether adultery and abortion are 'acceptable' in romance.
My immediate reaction to that questions is What the Fuck? Like, such things could be unacceptable in fiction? These are just - part of life! But 43% of those who voted at Dear Author (who I imagine - accurately or not - to be the of a more broad-minded persuasion) felt adultery was NEVER acceptable in a romance.
Jeez.
As I've got older, I've found myself becoming more prudish about stuff like affairs. I recently found out that a friend was having an extra-marital affair and was so saddened. But still, I don't see something like that as a catastrophic moral failing. As far as books go, whether an author can have a character cheat and still retain my sympathy isn't in the fact of them being a cheater - it's in the execution.
Over the years I've read posts about all sorts of difficult issues: forced sex, BDSM, controlling heroes Stuff that raises issues over consent, abuse, self-worth. And for me, I'm cool with all of it. No matter how much something might offend 'normal' mores, if the author can make it explicable with reference to their characters, I can be cool with it. I'm disturbed by reader comments that say authors 'shouldn't' write this or that character or scene or event in a particular way. I'm hugely protective of freedom of expression and I resent the attitude (whether partriarchal or matriarchal) that readers don' t have the wit to make their own judgements.
And so, until recently, I've been patting myself on the back thinking that I'm this uber-liberal, all cool with the morally ambiguous and questionable. The trouble is, I've recently had to admit that I do have a sensitivity. One which I've alluded to before. And it's around killing/ punishment/ guns/ stuff like that.
I noticed it reading Michelle Hauf's The Highwayman, which CJ had been discussing on her blog vis-a-vis the feline heroine (a familiar). I liked the sound of it and bought it on impulse. However, I was very quickly scowling at the hero, who had a habit of killing familiars. He discussed this particular character trait of his in the way that someone might mention that they like Simon & Garfunkel songs; like it was well, No Biggie. You know, I kill. A lot. Just one of those little things about me. *shrugs*
I found this extremely off-putting. I disapproved of Max. I found my eyebrows drawing together in a Most Displeased Fashion whenever the topic came up.
I also hate vigilante justice and mob violence (see my review of Caressed by Ice linked to above). Even the fairly bland mob justice that is delivered in No Man's Mistress by Mary Balogh (nice man beats up pimp in front of mob of their peers) bothered me.
Is this because I am a lawyer? Or British? A member of Amnesty International?
Does this explain whyI've found it difficult to get into paranormal/ UF romance and romantic suspense?
Whatever the answer to those questions, I think I have to face up to the fact that I do have ethical buttons that can be pushed. It's just that I never thought of them as anything more significant than preferences before.
Posts
14 comments:
Welcome back from you holiday! Hope you had a great break.
I was probably one of those people who voted "never" for the question of whether adultery was acceptable in romance novels. However, the answers available in the poll didn't really explain what I meant.
Personally, I don't like adultery and I'd find it very difficult to remain sympathetic to a hero/heroine who had been unfaithful - that's not to say that it is impossible but it is a personal bias which would take some exceptional writing for me to overcome.
(Probably those books where the h/h genuinely thought the other was dead are different though!)
I read romances for the happy endings. I like to read romances where the the h/h even where they are in conflict with each other, act "honourably" and don't cheat on each other. My personal idea of heroism, what gets me all sighing and fluttery, includes a h/h acting honourably even when those around them are acting dishonourably, even when they might be justified. To me, the best romance hero stays true to these concepts but still gets the girl (and vice versa).
IRL, there aren't as many HEA's, miracles can fail and people suffer all the time - I read romance to get away from all that. Heroes (and heroines) IMO are supposed to be just a big bigger than life - just, more. More alpha, more heroic, more honourable, more sexy....
Also, there is a difference between something being "unacceptable" and "unforgiveable". I do believe in forgiveness too (although the hero - and let's face it, it's usually the hero isn't it? - does need to do much grovelling before the forgiveness is granted!!!
I'm not a big reader of UF. I prefer a straight romance. If I'm not guaranteed a happy ending then I probably won't read it. But, from what you've mentioned about the Highwayman, the familiar killing thing would probably bother me too, especially because he doesn't seem to feel any remorse and seems to do it often (?). Besides, aren't familiars supposed to be good/helpful things for their (insert paranormal creature here who has a familiar!) - why would you want to kill one? Sounds sociopathic to me - and not (for my money anway) good hero material. Maybe I'll go away and read the other discussion now that you'd made me curious!
Your mention of adultery reminded me of your review of Pam Rosenthal's The Edge of Impropriety. As you said there,
Many years ago, Jasper - a classical scholar - had fancied himself in love with his brother's wife. They had an affair and she became pregnant. But instead of wanting to run away with him to Greece as he hoped for, she went back to her husband and pawned the child off as her husband's son and heir. That child is Anthony.
It's something that comes up in the excerpt at Rosenthal's website.
Hmm. I guess I remember not really liking that killing of familiars bit either, but I can be a kind of easy sell. But now that you point that out, it was one of those aspects of a book I just brush aside in pursuit of greater entertainment, as I was just prattling on about at Jessica's blog.
So, isn't vigilantism and killing ever executional? OMG, I didn't mean that as a pun. But you know, can killing, vigilante justice or mob violence ever be done by a hero or heroine? Can an author ever pull it off? I mean, surely it can be something an H/H is working to atone for, or ashamed of? I can't imagine you saying it ought never to be in a book.
I actually do have an ethical button like that around animals. Like, any book that seems to normalize what I define as animal abuse gets tossed by me immediately and I would never want that in a book. But for me, it's about the normalization of it, which is executional.
I wouldn't ban it, though. What if the abuser suffered horrible torment of conscience and repented for it? I would enjoy that in a book. However, that strays into moralizing, which is insufferable in fiction. Hmm. Where am I going with this?
Funny, isn't like half all UF a bit vigilante in nature?
I realized last year that most of the 'heroes' I read are simply garden-variety murderers.
Now, sure, a few of them work for a SuperSekrit Government Agency, and a few of them for not-so-secret Government agencies, but most of them are members of a 'brotherhood' or feel that they have earned their right to revenge because of something in their past.
To me, it has become part of the willing suspension of disbelief. A true hero will kill the man who stalked / threatened / kidnapped / raped his heroine. To do anything less would label him as a dreaded beta. He can experience personal growth by letting his own enemy live, but never the enemy of his heroine.
I wouldn't mind seeing a heroine who had an abortion - but probably not during the course of the book. If only because there's not enough time between the pages to explore all the emotions involved in abortion and still retain the "feel good" expectations I have for my romances.
I also don't mind seeing cheating - I've probably read at least a dozen books this year that involve cheating. The smart author usually sets it up so that the party being cheated on is not a 3-dimensional character, but a placeholder for the hero or heroine to realize just how much they're missing. I do like a marriage to be over emotionally before either party moves on, but a good author can work wonders on my willingness to buy into an HEA.
First of all, you are a shameful hussy for stealing my topic, LOL.
Second, I recently came to a full stop in the second of Larissa Ione's Demonica series, when the hero and his brothers agree they have to kill the innocent heroine because she is creating problems for them. A similar thing happened with the Mary Janice Davidson Undead series.
I wouldn't list an action, like adultery or murder, but rather, the way it is handled in a particular book.
Kaetrin - thanks for your comment - that's a view I've read before so it's obviously one that chimes with many romance readers. It doesn't with me, and in fact I don't necessarily think that a romance HAS to have a HEA (might be in a minority of one there) but I think that's because I judge whether something is a romance/ is successful as a romance by how it makes me feel.
Laura! *waves*
CJ - it is absolutely in the execution for me. It's when - as you've said - my particular sensitivities are aggravated by a complete lack of any sense that this event even has a place in a moral universe. I just need some recognition of that - I don't think there's ANYTHING that should never appear in a book.
Jessica - as above
Venus - it's interesting, isn't it how we all have these little rules and exceptions?
My particular hot-button is torture and violence. It's bad enough to read disgusting descriptions of the bad guys doing it but when the so-called hero or heroine engage in it, even as part of their job or payback or anything....just, no.
Sula - *nodding vigorously*
Jessica - and yes, I am shameless. *wheedling face* Sorry!
Wheedling face? I want to see a wheedling face!!!
Are all familiars women? That would make a difference to me.
I just read Linda Howard's Death Angel, in which hero is paid to assassinate heroine. The set up didn't bother me (I'm a fan of what I call the "kiss me/kill me" theme) because I knew HE WOULDN'T DO IT. Now, a hero who has already killed/harmed a woman/child/dog? Yeah, I'm troubled by that. But okay if foes are men.
I am very sexist. : )
A romance doesn't have to have a HEA? Bite your tongue!! LOL!
It's funny actually that I was just talking about this with my husband - I said that it HAS to have a happy ending for it to be a romance - otherwise it's romantic fiction.
(But, I confess, I think I got that definition from somewhere else where whoever it was was talking about the "contract" a romance author has with her reader for a HEA).
Me, I (mostly) don't read non HEA stories - there are so many great books out there (I have many of them in my TBR pile I think!) that suit my desire for a HEA that I don't have to look elsewhere for a good read. It's kind of like when you have a choice between an apple and chocolate - mostly the choclate's gonna win!
Off the cuff, I think there is nothing at all that should be off-limits for an author to explore. Fiction is an excellent way to examine our own reaction to taboos and atrocity.
Now, what I prefer to read is different. I don't like serial killer tropes. They creep me out. The out-creeping interferes with my enjoyment of the book, which I'm reading for ENTERTAINMENT. There are certain things I'm not going to read -- true crime, for instance. Doesn't mean it "shouldn't" be written.
Whether I can appreciate the artistic merit of a controversial subject is a whole different question. Take The Story of O as a classic example. Do I approve of the things that happen in that book? No. Entirely too much non-consent.
Does the material evoke an emotional response that is at odds with my ethical stance? Yes. Does that make it deeply interesting on multiple levels? I think so. I think this book is art. It disturbs, it arouses, it provokes.
Plus, you know, it's FICTION. (that's the assumption, anyway). I don't have to approve of the actions taken by the characters to approve of the book. Approval (whatever that means) of the story does NOT imply that I would approve of the exact same actions if taken in real life.
(sorry, waxing a little pedantic there...)
Nicola - I concur - with all of it. How come I can't be that pithy?
Oh hell, I could go on like that for pages and pages. Not pithy, just... well, I've seen that glazed look in peoples' eyes before. So I cut myself off. ;)
Post a Comment