I know. I'm getting like a cracked record. And I can't even say that this is the last post on this topic.
Reader-belief, I have spoken of before. Bringing the reader to a state of belief (Coleridge's Willing Suspension of Disbelief) seems to me to be the thing that tips the balance from an adequate book to a good book. When I think of the books I've loved, I've always believed in them. Books that disappoint me, well, I'm always standing outside them, looking in, aware of the author who penned the words. Here are the words (s)he wrote, I think, as I read.
The post linked to above on reader belief was chiefly concerned with the importance of the state of belief. A second question is how that belief is earned. I touched on it briefly when I wondered:
... if [reader-writer] chemistry is related to the willingness of the reader to believe and the author's ability to meet that desire. I am a very willing and open reader to certain authors who have won my trust. Similarly, certain tropes and characters will easily pique my interest. Other authors, tropes, characters will have to do more to win me over. There are certain fictional elements that I have strong barriers to because they clash so badly with other views or sensitivities I possess.
It is this second question that I've been considering recently. It started when I read about an inspirational romance at Wendy SL's. I've noticed posts about inspirational romances before - indeed I think there was a review of one on DA recently as well. But I noticed that one because of my reaction to it. And that reaction was: I really don't want to read that.
Please note, this post is not about inspirational romances. It is about reader-belief. However, to explain the point I have to make an incidental point which is this: I am an aetheist. And the idea of a romance in which one of the protganists is converted to a particular faith is one I find distinctly unappealing.
Now, I have read many books that have religion in them. One of my favourite romances is Flowers From the Storm which features a quaker heroine and which has the heroine's faith absolutely at the centre of book. But that's fine with me, because the purpose of that story is not to convert the hero. He doesn't become a quaker (and indeed, from my very restricted knowledge of quakers, they are not evangelical in that way). Similarly, Mary Balogh's books are full of quite low-key religious/mystical sentiments and that doesn't bother me in the slightest either. My aetheism does not make me intolerant of the presence of religion in books or in characters or even in plot or theme. It is the idea of conversion that I dislike. It's the idea of the novel as a tool in that way.
So what has this got to do with reader-belief? Well, it's back to the point I made in that earlier post about how certain views you hold can impact on reader-belief. I've mentioned frequently my difficulties with books in which killing is treated lightly. For example, here and here. Where a book contradicts my personal values, it inhibits my ability to believe. Even my wish to believe.
The Willing Suspension of Disbelief (although I prefer to think of it as an active act of belief rather than a passive suspension of disbelief) is something that arises through a number of factors: the worldbuilding, the quality of the prose, the degree and nature of the conflict, the authenticity of the characters etc.
A number of things might happen to disrupt the belief. There may be a very badly written sentence. There may be a glaring historical anachronism or factual error of some description. These are events that pull the reader out of their 'zone'; that disrupt the belief. Another thing that disrupts the belief is when the book contains something that conflicts with the reader's personal values. And for me, that includes the 'finding God' part of an inspirational romance.
What do you think? Do stories that include beliefs or values you disagree with turn you off? Do you have personal triggers that bother you? Or are you the kind of reader that can read anything with an open mind?
Posts
19 comments:
Interesting post, T. I will admit that as a recovering X-tian (parents are conservative evangelical missionaries), I have a VERY strong negative reaction to any overt or even subtle right-wing or religious overtones in my novels. I don't read romance novels to get preached at. Inspies hold zero appeal for me. I would never read another one (having consumed many as a youngster), I don't care how well-written they might be.
I accidentally downloaded an Inspy type audio book the other day. Decided to listen to it for a while to see what it was all about. It was okay, but kinda whiny and I kept thinking that if the heroine kept depending on G to fix her problems things would never get resolved. Until we got towards the end of the story where the hero had to convert/believe or else. That's when I abandoned the book without regret.
I'm an atheist, too, and while I in general agree with your assessment I'm not as comfortable with underlying beliefs that come through.
I enjoyed FFTS for Christian, but detested the heroine and her preachiness and couldn't figure out what he saw in her. Although I have to say that was more a realization after I had finished the book and thought about it for a while. During the reading she didn't annoy me quite as much (the ending had a lot to do with me ending up disliking her intensely, I think).
I'm uncomfortable when I see that the characters put all their faith in something invisible/intangible that will fix things for them to the detriment of taking care of (things) themselves.
One of my favorite books has a 'religious' experience in it and while I love, love, love that book, I don't like that part at all (The Rake and the Reformer).
I've also seen more Inspy reviews lately and they don't attract me at all. The audio experience has cemented my belief that these are just not for me. :)
I describe myself as a mystic (which is to say I don't believe in a God per se, but I do think there's magic in the universe that we humans won't ever isolate and identify). I'm pretty allergic to mainstream religion.
But strangely, I'm fascinated by other people's faith. So FFTS and books of that ilk are fine, even enjoyable, because they present an internally consistent character whose faith is important to the plot, etc.
But it's a bit like heroines with non-Victoria's Secret bodies: fine & realistic, but if it's all she thinks about I'm bored with her body issues. If a character's religious beliefs have to be spelled out over and over, I suspect the author of either having an agenda, or just not getting the balance right.
I love the Julia Spencer-Fleming books in part because of Clare's faith. There's a wonderful scene where Russ is in the back during an Easter procession. It's fascinating to see what he (an atheist) sees as Clare proceeds up the aisle; he thinks about not believing, but appreciating her beliefs.
If someone tells me that an Inspie is truly an inspired book, I'll read it. If it's merely good, I may give it a pass. Sometimes references to God in everyday situations gives me the heebie-jeebies, so why would I want to read them?
One of the most interesting experiences I've had in regard to reader-belief was when teaching Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal." Most students would read the essay as if Swift were serious about everything in it, never catching on, and would either wonder aloud why he wrote it or rail at what he proposed. Of course, Swift carefully led them there, and some of it was because, faced with something assigned and written by a highly regarded author, they were more than willing to suspend their disbelief.
believable. Perhaps then, readers insist on suspending disbelief when they read. Only something extreme can make them rebel.
I had no trouble whatsoever with the religious elements in FFTS, for, like most background material in romance, they functioned, as just that--background for the romance, something that contributed to the conflict. If the story is compelling enough, characters' beliefs are just a part of the story. Just as I suspend disbelief, I suspend my own beliefs.
Interesting post. I read a fair amount of inspies and I like most of what I read nowadays (inspies have come a LONG way), but this wasn't always the case. I have no problem enjoying a well-written story where faith is a believeable part of who the characters are. However, stories with a lot of overt preaching or very right-wing theology bother me. I've often wondered what the audience for the "turn or burn" books would be. Those who already believe as the author does would have no need for the message, presumably, and those of us who don't agree with the author's way of doing things would most likely not be reading.
Sula - I'm in awe of your strength of mind. I was exposed to a fair bit of evangelical christianity when I was younger through a close friend's family (with hindsight I realised they were trying to save me). I was never convinced but I wasn't indoctrinated at home. I've always thought how difficult it must be to even consider the alternative view when you're brought up in a family who hold the faith so strongly.
G/Cub - I didn't dislike Maddy when I read FFTS but strangely, with hindsight, I don't look back on her at all fondly. She's a very rigid heroine. However, in a way, that makes her ultimate relenting all the more meaningful. And she gets a lot of brownie points earlier in the novel when she's Jerv's only hope. I did worry though, that his feelings for her were possibly too bound up with gratitude. Later, on reflection, I realised she reminded me greatly of Jane Eyre (and I wonder if Laura Kinsale had JE in mind when Maddy selects a grey dress).
I think the thing that makes FFTS palatable to me though is that I don't get the sense that Laura Kinsale shares Maddy's views. Of course, I don't know that but that is the sense I get. It's a difficult line to draw but I think that's the issue for me with religious issues in particular: does the author have a religious agenda in writing this book? If the answer to that question is 'yes', I'm not interested. FFTS doesn't fall into that category.
Magdalen - if an author was mentioning the character's faith all the time, that would be off-putting to me. Have you read any Balogh? There's quite a lot of the sort of 'mystical' viewpoint you've mentioned. Frex, in a book like Silent Melody.
Anon - I can't quite suspend my beliefs totally. I can to some degree but not entirely.
Lynn - it's always difficult to talk about something you haven't tried. I must admit that I've come at this post with the assumption that all inspirationals have a religious agenda of the type I mentioned above; that there is a message within their pages they are trying to get across. Your comment suggests you don't have that view?
"G/Cub - I didn't dislike Maddy when I read FFTS but strangely, with hindsight, I don't look back on her at all fondly."
That's exactly how I feel about her.
"She's a very rigid heroine. However, in a way, that makes her ultimate relenting all the more meaningful."
That's interesting to me, because my recollection is that she was totally uncompromising. Funny how memory works, isn't it?
"I wonder if Laura Kinsale had JE in mind when Maddy selects a grey dress"
I'm fairly sure that Maddy selects a grey dress because members of the Society of Friends (Quakers) at that point wore grey (and other plain colours such as black and white). So the dress, although not made of "plain" cloth, nonetheless doesn't deviate from the Quaker colour-scheme.
It's interesting to read your responses because, were it not for the fact that I get distracted by wanting to write down my ideas during Meetings for Worship, I'd be a member of the Society of Friends.
I couldn't understand why Maddie loved Christian (which I thought was an interesting name choice, in that context), and I felt she compromised too much. However, I have to accept that if she truly was moved by the Spirit she made the right decision in staying with him.
"I don't look back on her at all fondly. She's a very rigid heroine."
I must be even more rigid, then. However, if I was determined only to read books about characters who had similar political and spiritual beliefs to my own I would have almost nothing to read.
I don't suspend my own beliefs while reading, but if ideological elements with which I don't agree come through strongly in a text it can be interesting, from an intellectual point of view. It sometimes reveals things which are left at a sub-textual level in other novels.
Does anyone remember Jane describing Jocelyn (the mad bad rad Duke of Tresham) -- Balogh's More than a Mistress -- as a mystic? Someone who had a religious, mystical experience when he was "in" of "of" nature and then painted it, wrote poetry about it or composed music. She has other characters with that particular bent. Great blog!
I was just thinking about this topic (suspension of disbelief)! I read an excellent novella that had one scene I found utterly absurd. It dealt with mesmerism, something I'm skeptical of. The problem was more that I just didn't accept the actions of the characters (or the audience), even if the phenomenon were real.
As far as religion, I have no problem with it in small doses. I was raised Catholic, and I look back on that upbringing with a certain respect and fondness. It's a shared cultural experience, rather than a set of beliefs, that I connect to. Even as a small child, I felt sort of indifferent towards God, and have never had a moment of true faith.
Some of my characters believe, some don't. I consider faith part of the cultural backstory, and enjoy incorporating those small details when appropriate.
@Tumperkin - With regard to some of the earlier inspies I've read, many do have that element of preachiness and even of trying to convert the reader. There are a few exceptions, but I remember a lot of sermonizing in those books.
There's a lot more out there now, though. Authors who want to be sold in Christian bookstores still have to adhere to the CBA standards which put restrictions on what characters in books can do or say(and which I find rather outdated). However, I'm seeing more authors write good stories about characters who either are Christian and live their faith out in their lives(as opposed to preaching every other time they speak) or who struggle with issues of faith. Some of the preachy stuff with unrealistically wholesome characters is still out there, but authors seem to be hitting a wider variety of points on the theological spectrum nowadays. There's also some darker, edgier stuff out there than there used to be.
I find it refreshing because while I like some of the books written from a religious perspective, I've never been wholly comfortable with the fundamentalist Christian world. I grew up in the southern US(rural Virginia), and had many friends from the conservative evangelical churches. That world has it good points, but it's a world I found ultimately very restrictive.
That would be an interesting little challenge to try an inspy for those who've never read one, which would include me.
I was about to say that I wouldn't mind reading about values that conflict with mine as long as it doesn't ruin the plot, but then I remember the extreme dislike I developed for a few books where a main character preached a pro-tiny zoo and pro-circus tiger-tamer message, or more, anti-"the ignorant extremists who are against that sort of thing" message, and I felt the characters were acting as mouthpieces for the authors in question and I had a hard time getting past it.
But, I think I could read about values that are offensive to me if I didn't feel I was being taught what to think about it. I don't like being told what to think even if I agree with the message.
I'm thinking about picking up a UF that appears to involve the Bible in some way, bc it looks interesting to me for unrelated reasons, and I'm really thinking/hoping the whole faith thing is being used more as a McGuffin than as a Deus ex Machina.
G-cub - well, she does go to Christian at the end after coming under significant pressure to denounce him and their love. And being the woman she is, she doesn't do that lightly. However, see my comments below.
Laura - it's interesting you think Maddy compromised too much when I felt that that was the whole point of Maddy's character journey - she was too rigid and had to learn to be more flexible. I was disappointed by how little she had altered by at the end while appreciating that it was more believeable that her entire character would not change but just relax around the margins.
I loved FFTS (loved loved loved it) but I worried about Maddy and Christian's HEA afterwards. I worried Maddy would spend their whole lives passing judgement on him and failing to appreciate him. I worried she'd leach all the joy out of him with her gravity. I thought of them growing old together in their draughty abbey, with her dressing in relentless grey, frowning at him every time he had a glass of wine. Which probably isn't fair of me but that's how I felt.
You clearly have an insight into Maddy's world that I don't have and I'd be interested to hear more about your take on her and Kinsale's treatment of the quaker faith. I liked the way that the quaker characters were treated. Maddy is a virtuous woman but she is flawed and has much to learn whereas her father is presented as wiser and more enlightened. It seemed to me that Maddy was presented as a character who needed to change; who was somewhat complacent and needed to have her assumptions questioned. I'd also be interested to know what you thought she compromised 'too much' on. I didn't have a sense of her compromising much at all but I've not looked at the text for a while and may be doing her a disservice.
Janet - yes, you see that in a lot of Baloghs. I've mentioned Silent Melody and you get it in One Night for Love and various others. She concentrates a lot on the sense of nature as a mystical force and her stories often feature outdoor sex between the H/H as a mystical and often transformative event.
Jill - it's very much in the execution I think. If a story presents something like mesmerism within a fantasy world, that's one thing. If it's presented in 'our world' then it's different. I relate this to my comments above on whether it *feels* like the author's own view - which is also Carolyn's 'mouthpiece' point.
Lynn - interesting comments re the commercial aspect.
Carolyn - see above. It's difficult to analyse though what it is that makes it feel like the view is the author's rather than the characters.
I'm no expert on Quakerism or Quaker history, but at the heart of Quakerism are the four testimonies, to Simplicity, Truth, Equality and Peace.
It seemed to me that by marrying into the aristocracy, Maddie was going to have to compromise on at least two of the testimonies (simplicity and equality) and probably on truth, too, since for Quakers this means
"try[ing] to live according to the deepest truth we know, which we believe comes from God. This means speaking the truth to all, including people in positions of power. Integrity is the guiding principle we set for ourselves and expect in public life."
These are not things I would feel happy to "relax around the margins." Of course, Quakers have changed in many ways, including in having abandoned the wearing of grey (and black and white) as outward signs of adherence to the testimony to simplicity. That's because there has been ongoing debate about how to live out the testimonies, and that has led to changes which Quakers felt helped them to stay true to the spirit of the testimonies.
I think Maddie's new life, however, would require compromising the very principles of at least two, but probably three of the four testimonies. That's a vast amount to compromise on.
Coming out of semi-lurkdom just to say that even as a presbyterian sunday-school teacher, I found the one conversion romance I read difficult.
In that book, the heroine was a Christian, and the hero - having fallen in love with her - started attending church events and eventually became a Christian also.
Im my case, what bothered me was, I think, that I'd imagine that IRL a person would be vulnerable at that point: if you absolutely loved someone, and they believed X, and you could only be with them if you believed X as well, be a lot of subconscious pressure to just accept their faith, without necessarily examining the small print.
On the whole, I don't read inspirationals, but I'd like to read more romances where people did have actual beliefs - of any variety.
I suppose it's a non-contentious thing: if the hero/ine is anti-abortion, or anti-war, or doesn't believe in sex before marriage - any strong belief is going to alienate a section of the readership.
I think you're right, and the key to doing it so the reader could enjoy the character would be that the reader doesn't feel that the author is pushing the belief-set in question. So the character has beliefs, which makes them interesting to read about, but the book doesn't necessarily endorse them.
@Marianne McA - I found your take on the conversion romance really interesting. I think I can read most things with an open mind, but I do have a few hot button issues - and the manipulation aspect of most conversion plotlines is definitely one. When I've thought about it, I've come to the conclusion that the heavy-handed manner in which the author often presents the material makes me feel as though neither the intelligence of the characters nor that of the reader is being respected.
However, your point about teh vulnerability of the non-Christian character makes a lot of sense. I hadn't really thought about it that way, but I can definitely see it - and it makes me even less comfortable with the storyline. Glad I saw this!
Laura - yes, I remember that now. That might also explain partly why when I finished the novel I was more well-disposed towards Maddy than later, when I'd forgotten the specifics of her resistance to Christian. What I would say is that Maddy was compromising her beliefs when she left Christian as well. When he turns up at her meeting house and she is denouncing her love for him, she is not being truthful. I took from the novel that Maddy has to find a way of being as true to herself as she can be whilst recognising that as Christian's wife it will be more difficult to practice her beliefs. However, the reader has every reason to suppose that with the strength of character that she has, that she will do her utmost to live up to that. (I seem to recall a moment where she is surprisingly egalitarian with the Prince Regent which is intended to demonstrate this).
I find it interesting that most people remember FLOWERS FROM THE STORM when discussion religious elements in romance.
For me, it is another book by Laura Kinsale--SHADOW HEART--that offers a truly heartrending depiction of faith.
Allegreto is an assassin who believes himself destined for Hell. Real Hell, burning in the flame forever kind of Hell. And he cannot go to confession or be absolved of his sins because he had been excommunicated from the Church. The scene near the end of the book, when he could and did finally confess before a truly godly priest, oh, I have tears in my eyes just thinking about it.
Hi, Wandered over from Karen Knows Best.
I'm a recovering fundamentalist. I tend to be very careful about what I read, because certain right-wing Christian tropes are very triggering for me. I don't touch Christian inspirationals at all.
OTOH, I find myself writing more books about my own faith these days, whether pagan inspirational romance or children's books.
Post a Comment