Nothing is important but life. And for myself, I can absolutely see life nowhere but in the living. Life with a capital L is only man alive. Even a cabbage in the rain is cabbage alive. All things that are alive are amazing. And all things that are dead are subsidiary to the living. Better a live dog than a dead lion. But better a live lion than a live dog. C'est la vie!
Why the Novel Matters
DH Lawerence
I've posted an extract from this essay before. It is a wonderful thing to read and I recommend it to you highly. Read it all. Read about how the philosopher because he can think, decides that nothing but thoughts matter (no offence JessicaRRR) and how the scientist has absolutely no use for me so long as I am man alive. To the scientist, I am dead. He puts under the microscope a bit of dead me, and calls it me. Read about how the novel is the one bright book of life and how it is better than other tremulations on the ether. Read about how the novel helps you develop an instinct for life.
Do you think DH Lawrence would abhor me using his words of wisdom in relation to romance novels rather than Great Novels? Probably he would. But unfortunately I didn't like Sons and Lovers.
I met Laura V earlier this week and just as we were going our separate ways, we touched on the question of whether the allure of romance novels has anything to do with what the reader thinks is a Good Life. Unfortunately, I didn't get the benefit of Laura V's words of wisdom on this but there is something here - for me - around this idea of developing an instinct - or something - by reading, reading. Something too around that idea of author lenses/views and whether they 'fit' the reader. A search for something. And possibly repetition and reinforcement.
Oh and something else we touched on and never explored - that felt to me like a revelation - was a throwaway comment about my love of high conflict in romance novels having something to do with having a professional interest in resolving conflict.
What do you think?
Posts
5 comments:
I'd have to put a lot of "perhapses" before agreement with the idea that reading novels somehow imparts an "instinct for life." The life we find in novels is a reflection, an image in the mirror, and like all images a bit distorted by the medium of the author and the author's words. The romance genre, it seems to me, uses the wavy kinds of mirrors found in fun-houses which distort the reflection even more fancifully.
"the question of whether the allure of romance novels has anything to do with what the reader thinks is a Good Life. Unfortunately, I didn't get the benefit of Laura V's words of wisdom on this but there is something here - for me - around this idea of developing an instinct - or something - by reading, reading. Something too around that idea of author lenses/views and whether they 'fit' the reader. A search for something. And possibly repetition and reinforcement."
Laura V's words (I leave it entirely up to everyone else to decide whether or not they're wise) are that
(a) I've just finished reading an article about Barbara Cartland's novels by Robert Rix and he writes that
"The myth that Cartland cultivated in her novels was that we are saved from our material-physical prison by love. If this purpose has generally been overlooked by critics, statements from her large fan base show that this was not ignored."
Not that Cartland's representative of the entire genre, of course, but I do think it's more generally the case that romances very often present love as the most important aspect of the "Good Life."
(b) how that love manifests itself, and the people on whom it is bestowed, often seems to reflect particular values/ideologies/preferences (e.g. which of the hero or heroine's personality traits do readers admire or find sexy, which aspects of the hero or heroine's life do readers think are romantic, sophisticated etc.)
I don't think one can draw simplistic correlations between what people like to read about and what they'd like to have happen to them in real life, but there probably is some reason why our preferences exist, and I suspect that many of those reasons can be very personal. Sometimes one preference can be so strong that it overrides other preferences which are less important to our enjoyment. Sometimes that leads to readers saying particular books are "guilty pleasures."
Readers can sometimes take criticism of a romance rather personally, and I suspect it's because there is some sort of connection between the reader's personality/hopes/ideas about the "good life."
Anon - I think you have to read the whole essay to understand what DHL means by an instinct for life. Of course, perhaps you have, but your comment makes me wonder. What I take him to mean by 'instinct for life' is an ability to recognise when a thing is alive. (There's another essay by DHL that talks about 'the quick and dead' - and it is the same idea). This chimes me with because - simplistically - that is how I assess what I read. Is it alive or dead? Are the characters quick with life or dead dead dead?
Laura - good point re why sometimes readers seem to take criticism of books they've loved personally. I've come across this very thing in reviews I've read, particularly where the hero/heroine espouse or personify a particular ideaology.
Well, I think you like the resolutions, yes, but speaking as your CP, I think you also enjoy the double-edged sword of love, the way it can lead to pain for the lover on the way to happiness. But, I mean, you enjoy it only in a most wonderful way.
Sorry to be late to this thread, but perhaps it's just as well. My views, which are particularly colored by my own personal history, are not mainstream in some circles, and in fact may not be true. They are just my thoughts.
I think romance novels probably do many things -- self-soothe most obviously -- but among their uses is this: to be emotionally resonant for the reader, but with a predictable and satisfying ending.
Maybe all genre fiction does this. Maybe readers of mysteries resonate to the author's misdirection but know themselves to be safe; the killer will always be revealed and punished. Thrillers and horror stories recreate terror but then soothe us at the end.
For me, a satisfying romance (I'm thinking now of Slight Dangerous by Balogh simply because it's the most recent 100% satisfying read I've had that was new to me) is one that conjures up that pain of wanting something with no assurance I'll be allowed to have it. In life, there was no guarantee -- sometimes I got it and sometimes I didn't. But in a romance novel, emotional fulfillment is guaranteed.
Now, not all novels are created equal, and I don't enjoy every book I read. But that's where the self-soothing comes in. Unless a book is actively annoying me (some do), I toddle along, not unhappy to be reading in the genre. I see no parallels between my life and the lives in those books, but sometimes I feel parallels between the emotions in my past and the emotions in those books.
Post a Comment