Girls' comic, early 1980s
Romance novel, early 1980s
1. See above. The cover style similarities really hadn't occurred to me until I did that last post (I won't bother linking since it's the one immediately below this). What do you think? Thrills and mystery indeed.
2. Speaking of thrills, what does it say about me that my enjoyment this evening of John Barrowman performing a high-cheese version of Don't Rain On My Parade in a glittery suit was both rich and pure? I think it's to do with cynicism. Lack thereof? Or maybe the ability to suspend it? Things that are best enjoyed sans cynicism are often looked down upon. Romance, obviously, amongst them. Is that why so many readers find contemporaries harder? Because it's harder to displace ordinary every day cynicism? Is that why romance in the purest sense (in my view) is best found in the historical genre?
3. I've been working my way through a pile of books Laura Vivanco passed me. There was a Nora Roberts trilogy which really just verified for me that she's never going to be a favourite author for me. There were also three pretty old Mills & Boons: all with young heroines/older heroes. One was amusingly called Man In A Box (since the hero was a TV personality, of the David Frost persuasion, one assumes). Another was set in Lebanon and had an 'oil-man' hero (which seems, in 1976, to involve being a stern monkish type). The hero of the third book was the owner of a model agency who (I kid you not) lived with his mother. In all three books, the heroine was a youthful secretary. In the first book, she is pursued relentlessly by the TV personality - he wants to go to bed with her but has no intention of marrying her. In the second, the monkish oil-man seems contemptuous/indifferent to the heroine but in fact wants to marry her. In the third, the hero has been in love with the heroine since she was very young (despite being waist deep in models most of the day) and is secretly 'grooming' her for marriage with him. I found it interesting that in two of the books, the heroes are secretly in love with the heroines but give no indication of interest to the heroines. As for the heroines, they are passive, exercise little choice and behave reactively to the heroes' advances. The heroines' anxiety centres around whether the right man will choose them. It's a different sort of anxiety from those displayed in present day categories, which are often centred around, for example, commitment-phobic heroes.
4. Just now, I am reading Loving Evangeline by Linda Howard (1994), recommended by Janet W. I'm enjoying it a great deal, despite the hero's self-aggrandising internal narrative. These sorts of musings always makes me giggle:
He had wanted to punch Craig in the jaw for daring to touch her, but his own sense of fair play had restrained him. Craig looked to be as strong as young ox, but Robert knew his own capabilities. He could easily have killed the boy without meaning to.
I've just reached the part where Evie has post-coitally told Robert she loves him. This is heading for a grandiose excruciating moment (Robert is secretly investigating/ruining Evie). I am so curious to see if Howard can pull this promise off. This sort of story depends entirely on proportionality to work. Robert's actions are so appalling that he is going to have suffer very very badly to be redeemed by the end...
5. I'm becoming more and more rubbish at commenting on others' blogs. I actually read a lot of stuff but comment on very little (and yes, I know that makes me a bit of hypocrite given my recent self-pitying complaints about comments). Google reader is part of that. The other is that I rarely feel like chipping in to posts about current books, book reviews etc and I often don't have anything to say on opinion pieces. That doesn't mean I don't read those posts or find them interesting - I do. And I use them to build my TBB list - but I don't really feel the need to chime in on them. What I'm interested in having a conversation about is the experience of reading. That's really why I blog. I want to share that experience, both the general aspects of reading and the specific experience of reading specific books. I want to talk about how readers feel when they read a certain book, certain words, a certain scene. I want to talk about how particular tropes work for readers, what they like and what they hate. Selfishly, I wish there was more of this in blogland.
Posts
10 comments:
Re: #5 and the experience of reading: I love history. When I read novels, if they draw me in I will search out non-fiction books to learn about the real characters,the very real situations in the past. A good example for me was when I read "The Far Pavilions" and "The Shadow of the Moon" both by M.M.Kaye. I then devoured everything I could on the Indian Mutiny and the 19th century Afghan wars. I don't have to have lived in the past to appreciate it. I just have to read about it.
I just picked up 4 Charlotte Lambs at our supermarket charity bin, although I still have to read the second one you sent me.
I think bloggers talk a lot about the reading experience whenever they review. Reviewers will talk about what worked for them and what didn't They will say what settings or tropes they generally like and don;t etc. Or are you looking for general conversations?
Like you, I think that romance tropes work best in historical settings. I'm not sure it's cynicism so much as it is greater knowledge. I "know" the contemporary scene better, and thus the fantasy element which sustains romance is more difficult to accept. Settings in the past allow us the distance of spectators rather than the nearness of participants.
Comments in passing: I'm not a fan of Roberts' books either, but I did like some of her earlier stuff written for Harlequin. Have you read the prequel to "Loving Evangeline"--"Duncan's Bride"? Robert's appearance in the latter is a difficult shift form his appearance therein.
dick
LM - me too. I'm reading a history book just now that's casting a very different light on characters well-known to any Georgette Heyer reader.
R3J - I think it varies hugely. I think a lot of bloggers use a review format that tends not to look very deeply at tropes/settings etc. so they will reference them but not really discuss them. That's cool but the posts I love and that make me comment - whether they be reviews, opinion pieces or whatever - tend to go into those ideas a bit more rather than just referencing a set of common ideas. Also, it's not just about 'romance reader' questions for me. So, for example, CJ's posts on what she's enjoyed in particular books will often go into quite detailed specifics about why a quite smalll thing - maybe even just a sentence - satisfied her as a reader. I love those. And Magadalen (Promantica) is very thoughtful about what she enjoys or doesn't and why.
dick - Janet W also recommended Duncan's Bride and, having now finished Loving Evangeline, I am tempted to order it. Did you like it?
"I found it interesting that in two of the books, the heroes are secretly in love with the heroines but give no indication of interest to the heroines. As for the heroines, they are passive, exercise little choice and behave reactively to the heroes' advances."
Often this sort of storyline doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The poor heroine is totally unaware of his interest and is suffering because she loves him, and there's no good reason for him not to tell her how he feels.
I tend to conclude that he's either cruel and wants to watch her suffer, or he's a bit stupid not to have realised that she reciprocates his feelings. These heroines aren't exactly good at concealing how they feel, though they do often try to, which makes them act strangely, which, of course, is a sure sign that they're in love. Maybe the moral of these books is that love makes everyone seem a bit dim and causes them to lack confidence? Because objective observers (such as the hero's mother, or a best friend of the heroine) are usually perfectly capable of working out exactly how the hero and heroine feel about each other.
At other times a hero who says nothing about his feelings works better, particularly if he's waiting for the heroine to fall out of love with someone else.
Betty Neels' heroes tend not to talk about their feelings. Instead, their modus operandi is generally to (a) find the heroine a job and (b) keep on feeding her. Sometimes they do kiss the heroine, but inexplicably she can't work out that this means he's interested in her.
Like I said, some romances seem to suggest that love impairs the functioning of people's brains. Maybe that's realistic, but it can get a bit irritating, too.
Yes, I did...and much better than "Loving Evangeline," in which I thought the hero was densely paranoid and thus an ass.
dick
Thanks for the compliment (and thanks to Janet W. for the link).
I'm complete rubbish at even reading other people's blogs, so I beat you in the "bad bad me" sweepstakes. (Cue the standard line on competing demands on my time, a line you can dismiss with the contempt it deserves.)
On the other hand, I don't worry about comments to Promantica. I figure people are welcome to comment or not comment. I also figure that I don't write the sort of posts that prompt a lot of comments, which may be a compliment in itself.
[Sidebar: My word verification word is "shedule," fittingly for a UK blog. But it got me thinking: my British husband, who claims to use the "shedule" pronunciation of schedule, calls Michigan "Mitchigan." I don't get this -- and I can't tell if he's being funny or really thinks that's how it's pronounced. And I know, rather like Heisenberg's wife, that if I ask him he won't give me a straight answer.]
"My word verification word is "shedule," fittingly for a UK blog. But it got me thinking: my British husband, who claims to use the "shedule" pronunciation of schedule, calls Michigan "Mitchigan." I don't get this -- and I can't tell if he's being funny or really thinks that's how it's pronounced."
I pronounce it "shed-yool" but it's spelled "schedule." I did have the vague feeling that Michigan had a "t" in it, even though I wouldn't pronounce it that way. Very odd. Not that that really helps you; it just proves that I can make spelling mistakes. But I think he's teasing you.
Laura - love makes everyone seem a bit dim It's a real phenomenon! Maybe one day I'll tell you my own love-dimness story...
Dick - densely paranoid. Yes he was rather, wasn't he? And - as I said in the post - all the odd internal narrative about his secret-agenty-sideline and general self-assessed-superbness that was never fully explicated. One way of reading him as a character is as someone who is deeply delusional. Except, of course, we have the heroine as our 'independent observer' (either that or she's equally delusional).
Magdalen - seconding Laura re schedule. As to the Michigan teasing - ask him how he pronounces loch?
Post a Comment