Romance in fiction...

[donnaimmaculata]

... or: Is Donna a miserable old crank?

A friend of mine has written a novel and asked me to proof-read it. One of my major quibbles has been the way she handles the romances. For my taste, her romances rely far too much on "love at first sight" and the difficulties are caused by "external obstacles" as opposed to, y'know, your basic doubts and troubles and trust issues and general disfunctionality. But it's difficult to bring that across. If I say: "But these characters don't really know each other! Surely, the authorial voice should acknowledge that?", the author answers: "Oh, but they do! They used to play together as children, and when they met again, many years later, they fell in love instantly." Which I just don't buy.

Generelly speaking, I only buy romance in fiction when it's among equals who have a general idea of what they are doing. It's a very pragmatic approach, but there you go. And the aspect of "equality" is highly important for me.

Take Jane Austen's novels, for example, which I like a lot. Her romances often do not convince me.

"Sense and Sensibility": Col. Brandon falling in love at the age of 36 with a 16-year-old girl, because she reminds him of an old lover? Totally creepy.
"Emma": Mr Knightley falling in love at the age of 28 with a 13-year-old girl and spending the following 10 years forming and shaping her into what he wants his perfect woman to be? Creepy.
"Persuasion": Even though it's my favourite Austen novel, I think that spending eight years pining over someone you knew only for a couple of months in your late teens/early twenties is a bit pathetic.
So, I read the books because I like Austen's charaters and her wit and her criticism on society, but I couldn't care less about whether the girl gets her man or not in the end. I'd be perfectly happy if her heroines remained single.

And there's also the general disfunctionality, which makes me doubt the lasting success of a relationship.

A perfect example for that is the romance between Natalie Holden and Peter Carlisle in Blackpool - even though I do love the show to pieces for many reasons (David Tennant's fabulous wrist-on-headboard action being only one of them). "The love of my life" after only one date? Please. And even if I did believe in love at first sight etc., I still don't believe that Natalie and Peter will be happy together. Peter is not that different from Ripley. He is charming and tender to Natalie, sure, but I am convinced that Ripley was the same when he first fell in love with her. (We get glimpses of tender and gentle Ripley every now and then.) And both men rely far too much on Natalie's following them like a good little girl. Peter freaks out when she dares refuse going away with him and immediately starts abusing her in the worst possible manner. (And I don't care that he loved her and that he was hurt. Saying "I only slept with you to get to your son and Ripley" is just. Not. On.) Natalie herself realises that Peter's "got an eye for weakness". - And he has. And so, even though they are in love, I think that this will work only as long as Natalie doesn't stand up for herself. Just the same as it was with Ripley.

Moreover, I like romance only when it is rooted in a realistic setting, not an idealised one. Take that kiss in "Torchwood", for example:
Captain Jack is dancing with Captain Jack, in the 1940s, in front of a bunch of soldiers, and as sweet the kiss in itself might be, it just doesn't do anything for me. It's so obviously artificial, so created (as opposed to naturally evolved) that I can't identify with the characters' longing and desires.

The same scene works for me perfectly in "Queer as Folk, UK", where Stuart and Vince are dancing together at the wedding. Because there, it is realistic. The authorial voice acknowledges the difficulties, the reactions of the people around them, and I think it's sweet and lovely and very, very sexy. Even though they don't kiss.

In a nutshell: I'm fine with romances as long as they are not idealised. No "love conquers all", no "love at first sight" no "it's us against the rest of the world". Just give them some real difficulties and struggles.

Oh, and: It's not that life has made me callous and sucked any romantic feeling out of me. I've always been like that. I was ten when I read Walter Scott's "Ivanhoe" for the first time, and I commented on Ivanhoe's and Rowena's marriage with: "And after they had been married a while, Rowena would nag at him to empty the rubbish bin, and Ivanhoe didn't, and they had many rows and split up in the end." I wrote this down in my copy of the book, in pencil, and it still makes me laugh.

Comments

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Bwahaha! I'm going to run home and write that in my copy of Ivanhoe.

Which is my way of saying I agree. It's the difference between watching a relationship build between two people in the way it can build, and using what is sort of a version of the fanfic "magical bond" idea--they just were "in love" at first sight so we know they're meant to be together. "In love" isn't really defined except by being this true concept that's as real as being diabetic or dyslexic or from New Jersey. It's a given that's supposed to inform everything about the relationship rather than the love describing the specific relationship you're reading about.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

p.s. What do you think of Lizzie and Darcy?

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

"In love" isn't really defined except by being this true concept that's as real as being diabetic or dyslexic or from New Jersey.

Yes! Yes! Oh, this is a perfect definition.

"Love" is such an abstract concept that it can be safely used as a deus-ex-machina to propel any story - like, I feel, was done in "Blackpool". Irrational or illogical actions can thus be explained away: "Oh, they were in love." But I think that precisely because "love" is an abstract concept, a good author should not use the abstract itself but demonstrate the individual and distinguishing characteristics of that particular romance. In other words: show how the characters are in love, not tell that they are.

I find Lizzie and Darcy quite difficult, to be honest. I'm very much influenced by the BBC mini series, where the actors had such great chemistry, so that I can't judge objectively. So yeah, I suppose they work for me, because they work for me in the series. Plus, the characters are equals, intellectually and emotionally. They talk, they discuss things and they argue: as equal partners, not, as in case of Mr. Knightley, as the older man reprimanding the younger woman and telling her that he does that to educate her.

[swatkat24.livejournal.com]

You're not a crank. Or, if you are, you have company because I totally agree. I don't believe in love in first sights and eternal love and stories that use these tropes annoy me to no end... except Persuasion, which is teh awesome and does not count. 'You pierce my soul... so I may occasionally be a little sappy.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

Oh, I do love "Persuasion"! It's funny, because I honestly do think that pining over someone you barely know for eight years is a bit... weird. But That Letter gives me goose bumps. "Pierce my soul", indeed. I also like Anne a lot, even though she's too enduring and passive for my taste. (But then again, she's so rational even in her love sickness and suffering, and so life-weary and jaded. Ah, Anne...) - Obviously, when it comes to "Persuasion", I am a big sop, too. I blame Austen's superior skills.

[fourth_rose]

*nods, nods, and nods again*

Do you know the play "Es war die Lerche" by Ephraim Kishon? It's about Romeo and Julia who didn't die, but got married. Their marriage develops pretty much along the lines of your Ivanhoe theory...

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

I've never read it. I used to read Kishon's short stories a lot, but, strangely, none of his plays. - You know, I'm very much in favour of the fading-out after the happy ending, but I want some realistic struggles before that.

[soawen.livejournal.com]

I basically agree with you - especially about Austen - even though I'm for sale when it comes to love at first sight or the whole destined to be-thing. Not because I'm a fan of the deus ex machina solution, but because obsession is interesting. Still, it does, as you say, have to be shown, not said. It's not fun if you're just told that Hero and Heroine loves each other after seeing each other once at the market and therefore wars are fought and empires crushed just so they can meet again and maybe have a burger at McD. I think that's why I hated Harry/Ginny for such a long time. There was nothing but an older boy and the besotted girl. Now that Ginny has begun to become a real person who can interact with Harry as such, I'm willing to give it a shot.

What I miss more is equality. Not necessarily power-wise, but personality-wise. How often have we not read books where the heroine might as well have been exchanged for an animal or a treasure? She's just the reward, not matter how many sassy remarks she can throw off.

To me, an interesting romance is between two persons who can give as good as they get, one way or another. Snape/Harry can easily end like this: "Let me teach you sex, classical music, potions, and more sex while you look at me with wonder in your big child-like eyes and have the childhood you never had, just with sex", but if Harry contributes something as well ("Let me teach you to be a human being"), we're getting somewhere.

But what do I know? I couldn't have a relationship if you paid me to ;)

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

Strangely, I don't care much for obsession. Maybe because I don't understand it? *is frightfully level-headed* But whatever kind of love you settle for as an author, I think the crucial aim should always be to not describe it, but to evoke it. Whether it is love at first sight (which can work), eternal love or obsessive love.

And God yes, equality! I realise that I attach a bit too much emphasis to equality, but I need both partners to be able to communicate on the same level to find a romance believable. - This is a reason why I can't read Harry/Snape (even though I do like the enemies-dynamics as such): Harry is/used to be Snape's student, and therefore, they will never be equal in my eyes. And no amount of rational argumentation will ever convince me that they are :-P

So, despite all that pretending of being reasonable, I've got very strong gut reactions against certain constellations: teacher/student doesn't work for me, and cross-gen doesn't work for me.

I couldn't have a relationship if you paid me to ;)

Maybe this is why! It's because you scare off potential partners by demanding being treated like an equal! If you played the spunky-yet-distress damsell, you'd suddenly become compatible with many men.

[soawen.livejournal.com]

Strangely, I don't care much for obsession. Maybe because I don't understand it? *is frightfully level-headed*

Ditto. That's why I find it so fascinating and have no problem believing that others might be ruled completely by it. After all, I never got the whole being in love thing in the first place and I know that alone can make people behave oddly ;)

teacher/student doesn't work for me, and cross-gen doesn't work for me.

Unrelated, when I first came to fandom, I thought cross-gen was short for cross-gender. It was very confusing for a while ;)

But re: equality: Mm, maybe it's because I have always had an easier time relating to adults (and thereby teachers) than to children and therefore felt more equal to adults than to my peers, but I don't have a problem with either teacher/student or cross-gen as long as both parts hold some sway over each other. Ah, I'm all about the power, you know ;) (Not so good with the communicating myself.) In my eyes no communication is entirely evenly matched or equal anyway, but it musn't be too uneven - then it's only power and not romance.

I think what I'm trying to get at is that there is power play in all relationships but that it isn't romance unless none of them can have the deciding vote, so to speak. Also that I can imagine student/teacher relationships being able to work after the student becomes an ex-student (not in the ex-parrot way, of course ;) and the same for cross-gen because I don't have troubles imaging the problems it raises being overcome.

But you are right: the second we go outside fandom and cheasy novels, there must be equality. It's alright to have the prince coming to the rescue, but the princess must be worth rescuing for herself, not for the half kingdom.

Oh, and my pet peeve? Have you read Edding's Belgarion series? Hero sets out to defeat the evil god in combat, princess travels around and is very pretty in pretty armor and speaks prettily to gather a great army to help hero. I don't have a problem with hero doing the fighting, but I loathe the whole 'look at me! I'm pretty and small and helpless, but I will lead you to battle if you'll pretty please come' way of the princess. It's so ... girly! No arguments, just 'I have breasts!'


It's because you scare off potential partners by demanding being treated like an equal!

LOL Yeah, maybe. Or maybe it's because I'm all for equality as long as it means I get to decide every time ;) I know my faults, but I'm great at pointing fingers at others!

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

Seeing as the prince and the princess never met each other before he comes to the rescue, he is not in the position of knowing whether she's worth rescuing or not. He travels all the way only because of half the kingdom. And when you think of it: that's pretty realistic. Royal marriages used to be arranged, after all. So the fairy tales are more true than one should think. The "love at first sight" thing is pasted on as an afterthought.

I've never read "Belgarion", but I can well imagine the type of princess. It's sad, really.

Maybe you just need someone submissive, who obeys nicely but thinks he's your equal. Tricky...

[babycakesin.livejournal.com]

I'm fine with romances as long as they are not idealised.

funny, my sister and I discussed this just last week. We were watching Disney's Cinderella, and we came to the conclusion that we would be better off if we hadn't been fed (and hadn't believed) those 'perfect love at first sight' things when we were kids. And I remember my flatmate two years ago being infuriated by Love Actually.

as for the Jane Austen characters... I very much agree with the creepiness of their sheme lol

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

I know! It's really a big mistake to present children with these stories of perfect love at first sight. It doesn't exactly prepare the girls for real life, does it? - As to "Love Actually", I find the audio commentary so charming that I forgive it all its faults. Because listening to the director (whose name I forgot) swoon over and Hugh Grant bitch about Colin Firth simply makes my day. And then there is also Bill Nighy, who is made of Teh Awesome.

Obviously, I love Jane Austen. As long as I don't think too much about Col. Brandon and Marianne ;-)

[babycakesin.livejournal.com]

Hug Grant bitching about Colin Firth? damn, I have to listen to those commentaries!

Another way Cinderella ruined it for me: pretty girls have small feet. I don't know why, I found it very disturbing at the time lol But I guess children's stories have a different impact - I remember reading Bettleheim's book on fairy tales, it was fascinating, he explained their impact really well.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

He does, but in a good way *g* It's fabulous.

It's weird what messages children extract from stories, isn't it? I find the "pretty girls" and "small feet" connotation quite disturbing myself, when I think about it.

It seems to me that I didn't really grow up with the traditional Disney and Brothers Grimm fairy tales. I grew up with Hans Christian Andersen, and his mind was mightily twisted. But in a good way. I don't remember Cinderella having an impact on me in any way. "The Snow Queen" did.

Thanks a lot for the book tip! I've been meaning to read some meta on fairy tales for ages.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_amberdragon_/]

Hi, I found your blog through linguaphiles. Hope you don't mind me commenting.

I quite enjoyed your post here; I don't think you're cranky, and I'm a self-proclaimed hopeless romantic, and I do believe "love conquers all!"
I think you're realistic -- and I'm glad you challenge gender roles prescribed by what we read/saw in fairy tales as young girls, and the creepiness of a dominant male character being in love with a much younger girl (in the Austen novels).
Perhaps in that era and social strata, though, that was the relationship trend? Wasn't a perfect relationship between a young woman who could bear children and an older man who'd become financially established? I agree, though creepy...

I can relate to that feeling of being absorbed in such feelings of likeness to someone else that you feel omnipotent. I would associate those feelings, however, with teenaged puppy love or with the passing infatuation of new love. Studies have shown that the chemicals that convince people of feeling 'so in love' last for about two years. And then "the real work" in a relationship/marriage begins after these feelings have passed.

And then people have to communicate on a mature level, barter their needs, etc. in order to make things work -- or to really connect as two mature adults.

I do think that although a good connection can begin with love at first sight, that's all it is at that moment: a good connection ( a good connection can also be borne out of witty banter, shared passions, etc). A good relationship is borne out of hard work -- and I think that's what you're needing to read in your literature to believe in the relationships of the characters.

Also -- the small feet thing in Cinderella. I remember reading that originally this was a Chinese fairy tale where small feet are considered feminine because of the foot-binding movement. Which also makes me think of inequality in a relationship. A woman whose feet are bound can't run away from an abusive husband, or for that matter can't really get around anywhere very quickly so must rely on others to help her around...

Anywho, enjoyed the read muchly, and it spurned on a lot of thoughts that I felt compelled to share.

- _a_

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

Hello and thank you for the comment! I don't mind at all - my public posts are meant for everyone to read and comment, if they wish to do so.

Perhaps in that era and social strata, though, that was the relationship trend?

It probably was, and within the context of that era, it was nothing out of the ordinary. However, as a modern reader I can't but find it a bit disturbing. Especially since it's not so much the age difference that disturbs me, but the fact that Col. Brandon loves a girl who reminds him of a former love and Mr. Knightley loves a girl whom he had helped mould and shape. I am rather over-reacting with regard to these two aspects, but there you go. This is how my mind works.

I totally agree that love at first sight can kick off a happy relationship, but, as you say, it's not a guarantee for everlasting happiness, because a good relationship or marriage requires a lot of effort. I think what I require from literature - especially modern literature - is that the authorial voice acknowledges this. The characters can be completely smitten with each other and expect to be happy forever, but I want the author to subtly imply that this might not necessarily be the case.

Cinderella being originally Chinese would make sense. But I'm pretty sure that small feet have also traditionally been considered feminine and pretty in Western culture, too. I can't think of any literary examples, though.

Thanks again for popping in and sharing your thoughts!