Mette Ivie Harrison's Blog, page 79
November 30, 2011
annoying romance trope #28
Just one today. I'm working on a big final revision for next year's book.
#28 The Death
When I was a kid, we'd always joke about how a Newbery sticker meant that either the mom or the dog died. There's something real enough there. A "deep" book has to have a death in it. And a romance novel where you are supposed to really care about the characters have to have one, too. Most importantly, it is a really important part of showing the caring side of the hero, so the death almost always has to be on the heroine's side. She can be shocked, out of place, and he can comfort her. If the death is someone the hero loves, then it is his chance to show that he is really human, and she can comfort him. The sex is always really hot after a death. I don't know. I'm not saying it can't happen. It just seems like a cheap trick, speaking as a writer, to create a character that the reader loves and then kill him off because you want an emotional effect. Not that writers don't do everything for an emotional effect on some level or another, but . . you know what I'm saying, right?
#28 The Death
When I was a kid, we'd always joke about how a Newbery sticker meant that either the mom or the dog died. There's something real enough there. A "deep" book has to have a death in it. And a romance novel where you are supposed to really care about the characters have to have one, too. Most importantly, it is a really important part of showing the caring side of the hero, so the death almost always has to be on the heroine's side. She can be shocked, out of place, and he can comfort her. If the death is someone the hero loves, then it is his chance to show that he is really human, and she can comfort him. The sex is always really hot after a death. I don't know. I'm not saying it can't happen. It just seems like a cheap trick, speaking as a writer, to create a character that the reader loves and then kill him off because you want an emotional effect. Not that writers don't do everything for an emotional effect on some level or another, but . . you know what I'm saying, right?
November 28, 2011
Monday Book Recs--Sherman and Schwab
The Freedom Maze by Delia Sherman
This is a novel I would never try to write. A white girl born of a long line of Southern aristocrats who is dealing with her parents divorce ends up back in time before the Civil War, seeing the effects of slavery for herself. There are so many ways that it could go wrong, so many ways that it could be read the wrong way. But in the end, I think it works. At least, it works for me, a white girl born in the lower middle class. I can't speak for others, if this is a story that co-opts the experience of blacks. I was fascinated by the turn that the story takes when the white girl is actually mistaken for a slave, the child of a white man and his part-black slave whom he takes to France to marry. She is left behind in a house where she is put to work in the house, so long as she behaves properly. I loved Gone With the Wind in high school, but this is a long way from the slaves in Gone With the Wind, thank goodness. I also really loved the light touch of magic here, the sense that it was not contained, that it flowed over into every aspect of life, that there was magic bubbling up everywhere. Don't know how to explain why it felt like that, but it did.
The Near Witch by Victoria Schwab
I have to say that one of the things I loved about this book was simply the feel of it. I though a little about the narrowness of the scope and the way in which the story was circumlocuted by the border of the town itself, but it worked for me. I liked the first person, persent tense narration. I believed in this place, and I believed in this character. I believed in the Near Witch, too, on a story level and also on a metaphorical level. There is something true about the dark stories we tell and sometimes those stories can come back to haunt us. Is that the fault of the stories or our fault, for telling them, for making them real? On the one hand, this is a novel about trying to find missing children and protect a little sister. It is also a sweet, gentle romance. And a story about difference. I like the story about stories themselves the best.
This is a novel I would never try to write. A white girl born of a long line of Southern aristocrats who is dealing with her parents divorce ends up back in time before the Civil War, seeing the effects of slavery for herself. There are so many ways that it could go wrong, so many ways that it could be read the wrong way. But in the end, I think it works. At least, it works for me, a white girl born in the lower middle class. I can't speak for others, if this is a story that co-opts the experience of blacks. I was fascinated by the turn that the story takes when the white girl is actually mistaken for a slave, the child of a white man and his part-black slave whom he takes to France to marry. She is left behind in a house where she is put to work in the house, so long as she behaves properly. I loved Gone With the Wind in high school, but this is a long way from the slaves in Gone With the Wind, thank goodness. I also really loved the light touch of magic here, the sense that it was not contained, that it flowed over into every aspect of life, that there was magic bubbling up everywhere. Don't know how to explain why it felt like that, but it did.
The Near Witch by Victoria Schwab
I have to say that one of the things I loved about this book was simply the feel of it. I though a little about the narrowness of the scope and the way in which the story was circumlocuted by the border of the town itself, but it worked for me. I liked the first person, persent tense narration. I believed in this place, and I believed in this character. I believed in the Near Witch, too, on a story level and also on a metaphorical level. There is something true about the dark stories we tell and sometimes those stories can come back to haunt us. Is that the fault of the stories or our fault, for telling them, for making them real? On the one hand, this is a novel about trying to find missing children and protect a little sister. It is also a sweet, gentle romance. And a story about difference. I like the story about stories themselves the best.
November 23, 2011
Writing Wednesday: Happy Families
"Happy families are all alike. Every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." Leo Tolstoy
I love stories about flawed characters who make mistakes and then have to live with the consequences of those mistakes. But . . .
I get tired sometimes of the idea that unhappy characters are much more interesting than happy characters. Happy characters are surely not characters who have made no mistakes, since there are no such characters. To my mind, happy characters are ones who are in the middle of life, doing what they want to do, fighting the battles they choose rather than simply the ones thrust upon them, involved with people they want to be at their sides. No one gets to choose everything, of course, but there is some choice involved.
Characters who make the same mistakes over and over again can be really annoying. So are characters who make stupid mistakes. I really dislike the feeling when I as a reader want to shout at the character and say "Don't do that!" I am so disappointed if I see a drug addict character go back to drugs again and again (House and The Guardian, I am looking at you). Yes, I know that in real life people do that. I also am pretty sure that there are drug addicts who are successful in becoming not drug addicts anymore.
I'm not saying I don't want my characters to face challenges. I do. Challenges are great. Challenges are real. I'm just saying that I think it's a mistake as a writer to be blinded by the light of great pain. We don't need to write about characters who are always choosing their own pain. Life is full of plenty of pain that is unavoidable. Car accidents, acts of nature, and simply the pain of learning and growing can be enough. We don't have to add the stupid pains that people choose because they are idiots. Do we?
I love stories about flawed characters who make mistakes and then have to live with the consequences of those mistakes. But . . .
I get tired sometimes of the idea that unhappy characters are much more interesting than happy characters. Happy characters are surely not characters who have made no mistakes, since there are no such characters. To my mind, happy characters are ones who are in the middle of life, doing what they want to do, fighting the battles they choose rather than simply the ones thrust upon them, involved with people they want to be at their sides. No one gets to choose everything, of course, but there is some choice involved.
Characters who make the same mistakes over and over again can be really annoying. So are characters who make stupid mistakes. I really dislike the feeling when I as a reader want to shout at the character and say "Don't do that!" I am so disappointed if I see a drug addict character go back to drugs again and again (House and The Guardian, I am looking at you). Yes, I know that in real life people do that. I also am pretty sure that there are drug addicts who are successful in becoming not drug addicts anymore.
I'm not saying I don't want my characters to face challenges. I do. Challenges are great. Challenges are real. I'm just saying that I think it's a mistake as a writer to be blinded by the light of great pain. We don't need to write about characters who are always choosing their own pain. Life is full of plenty of pain that is unavoidable. Car accidents, acts of nature, and simply the pain of learning and growing can be enough. We don't have to add the stupid pains that people choose because they are idiots. Do we?
November 22, 2011
annoying romance tropes #25 #26 #27
#25 Regency setting
Hey, I love Jane Austen. I really, really do. And I'm not one of those people who think that you can't do a Regency setting without a few changes. I'm not a stickler for detail, and I'm even OK with some anachronistic character behavior. But why is it always Regency? Seriously, there are thousands of historical settings which are just as interesting. Why not the American Revolution? Why not the French Revolution? Why not in Russia during the Revolution? Why not Cold War America? Why not during the Depression? It's the fixation on this one particular time period that confuses me. It's certainly not the only time when romance mattered. The period types are limiting at some point, and I think we as writers are hurting ourselves by the obsessive love of Jane Austen's time.
#26 eye colors
I'm sure you know of a particular romantic hero with amber eyes. But why do we have to focus on eye color so much? I am willing to accept that eyes tell us a lot about another person, even that they're windows into the soul. But can't the main characters just have ordinary eye colors? Not grey (English spelling only!) but gray or blue or green. Do they always have to be lavender for girls or violet or some shade that can't be described with a single word?
#27 secret past hurt
I am all for having characters with depth and real lives. But for me, there seems to be a cliche about romance that every female character (and some of the male ones, but more the females because that's the focus for female romance readers) have to have some secret past hurt that makes them act the way they do. The unfolding of this secret past hurt actually tends to structure the book, sometimes with alternating flashbacks, sometimes just because that's where all the real tension is, not in the forward plot movement, but in the backward plot movement. I'm not saying this is always wrong. I just wish it didn't happen so often that it feels like romance writers don't know what else to do with their characters.
Hey, I love Jane Austen. I really, really do. And I'm not one of those people who think that you can't do a Regency setting without a few changes. I'm not a stickler for detail, and I'm even OK with some anachronistic character behavior. But why is it always Regency? Seriously, there are thousands of historical settings which are just as interesting. Why not the American Revolution? Why not the French Revolution? Why not in Russia during the Revolution? Why not Cold War America? Why not during the Depression? It's the fixation on this one particular time period that confuses me. It's certainly not the only time when romance mattered. The period types are limiting at some point, and I think we as writers are hurting ourselves by the obsessive love of Jane Austen's time.
#26 eye colors
I'm sure you know of a particular romantic hero with amber eyes. But why do we have to focus on eye color so much? I am willing to accept that eyes tell us a lot about another person, even that they're windows into the soul. But can't the main characters just have ordinary eye colors? Not grey (English spelling only!) but gray or blue or green. Do they always have to be lavender for girls or violet or some shade that can't be described with a single word?
#27 secret past hurt
I am all for having characters with depth and real lives. But for me, there seems to be a cliche about romance that every female character (and some of the male ones, but more the females because that's the focus for female romance readers) have to have some secret past hurt that makes them act the way they do. The unfolding of this secret past hurt actually tends to structure the book, sometimes with alternating flashbacks, sometimes just because that's where all the real tension is, not in the forward plot movement, but in the backward plot movement. I'm not saying this is always wrong. I just wish it didn't happen so often that it feels like romance writers don't know what else to do with their characters.
November 21, 2011
Monday Book Recs--Elliott and Carson
Cold Magic by Kate Elliott
I love everything by Kate Elliott, but this book was particularly good. I enjoyed the alternate history and the steam punk feel of the background setting. I also liked the twists on the romance. You've got a girl who has been promised to a man of a group she hates and her parents have kept this secret from her all her life. He suddenly shows up to claim her, and she is forced to go with him to save her family. But he's mysterious, dark, and nearly silent. Of course, she hates him and mistrusts him. Then gradually she gets to know him a little better. Lots of standard romance tropes are in play here, but Kate Elliott deals them out with a gentle, sure hand. She knows just where to change them, just where to go a little deeper. I loved the sister relationship in this book, too, and the sense that women are women, but also capable of being warriors, witches, and strong in any role. I don't know any writer who does women as well as Kate Elliott.
Girl of Fire and Thorns by Rae Carson
I picked this up after continued recommendations from friends I trust. Again, this was a book with a forced marriage to an unknown, older man from a different kingdom. The main character is immediately torn away from all familiar surroundings, with only a few friends to sustain her, who are gradually taken away, as well. In this case, the setting was a pseudo Spanish medieval one (I think). I especially liked the godstone which the main character has embedded in her and which makes her valuable to others. I liked how religion was a real part of this fantasy and wasn't either mocked or used as a way to talk about modern religion. I liked the way things were always turning over on their heads, not what the main character or audience expected. Also, this is a main character who thinks of herself as fat. One of the main male leads falls in love with her when she is fat. The other seems only to do so when she has lost a lot of weight after a trying physical experience. Yeah, guess which one I liked better? I won't tell the ending to avoid spoilers, but I was intrigued by it. It certainly wasn't what I expected.
I love everything by Kate Elliott, but this book was particularly good. I enjoyed the alternate history and the steam punk feel of the background setting. I also liked the twists on the romance. You've got a girl who has been promised to a man of a group she hates and her parents have kept this secret from her all her life. He suddenly shows up to claim her, and she is forced to go with him to save her family. But he's mysterious, dark, and nearly silent. Of course, she hates him and mistrusts him. Then gradually she gets to know him a little better. Lots of standard romance tropes are in play here, but Kate Elliott deals them out with a gentle, sure hand. She knows just where to change them, just where to go a little deeper. I loved the sister relationship in this book, too, and the sense that women are women, but also capable of being warriors, witches, and strong in any role. I don't know any writer who does women as well as Kate Elliott.
Girl of Fire and Thorns by Rae Carson
I picked this up after continued recommendations from friends I trust. Again, this was a book with a forced marriage to an unknown, older man from a different kingdom. The main character is immediately torn away from all familiar surroundings, with only a few friends to sustain her, who are gradually taken away, as well. In this case, the setting was a pseudo Spanish medieval one (I think). I especially liked the godstone which the main character has embedded in her and which makes her valuable to others. I liked how religion was a real part of this fantasy and wasn't either mocked or used as a way to talk about modern religion. I liked the way things were always turning over on their heads, not what the main character or audience expected. Also, this is a main character who thinks of herself as fat. One of the main male leads falls in love with her when she is fat. The other seems only to do so when she has lost a lot of weight after a trying physical experience. Yeah, guess which one I liked better? I won't tell the ending to avoid spoilers, but I was intrigued by it. It certainly wasn't what I expected.
November 18, 2011
Friday Tri: What Satisfies
When I was in high school, I decided I was never going to go on a diet. Because, mostly, I hate being hungry. Apparently, I hate it a lot more than other people do. Seriously, I cannot stand to be hungry. And when you are in high school, you think you will never have to diet like other people do because you are you and they aren't.
Well, 40 has been interesting. My metabolism has gone way down. This has actually been a relief to me, surprisingly enough. I don't have to eat breakfast at the break of dawn anymore or face the fear of fainting. A friend of mine asked me recently if I had to worry about getting in enough calories while I was training for my 50 mile race. This is the first year that I have honestly been able to say no. It wasn't a big deal. I ate a little more, but not a lot more.
I have tried to lose some weight this year. Nonetheless, I still try to follow the rule of not being hungry. I am convinced that allowing yourself to get really hungry triggers an uncontrollable need to eat calorie dense foods immediately and in a quantity that is unreasonable. The solution in my book has been to eat small meals. I eat 2 lunches every day (about 300 calories each) and 2 snacks (about 200 calories). I also eat dessert almost every night after dinner, to the tune of about 150 calories.
I also count calories in a computer program myfitnesspals that is available for free on my iphone. I mostly do this because it has been a really useful way for me to figure out whether I want to eat something that costs that much, in terms of my daily calorie needs. Some things I do want that much. I have a small 100 Grand bar almost every day. It's cheap, but I like chocolate and caramel and it gives me the feeling that I am rewarding myself, not starving myself. Things like cheesecake, often 1000 calories a slice, it turns out aren't actually worth it.
My vegan diet is mostly about eating food that is high in fiber and nutrition, but I also think it has taught me about what kinds of foods satisfy me. Nuts, for example, are super high in calories, but they stop cravings. A handful of about 10 almonds is 100 calories and with a piece of fruit, makes a great snack. Whole wheat bread and oatmeal also satisfy me better than sugary cold cereal and white bread. To me, eating healthy isn't about depriving myself of what I want, it's about eating stuff that will actually make me feel good after they are in my stomach. It's about feeling satisfied.
Being satisfied is such a hard thing to get a handle on. I think it's about more than food. I have been surprised to discover other things that satisfy me. Taking my two oldest daughters to London this year has been one of the most satisfying experiences of my life. I think about it all the time, and we talk about it a lot. I have never thought of myself as much of a traveler. I don't think I would have cared about traveling except that it was with my daughters.
Other things that satisfy me: my P2 Cervelo bike. I get happy every time I look at it. I bought it feeling guilty for spending so much money on a bike, but I love it. It feels like an extension of myself when I ride on it.I have a couple of pieces of clothing that satisfy me, as well, wool skirts and a couple of really nice jackets that I also felt guilty buying because I spent a lot on them. A new pair of triathlon specific running shoes.
What satisfies me is going to be completely different in lots of ways from what satisfies you, but it's useful figuring out what it is and going after it. The "good life" isn't going to drop in on you. You actually have to go out and get it.
Well, 40 has been interesting. My metabolism has gone way down. This has actually been a relief to me, surprisingly enough. I don't have to eat breakfast at the break of dawn anymore or face the fear of fainting. A friend of mine asked me recently if I had to worry about getting in enough calories while I was training for my 50 mile race. This is the first year that I have honestly been able to say no. It wasn't a big deal. I ate a little more, but not a lot more.
I have tried to lose some weight this year. Nonetheless, I still try to follow the rule of not being hungry. I am convinced that allowing yourself to get really hungry triggers an uncontrollable need to eat calorie dense foods immediately and in a quantity that is unreasonable. The solution in my book has been to eat small meals. I eat 2 lunches every day (about 300 calories each) and 2 snacks (about 200 calories). I also eat dessert almost every night after dinner, to the tune of about 150 calories.
I also count calories in a computer program myfitnesspals that is available for free on my iphone. I mostly do this because it has been a really useful way for me to figure out whether I want to eat something that costs that much, in terms of my daily calorie needs. Some things I do want that much. I have a small 100 Grand bar almost every day. It's cheap, but I like chocolate and caramel and it gives me the feeling that I am rewarding myself, not starving myself. Things like cheesecake, often 1000 calories a slice, it turns out aren't actually worth it.
My vegan diet is mostly about eating food that is high in fiber and nutrition, but I also think it has taught me about what kinds of foods satisfy me. Nuts, for example, are super high in calories, but they stop cravings. A handful of about 10 almonds is 100 calories and with a piece of fruit, makes a great snack. Whole wheat bread and oatmeal also satisfy me better than sugary cold cereal and white bread. To me, eating healthy isn't about depriving myself of what I want, it's about eating stuff that will actually make me feel good after they are in my stomach. It's about feeling satisfied.
Being satisfied is such a hard thing to get a handle on. I think it's about more than food. I have been surprised to discover other things that satisfy me. Taking my two oldest daughters to London this year has been one of the most satisfying experiences of my life. I think about it all the time, and we talk about it a lot. I have never thought of myself as much of a traveler. I don't think I would have cared about traveling except that it was with my daughters.
Other things that satisfy me: my P2 Cervelo bike. I get happy every time I look at it. I bought it feeling guilty for spending so much money on a bike, but I love it. It feels like an extension of myself when I ride on it.I have a couple of pieces of clothing that satisfy me, as well, wool skirts and a couple of really nice jackets that I also felt guilty buying because I spent a lot on them. A new pair of triathlon specific running shoes.
What satisfies me is going to be completely different in lots of ways from what satisfies you, but it's useful figuring out what it is and going after it. The "good life" isn't going to drop in on you. You actually have to go out and get it.
November 17, 2011
Thursday Quotes: Kate Elliott's Cold Magic
"Was this what kinship meant? A sense, deep in your bones, that the person next to you is part of you? Inextricable from what you are? That you could not be who you are without the existence as part of the architecture of your very self?
We are none of us one thing alone and unchanging. We are not static, or at rest. Just as a city or a prince's court or a lineage is many people in one, so is a person many people within one, always unfinished and always like a river's current flowing onward ever changing toward the ocean tha tis greater than all things combined. You cannot step into the same river twice."
We are none of us one thing alone and unchanging. We are not static, or at rest. Just as a city or a prince's court or a lineage is many people in one, so is a person many people within one, always unfinished and always like a river's current flowing onward ever changing toward the ocean tha tis greater than all things combined. You cannot step into the same river twice."
Writing Wednesday: Loving Your Work
At World Fantasy, I went to one of the Neil Gaiman's talks. He told a memorable story about spend ing months writing a book about Duran, Duran for money. At the end of it, he had the money he had been contractually given, but he had nothing else that he valued. He realized he had spent six months of his life on something that he didn't care about. And he made a vow never to make that mistake again. He saw other writers at various stages of their careers making the same mistake, and learning the same lesson that he had, that we only have so many years in us as writers, at the peak of our skill, and we have so many stories that are given us to tell. Wasting six months on something that doesn't matter, after all, means that you have given up time, far more valuable than money.
I loved this story. It rings so true to me. I have found more and more as a writer that when I talk to other writers, our biggest complaint is that we have far more stories bothering us to be told than we can ever possibly tell. This is why we become more and more chary about our time. Yes, we like to spend time doing school visits, signing books, meeting fans, going to cons and touring. Yes, that feeds the fan base and leads to us being able to have the money to be able to keep writing. But ultimately, we are writers because we love our writing, not for any other reason. And we need to write that which feeds us in return or we have wasted the time and talent given us.
I loved this story. It rings so true to me. I have found more and more as a writer that when I talk to other writers, our biggest complaint is that we have far more stories bothering us to be told than we can ever possibly tell. This is why we become more and more chary about our time. Yes, we like to spend time doing school visits, signing books, meeting fans, going to cons and touring. Yes, that feeds the fan base and leads to us being able to have the money to be able to keep writing. But ultimately, we are writers because we love our writing, not for any other reason. And we need to write that which feeds us in return or we have wasted the time and talent given us.
November 15, 2011
annoying romance tropes #22 #23 #24
#22 falling in love with the boss
This is an old one. In the 70s, there were all these romances about the secretary falling in love with her boss. In the 80s, it was women who were trying to work their way up though the ranks who fell in love with the boss. In the 90s it became women with corporate power who fell in love with someone at a nearby company with even more power than she had (see You've Got Mail). And with The Proposal, you see the reversal of this power dynamic with women being the boss that the men fall in love with. Eventually.
I think it's interesting to use romances to chart real social changes. For me, falling in love with the boss is problematic because of the power issues that are going to underlie any feelings. Are you really in love with the boss? Are you really in love with his power? Is there anything wrong with being in love with his power? Work relationships used to be something people recommended avoiding, but now that seems impossible. So you have to deal with it. And certainly there are stories with massive power problems that I love, like The Queen of Attolia. But in the end, I think most romances have to conclude with the two characters on parity or else you can't believe they're really in love. How well the writer makes me believe the parity is real has a lot to do with how much I can love the story and the characters.
#23 finding out your old high school boyfriend/girlfriend is free
Now, I married my high school boyfriend, so don't think I'm saying that this can't happen in real life. I'm talking about the meta level of reality here, as displayed in fiction. You get women who have had some breakup or other trauma who move back to their home town (a la Sweet Home Alabama) and discover that their old flame is now available or is still available (and has always been in love with her, waiting). Of course, this has a certain immediate appeal. Don't we all want to believe that true love lasts forever, and that no matter how stupid we are as teenagers, we can somehow get back those intense romantic feelings? I guess that's the fantasy that this trope appeals to. My problem with it is simply that there are usually reasons that people broke up in high school and those reasons are not external to the relationship. Going back to it out of a sense of nostaglia is not likely to end well.
#24 falling in love with the enemy (Romeo and Juliet)
First of all, I have to say that I think Romeo and Juliet is possibly the least romantic romance ever. Mostly because Shakespeare's intentions seem to have more to do with telling a morality tale about revenge than about romance. But because he's such a good writer, he has to make us believe that at least Romeo and Juliet think they are in love. Does anyone believe that Romeo and Juliet would have remained in love ever after this? I don't. I think they would have had their marriage annulled about ten days later. They're in love with love, not with each other. Romeo was in love with Rosalind ten minutes before he met Juliet. Juliet is just trying to escape her mother's idea of a marriage with a proper man. But the real tension here is falling in love with the enemy, the person who your parents and family most think is wrong for you, the bad guy who stands for everything that you stand against.
This certainly leads to heated discussions and can have great tension and conflict. Perhaps this is why romance writers sometimes can be led astray in thinking that this is great romance. Sizzle, sizzle. But to me, there's no sizzle without belief. And I don't believe that we fall in love with people who are antithetical to all we believe in. Of course, good writers can make this work by showing that the other person isn't different, isn't terrible, has a side that is vulnerable. Good writers make almost anything work, don't they? But it's the reliance on this trope by writers who think it's automatically going to work that stinks. Just because I meet up with someone who is articulate and handsome and fights with me does not mean I'm going to fall in love. And if I do, watch out for the writer because you can't just use handwavium to make me believe all the problems are going to go away at the end.
Remember The Holiday? I like it a lot, but the movie suffers from this problem. We believe the two sets of partners are in love with each other. And then what? The movie ends without resolving anything because it can't resolve anything. These people are actually too different to have any real, lasting relationships. But the movie can't end with them saying goodbye and moving on with their lives, either, because THAT wouldn't be a happy ending. So you get this mish-mash of an ending that makes me want to throw popcorn at the screen. My girls had this reaction to My Best Friend's Wedding, which they loved until the last ten minutes.
This is an old one. In the 70s, there were all these romances about the secretary falling in love with her boss. In the 80s, it was women who were trying to work their way up though the ranks who fell in love with the boss. In the 90s it became women with corporate power who fell in love with someone at a nearby company with even more power than she had (see You've Got Mail). And with The Proposal, you see the reversal of this power dynamic with women being the boss that the men fall in love with. Eventually.
I think it's interesting to use romances to chart real social changes. For me, falling in love with the boss is problematic because of the power issues that are going to underlie any feelings. Are you really in love with the boss? Are you really in love with his power? Is there anything wrong with being in love with his power? Work relationships used to be something people recommended avoiding, but now that seems impossible. So you have to deal with it. And certainly there are stories with massive power problems that I love, like The Queen of Attolia. But in the end, I think most romances have to conclude with the two characters on parity or else you can't believe they're really in love. How well the writer makes me believe the parity is real has a lot to do with how much I can love the story and the characters.
#23 finding out your old high school boyfriend/girlfriend is free
Now, I married my high school boyfriend, so don't think I'm saying that this can't happen in real life. I'm talking about the meta level of reality here, as displayed in fiction. You get women who have had some breakup or other trauma who move back to their home town (a la Sweet Home Alabama) and discover that their old flame is now available or is still available (and has always been in love with her, waiting). Of course, this has a certain immediate appeal. Don't we all want to believe that true love lasts forever, and that no matter how stupid we are as teenagers, we can somehow get back those intense romantic feelings? I guess that's the fantasy that this trope appeals to. My problem with it is simply that there are usually reasons that people broke up in high school and those reasons are not external to the relationship. Going back to it out of a sense of nostaglia is not likely to end well.
#24 falling in love with the enemy (Romeo and Juliet)
First of all, I have to say that I think Romeo and Juliet is possibly the least romantic romance ever. Mostly because Shakespeare's intentions seem to have more to do with telling a morality tale about revenge than about romance. But because he's such a good writer, he has to make us believe that at least Romeo and Juliet think they are in love. Does anyone believe that Romeo and Juliet would have remained in love ever after this? I don't. I think they would have had their marriage annulled about ten days later. They're in love with love, not with each other. Romeo was in love with Rosalind ten minutes before he met Juliet. Juliet is just trying to escape her mother's idea of a marriage with a proper man. But the real tension here is falling in love with the enemy, the person who your parents and family most think is wrong for you, the bad guy who stands for everything that you stand against.
This certainly leads to heated discussions and can have great tension and conflict. Perhaps this is why romance writers sometimes can be led astray in thinking that this is great romance. Sizzle, sizzle. But to me, there's no sizzle without belief. And I don't believe that we fall in love with people who are antithetical to all we believe in. Of course, good writers can make this work by showing that the other person isn't different, isn't terrible, has a side that is vulnerable. Good writers make almost anything work, don't they? But it's the reliance on this trope by writers who think it's automatically going to work that stinks. Just because I meet up with someone who is articulate and handsome and fights with me does not mean I'm going to fall in love. And if I do, watch out for the writer because you can't just use handwavium to make me believe all the problems are going to go away at the end.
Remember The Holiday? I like it a lot, but the movie suffers from this problem. We believe the two sets of partners are in love with each other. And then what? The movie ends without resolving anything because it can't resolve anything. These people are actually too different to have any real, lasting relationships. But the movie can't end with them saying goodbye and moving on with their lives, either, because THAT wouldn't be a happy ending. So you get this mish-mash of an ending that makes me want to throw popcorn at the screen. My girls had this reaction to My Best Friend's Wedding, which they loved until the last ten minutes.
November 14, 2011
Too Strong For Too Long
About four years ago, I went to a therapist for "depression." She listened to me talk about my life and my problems for about an hour and at the end, she told me something that I spent years trying to figure out. She said that I had been too strong for too long. At the time, I thought that this made no sense at all. Wasn't I depressed because I hadn't been strong enough? I certainly didn't feel strong. I felt like a mess. And I was pretty sure I would never feel strong again because something about my life had become broken.
What I finally figured out is that she meant that I hadn't been doing any of the things that normal people do who accept that they are not perfect and need help. I didn't spend time building myself up mentally. I didn't give myself breaks because I was tired. I didn't buy myself little prizes just because I felt like it. I tended not to spend time doing things just for fun. Every minute of every day had to have a purpose. Most of them had to have two purposes. And I was ruthless when I reviewed my attempts.
The truth is, this was a very successful strategy for gaining a list of really impressive accomplishments. I had a great resume before I even hit college and once I was finished, I had an even longer list. Scholarships, GPAs, test scores, jobs, essays, number of words written per day. If life was a contest, I would have won it every day. But life isn't a contest. Or if it is, I had decided I didn't want to be in it anymore. Not just because I wasn't winning it. I think I still was, by the measurable definition rules. Only I wasn't happy. Because that strategy of living doesn't actually work that well for making you happy. Some people pretend it will, for a while. It gives you a sense of accomplishment, which can pass for happiness in a pinch. It can give you lots of people saying "Wow" around you. But since you don't have time to talk to them and enjoy their adoration, it's not good for much.
And you run out of yourself, the quantity of you that keeps you going. For me, I ran out about age 35. YMMV. And then what? Then I had to figure out all the stuff that other people already knew. And you'd be surprised how hard it was to learn. I had no idea what sorts of things relaxed me. I hadn't really spent much time figuring that out. Sleep mostly, I guess. I honestly had trouble figuring out what I liked to make for dinner because I spent so much time figuring out every thing that each kid didn't like and working around that to create a few dinners everyone would eat. I didn't know what kinds of clothes I liked to wear because I wore what was cheap and what was easy to launder. I did know what chocolate I liked best, but I almost never ate it.
You may think that being strong can't possibly be a bad thing. If you do, you may have a crisis looming. If you think that people talking about moms needing to take time for themselves is stupid, you might have a crisis looming. If you think that other people need vacations, but you don't--you might have a crisis looming. If you think that other people should just be more like you--you might have a crisis looming. If you think that you are never going to retire because what you're doing is too important--you might have a crisis looming.
Self-care is part of being strong for the long haul. It's like (you are going to be astonished by this analogy, I am sure) fueling for a long run. Anyone can run for an hour on no fuel. Some people can run a full marathon on no fuel, though not many. But once you get beyond 30 miles, you are going to have to eat. You simply won't be able to keep going if you don't. It's not weakness to take the food offered to you before then, either. It's going to keep your blood sugar up. The only effect may be making you happier to be out there running, but don't dismiss happiness. Happiness is what keeps us going. It fuels our brains, and our brains are physical things.
Relying on other people to help you is just sensible. Sometimes you may have to pay these other people. Sometimes they may help you for free. Either way, find them. I spent a long 5 years not having a reliable babysitter for my kids. This was partly because my kids were genuinely hard to leave. It was also partly because I didn't think I needed help. I thought I would survive just fine. Other people had done it. Why not me? Well, I don't know what other people did do it alone, if there were any. But it wasn't a good plan. Other people also ended up having nervous breakdowns or injuring their children.
I think this same principle applies to weight loss. The people I know who are overweight are often the ones who are the meanest to themselves. They punish themselves for every bite of food they eat. Sometimes they say it out loud. Sometimes they say it silently. You don't have to ask me for permission to have a brownie. You don't have to excuse yourself for eating it in front of me. It's yours if you want it. If you are hungry, it is not called self-control when you refuse to eat. It's called starvation. Mostly, I think people who eat more often, who plan what to eat, who enjoy what they are eating, and who take time to find food that satisfies them are better off, fat or thin.
Go be weak a little. Then you'll be able to be strong for a little longer.
What I finally figured out is that she meant that I hadn't been doing any of the things that normal people do who accept that they are not perfect and need help. I didn't spend time building myself up mentally. I didn't give myself breaks because I was tired. I didn't buy myself little prizes just because I felt like it. I tended not to spend time doing things just for fun. Every minute of every day had to have a purpose. Most of them had to have two purposes. And I was ruthless when I reviewed my attempts.
The truth is, this was a very successful strategy for gaining a list of really impressive accomplishments. I had a great resume before I even hit college and once I was finished, I had an even longer list. Scholarships, GPAs, test scores, jobs, essays, number of words written per day. If life was a contest, I would have won it every day. But life isn't a contest. Or if it is, I had decided I didn't want to be in it anymore. Not just because I wasn't winning it. I think I still was, by the measurable definition rules. Only I wasn't happy. Because that strategy of living doesn't actually work that well for making you happy. Some people pretend it will, for a while. It gives you a sense of accomplishment, which can pass for happiness in a pinch. It can give you lots of people saying "Wow" around you. But since you don't have time to talk to them and enjoy their adoration, it's not good for much.
And you run out of yourself, the quantity of you that keeps you going. For me, I ran out about age 35. YMMV. And then what? Then I had to figure out all the stuff that other people already knew. And you'd be surprised how hard it was to learn. I had no idea what sorts of things relaxed me. I hadn't really spent much time figuring that out. Sleep mostly, I guess. I honestly had trouble figuring out what I liked to make for dinner because I spent so much time figuring out every thing that each kid didn't like and working around that to create a few dinners everyone would eat. I didn't know what kinds of clothes I liked to wear because I wore what was cheap and what was easy to launder. I did know what chocolate I liked best, but I almost never ate it.
You may think that being strong can't possibly be a bad thing. If you do, you may have a crisis looming. If you think that people talking about moms needing to take time for themselves is stupid, you might have a crisis looming. If you think that other people need vacations, but you don't--you might have a crisis looming. If you think that other people should just be more like you--you might have a crisis looming. If you think that you are never going to retire because what you're doing is too important--you might have a crisis looming.
Self-care is part of being strong for the long haul. It's like (you are going to be astonished by this analogy, I am sure) fueling for a long run. Anyone can run for an hour on no fuel. Some people can run a full marathon on no fuel, though not many. But once you get beyond 30 miles, you are going to have to eat. You simply won't be able to keep going if you don't. It's not weakness to take the food offered to you before then, either. It's going to keep your blood sugar up. The only effect may be making you happier to be out there running, but don't dismiss happiness. Happiness is what keeps us going. It fuels our brains, and our brains are physical things.
Relying on other people to help you is just sensible. Sometimes you may have to pay these other people. Sometimes they may help you for free. Either way, find them. I spent a long 5 years not having a reliable babysitter for my kids. This was partly because my kids were genuinely hard to leave. It was also partly because I didn't think I needed help. I thought I would survive just fine. Other people had done it. Why not me? Well, I don't know what other people did do it alone, if there were any. But it wasn't a good plan. Other people also ended up having nervous breakdowns or injuring their children.
I think this same principle applies to weight loss. The people I know who are overweight are often the ones who are the meanest to themselves. They punish themselves for every bite of food they eat. Sometimes they say it out loud. Sometimes they say it silently. You don't have to ask me for permission to have a brownie. You don't have to excuse yourself for eating it in front of me. It's yours if you want it. If you are hungry, it is not called self-control when you refuse to eat. It's called starvation. Mostly, I think people who eat more often, who plan what to eat, who enjoy what they are eating, and who take time to find food that satisfies them are better off, fat or thin.
Go be weak a little. Then you'll be able to be strong for a little longer.
Mette Ivie Harrison's Blog
- Mette Ivie Harrison's profile
- 436 followers
Mette Ivie Harrison isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
