Mette Ivie Harrison's Blog, page 93
April 8, 2011
the rape romance--destructive love myth #7
I read A LOT of romances written in the 70s. Greeks, Italians, Spaniards. Any male who was "swarthy" and strong, who grunted a lot and sweated a lot and treated the heroine like crap. The stories generally started with the women acting "spunky" and talking back. Roots in Jane Eyre and Elizabeth Bennet, I suspect. But very quickly, a lot of these romances seemed to say rather directly that feminism was ruining romantic relationships between men and women and that if women really wanted to have love, they were going to have to say "yes" a lot more, get pushed around, and honestly, accept that sex was a lot like rape--and that it was hotter that way.
No, my mother did not know this was what I was reading. Well, maybe she did. My mother and I have very different tastes in books. She mostly is concerned about whether or not books have bad "words" in them. But they can imply almost anything they want and she's OK with that. Also, whenever my mother bought me a book when I was a teen, it was the kiss of death, rather like seeing one of those Newbery stickers on one. She once bought me Susan Cooper's series and I refused to read it for ten years just because I was sure it would be boring. But the point is that I think women were unconsciously devouring books with these stereotypes, mostly because no matter how much feminism talked about how bad they were, the speeches didn't get to the deep subconscious, where those fantasies about romance live.
Every time I think we're getting a little closer, I realize we are wrong. The metatext of a lot of YA paranormal romances these days is about the same as the Greek hero story. Only instead of a Greek hero who is "manly" and "strong" and "protective" and "silent," we have werewolves and vampires and shape shifters and other magical creatures. Essentially it is the same. The point is that men are animals and that we women like that way. We like being slapped around. We like danger. We like rape. We like it because then we don't have to make choices and we don't have to take responsibility for those choices. The men do. Those bad men who can't control their sexual/animalistic impulses. We have to nurture them and take them back even when they are bad.
This is probably why when I wrote a shape changer story, the woman was the shape changer, the one who had the animal instincts. So it could be a story about something other than that rape/romance narrative that I hate. I know that many readers (let alone teen readers) don't look into the metaphor of the romance. They just fall in love with the mood of a book, and the romantic world where a hot boy (and possibly two hot boys) would do anything for them. They like raising the stakes (!) outside their own provincial world. It bothers me a little more when adult women read the same books and don't notice the weird equivalencies going on. I guess they didn't get ten years of symbolism in college like I did. Or German literature, where everything is a symbol.
In the old world, it was important for women to be sexually pure because of breeding lines. Although, really, HA! Look at the statistics on blood typing before there was DNA on children and fathers in the 60s. I'm not one who promotes teens or really any women having indiscriminate sex. But is the only alternative to that insisting on women never wanting to have sex and being pressed into it because otherwise they aren't feminine enough? Couldn't we think up some cleverer ways to write stories about romance? Can't we come up with new metaphors? How about a metaphor about a magic potion that both people take willingly and it makes them in love for life? Just for example. That's an old story, but you can twist it to say something new that's healthier, yes?
No, my mother did not know this was what I was reading. Well, maybe she did. My mother and I have very different tastes in books. She mostly is concerned about whether or not books have bad "words" in them. But they can imply almost anything they want and she's OK with that. Also, whenever my mother bought me a book when I was a teen, it was the kiss of death, rather like seeing one of those Newbery stickers on one. She once bought me Susan Cooper's series and I refused to read it for ten years just because I was sure it would be boring. But the point is that I think women were unconsciously devouring books with these stereotypes, mostly because no matter how much feminism talked about how bad they were, the speeches didn't get to the deep subconscious, where those fantasies about romance live.
Every time I think we're getting a little closer, I realize we are wrong. The metatext of a lot of YA paranormal romances these days is about the same as the Greek hero story. Only instead of a Greek hero who is "manly" and "strong" and "protective" and "silent," we have werewolves and vampires and shape shifters and other magical creatures. Essentially it is the same. The point is that men are animals and that we women like that way. We like being slapped around. We like danger. We like rape. We like it because then we don't have to make choices and we don't have to take responsibility for those choices. The men do. Those bad men who can't control their sexual/animalistic impulses. We have to nurture them and take them back even when they are bad.
This is probably why when I wrote a shape changer story, the woman was the shape changer, the one who had the animal instincts. So it could be a story about something other than that rape/romance narrative that I hate. I know that many readers (let alone teen readers) don't look into the metaphor of the romance. They just fall in love with the mood of a book, and the romantic world where a hot boy (and possibly two hot boys) would do anything for them. They like raising the stakes (!) outside their own provincial world. It bothers me a little more when adult women read the same books and don't notice the weird equivalencies going on. I guess they didn't get ten years of symbolism in college like I did. Or German literature, where everything is a symbol.
In the old world, it was important for women to be sexually pure because of breeding lines. Although, really, HA! Look at the statistics on blood typing before there was DNA on children and fathers in the 60s. I'm not one who promotes teens or really any women having indiscriminate sex. But is the only alternative to that insisting on women never wanting to have sex and being pressed into it because otherwise they aren't feminine enough? Couldn't we think up some cleverer ways to write stories about romance? Can't we come up with new metaphors? How about a metaphor about a magic potion that both people take willingly and it makes them in love for life? Just for example. That's an old story, but you can twist it to say something new that's healthier, yes?
April 7, 2011
HEA: destructive love myth #6
Happily Ever After Endings in books and movies are the mainstay of the American public's experience with romance in fiction. But in reality? No one has a happily ever after ending. You get married or you get engaged. And then you don't ride off into the sunset with never a problem again. And everyone is disappointed because it's not like it's "supposed to be."
You have to deal with real life, which as a couple is in many ways enormously more complicated. You have to deal with two extended families. You have to deal with children, eventually, and combining parenting styles. You have to deal with finances, whether you combine your checking accounts or not, all those little questions about who pays the mortgage and the utility bill. These are not romantic, supposedly.
The solution that many people seem to choose? Get divorced. Then you can start all over again with the part of romance that seems to be the most attractive. The dating and going exclusive, choosing the dress, sending out invitations all over again. You can just keep doing it. You don't get just one HEA. You get a dozen of them. If you are Larry King. Right?
I suppose that as a writer, I understand the need for an artificial sense of closure. After all, the book has to end somewhere. If it's a romance, it ends when the suspense of "does s/he love me?" is over. I can accept that as one art form. I just don't get why that has to be the only form of romance that we read as American women. I've said this before and I'll say it again. I think there needs to be a new category of married romance about falling in love again. I think it can be just as funny, just as tense, just as romantic, and twice as beautiful. Also, real. It can even have a similar form, but no one is writing this and no one is selling it and I think it's unhealthy.
We all know that when we use super-skinny models as our ideal of femininity, we get anorexic women all over the world. And that's what happens with marriage, too. Romance is making us all anorexic. We look at our bodies, and our romances, and we think how fat they are, and we try to lose weight, and then we are surprised when we discover that you can never lose enough weight to be happy. NEVER. Because being happy, it turns out, is about accepting yourself, flaws and virtues, and looking for a different ideal.
You have to deal with real life, which as a couple is in many ways enormously more complicated. You have to deal with two extended families. You have to deal with children, eventually, and combining parenting styles. You have to deal with finances, whether you combine your checking accounts or not, all those little questions about who pays the mortgage and the utility bill. These are not romantic, supposedly.
The solution that many people seem to choose? Get divorced. Then you can start all over again with the part of romance that seems to be the most attractive. The dating and going exclusive, choosing the dress, sending out invitations all over again. You can just keep doing it. You don't get just one HEA. You get a dozen of them. If you are Larry King. Right?
I suppose that as a writer, I understand the need for an artificial sense of closure. After all, the book has to end somewhere. If it's a romance, it ends when the suspense of "does s/he love me?" is over. I can accept that as one art form. I just don't get why that has to be the only form of romance that we read as American women. I've said this before and I'll say it again. I think there needs to be a new category of married romance about falling in love again. I think it can be just as funny, just as tense, just as romantic, and twice as beautiful. Also, real. It can even have a similar form, but no one is writing this and no one is selling it and I think it's unhealthy.
We all know that when we use super-skinny models as our ideal of femininity, we get anorexic women all over the world. And that's what happens with marriage, too. Romance is making us all anorexic. We look at our bodies, and our romances, and we think how fat they are, and we try to lose weight, and then we are surprised when we discover that you can never lose enough weight to be happy. NEVER. Because being happy, it turns out, is about accepting yourself, flaws and virtues, and looking for a different ideal.
HEA: destructive love myth #5
Happily Ever After Endings in books and movies are the mainstay of the American public's experience with romance in fiction. But in reality? No one has a happily ever after ending. You get married or you get engaged. And then you don't ride off into the sunset with never a problem again. And everyone is disappointed because it's not like it's "supposed to be."
You have to deal with real life, which as a couple is in many ways enormously more complicated. You have to deal with two extended families. You have to deal with children, eventually, and combining parenting styles. You have to deal with finances, whether you combine your checking accounts or not, all those little questions about who pays the mortgage and the utility bill. These are not romantic, supposedly.
The solution that many people seem to choose? Get divorced. Then you can start all over again with the part of romance that seems to be the most attractive. The dating and going exclusive, choosing the dress, sending out invitations all over again. You can just keep doing it. You don't get just one HEA. You get a dozen of them. If you are Larry King. Right?
I suppose that as a writer, I understand the need for an artificial sense of closure. After all, the book has to end somewhere. If it's a romance, it ends when the suspense of "does s/he love me?" is over. I can accept that as one art form. I just don't get why that has to be the only form of romance that we read as American women. I've said this before and I'll say it again. I think there needs to be a new category of married romance about falling in love again. I think it can be just as funny, just as tense, just as romantic, and twice as beautiful. Also, real. It can even have a similar form, but no one is writing this and no one is selling it and I think it's unhealthy.
We all know that when we use super-skinny models as our ideal of femininity, we get anorexic women all over the world. And that's what happens with marriage, too. Romance is making us all anorexic. We look at our bodies, and our romances, and we think how fat they are, and we try to lose weight, and then we are surprised when we discover that you can never lose enough weight to be happy. NEVER. Because being happy, it turns out, is about accepting yourself, flaws and virtues, and looking for a different ideal.
You have to deal with real life, which as a couple is in many ways enormously more complicated. You have to deal with two extended families. You have to deal with children, eventually, and combining parenting styles. You have to deal with finances, whether you combine your checking accounts or not, all those little questions about who pays the mortgage and the utility bill. These are not romantic, supposedly.
The solution that many people seem to choose? Get divorced. Then you can start all over again with the part of romance that seems to be the most attractive. The dating and going exclusive, choosing the dress, sending out invitations all over again. You can just keep doing it. You don't get just one HEA. You get a dozen of them. If you are Larry King. Right?
I suppose that as a writer, I understand the need for an artificial sense of closure. After all, the book has to end somewhere. If it's a romance, it ends when the suspense of "does s/he love me?" is over. I can accept that as one art form. I just don't get why that has to be the only form of romance that we read as American women. I've said this before and I'll say it again. I think there needs to be a new category of married romance about falling in love again. I think it can be just as funny, just as tense, just as romantic, and twice as beautiful. Also, real. It can even have a similar form, but no one is writing this and no one is selling it and I think it's unhealthy.
We all know that when we use super-skinny models as our ideal of femininity, we get anorexic women all over the world. And that's what happens with marriage, too. Romance is making us all anorexic. We look at our bodies, and our romances, and we think how fat they are, and we try to lose weight, and then we are surprised when we discover that you can never lose enough weight to be happy. NEVER. Because being happy, it turns out, is about accepting yourself, flaws and virtues, and looking for a different ideal.
April 5, 2011
soul mate--destructive love myth #5
Most of the time that I have heard this phrase it has either be in a) a romance novel or b) in someone's description of why they divorced, broke up their family and ruined their children's lives. "I have found my soul mate" is code for nothing else matters and I don't have to take any responsibility for anything in my life because I don't have control over this.
Relinquishing your control over something is not romantic in my opinion. It's just childish. It's also inevitably going to lead to problems in your life. Because when you think that you have no control over something that important to you, you are going to end up really messed up mentally. I've seen lack of control from another end, but I think at the end, it's the same.
You are in control of your own life. You choose who you love. You choose who you are. Every moment of every day.
There are many things that are outside of your control. I know this. Believe me. A million things. A lot more things are outside of your control than are in your control, even if you are the leader of the free world. But everyone has control over the self.
Yes, I believe that some people are going to suit you better than others for reasons that we may or may not understand. I think we tend to marry people who are in our same social class, who are like our parents (for good or ill) and who we are chemically attracted to. You don't control your genetics or the environment you were raised in. You probably don't control completely who you are attracted to on a case by case basis. But this doesn't mean that you don't get to pick and choose. It doesn't mean you can destroy the lives of others because you are "in love."
See, the person you think is your soul mate may be a perfect match for you in every way. But that person will change and you will change. You will. That is the way that life is. You will choose to change. You can choose to change in the same way or in different ways. But you are not going to be "soul mates" in the same way forever, unless you choose to be.
As a writer, I don't write about romances that are destined to be. I only write about people who need each other and who fill a unique need in each other's lives. But I also write about characters who are faced with difficult choices each day and who choose to become better people. And who fall in love with others who do the same. Those are my heroes. The choosers. The doers. The ones who take responsibility and don't shy from it. And who fall in love not because they can't avoid it but because it makes them better than they are alone.
Relinquishing your control over something is not romantic in my opinion. It's just childish. It's also inevitably going to lead to problems in your life. Because when you think that you have no control over something that important to you, you are going to end up really messed up mentally. I've seen lack of control from another end, but I think at the end, it's the same.
You are in control of your own life. You choose who you love. You choose who you are. Every moment of every day.
There are many things that are outside of your control. I know this. Believe me. A million things. A lot more things are outside of your control than are in your control, even if you are the leader of the free world. But everyone has control over the self.
Yes, I believe that some people are going to suit you better than others for reasons that we may or may not understand. I think we tend to marry people who are in our same social class, who are like our parents (for good or ill) and who we are chemically attracted to. You don't control your genetics or the environment you were raised in. You probably don't control completely who you are attracted to on a case by case basis. But this doesn't mean that you don't get to pick and choose. It doesn't mean you can destroy the lives of others because you are "in love."
See, the person you think is your soul mate may be a perfect match for you in every way. But that person will change and you will change. You will. That is the way that life is. You will choose to change. You can choose to change in the same way or in different ways. But you are not going to be "soul mates" in the same way forever, unless you choose to be.
As a writer, I don't write about romances that are destined to be. I only write about people who need each other and who fill a unique need in each other's lives. But I also write about characters who are faced with difficult choices each day and who choose to become better people. And who fall in love with others who do the same. Those are my heroes. The choosers. The doers. The ones who take responsibility and don't shy from it. And who fall in love not because they can't avoid it but because it makes them better than they are alone.
soul mate--destructive love myth #4
Most of the time that I have heard this phrase it has either be in a) a romance novel or b) in someone's description of why they divorced, broke up their family and ruined their children's lives. "I have found my soul mate" is code for nothing else matters and I don't have to take any responsibility for anything in my life because I don't have control over this.
Relinquishing your control over something is not romantic in my opinion. It's just childish. It's also inevitably going to lead to problems in your life. Because when you think that you have no control over something that important to you, you are going to end up really messed up mentally. I've seen lack of control from another end, but I think at the end, it's the same.
You are in control of your own life. You choose who you love. You choose who you are. Every moment of every day.
There are many things that are outside of your control. I know this. Believe me. A million things. A lot more things are outside of your control than are in your control, even if you are the leader of the free world. But everyone has control over the self.
Yes, I believe that some people are going to suit you better than others for reasons that we may or may not understand. I think we tend to marry people who are in our same social class, who are like our parents (for good or ill) and who we are chemically attracted to. You don't control your genetics or the environment you were raised in. You probably don't control completely who you are attracted to on a case by case basis. But this doesn't mean that you don't get to pick and choose. It doesn't mean you can destroy the lives of others because you are "in love."
See, the person you think is your soul mate may be a perfect match for you in every way. But that person will change and you will change. You will. That is the way that life is. You will choose to change. You can choose to change in the same way or in different ways. But you are not going to be "soul mates" in the same way forever, unless you choose to be.
As a writer, I don't write about romances that are destined to be. I only write about people who need each other and who fill a unique need in each other's lives. But I also write about characters who are faced with difficult choices each day and who choose to become better people. And who fall in love with others who do the same. Those are my heroes. The choosers. The doers. The ones who take responsibility and don't shy from it. And who fall in love not because they can't avoid it but because it makes them better than they are alone.
Relinquishing your control over something is not romantic in my opinion. It's just childish. It's also inevitably going to lead to problems in your life. Because when you think that you have no control over something that important to you, you are going to end up really messed up mentally. I've seen lack of control from another end, but I think at the end, it's the same.
You are in control of your own life. You choose who you love. You choose who you are. Every moment of every day.
There are many things that are outside of your control. I know this. Believe me. A million things. A lot more things are outside of your control than are in your control, even if you are the leader of the free world. But everyone has control over the self.
Yes, I believe that some people are going to suit you better than others for reasons that we may or may not understand. I think we tend to marry people who are in our same social class, who are like our parents (for good or ill) and who we are chemically attracted to. You don't control your genetics or the environment you were raised in. You probably don't control completely who you are attracted to on a case by case basis. But this doesn't mean that you don't get to pick and choose. It doesn't mean you can destroy the lives of others because you are "in love."
See, the person you think is your soul mate may be a perfect match for you in every way. But that person will change and you will change. You will. That is the way that life is. You will choose to change. You can choose to change in the same way or in different ways. But you are not going to be "soul mates" in the same way forever, unless you choose to be.
As a writer, I don't write about romances that are destined to be. I only write about people who need each other and who fill a unique need in each other's lives. But I also write about characters who are faced with difficult choices each day and who choose to become better people. And who fall in love with others who do the same. Those are my heroes. The choosers. The doers. The ones who take responsibility and don't shy from it. And who fall in love not because they can't avoid it but because it makes them better than they are alone.
April 4, 2011
love=hate: destructive love myth #4
I don't believe that hate and love are really similar emotions. I know that people say that they are, that the people you love the most are the only people whom you can really hate. This just seems like a mental illness to me. The people you love the most can hurt you, yes. They know you well and they know what you care about. But also, you trust them the most or you wouldn't love them, yes? You trust most of all that they would not intentionally hurt you. And therefore you need to look at what they've done that has hurt you and accept that it isn't intentional and move on.
If someone really does turn out to hate you whom you once loved, doesn't that just mean that you were wrong about that person to begin with and that you should be glad that they are out of your life? Your love for them was misguided.
If you hated someone once and then learned to love them later (a la Mr. Darcy in Pride and Prejudice), all this means is that you were wrong. You misinterpreted things terribly and you will have to accept that your judgment is flawed. Usually, your judgment is flawed because of some flaw in yourself. For Lizzy, there are many flaws in her character. She is prejudiced against a wealthy man to begin with. She is proud of her own beauty and she ends up overhearing someone talk about her to someone else. You can't eavesdrop without getting hurt. It's because you're wrong to do it.
I tend to hate romance novels where the characters hate each other to begin with because:
a) the characters are actually disgusting and I hate them both to begin with and I never come to like them because their flaws are so horrible that they should be burned.
b) the characters are so stupid, so gullible, or so unable to understand normal spoken English that they don't deserve a happy ending in the first place.
c) I don't care because it's too much of a cliché and it just doesn't work for me.If you start with a couple hating each other, you've got a strike against you to begin with as a writer in my book and if you don't do something pretty spectacular in the first ten pages of the book I'm not reading any further.
Someone once used Han Solo and Princess Leia as an example of a great couple who hate each other to begin with and then fall in love. Yeah, OK. It's a misdirection because the audience is supposed to believe that Luke and Leia are the right couple until the author wants to twist the ending. I get that. Authors need suspense to keep readers interested. We need to twist things. But I don't know if I believe they hate each other to begin with. That's not the way I would describe it. I would say that the other person brings out the worst in them because of their pride. Maybe that's the same thing to some of you, but I think it's a useful distinction. Also, I probably wouldn't use Han Solo and Princess Leia as my example of the best love ever written.
Now, if you want to look at Irene and Gen in Queen of Attolia, there's an interesting case. Yes, Irene hates Gen in a way. He has everything she doesn't. That kind of hatred works for me. And it's gradually unfolded so that I sympathize with her. Also, Gen hates Irene because she chops off his hand and threatens to kill him. More clearly, he is terrified of her and also he is in love with her at the same time. This works because Megan Whalen Turner is brilliant and has already set up a world where there are interesting circumstances between the characters. It takes multiple books to pull this off. And then to unravel it because it is really a problem in their relationship, even after they are happily married. She doesn't take short cuts in the beginning or the middle or the end.
If someone really does turn out to hate you whom you once loved, doesn't that just mean that you were wrong about that person to begin with and that you should be glad that they are out of your life? Your love for them was misguided.
If you hated someone once and then learned to love them later (a la Mr. Darcy in Pride and Prejudice), all this means is that you were wrong. You misinterpreted things terribly and you will have to accept that your judgment is flawed. Usually, your judgment is flawed because of some flaw in yourself. For Lizzy, there are many flaws in her character. She is prejudiced against a wealthy man to begin with. She is proud of her own beauty and she ends up overhearing someone talk about her to someone else. You can't eavesdrop without getting hurt. It's because you're wrong to do it.
I tend to hate romance novels where the characters hate each other to begin with because:
a) the characters are actually disgusting and I hate them both to begin with and I never come to like them because their flaws are so horrible that they should be burned.
b) the characters are so stupid, so gullible, or so unable to understand normal spoken English that they don't deserve a happy ending in the first place.
c) I don't care because it's too much of a cliché and it just doesn't work for me.If you start with a couple hating each other, you've got a strike against you to begin with as a writer in my book and if you don't do something pretty spectacular in the first ten pages of the book I'm not reading any further.
Someone once used Han Solo and Princess Leia as an example of a great couple who hate each other to begin with and then fall in love. Yeah, OK. It's a misdirection because the audience is supposed to believe that Luke and Leia are the right couple until the author wants to twist the ending. I get that. Authors need suspense to keep readers interested. We need to twist things. But I don't know if I believe they hate each other to begin with. That's not the way I would describe it. I would say that the other person brings out the worst in them because of their pride. Maybe that's the same thing to some of you, but I think it's a useful distinction. Also, I probably wouldn't use Han Solo and Princess Leia as my example of the best love ever written.
Now, if you want to look at Irene and Gen in Queen of Attolia, there's an interesting case. Yes, Irene hates Gen in a way. He has everything she doesn't. That kind of hatred works for me. And it's gradually unfolded so that I sympathize with her. Also, Gen hates Irene because she chops off his hand and threatens to kill him. More clearly, he is terrified of her and also he is in love with her at the same time. This works because Megan Whalen Turner is brilliant and has already set up a world where there are interesting circumstances between the characters. It takes multiple books to pull this off. And then to unravel it because it is really a problem in their relationship, even after they are happily married. She doesn't take short cuts in the beginning or the middle or the end.
love=hate: destructive love myth #3
I don't believe that hate and love are really similar emotions. I know that people say that they are, that the people you love the most are the only people whom you can really hate. This just seems like a mental illness to me. The people you love the most can hurt you, yes. They know you well and they know what you care about. But also, you trust them the most or you wouldn't love them, yes? You trust most of all that they would not intentionally hurt you. And therefore you need to look at what they've done that has hurt you and accept that it isn't intentional and move on.
If someone really does turn out to hate you whom you once loved, doesn't that just mean that you were wrong about that person to begin with and that you should be glad that they are out of your life? Your love for them was misguided.
If you hated someone once and then learned to love them later (a la Mr. Darcy in Pride and Prejudice), all this means is that you were wrong. You misinterpreted things terribly and you will have to accept that your judgment is flawed. Usually, your judgment is flawed because of some flaw in yourself. For Lizzy, there are many flaws in her character. She is prejudiced against a wealthy man to begin with. She is proud of her own beauty and she ends up overhearing someone talk about her to someone else. You can't eavesdrop without getting hurt. It's because you're wrong to do it.
I tend to hate romance novels where the characters hate each other to begin with because:
a) the characters are actually disgusting and I hate them both to begin with and I never come to like them because their flaws are so horrible that they should be burned.
b) the characters are so stupid, so gullible, or so unable to understand normal spoken English that they don't deserve a happy ending in the first place.
c) I don't care because it's too much of a cliché and it just doesn't work for me.If you start with a couple hating each other, you've got a strike against you to begin with as a writer in my book and if you don't do something pretty spectacular in the first ten pages of the book I'm not reading any further.
Someone once used Han Solo and Princess Leia as an example of a great couple who hate each other to begin with and then fall in love. Yeah, OK. It's a misdirection because the audience is supposed to believe that Luke and Leia are the right couple until the author wants to twist the ending. I get that. Authors need suspense to keep readers interested. We need to twist things. But I don't know if I believe they hate each other to begin with. That's not the way I would describe it. I would say that the other person brings out the worst in them because of their pride. Maybe that's the same thing to some of you, but I think it's a useful distinction. Also, I probably wouldn't use Han Solo and Princess Leia as my example of the best love ever written.
Now, if you want to look at Irene and Gen in Queen of Attolia, there's an interesting case. Yes, Irene hates Gen in a way. He has everything she doesn't. That kind of hatred works for me. And it's gradually unfolded so that I sympathize with her. Also, Gen hates Irene because she chops off his hand and threatens to kill him. More clearly, he is terrified of her and also he is in love with her at the same time. This works because Megan Whalen Turner is brilliant and has already set up a world where there are interesting circumstances between the characters. It takes multiple books to pull this off. And then to unravel it because it is really a problem in their relationship, even after they are happily married. She doesn't take short cuts in the beginning or the middle or the end.
If someone really does turn out to hate you whom you once loved, doesn't that just mean that you were wrong about that person to begin with and that you should be glad that they are out of your life? Your love for them was misguided.
If you hated someone once and then learned to love them later (a la Mr. Darcy in Pride and Prejudice), all this means is that you were wrong. You misinterpreted things terribly and you will have to accept that your judgment is flawed. Usually, your judgment is flawed because of some flaw in yourself. For Lizzy, there are many flaws in her character. She is prejudiced against a wealthy man to begin with. She is proud of her own beauty and she ends up overhearing someone talk about her to someone else. You can't eavesdrop without getting hurt. It's because you're wrong to do it.
I tend to hate romance novels where the characters hate each other to begin with because:
a) the characters are actually disgusting and I hate them both to begin with and I never come to like them because their flaws are so horrible that they should be burned.
b) the characters are so stupid, so gullible, or so unable to understand normal spoken English that they don't deserve a happy ending in the first place.
c) I don't care because it's too much of a cliché and it just doesn't work for me.If you start with a couple hating each other, you've got a strike against you to begin with as a writer in my book and if you don't do something pretty spectacular in the first ten pages of the book I'm not reading any further.
Someone once used Han Solo and Princess Leia as an example of a great couple who hate each other to begin with and then fall in love. Yeah, OK. It's a misdirection because the audience is supposed to believe that Luke and Leia are the right couple until the author wants to twist the ending. I get that. Authors need suspense to keep readers interested. We need to twist things. But I don't know if I believe they hate each other to begin with. That's not the way I would describe it. I would say that the other person brings out the worst in them because of their pride. Maybe that's the same thing to some of you, but I think it's a useful distinction. Also, I probably wouldn't use Han Solo and Princess Leia as my example of the best love ever written.
Now, if you want to look at Irene and Gen in Queen of Attolia, there's an interesting case. Yes, Irene hates Gen in a way. He has everything she doesn't. That kind of hatred works for me. And it's gradually unfolded so that I sympathize with her. Also, Gen hates Irene because she chops off his hand and threatens to kill him. More clearly, he is terrified of her and also he is in love with her at the same time. This works because Megan Whalen Turner is brilliant and has already set up a world where there are interesting circumstances between the characters. It takes multiple books to pull this off. And then to unravel it because it is really a problem in their relationship, even after they are happily married. She doesn't take short cuts in the beginning or the middle or the end.
April 1, 2011
Books Read and Recommended for March 2011
Shipbreaker by Paolo Bacigalupi
Among Others by Jo Walton
Jane by April Lindner
I Don't Want to Kill You by Dan Wells
Ingathering by Zenna Henderson
Incorrigible Children by Maryrose Wood
A Dance for Emilia by Peter S. Beagle
The Last Unicorn by Peter S. Beagle
Tankborn by Karen Sandler
Clarity by Kim Harrington
Henry V by William Shakespeare
The Fury of the Phoenix by Cindy Pon
Bird in a Box by Andrea Pinkney
Among Others by Jo Walton
Jane by April Lindner
I Don't Want to Kill You by Dan Wells
Ingathering by Zenna Henderson
Incorrigible Children by Maryrose Wood
A Dance for Emilia by Peter S. Beagle
The Last Unicorn by Peter S. Beagle
Tankborn by Karen Sandler
Clarity by Kim Harrington
Henry V by William Shakespeare
The Fury of the Phoenix by Cindy Pon
Bird in a Box by Andrea Pinkney
love at first sight--destructive love myth #3
You can't blame this on Austen. Or on the Bronte sisters. I think this may have to go back to Tristan and Isolde with their love potion. Or in some versions, without a love potion. Shakespeare uses it in Romeo and Juliet, but he doesn't take it seriously. Well, he does, but he plays with it, too. He uses all the steam from love at first sight and then shows how that turns out. They may be in love. They may truly be in love. But it doesn't matter because society won't let their love last. I think I might like the Sassy Gay Friend's ending better, however.
The problems with love at first sight? Oh, let me count the ways.
1. All you find out from first sight is whether or not you are physically attracted to someone. OK, yes, it is important to be physically attracted. Yes, there is at least a reciprocity involved here, so that it isn't just about the man's attraction to the woman and her passivity (since, originally, marriage was simply a way to bind a woman to a man who paid her father). But I think we can do better than love at first sight these days.
2. Physical attraction does not equal compatibility. I sometimes read romances where I am seriously thinking about serial killers when I read the love at first sight opening scenes. It creeps me out. What someone seems to be is not what someone is. If you haven't been mistaken by your first impression before, girl, you need to get out more. Yes, sometimes your first impression is right and your subconscious is processing details that your conscious mind can't. But you have time to think this through.
3. I sometimes think that love at first sight is simply code for a woman's sexual feelings which we are not allowed to talk about directly. Do you know what I mean? She is in love, not in lust, so that's all right. She doesn't have to talk about sexual feelings at all. It's pure because this is true love. Yada yada. I don't see any reason that even clean romances can't admit that there is such a thing as sexual attraction. I don't see any reason that in this day and age women should have to disguise how they feel. Even teen women. I'm not saying they should act on it. In fact, I am saying exactly the opposite. Think first, eh? Let's call things by their proper names, though. That way we see them more clearly.
4. How superficial can you get? I remember I had an argument with my now husband, then boyfriend about this in college. He claimed that no one would marry someone they weren't physically attracted to. I argued that physical attraction was not the most important thing on my list. This is one of the reasons that I find book heroes very "hot." There is no physical attraction to them, no matter how careful the physical description of them might be. I am attracted to who I imagine they are through their words and actions. I think this is true in real life. I might be willing to admit some variation in this between women and between women and men. But in fifty years, who do you want? The nice guy or the one who looked great way back when?
5. I don't like to believe that our lives are solely determined by our biology. I may be wrong on this ultimately, but it's a fantasy that I think is helpful in living life. Pheromones may be the real reason we end up with someone, but surely whether we stay with that person is all about choice. You choose to keep working at it. You choose to keep falling back in love when you could get out and fall in love with someone else. (By the way, this makes me want to talk about a whole genre of fiction I think we need in America today--the married romance, stories about couples who are about to break apart and then fall back in love. But that is another post.)
6. It's about power, isn't it? Getting the hottest guy makes a girl more powerful than her rivals, in high school and in many parts of life. I think that may be a significant part of the reason that this myth exists. There's this element of looking over your shoulder to make sure the other girls are watching to see who you snagged. It gives you status, and status only matters when you are above someone else. So it's not about the love at first sight guy at all. It's about the other girls who want him as much as you do.
The problems with love at first sight? Oh, let me count the ways.
1. All you find out from first sight is whether or not you are physically attracted to someone. OK, yes, it is important to be physically attracted. Yes, there is at least a reciprocity involved here, so that it isn't just about the man's attraction to the woman and her passivity (since, originally, marriage was simply a way to bind a woman to a man who paid her father). But I think we can do better than love at first sight these days.
2. Physical attraction does not equal compatibility. I sometimes read romances where I am seriously thinking about serial killers when I read the love at first sight opening scenes. It creeps me out. What someone seems to be is not what someone is. If you haven't been mistaken by your first impression before, girl, you need to get out more. Yes, sometimes your first impression is right and your subconscious is processing details that your conscious mind can't. But you have time to think this through.
3. I sometimes think that love at first sight is simply code for a woman's sexual feelings which we are not allowed to talk about directly. Do you know what I mean? She is in love, not in lust, so that's all right. She doesn't have to talk about sexual feelings at all. It's pure because this is true love. Yada yada. I don't see any reason that even clean romances can't admit that there is such a thing as sexual attraction. I don't see any reason that in this day and age women should have to disguise how they feel. Even teen women. I'm not saying they should act on it. In fact, I am saying exactly the opposite. Think first, eh? Let's call things by their proper names, though. That way we see them more clearly.
4. How superficial can you get? I remember I had an argument with my now husband, then boyfriend about this in college. He claimed that no one would marry someone they weren't physically attracted to. I argued that physical attraction was not the most important thing on my list. This is one of the reasons that I find book heroes very "hot." There is no physical attraction to them, no matter how careful the physical description of them might be. I am attracted to who I imagine they are through their words and actions. I think this is true in real life. I might be willing to admit some variation in this between women and between women and men. But in fifty years, who do you want? The nice guy or the one who looked great way back when?
5. I don't like to believe that our lives are solely determined by our biology. I may be wrong on this ultimately, but it's a fantasy that I think is helpful in living life. Pheromones may be the real reason we end up with someone, but surely whether we stay with that person is all about choice. You choose to keep working at it. You choose to keep falling back in love when you could get out and fall in love with someone else. (By the way, this makes me want to talk about a whole genre of fiction I think we need in America today--the married romance, stories about couples who are about to break apart and then fall back in love. But that is another post.)
6. It's about power, isn't it? Getting the hottest guy makes a girl more powerful than her rivals, in high school and in many parts of life. I think that may be a significant part of the reason that this myth exists. There's this element of looking over your shoulder to make sure the other girls are watching to see who you snagged. It gives you status, and status only matters when you are above someone else. So it's not about the love at first sight guy at all. It's about the other girls who want him as much as you do.
March 31, 2011
the big wedding--destructive love myth #2
So many things I hate about this. How to choose?
I hate the focus on a single day as if what happened on that day means anything more than what happens on any other day. I find myself sympathizing with people who don't bother with marriage at all because it seems so silly.
I hate the focus on appearances, on the fancy dress, on the perfect shoes, on getting just the right flowers, and the food all coming out perfect. I suppose I have a problem with femininity in general. I am not really sure what it means to be a woman, but I don't want it to mean that I care about how I look above all things, about attention being on me, and about other people doing what I tell them to do simply because I am the bride.
I hate the cost of a wedding. Looking at the financial realities of a new, married couple, there is nothing that is stupider than a lavish wedding ceremony. I think I read somewhere (a while ago) that the average couple pays $10,000 for a wedding. That's the average couple, not counting in all those who go the cheap route. That means a lot of people are paying a lot more than that. But even taking that average, that could be a down payment on a house (at least in Utah). That's more than I paid for any of my cars. Wouldn't either of those two be more useful ways to spend money on a new couple, if the parents are paying or for themselves, if they are?
I hate the way that the big day makes girls forget about the rest of the relationship. Girls are sometimes so eager to get married that they obsess over the big day instead of thinking things through carefully. They end up married to the wrong guy, and they have all these great pictures that they will then have to hide.
I hate all the strange rules about the wedding that are from a millenia ago. The groom's parents pay for this. The bride's parents pay for this. The wedding party pays individually for this. The invitations have to be phrased this way. The photos have to be taken in this order to show deference properly to each member of the wedding party.
I find this a destructive myth about love because it's not about love at all. It seems to be a way for women to secretly get the power they crave in a world or a relationship that gives them no power. But it's a trick. It's not a way to get power. It's one day. And it's really about larger power struggles, as any woman who has been through the planning of a wedding knows. You throw fits sometimes because your hopes of having what you want never happen.
When I got married, my parents gave me a check for $1,000 (this was in 1990) and pretty much told me I could do what I wanted with it and then waited for the invitations. OK, it wasn't that simple. I wish it were, and I hope to make my kids' weddings as much like the ideal of that check as I can. Give a token amount of money, then retreat and allow kids to choose for themselves. This is my ideal of parenting, actually. My ideal of all relationships. Make the power open. Then cut the strings.
I hate the focus on a single day as if what happened on that day means anything more than what happens on any other day. I find myself sympathizing with people who don't bother with marriage at all because it seems so silly.
I hate the focus on appearances, on the fancy dress, on the perfect shoes, on getting just the right flowers, and the food all coming out perfect. I suppose I have a problem with femininity in general. I am not really sure what it means to be a woman, but I don't want it to mean that I care about how I look above all things, about attention being on me, and about other people doing what I tell them to do simply because I am the bride.
I hate the cost of a wedding. Looking at the financial realities of a new, married couple, there is nothing that is stupider than a lavish wedding ceremony. I think I read somewhere (a while ago) that the average couple pays $10,000 for a wedding. That's the average couple, not counting in all those who go the cheap route. That means a lot of people are paying a lot more than that. But even taking that average, that could be a down payment on a house (at least in Utah). That's more than I paid for any of my cars. Wouldn't either of those two be more useful ways to spend money on a new couple, if the parents are paying or for themselves, if they are?
I hate the way that the big day makes girls forget about the rest of the relationship. Girls are sometimes so eager to get married that they obsess over the big day instead of thinking things through carefully. They end up married to the wrong guy, and they have all these great pictures that they will then have to hide.
I hate all the strange rules about the wedding that are from a millenia ago. The groom's parents pay for this. The bride's parents pay for this. The wedding party pays individually for this. The invitations have to be phrased this way. The photos have to be taken in this order to show deference properly to each member of the wedding party.
I find this a destructive myth about love because it's not about love at all. It seems to be a way for women to secretly get the power they crave in a world or a relationship that gives them no power. But it's a trick. It's not a way to get power. It's one day. And it's really about larger power struggles, as any woman who has been through the planning of a wedding knows. You throw fits sometimes because your hopes of having what you want never happen.
When I got married, my parents gave me a check for $1,000 (this was in 1990) and pretty much told me I could do what I wanted with it and then waited for the invitations. OK, it wasn't that simple. I wish it were, and I hope to make my kids' weddings as much like the ideal of that check as I can. Give a token amount of money, then retreat and allow kids to choose for themselves. This is my ideal of parenting, actually. My ideal of all relationships. Make the power open. Then cut the strings.
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.
