Mette Ivie Harrison's Blog, page 96
February 22, 2011
What is YA?
I think the panel on what is and isn't allowed on YA ended up being more about what makes a YA novel YA. Some thoughts:
YA usually has a YA protagonist (13-19), but not always.
YA is usually shorter than adult fiction (60-80k, though fantasy can run longer).
YA is usually more quickly paced, with more dialog, less exposition, and fewer subplots.
YA tends to be in first person, or very close third, and it tends to have a single viewpoint character, sometimes two. But not the sprawling cast of thousands that adult fantasy has moved to.
YA has plot. Adult fiction can sometimes get away without plot. I don't think YA can.
YA tends to have a more hopeful outlook on life. It may seem dark in comparison to MG, and it is. But it is still not as dark as adult in the same genre. (This may lead to more happy endings. This may also be the reason that adults are moving to YA, though the above are also factors.)
YA has VOICE. This may be the single most important feature that you need to have as a writer of YA. It also may be the most impossible thing to learn. I'm not convinced of that, since I tend to believe a lot of what we call talent is actually hard work in disguise. But there is something to it. You can have a sassy, snarky voice, a sarcastic or lushly descriptive voice. Your voice can be uncertain or angry. But you need to establish a voice in sentence one and you need to keep it going.
YA has a community. I didn't talk about this at the panel, but I think it's true. YA writers, like sff writers, have tightly knit communities. They are often speaking in conversation with each other. Even if they don't know each other personally, they have read each other's work. I am not sure that this happens in other writing communities.
YA is about becoming. There is no ennui. I think this is an adult sensibility sometimes applied to YA, but I don't think it works. There is a newness and a kind of discovery along the way. Everything is happening for the first time. Blase doesn't work here.
YA usually has a YA protagonist (13-19), but not always.
YA is usually shorter than adult fiction (60-80k, though fantasy can run longer).
YA is usually more quickly paced, with more dialog, less exposition, and fewer subplots.
YA tends to be in first person, or very close third, and it tends to have a single viewpoint character, sometimes two. But not the sprawling cast of thousands that adult fantasy has moved to.
YA has plot. Adult fiction can sometimes get away without plot. I don't think YA can.
YA tends to have a more hopeful outlook on life. It may seem dark in comparison to MG, and it is. But it is still not as dark as adult in the same genre. (This may lead to more happy endings. This may also be the reason that adults are moving to YA, though the above are also factors.)
YA has VOICE. This may be the single most important feature that you need to have as a writer of YA. It also may be the most impossible thing to learn. I'm not convinced of that, since I tend to believe a lot of what we call talent is actually hard work in disguise. But there is something to it. You can have a sassy, snarky voice, a sarcastic or lushly descriptive voice. Your voice can be uncertain or angry. But you need to establish a voice in sentence one and you need to keep it going.
YA has a community. I didn't talk about this at the panel, but I think it's true. YA writers, like sff writers, have tightly knit communities. They are often speaking in conversation with each other. Even if they don't know each other personally, they have read each other's work. I am not sure that this happens in other writing communities.
YA is about becoming. There is no ennui. I think this is an adult sensibility sometimes applied to YA, but I don't think it works. There is a newness and a kind of discovery along the way. Everything is happening for the first time. Blase doesn't work here.
February 21, 2011
physical and psychological romance
At LTUE this weekend, I was on a romance panel. I love to talk about romance, but I must admit that I tend not to get along with romance writers on panels. As soon as I hear the phrase, "creating obstacles to keep them apart" I start to go a little crazy. OK, a lot crazy. I don't like it when writers create obstacles. The obstacles should already be there. Yes, you have to set them up, but they have to be inherent to the situation, the world, and to the characters. Half the time romance works better when it feels to the reader, at least, like the couple (and the writer) is working together against the obstacles. I also don't love it when every single romance has to have the characters hate each other from the beginning. Just because it works in Pride and Prejudice doesn't mean it works for every romance.
*Takes deep breath*
One of the interesting discussions that came out of this panel (in my head, if it wasn't spoken) was the love/lust of romance. I think The Princess and the Hound is largely a psychological romance. Because of the magical obstacles that are inherent to that romance, there's not much chance for physical attraction between the hero and the heroine. They fall in love with each other's characters, pasts, minds, and souls. I love that kind of romance. I think that's the kind of romance in The Queen of Attolia and Shards of Honor and a lot of my favorites that I reread again and again.
However, there is certainly a physical attraction component in the real world of romance, and in the teen world that is no exception. At LTUE, when showing the cover of Tris and Izzie, I pointed out several times how hot the guy is and that I felt that a guy shown from the back naked from the waist up can't be a bad thing. I don't know if this was the wrong thing to say in this venue (on BYU's campus) but I was asked a few times by potential buyers if the book was, well, "dirty."
No. As in my other romances, there is a kiss and that's about all that is ever described between Tris and Izzie.
However, there is a lot of physical attraction. Since it's Izzie's story, she is the one who is describing how hot she finds the two male leads, and it is very physical. I can't imagine people who might be bothered by a girl going weak-kneed at the thought of a guy's lips, abs, butt, etc, but I suppose there could be. There are many things not dreamt of in my philosophy that turn out to be real. But the discussion made me wonder about why some romances are very physical and others simply aren't. And both can work for me. I like a soul connection in all romances, of course. I think you can't do without that and just go for the physical. But nothing wrong with a physical connection.
Thanks to all who were at LTUE, by the way. I had a grand time. I will be posting in the next week some of the ideas that were discussed on the other two panels, families in YA, and what is YA. I was also on panels on sequels and bad/good advice on writing.
*Takes deep breath*
One of the interesting discussions that came out of this panel (in my head, if it wasn't spoken) was the love/lust of romance. I think The Princess and the Hound is largely a psychological romance. Because of the magical obstacles that are inherent to that romance, there's not much chance for physical attraction between the hero and the heroine. They fall in love with each other's characters, pasts, minds, and souls. I love that kind of romance. I think that's the kind of romance in The Queen of Attolia and Shards of Honor and a lot of my favorites that I reread again and again.
However, there is certainly a physical attraction component in the real world of romance, and in the teen world that is no exception. At LTUE, when showing the cover of Tris and Izzie, I pointed out several times how hot the guy is and that I felt that a guy shown from the back naked from the waist up can't be a bad thing. I don't know if this was the wrong thing to say in this venue (on BYU's campus) but I was asked a few times by potential buyers if the book was, well, "dirty."
No. As in my other romances, there is a kiss and that's about all that is ever described between Tris and Izzie.
However, there is a lot of physical attraction. Since it's Izzie's story, she is the one who is describing how hot she finds the two male leads, and it is very physical. I can't imagine people who might be bothered by a girl going weak-kneed at the thought of a guy's lips, abs, butt, etc, but I suppose there could be. There are many things not dreamt of in my philosophy that turn out to be real. But the discussion made me wonder about why some romances are very physical and others simply aren't. And both can work for me. I like a soul connection in all romances, of course. I think you can't do without that and just go for the physical. But nothing wrong with a physical connection.
Thanks to all who were at LTUE, by the way. I had a grand time. I will be posting in the next week some of the ideas that were discussed on the other two panels, families in YA, and what is YA. I was also on panels on sequels and bad/good advice on writing.
February 18, 2011
power and love
When I was a teen, the romances I was reading were mostly from the 70s and 80s. There was a difference between the power dynamic in the two, but you might be surprised to realize that it wasn't that big of a difference. In the 70s, the women tended to be secretaries or teachers. Sometimes actresses. Rarely the jobs that we think of as progressive for women today. In the 80s, women in romance novels were teachers, business women, cake shop owners, flower shop owners, writers, a step up, but they always had jobs that paid less than the men they ended up marrying.
In the 90s, which was the last time I really read the category romance at all, women might be college professors or CEOs or directors. This was the first time I started to see romance story lines in which the women had more power than the men, in terms of wealth and position. In the story that I tried to defend formally as a piece of literature in college, the man was the woman's babysitter while she went to work at a high-powered job. And it was never a part of their relationship dynamic that he was going to get a better job and she was going to quit.
I have to say up front that I don't mean for this to be a discussion of whether or not women should stay home with their own children. *I* chose to be a stay at home mother, and am still a stay at home mother in any visible way. All the work I do is at home, and I juggle it around my kids' lives, but I do that juggling with help from a husband who also juggles his life around my needs as a professional writer.
What I am interested in is the stereotype in romance of male power. And the reversed stereotype of female power, which turns out to look a lot the same. My dissertation was about gender reversal and about depictions of utopia in which gender reversals were erased. Because is it any utopia if all you're doing is turning things upside down and making men oppressed and women free? You need a new paradigm besides master-slave. Does that make any sense? Sorry for the grad school gibberish.
I haven't read category romance in a long time, but I occasionally still try to read romance recommended by friends. The problem that I have with most of it is the continued power/dominance theme in the plot line. It disturbs me when the relationship is forced because of power on one side. It just doesn't feel romantic to me if there is any hint of money being used to start things off, or if you're forced into faking things because you're afraid your reputation is ruined. I will admit that the reverse power dynamic feels better to me. Even if it is just the same thing in reverse. Queen of Attolia, for example, works this way.
Shards of Honor works because the power dynamic is played with and openly acknowledged. Everyone thinks Cordelia has been brain washed by this powerful man, so the reader has to deal with that as a possibility from the beginning. Cordelia does, too. The power dynamic, once seen clearly, changes. And really, Cordelia ends up with a lot of unusual power in this male dominated world. Not just because they see her as an equal soldier, either. She finds her own kind of power, male and female. And in no sense does anyone think this is a utopia.
The dominance cliche is one of the most common parts of contemporary romance. I am not sure why it persists except that perhaps it is a reflection of what is out in the real world still. Or perhaps there is some secret need, even if it's unconscious, for the powerful man.
In the 90s, which was the last time I really read the category romance at all, women might be college professors or CEOs or directors. This was the first time I started to see romance story lines in which the women had more power than the men, in terms of wealth and position. In the story that I tried to defend formally as a piece of literature in college, the man was the woman's babysitter while she went to work at a high-powered job. And it was never a part of their relationship dynamic that he was going to get a better job and she was going to quit.
I have to say up front that I don't mean for this to be a discussion of whether or not women should stay home with their own children. *I* chose to be a stay at home mother, and am still a stay at home mother in any visible way. All the work I do is at home, and I juggle it around my kids' lives, but I do that juggling with help from a husband who also juggles his life around my needs as a professional writer.
What I am interested in is the stereotype in romance of male power. And the reversed stereotype of female power, which turns out to look a lot the same. My dissertation was about gender reversal and about depictions of utopia in which gender reversals were erased. Because is it any utopia if all you're doing is turning things upside down and making men oppressed and women free? You need a new paradigm besides master-slave. Does that make any sense? Sorry for the grad school gibberish.
I haven't read category romance in a long time, but I occasionally still try to read romance recommended by friends. The problem that I have with most of it is the continued power/dominance theme in the plot line. It disturbs me when the relationship is forced because of power on one side. It just doesn't feel romantic to me if there is any hint of money being used to start things off, or if you're forced into faking things because you're afraid your reputation is ruined. I will admit that the reverse power dynamic feels better to me. Even if it is just the same thing in reverse. Queen of Attolia, for example, works this way.
Shards of Honor works because the power dynamic is played with and openly acknowledged. Everyone thinks Cordelia has been brain washed by this powerful man, so the reader has to deal with that as a possibility from the beginning. Cordelia does, too. The power dynamic, once seen clearly, changes. And really, Cordelia ends up with a lot of unusual power in this male dominated world. Not just because they see her as an equal soldier, either. She finds her own kind of power, male and female. And in no sense does anyone think this is a utopia.
The dominance cliche is one of the most common parts of contemporary romance. I am not sure why it persists except that perhaps it is a reflection of what is out in the real world still. Or perhaps there is some secret need, even if it's unconscious, for the powerful man.
literary couple mashups
Oh, I had so much fun doing the Valentine's posts, I decided to do some more. The ideas just kept coming. So, some fun literary matchup mashups:
1. Mr. Rochester and Elizabeth Bennet
I'm thinking that she would find the wife in the attic a little earlier.
2. Miles Vorkosigan and Irene, Queen of Attolia
Come on, who doesn't want to see that one? There'd be body parts all over the place.
3. Hamlet and Juliet
Who kills whom first?
4. Claire from Outlander and Max de Winter from Rebecca
Someone is going to be cured.
5. Heathcliff and Katsa (from Graceling)
6. Rhett Butler and Bella
He might say "I don't give a damn" a lot earlier.
1. Mr. Rochester and Elizabeth Bennet
I'm thinking that she would find the wife in the attic a little earlier.
2. Miles Vorkosigan and Irene, Queen of Attolia
Come on, who doesn't want to see that one? There'd be body parts all over the place.
3. Hamlet and Juliet
Who kills whom first?
4. Claire from Outlander and Max de Winter from Rebecca
Someone is going to be cured.
5. Heathcliff and Katsa (from Graceling)
6. Rhett Butler and Bella
He might say "I don't give a damn" a lot earlier.
February 17, 2011
Ltue
I will be at LTUE at BYU tomorrow Friday and Saturday. Come and see me!
February 16, 2011
what love looks like
My FIL wrote to point out that I hadn't listed "abs" or "biceps" on my list of what is hot in a male hero. He also said he didn't know what "flexible conviction" looked like. I tried to explain that flexible conviction is someone who has strong opinions, but can also admit he is wrong. It doesn't "look" very sexy, said FIL. But it is. It is!
Appearance is one of the problem of romance novels. On the one hand, they are often obsesses with the physical. You get constant descriptions of the hero's eyes (his soul?), his hulking physical presence (safety?), his husky voice (virility?). You know the cliches. His square jaw. His hooded eyes. His thick lips. His strong throat. His wide hands. His big feet.
The heroine, on the other hand, tends to be described as dainty (feminine?), petite (non-threatening?), feisty (so the romance won't be easy), haunted (needs to be rescued). She is always beautiful, have you noticed this? I never read a romance novel where the heroine was ugly. Oh, she might think she is, but it's always the swan thing. The hero can actually sometimes be described as ugly (Think Heathcliff or Mr. Rochester). Is this partly because men are so visual? I don't know. Men don't read romance novels nearly as much as women do.
There are other matters of appearance in romance novels. Have you noticed? The excessive attention given to clothing details. Regency novels are the most glaringly obvious because the details are so different from ours and research has to be done. But all romance novels describe color and cut. In contrast, fantasy novels without a strong romance element can sometimes go through a whole novel without once describing anyone's clothing.
Setting details tend to be rich in romance novels, as well. Buildings are described in loving ecstasy. And the interiors with furniture, wall decorations, paintings, and floors. If women are less visual than men, then why so much about appearance? Jane Austen doesn't describe such things in great detail. Go back and look through her novels. You'll see how little is said up front, how much implied. The Brontes don't do it, either. It's something that has happened to romance novels in the last century.
What is ironic about this is that romance is so much a genre of having appearance turned on its head. The heroine falls in love with the hero who doesn't look like a hero to her at first. He appears bad, but he's not. He appears not to love her, but he does. She might appear to be in a compromising situation, but it's not true. He might appear to rescue her, but she actually rescues him.
So why so much about the appearance if the message is that appearance can't be trusted? I think this is a schizophrenia in romance novels, and perhaps in readers of romance novels. I don't know what to make of it. I will say that one thing I have found interesting in the marketing of my own novels is the word "lush." My writing is lush? My description of detail in setting and appearance is, in my own judgment, rather sparse. If there is any lushness in my writing, it is lush in character and emotion. But I may be seeing my writing incorrectly, or comparing it to the wrong thing.
Happy Valentine's Day #7
Appearance is one of the problem of romance novels. On the one hand, they are often obsesses with the physical. You get constant descriptions of the hero's eyes (his soul?), his hulking physical presence (safety?), his husky voice (virility?). You know the cliches. His square jaw. His hooded eyes. His thick lips. His strong throat. His wide hands. His big feet.
The heroine, on the other hand, tends to be described as dainty (feminine?), petite (non-threatening?), feisty (so the romance won't be easy), haunted (needs to be rescued). She is always beautiful, have you noticed this? I never read a romance novel where the heroine was ugly. Oh, she might think she is, but it's always the swan thing. The hero can actually sometimes be described as ugly (Think Heathcliff or Mr. Rochester). Is this partly because men are so visual? I don't know. Men don't read romance novels nearly as much as women do.
There are other matters of appearance in romance novels. Have you noticed? The excessive attention given to clothing details. Regency novels are the most glaringly obvious because the details are so different from ours and research has to be done. But all romance novels describe color and cut. In contrast, fantasy novels without a strong romance element can sometimes go through a whole novel without once describing anyone's clothing.
Setting details tend to be rich in romance novels, as well. Buildings are described in loving ecstasy. And the interiors with furniture, wall decorations, paintings, and floors. If women are less visual than men, then why so much about appearance? Jane Austen doesn't describe such things in great detail. Go back and look through her novels. You'll see how little is said up front, how much implied. The Brontes don't do it, either. It's something that has happened to romance novels in the last century.
What is ironic about this is that romance is so much a genre of having appearance turned on its head. The heroine falls in love with the hero who doesn't look like a hero to her at first. He appears bad, but he's not. He appears not to love her, but he does. She might appear to be in a compromising situation, but it's not true. He might appear to rescue her, but she actually rescues him.
So why so much about the appearance if the message is that appearance can't be trusted? I think this is a schizophrenia in romance novels, and perhaps in readers of romance novels. I don't know what to make of it. I will say that one thing I have found interesting in the marketing of my own novels is the word "lush." My writing is lush? My description of detail in setting and appearance is, in my own judgment, rather sparse. If there is any lushness in my writing, it is lush in character and emotion. But I may be seeing my writing incorrectly, or comparing it to the wrong thing.
Happy Valentine's Day #7
February 15, 2011
love triangles
I'm sure I've written about love triangles before. Too bad. You get to hear me rant again. It's one of my favorite top twenty rants.
I hate love triangles. Why? A variety of reasons:
1. I want to throw hit both guys because they are such idiots. Why would they let a girl keep them on a string like that?
2. Why does the nice guy always finish last? Because this is a fantasy, I know. It's not real life, I hope. Please! Girls really pick the nice guy in real life, don't they? I know I did.
3. Why is the dangerous bad boy attractive at all? Blech! Run away! Run away! Yes, I like Spike. As a character, he is fascinating. And Angel, too. As a mate, he would creep me out.
4. Why aren't there any other choices? Just two polar opposites? Can't you find any other guys interested in you? If something so big is keeping you apart, then move on. (See how that eternal love thing becomes a trap?)
5. Why can't the girl decide? I mean, sure, it's a hard choice to pick someone for the rest of your life, but seriously? For book after book, you're still trying to decide? I suppose if it were shoes, I would understand. I can't decide with shoes. And then I end up with both of them, and that's not allowed in romance, is it?
6. If you think one of them is dead, you'll just move on to the other one? And he will let you? Because second choice isn't so bad? You still have to choose. And while you are choosing, you don't get any benefits. Because then you won't choose as quickly or as clearly.
7. If I like both guys (which is rare), I am always trying to set them up in my head with characters from my books. This does not happen very often, however.
8. Mostly, I spend my time thinking of ways to kill the girl in the middle of the love triangle. She isn't usually very hard to kill, because she needs rescuing so often. And also, she is an idiot.
9. I used to watch soap operas. I admit it. General Hospital and All My Children were secret vices of mine all through college. I get that the first part of love is supposed to be more dramatic. But is it really? Life throws plenty of stuff at us. We don't have to make up the drama.
10. If you can't decide, you are too young to be dating in the first place. Wait a few years and try again. You will be surprised at how different the whole dating scene looks, and how much more easily you will be able to choose which one.
Happy Valentine's Day #6
I hate love triangles. Why? A variety of reasons:
1. I want to throw hit both guys because they are such idiots. Why would they let a girl keep them on a string like that?
2. Why does the nice guy always finish last? Because this is a fantasy, I know. It's not real life, I hope. Please! Girls really pick the nice guy in real life, don't they? I know I did.
3. Why is the dangerous bad boy attractive at all? Blech! Run away! Run away! Yes, I like Spike. As a character, he is fascinating. And Angel, too. As a mate, he would creep me out.
4. Why aren't there any other choices? Just two polar opposites? Can't you find any other guys interested in you? If something so big is keeping you apart, then move on. (See how that eternal love thing becomes a trap?)
5. Why can't the girl decide? I mean, sure, it's a hard choice to pick someone for the rest of your life, but seriously? For book after book, you're still trying to decide? I suppose if it were shoes, I would understand. I can't decide with shoes. And then I end up with both of them, and that's not allowed in romance, is it?
6. If you think one of them is dead, you'll just move on to the other one? And he will let you? Because second choice isn't so bad? You still have to choose. And while you are choosing, you don't get any benefits. Because then you won't choose as quickly or as clearly.
7. If I like both guys (which is rare), I am always trying to set them up in my head with characters from my books. This does not happen very often, however.
8. Mostly, I spend my time thinking of ways to kill the girl in the middle of the love triangle. She isn't usually very hard to kill, because she needs rescuing so often. And also, she is an idiot.
9. I used to watch soap operas. I admit it. General Hospital and All My Children were secret vices of mine all through college. I get that the first part of love is supposed to be more dramatic. But is it really? Life throws plenty of stuff at us. We don't have to make up the drama.
10. If you can't decide, you are too young to be dating in the first place. Wait a few years and try again. You will be surprised at how different the whole dating scene looks, and how much more easily you will be able to choose which one.
Happy Valentine's Day #6
February 14, 2011
what is hot
This is my opinion, but you will notice that it effects both what books I love and the books that I write. You can argue with me about whether or not I know what is sexy in a heroine for a male reader.
Heroes are hot when they are:
1. respectful/attentive
2. readers and writers (poetry is always hot)
3. witty conversationalists
4. deeply good
5. flexible, but with conviction
6. daring/courageous (plenty of action)
7. have a sense of humor (though I tend to prefer a quirky one)
8. notice beauty in ordinary things
9. kind to small children
Heroines are hot when they are:
1. elusive
2. curvaceous
3. Not overly concerned with appearance
4. happy
5. ambitious
6. aggressive in pursuit of what they want
7. clear and open in communication (not manipulative)
8. not helpless
What do you find sexy in your heroes and heroines?
Happy Valentine's Day #5
Heroes are hot when they are:
1. respectful/attentive
2. readers and writers (poetry is always hot)
3. witty conversationalists
4. deeply good
5. flexible, but with conviction
6. daring/courageous (plenty of action)
7. have a sense of humor (though I tend to prefer a quirky one)
8. notice beauty in ordinary things
9. kind to small children
Heroines are hot when they are:
1. elusive
2. curvaceous
3. Not overly concerned with appearance
4. happy
5. ambitious
6. aggressive in pursuit of what they want
7. clear and open in communication (not manipulative)
8. not helpless
What do you find sexy in your heroes and heroines?
Happy Valentine's Day #5
February 13, 2011
First Meetings
In the same way that Sherlock Holmes has become not just a classic, but a genre-inventing mega-classic, Pride and Prejudice is a genre-inventing mega-classic. The romance novels that have followed in the last two centuries follow the structure of Pride and Prejudice so carefully that it is a cliche. No other romantic novel has had this same power in terms of literature. Not Emma. Not my beloved Persuasion. Not Sense and Sensibility. Certainly not Northanger Abbey or Mansfield Park. I suppose you could argue that Wuthering Heights has spawned the paranormal/vampire romance genre. But if so, it would be a twisted genealogy. And Jane Eyre goes in and out with governness books of different kinds. But I think Pride and Prejudice is often still behind those.
The first meeting is the keystone of this genre. Think how often you groan when two romantic leads in a movie or a book meet each other and hate each other at first. It is done so often because it works. The funny repartee. (OK, yes, that owes something to Much Ado About Nothing and The Taming of the Shrew, if you want to go back further, but it's not the same first meeting kind of thing.) You know that the two leads are going to hate each other at first. The trick isn't to get out of the convention as a writer of romance, but to make it your own, to breathe fresh air into it somehow. I think we don't watch romantic movies or read romances because we want to avoid that cliche. We love it. We just want it to be done well--again. And then we want to see how it plays out in the rest of the novel. How is the writer going to get them to fall in love? Are we going to believe it?
I'm thinking of Notting Hill. First meeting: Hugh Grant spills coffee on Julia Roberts. He acts like an idiot. It seems to prove that they will never be able to have a real relationship because they are so different. The Runaway Bride--Richard Gere writes a horrible, nasty news column about Julia Roberts and then ends up having to get on her good side. First meeting of Cordelia and Aral? He shoots her lieutenant. How is he going to recover from that? Yet he does. First meeting in The Actor and the Housewife? Becky makes a fool of herself and is pregnant to boot. They are utter mistmatches. (OK, you might argue that doesn't as a romance, but it certainly is playing with the conventions). First meeting of Miles and Ekaterin in Komarr-she is married to someone else. How is that going to work? And what about Lancelot and Guinevere in Nancy McKenzie's Queen of Camelot--of course they have to hate each other. First meeting in Franny Billingsley's Folk Keeper? Does he know she is a boy or not?
And in my own The Princess and the Hound, the first meeting between George and Beatrice is quite cold. It seems difficult to imagine anyone could fall in love with that princess. But George does, and I think part of the strength in the story is that first meeting that goes badly. His expectations are all ruined, and he has to find out slowly as the reader does, what the reasons for her cold meeting of him are. Beauty and the Beast with the beast a woman? You could also say it's Pride and Prejudice with the roles reversed. She is Mr. Darcy.
I hope that I can do the same thing well in Tris and Izzie. In the original, Tristan does not make a good impression on Isolde. He kills her uncle and then lies to her about his name (because she would kill him otherwise). Yet they take the potion together and there are some versions in which she knows what she is doing.
Happy Valentine's Day #4
The first meeting is the keystone of this genre. Think how often you groan when two romantic leads in a movie or a book meet each other and hate each other at first. It is done so often because it works. The funny repartee. (OK, yes, that owes something to Much Ado About Nothing and The Taming of the Shrew, if you want to go back further, but it's not the same first meeting kind of thing.) You know that the two leads are going to hate each other at first. The trick isn't to get out of the convention as a writer of romance, but to make it your own, to breathe fresh air into it somehow. I think we don't watch romantic movies or read romances because we want to avoid that cliche. We love it. We just want it to be done well--again. And then we want to see how it plays out in the rest of the novel. How is the writer going to get them to fall in love? Are we going to believe it?
I'm thinking of Notting Hill. First meeting: Hugh Grant spills coffee on Julia Roberts. He acts like an idiot. It seems to prove that they will never be able to have a real relationship because they are so different. The Runaway Bride--Richard Gere writes a horrible, nasty news column about Julia Roberts and then ends up having to get on her good side. First meeting of Cordelia and Aral? He shoots her lieutenant. How is he going to recover from that? Yet he does. First meeting in The Actor and the Housewife? Becky makes a fool of herself and is pregnant to boot. They are utter mistmatches. (OK, you might argue that doesn't as a romance, but it certainly is playing with the conventions). First meeting of Miles and Ekaterin in Komarr-she is married to someone else. How is that going to work? And what about Lancelot and Guinevere in Nancy McKenzie's Queen of Camelot--of course they have to hate each other. First meeting in Franny Billingsley's Folk Keeper? Does he know she is a boy or not?
And in my own The Princess and the Hound, the first meeting between George and Beatrice is quite cold. It seems difficult to imagine anyone could fall in love with that princess. But George does, and I think part of the strength in the story is that first meeting that goes badly. His expectations are all ruined, and he has to find out slowly as the reader does, what the reasons for her cold meeting of him are. Beauty and the Beast with the beast a woman? You could also say it's Pride and Prejudice with the roles reversed. She is Mr. Darcy.
I hope that I can do the same thing well in Tris and Izzie. In the original, Tristan does not make a good impression on Isolde. He kills her uncle and then lies to her about his name (because she would kill him otherwise). Yet they take the potion together and there are some versions in which she knows what she is doing.
Happy Valentine's Day #4
The Mistake
The mistake is an important element of almost every romance. Sometimes it is a misunderstanding. Sometimes it is something more serious. Sometimes the mistake is only on one side. Sometimes both parties make a different mistake. Acknowledging and then making up for the mistake is a final step toward resolution of the romance.
I had a discussion with a friend (Holly Black) about what kinds of mistake we liked in our romances. I think I remember that we agreed that the misunderstanding rarely worked, largely because it isn't a very important mistake and also because it feels like the longer it persists, the stupider the characters are being, as if the author is simply manipulating the romance the make it last the appropriate number of pages.
Initially, I argued that I didn't like mistakes that are too grievous, and I especially didn't like mistakes that involved violence. This seemed pretty obvious. What kind of a romance is it when the guy hits the woman around? Or is it any better if the woman is the one physically hurting the man? These are the kinds of stereotypes in relationships that drive me crazy. The metaphor of romance is really important for me. I don't like metaphors about weak women or about domination.
However, Holly pointed out the rather obvious fact that I loved the Queen of Attolia. The mistake in that novel, on Irene's side, is that she cuts off the thief's (Gen's) hand. This is a pretty gruesome and long-lasting mistake. A lot of the book happens with the two separate from each other after the mistake, and Gen is recovering. In fact, he is terrified of Irene and of seeing her again, worried that she will carry out her other threat, which is to cut out his eyes and tongue before she kills him. The reader can't possibly doubt, after she has cut off the thief's hand (or rather ordered it), that she is serious. She is a queen, and she is an angry queen. We understand through stories about her past what has made her what she is. We sympathize, but we don't want Gen to go back.
So why is it that this romance works for me? Well, for one thing, it isn't falling back on stereotypes, and of course, I always like romance that is fresh. But the mistake is taken very, very seriously. Nothing is glossed over. The problems physically and psychologically for Gen are real. It is hard for us to love Irene, and harder still for us as readers to believe that Gen does. Turner makes us believe step by step.
The pay off for a truly good mistake is that the reader is even more invested in the success of the relationship than otherwise. It feels more real. And the contrast between the horrible mistake and the happy ending is even more poignant. I don't think you ever fall in love with Mr. Darcy unless you first truly hate him. I think you also have to grieve on the other side that Elizabeth has been so blind, and you feel sick at her misjudgment of Darcy. (I personally like it when both sides have something to learn.) Mr. Knightley's setting down of Emma is one of my favorite parts of the book. I read it over and over. My only problem with it is that there is no reciprocal mistake on his part. I have the same problem with Mansfield Park, because I feel like the romance is a little unbalanced. And Jane Eyre. In Wuthering Heights, everyone is equally stupid--it has a different problem.
Why does a romance have to have a mistake in it, anyway? Well, it is partly that the romance is a form that we are used to. There is the first meeting, where they two hate each other on sight. This is partly important because there isn't much of a story to tell if they love each other instantly, unless it's a Romeo and Juliet story where society is keeping them apart. I don't think those are as satisfying as romances. They work better as social commentary, which is probably why I see those kind of romances in dystopian fiction more.
I think the real reason we need a mistake, though, is that it is human. In real life, we all make mistakes in our relationships. I had a friend once who told me that the most frightening thing to her about love was that we always hurt the people we love the most. It isn't because we're trying to, simply that we are around them more and we can hurt them more. We are more vulnerable to them. I suppose if you can't forgive each other, your romance is never going to work. You might as well get used to it from the first. (Not that I am suggesting forgiving things like abuse, mind you. But I can see where the line can be blurred and people can forget what they should forgive and what they shouldn't.)
Mistakes are going to happen, and I think there is a kind of catharsis in reading romance. You identify with the main characters and you feel as if you, too, are being forgiven. You are made safe by the acceptance of the mistake in the romance. Anything you do will not be as terrible as that. But love can go on.
Happy Valentines Day #3
I had a discussion with a friend (Holly Black) about what kinds of mistake we liked in our romances. I think I remember that we agreed that the misunderstanding rarely worked, largely because it isn't a very important mistake and also because it feels like the longer it persists, the stupider the characters are being, as if the author is simply manipulating the romance the make it last the appropriate number of pages.
Initially, I argued that I didn't like mistakes that are too grievous, and I especially didn't like mistakes that involved violence. This seemed pretty obvious. What kind of a romance is it when the guy hits the woman around? Or is it any better if the woman is the one physically hurting the man? These are the kinds of stereotypes in relationships that drive me crazy. The metaphor of romance is really important for me. I don't like metaphors about weak women or about domination.
However, Holly pointed out the rather obvious fact that I loved the Queen of Attolia. The mistake in that novel, on Irene's side, is that she cuts off the thief's (Gen's) hand. This is a pretty gruesome and long-lasting mistake. A lot of the book happens with the two separate from each other after the mistake, and Gen is recovering. In fact, he is terrified of Irene and of seeing her again, worried that she will carry out her other threat, which is to cut out his eyes and tongue before she kills him. The reader can't possibly doubt, after she has cut off the thief's hand (or rather ordered it), that she is serious. She is a queen, and she is an angry queen. We understand through stories about her past what has made her what she is. We sympathize, but we don't want Gen to go back.
So why is it that this romance works for me? Well, for one thing, it isn't falling back on stereotypes, and of course, I always like romance that is fresh. But the mistake is taken very, very seriously. Nothing is glossed over. The problems physically and psychologically for Gen are real. It is hard for us to love Irene, and harder still for us as readers to believe that Gen does. Turner makes us believe step by step.
The pay off for a truly good mistake is that the reader is even more invested in the success of the relationship than otherwise. It feels more real. And the contrast between the horrible mistake and the happy ending is even more poignant. I don't think you ever fall in love with Mr. Darcy unless you first truly hate him. I think you also have to grieve on the other side that Elizabeth has been so blind, and you feel sick at her misjudgment of Darcy. (I personally like it when both sides have something to learn.) Mr. Knightley's setting down of Emma is one of my favorite parts of the book. I read it over and over. My only problem with it is that there is no reciprocal mistake on his part. I have the same problem with Mansfield Park, because I feel like the romance is a little unbalanced. And Jane Eyre. In Wuthering Heights, everyone is equally stupid--it has a different problem.
Why does a romance have to have a mistake in it, anyway? Well, it is partly that the romance is a form that we are used to. There is the first meeting, where they two hate each other on sight. This is partly important because there isn't much of a story to tell if they love each other instantly, unless it's a Romeo and Juliet story where society is keeping them apart. I don't think those are as satisfying as romances. They work better as social commentary, which is probably why I see those kind of romances in dystopian fiction more.
I think the real reason we need a mistake, though, is that it is human. In real life, we all make mistakes in our relationships. I had a friend once who told me that the most frightening thing to her about love was that we always hurt the people we love the most. It isn't because we're trying to, simply that we are around them more and we can hurt them more. We are more vulnerable to them. I suppose if you can't forgive each other, your romance is never going to work. You might as well get used to it from the first. (Not that I am suggesting forgiving things like abuse, mind you. But I can see where the line can be blurred and people can forget what they should forgive and what they shouldn't.)
Mistakes are going to happen, and I think there is a kind of catharsis in reading romance. You identify with the main characters and you feel as if you, too, are being forgiven. You are made safe by the acceptance of the mistake in the romance. Anything you do will not be as terrible as that. But love can go on.
Happy Valentines Day #3
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.
