I've got a few things on my mind...and so I thought it would be fun to open up a discussion. If no one wants to play, that's fine. But I hope I have a few takers that want to share their thoughts and opinions. If you want to answer on your own blog, you can. But leave a link. Or you can just share your thoughts in the comments. But I really am curious as to what YOU think.
First set of questions....
What do you expect out of a romance?
Are there things you're pleased to see?
Are there things that turn you off in a book?
Do you judge romance in the same way as you judge other books?
Do you expect historical romance to be mostly accurate to the times in which they're set? Or are you fine with modern characters playing dress up?
Second set of questions....
What do you expect out of a literary variation (prequel, sequel, retelling)?
What do you expect out of an Austen-inspired variation?
Do you embrace these variations? Approach them with skepticism? Avoid them altogether?
Have you ever been surprised by one?
My thoughts--
What do you expect out of a romance?
I expect (hope) to find a balanced story: characters, story, love/romance/smut. I like a balanced approach: the hero and heroine fully developed, interesting dialogue that isn't of the drag and drop variety. (You know the kind where you could replace the names of any two characters and play switcheroo with scenes and insert them into other books without blinking an eye. They all look the same. They all talk the same. They all act the same). The best kinds of love scenes are where the characters are so thoroughly themselves, so unique that it's all about them and not so much about what they're doing or how they're doing it. They stay in character. Otherwise you've essentially got nameless/faceless/characterless individuals having sex. And the story. It should have a story. It doesn't have to be a serious story. Or a dramatic story. It could be lighthearted. It could be serious. It could be funny. It could be touching or tragic. It could be a parody. It could poke fun at itself or the genre. It could be silly. The story could revolve around anything--a ball, a dance, a party, a vacation or trip, shopping, a misunderstanding about hats, whatever. But something needs to be going on outside the sex scenes. There are thousands and thousands of romance novels out there. And some I've enjoyed. Some I haven't. Some I thought were more tasteful than others. Some suited me. Some didn't. Some I thought were better written than others. But I've read at least a hundred or so (maybe more) through the years so it's not like I've no experience with the genre.
Are there things you're pleased to see?
My favorite romances are historicals. Especially historicals set in Regency England. Though other time periods can be fun too. I tend to like British settings more than American ones.
I love witty dialogue. Dialogue that sparkles and shines. Dialogue that shows the tension/chemistry between characters. I like to see the relationship develop.
I want the hero to be written in such a way that the reader knows why the heroine gets all swoony when he enters the room. And this doesn't mean telling us how wonderful, how perfect, how sparkly he is.
I like family dynamics. The character needs to be seen relationally. Maybe with parents and a sibling or two. Maybe with a best friend or two. And the relationships don't have to be perfect, they can be strained or tense. But she needs to be feeling something, connected to others.
Are there things that turn you off in a book?
I don't like books where the characters aren't at least somewhat developed. I need to feel a connection of some sort with the heroine/hero. I want more than a flat, lifeless character.
Most of all, perfection can be annoying. Characters should be authentic, should be human. Either physically, mentally, emotionally, psychologically, some -ally there needs to be a flaw or two. Whether this humanity comes from within the character or without--maybe she's reacting to something going on in her life--a loss of fortune or status, an alcholic father, a mean stepmother, a jealous sister. Or maybe she's the jealous one. Maybe she compares herself to an older or younger sister--or cousin, or best friend. Maybe she grew up a tom boy and doesn't feel comfortable in silk and lace. Maybe she's scared silly by thunderstorms. Maybe she's clumsy on the dance floor. Maybe she's afraid of dogs. Maybe she lisps or stutters. But she has to have something that keeps her from being perfect (and lifeless).
Anyone else annoyed by love scenes where the women are so extraordinarily beautiful, perfect, flawless, breathtaking, gorgeous, amazing, and stunning?
Do you judge romance in the same way as you judge other books?
Yes and no. Do I expect romance to be as "literary"? No. But I expect developed characters, a plot, and good-strong-basic writing. I expect to be entertained. Maybe the prose won't sing off the page. Maybe there won't be phrases, paragraphs that you repeat to yourself over and over again--or post on your blog--because they are so beautiful, so haunting, so memorable. Can characters be memorable? Yes! Can these characters be your friends? Yes! Can you love a book so much you want to go back to it again? Yes! But I don't know of any that would be of the sort you'd hold up as 'literary-quality-that-belongs-in-the-classroom.'
Do you expect historical romance to be mostly accurate to the times in which they're set? Or are you fine with modern characters playing dress up?
I'm not horribly nitpicky here. Glaring mistakes will bug me. But if there are small mistakes here and there, I probably won't even notice them. What annoys me--in a way--is when characters have a twenty-first-century mindset but are dressed up and placed in other settings. As far as writers trying to mimic the language and style of speech, some can manage it. Some do horribly at it. Sometimes its better to just let that go. To tell a straightforward story. To not worry about being all flowery or descriptive. Don't try to be something you're not.
What do you expect out of a literary variation (prequel, sequel, retelling)?
There are several things to consider--in general--when it comes to fiction of this kind. On the one hand, if the author (the original author) has wrapped up the book (the original book) neatly with a happily-ever-after ending, then the new author of this new book has a few choices...they can either go the route of introducing new conflict, new characters, and climb towards a new climax....or they can forget matters of plot and spend several hundred pages doing nothing in particular hoping that they can mimic the characters and/or literary style of the novel so closely that readers won't notice the lack of a plot. They'll just love being with these friends again. There is another option--one that is a frequent choice though it is a boggling one to me--use familiar characters written by famous (but-now-dead) authors and write erotica. After all, the original novels often lacked these bedroom (and not-so-bedroom) scenes. There is a market apparently for writers and readers to share together that explores these types of scenes and scenarios. On the other hand, there are books where the author (original author) hasn't wrapped everything neatly up. The author has chosen to be more ambiguous, to leave things hanging, to leave questions answered. In this case, new authors can write how they envision the characters to continue on and progress were the action to continue off the page.
I expect a book to try--as best it can--to stay somewhat close to the original. Literary adaptations that have Elizabeth and Darcy having premarital sex--for example--anger me. To have Elizabeth act and behave like Lydia; to put Lydia's words in her mouth; to reduce her intelligent mind to such nonsense. The improper behavior. To have her forget herself, to have him forget himself. Both of their reputations. Neither one would do anything remotely scandalous or shocking.
That doesn't mean they should feel bound or limited. But they should try to keep it toned down a notch. Maybe not be so outrageously wild in their imaginings.
What do you expect out of an Austen-inspired variation?
I don't expect the writer to be Jane Austen. I don't expect her to try to channel Austen when she's writing. I don't expect her to match Austen's literary style or her wit. Just a teeny tiny smidgen of it is good. If she can capture just a small trace of the charm or humor (or both) then that's enough. What makes Austen likeable? Is it her focus on love and romance? Is it her focus on women's lives? Is it her focus on society? Is it her focus on class? Is it her focus on these often comical eccentrics? (Like Mr. Collins or Mrs. Jennings or Mrs. Bennet) Is it the fact that she was good at taking snapshots of her world? Of describing life as it was? Is it the fact that she develops so many characters all at once? Her books are never the story of one man and one woman falling in love. They are always so much more than that.
There will never be a sequel that can capture anything and everything Austen was...as a writer. But I think the best of the lot will try to be multidimensional. Maybe not as widely as Austen herself was. But more than just one-dimensional.
Do you embrace these variations? Approach them with skepticism? Avoid them altogether?
I always approach with skepticism. There are times when I'm pleasantly surprised. Times when I just love what the author has done. I love the story. I love the characters. I love the storytelling. There are times when I think it's just awful. I don't enjoy the book at all. It's not one of those things where I hate 98% of all the sequels out there. If I really and truly thought that there would never be exceptions to the rule, if I thought that I would hate each and every sequel no matter what, then I just wouldn't read them at all. It's the uncertainty of it. When I like them, I tend to really really like them. But when I don't. Then I feel strongly about it.
Have you ever been surprised by one?
Yes. I'm reading one now...Pemberley Shades...and I'm just loving it. I read Old Friends and New Fancies last week. Again, that one I just adored.
© Becky Laney of Becky's Book Reviews
3 comments:
Becky, I love these questions!
1.What do you expect out of a Romance?
It was hard for me to answer this question without immediately thinking about what I like in a story (the next question). But if I really separate the two – my expectations from what pleases me – then the answer to this question would be: development and growth of the relationship. The starting point should be such that the two people don’t know each other or, if they do know each other (e.g. friends with or without pre-existing romantic feelings) that there is a build up to the expression of feelings. Also, another expectation is that the feelings in question should be LOVE – not just physical attraction or a superficial romantic interest. Lastly, I expect to feel sympathetic toward each person. In other words, I have to like each of them. For this to happen, I need to know who they are (e.g., what drives them, what are their issues, why do they act they way that they do, etc.) independent of the romantic relationship.
2. Are there things that you are pleased to see?
What do I think makes for a great romance? First, there needs to be chemistry between the two individuals. Chemistry is hard to define but I like to think of it as operating on the same wavelength – usually at a different level than they would with someone else. I think chemistry happens when two people are on equal playing fields in terms of how they interact with each other, regardless of their actual cultural/socio/economic status. Second, I like to see a romantic relationship grow where you least expect it. I especially like it when one or both of the characters realize that their feelings are beyond what they can control with their thoughts and actions (e.g., falling for someone of a different race, your best friend, an adversary, a total opposite, etc…). Third, I like it when it is clear that there is mutual respect and admiration between the two people. Fourth, I like it when the physical attraction is depicted well. I don’t necessarily need for a couple to become physical but just the fact that they WANT to comes across. I’ve seen this done best in the form of certain touches, gestures, lingering looks, slip-of-the-tongues (in the Freudian sense, I mean). Lastly, I love to see couples challenge each other to be different, better. Ultimately, the best romance for me is when, as a result of the relationship, they are each better individuals.
1. Turn offs:
a) Love triangles – but only if one of the characters is struggling with their feelings between two people. I think it dilutes the strength of the primary relationship.
b) Bad endings – I read the ending of every single book before reading it. I usually won’t read a book if I know it ends badly (i.e., without hope). I don’t need couples to be together at the end, simply that there is hope for them in the future.
c) Cheating – Ugh!!! I don’t care if poor decisions where made under the influence of a substance. It’s still icky to me and a major turnoff.
d) Obsessive love – I hate relationships that result in one or both feeling like they can’t live without the other person.
e) Moving too quickly – If the couple is already together by page 75 of a 300 page book, there probably wasn’t enough development for me to be convinced of their feelings.
2. Do you judge romance in the same way as other books?
I have more expectations of books where there is a romance. They have the potential to make me happy and feel satisfied. The flip side, of course, is that with expectations also come disappointments. I am a lot less likely to be disappointed by a non-romantic book because my expectations are fewer.
3. I actually prefer modern characters in historical times. I find it difficult to read historical fiction because it feels like the women are limited and constricted by propriety.
Second Set of questions: Variations
If a couple has gotten together in the first book, I never expect a sequel to be better. Sequels that have been better when the relationship is still evolving (e.g., Clary and Jace in City of Bones, and Shane and Clare in the Morganville Vampire series).
I am skeptical of variations. I’ve never read a Jane Austen-inspired variation. I don’t think I would want to. There is something about someone else carry forward the story that feels slightly wrong to me.
Hmmmmm....these are deep questions and I am such a shallow person...lol! Seriously, I only want an interesting story with interesting characters and it must have a good ending. The ending doesn't have to be a happily-ever-after, but don't leave me hanging like King did with CELL. He didn't even end that book. And don't make me guess what happened. If I wanted to guess, I'd have written it myself.
I guess what I am saying and taking the long way to get there is I don't like to use blanket stipulations no matter the genre. The reason is I am such a moody reader. There are the core things, but for the most part, I remain open.
Limiting myself to the first set of questions. And let me just say ahead of time that my responses are long and I am picky.
1. What do you expect out of a Romance?
First of all, if it's marketed as a romance novel according to today's genre classifications, I expect a HEA or at least a HFN. Unhappy or tragic endings are okay in books with subtitles like "A Love Story" or "A Romance," but if you're telling me it's a romance novel, it better have a happy ending. Second, like Ana, I need to feel that the couple are in love with each other. In books where the romance is just a subplot, then liking is fine. But if it's a romance, I expect more. So I'm going to say chemistry between the characters is more than something I like to see, it's something I expect to see. Also like Ana, I expect growth and development of the relationship, and I'll add to it the growth and development of the individual characters. I suspect I'm in the minority of readers who don't need to like the main characters, even in a romance novel. However, if the character(s) is unlikable, I do expect to see how they change for the better as a result of the other person/relationship. And especially in books where one person is unlikable and the other likable, I expect that the author will demonstrate that the unlikable person is still somehow worthy of the likable one. (Obviously, love isn't fair and all, but since we're talking about fiction here.)
2. Are there things that you are pleased to see?
Strong secondary characters who aren't there merely as sequelbait. Feminist female characters. I know some people hate the f-word, but what I mean is female protagonists who don't think they need to be the ones who sacrifice their desires and expectations for the relationship to succeed. Compromise, people. Compromise.
3. Are there things that turn you off in a book?
Oh yeah. Well, I guess I could answer this in two ways. One, there are certain settings, plots, and character types I'm sick of, so if it seems like the book features one or more of them, I'm probably not reading it. For books that make it past this initial test, I think my biggest turnoff is related to what I wrote about above: self-sacrificing female protagonists, especially when it seems like she's the only one making the sacrifices. I also started a horrible (adult) romance a couple of months ago in which the female protagonist only became worthy after she got a makeover (and couldn't finish the book, I was so upset), so an emphasis on physical beauty is also annoying. Attractive characters are fine, makeovers can be fine, but I think there is a line that can be drawn.
4. Do you judge romance in the same way as you judge other books?
I'd have to say no. Regardless of what I'm reading, there are things I do expect, like character development, realistic dialogue, etc. But for a romance, or any other book where the romance is an essential element, to succeed, I need to believe in the romance. Whereas in other books, it doesn't matter so much if there is a romantic element and I'm indifferent to it. I can still enjoy a book if the rest of the story works. Can't say the same thing about romances. Likewise, I'm more forgiving of predictable mystery/suspense subplots in romances or other books not marketed as mysteries than I am in a mystery or suspense novel.
5. Do you expect historical romance to be mostly accurate to the times in which they're set? Or are you fine with modern characters playing dress up?
I expect historicals to be mostly accurate. If an author wrote a historical romance, I expect them to have done research. I want to feel that the story *needed* to be set during that period, that it couldn't have taken place at another time, whether it's because one of the characters survived a war or is somehow related to a famous historical figure or whatever reason. Otherwise, why even bother setting the book in that place and time? (I suspect this is the reason why I'm so sick of Regency historicals. Give me a French Revolution romance any day!) I generally don't like modern characters playing dress up. Depending on my mood, a few authors can pull it off. Otherwise, I want them to have some sense of the mores and expectations of the times and behave accordingly, unless a good reason is given to explain otherwise. Ana, you said, "I find it difficult to read historical fiction because it feels like the women are limited and constricted by propriety." There are some historical novels where this is definitely the case, but I find it makes me appreciate the rights of women now that much more. And in a lot of YA historicals these days, as I see it, the heroines are strong and extraordinary in some ways for the time period. The young women are challenged by propriety and societal expectations, but they manage to overcome obstacles. In terms of historical romances, the ones I love the best are the ones where, as a result of the romance, the female protagonist discovers a sense of self beyond the usual expectations of women in that time or becomes more unrestrained with the support of the male protagonist. I'm thinking of books like September Moon and Whispers of Heaven by Candice Proctor, My Beloved by Karen Ranney. And when you put modern characters in historical settings, I think you lose some of the--what's a good word?--poignancy? pathos? yearning? that authors would otherwise be able to mine.
Post a Comment