Uh-oh, romance

[Stephen Palmer]

But men dislike romance. Many will happily read a book where there are no female characters at all. So it's hard to see how these tropes are meant to gratify men.

They're not meant to gratify men. They're meant to "put women in their place."

 

[Cory Swanson]

I read quite a bit of fiction fiction. Not sure what to call it, but the stuff that isn't fantasy or sci fi. It seems that they are all reaching a bit into the romance bin a bit too often. I guess they know their audience, but the descriptions are a bit pornographic. Water for Elephants was a strong example of this. My family listened to the audio book on a road trip. Not the sort of thing you want to hear when sitting next to your mom. My wife and I still joke about it.

Yes, sex is part of the human experience. Yes, love stories should be in stories. It's unavoidable. No, it should not get over-descriptive unless it advances the story, and it rarely does. Yes, as writers, we should explore non-traditional relationships and flip the power structure. It is 2016 after all. No, we should not insert (ahem) these stories where they do not fit.

 

[HareBrain]

Not sure what to call it, but the stuff that isn't fantasy or sci fi.

Every novel is fantasy if you imagine the MC as having tentacles.

 

[MWagner]

They're not meant to gratify men. They're meant to "put women in their place."

So authors like Bujold, and all the women who employ traditional romantic tropes in the Romance genre, are ensuring women are put in their place?

 

[The Big Peat]

The other thing is not all books or movies are political statements, so they might look funny when examined under that light. Taken and the Rock's movie Walking Tall are both fun because it's nice to see the underdog kick some butt sometimes. It's rewarding to see people doing bad things, assuming they can get away with it, and being wrong. Simple as that. Nice little adrenaline kick to that inner vigilante we all have that gets outraged at senseless injustice.

Could the MC of Taken have been female? Could the victim needing rescue been male? Could the criminals have been involved with something other than a sex ring? Of course yes to all of them. On the one hand we don't want unintentional biases slipping into books and movies that further stereotypes, but we also don't want writers to be boxed into narrow paths, carefully picking and choosing elements in perfect balance so under no light is their story non-PC. It is a complicated issue.

Personally, I don't worry about it if one book (or movie) swings too far on one side or the other. I say tell your story as it is. Sometimes that story is the men saving the women. Fine. Sometimes it's the other way around. Also fine. Not every story needs (or should) to be every thing. I only begin to register an issue when something like this becomes a recurring theme for an author (or director) across multiple works.

Wandering slightly off topic here but just because a creative work is not meant to be a political statement, doesn't mean that it isn't one, particularly if viewed in the light of the whole genre. Could you get an alien to reverse-engineer an accurate picture of the change in American politics and society in the 80s and 90s based off of action films? I think they could have a shot.

Does the popularity of vigilante movies like Taken, Walking Tall, Man on Fire and so on tell us how society has changed post 9/11? Sure, we've always wanted to see bad guys get their butts kicked, but we've gone wanting to watch legally sanctioned instruments of vengeance to vigilante. The change from Brosnan-Bond to Craig-Bond and Jason Bourne? A darkening in our mood about the reality of violence?

Does the change amount to an accidental group political statement? Can one be discerned in individual choices?

I think some cases they can be.

I read quite a bit of fiction fiction. Not sure what to call it, but the stuff that isn't fantasy or sci fi. It seems that they are all reaching a bit into the romance bin a bit too often. I guess they know their audience, but the descriptions are a bit pornographic. Water for Elephants was a strong example of this. My family listened to the audio book on a road trip. Not the sort of thing you want to hear when sitting next to your mom. My wife and I still joke about it.

Yes, sex is part of the human experience. Yes, love stories should be in stories. It's unavoidable. No, it should not get over-descriptive unless it advances the story, and it rarely does. Yes, as writers, we should explore non-traditional relationships and flip the power structure. It is 2016 after all. No, we should not insert (ahem) these stories where they do not fit.

How many of the long fight scenes in fantasy advance the story? Or the long descriptions of foreign locales, or "oooh shiny magic", and so on. There's a lot of scenes that are in literature mainly a) to entertain b) to build up our picture of what the character is like and what the character is going through.

Sex can tell us a lot of where a character's emotional state is and what their personality is like. Katherine Kerr really nailed that in the Deverry series as does Guy Gavriel Kay. Is there any more eloquent demonstration of what being a superhero does for Nite Owl in The Watchmen than his two sexual encounters with Silk Spectre? Or how losing his hand has affected Jaime Lannister than his sex scene with Cersei on returning?

And are we not told that to show, not tell?

As for entertainment - I believe that using a bit of sex in mainstream media to add some entertainment should be a personal choice. If the author wants to include some, that's their choice and they're doing nothing objectively wrong.

 

[MWagner]

Does the popularity of vigilante movies like Taken, Walking Tall, Man on Fire and so on tell us how society has changed post 9/11? Sure, we've always wanted to see bad guys get their butts kicked, but we've gone wanting to watch legally sanctioned instruments of vengeance to vigilante. The change from Brosnan-Bond to Craig-Bond and Jason Bourne? A darkening in our mood about the reality of violence?

The vigilante revenge genre has been around since the early 70s and Death Wish. Then there was Billy Jack, the Dirty Harry movies, etc. Walking Tall is a remake of a movie from the 70s. So if there was a darkening mood, it happened 40 over years ago.

 

[The Big Peat]

The vigilante revenge genre has been around since the early 70s and Death Wish. Then there was Billy Jack, the Dirty Harry movies, etc. Walking Tall is a remake of a movie from the 70s. So if there was a darkening mood, it happened 40 over years ago.

Moods change. The 80s were rife with vigilante films. In the 90s, it was far more likely that the hero of an action film would be a cop of some sort and that their actions were completely legal, although the more 'intelligent' the film, the less likely that would be. Now we're back to vigilantes.

 

[Montero]

So authors like Bujold, and all the women who employ traditional romantic tropes in the Romance genre, are ensuring women are put in their place?

Its not what you do, its the way that you do it The way Bujold does it is by no means "little woman" - and SPOILER on Cordelia's Honour -

Cordelia ends a civil war - it is her actions that make it happen (plus a team, but she is in charge). She finishes up in a very influential position and due to the way she finished the war, the slightly nervous respect of quite a few senior army and intelligence people.
That is a long way from traditional romance

 

[Toby Frost]

I’m sure we could write a thesis on this. Might I suggest “De/romanticizing the Romance: (Anti)heroics and the Postmodernist Discourse”? It’s not snappy, but it sounds right.

I think that these “instinctive appeal” stories will always be there. They sell because people like reading them. For once I don’t think we can blame the hegemony/patriarchy/etc. If one author decided not to write like that (and I’m not convinced that there’s anything morally rather than stylistically wrong with bad romance), another author would do so, because the demand is still there. They’re light entertainment, not propaganda – or more accurately, they’re written to make money rather than indoctrinate.

I should add that I’m not actually accusing Bujold of this sort of naff romance, just that I instinctively get suspicious when romance appears in a novel.

 

[Montero]

I should add that I’m not actually accusing Bujold of this sort of naff romance, just that I instinctively get suspicious when romance appears in a novel.

Know what you mean about instinctively suspicious - I do remember a period in the '90s when every fantasy I picked up on a stall at a convention had a back cover that read like a Mills and Boon blurb. When I started reading SFF I found the SF that was available to me (library and physical bookshop) rather "dry/cold" in terms of the characters and fantasy had the level of interaction with the characters I wanted. Then fantasy seemed to leap into whirlpool tub of romance, sometimes with a side order of cutsie, but at the same time more SF gained "warmth", so I found I'd changed to reading mostly SF. Then there was more fantasy that wasn't covered in rainbow bubbles so I was reading more fantasy. Now there is a really wide spectrum in both genre, from grimdark, just gritty and grubby through what I'd consider the right balance all the way to OTT romantic. (There must be some romances out there with grit and grub too, but I am broadly generalising here.... )

edited to add - heck, there are actually romance imprints looking for romance in a sf setting. Hope it might introduce some primarily romance readers to the wider sf world and gain us readers.....

 

[Toby Frost]

Oh definitely. I can remember when Dune really stood out because it had distinctive characters and a setting that wasn't rather like the 1950s in space. I have a clear mental image of an SFF novel with zero romance (cover showing spacecraft being constructed in the void by tiny spacemen, probably drawn by Chris Foss) and one with rather too much (damsel gazing into distance with unicorn nearby, in very soft focus)!

 

[Montero]

@TF - that's the bunny (with ribbons). You've nailed it (with a ray gun)

 

[Stephen Palmer]

So authors like Bujold, and all the women who employ traditional romantic tropes in the Romance genre, are ensuring women are put in their place?

Well, that's not an unreasonable point, but it's hardly news that victims usually have to collaborate with their oppressors, including perpetuating the myth of the supposed differences between men and women.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

I think that these “instinctive appeal” stories will always be there. They sell because people like reading them. For once I don’t think we can blame the hegemony/patriarchy/etc. If one author decided not to write like that (and I’m not convinced that there’s anything morally rather than stylistically wrong with bad romance), another author would do so, because the demand is still there. They’re light entertainment, not propaganda – or more accurately, they’re written to make money rather than indoctrinate.

Which is fine. I wouldn't class it as art though. Which is fine! Art is art is art. The other is the other.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

They're not meant to gratify men. They're meant to "put women in their place."

I think that's a huge generalisation. Sure, some romance continues well worn tropes that might do this - others do not, and Bujold most certainly doesn't. Cordelia is one of the most important characters in the series and, whilst the first book did make me worry for where Bujold was going with her - she falls rather hard for Aral in it - eventually, there was no such worry. Plus, romance only forms a small part of the series (fi

 

[Stephen Palmer]

It may be a generalisation, but it's true across the world, which imo is why this particular generalisation works. One of the worst things patriarchy does is pretend men and women are fundamentally different - usually via religious dogma - then diminish the status of women, not least by pretending that men are the norm from which women differ. You can find this in any of the world's religions. Romance "and all that love stuff" is given to women as one of the things they are allowed to do. They're also allowed to stay at home all day, raise children, etc etc etc… all thanks to the aegis of male culture.

Not true in the West of 2016? Well, maybe not true in a lot of European countries. But what about the rest of the world?

Time for change.

 

[Boneman]

'Best Served Cold', anyone'?

Mayhap I'm a tad different, but I like a good love story in any fantasy/scifi, and I don't mind it being the driving force, as long as it's done well. My favourite book of all time, Shogun, is one of the best love stories ever, and it's wrapped so brilliantly in the narrative that it's seamless and natural. Like real life, I guess...

 

[Toby Frost]

There may be an element of people being trained what to think depending on their cultural background - I doubt that Bridget Jones goes down a storm in the Middle East - but I think the tropes of romance are there because they appeal on a genuine level, not because everyone buying romance has been duped by some patriarchy. People fantasize about things they'd never really want to do, and often those things are politically incorrect. I doubt everyone who enjoys Taken is a potential viliante, or that everyone who has read Fifty Shades of Grey is a sadomasochist (though given the quality of the prose, reading it does suggest a degree of masochism). Similarly, rough encounters in the hayloft with Lord Manly of Studley Hall may hardly be futhering the sisterhood, but they clearly satisfy a real need for such entertainment.

Actually, the fact that a cheesy romance could be dropped into the middle of an epic fantasy novel or an all-guns-blazing military SF and still see publication suggests to me that the range of books women read (or are expected to read by the industry) has increased (assuming that this kind of romance is predominantly aimed at women, which appears to be the case). I think this is subtler than just "men oppress women".

It occurred to me that there is a specifically male version of the divorced-from-reality romance which I've also got no wish to read or see: the manic pixie dreamgirl story, where the hero is unrecognised as a sensitive genius until the manic pixie shows up and, by virtue of her quirky antics, enables him to create great art or the like. And they have sex. What happens to the pixie is then unclear: she probably dies or something to enable our hero to be sensitive, but her remembers her forever. Lucky her.

 

[MWagner]

One of the worst things patriarchy does is pretend men and women are fundamentally different - usually via religious dogma - then diminish the status of women, not least by pretending that men are the norm from which women differ. You can find this in any of the world's religions. Romance "and all that love stuff" is given to women as one of the things they are allowed to do. They're also allowed to stay at home all day, raise children, etc etc etc… all thanks to the aegis of male culture.

We all have innate behaviours that are rooted in biology. The blank slate theory doesn't have a leg to stand on, scientifically. It's unsurprising that, given our different reproductive roles, men and women have innately different reproductive strategies, and that these differences influence the stories we tend to enjoy. Social conditioning plays a role too, but I doubt we'll ever be able to socially engineer a society where there are no gendered differences in the types of stories people seek out. Just as I doubt we'll ever be able to socially engineer a society where people don't seek out salt, fats, and sugar in their diets.

 

[zmunkz]

(though given the quality of the prose, reading it does suggest a degree of masochism).

I think this is subtler than just "men oppress women".

^this 100%, although there are cases where it is not subtle... I think mainly what we are discussing in this thread are the subtle cases. Over-simplification of these issues does not help find solutions to them.

One of the worst things patriarchy does is pretend men and women are fundamentally different

I completely agree with what you are driving at, but I think in dismissing the subtlety, you weaken the argument. As a matter of biological fact men and women are very different... nothing has driven this home more for me than seeing my wife in the last few months who is, as we speak, 8.5 months pregnant. Sexual dimorphism is a very real thing, which is the origin of all these problems to begin with! It wasn't a roll of the dice that produced a prevalence of patriarchy in pre-modern human societies, given humans' biological characteristics and a world where brute force was necessary to keep the forces of nature at bay, and human reproduction places a 9 month limitation/time load disproportionately on women.

I think the correct framing for this argument is not to deny differences are there, but instead to acknowledge the differences and establish that those differences do not imply a superiority/inferiority relationship, they do not imply modern role-based relegation, nor anything else of that sort. I would say the argument for gender equality stands well on its own without needing an artificial crutch, as all the evidence supports that modern societal roles do not implicitly follow from basic gender differences, rather the societal roles are hand-me-downs (from religion and tradition as you say) and should be discarded.

I just worry that when one tries to make it too simple, as above, you lose a lot of people who have a less liberal point of view... you deny any gender differences when some obviously exists, and people will call bulls**t without ever hearing the very valid points of the rest of the argument.

It occurred to me that there is a specifically male version of the divorced-from-reality romance which I've also got no wish to read or see: the manic pixie dreamgirl story, where the hero is unrecognised as a sensitive genius until the manic pixie shows up and, by virtue of her quirky antics, enables him to create great art or the like. And they have sex. What happens to the pixie is then unclear: she probably dies or something to enable our hero to be sensitive, but her remembers her forever. Lucky her.

That description sort of reminds me of Garden State.