(no subject)
Aug. 23rd, 2017 10:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Last night was spent cleaning out shelves, watching super fix shelves (so they don't fall on my head), cleaning again, and putting things back into shelves.
2. Haven't really read anything of note of late. Oh, I've read some books, I just didn't like them that much.
* Hate to Want You by Alisha Cole - highly rec'd by SmartBitches, plot did not work for me. An issue I have with contemporary or modern romance novels. Also the gender imbalance in modern romance novels irritates me. And, this is odd, I know, but I feel the writers don't know how to write male characters effectively? They either romanticize them or demonize them. I've seen male writers do it with female characters in noir mystery novels and spy novels, and female contemporary and historical writers do it with male characters. I think the writer forgets to treat the person like a person and not as some idealized or demonized take on their gender?
It's less of a problem, oddly enough, in historical romance novels. You'd think it would be the opposite, but, alas no. I don't know why this is.
Nor do I know why the roles are more stereotypical in modern romance than historical.
Hmmm.
I was gifted with a brother, so I've seen the romantic conflict from the male perspective. He is apparently a very attractive guy, and women, to say the least, throw themselves at him. Always have.
It irritates him. They've also used him. I watched them do it when he was in Elementary through High School.
And, I've heard the male side of bad divorces and breakups from various male friends and co-workers over the years. Our society, I think puts an undo amount of pressure on men being well...a certain thing. My brother stated it once, how there's this view that you have to be the macho guy..the guy that pops up in so many contemporary romance novels -- that alpha male character, who frankly does not exist in reality. Aka James Bond.
It's also one of the issues I've had with reading female written male/male fiction...the men are written oddly at times. I don't quite know how to explain it. Seen this with male written female/female slash as well. I think people have a tendency to write their fantasy versions and not the reality? Which is okay of course. But it is interesting.
* Book that I can't remember the name of, but just finished today, which I guess is saying something isn't it? Oh well, at least I can remember the names of the characters - Genieve and Archie, usually it's the exact opposite. And the plot. Then again, it's not that surprising I can't remember the name of it...all these books appear to have variations on the same title. Innovative in relation to titles these writers aren't.
Anyhow...the book is interesting in this one respect, the writer got curious about what would happen if a woman inherited the Duke or rather Duchess title upon her father's death along with his estates, during Victorian times. Apparently the writer had read about this happening...a family, I think Ledbester? Had requested a special dispensation from the Crown to permit the eldest daughter to inherit. The Duke's two sons had died and he was left with seven daughters, so he requested one of the daughters inherit upon his death, and Victoria granted it. So, the book is about Genieve inheriting the title and falling in love with a Steward (third son of a Viscount, who is a retired army Captain), that her godmother sent her to help her learn how to become a Duchess.
Interesting premise. And it worked. But...the book is poorly executed. Instead of exploring the premise or even the family interactions, or giving us more on why the hero is estranged from his family and working as a steward...we get a lot of "does he love me, he shouldn't love me, we can't be together, blah, blah, blah" and vice versa. I started skimming halfway through. Also the sex scenes don't quite work and feel clumsy. (Note: less is more with sex scenes. We do not need to know that he put his tongue in her mouth or licked it. It suffices to say, he kissed her deeply. Or with devotion.
You do not need to provide graphic anatomical details...not only is it rather dull, it's also a bit jarring. This is not a how to manual on how to have sex, after all.)
Also, at one point, and I thought this rather interesting, the heroine proposes that the hero become her mistress. Which he's put out about and states, he'd thought she wanted to marry him. And this breaks them up for a bit. (I'm not sure a man would be quite that insulted by such a proposition. But this one might. Particularly since his father had a mistress and he despised it.) At the end, she proposes to him, asking him to marry her. He turns her down. Until they have sex and he thoroughly ruins her, then he proposes marriage to her, and she accepts...and they have sex on the ground, naked, in a place anyone could just happen by...seemed rather uncomfortable, not to mention awkward and a bit odd.
The book ends with her announcing their marriage to their friends. I felt sort of let down by it, since at that point I was only reading to find out what his estranged brother had written him and how they reconciled. But the writer wasn't interested in exploring it further, and it was summed up in a brief sentence. "He read his brother's letter aloud to her, expressed, and they reconciled." Seriously? We get graphic details of an awkward sex scene, but nothing on this? Ugh.
(This is the problem with a lot of romance novels.)
3. Was going to discuss world-building in books but no time. So will leave you with this...
I've realized that books that have a lot of world-building but not a good or clear plot or clear character arcs, seem to lend themselves to television and film adaptations rather well.
GRRM Game of Thrones is great with the world-building and the character vignettes, but bad on plot and cohesive character arcs. Same is true with most of Neil Gaiman's books, great world-building, not great character or plot development.
Also apparently most sci-fantasy readers don't really care about character arcs or plot that much, as long as there is an intricate world and mythology in place. It does help to have interesting or likable characters...but they can be sketchy, the world building can't. They get very upset if the writer screws up on the world-building. I've never understood this.
2. Haven't really read anything of note of late. Oh, I've read some books, I just didn't like them that much.
* Hate to Want You by Alisha Cole - highly rec'd by SmartBitches, plot did not work for me. An issue I have with contemporary or modern romance novels. Also the gender imbalance in modern romance novels irritates me. And, this is odd, I know, but I feel the writers don't know how to write male characters effectively? They either romanticize them or demonize them. I've seen male writers do it with female characters in noir mystery novels and spy novels, and female contemporary and historical writers do it with male characters. I think the writer forgets to treat the person like a person and not as some idealized or demonized take on their gender?
It's less of a problem, oddly enough, in historical romance novels. You'd think it would be the opposite, but, alas no. I don't know why this is.
Nor do I know why the roles are more stereotypical in modern romance than historical.
Hmmm.
I was gifted with a brother, so I've seen the romantic conflict from the male perspective. He is apparently a very attractive guy, and women, to say the least, throw themselves at him. Always have.
It irritates him. They've also used him. I watched them do it when he was in Elementary through High School.
And, I've heard the male side of bad divorces and breakups from various male friends and co-workers over the years. Our society, I think puts an undo amount of pressure on men being well...a certain thing. My brother stated it once, how there's this view that you have to be the macho guy..the guy that pops up in so many contemporary romance novels -- that alpha male character, who frankly does not exist in reality. Aka James Bond.
It's also one of the issues I've had with reading female written male/male fiction...the men are written oddly at times. I don't quite know how to explain it. Seen this with male written female/female slash as well. I think people have a tendency to write their fantasy versions and not the reality? Which is okay of course. But it is interesting.
* Book that I can't remember the name of, but just finished today, which I guess is saying something isn't it? Oh well, at least I can remember the names of the characters - Genieve and Archie, usually it's the exact opposite. And the plot. Then again, it's not that surprising I can't remember the name of it...all these books appear to have variations on the same title. Innovative in relation to titles these writers aren't.
Anyhow...the book is interesting in this one respect, the writer got curious about what would happen if a woman inherited the Duke or rather Duchess title upon her father's death along with his estates, during Victorian times. Apparently the writer had read about this happening...a family, I think Ledbester? Had requested a special dispensation from the Crown to permit the eldest daughter to inherit. The Duke's two sons had died and he was left with seven daughters, so he requested one of the daughters inherit upon his death, and Victoria granted it. So, the book is about Genieve inheriting the title and falling in love with a Steward (third son of a Viscount, who is a retired army Captain), that her godmother sent her to help her learn how to become a Duchess.
Interesting premise. And it worked. But...the book is poorly executed. Instead of exploring the premise or even the family interactions, or giving us more on why the hero is estranged from his family and working as a steward...we get a lot of "does he love me, he shouldn't love me, we can't be together, blah, blah, blah" and vice versa. I started skimming halfway through. Also the sex scenes don't quite work and feel clumsy. (Note: less is more with sex scenes. We do not need to know that he put his tongue in her mouth or licked it. It suffices to say, he kissed her deeply. Or with devotion.
You do not need to provide graphic anatomical details...not only is it rather dull, it's also a bit jarring. This is not a how to manual on how to have sex, after all.)
Also, at one point, and I thought this rather interesting, the heroine proposes that the hero become her mistress. Which he's put out about and states, he'd thought she wanted to marry him. And this breaks them up for a bit. (I'm not sure a man would be quite that insulted by such a proposition. But this one might. Particularly since his father had a mistress and he despised it.) At the end, she proposes to him, asking him to marry her. He turns her down. Until they have sex and he thoroughly ruins her, then he proposes marriage to her, and she accepts...and they have sex on the ground, naked, in a place anyone could just happen by...seemed rather uncomfortable, not to mention awkward and a bit odd.
The book ends with her announcing their marriage to their friends. I felt sort of let down by it, since at that point I was only reading to find out what his estranged brother had written him and how they reconciled. But the writer wasn't interested in exploring it further, and it was summed up in a brief sentence. "He read his brother's letter aloud to her, expressed, and they reconciled." Seriously? We get graphic details of an awkward sex scene, but nothing on this? Ugh.
(This is the problem with a lot of romance novels.)
3. Was going to discuss world-building in books but no time. So will leave you with this...
I've realized that books that have a lot of world-building but not a good or clear plot or clear character arcs, seem to lend themselves to television and film adaptations rather well.
GRRM Game of Thrones is great with the world-building and the character vignettes, but bad on plot and cohesive character arcs. Same is true with most of Neil Gaiman's books, great world-building, not great character or plot development.
Also apparently most sci-fantasy readers don't really care about character arcs or plot that much, as long as there is an intricate world and mythology in place. It does help to have interesting or likable characters...but they can be sketchy, the world building can't. They get very upset if the writer screws up on the world-building. I've never understood this.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-24 09:23 am (UTC)I always found this view on men very interesting, this destilled female gaze, in a way very bit as off and objectifying as the male gaze, except it is not nearly as omnipresent in society as the male stereotypes of females tend to be.
Sometimes I wondered would it would be like if the stereotype of the typical yaoi NY police department (where everybody is gay, always) would be as common as, I dunno,the hot nurse stereotype.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-24 12:36 pm (UTC)Oh, I love Jo Chen's art (this is the one who did the Buffy comic covers right? Or is it someone else?).
I always found this view on men very interesting, this destilled female gaze, in a way very bit as off and objectifying as the male gaze, except it is not nearly as omnipresent in society as the male stereotypes of females tend to be.
Having an attractive brother was an interesting experience...because I witnessed the distilled female gaze first hand and it's effect on attractive men. When people say women aren't as shallow as men, or into looks...I laugh. Because, we so are.
No, the difference is...well the same as with POC vs. White, privilege or power imbalance. Men have power and privileges that women do not. A men doesn't have to fear women acting on the gaze. If they are objectified it doesn't really matter quite as much....my brother wasn't sexually harassed, because the people in charge were men. He may have been offered modeling jobs, but he could also be a successful consultant...and turn those jobs down. If I'd been the "attractive" one, I'd have been harassed, and my "looks" would have been seen as my selling point and would have objectified me more than him, because of who happens to be in power.
Same with television shows....as much as James Marsters complained about being objectified on Buffy...Gellar was more at risk, career wise, if she'd been, which is why she had an iron-clad no nudity clause in her contract. It's because in Hollywood, the people running the show are men. While there were female writers on Buffy, men ran the show. The show-runners may have even been sleeping with the actresses...which was not happening with the male actors. An attractive actor doesn't have his show-runner/producer or director propositioning him, well not in most cases. But an attractive actress does. I think that distinction is important. Until both genders are equal from a power and privilege perspective...
no subject
Date: 2017-08-24 01:27 pm (UTC)Yes, that's her. She is writing/drawing under a pen name here, but she posted about the series on her facebook (I guess gay porn is a bit unmixy with the work she does for massively male focused mainstream US comic book industry).
The series is called "In these words", that's the homepage.
http://www.guiltpleasure.com/
They sell it on the homepage, but I got in German since a publisher picked it up and gave it a absolutely beautiful hardcover edition (which is also cheaper).
It's pretty dark, though, rape, torture and pretty violent in general. The artwork is stunning though (similar to the one on the homepage but mostly b/w, like it usually is in manga)
No, the difference is...well the same as with POC vs. White, privilege or power imbalance.
Yes, exactly, it's not that oppressed groups have higher morals, but they have less power to force their stereotypes and preferences on the other groups.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-24 03:29 pm (UTC)it's not that oppressed groups have higher morals, but they have less power to force their stereotypes and preferences on the other groups.
Exactly. It's what I explained to my Aunt on FB recently. When she said, "but POC hate whites just because they are white, and show racial preferences..." True, except they have a reason to. They are being oppressed by whites. While it's true that both groups need to address their racism, the group in power really has the most work to do here...and needs to do the atoning. Same is true with sexism.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-24 12:09 pm (UTC)Maybe because the writers of historical novels have older, less stereotypical models to draw upon. Anyone who writes historical romance probably reads classic fiction from the 19th century, which gives them a different outlook. Modern romance writers could well not read anything except modern novels so they could easily get trapped in the narrow boxing off of views that is such a problem nowadays. Just a guess of course, but it might be part of the answer.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-24 12:25 pm (UTC)Eh, no. A lot of contemporary and modern romance novelists read historical (as in non-fiction) and historical romance novels. Some write both. (I know because they have said so in various forums.) Many writers, oddly, don't read the genre they write in. I know, you'd think it would be the opposite, but it's not. I think the reason they don't is that they are afraid of plagiarizing or copying another writer's idea or being unduly influenced. (shrugs).
No, the problem with contemporary and modern fiction has a great deal to do with the publishing industry and an expectation from the readership that the story fit a certain convention or model or formula. They even provide classes on how to write them, books, and conferences. I actually saw this in person in the 1980s and 90s. And I've noticed from the reviews on Amazon, Good Reads, and Smartbitches...that the readers want this formula, they want this emphasis. Many of them actually prefer the contemporary/modern books to the historical romances for these reasons. I don't understand why though.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-24 02:25 pm (UTC)I think a lot of readers, especially younger readers, use fiction as a safe way to explore ideas that would frighten them in real life. The more predictable and formulaic the story and the characters, the safer and more familiar it feels. Any genre that can touch on either sexuality or courage (crime, action, war etc.) will be particularly prone to this requirement from a chunk of the readers. I've seen fanfic and other amateur writers use their writing in the same way. I've also known abuse survivors do it.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-24 02:37 pm (UTC)My basic thesis about fiction is that most people don't want perfect realism. They don't want a copy of everyday life that they have to live all the time. So they always look for something that makes that life different in some way.
In a historical romance the history provides the distancing mechanism, the element of change from their own normality, so any sort of man in it will be of interest, including realistic ones. In fact realism becomes more useful because if everything becomes too distant and different it just becomes weird and is of no interest in the other direction.
In a modern romance, the readership can only be there for the romance, so they must be getting something specific from that and that alone. So the element of difference from real life has to come from the character of the man. Hence they want either an ideal perfect man to fantasize about or a demon to explore in a safe space.
So in summary a realistic man in a modern setting is just real life, and most people don't want to spend their fiction time in the life they already live.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-24 03:10 pm (UTC)I think that is an accurate assessment, at least for the most part. There are exceptions to the rule of course. ;-)
I know I've read reviews of books from readers who more or less said just that...they were either hunting for a way to deal with something in a safe context, or live out a fantasy in one. Also, romance novels, particularly contemporary, are designed for...ahem, erotica. (Nice way of saying porn with plot.) Studies have shown that most women require a story...characters, a plot, foreplay ...hence the contemporary romance novel. Most, not all, but most tend to be on the "kinky" side and explicit. And...sexual fantasy by its very nature tends to be trope specific, often kinky, sometimes...extremely politically incorrect. I think in some respects, contemporary is more geared towards sexual fantasy than historical. (Although that's really one subgenre. There's another subgenre of contemporary romance which I like to call the small town romance a la Gilmore Girls, or Northern Exposure....where the romance is sort of central, but there's a huge small town dynamic involved. Those romances tend to be less "erotica" and more about the comfort of the small town, everyone knowing each other, quirky characters, etc. Safe. Nora Roberts and Debbie Macomber write these novels and they are on the best-seller lists. Mainly because they romanticize small town life.
And I think you are correct, most people want to escape reality when they read. (I know I do.) And most people, including myself, who read the romance genre want to be comforted, they desire the happy ending, the idea that love conquers all, and most important, lasts. That the wounded, disturbed male hero can be saved. The villains die or are dispatched. The heroine survives and lives happily, often having multiple babies.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-24 03:18 pm (UTC)Also, the problem with challenging gender roles, specifically traditional roles, is it can be threatening to people who remain in those roles. I know my mother struggled with this -- and got angry when she felt people shamed her for not being a "working mom", for staying home and being the wife and mother, and giving up her career.That's the problem, in the struggle to challenge those roles or expand on them, you risk alienating and/or shaming those who are happy in them. At the same time, if you go the opposite extreme, you hurt and marginalize those who do not fit in those traditional roles and can't abide them.
I think romance novels often will either challenge the roles, or at times reinforce them for the reasons stated above. Romance novels deal with gender bias and roles -- tends to be their main focus. And how people navigate those waters.
With historical distance, it's easier to challenge them or comment on them, harder the closer we are to our own time period. Change is really hard for people. It's not that people can't change, we can, but we have to choose to, and most importantly want to, and if you are comfortable in your mindset, you won't change and you'll fight to keep things the way they are to maintain that comfort, the world be damned. So if the world is changing despite your efforts, sometimes a romance novel can be a comfort. Depends on the novel, of course. Because sometimes, if you are attempting to change the world, because it isn't comfortable for you, and you are not comfortable with the current mindset, a romance that is also challenging that mindset, yet in a safe manner, can feel like a cool drink of water in the middle of the desert.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-24 12:37 pm (UTC)To clarify, some write both historical and contemporary romance novels, not non-fiction historical or historical fiction. They just read the non-fiction historical and historical fiction.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-24 04:21 pm (UTC)Ideally, it'll have all of the above, but so few books do, now. It's why I mainline Brandon Sanderson like heroin.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-24 04:58 pm (UTC)100% read for the characters and plot. The world-building can be awful, but I'll still read it if the characters and plot are good.
Me too. Or rather, mainly characters, then plot, then world-building. I can hand-wave world-building. (This may explain my struggles with writers who put world building first, plot and characters second.)
Ideally, it'll have all of the above, but so few books do, now.
I've run across a few here and there, but apparently it's hard to do all three. I admit in writing my sci-fi novels, I am struggling a little with the world-building. I have most of it, but I'm no linguist, so the language bit...falls away from me.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-24 05:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-08-24 06:25 pm (UTC)Oh, I can do terminology - anything pre-existing is fine. Also helps that I work with engineers who through terminology and abbreviated terminology at me all the time. (ie. Water Reclamation Device or WRD, is something I made up.) It's the making up of words that I'm struggling with. Weirdly, I can't make up curse words to save my life.
This may explain why I prefer writing science fiction to fantasy, sci-fi is more terminology laden, fantasy is made-up languages laden. Also creating a new slang or a future slang is beyond me, so I just go with what I have. One's easier than the other, because the main pov is first person and she sucks at languages. The other is third person, multiple perspective, so dicier. When writing science fiction, I'm learning it's easier if you have one central pov than multiple pov's.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-24 06:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-08-24 06:50 pm (UTC)I'm trying to veer away from it as well. When they use a different language, I state they do, but don't try too hard to replicate it. Actually I always found it to be irritating in books when people do create them. Because to someone who doesn't know the language, it's gibberish. (I hear about fifteen different language daily and they all sound like gibberish, to my untrained ear...which they would to someone who doesn't know the language. )
Slang, I'm rather good at, and making up slang words...not too much of a problem...but they are based in English. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2017-08-24 06:58 pm (UTC)