(no subject)
Apr. 3rd, 2019 09:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Hee...
Apparently some high school put on a play adaptation of the Ridley Scott Film Alien -- yes, THAT "Alien".
2. And there's FINALLY a movement to do older people in romance What's Age Got to Do With it? It also explains why every romance novel for years has women between the ages of 16-28 in a romance, but no one over that. And we wonder why our society is wacked. Why? Because the publishing industry was under the delusion that people don't want to read about older people getting it on -- all evidence to contrary. (Were they blind to the success of Bridges of Madison County?) Also weirdly more men write older women romance novels. They don't write the younger ones. Interesting. (The article didn't say that -- I just picked up on it.) I noticed it in the fanfic too, women (lesbian and het) wrote young innocent gal older guy erotica, while men did not. Interesting. I wonder why? (Of course I may be completely wrong on this -- it's not like I made a study of it or anything, just a random observation.)
Anyhow, another thing I noticed? It's bloody hard to find historical romance novels with older heroines. I've found a couple. Reading one now, actually. Easier to find contemporary with older heroines. Although, you do have to look. I'm actually sort of writing one -- except my book sort of defies description at the moment.
3. You can stream Jordan Peele's premiere episode of the Twilight Zone for free on Youtube. Go HERE. Yes, this is a blatant attempt to get subscribers. They haven't gotten me yet. But that's mainly because I've more television shows to watch than I know what to do with. Having widely diverse tastes or eclectic ones -- comes with its downsides in content saturated marketplace.
4. Hmmm..
Seeing Red - She begged for her life" post by itsnotmymind (nifty name by the way), is about how the writer's made the interesting choice to have Buffy beg Spike to stop in the attempted rape sequence, not just kick him off right off the bat -- while neither of the slayers he killed begged for their lives.
What I find interesting -- is I saw two television shows deal with domestic violence and assault in the last two weeks. Both showed it solely from the victim's perspective. One showed the aftermath, and the victim's helplessness, and inability to do anything to the attacker or defend themselves, the other showed the victim finally killing him, after literally fighting for her life.
OF the two, one focused on the violence, we saw stabbing, punching, pummeling, blood, it was action focused. We saw her fear. We saw his craziness. We saw the wounds. We watched him stab her boyfriend almost to death. We watched him shoot and kill a convenience store clerk who attempted to save her. We watched her hit him across the face with a fireplace poker and run for her life, with it in hand. We saw him chase her. We watched him attack her, while she hit him - finally fighting over a knife, she bit him, got the knife away and stabbed him until he was dead.
The OTHER television show didn't show any of that. Instead we had a conversation between two women. Each relating their stories. A mother and daughter. They were long estranged because the mother gave up the daughter at birth -- leaving her at a fire station. The daughter jumped from one abusive foster care home to the next, until she gave up and lived out of her car. Her first husband was abusive, so abusive, that she had an abortion after her cracked six of her ribs when she was seven months pregnant. We don't see any of this violence. She tells her mother about it -- to relate her history. But her mother flinches away. Her mother tells her how she, the mother, was brutally raped, and then got pregnant with her -- she is the product of rape. This understandably devastates her. The father is long dead -- having died in a motorcycle accident ages ago. He was never punished for his crime, her mother was too afraid to come forward. Just as the daughter's ex-husband was never truly punished for his -- he is killed by a hit and run, which had nothing to do with her or anyone. He dies in the hospital. We aren't shown the violence. During the episode we also meet a patient, Abby, who has been brutally raped. We see them convince her to do a rape kit, and support her, and fix her torn abdomen, which was severly damaged as a result of the rape, and call her husband and report it to the police. We hear why she's terrified to do so.
At the end of both episodes, a hotline is provided for survivors of domestic violence and rape. In neither is the male character/rapist/abuser given an arc. In the first he's a crazed psychopath. In the second, he's unseen and has no memorable name.
The first episode, is from the series 9-1-1, a series created by men, and written by men. The second episode is from the series Grey's Anatomy, created by women and written by women.
It's interesting that in the first we see the man, we get to know him to a degree, he's crazy, he's pretty, and it's violent, and she gets to violently kill him.
But in the second episode -- we never see the two male rapists. We don't get to know them. They have no face. Barely even a name. They aren't important. And the victims don't violently kill them. They survive, scarred.
Now let's go back to Seeing Red. In that episode, we never really see Buffy's reaction to it or how she deals with it. Nor does the series ever truly show it. The whole arc is done to further Spike (the rapist or perpetuator) arc and the rational as given by the writer/s is to show that people who commit these acts are not in of themselves evil. The writer states in various interviews: "Too often we demonize the rapist not his act. I wanted to examine that in a different way. Perhaps view it differently." It's notable that the actor portraying the role hated doing it and came thisclose to committing suicide because of it. Why? He'd had a family member who'd been raped and had made it clear it was a role he couldn't play, and could not watch scenes regarding it. The actress portraying Buffy has not talked about the scene or remarked on it at all. We do not know how she felt about it or handled it.
Notably in the episodes that follow, the act results in the rapist or alleged rapist hunting a soul and being redeemed. It motivates him to become ensouled and a better man. When he gets a soul -- he realizes he's done far worse, and then some, so really it's not possible at this point, and he's doomed. But the focus is on him and whether he can be redeemed, and at the end of the series he saves the day and sacrifices himself for her.
At the end of Seeing Red -- there is no hotline number. No one giving people a place to get support or help if this happened to them.
Buffy was targeted to young girls between the ages of 12-18 year old women. It was advertised to teen or tweens and shown at 8PM. It has been touted as feminist by many scholars and critics. And Buffy is considered a feminist icon. The creator of Buffy inspired the creators of Grey's Anatomy and 9-1-1. Seeing Red aired in 2002.
Grey's Anatomy is an adult series targeting 18-45 year old women. It's show-runner creator is an African American woman, and it has also been touted as feminist, if soapy. The episode aired last week.
9-1-1 is an adult series, created by three men, one of worked on Angel the Series. It targets mainly male viewers, and women. It aired on Sunday.
Of the three, only Grey's Anatomy fully focused on the victim or woman, and the emotional impact of the violence. Only Grey's showed it completely from the woman's point of view. 9-1-1, while far easier to watch than Grey's and more cathartic, showed it mainly through the male lense, the woman's boyfriend who was stabbed, her brother who was hunting for her, the clerk trying to help her, her attacker, and to a lesser degree herself.
Now, I've seen rape and domestic violence storylines on various series. The one's that handle it the best are daytime soap operas. Why? They show it over a length of time through various perspectives, and in greater depth and variety. General Hospital -- took Luke's drunken rape of Laura, and demonstrated how it was a crime that would always stand between them. No matter what they did. And showed how both had to find a way of overcoming it. Of the two -- Laura eventually came out the victor. But you would have had to see the soap from 1978 to 2019, to get that. Luke has both his kids deal with his crime and have difficulty looking at him the same way afterwards. Laura is the one who helps them handle it -- but as she puts it Kevin, her new husband, years later, it was always a problem. Luke put the burden of his guilt on her -- she had to keep forgiving him, and all she wanted to do was put it behind her. And finally, him as well. The show doesn't stop there, because it has multiple writers over the years, each writer examines rape from different perspectives. And each shows and examines the hard stuff underneath. Other soaps, have done the same -- going deeper than most television shows are willing to go.
Of the three, 9-1-1, Grey's Anatomy, and Buffy -- Grey's has been on air the longest, 15 years and counting. And it handles the assault's in a soap opera fashion. Delving deep into the emotions. 9-1-1 is realistic in the violence, but over-the-top as well...it's satisfying, but..it stops short, and we know it won't follow up on the emotional aftermath. Which is troubling. I liked it the best, because it won't -- because that's easier, but upon reflection, I see that as problematic in its own way. Buffy of the three is perhaps the most troubling, in that I'm not sure the writers understood what it is to be truly violated in that way and we're more sympathetic and kinder to the rapist. Seeing Red in Buffy is hard to watch and contemplate because it makes us uncomfortable. It delves into why the guy does it -- or anyone would do it. It plays on the horror of it, the embarrassment, and the tragedy, but by making the rapist sympathetic. In a society in which it is incredibly difficult to convict someone of rape, due to the lack of corrobating evidence and physical proof...and the would-be attacker, rapist, etc is often let off the hook or worse, vindicated, this is a problematic stance to take, and one that I have always found deeply troubling. It would be one thing if that weren't the case. But rapists are rarely demonized, because they rarely are convicted. Also the rape is shown in the middle of a paranormal soap opera directed towards teens, and in an episode strung with jokes, and death, and other disturbing images promoting male violence against women. Perhaps that's the point -- to show, the negativity of that violence, the toxicity of it -- for both women and men.
Because that is what all three episodes have in common. No one comes out intact. It too is what the Luke/Laura romance has in common with these episodes. The rape or sexual violence or domestic abuse hurts both genders. Both are the victims of the violence. Both degraded by it. Buffy shows how the perpetuator is degraded by it. He reaches rock bottom -- he proves how he is a monster. Base. But so does 9-1-1 and Grey's -- in both cases we have men forcing themselves on women, or beating women, who they profess to love/desire. They are obsessed with them. They feel they will be happy if they get this woman. But they can't. And they aren't happy. They are miserable. All three show how the obsessive romantic love that is depicted in novels is toxic to the human condition.
In 9-1-1 - he tells her that they will be happy together. That he will make her forgive him. That they are destined. That they will be together forever. They will die together. She refuses. He wants to make her his, part of him. He has convinced himself that she will save him, make him better, happier -- even if it means he kills her. She's not a person, but an object. The object of his desire. A reflection of himself.
In Buffy - Spike is much the same way. And says the same things. Also, he sees her as the answer, the way out, she will make him happy. She's his. First I'll save her then I'll kill her, no first I'll kill her then I'll save her. "You're mine, Buffy."
Possessive. The object of his desire. A possession. It's not until he gets a soul that he realizes she isn't. And states that he loves her, but doesn't need her to return it , and doesn't expect anything back and that's okay.
In Grey's -- he tells her she'll enjoy it. He romances her with flowers and chocolates. Takes her to a nice ridge to watch a sunset and have a picnic. Then makes out, then forces her to have sex, then rapes her. She says no, he gets violent, and grins, as she fights him. She's pregnant. She has the child. She resents the child. She gives it up. She hates herself. And her daughter upon hearing the story, retreats into herself.
The romance is turned into a horror tale. And people wonder why dating has always scared me just a little bit.
Apparently some high school put on a play adaptation of the Ridley Scott Film Alien -- yes, THAT "Alien".
2. And there's FINALLY a movement to do older people in romance What's Age Got to Do With it? It also explains why every romance novel for years has women between the ages of 16-28 in a romance, but no one over that. And we wonder why our society is wacked. Why? Because the publishing industry was under the delusion that people don't want to read about older people getting it on -- all evidence to contrary. (Were they blind to the success of Bridges of Madison County?) Also weirdly more men write older women romance novels. They don't write the younger ones. Interesting. (The article didn't say that -- I just picked up on it.) I noticed it in the fanfic too, women (lesbian and het) wrote young innocent gal older guy erotica, while men did not. Interesting. I wonder why? (Of course I may be completely wrong on this -- it's not like I made a study of it or anything, just a random observation.)
Anyhow, another thing I noticed? It's bloody hard to find historical romance novels with older heroines. I've found a couple. Reading one now, actually. Easier to find contemporary with older heroines. Although, you do have to look. I'm actually sort of writing one -- except my book sort of defies description at the moment.
3. You can stream Jordan Peele's premiere episode of the Twilight Zone for free on Youtube. Go HERE. Yes, this is a blatant attempt to get subscribers. They haven't gotten me yet. But that's mainly because I've more television shows to watch than I know what to do with. Having widely diverse tastes or eclectic ones -- comes with its downsides in content saturated marketplace.
4. Hmmm..
Seeing Red - She begged for her life" post by itsnotmymind (nifty name by the way), is about how the writer's made the interesting choice to have Buffy beg Spike to stop in the attempted rape sequence, not just kick him off right off the bat -- while neither of the slayers he killed begged for their lives.
What I find interesting -- is I saw two television shows deal with domestic violence and assault in the last two weeks. Both showed it solely from the victim's perspective. One showed the aftermath, and the victim's helplessness, and inability to do anything to the attacker or defend themselves, the other showed the victim finally killing him, after literally fighting for her life.
OF the two, one focused on the violence, we saw stabbing, punching, pummeling, blood, it was action focused. We saw her fear. We saw his craziness. We saw the wounds. We watched him stab her boyfriend almost to death. We watched him shoot and kill a convenience store clerk who attempted to save her. We watched her hit him across the face with a fireplace poker and run for her life, with it in hand. We saw him chase her. We watched him attack her, while she hit him - finally fighting over a knife, she bit him, got the knife away and stabbed him until he was dead.
The OTHER television show didn't show any of that. Instead we had a conversation between two women. Each relating their stories. A mother and daughter. They were long estranged because the mother gave up the daughter at birth -- leaving her at a fire station. The daughter jumped from one abusive foster care home to the next, until she gave up and lived out of her car. Her first husband was abusive, so abusive, that she had an abortion after her cracked six of her ribs when she was seven months pregnant. We don't see any of this violence. She tells her mother about it -- to relate her history. But her mother flinches away. Her mother tells her how she, the mother, was brutally raped, and then got pregnant with her -- she is the product of rape. This understandably devastates her. The father is long dead -- having died in a motorcycle accident ages ago. He was never punished for his crime, her mother was too afraid to come forward. Just as the daughter's ex-husband was never truly punished for his -- he is killed by a hit and run, which had nothing to do with her or anyone. He dies in the hospital. We aren't shown the violence. During the episode we also meet a patient, Abby, who has been brutally raped. We see them convince her to do a rape kit, and support her, and fix her torn abdomen, which was severly damaged as a result of the rape, and call her husband and report it to the police. We hear why she's terrified to do so.
At the end of both episodes, a hotline is provided for survivors of domestic violence and rape. In neither is the male character/rapist/abuser given an arc. In the first he's a crazed psychopath. In the second, he's unseen and has no memorable name.
The first episode, is from the series 9-1-1, a series created by men, and written by men. The second episode is from the series Grey's Anatomy, created by women and written by women.
It's interesting that in the first we see the man, we get to know him to a degree, he's crazy, he's pretty, and it's violent, and she gets to violently kill him.
But in the second episode -- we never see the two male rapists. We don't get to know them. They have no face. Barely even a name. They aren't important. And the victims don't violently kill them. They survive, scarred.
Now let's go back to Seeing Red. In that episode, we never really see Buffy's reaction to it or how she deals with it. Nor does the series ever truly show it. The whole arc is done to further Spike (the rapist or perpetuator) arc and the rational as given by the writer/s is to show that people who commit these acts are not in of themselves evil. The writer states in various interviews: "Too often we demonize the rapist not his act. I wanted to examine that in a different way. Perhaps view it differently." It's notable that the actor portraying the role hated doing it and came thisclose to committing suicide because of it. Why? He'd had a family member who'd been raped and had made it clear it was a role he couldn't play, and could not watch scenes regarding it. The actress portraying Buffy has not talked about the scene or remarked on it at all. We do not know how she felt about it or handled it.
Notably in the episodes that follow, the act results in the rapist or alleged rapist hunting a soul and being redeemed. It motivates him to become ensouled and a better man. When he gets a soul -- he realizes he's done far worse, and then some, so really it's not possible at this point, and he's doomed. But the focus is on him and whether he can be redeemed, and at the end of the series he saves the day and sacrifices himself for her.
At the end of Seeing Red -- there is no hotline number. No one giving people a place to get support or help if this happened to them.
Buffy was targeted to young girls between the ages of 12-18 year old women. It was advertised to teen or tweens and shown at 8PM. It has been touted as feminist by many scholars and critics. And Buffy is considered a feminist icon. The creator of Buffy inspired the creators of Grey's Anatomy and 9-1-1. Seeing Red aired in 2002.
Grey's Anatomy is an adult series targeting 18-45 year old women. It's show-runner creator is an African American woman, and it has also been touted as feminist, if soapy. The episode aired last week.
9-1-1 is an adult series, created by three men, one of worked on Angel the Series. It targets mainly male viewers, and women. It aired on Sunday.
Of the three, only Grey's Anatomy fully focused on the victim or woman, and the emotional impact of the violence. Only Grey's showed it completely from the woman's point of view. 9-1-1, while far easier to watch than Grey's and more cathartic, showed it mainly through the male lense, the woman's boyfriend who was stabbed, her brother who was hunting for her, the clerk trying to help her, her attacker, and to a lesser degree herself.
Now, I've seen rape and domestic violence storylines on various series. The one's that handle it the best are daytime soap operas. Why? They show it over a length of time through various perspectives, and in greater depth and variety. General Hospital -- took Luke's drunken rape of Laura, and demonstrated how it was a crime that would always stand between them. No matter what they did. And showed how both had to find a way of overcoming it. Of the two -- Laura eventually came out the victor. But you would have had to see the soap from 1978 to 2019, to get that. Luke has both his kids deal with his crime and have difficulty looking at him the same way afterwards. Laura is the one who helps them handle it -- but as she puts it Kevin, her new husband, years later, it was always a problem. Luke put the burden of his guilt on her -- she had to keep forgiving him, and all she wanted to do was put it behind her. And finally, him as well. The show doesn't stop there, because it has multiple writers over the years, each writer examines rape from different perspectives. And each shows and examines the hard stuff underneath. Other soaps, have done the same -- going deeper than most television shows are willing to go.
Of the three, 9-1-1, Grey's Anatomy, and Buffy -- Grey's has been on air the longest, 15 years and counting. And it handles the assault's in a soap opera fashion. Delving deep into the emotions. 9-1-1 is realistic in the violence, but over-the-top as well...it's satisfying, but..it stops short, and we know it won't follow up on the emotional aftermath. Which is troubling. I liked it the best, because it won't -- because that's easier, but upon reflection, I see that as problematic in its own way. Buffy of the three is perhaps the most troubling, in that I'm not sure the writers understood what it is to be truly violated in that way and we're more sympathetic and kinder to the rapist. Seeing Red in Buffy is hard to watch and contemplate because it makes us uncomfortable. It delves into why the guy does it -- or anyone would do it. It plays on the horror of it, the embarrassment, and the tragedy, but by making the rapist sympathetic. In a society in which it is incredibly difficult to convict someone of rape, due to the lack of corrobating evidence and physical proof...and the would-be attacker, rapist, etc is often let off the hook or worse, vindicated, this is a problematic stance to take, and one that I have always found deeply troubling. It would be one thing if that weren't the case. But rapists are rarely demonized, because they rarely are convicted. Also the rape is shown in the middle of a paranormal soap opera directed towards teens, and in an episode strung with jokes, and death, and other disturbing images promoting male violence against women. Perhaps that's the point -- to show, the negativity of that violence, the toxicity of it -- for both women and men.
Because that is what all three episodes have in common. No one comes out intact. It too is what the Luke/Laura romance has in common with these episodes. The rape or sexual violence or domestic abuse hurts both genders. Both are the victims of the violence. Both degraded by it. Buffy shows how the perpetuator is degraded by it. He reaches rock bottom -- he proves how he is a monster. Base. But so does 9-1-1 and Grey's -- in both cases we have men forcing themselves on women, or beating women, who they profess to love/desire. They are obsessed with them. They feel they will be happy if they get this woman. But they can't. And they aren't happy. They are miserable. All three show how the obsessive romantic love that is depicted in novels is toxic to the human condition.
In 9-1-1 - he tells her that they will be happy together. That he will make her forgive him. That they are destined. That they will be together forever. They will die together. She refuses. He wants to make her his, part of him. He has convinced himself that she will save him, make him better, happier -- even if it means he kills her. She's not a person, but an object. The object of his desire. A reflection of himself.
In Buffy - Spike is much the same way. And says the same things. Also, he sees her as the answer, the way out, she will make him happy. She's his. First I'll save her then I'll kill her, no first I'll kill her then I'll save her. "You're mine, Buffy."
Possessive. The object of his desire. A possession. It's not until he gets a soul that he realizes she isn't. And states that he loves her, but doesn't need her to return it , and doesn't expect anything back and that's okay.
In Grey's -- he tells her she'll enjoy it. He romances her with flowers and chocolates. Takes her to a nice ridge to watch a sunset and have a picnic. Then makes out, then forces her to have sex, then rapes her. She says no, he gets violent, and grins, as she fights him. She's pregnant. She has the child. She resents the child. She gives it up. She hates herself. And her daughter upon hearing the story, retreats into herself.
The romance is turned into a horror tale. And people wonder why dating has always scared me just a little bit.
no subject
Date: 2019-04-04 02:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-04-04 07:48 pm (UTC)You're welcome! And agreed. It's a different and in some respects far more interesting dynamic.
no subject
Date: 2019-04-04 09:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-04-05 12:55 pm (UTC)Yay for finding good fic!
Begging
Date: 2019-04-04 02:48 pm (UTC)Seeing Red was as much about Buffy having been playing a dangerous game for months as it was about Spike. She thought it was all under control till it wasn't and that's what people (especially those who love to ship whomever with the bad boy) usually forget in the conversation about it. Spike did it, so he rightfully gets a big share of the blame. But what about all those living vicariously cheering on rough-stuff Spuffy before Seeing Red? How much of their anger at Spike was just having their favorite fantasy exploded? They don't call them as 'bad boys' for nothin'.
Re: Begging
Date: 2019-04-04 04:02 pm (UTC)Looking back on it, your response was my initial one as well. And I stated that in some respects in various meta, prior to the actual event. In fact I even predicted what happened in Seeing Red long before it happened, because this is a common trope in fiction. But now? I've mixed feelings. She had ended the relationship. And pretty solidly made it clear. He couldn't accept it, and tried to force her into continuing -- this is similar to 9-1-1, where the character, Maddie, files for divorce and clearly ends the relationship. Her husband stalks her, after she's left him, and kidnaps her. Forces his way in. In Grey's, she agrees to go on a date, and he takes that as consent to go further.
All three comment on the "nature" of consent. And when withheld, regardless of the circumstances, things stop. The fault is with Spike for breaking into her home, her personal space, and forcing himself on her. Period. End. He has no excuse. She trusted him to not do that. He violated her in multiple ways, including her trust. Done. What came before is irrelevant and not admissible at this point. It does not matter that they were in an abusive relationship prior to that -- she ended it. He is solely at fault.
That said, I think I understand this morning, better than last night -- having thought over it, what the writers were doing with the story. And you are correct, in regards to the prior two slayers, in a way it is apples and oranges, but in another way it's not. "Begging for it" -- is a statement that a lot of rapists use to justify their actions, to let themselves off the hook. They deserved it. Sort of like what you state above -- " She thought it was all under control till it wasn't and that's what people (especially those who love to ship whomever with the bad boy) usually forget in the conversation about it. Spike did it, so he rightfully gets a big share of the blame. But what about all those living vicariously cheering on rough-stuff Spuffy before Seeing Red? How much of their anger at Spike was just having their favorite fantasy exploded? They don't call them as 'bad boys' for nothin'." It's called "blaming the victim" -- oh she attracted it to herself. Because it's easier, it lets the person who did the act off the hook. Spike looks at the women he killed -- and says, they were begging for it. They wanted to die. Suicide by vampire. It's the writer's reaction in a way to the romantization of the villain or monster in the slasher pics. Fans say -- oh she so deserved to be killed by slasher (Freddie, Michael Meyers, etc) -- and he's flipping the tables, examining it. Subverting it. And shoving it in their face. We think violence solves things, that it will make us feel better if someone we dislike or hate is hurt -- but it doesn't. Buffy in many ways is an anti-revenge fantasy piece.
Also, to a degree I agree with what you state above --- because both Buffy and Spike are the victims here. Victims of a culture and society that resorts to violence to resolve problems. A toxic culture. Their relationship and the series containing them is just one reflection of that, and commentary, showing how it doesn't work.
no subject
Date: 2019-04-04 09:05 pm (UTC)Like you, I've sort of hit the wall where romance novels are concerned. My solution has been to experiment with indy titles and genres I wouldn't normally be drawn to. It's a jungle out there. With Audible's Romance Package, it's easy to download and discard, happily. Books that have similar covers and titles can contain vastly different content (and quality of content). I've discovered some intriguing authors (J.A. Huss, for instance, though she isn't perfect) and a heaping pile of very very bad novels, esp. erotica. It's been quite a ride! LOL.
Still, the age of the heroines rarely sways outside the 18-32 range (with 25 to 28 as the average). It's bloody annoying because the readers don't seem to be in that age bracket at all. I also crave normal looking heroes and heroines (not super tall, genius smart, super petite, super strong, super vamp/hybrid/wolf, super Special Forces, super hot, super tattooed, super rakish, etc.). Just...people. Normal people can be legitimate subjects of romance. In fact, the best pairings involve regular people. I've read only a few 40-something romances that were excellent, and I'm looking forward to seeing more on the market. Perhaps I'll write my own if I get frustrated enough. LOL.
Off-topic segue: BTW, I can't believe how 50 Shades has warped the erotica market. Is there nothing erotic about a dynamic that ISN'T staged sub-dom billionaire/MC/gangster? Talk about a lack of imagination. 90s erotica was much more varied and featured healthy relationships, for the most part. Today, everything needs to be twisted to be entertaining. I'm not at all sure we're making progress in the depiction of romance or rape. Especially as rape-like scenarios and literal sexual slavery are now the top subjects of "dark romance" written by women. I'm not sure how to "read" this cultural phenomenon. Women are reinstilling these tropes into the culture faster than they are being jettisoned. And what are men doing? Not paying attention at all. They're playing war games and reading fantasy/crime novels. Weird dissonance.
Romance as horror. Horror as romance.
no subject
Date: 2019-04-04 10:52 pm (UTC)My solution has been to experiment with indy titles and genres I wouldn't normally be drawn to.
Yeah, I should probably try doing that again. Instead of clicking on whatever seems intriguing and is on sale via SmartBitches. The last one I read was from SmartBitches and...eh...it reminded me of why I don't like the contemporary romance billionaire guy from the wrong side of the tracks trope, also the writing was horrific -- there are sentences that made no sense. It desperately need a good copy or line editor The one I'm read after it or tried to read after it - also from Smart Bitches. They can be hit and miss. I thought "What the Parrot Saw" would be good, but my attention kept wandering during it -- and I had troubles connecting to the characters. No clue why -- it has a 28 year old heroine and a 26 year old hero, and the heroine is the pirate, he's well...her cabin boy. Nice gender flip there. But the writing isn't grabbing -- it's independently published (you can tell by how horrible the cover art is...LOL!) I may go back to it yet. The one I am currently reading, also rec'd by Smart Bitches and on sale for .99 cents (only reason I grabbed it) -- The Companion's Secret, is interesting because it's partly based on historical fact, and the heroine's secret is that she's writing a novel about an Irish Woman who overcomes an English Lord to promote Irish succession from England. When her cousin is basically told that she has to marry the hero, an English Lord, with a rakish reputation, the heroine decides to try and stop it. She also decides to get to the know Lord better - so she can make her villain more realistic and begins to patter the villain in her book after the English Lord. So, great set-up. But it is slow...they spend a lot of time flirting with each other.
Still, the age of the heroines rarely sways outside the 18-32 range (with 25 to 28 as the average). It's bloody annoying because the readers don't seem to be in that age bracket at all.
It is really odd considering a good percentage of the people reading romance novels are between the ages of 45-80. Why would they be interested in reading an erotic romance between two people young enough to be their kids? I honestly can't read the New Adult or YA romance any longer. And I blame 50 Shades for the whole rise in New Adult Erotica Contemporary Romance novels.
You're right the best pairings are regular people. Easier to identify with. Super everything...gets old after a bit. I get the fantasy and why they write it. But the market is rather saturated with it at this point. There are a few that don't - Rose Lerner, doesn't go that route. I probably should read more of her novels.
Off-topic segue: BTW, I can't believe how 50 Shades has warped the erotica market. Is there nothing erotic about a dynamic that ISN'T staged sub-dom billionaire/MC/gangster? Talk about a lack of imagination. 90s erotica was much more varied and featured healthy relationships, for the most part. Today, everything needs to be twisted to be entertaining. I'm not at all sure we're making progress in the depiction of romance or rape.
Yeah it surprised me too. Although, we are making headway in the non-contemporary romance market. That market doesn't do rape as much, and has moved completely away from the boddice-ripper romances of Rosemary Rogers, Judith McNaught, Kathleen Woodwiss, etc.
The forced/brutal seduction as romance trope or dark fantasy trope seems to be restricted to contemporary, specifically Billionaire Ruthless Guy and young wet-behind-the-ears virginal heroine. I've read a few of those -- and they are all awful. The only good one that I read was a fanfic by Nautibitz, but it's because she totally subverted the trope -- the billionaire was a hotel chain mogul and rock media mogul, who was the estranged father of her husband. She has an affair with him and they fall in lust/love. With kinky sex. She's not a virgin and she's in her early thirties, he's in his late 40s, almost 50. It was called Crave, and it was dark in places -- but weirdly good. 50 Shades reminded me of it, but not as well written.
And you are right there's some really dark contemporary/paranormal out there. I was reading and seeing a lot of it right around the time of 50 Shades, seen less now, but I also jumped away from contemporary. Every time I stick my nose back into contemporary -- it's...well a rich controlling, abusive man, and a sweet, but rather dumb heroine.
Weirdly the m/m and f/f slash is a little better or so I'm told. Although there are some really frigging dark m/m out there as well.
I don't know why contemporary romance writers get so sadistic and misogynistic -- the historicals don't really any more. I noticed Rosemary Rogers contemporary novels were really dark and sadistically kinky. So it does go back a ways. Although I do understand the fantasy -- it's not unlike reading a horror novel, or Game of Thrones, if you think about it.
no subject
Date: 2019-04-06 08:22 pm (UTC)Rose Lerner is indeed a good example re: "regular people" romance. Mary Balogh used to do a fair job, but her recent fare hasn't impressed me (perhaps my tastes have evolved, though).
"Weirdly the m/m and f/f slash is a little better or so I'm told. Although there are some really frigging dark m/m out there as well."
I never read f/f but I find some m/m features very well fleshed out characters and dynamics (especially where the non-sexual chemistry is concerned). I do steer away from the dark m/m, though. Shudder.
I guess the 'market' will eventually decide where the balancing point falls. Women are buying billions of $'s worth of books. Ultimately, we'll be deciding, for good or ill.
no subject
Date: 2019-04-07 01:35 am (UTC)I've admittedly haven't read the f/f either...some of the m/m, but mainly the fantasy such as CS. Pascal's novels, which is about as dark as I'm going to get.
I tried one that was eh, really dark, that I can't remember the name of. I read three chapters, or 50 pages, then returned immediately to Amazon for a refund and flagged it. I've never flagged a book as being, eh, in poor taste -- but I did this one. It blew my mind. (And I've read American Psycho.)