But if you like that sort of stuff? I highly recommend Moonlight and Tanya Huff's Blood Ties and Charlian Harri's Sookie series.
Why would you think I'd like that? I don't read romance novels, watch TV for romance, and I don't have particular awareness of the genre. Which I find largely uninteresting. Perhaps I should then differentiate by using the term "un-romance" as opposed to "anti-romance". Some viewers want Romance, either to be promoted or undercut. I don't need it. But I examine it if it's there.
I'm a realist, and my primary interest is examining the characters as though they really inhabit the worlds their shows are set in. Hence my expectations for a character's romantic life being "she's 17, she's in HS, of course it's not going to last". Hence my assumption that Buffy, at age 22 as of the S7 finale, has yet to meet the person she'll marry, if we're required to assume she ultimately does.
From my unromantic perspective - seeing how the relationship falls apart or hearing the author tell me why romance doesn't work - that doesn't interest me. I already expect that. What does interest me, is seeing why they actually would be together in the first place - and to see what values lead to support or conflict between them. (see Ted or Gingerbread) And what are the organic aspects of the characters that make things work or not work - and what it tells us about who they are and need to grow into.
That characters would be together because of lust/ passion/desire - I find obvious and boring. And too often a creative crutch for the writers.
I recognize that shows require ongoing love stories with dramatic tension, as this appeals to a broader base of passionate viewers. I'm not one of them.
no subject
Why would you think I'd like that? I don't read romance novels, watch TV for romance, and I don't have particular awareness of the genre. Which I find largely uninteresting. Perhaps I should then differentiate by using the term "un-romance" as opposed to "anti-romance". Some viewers want Romance, either to be promoted or undercut. I don't need it. But I examine it if it's there.
I'm a realist, and my primary interest is examining the characters as though they really inhabit the worlds their shows are set in. Hence my expectations for a character's romantic life being "she's 17, she's in HS, of course it's not going to last". Hence my assumption that Buffy, at age 22 as of the S7 finale, has yet to meet the person she'll marry, if we're required to assume she ultimately does.
From my unromantic perspective - seeing how the relationship falls apart or hearing the author tell me why romance doesn't work - that doesn't interest me. I already expect that. What does interest me, is seeing why they actually would be together in the first place - and to see what values lead to support or conflict between them. (see Ted or Gingerbread) And what are the organic aspects of the characters that make things work or not work - and what it tells us about who they are and need to grow into.
That characters would be together because of lust/ passion/desire - I find obvious and boring. And too often a creative crutch for the writers.
I recognize that shows require ongoing love stories with dramatic tension, as this appeals to a broader base of passionate viewers. I'm not one of them.