(no subject)

[erastes]

Ranty McRant Rant.

Cross posted from the Romantic Times Forum.

I have to say that I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw Avon's historical romance submission guidelines . I really wish that I could write heterosexual romance, especially in light of RT's rules, and the fact it's a great market to be in - but when I see this sort of restrictive guideline, I realise WHY I can't.

A man and a woman meet--she's like no other woman's he's ever known. She tantalizes him in ways he never thought possible...and he'll stop at nothing to make her his--forever.

These are love stories set primarily in Great Britain and the United States before 1900

1. this really encourages formulaic fiction. It's roast beef today and roast beef tomorrow and roast beef for ever and ever and ever. The same old diet of plot and denouement that we know exactly what's going to happen before we even open the book.

2. Why only America and England? Again, it's repetitive and I find it astounding the Avon would stipulate this - particularly as they are big in other countries, like Australia for example. Is there no historical stories to be told about France? Spain? Mexico? Canada? A hundred other countries? I can't tell you how refreshing it is to find a love story set in Ancient Machu Picchu rather than yet another story of a crofter's daughter who catches the eye of the local ne'er do well laird...

3. Finally, and most importantly - the whole tone of that guideline is wrong. The woman beguiles and tantalises the man. He is inflamed - he will stop at nothing. He pursues... she flees... he courts.... she resists... he stalks.... she obtains a restraining order.... he breaks into her house....

He will stop at nothing to make her his forever.

Really? Nothing?

It's about time we had an end to this victim/aggressor kind of approach, and about time people stopped encouraging others to think that "stopping at nothing" when it comes to sexual advances is a good thing.

/here endeth the rant. Erastes has stomped out of the building.

Comments

[haydenthorne.livejournal.com]

One of the essays I read for a class was written about the romance formula, and it does say that this whole "You're mine 4-evah, biyotch!" deal caters to women's rape fantasies.

The writer was clear about that, too, i.e., that all women secretly harbor rape fantasies and like seeing them played out in romances. I no longer have the textbook with me. I think I gave it to another lecturer. Damn.

[haydenthorne.livejournal.com]

I've also been tinkering around with a plotbunny that's set in Spanish-colonized Philippines. >:)

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I admit I used to have abduction and ravishing fantasies - when I was about 14....

Grrrrr. As rwday said, it's not 1952.

That ...

[vashtan.livejournal.com]

... nails it.

That's exactly the point. And the reason why I don't touch romance as a genre. It's so backwards it stinks. (I'm excluding m/m romance)

Re: That ...

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Heh heh. What frightens me is that one day Alyson Romance Imprint (Alymance - WHAT A GREAT NAME THEY SHOULD PAY ME FOR THAT!!!)

Will read:

He's dark smouldering and powerful. One day he meets a blond fragile man who turns his world upside down. He will turn heaven and earth aside to make this man his own. Submissions to Alymance @ .....

[elisa-rolle.livejournal.com]

An old essay, "DANGEROUS MEN AND ADVENTUROUS WOMEN" spoke about this idea of the "women's rape fantasies". Linda Barlow, in her essay "Linda Barlow - The Androgynous Writer: Another View of Point of View" says: "I'm not ashamed to admit that I've always been one of those die-hard fans of the old-fashioned, hard-edged romances which feature a feisty heroine who falls into love and conflict with a dangerous hero with sardonic eyebrows and a cruel but sensual mouth. In the romances I most enjoy, as well as the ones I write, the intensity of excitement I feel while reading is directly proportional to the level of emotional hazard the heroine experiences as her relationship with the hero develops. When he stalks her, carries her off, besieges her honor, and finally makes love to her with a passion and determination that would unnerve me if I ever encountered it in real life, I greedily turn the pages, finding within such scenes a catharsis of the essential impulse or desire that led me to pick up the book in the first place." But if you read all the essay, at the end Barlow says that women want to be the man in the romance and not the woman. For me is too long to explain, my english is not so good. But I reccomend this essay if you want to understand better the matter. ciao, elisa

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Oh I understand that some idiot women think that they'd enjoy that sort of thing, but having actually BEEN in a relationship like that, I can tell you it aint fun at all.

I fully admit that Standish is a little bit like this formula, but it was a deliberate act to do it, a gentle spoof on the genre.

[elisa-rolle.livejournal.com]

Maybe I can't explain well what I want to say. In few words, the rape's fantasies are not what women search in romance. Most of the time, the woman want to be the hero, and not the heroine. Is the power of the male figure she likes. Cause in the real world she doesn't have it she search it in the Historical Romance, a far world where she can be what she want. If she is a woman with power, then she search another type of stories, like contemporary, suspence, etc...

[quatorze.livejournal.com]

Uhh, that so-called "guideline" just plain stinks. I mean, presumably these stories are mostly read by women... so where does the "love" (as in "love story") figure in? They prescribe his feelings and reactions, but what about hers? Or doesn't it matter what she thinks about it all? *scratches head*

[kenazfiction.livejournal.com]

It's as if the woman only matters because she inflames the man; her self-worth is not inherent, but dependent on the man's obsessive desire for her.

I know many women find romance novels empowering, but when they're described in terms such as Avon's, I find myself thinking they're a bit repugnant.

[rwday.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I realize romance is escapism, but I have a hard time imagining why someone wants to 'escape' into a world with formulaic scary obsessive stalker guys.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I guess Rafe is a bit Stalkery....

*G*

[tammylee.livejournal.com]

THANK YOU!
I don't like that sort of 'pursuit' in real life and I don't like it much in my fantasy readings either. It is rarely sexy to be on the receiving end of stalking; but I confess stalking in fiction as a third party observer can be sexy.

[darklocket.livejournal.com]

Ugh. Just...ick. That's one reason I read slash fanfic romance almost exclusively these days - at least there are Warnings for that kind of thing! (It's called 'non-con', I believe...) I don't read much genre romance myself but I've come across a couple of books in my time that were just graphic stories of abusive relationships, thinly disguised with a bit of fluffy tinsel here and there, it was incredibly depressing.

[kenazfiction.livejournal.com]

I don't read much genre romance myself but I've come across a couple of books in my time that were just graphic stories of abusive relationships, thinly disguised with a bit of fluffy tinsel here and there, it was incredibly depressing.

Oh, agreed, agreed.

It's non-con without a warning in the headers, all gussied up into one of those awful "Your lips say 'no...no...' but your eyes say 'yes! Yes!'" scenarios. Bring me the fanfic, please.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I know they are supposed to be escapist, and that's fine, but making ALL the historical fiction like that? It shuts the door on so much else there could be.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I felt the same about non-con fanfic too, nothing worse than having Lucius use and abuse Harry for weeks and months and have Harry come to LURVE him and then redeem him with his Lurve....

[elisa-rolle.livejournal.com]

In my blog we have discuss a lot about the strictly rules" of romance. A friend of mine has posted some thinking like "THE UNSPOKEN RULE: ROMANCE HAS TO BE SAFE & LIGHTHEARTED" and "ROMANCE AND LIMITATION". In this post we discuss also about the plot and the setting of the "classical" romance. If you want you can read it here:
http://romancebooks.splinder.com/tag/deep_thinking
ciao, elisa

[erastes.livejournal.com]

It's the rules that drive me insane, I can't stand them. "must have a happy ever after"

WHY?????

The best love stories are the tragedies!

[elisa-rolle.livejournal.com]

Yes. Is that we discuss. I don't think a romance must have rules. The Bronze Man by Paullina Simons is against the rule, so we can't consider it a romance? and Jane Eyre? and Wuthering Heights? When I'm happy I want to laugh, but when I'm sad I want to cry... I'm various, so must be what I read.

[julesjones]

Formula is *exactly* what some women want. So is rape fantasy. But that's "some", not "all". And those guidelines are precisely why I personally read very little that is marketed as romance (I get my romance fix from stuff marketed as something else, hello Miles and Amelia), and why I am not interested in learning to write het so that I can submit to the big boys and get more money. It's not just my fondness for m/m that keeps my from being able to write to those guidelines.

I'm finishing off a tycoon/secretary today. It's the right length for a category, and it has one of the staple plots. But even if I switched the orientation, it doesn't fit this formula.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I mean, I may have bought an Avon historical romance book before reading those, but I certainly won't now.

[predatrix.livejournal.com]

When I see guidelines like those I tend to grit my teeth and try to remember that fantasy-rape and fantasy-domination are about stuff that happens in the head.

There's a lot of fiction out there, or in here. Narrative, art, dreams, television. The theatre inside the small round wall of the personal skull. Validating a view of the world ('see! this is acceptable behaviour!') is only one of the purposes of fiction. (Catharsis, comedy/parody and 'safe play' with narratives it would be bloody suicidal to act out in real life are also in there somewhere, and that's only a few examples).

I'm a slash reader. I've been explaining to other fen who 'don't get it' for decades that no, I don't want to tie Hot Guy 1 and Hot Guy 2 to the same bed and see what happens.

I try to remember to extend the same courtesy to women whose fantasies are definitely not my own, and accept that if a woman loves to read about being raped or dominated it says nothing at all about how she acts in daily life. It certainly shouldn't suggest that that is how she should be treated.

Sub-female fantasy makes me feel uncomfortable and I don't go for it, but I don't think it's a reflection of 'real' desire to be treated the way the heroine is treated any more than any other fantasy.

That said, I still don't think much of those guidelines, or the books that follow them. Publishers like these have been resting on the same narrow self-fulfilling prophecies for far too long. They tell us 'we know what sells because we sell it' and create unnecessarily restrictive blueprints like the stuff you quote here.

I'm quietly pleased that online publishing has proved that there is a market for bucking the trend. A small market, probably, but we're out there.

I've even noticed the rise in cross-genre in ordinary dead-tree publishing: 'detective noir with wizards' and 'rom-com with vampires' are much more noticeable subgenres than they used to be.

Let's hope these publishers find themselves hit hard enough in the wallet by a deserting readership that they rejoin the modern age...

courtesy

[dubaiyan.livejournal.com]

Oh, well said!

tropes

[dubaiyan.livejournal.com]

this reminded me of a historific of mine, where when the heroine was unwilling the hero backed off...a reader emailed to explain why this was unattractive ;)

Alymance! Patent it :D

[bloodrebel333.livejournal.com]

Word.