Panel Report - Feminist Romance
Jun. 10th, 2006 12:25 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
revenaPrevious reports: “Láadan vs. tlhIngan Hol: Differential Diffusion of Created Languages”
“Women's vs. Men's Magic in Fantasy”
“Never The Hero: Girls in Genre Literature”
“An Agent’s Point of View”
After the agent panel, I went to listen to the Lady Poetesses from Hell (who were fantastic, btw), and then![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
seeksadventure and I got to sit together at the “Feminist Romance” panel. The moderator was Jennifer Stevenson, and the panelists were Emma Bull (so awesome!), Stephanie Burgis, Cynthia Gonsalves, Nina Kiriki Hoffman, and Lyda A. Morehouse (who I have a bit of a crush on, now).
This panel was for discussion of whether romance novels can be feminist (pretty much everybody seemed to think that yes, they can), and what a feminist romance novel would look like. I had hoped, personally, for a little more discussion of cross-genre romance (since I write a lot of romance/fantasy), but it was a very entertaining panel even though it didn’t touch on that area very much.
At the top of my page of notes on that panel, I have scrawled:
Hero = oral sex
Which should give you an idea of the general tone of the discussion… ;-)
Much of the time at the beginning of the discussion was taken up in listing qualities that a feminist romance novel would need to have. Here’s what I wrote down:
- The woman needs a problem unrelated to the guy (and needs to resolve it!)
- If it’s romance, should there be a resolution to the relationship? (the typical romance novel ends with the couple getting together/resolving their issues/getting married. Should this be the case for a [presumably more realistic?] feminist romance novel? People seemed to mostly think “yes.” I’ll talk more about the importance of a happy ending in romance in a bit)
- Don’t have the couple acting as parents/therapists. Must have balance of emotional power. (this was something that Emma Bull said, and I thought it was very important. I know that I, like many authors who enjoy a romantic subplot, tend to write very emotionally damaged characters falling in love with each other. Tamar and Arkelga are reasonably functional adults – but Emlyn certainly isn’t. [Oh man, I would never want to date a guy like Emlyn!] I always try, when writing Emlyn and Valmai, to avoid turning Valmai’s strength into a crutch for Emlyn’s problems. He’s fucked up, and he needs to deal with that on his own. And I, as the author, need to make sure that I’m doing right by my characters, and not taking the easy way out and turning one of them into nothing more than a support system for the other.)
- Sex good for the woman! (of course!)
Next, the discussion shifted to the ways in which romance is different from other genres, and how a romance novel is typically constructed. One thing that came up is the way that romance novels typically have three interrelated plots.
Romance Novel Plots
->External Plot – “We have to save the ranch!”
-> Internal Plot 1 – “She’s a city girl!”
-> Internal Plot 2 – “He’s a cowboy!”
Basically, the external plot is the outside forces that disrupt the romance/keep the heroes apart/etc., and the interaction of the two internal plots is the inside force that disrupts the romance and keeps the heroes apart, etc. The story comes to resolution because there’s character development going on throughout both internal plots – she’s a city girl, but in trying to save the ranch, she learns to love the country. He’s a cowboy, but when a big-shot lady lawyer helps him save his ranch, he learns to appreciate high culture and good shopping….or whatever. You get the idea! If you don’t, and you’ve never read a romance novel, pick one up. I think you’ll see right away what’s going on with the plot interactions – most of them really do have those elements (minus the ranch motif, maybe).
A few other notes I took about the differences between romance and other genres, and what to be sure to include when writing one’s own romance:
- POV swaps accepted, even expected in romance (I just finished reading a non-romance novel where the point of view switched every three paragraphs, and it drove me nuts. But it doesn’t bug me at all when it’s a romance novel. So, yeah, I’d say that’s about right. And it does allow for some pretty blatant exposition regarding emotion, which is often key in romance)
- Don’t limit relationships to romantic only! (Yes! My favorite romance novels are those that have really strong friendships and family relationships portrayed in them, and not just the leads going on dates)
- Humor often/usually plays a big role – self-reflective humor (I don’t think this is limited to romance, particularly, but I do see it more in romance and chick lit than in hard sci-fi or mystery or fantasy)
This panel – and discussion withseeksadventure afterwards – got me thinking a lot about why I like romance novels as much as I do. I’d be the first to say that many of them are utter trash. But I’ll say that about fantasy, sci-fi, and literary fiction, too, damnit. Good writing is good writing, and it knows no genre – and there is good writing out there, in romance as in fantasy, as in sci-fi, as in mainstream fiction.
The thing that most people dislike about romance novels hasn’t got much to do with the actual writing, though. It’s the plot. Specifically, it’s how the plot is pretty much the same. When you pick up a romance, you know how it’s going to end. The woman and the man (or, more rarely, the two women or the two men)? They get together! Happily! By the end of the book!
This whole knowing how the plot will come out thing is a real turn-off for a lot of readers. But you know, I don’t pick up a romance novel when I’m in the mood for a mystery. If I want mystery, I turn to Minette Walters, or Nevada Barr. I pick up a romance when what I want is predictability.
And before those of you who don’t read romances start snorting about that, I have a question for you – how often do you re-read your childhood favorites? How worn out, exactly, is your copy of The Hobbit? And beyond childhood nostalgia – how many times have you re-read the entire Harry Potter series?
If you’re one of those people who makes fun of the predictability of romance, but you’re smiling in rueful recognition right now, maybe it’s time you gave the genre another try. I’m serious – it’s like having all of the comfort of reading a familiar novel, but with new characters and situations every time!
If you want to give it a whirl, here’s a list of titles (mostly cross-genre) that people called out during the panel that are apparently pretty good:
Carpe Demon: Adventures of a Demon-Hunting Soccer Mom by Julie Kenner
Fast Women by Jennifer Crusie
The Hallowed Hunt by Lois McMaster Bujold (I believe this one is mostly fantasy with a side of romance, rather than romance with a side of fantasy)
Tall, Dark, and Dead by Tate Halloway (which is to say, by Lyda A. Morehouse. I heard her read a bit of this the next day, and it was great. I am totally going to pick up a copy)
I can also recommend pretty much anything by Glenna McReynolds. Her stuff is a pretty good blend of romance and fantasy, and it might make a good transition for people who are looking to expand their reading genres.
“Women's vs. Men's Magic in Fantasy”
“Never The Hero: Girls in Genre Literature”
“An Agent’s Point of View”
After the agent panel, I went to listen to the Lady Poetesses from Hell (who were fantastic, btw), and then
seeksadventure and I got to sit together at the “Feminist Romance” panel. The moderator was Jennifer Stevenson, and the panelists were Emma Bull (so awesome!), Stephanie Burgis, Cynthia Gonsalves, Nina Kiriki Hoffman, and Lyda A. Morehouse (who I have a bit of a crush on, now).This panel was for discussion of whether romance novels can be feminist (pretty much everybody seemed to think that yes, they can), and what a feminist romance novel would look like. I had hoped, personally, for a little more discussion of cross-genre romance (since I write a lot of romance/fantasy), but it was a very entertaining panel even though it didn’t touch on that area very much.
At the top of my page of notes on that panel, I have scrawled:
Hero = oral sex
Which should give you an idea of the general tone of the discussion… ;-)
Much of the time at the beginning of the discussion was taken up in listing qualities that a feminist romance novel would need to have. Here’s what I wrote down:
- The woman needs a problem unrelated to the guy (and needs to resolve it!)
- If it’s romance, should there be a resolution to the relationship? (the typical romance novel ends with the couple getting together/resolving their issues/getting married. Should this be the case for a [presumably more realistic?] feminist romance novel? People seemed to mostly think “yes.” I’ll talk more about the importance of a happy ending in romance in a bit)
- Don’t have the couple acting as parents/therapists. Must have balance of emotional power. (this was something that Emma Bull said, and I thought it was very important. I know that I, like many authors who enjoy a romantic subplot, tend to write very emotionally damaged characters falling in love with each other. Tamar and Arkelga are reasonably functional adults – but Emlyn certainly isn’t. [Oh man, I would never want to date a guy like Emlyn!] I always try, when writing Emlyn and Valmai, to avoid turning Valmai’s strength into a crutch for Emlyn’s problems. He’s fucked up, and he needs to deal with that on his own. And I, as the author, need to make sure that I’m doing right by my characters, and not taking the easy way out and turning one of them into nothing more than a support system for the other.)
- Sex good for the woman! (of course!)
Next, the discussion shifted to the ways in which romance is different from other genres, and how a romance novel is typically constructed. One thing that came up is the way that romance novels typically have three interrelated plots.
Romance Novel Plots
->External Plot – “We have to save the ranch!”
-> Internal Plot 1 – “She’s a city girl!”
-> Internal Plot 2 – “He’s a cowboy!”
Basically, the external plot is the outside forces that disrupt the romance/keep the heroes apart/etc., and the interaction of the two internal plots is the inside force that disrupts the romance and keeps the heroes apart, etc. The story comes to resolution because there’s character development going on throughout both internal plots – she’s a city girl, but in trying to save the ranch, she learns to love the country. He’s a cowboy, but when a big-shot lady lawyer helps him save his ranch, he learns to appreciate high culture and good shopping….or whatever. You get the idea! If you don’t, and you’ve never read a romance novel, pick one up. I think you’ll see right away what’s going on with the plot interactions – most of them really do have those elements (minus the ranch motif, maybe).
A few other notes I took about the differences between romance and other genres, and what to be sure to include when writing one’s own romance:
- POV swaps accepted, even expected in romance (I just finished reading a non-romance novel where the point of view switched every three paragraphs, and it drove me nuts. But it doesn’t bug me at all when it’s a romance novel. So, yeah, I’d say that’s about right. And it does allow for some pretty blatant exposition regarding emotion, which is often key in romance)
- Don’t limit relationships to romantic only! (Yes! My favorite romance novels are those that have really strong friendships and family relationships portrayed in them, and not just the leads going on dates)
- Humor often/usually plays a big role – self-reflective humor (I don’t think this is limited to romance, particularly, but I do see it more in romance and chick lit than in hard sci-fi or mystery or fantasy)
This panel – and discussion with
seeksadventure afterwards – got me thinking a lot about why I like romance novels as much as I do. I’d be the first to say that many of them are utter trash. But I’ll say that about fantasy, sci-fi, and literary fiction, too, damnit. Good writing is good writing, and it knows no genre – and there is good writing out there, in romance as in fantasy, as in sci-fi, as in mainstream fiction.The thing that most people dislike about romance novels hasn’t got much to do with the actual writing, though. It’s the plot. Specifically, it’s how the plot is pretty much the same. When you pick up a romance, you know how it’s going to end. The woman and the man (or, more rarely, the two women or the two men)? They get together! Happily! By the end of the book!
This whole knowing how the plot will come out thing is a real turn-off for a lot of readers. But you know, I don’t pick up a romance novel when I’m in the mood for a mystery. If I want mystery, I turn to Minette Walters, or Nevada Barr. I pick up a romance when what I want is predictability.
And before those of you who don’t read romances start snorting about that, I have a question for you – how often do you re-read your childhood favorites? How worn out, exactly, is your copy of The Hobbit? And beyond childhood nostalgia – how many times have you re-read the entire Harry Potter series?
If you’re one of those people who makes fun of the predictability of romance, but you’re smiling in rueful recognition right now, maybe it’s time you gave the genre another try. I’m serious – it’s like having all of the comfort of reading a familiar novel, but with new characters and situations every time!
If you want to give it a whirl, here’s a list of titles (mostly cross-genre) that people called out during the panel that are apparently pretty good:
Carpe Demon: Adventures of a Demon-Hunting Soccer Mom by Julie Kenner
Fast Women by Jennifer Crusie
The Hallowed Hunt by Lois McMaster Bujold (I believe this one is mostly fantasy with a side of romance, rather than romance with a side of fantasy)
Tall, Dark, and Dead by Tate Halloway (which is to say, by Lyda A. Morehouse. I heard her read a bit of this the next day, and it was great. I am totally going to pick up a copy)
I can also recommend pretty much anything by Glenna McReynolds. Her stuff is a pretty good blend of romance and fantasy, and it might make a good transition for people who are looking to expand their reading genres.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-10 09:38 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-10 05:04 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-10 05:10 pm (UTC)It's odd though, because that kind of will they / won't they tension is frequently brought into play on TV with sitcoms and other series. Pure romance does tend to the formulaic.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-10 05:14 pm (UTC)But that's also why cross-genre romance appeals to me so much (as both a reader and a writer). There's a lot more leeway to be had with romance/fantasy, romance/mystery, etc.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-10 06:08 pm (UTC)Oooh and a new genre is born.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-11 12:56 pm (UTC)Harlequin has actually brought out an entirely new line - called Luna - which caters SPECIFICALLY to fantasy romances.... - and they have a discussion board for writers and fans on their web-site and many and many professional writers post there.
ya know - for those looking for discussion on cross-genre romance..... *grin*
http://www.luna-books.com
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-11 06:31 pm (UTC)