I have just finished viewing the section in the BBC 4 documentary Reader I Married Him on heroes. The documentary discussed in depth four heroes of romantic literature: Mr. Darcy, Mr. Rochester, Heathcliffe, and Rhett Butler. Watching this I found myself at a loss because with the exception of my brief crush on Mr. Darcy at the age of 3 (I had seen the Masterpiece Theater version of "Pride & Prejudice" ) I cannot honestly say that as a teenage girl any of these literary gentleman managed to capture my heart. There was one, however, and the rest of this post is about to take on the flavor of a shameful confession because the fictional character I have been in love with all these years is the Vampire Lestat.
I know. I know. Don't say anything. And before you ask, I was never a goth kid (too much effort), I've never been to New Orleans, and I find most vampire novel excreble. So how did this happen?
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Teresa Mederios' Heroines
This Saturday, which as everyone knows was Valentine's day, I went to my favorite bookstore accompanied by my mother. For paperback loves, it is used-book heaven and chiefly among its qualities is the very excellent romance section. I can never walk out of there without at least three books. This time I picked up Teresa Mederios' Thief of Hearts, one of hers I had not read yet. I have always loved Mederios ever since I first read The Beast and the Bride. Not only is she funny, but her heroines are outstanding.
I think one of the chief problems I have with many romance novels is that there is a discrepancy between the heroes and heroines as far as characterization is concerned. More often than I would wish very compelling heroes are paired with heroines who are . . . flat. I wouldn't go as far as saying that they are TSTL or TGTBT (Too Good To Be True) but merely lacking in dimension. I suppose that this is because the heroine in many romances is merely acting as a place-holder for the reader. I know that there are those who enjoy or at the very least, over look this but I have no patience with place-holders, zeroes if you will. I enjoy falling in love with and rooting for the heroine as much as for the hero. Perhaps this is because I have always been a reader (I read early, frequently and everything) and therefore gender, looks, time, place, etc. I have no bearing on whether or not I identify with and want to travel along on the hero's journey. What does have a bearing on my desire to root for the protagonist is whether or not the author lets me see something about their character that is interesting, that develops them into a real flesh and blood person. It doesn't have anything to do with nobility or the classical definition of hero. It has more to do with me wanting to see their humanity. In this respect, I think many romance novel heroines are lacking. They have this tendency to be paperdolls rather than actual women neither in what they say or what they do.
I have never found this to be so with Teresa Mederios' heroines. I think this is because of the way that she introduces them to the reader. For example in Thief of Hearts we are introduced to Lucinda Snow not by her looks but by her reactions to the events going on around her, we are privy to her thoughts as she overhears a conversation aboard a ship and in a few lines become aware of how she thinks, how she behaves, how she views herself and how she believes other people see her. This is very typical of Mederios. She shows us who her characters are by their behavior and interior perspective rather than as an object viewed by others. Her heroines are very much subjects. Regardless of whether or not they are fat or thin, beautiful or plain, rich or poor, you always know what sort of person she is in those first few moments.
As I mentioned in a previous post, I have a very low tolerance for heroines defined mainly by their beauty. It isn't that I automatically dislike a story if the heroine is beautiful, it is just that I think that often the author gets lazy and infuses the heroine with beauty alone and no other quality. Georgette Heyer's Venetia is very beautiful but this is not her defining characteristic in the story. Her defining characteristic is her acute sense of the absurd and the ironic. Even before you know she is beautiful, Heyer gives her an initial dialogue that on the surface seems so very domestic but is, beneath, mocking. Mederios utilizes a similar technique, fixing into the words her heroines speak, their responses to those around them and the way they see the world a unique something that makes them more like real women and less like puppets in side-show. And because they are so very real and likable from the beginning even when they do things that are silly or foolish, I as the reader never feel they are TSTL because the behavior is based on the limitations of their character and perceptions not on the writing. It is very hard to forgive a heroine who you have been told repeatedly, if not explicitly, is perfect when she does something retarded or asinine. It becomes charming or at the very least, understandable, in a heroine who has from the first been as flawed and as real as an actual person.
I think one of the chief problems I have with many romance novels is that there is a discrepancy between the heroes and heroines as far as characterization is concerned. More often than I would wish very compelling heroes are paired with heroines who are . . . flat. I wouldn't go as far as saying that they are TSTL or TGTBT (Too Good To Be True) but merely lacking in dimension. I suppose that this is because the heroine in many romances is merely acting as a place-holder for the reader. I know that there are those who enjoy or at the very least, over look this but I have no patience with place-holders, zeroes if you will. I enjoy falling in love with and rooting for the heroine as much as for the hero. Perhaps this is because I have always been a reader (I read early, frequently and everything) and therefore gender, looks, time, place, etc. I have no bearing on whether or not I identify with and want to travel along on the hero's journey. What does have a bearing on my desire to root for the protagonist is whether or not the author lets me see something about their character that is interesting, that develops them into a real flesh and blood person. It doesn't have anything to do with nobility or the classical definition of hero. It has more to do with me wanting to see their humanity. In this respect, I think many romance novel heroines are lacking. They have this tendency to be paperdolls rather than actual women neither in what they say or what they do.
I have never found this to be so with Teresa Mederios' heroines. I think this is because of the way that she introduces them to the reader. For example in Thief of Hearts we are introduced to Lucinda Snow not by her looks but by her reactions to the events going on around her, we are privy to her thoughts as she overhears a conversation aboard a ship and in a few lines become aware of how she thinks, how she behaves, how she views herself and how she believes other people see her. This is very typical of Mederios. She shows us who her characters are by their behavior and interior perspective rather than as an object viewed by others. Her heroines are very much subjects. Regardless of whether or not they are fat or thin, beautiful or plain, rich or poor, you always know what sort of person she is in those first few moments.
As I mentioned in a previous post, I have a very low tolerance for heroines defined mainly by their beauty. It isn't that I automatically dislike a story if the heroine is beautiful, it is just that I think that often the author gets lazy and infuses the heroine with beauty alone and no other quality. Georgette Heyer's Venetia is very beautiful but this is not her defining characteristic in the story. Her defining characteristic is her acute sense of the absurd and the ironic. Even before you know she is beautiful, Heyer gives her an initial dialogue that on the surface seems so very domestic but is, beneath, mocking. Mederios utilizes a similar technique, fixing into the words her heroines speak, their responses to those around them and the way they see the world a unique something that makes them more like real women and less like puppets in side-show. And because they are so very real and likable from the beginning even when they do things that are silly or foolish, I as the reader never feel they are TSTL because the behavior is based on the limitations of their character and perceptions not on the writing. It is very hard to forgive a heroine who you have been told repeatedly, if not explicitly, is perfect when she does something retarded or asinine. It becomes charming or at the very least, understandable, in a heroine who has from the first been as flawed and as real as an actual person.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Review-ish
It is rare for me to have a visceral reaction to books these days even though I read as many as I ever did. And I read often. No, I read a lot. I probably read 4 books a week. When I was young I would fall into the book to such an extent that I would have physical reactions to the words: increased heartbeat, anxiety over the fate of the characters, tears, etc. experiencing in my own body what the characters were experiencing on the page. This is probably one of the reasons I have become and always will be a reader. It isn't simply the escape of reading, it is the ability to live another's life. Wherever you go there you are except sometimes with the right book.
I picked up Carolyn Jewel's Scandal based on a review I read over at AAR. They only gave it a B+ but I would give it an A. Not only did it create that rare visceral reaction in me but it had the equally rare quality of making me brood over it afterwards. In part this was because the characters were so well drawn that they had become flesh and blood people. It is much more common for me to experience characters as creations on a stage rather than as real people. Most of the time there is a veil between me and the stage, that invisible fourth wall that they speak of in drama classes, is something I always sense.
I don't always want to fall into the story so completely as I did with Scandal. It can be emotionally difficult. I admit to being one of those people that tend to absorb other people's emotions and vibrations, taking them into myself as if they were my emotions. It can be draining.
I have been trying to think why the Earl of Banallt and Sophie Evans' story had such an effect on me but I have a great amount of difficulty trying to pinpoint exactly why this story, of the stories I've read in the past while, was different. I have come to the conclusion that it was the prose itself. There is something in the way that Jewel writes that is very dissimilar to most other romances. With many romances, I think that there is a tendency to follow if not a formula, a pattern of language and story arc as a sort of form. I liken it to reading sonnet after sonnet and then suddenly finding yourself thrown into the immediacy of a pop song as you drive home. There's something in the three chords, verse, chorus, verse equation that hits you in the guts. Not that a sonnet cannot do the same thing but I believe it is the defamiliarization of the emotion, the lack of sameness to the way the moment is presented that makes that shift from one form to another so powerful.
Without the book in front of me I am unable to give any kind of close reading of Jewel's book in order to illustrate my point (I'm at work and the book is at home); however let me briefly discuss what I found specifically so compelling. Jewel takes a cliche idea (the plain, country mouse and the rake) and twists it. The book opens in the middle of things. Our hero and heroine have already met. They were friends of sort having met through her wastrel of a husband. Sophie is still wounded from that marriage, from the falling out she had with Banallt just prior to her husband's death. She's on the defensive. Banallt, on the other hand, has come to realization that he loves Sophie deeply and wants to marry her. The reader gets all this in the first chapter. What I mean by twisting the old story, is that usually we find that it is the hero who is guarding his heart because of a failed first marriage, that it is the hero that has to come to the slow realization of his true feeling towards the heroine whereas here, we have the opposite.
Banallt as a character is very interesting. It is stated repeatedly throughout the text that he is beautiful, yet what comes across more than his outward appearance is his character. Jewel gives us a very clear idea of the man he is and the man he was and how one could become the other and why. There are no dramatic villains here. Neither Banallt's deceased wife nor Sophie's dead husband act as the dark gloating ghosts of something like Rebecca. In fact, Banallt's wife has had less of an effect on his character than other incidents in his past. Tommy Evans, Sophie's late husband, is more of a villain but of the shallow, fortune hunting type. More importantly than his character is Sophie's feelings toward him which can be summed up as complex. She loved him, she hated him, she was disappointed by him, she learned not to trust him and yet she still wanted his love and admiration. This emotional ambiguity is not something I see a lot in romance. Or rather, to put it more accurately, many authors tell us how the characters feel towards each other but I, as a reader, do not see how they feel about each other. It never breaks through that fourth wall to become a living, breathing aspect of the person.
I've been attempting to write a story for a long time. This is not something new to me that I've just now decided to try my hand at. Rather, I have always been a writer (I wrote a play when I was 10, for example). But I have this disturbing feeling that my characters are flat, that they don't have that emotional zing to their personalities that makes them live on after the story is finished. It is a kind of magic and I'm just not sure how one acquires the knack for it or if it just happens to an author, unexpectedly and out of the blue much the same way it happens to a reader.
I picked up Carolyn Jewel's Scandal based on a review I read over at AAR. They only gave it a B+ but I would give it an A. Not only did it create that rare visceral reaction in me but it had the equally rare quality of making me brood over it afterwards. In part this was because the characters were so well drawn that they had become flesh and blood people. It is much more common for me to experience characters as creations on a stage rather than as real people. Most of the time there is a veil between me and the stage, that invisible fourth wall that they speak of in drama classes, is something I always sense.
I don't always want to fall into the story so completely as I did with Scandal. It can be emotionally difficult. I admit to being one of those people that tend to absorb other people's emotions and vibrations, taking them into myself as if they were my emotions. It can be draining.
I have been trying to think why the Earl of Banallt and Sophie Evans' story had such an effect on me but I have a great amount of difficulty trying to pinpoint exactly why this story, of the stories I've read in the past while, was different. I have come to the conclusion that it was the prose itself. There is something in the way that Jewel writes that is very dissimilar to most other romances. With many romances, I think that there is a tendency to follow if not a formula, a pattern of language and story arc as a sort of form. I liken it to reading sonnet after sonnet and then suddenly finding yourself thrown into the immediacy of a pop song as you drive home. There's something in the three chords, verse, chorus, verse equation that hits you in the guts. Not that a sonnet cannot do the same thing but I believe it is the defamiliarization of the emotion, the lack of sameness to the way the moment is presented that makes that shift from one form to another so powerful.
Without the book in front of me I am unable to give any kind of close reading of Jewel's book in order to illustrate my point (I'm at work and the book is at home); however let me briefly discuss what I found specifically so compelling. Jewel takes a cliche idea (the plain, country mouse and the rake) and twists it. The book opens in the middle of things. Our hero and heroine have already met. They were friends of sort having met through her wastrel of a husband. Sophie is still wounded from that marriage, from the falling out she had with Banallt just prior to her husband's death. She's on the defensive. Banallt, on the other hand, has come to realization that he loves Sophie deeply and wants to marry her. The reader gets all this in the first chapter. What I mean by twisting the old story, is that usually we find that it is the hero who is guarding his heart because of a failed first marriage, that it is the hero that has to come to the slow realization of his true feeling towards the heroine whereas here, we have the opposite.
Banallt as a character is very interesting. It is stated repeatedly throughout the text that he is beautiful, yet what comes across more than his outward appearance is his character. Jewel gives us a very clear idea of the man he is and the man he was and how one could become the other and why. There are no dramatic villains here. Neither Banallt's deceased wife nor Sophie's dead husband act as the dark gloating ghosts of something like Rebecca. In fact, Banallt's wife has had less of an effect on his character than other incidents in his past. Tommy Evans, Sophie's late husband, is more of a villain but of the shallow, fortune hunting type. More importantly than his character is Sophie's feelings toward him which can be summed up as complex. She loved him, she hated him, she was disappointed by him, she learned not to trust him and yet she still wanted his love and admiration. This emotional ambiguity is not something I see a lot in romance. Or rather, to put it more accurately, many authors tell us how the characters feel towards each other but I, as a reader, do not see how they feel about each other. It never breaks through that fourth wall to become a living, breathing aspect of the person.
I've been attempting to write a story for a long time. This is not something new to me that I've just now decided to try my hand at. Rather, I have always been a writer (I wrote a play when I was 10, for example). But I have this disturbing feeling that my characters are flat, that they don't have that emotional zing to their personalities that makes them live on after the story is finished. It is a kind of magic and I'm just not sure how one acquires the knack for it or if it just happens to an author, unexpectedly and out of the blue much the same way it happens to a reader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
