|
|
I admit
it. If I'm stuck with a romance novel, I flip right to the dirty parts.
At my age I don't need the courting and the sweetness and the will-he-or-won't
he and all that gooey stuff. I just need these one- to two-dimensional
characters to get it on.
The romance, however, has
not always been the Big Book of Thrusting it's so much become. In fact,
it's one of the oldest genres of fiction out there, beginning in the Middle
Ages when the thought of marrying for love first became popular. And you
thought people only married for money.
It must be noted that then,
and particularly during the Romantic Era of the late 19th century, the
"romance" encompassed maybe love but probably not, utilizing instead a
lot of epic adventure as seen through though the teary eyes of a very
sentimental author. The 15th century's Sir Gawain and the Green Knight
is as much a fantasy as it is a romance. James Fenimore Cooper's The
Last of the Mohicans would also qualify under this more strict definition,
but I think we should all admit right here and now that The Last of
the Mohicans is a big piece of crap.
For a bit of medieval perspective,
which will bring us closer to today's romance novels, I turn to Wikipedia
for help, which reminds me that indeed, late medieval and Renaissance
romances, like Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, focussed not just on fantasy
and adventure, but feature a great beauty as well, a woman who needed
some sort of wooing and fixing whether she wanted it or not. The protagonist,
a more or less heroic sort, would possess enough power to slay the dragon
and get the girl at the same time. (And if you are still giggling about
"slaying the dragon," then I've done my job.)
In any case, Le Morte de Arthur
and Amadis of Gaul are romances as much as they are fantasies. Wikipedia
does mention however that by 1600, the quality of many of these romances
had become cheap, goofy and poor, leading many to believe that an avid
reader would end up in the loony bin. Don Quixote, for example, is the
story of an elderly man driven either to great adventure or at least really
weird dreams by his love of the romance. Don't try this at home.
Notable as well are the fine
works of the Brontes and Austen, within which we find the unresolved sexual
tension that is the trademark of today's romance, with the exception that
today's romances usually find a way to resolve that sexual tension pretty
early in the book. Thank goodness for that.
Contemporary romances are
a bit formulaic, it's true. Whether you pick up the less graphic version
(those would be the thin books) or the fantasy/historical "bodice-ripper
(the ones with the sex), you will find that the courtship follows along
logical lines, culminating in true love found and happiness ever after,
which is enough of a fantasy on its own. I'm beginning to see the allure.
Although I've given romances
a hard time here, I know they have a use in literature, and it's not just
titillating me. In my book, just about any reading is good for you, and
if romance is what floats your boat, then please do tell us which ones
are the good ones, the sexy ones, and the ones to avoid. (Dear readers,
you do not have to mention Danielle Steele, because I think she and her
empire might actually run the world.) Now, if your dear editor were to
suggest a romance, I would have to push you toward Pride and Prejudice,
which is at once a beautifully written and formulaic romance, one that
will leave your desire for courtship and culmination satisfied while still
allowing you to respect yourself in the morning. -ed.
|
|
