A Fine Romance in the NY Times
There's an op-ed piece in the NY Times worth reading, written by Mary Bly, professor of English lit at Fordham, AKA Eloisa James.
A month ago, Mary "came out" in New York magazine as a romance author to both the public and her university colleagues. Some readers scathingly dismissed her and her interview because they believed that she was dissing the hand that fed her. They didn't believe that such narrow-minded discrimination against a romance author would exist within the hallowed halls of the Ivy Leagues lit departments. Blogs around the romance community grew longer and more flame-ful as the subject-matter was debated. We romance readers and authors love nothing more than a good scandal! And today, Mary has her day in the Times, a day in defense of the genre, and it's not a passionate piece, instead it's a piece written in a pince-nez tone that those who deride the genre will understand. My favorite lines:
In the spirit of honest journalism (which has died since Walter Cronkite left his chair), I must confess that Mary/Eloisa is a friend of mine. I don't like to see anyone lionized unfairly, and IMHO, Mary didn't deserve the anger she got. But I also never want to call someone an idiot because they have an opinion that differs from my own.
In a few days, we celebrate Valentine's Day and the cliches, the innuendos, the snickering, the verbal wedgies will commence, because, yes, we're the women of romance. We must be tetched in the head!
A month ago, Mary "came out" in New York magazine as a romance author to both the public and her university colleagues. Some readers scathingly dismissed her and her interview because they believed that she was dissing the hand that fed her. They didn't believe that such narrow-minded discrimination against a romance author would exist within the hallowed halls of the Ivy Leagues lit departments. Blogs around the romance community grew longer and more flame-ful as the subject-matter was debated. We romance readers and authors love nothing more than a good scandal! And today, Mary has her day in the Times, a day in defense of the genre, and it's not a passionate piece, instead it's a piece written in a pince-nez tone that those who deride the genre will understand. My favorite lines:
The contempt for romance reflects a deeply unproductive divide in American culture that keeps some people from reading novels that they would enjoy and that frightens others from fiction that has the imprimatur of "literature."
In the spirit of honest journalism (which has died since Walter Cronkite left his chair), I must confess that Mary/Eloisa is a friend of mine. I don't like to see anyone lionized unfairly, and IMHO, Mary didn't deserve the anger she got. But I also never want to call someone an idiot because they have an opinion that differs from my own.
In a few days, we celebrate Valentine's Day and the cliches, the innuendos, the snickering, the verbal wedgies will commence, because, yes, we're the women of romance. We must be tetched in the head!
posted by Kathleen at 9:52 AM
3 Comments:
I bought the only Eloisa James novel in stock at Borders when you mentioned her in a previous post. I loved it so much I passed it on to Mum to read.
The thing I love about romance novels is that the well-written ones are so much fun to read.
A literary novel is risky reading. On one hand, I will probably admire the prose. On the other, it's unlikelt to end happily - and if it does, the journey there is usually harrowing.
Do you think it's romance in particular or happiness in general that is marginalised in the literary community (at least, in fiction). Do people think happy endings are easier to write than tragic ones? In high school, I always wrote tragic stories for English class because they were safer to write. I could always guarantee a tear but it was much more difficult to negotiate a response from the class with a light-hearted piece.
I do enjoy the occasional tragic novel (inevitably followed by at least 3 days of obsessing over the tragedy - I obsess even when the ending is happy if the journey was fraught with tears) but I can't devour those kinds of novels on a regular basis. I'd be an emotional wreck!
Kat, I think there are people who are naturally drawn to tragedies and stories with bottom-dwelling endings. Just as I think some people with a high happiness quotient are drawn to happily ever after's and romance. Writing, any writing, isn't easy if it's done correctly. Whether tragedy, or humor, or romance. Literary fiction included. I have a lot of respect for the more literary writers and I like to read the works mainly because it's easy to get stuck in your own genre and start to get tunnel-vision. That said, I don't get in much reading time anymore, although my nightstand and desk are littered with books that are TBF (to be finished). I learn a lot about writing from reading outside romance, and I think it's good homework for me as a writer to do it.
I probably didn't say my point properly. What I meant was that it's not necessarily easier to write a happy ending than a sad one, a romantic (or other genre) novel or a literary one. Although as a reader I prefer to read something I'm 80% sure of liking if I have to squeeze it in during the train ride to and from work, that's just my preference.
And you're right of course that some people prefer tragedy. My husband is one of those people. He once recommended a DVD for me to watch, telling me it had a 'happy ending'. I cried bucketloads when the couple didn't end up together and didn't take another recommendation from him for about 6 months.
Post a Comment
<< Home