Websnark

Comment from: miyaa posted at May 6, 2005 4:53 PM

I think that would explain a lot about the erotica that Anne Rice has written.

Comment from: Robin Z posted at May 6, 2005 4:53 PM

A romance novelist could be a very interesting character, actually. Just think of that construction worker Jimbo in QC, comic #180.

Also, you are a first-class writer. I'm sure you could pull one off.

(P.S. I remember a comment a while back about your having a page with some of your writing on it, password protected. Is there some procedure for accessing it? Should I send you an email?)

Comment from: gwalla posted at May 6, 2005 5:18 PM

My deep-seated need to research everything is the reason why I've never actually gotten around to writing any of my story ideas.

Comment from: siwangmu posted at May 6, 2005 5:48 PM

::about to embarrass the living heck out of herself::

Pick up some Johanna Lindsey, preferably '90s (a few of the older ones are... not so good).

I picked up my habit at a Science and Math high school... my friends smoked for their brain breaks, I read romance novels, so I've read some really crappy ones, but the best I've run into are Lindsey's. Formulaic, but, hey, so is the human mating instinct, so not really unrealistic, in that way at least...

Would reading romance novels explain why I've never found porn appealing? Because they're basically fantasies of emotional investment along with your great sex.

Oh, and your open-mindedness on the subject is a very cool point.

Comment from: Shaenon posted at May 6, 2005 6:03 PM

You should definitely write a romance novel for National Novel Writing Month. I understand that hybrid-genre romance novels are very popular lately (i.e., horror romance, sci-fi romance, fantasy romance, time-travel romance), and I imagine you could write a very entertaining piece of erotica along those lines.

Plus, your novel last year totally did not give me a boner.

Comment from: Tangent posted at May 6, 2005 7:00 PM

Shaenon, I'd be worried if ANY novel gave you a boner. :P

Comment from: Wednesday posted at May 6, 2005 7:09 PM

With the caveat that every blasted thing I've said/written in the past eleven+ days has been laced with a) too many letters I and b) teh st00pid, and therefore you should take all this with all the salt in the land of salt and saltines, and I don't know if it's useful to other people reading, or to Eric, or to anyone:

I remember reading something fairly recently -- hell if I know where; I want to say Patrick Califia's Speaking Sex to Power, but it could just as easily have been Susie Bright's blog or some other something -- about how a goodly number of people who'd been writing solid, plot/characterization-rich BDSM stories had made the transition over to writing romance novels because it was a more lucrative environment in which to play with the same general power dynamic. So you'd get this interesting sort of creative recursion going, in the same way that happened with, say, Nicholson Baker books, or that godawful Anne Rice fairytale drek.

(This bugs me. I'm not sure why. It's probably kicking the big button in my head which objects to cheesecakey/fanservicey harem anime, but accepts outright dreadful hentai: someone says "romance novel" to me, and it feels like I'm hearing, "softcore pornography, except with more shame." If the market is finally shifting in the direction of, er, every bit of literary porn I ever actually liked, especially given how bland the kinky-stuff-for-chyx field's been in recent years, then obviously I have to re-evaluate my feelings about this stuff. Not that I can expect to find Harlequin republishing The Leather Daddy and the Femme any year soon, of course, but... eh..)

Annoyingly, I was spoiled very badly coming into the world of porn-reading as a young adult. I got handed stuff like Macho Sluts pretty much right off the bat, so it was incredibly difficult to make the mental transition to porn as something which didn't have heavy plot and characterization. (If anything, I have too much stuff like Michael Hemmingson's "The Dress," where there's a lot of plot and characterization and very, very sharp writing, but you definitely wouldn't want to be casting Rolling Heart Vibration on the hooded enemy while reading it. That's the problem with literary erotica, really...) So, anytime I read complaints about porn being just for the sex, or not having the emotional component (or less of one), I get kinda confused and wigged out -- how on earth does that stuff make it to press? Aren't people more discerning than that? (Boy, was getting exposed to British soft-core mags upsetting.)

Ahhh, no one cares, Dale...

Comment from: Arachnid posted at May 6, 2005 7:18 PM

By the way, Eric, are we going to get some sort of comment facility for Gossamer Commons? This isn't the first time I've wanted to say something about how cool today's strip is, but been unable to!

Comment from: Evil Genius posted at May 6, 2005 7:39 PM

My late Mom used to read Harlequin novels when she had a migraine. She said it was the only thing that took her mind off the pain.

Mind you, she also had every one of Barbara Cartland's novels...

Comment from: Wednesday posted at May 6, 2005 7:48 PM

Arachnid: why not use the GC forum?

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at May 6, 2005 7:58 PM

Arachnid -- there's a forum for Gossamer Commons! So you can always drop by there!

And thank you! I've been very happy with the response to the last two. And Greg's art has been hitting all possible cylinders at the same time!

Comment from: Sundre posted at May 6, 2005 8:12 PM

TNH has posted on Making Light about sex in published fiction and fanfic. She links to a few interesting folx, including Sara Donati's series on writing sex scenes (relocated here since then).

Though, I'm not sure you're looking for tips.

And Jennifer Crusie has written an article in which she compares category fiction, specifically romance, to both soup and shakespeare.

Comment from: Shadowydreamer posted at May 6, 2005 9:23 PM

When I was starting my writing career online and still had my writing available for download I wrote some fanfiction. (Some still even online and popular! It boggles my brain..) One of those was a Vampire/Mage gothicy horror thing. The main characters was a Gypsy Toreador, a hunky Gangrel (of course) who was more muscle than words, a lesbian Satyr and a book thumping Mage. The Gypsy was dating both the female Satyr and the male Mage. It was a great sordid tale. One chapter with the Gypsy, Jaana, and the satyr, Sasha, was at a rave.. and turned from a minor flirt fest into something rather X rated.

It was the first time someone said "Can I donate?" to me for my work. *^_^*

But as someone who has written romance, near-porn, porn, and other things, while I'll never be the writer you are Eric, the secret to writing anything new is sitting somewhere quiet, closing your eyes and just dreaming. Before you even get as far as plot, and characters and all that fun stuff.. "What if..?" and "How would this work..?" (and from what angle..) is the bestest place to start.

Research assistant not necessary, but always handy.

-Shady.

(All puns free of charge.)

Comment from: Doc posted at May 6, 2005 10:13 PM

I have no experience in writing or in romance novels so I've got no interesting points to make, but I just thinking learning how to write a romance novel, so you can write a romance novel, so you can write about a romance novel writer (I get the feeling the grammar there just killed my old english teacher) is just too awesome a concept for words.

Actually I do have one, mildly embarassing, point to make, not about romance novels, but about porn. Just that most bad porn I have seen was bad because if there was a 'story' involved it was generally treated with contempt and bad acting.

Don't look at me like that, I got the internet when I was 13, you join the dots.

My moral is: Even if what you are writing fulfills a 'trashy' end if you do it well, and treat it with respect, it will do its job much better than if you have the 'eh its only trash i don't need to do it properly' mind set. But then I get from your post that you already knew that.

Heh, I guess Wednesday was right the other day. We *are* here for the Boobies.

Comment from: UrsulaV posted at May 7, 2005 10:41 AM

I have a friend who writes historical romances for a living. She's made a few of the romance best seller lists, so she's at least popular, although not having read any of them, I can't speak to the quality one way or the other.

I do know that she does a LOT of research about the eras she's writing in. I have learned bizarre things about the treatment of British POWs during various wars, and the pirates of the Barbary Coast, merely by wandering into the coffee shop at the wrong moment.

What struck me most oddly was how much the romance novel fandom seems like any other fandom. You get all the same people that you get in furry art or comic book plots or fantasy novels or any other fandom I've brushed past in my life--you get the crazies and the people who are convinced it's all a vast conspiracy by editors, you get the snobs and the historical accuracy fact wranglers, you get the over-educated and the wild-eyed and the people who stand too close and the person who quotes your writing back to you, at the table, and for all I know, the people who need to bathe more, too.

And the cool people, of course.

This struck me because my friend--who works under the name "Sabrina Jeffries"--was talking about a debate over some obscure point of romance novels, namely whether having the heroine be widows, who by some series of coincidences were still virgins, counted as selling out to the anti-feminist notion that only virgins are valuable, or something like that. And this point was pursued with all the intensity that a furry has ever pursued the notion of digitgrade vs. planigrade feet, or a comics fan discussing crisis on infinite whatsits.

So I don't think it's really all that different. The drug may be the same, but you meet the same sorts of junkies.

Comment from: DarkStar posted at May 7, 2005 10:50 AM

Ah... Romance. I'm pretty sure that I'd be safe invoking the Penny Arcade Defense (has this made it into the lexicon yet?). It's not for me. I worked at a major book chain. I had to reorganize the romance section after a group (hoard) of women had ravaged it. I've had to stock the monthly harlequin section (and subsequently destroy all the old books). I've even read a few covers, some excerpts and (gasp!) a light romance novel or two.

The thing I can't get past is the need to have Fabio (usually complete with the wind-blown hair) holding/looking seductively at a woman falling out of her lace bodice on EVERY COVER! Even when they have little to do with the characters or the premise of the story. It's just silly.

But I accept that Romance runs the gamut of style. From physiologically/emotionally draining tales to near (and sometimes downright explicit) pornographic content. Some of them are even well written. I find that they are often even better if the author doesn't get carried away with the anatomical descriptions of lovemaking.

But, oddly enough, some of what might pass as romance genre in some respects has oft been passed off as fiction. Go find the Jean M. Auel books. They'll be found under your standard fiction section (more often than not), and I've been told that they get just about as graphic as you can get. And they've been around for decades. Go figure.

Basically (ranting aside), what I have to say is this: You can write romance, love, sex, and emotion into anything. You don't have to write a romance novel just to you can have experience writing emotionally tangling stories of innocence lost and true love found. You don't have to write romance to write steamy scenes of explicit bedroom antics. You don't have to write romance to have swarthy, muscled hero-types save the busty, underdressed heroines. And you don't have to write any of these to write "romance". It might just be better to work it all into whatever you write, I think it makes it more authentic. Genre becomes more a mindset and more about the story you want to tell.

(As a side note: some of the funniest stuff I've seen written about a character who was a romance novelist was in the Diana Tregarde books by Mercedes Lackey. There were only three of them, but there was some good poking-of-fun at romance novelism. Lackey has since published with Harlequin and their fantasy offshoot, Luna, so... you know. She knows it too.)

Comment from: Sundre posted at May 7, 2005 1:09 PM

DarkStar: You have points. I personally prefer novels with a strong romantic subplot to those in which the relationship takes centre stage.

When I read you argument, I can't help but hear echoes of those "literary" writers who claim that they aren't writing science fiction, their story just happens to be set fifty years in the future and there are aliens. But it's not science fiction because it's, y'know, well-written. See Margaret Atwood.

Comment from: the_iron_troll posted at May 7, 2005 5:30 PM

*shudder* Romance novels.

This is the first I've heard that Harlequin Romances are actually a real field of literature. I'd always supposed (and more or less confirmed it for myself, with the one or two I attempted to read) that it was simply a lost cause. Porn with more fluffy bits you have to deal with. I suppose this will give me a far more balanced perspective on the whole thing. Simply because writers busy themselves with works that are not to my taste, does not mean they are bereft of talent.

But I don't believe I will actually read any such. Not my cup of tea, as it were.

Oh, and the illusions and pretenses of "literary" writers are always a source of amusement.

Comment from: Sundre posted at May 7, 2005 5:50 PM

Harlequin aren't the only romances out there. And yes, those things make my teeth hurt. I can count the good romance novels I've read on one hand, but that doesn't mean they aren't out there.

I figure it's just that the genre isn't mine, as so many have said upthread. I've been reading SF almost as long as I've been reading, I've learned the code of cover art and typography and blurbs in that environment. I have no clue how to find a good romance novel on the shelves, except via friendly recommendation.

Oh, and I like Margaret Atwood's work (just thought I should clarify), though her insistence on her own non-SFness baffles me.

Comment from: Wednesday posted at May 7, 2005 7:22 PM

DarkStar -- how is Lackey's stuff for Harlequin, BTW? A quick skim of the first book made me think it was closer in tone to the urban elf/tregardeverse or the chattier Valdemar than, say, Joust or the fairytale stuff. And guess which I prefer.

Comment from: Doug posted at May 8, 2005 3:10 AM

Now you've done it.

You'll be sitting in front of the keyboard, writing the climatic scene to that SciFi political/adventure yarn -- the one that brings together all the threads of the plot you've carefully laid out in the previous several hundred page's worth of text -- with the carefully developed and fully fleshed-out protagonist facing off against all the trials, tribulations and Bad Guys the story has carefully hinted and foreshadowed up to this point. It'll be the money-shot, as they say, to the rousing tale you've been staying up late to finish.

Then, suddenly*, your creative process will suddenly stutter and fill you mind with images of sullen, handsome men with tragic flaws ripping bodices from not-so sullen handsome women with less-tragic flaws (or the reverse, if you're into slash fiction). And you'll like them.

This is going to haunt you, y'know.

* "Then, suddenly..." is one of the most hated, hackneyed phrases I've ever come to loath seeing in writing -- especially in recipes.

Comment from: DarkStar posted at May 8, 2005 10:25 AM

Sundre - I've never understood literary sf/fantasy authors holding out for a more traditional classification. The thing that really screws up those poor book-sellers are authors who write within one genre until they establish themselves and then go wandering (example: The David and Leigh Eddings book ReginaÌs Song which is far more fiction/thriller than their standard Fantasy stuff). Where do you shelve it?

Oh, and what do you classify a book written 50 years in the future where they discover scientific proof of magic? [Random thought of the day]

Wednesday - I believe I've only read "The Fairy Godmother" (published on Luna) from Lackey's romance side of things. It's very well written. There are only one or two "steamy" scenes and they stay tasteful (IMO). It winds up being much more about the characters (which are up to her usual standard). She also has a wonderful grasp of fairy-tales and how to rework them; something she has done well in other books. I'd recommend it. I can't vouch for her other Harlequin writings.

If you haven't read any of her stuff, I would. I'm a fan and have read most of her stuff. It's good character-based escapist stuff.

Comment from: Shaenon posted at May 9, 2005 2:10 AM

All right! Science-fiction fans dissing on romance novels for not being serious literature! That's so awesome it goes beyond awesome to idiotic and then back to awesome again!

My only fling with romance literature was during the year in college when my campus job was Assistant to the Secretary of the Student Council. My chief duties were a) transcribing the minutes of student-council meetings, and b) sitting around the student-council offices, reading romance novels aloud to the secretary while she worked. And, yes, this was a job that the secretary invented so that she wouldn't have to perform these onerous tasks herself.

The novels were terrible, but I enjoyed the hell out of the sex scenes. Of course, I was getting paid to read them. Also we were trying to convince the student-council president that we were secret lesbian lovers, and the porn was crucial to the plan.

Sorry, what were we talking about again?

Comment from: Sundre posted at May 9, 2005 12:55 PM

Heck, Shaenon. I want that job.

The books I've tried by Jennifer Crusie have good dialogue, and are unexpectedly hot. And I remember being enthralled many years ago by the fairy-tale sensibility in Sharon Shinn's SF novels: the critical moment is usually a kiss, instead of metaphor-laden make-up sex.

Comment from: larksilver posted at May 10, 2005 8:17 PM

Hmm. I know they're not "real" fiction, and they're formulaic, blah blah blah. But there are times when they're the best thing around, to meet a certain need. I can't quite go for the actual Harlequins, even the reprints by some of my favorite authors, because they're just toooooo formula, not evoking any kind of feeling whatsoever in me, except for disappointment.

However, the likes of Nora Roberts (although I vastly prefer her writing as J.D.Robb), Johanna Lindsey, and a few others, really can give me a way to turn a stressful, piece-o-crap day around on the bus-ride home from work, and make it possible for me to greet the kids and mate as something other than She Who Must Not Be Spoken To.

Sure, it's escapist, but it's also cathartic, and therapeutic. A whole other world, just like the Sci-Fi which I also enjoy, wherein the rules are different from ours, where it's possible for every 21-year-old female to be incredibly beautiful and to either be incredibly wealthy or become incredibly wealthy without apparent effort.

I think it's a worthwhile effort, Eric. If only because, as you've said, they are "real books," even if they're books unlikely of lasting for the next 100 years as "classics." Go for it - I would imagine that such a novel, by you, would be something I would really want to read!

Comment from: saradonati posted at May 24, 2005 12:30 AM

I try to keep an eye out for people blogging about romance, which brought me to you (also, the fact that one of your commenters linked to me helped). I stayed around to say: it's not often I run across somebody who doesn't write romance who manages to discuss the topic in an objective fair way. So good on you.

As is the case with every genre (including what some like to think of as literature), there's garbage and there's good stuff in romance. I'm ready to make recommendations, if people are serious about wanting to give the genre a fair shake.

By the way, I should add that more than a few hard core romance readers don't consider my novels romance. I'm too willing to play with the conventions to make them happy. Which means I hang out there in the wind: not quite romance for some; too much romance for others.

Comment from: shoeboy posted at June 22, 2009 12:41 PM

"When one simply takes the word of others that something is trash, one is indulging in theology, not criticism." -- Only someone who doesn't have a clue what theology is could make an idiotic comment like this one.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: