[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
Romance=Western. (is there a way to make an equivalency sign?)
Read a few and find out. (seriously, in a romance, the male figure is not nearly as well delineated as the female. In a Western, the opposite it true).
[/QUOTE]
Now that you mention it, some of Louis L’Amour’s books have a love interest as a major part (and are read by men, and are written from the male point of view).
Thank you. Somewhere, there is a learned article about this phenom, but my memory fails me (said article not written by me, but read by me…).
When I read Agent of Byzantium by Harry Turtledove, it seemed to me like the man’s equivalent of a romance novel. Here’s why: the male protagonist is smarter, handsomer, and more able than anybody around him. He learns things instantly and doesn’t have to practice to become proficient, and through a fortuitous turn of events, he has access to knowledge that nobody else has (in this novel that knowledge is all the secrets of the druids).
There is very little or no character development and no description of anything that doesn’t drive the plot. And the plot is ludicrous.
It’s just like a woman’s romance novel, except in the woman’s version the female protagonist is more beautiful, more slender, and more graceful than anybody around her.
[QUOTE=bluethree]
When I read Agent of Byzantium by Harry Turtledove, it seemed to me like the man’s equivalent of a romance novel. Here’s why: the male protagonist is smarter, handsomer, and more able than anybody around him. He learns things instantly and doesn’t have to practice to become proficient, and through a fortuitous turn of events, he has access to knowledge that nobody else has (in this novel that knowledge is all the secrets of the druids).
[/QUOTE]
Nuh-uh. See post #17.
Besides, there’s nothing about Druids in AOB. You must be thinking of a different book.
[QUOTE=bluethree]
When I read Agent of Byzantium by Harry Turtledove, it seemed to me like the man’s equivalent of a romance novel. Here’s why: the male protagonist is smarter, handsomer, and more able than anybody around him. He learns things instantly and doesn’t have to practice to become proficient, and through a fortuitous turn of events, he has access to knowledge that nobody else has (in this novel that knowledge is all the secrets of the druids).
[/QUOTE]
I don’t recall any druids in any of the “Agent of Byzantium” stories…and there’s no real character development because they’re a collection of short stories.
[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
Romance=Western. (is there a way to make an equivalency sign?)
Read a few and find out. (seriously, in a romance, the male figure is not nearly as well delineated as the female. In a Western, the opposite it true).
[/QUOTE]
Damn, if I’d posted in when I started to much earlier, I woulda been first!
I figured this out after reading a couple of romance novels and a few westerns. (Hey, I’ll read anything when I get desperate enough!) They’re very similar except from opposite sides of the fence.
CalMeacham, that’s scary! I remember when that PoS replaced Havin’ My Baby at the top of my Most Hated Songs list. I can’t believe there’s a worse version out there!!
Catherine Asaro (mentioned above) has a fascinating comment in her Forward to Irrisitible Forces a collection of Romance/Science Fiction (or Fantasy) stories by an assortment of writers from each category.
Anyway, she says that she’d been urged to write what she knew, and what she wanted to read, so she did. “When I first started, I had no idea it was an unusual combination. I didn’t know optimistic stories of courship and love had an entire genre called romance or that science fiction with a strong scientific basis was called hard science fiction. I just knew I enjoyed both.”
She claims to have been startled by the reaction to her first book, commenting “I have always though that the sharp distinction we make between our emotions and our intellects arises more out of cultural expectaions than an intrinsic quality of the human mind.”
Unfortunately, despite reading 6 or 8 of her books, I have yet to find anything fiction she has written that I like half as well as her essay on science fiction romance. Neither her romance nor her science fiction are quite to my taste, yet the lure of figuring out all her complicated familial relationship keeps luring me to try again.
The book also annoys me because there was only one story in it that really struck me as science fiction romance. (written by Lois McMaster Bujold–whose books I went on to enjoy). Several of them were more fantasy–which is fine, it just wasn’t what I was expecting.
I hated Catherine Asaro’s story because I didn’t like the characters, didn’t like the self-centeredness of the romance, and didn’t like the fact that it was science fiction that should have been fantasy. (In fairness, that last criticism is not fair to her. She was writing a short story involving characters and a place from her Skolian Empire series, which in general is science fiction–albeit of a sort I don’t like. Still, it bugged me that this was a planet with purple water, caused by a microorganism, when it could have been a planet with purple water just because).
I don’t know that there is a male equivalent to romance novels. But given the size of the market for romance, the steady mainstreaming of the romance market (romance novels coming out in hard cover for example) and the overwhelmingly female readership of romance novels, I wouldn’t be surprised if in the next 5 to 10 years, someone really starts trying to see whether there is a market for romance novels aimed at men–even if they aren’t quite the same as the novels presently being written for women.
[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
(seriously, in a romance, the male figure is not nearly as well delineated as the female. In a Western, the opposite it true).
[/QUOTE]
Depends on what you mean by “dilineated.” In a romance, the female is often more fully developed as a character because the story is told mainly from her POV, but the male is described in much greater and more loving detail.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
But those stories still focus on the male. A male-oriented romance wouldn’t – the female would be the Object of Desire and haunt the male’s thoughts from the first moment he sees her.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe my romance collection isn’t trashy enough, but it all focuses on the female - her thoughts, her worries, her fights with her mother-in-law, her upcoming showing at the local art gallergy, her being swept off her feet by a hulking brute with a pulsing manhood…the men involved are shadows and caricatures, just like the women in a James Bond novel. She doesn’t spend all her time thinking about him, she goes on with her life until he sweeps into in momentarily, and then sweeps back out. And in. And out. And…
I’ll be in mah bunk.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
But those stories still focus on the male. A male-oriented romance wouldn’t – the female would be the Object of Desire and haunt the male’s thoughts from the first moment he sees her.
[/QUOTE]
This - and your remarks on role reversal above - made me think of Guy Gavriel Kay’s Sarantine Mosaic. It’s still not a perfect match, because there is no single overwhelming romance that unites the story; rather, there are several interlocking ones, as well as a generous helping of political plotting. However, there are at least two of the romances involved in the book where an apparently less attractive male partner succeeds in forming a relationship with a more attractive woman.
Also, it made me wonder about the stereotypical fantasies assigned to men and women. Usually, women are supposed to want to be swept off their feet by romance while men are supposed to want as much sex as humanly possible. If we take that approach to the romance novel - fantasy fulfillment - then many of Robert Heinlein’s works could fill the niche. I think particularly of Stranger in a Strange Land, where we have both Michael and Jubal being swooned over by pretty much every character without a Y chromosome. (Or just every character in Michael’s case!)
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
I don’t recall any druids in any of the “Agent of Byzantium” stories…and there’s no real character development because they’re a collection of short stories.
[/QUOTE]
There are no druids in Agent of Byzantium. The protagonist *already * has their complete body of knowledge because he spent some time with them earlier, before the story takes place. I didn’t remember that it was short stories, but I see that you are right. It is a series of short stories about the same protagonist, chronicalling his adventures. I stand corrected.
It’s still a romance novel for men.
[QUOTE=QuizCustodet]
If we take that approach to the romance novel - fantasy fulfillment - then many of Robert Heinlein’s works could fill the niche.
[/QUOTE]
I just read my first Heinlein, and it struck me rather as a male romance novel. I can’t remember the name, though. Young soldier gets picked up by the Empress of the Universes?
In any case, my English classes were long ago, but if you look at the historical definition of “Romance,” the nearest thing we have currently would be westerns, I think. And I adore L’Amour (fitting name in this thread) and would consider him to be writing something very “romantic.”
Dick Francis, too, captures a certain fantasy, though both L’Amour and Francis are often like chick lit books where the love interest might be there but might be just a cipher.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Depends on what you mean by “dilineated.” In a romance, the female is often more fully developed as a character because the story is told mainly from her POV, but the male is described in much greater and more loving detail.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I meant delineated. In romances, while the man is fully described as to physical characteristics (as well as place in society-he’s either self made, wealthy; born with silver spoon wealthy; offbeat, creative type who gets wealthy-well, you see the trend), the reader is not informed as to his inner thoughts. In fact, usually, he is something of an enigma to the heroine.
Same with Westerns, but switch the genders.
Whynot -I haven’t read what I consider a romance in years (meaning trash), but what always got me was stuff like this: When Logan pulled away from Heather, she realized just how much she had responded. Her face started to burn. She could not meet his eyes. As suddenly as he had kissed her, he was gone from the barn, out into the storm…*
*I just made that up. Hmmmm-perhaps I should try my hand at this. Yes? No?
[QUOTE=Hello Again]
According to Romance Writers of America stats, 93% of all romance readers were women in 2002
[/QUOTE]
So does that mean that some of those who were women in 2002 have now become not women?
I’m confused.
[QUOTE=CalMeacham]
As I’ve mentioned before on the Board, the 1982 song I’ve been to Paradise (but I’ve never been to Me) , awful as it is, actually has lyrics for a male singer on the sheet music. If you thought the as-released female version was bad, this is worse.
[/QUOTE]
It’s hard to imaginge anything worse. Blegh.
One thing that hasn’t been mentioned is that several writers now on the fiction bestseller lists in North America came out of writing series romance, and/or they are still writing them as well, sometimes under different pen names. There is often a push to change the categorization from romance to general fiction or suspense but to me they are often merely re-labelled romances. On that point see: Tami Hoag and Iris Johansen, amongst others.
I recently read The Time Traveler’s Wife, and I think it does a good job portraying a developing romance from the point of view of the man and woman (it literally switches points of view every so often). Plus it has time travel, and guys love that stuff.
[QUOTE=QuizCustodet]
Usually, women are supposed to want to be swept off their feet by romance while men are supposed to want as much sex as humanly possible.
[/QUOTE]
No, no, no. More sex than is humanly possible. Much more.
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
I just read my first Heinlein, and it struck me rather as a male romance novel. I can’t remember the name, though. Young soldier gets picked up by the Empress of the Universes?
[/QUOTE]
Sounds like Glory Road.
[QUOTE=What’s That Smell?]
So does that mean that some of those who were women in 2002 have now become not women?
I’m confused.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps they morphed into amaphrodites?
Hee.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Sounds like Glory Road.
[/QUOTE]
That’s the one.
[QUOTE=Hello Again]
BTW, the RWA has a definition for what a romance novel is: *A romance novel is a book in which a love story is the central focus of the book, and that has an emotionally satisfying ending that results from a positive resolution to the central love story. *
Most people agree that the Kathleen Woodiwiss wrote the very first one – The Flame and the Flower – in 1972.
[/QUOTE]
Oh my God. You mean my cherished collection of Georgette Heyers is not composed of romance novels?
Surely the woman who most agree was the creator of the Regency romance qualifies?
Born in 1902. Regencies published between 1921 and 1972, with most in the 1930’s, '40’s, and '50’s.
Also, how does the above definition count out the sisters Bronte?