A Word to Those Who Belittle Romance

I knew what I was getting into when I joined the Romance Writers of America and officially proclaimed myself a writer of romance. Despite being the most popular form of fiction, some people feel the need to belittle or denigrate the genre. I wonder what it is, specifically, that makes a small portion of the population feel the need to criticize. Is it the fact that so many of the authors and readers are women? Is it the regulatory Happily Ever After? The argument that it’s predictable is an outrageous criticism as all genre fiction is predicatble: mysteries get solved, bad guys lose, demons get sent back to hell, cowboys ride off into the sunset, and the planet Zebedar III is saved from imminent doom.

The argument of the sexual content is pretty null and void in my book, too, since so many other genres utilize it. And why wouldn’t they? It’s a natural function of healthy adults and an efficient way of progressing relationships within stories, no matter how graphic they may or may not be.

So many literary works could have easily been categorized as romances, especially if the ending is tweaked to make it happier. Charles Dickens’s Great Expectations could even have been classified as “Lad Lit”. Heck, the happy ending’s not even mandatory for that one. So is it the HEA that does people in? And if so, why does a sad ending automatically make a story stand above one with an HEA? Is something taken more seriously if it’s melancholy, bitter, or outright depressing?

Perhaps this is more the case. Perhaps some people think the idea of an HEA is ridiculous. Life’s not like that, they might say; it’s unrealistic. Well, yes, but come on. Some people may want to read about life and all its heartache, but others want to succumb to something safe and warm. Movies and television cater to this. Sports. Hobbies. They’re all an escape from work and responsibilities and the live-a-day life. Romance can’t be criticized for doing the same.

It’s certainly not the writing itself. Like every genre, romance has its good and its bad, and while the bad can be cringe-worthy, the good can be breathtaking. So many romance authors have crafted exquisite plots, beautiful prose, and profound characters. And what they really write about is the relationships between people, and not just between the hero and heroine though that is, naturally, the main focus. We write about how people relate to each other, and how those people grow from these relationships. Only our characters often benefit from the relationships as opposed to being injured by them, though many by no means are unscathed by the hurt people are capable of inflicting. Our stories are about healing and compassion. So why do they sometimes receive a sneer and snide comment?

It’s a sad, cynical person who doesn’t see the good in making another person smile.

My name is Nicole Reillan. And I write romance.

More Medical Stuff

I came across an article this morning that mentioned the possibility that Alzheimer’s Disease could actually be another form of diabetes. (For more information, I recommend this article.) If it’s true, then it makes sense. According to the first article, Alzheimer’s Disease is “the seventh leading cause of death in the United States”.

Most people attribute the increase of Alzheimers to the growing number of aging Baby Boomers, but that never made sense to me. Wouldn’t percentages stay stable? Don’t we rely on percentages because they remain relatively static? One could argue that that the numbers are increasing simply because people are living longer and Alzheimer’s is increasingly easier to diagnosis. While this does make sense, the apparent exponential growth of the disease still worried me.

I wonder what the rates are in other countries, especially those with historically few instances of diabetes. And I also wonder how the increasing numbers of Alzheimer’s patients coincides with the numbers of increasing diabetes patients. Is there a relation?

 It’s worth keeping an ear to the ground. 

Endings and Spoilers

In continuing my earlier tirade on romantic comedies, I often wonder why–as I often wonder about inane and useless matters–reviewers often say that the endings are “predicatable”. I think that would be rather obvious. In fact, I can give away the ending to almost every romance, either movie or novel, that will be coming out in 2008. Be warned: Spoiler Approaching…

 The hero and the heroine end up together.

Yes, that’s right. If I have ruined all future romances for you, I apologize, but it’s true. The guy will almost always get the girl (or, for the truly modern romance, the girl gets the guy). Movies or books where the two main characters do not end up together often get thrown across rooms, crushed beneath bootheels, tossed out windows, torn into itty-bitty pieces, burned at stakes… you get the idea. Why is this? Because lovers of romance want that happy ending, and we feel cheated when we don’t get it. (Unless the story’s really good. And I mean really, really good.)

Yes, we know it’s coming, but what’s important is not whether the characters end up together but how they end up together. So it always irks me, just a little bit, when critics label a movie as predictable. Well, duh.

Libi, the Little Bitch who lives inside my head, thinks, “Wow, the Brilliant Critic figured out what happens. Good for you. You have a brain. Now stop yammering about how smart you are and tell me how it was.” 

Romances are like the adage, “It’s not the destination that matters, but the journey.” (Ah-ha! Didn’t expect me to go all wise and sagacious, did ya? Yeah, I’m like that. Full of them surprise endings and what-not.)

Oh Woe the Romantic Comedy!

A fellow member of the ARWA (the best group ever as far as I’m concerned) put up a link to this article from the New York Times on our loop. I’m a big old-time movie buff. Spencer Tracy? Katharine Hepburn? Cary Grant? Elizabeth Taylor before “Glad-ee-a-tuur“? Sign me up for a movie marathon! But are romantic comedies really on the downhill slide or even, heaven forbid, already mired in the muck at the bottom?

The examples I thought of when reading this article were The Shop Around the Corner, In the Good Old Summer Time, and You’ve Got Mail. Why did I think of these three particular movies? Because the last two are both remakes of the first.

The first stars Margaret Sullaven and one of my personal favorite leading men, Jimmy Stewart. I love this film. It’s one of my all-time favorite movies. Not only is the cast wonderful (who could ever go wrong with Jimmy Stewart?), but it’s understated, witty, and charming. The dialogue is layered and full of surprises, and the warm fuzzy feeling from the finish doesn’t leave you worried about your intellect.

The second, In the Good Old Summertime, is the musical adaptation of “The Shop Around the Corner” starring Judy Garland and Van Johnson. Personally, I disliked this movie quite a bit despite the fact that one of my favorite character actors, S. Z. Sakall, is in it. Ignoring the fact that a very large part of the movie takes place during Christmastime (so why “Summertime”?), as well as all the obvious plot ploys used to give Judy Garland a reason to sing (she does, after all, have a gorgeous voice), the movie chops up the screenplay, losing all the subtley and charm as it scatters about bits and pieces of the original dialogue. It’s strange to watch the one film right after the other, to hear Jimmy Stewart and Margaret Sullavan’s lines periodically parroted. 

Made only nine years after the original, I’d point to “In the Good Old Summertime” as an example of a corporate slapdash vehicle created to do nothing more than generate income.

And, finally, there’s You’ve Got Mail with Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks. Now, I must acknowledge the argument that, as Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks are tried and true leads in romantic comedies (who here hasn’t at least heard of Joe Versus the Volcano or Sleepless in Seattle?), this film could also be considered a corporate cash machine, but I argue against it. Yes, the basic plot is the same. Yes, some of the scenes are the same. And yes, even a little of the dialogue is the same, but with this film there’s new creativity, new perspective, and new twists that give it a fresh vivacity that “In the Good Old Summertime” lacked.

Enter a Mr. Wrong for Meg Ryan’s character and a Ms. Wrong for Tom Hanks’s character. Now both have to realize that their current significant other is not right for them before they can discover each other.

Enter his womanizing father and her idealized mother. Now both characters have backstories they must contend with and overcome.    

There’s more to the story in this remake; a new depth added. Granted, I still feel it’s nowhere near as good as the original, but at least it’s not a parody of it.

I don’t argue the fact that many romantic comedies are created as “fluff” to fill seats at the box office, even as I feel inclined to point out that there’s nothing really wrong with that. Everyone needs some light-hearted escape now and then. I don’t argue with the New York Times article in that regard. What I do argue with is the idea that this is anything new. Heck, they’ve been doing the same thing since at least 1949. Or haven’t you seen “In the Good Old Summertime”?