This is very funny because in one of my books the heroine, as she's about to do something dangerous, stupid, and necessary, lays one on the hero without asking, then rides off to what she's pretty sure is certain doom. It's very human (she is an elf, this is not the point) really, nerves and opportunity and fear and all those other emotions we feel about people and situations.
That's what romance is about, in real life and in stories. Yeah, people have to play a guessing game and both sides are essentially sending signals in semaphore, which can be hard and can go badly wrong, but it's always been that way and, no matter what rules you put in place, it's always going to be that way. In this realm, at least there is neither RETVRN (I've read Catullus!) or "progress"- there's just people. More than with any other aspect, I think a lack of verisimilitude in the romance can break a story. Either don't include it or stop trying to push an agenda with it and write how people actually are.
Originally, I wrote a longer article talking about the real romance part of it, then I limited it to mainly talking about fiction. But you are so spot-on!
It's really almost like a dance. The guy is supposed to make the move, the girl is supposed to indicate she's ready.
And as you put it, spontaneousness is an important part of it.
Heh, all good points. I would think less of a guy who asks first, especially since the girl is usually giving him the come-on with her body language. I'm trying to think if any of my male characters ever asked first. I think one of the guys told the girl to kiss him before he rode away into battle, but that's not quite the same thing, is it? The rest of them just go in for the smooch and the girl is like "about time, dummy".
Yeah, once they're past the first kiss, kissing becomes commonplace and expected. I mean, unless it's one of those books where kissing is a stand in for sex. I read some YA kissing scenes and I'm like, uh, I have 7 kids and my hubby has never groaned while kissing me. :-D
I think it'd be an interesting thought study to flip it and go through the female's thought process as she was at least partially consensually smooched. As an author what I try to do is justify exactly why something's happening, with every action and reaction justified or 'proofed'.
So if he kissed her, why'd he think it was okay. If she accepted his kiss instead of pushing away, why. How'd she think/feel about the kiss afterwards.
Or did she slap him, call him a cad, then run off giggling the other way playing hard to get, and then leaving him befuddled before chasing after.
I think it can be tastefully done without becoming over analytical. But too much analysis and I guess it's not "romance" anymore? I have no idea. The whole genre is a gigantic gray area to me.
What is supposed to happen is the man looks down intently and the woman gives him the "kiss me, you fool" look. ;-)
But going through the woman's thought process is basically what romances are about...they are just excused to put onstage the thought process of a couple coming together. ;-)
yeah and it's funny because ... I don't know. Real life I think is almost more than what can be captured in romance without getting in both's brains and chemicals. maybe it's not romance when two lock eyes, and for a split second the universe stops, and they share the briefest of kisses, as if the gal was thanking him for everything and nothing, just being there with her at that moment, and it means nothing more and nothing less.
maybe part of what of romance is, is leaving some of the why up to the imagination so people can try to fill in the gaps with positivity instead of negativity. look for what's right about it instead of what's wrong
What most people that opine on this subject forget about is that courtship rituals are a social and cultural tradition. Just the other day there was a note about a father that made his son in laws come to him for a couple years before marrying his girls. That kind of behavior would be fine - if everyone was doing it. If you're the only one, it is whimsical and tyrannical.
It is the same for authors. If you're writing a book, you're putting it out to the general public. That's fine - but what are you doing in your own local neighborhood? Who cares what the general public thinks - it's what the people in a 15 minute walk from your house think that matters. What the people at your Church think. What your people, in short, think. Because we need to get back to building real communities, and then real Polities, real groups of people that consider themselves unified instead of atomized.
And, while I'm sure it's nice to write for the world you wish you lived in, or for your community, and you might make that choice.... you have to realize what that means in terms of how the book is perceived, how it sells, how it may turn people away from your vision of the world rather than take them a step closer, etc. People are where they are, and they need a path to get where you want them, a bridge - not a wide gaping chasm.
And that's what many of the people of a dead Culture never understand - in order to get a Living Culture, you need a path to get there. If you step into the chasm before building the bridge - death awaits.
Not at all, that's why there's the last paragraph.
"And that's what many of the people of a dead Culture never understand - in order to get a Living Culture, you need a path to get there. If you step into the chasm before building the bridge - death awaits."
Think of Anna Karenina. It shows, without breaking taboos, what the results of the culture that was being pursued by the Russians of the day was. It didn't show anything untoward or breach anything, yet it is reinforcing the cultural while delivering on the drama.
Now, it takes an excellent author to do that. It takes one that is willing to hold the mirror up to society as it is, and talk about what it has been and could be. But I disagree that it can't be done or that I wasn't talking about it
This is very funny because in one of my books the heroine, as she's about to do something dangerous, stupid, and necessary, lays one on the hero without asking, then rides off to what she's pretty sure is certain doom. It's very human (she is an elf, this is not the point) really, nerves and opportunity and fear and all those other emotions we feel about people and situations.
That's what romance is about, in real life and in stories. Yeah, people have to play a guessing game and both sides are essentially sending signals in semaphore, which can be hard and can go badly wrong, but it's always been that way and, no matter what rules you put in place, it's always going to be that way. In this realm, at least there is neither RETVRN (I've read Catullus!) or "progress"- there's just people. More than with any other aspect, I think a lack of verisimilitude in the romance can break a story. Either don't include it or stop trying to push an agenda with it and write how people actually are.
Right!
Originally, I wrote a longer article talking about the real romance part of it, then I limited it to mainly talking about fiction. But you are so spot-on!
It's really almost like a dance. The guy is supposed to make the move, the girl is supposed to indicate she's ready.
And as you put it, spontaneousness is an important part of it.
Heh, all good points. I would think less of a guy who asks first, especially since the girl is usually giving him the come-on with her body language. I'm trying to think if any of my male characters ever asked first. I think one of the guys told the girl to kiss him before he rode away into battle, but that's not quite the same thing, is it? The rest of them just go in for the smooch and the girl is like "about time, dummy".
A lot of this only applies to the first kiss.
And "Kiss me" or I" am going to kiss you" can be quiet masterful.
There's nothing wrong with the guy asking if it's done well, but I certainly don't want to read that in every book.:-)
Yeah, once they're past the first kiss, kissing becomes commonplace and expected. I mean, unless it's one of those books where kissing is a stand in for sex. I read some YA kissing scenes and I'm like, uh, I have 7 kids and my hubby has never groaned while kissing me. :-D
I think it'd be an interesting thought study to flip it and go through the female's thought process as she was at least partially consensually smooched. As an author what I try to do is justify exactly why something's happening, with every action and reaction justified or 'proofed'.
So if he kissed her, why'd he think it was okay. If she accepted his kiss instead of pushing away, why. How'd she think/feel about the kiss afterwards.
Or did she slap him, call him a cad, then run off giggling the other way playing hard to get, and then leaving him befuddled before chasing after.
I think it can be tastefully done without becoming over analytical. But too much analysis and I guess it's not "romance" anymore? I have no idea. The whole genre is a gigantic gray area to me.
What is supposed to happen is the man looks down intently and the woman gives him the "kiss me, you fool" look. ;-)
But going through the woman's thought process is basically what romances are about...they are just excused to put onstage the thought process of a couple coming together. ;-)
yeah and it's funny because ... I don't know. Real life I think is almost more than what can be captured in romance without getting in both's brains and chemicals. maybe it's not romance when two lock eyes, and for a split second the universe stops, and they share the briefest of kisses, as if the gal was thanking him for everything and nothing, just being there with her at that moment, and it means nothing more and nothing less.
it's not romance, it's like, magic. idk.
Yeah. :-) True.
But I think that is true of any kind of story. They can't really reflect the fullness of what actually happened.
All they can do is capture an aspect, a part.
Romance attempts to capture just a sliver of the magic and wonder that is love.
maybe part of what of romance is, is leaving some of the why up to the imagination so people can try to fill in the gaps with positivity instead of negativity. look for what's right about it instead of what's wrong
Romance is normally a rather positive genre. I think that's one reason it is so popular.
What most people that opine on this subject forget about is that courtship rituals are a social and cultural tradition. Just the other day there was a note about a father that made his son in laws come to him for a couple years before marrying his girls. That kind of behavior would be fine - if everyone was doing it. If you're the only one, it is whimsical and tyrannical.
It is the same for authors. If you're writing a book, you're putting it out to the general public. That's fine - but what are you doing in your own local neighborhood? Who cares what the general public thinks - it's what the people in a 15 minute walk from your house think that matters. What the people at your Church think. What your people, in short, think. Because we need to get back to building real communities, and then real Polities, real groups of people that consider themselves unified instead of atomized.
And, while I'm sure it's nice to write for the world you wish you lived in, or for your community, and you might make that choice.... you have to realize what that means in terms of how the book is perceived, how it sells, how it may turn people away from your vision of the world rather than take them a step closer, etc. People are where they are, and they need a path to get where you want them, a bridge - not a wide gaping chasm.
And that's what many of the people of a dead Culture never understand - in order to get a Living Culture, you need a path to get there. If you step into the chasm before building the bridge - death awaits.
But that's all the Needs of Culture.
It's fine for articles, but for fiction, the Needs of dDama have to at least balance out. Otherwise it's just not good fiction
Not at all, that's why there's the last paragraph.
"And that's what many of the people of a dead Culture never understand - in order to get a Living Culture, you need a path to get there. If you step into the chasm before building the bridge - death awaits."
Think of Anna Karenina. It shows, without breaking taboos, what the results of the culture that was being pursued by the Russians of the day was. It didn't show anything untoward or breach anything, yet it is reinforcing the cultural while delivering on the drama.
Now, it takes an excellent author to do that. It takes one that is willing to hold the mirror up to society as it is, and talk about what it has been and could be. But I disagree that it can't be done or that I wasn't talking about it
Ah.
I think we are in agreement about that!