But compared to what?
As a romance author who loves to talk about her books, I’ve gotten a lot of strange and unusual responses to trying to introduce the reading public to my work. I’ve had folks at book signings toss my book back at me like they suddenly discovered they were holding a tarantula in their hands once they realized the book was a romance. Sometimes when I tell people I write romance, they respond that they won’t be picking up that kind of book, as if they were certain every other word in the text described some perverse sexual act.
Most of the time, I find such responses to my work humorous, but there is one kind of comment that truly irks me. It goes something like, “I don’t read those sort of books. They’re not real.”
It’s not the sentiment itself that bothers me. Those of us who understand romance know that in part it encompasses the fantasy ideal of finding true love. Romance protagonists, like those in other genres, represent an idealization of character. Genre heroes and heroines are, well, heroic—larger than life. Even the characters in mainstream fiction are set apart from regular people by having a cohesive story to be told.
Yet, increasingly, being “real” has become a synonym for being “street,” “urban,” “ghetto,” or whatever other name you wish to call it. If your story isn’t fraught with drugs, pimps, hos, slang and or at least a little vulgarity, it is viewed as suspect. I’ll be the first to admit that this subgenre of fiction is as valid as any other, though it is neither my cup of tea nor my reality. To me, this brand of fiction is no more inherently “real” than the lifestyle depicted in romance is inherently “false.” Both offer insight into different worlds.
Aside from that, since when has fiction’s primary mission been to depict reality? If you want to see the world exactly as it is, you’d do just as well to turn on the nightly news. I have always believed that the primary duty of fiction was to expose truth. No matter how much fantasy is injected into a story, what truly makes a story real is the veracity of insight into the human condition. Every author, no matter what they write, has the obligation to offer readers a moral imperative, an object lesson, or a good old fashioned moral to the story, not simply an unremitting view of reality, whatever the author deems that to be.
The truth may not always set you free, but without its illumination, the world is a very dark place.
Dee I think sometime when people think contemporary romance they think that its free fall as if we don’t set limits for ourselves I don’t know why its Harlequins sell better than black romances but somepeople will tell you its not the same.
Hi, Dee. Like your blog and the question raised, as I am a Romantic Times Book Reviewer and a Christian Fiction pundit.
Speaking on your quote:
I have always believed that the primary duty of fiction was to expose truth.
I have read and reviewed from just about every romance line that includes African American authors(from Arabesque to Zebra.) And I know of a few times this year I have mentioned in a review that some of the books weren’t realistic. Either their character reacted to a situation in a way that didn’t parallel to the general character of the protagonist or the character never experienced any real obstacles to earn this relationship.
I reviewed a novel a few months ago about a multiracial couple that had no issues with race and no other issues challenging the relationship except some psycho who shows up in the last three chapters of the book and trys to hurt the heroine. That’s unreal. No…that’s bad writing.
Now, of course, this doesn’t speak to all romance novels. However, I am using that example to buttress my point about realism in a novel. Although it should discuss the universality in the human condition as it relates to romantic love, it should also be timely, revelant and the characters should deserve each other at the end.
There needs to be a dance, a mating call so to speak, where we-readers began to root for the love birds. But if they have no real problems(not psychos’s hiding in the bushes, but issues about faith, family obligation, illness, worth) then we don’t have true conflict.
And I appreciate your comment about street fiction. I concur.
A few years ago, I lived and loved a drug dealer. But you will never–ever–find me writing about it. Not just because I’m a Christian fiction proponent, but because it’s not romantic. It was too many things, but not that:)
You are a great writer. And it is fun to find you blogging.
Writing to see what end gon’ be,
Dee
ChristianFiction.blogspot.com
Angelonthebackpew.blogspot.com
Hey Dee,
Love your name. I agree with you on the conflict issue, especially as it pertains to character development. The people in your stories should at least vaguely resemble real people with real reactions to situations in the realm of real life possibility.
I love your mating call analogy. I’ll have to remember that.
Thanks for your kind words. I hope you enjoy the one coming out in June.
“…since when has fiction’s primary mission been to depict reality?…”
Exactly…I agree with your entire post.
Hey Shelia,
Glad to see you here. Thanks for the vote of confidence.