tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9721761.post1524360746975486827..comments2024-03-19T07:27:06.216-04:00Comments on VOTARIES OF HORROR: You Know It is a Character-Driven Romance If . . .Katherine Woodburyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14364517253667798449noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9721761.post-66371000344893129282012-06-28T13:32:16.101-04:002012-06-28T13:32:16.101-04:00After much thought, I've come up with two more...After much thought, I've come up with two more labels. I actually quite like mono versus bi-polar, though as you point out that isn't very . . . PC.<br /><br />My current two labels: River versus Bush.<br /><br />The River narrative starts with a single purpose. Streams and brooks may enter it, but the single purpose remains consistent and carries the narrative.<br /><br />The Bush narrative has dozens of stories that eventually all lead to one place. It is sometimes told from multiple points of view, but it is also sometimes singular.<br /><br />It is the difference between a fantasy novel that starts with a problem and continues to solve that problem no matter how many other characters are brought into the mix (River).<br /><br />Versus a fantasy novel that starts with a character doing something which leads to something else which leads to something else . . . and in the meantime . . . (Bush)<br /><br />Sometimes, as with Tolkien, the Bush narrative begins AFTER all the various factors have been put into motion--many chick-lit novels are also like this. But the "feel" of bushiness remains: nothing can be accomplished until everything else winds down.<br /><br />These labels do push Austen's work closer to Richardson's (River plus character-single lens), leaving behind chick-lit books (Bushes).<br /><br />But of course, I can further categorize the Rivers! <i>Pamela</i> is a single River with few tributaries while <i>P & P</i> is a single River with multiple tributaries.<br /><br />The lack of multiple tributaries helps explain why Richardson is much easier to imitate than Austen. (Man, that omniscient voice is a doozy!)Kate Woodburyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06276977170991272672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9721761.post-15291712604790145962012-06-21T16:51:19.685-04:002012-06-21T16:51:19.685-04:00There is room for a "world" vs. "ch...There is room for a "world" vs. "character" distinction. As you note, Tolkein carries his story far more by "world" than "character", but then his intention was to write a kind of mythological epic.<br /><br />But within character driven stories, including romances, there are variations. What first came to mind was mono- vs. bi-polar character romances, but given the other uses of the word "bipolar", that might not work so well. :-)<br /><br />So how about single vs. dual (or multi) lens? We see the romance in Austen's novels primarily through a single lens - the female lead's. In others, we are treated to multiple lenses, including at times a distinct lens for the narrator.<br /><br />This gives us two axes for categorization - world/character and single lens/multiple lens. Tolkein would be world-multiple where Austen would be character-single.a calvinist preachernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9721761.post-65061461718318137162012-06-21T15:58:08.435-04:002012-06-21T15:58:08.435-04:00I completely agree that Austen focuses on Elizabet...I completely agree that Austen focuses on Elizabeth's development!<br /><br />SO . . . I'm wondering if I should create new labels for my categories: romances-that-are-driven-by-the-heroine's-developing-character-as-she-confronts-the-world-around-her versus romances-that-deal-with-the-heroine's-developing-character-in-reaction-to-the-hero's-character (since most romances are still run by the heroine's main problem/conflict).<br /><br />"World romance" doesn't precisely work--although it is much shorter than the first label--since "world fantasy" is far more about the <b>world</b> itself (geography, language, inhabitants) than anything else. And Austen does tend to take our knowledge of her world for granted. <br /><br />Perhaps, "character versus world" in comparison to "character versus character"?<br /><br />These labels might not work either, but right after I wrote them, I thought, "Yes!" Even with action movies, I often bypass the one-on-many conflict for the one-on-one conflict. (And there's two more labels!)<br /><br />Ah, the danger of labels. But a distinct break like this seems to run across many genres. <br /><br />Though maybe this is a reasoning backwards approach: the categories are distinct; Austen is not.Kate Woodburyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06276977170991272672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9721761.post-524740809301556422012-06-21T15:18:46.523-04:002012-06-21T15:18:46.523-04:00I'm not completely in agreement in your assess...I'm not completely in agreement in your assessment of Austen's novels as "world" vice "character" romances.<br /><br />To be sure, I don't read a lot of romance novels - my wife and daughter do (lately a lot of Georgette Heyer), but I pretty much restrict myself to Austen. And it is precisely because they focus on character that I do so.<br /><br />There is a marriage at the end of them, so it's fair to call them romances, but the romance is almost secondary to exploration of characters, particularly the female leads. They set the world in which the female lead lives, and then explore that woman's dealing with various relational struggles - to family, to community, to herself, to friends, and ultimately to the men they marry (and don't marry). <br /><br />P&P doesn't talk much about Darcy because the book is about Elizabeth and told from her perspective, even when the voice is ostensibly the omniscient narrator. Same with Anne and Capt. Wentworth (although the side bit on Mrs. Musgrove's fat sighings is clearly Jane Austen's own voice), with Eleanor and Edward, with Emma and George Knightly, and with Fanny and Edmund.<br /><br />They're all about the people - the characters - but mostly they're about THE character, the heroine. That's not a bad way to write a romance, even if it does leave one wondering what the man is thinking.a calvinist preachernoreply@blogger.com