*sporfle*

[jedibuttercup]

"I suddenly realized that I had never once noticed what he was wearing-- not just tonight, but ever. I just couldn't seem to look away from his face."
--Twilight, p. 169

Okay, now she's lost me. *stifling a giggle* Have you ever read any of those older Harlequin-type novels? The ones where they start out hating each other but quickly shift into mutual obsession, and there are all these nebulous reasons the couple should never be together; and while they may not get around to sex before The End they of course have a Passion For The Ages, and so on? That's what this is; that's why the dissonance between the internal voice and outer actions (straight-up "romance" is the only genre I can think of where the main characters are supposed to be Mary Sues to better enable a reader to fantasize herself in their shoes) and the distinctly unimaginative way the supernatural element is treated. Substitute "vampire" for any unusual ethnicity you care to name, et voila.

I read boxes and boxes of horribly clichéd romances out of my grandmother's closet as a child, most of them from a Harlequin subscription but with a few Regency and Grace Livingston Hill for leavening; and as a direct consequence, I used up my tolerance for such themes before I was old enough to drink. I mean, I knew this was a "supernatural teen romance", but the movie had led me to believe that the "supernatural" part was more than exotic window dressing. It's really, really not. I mean, for what it's turning out to be, it's a well-written example of the genre; but for what it's pretending to be, gag me. Can anyone tell me whether that ever changes? *hopeful look*

I think I'm going to try reading the rest of the book mentally editing out the word "vampire" and replacing it with random other sci-fi races, and see if it makes any real difference. Should at least keep my attention on the text!
~

Comments

Re: Harlequins: When did you begin to think a la Cooper, "I can write better than this!"?

[beatrice_otter]

These are the cheapie ones you can buy for like $2.50 at K-mart--so yes, in terms of quality they are the very bottom of the barrel. It would not surprise me that there are a great many romance novels of better quality, but these are the ones next to the checkout line at the grocery store. These are the cheap ones where, if you don't read much and just want some brain candy, it's easy enough to justify. In other words, these are the ones most likely to be read by the girls and women who don't read much other stuff to balance it out.

There are only a few standard plots, and they don't even try to dress them up--they are formulaic in the extreme. Still, I was desperate for something to read. And the ones that don't involve abuse are good reads if you're incredibly bored or don't want to put much effort into reading, but still want to read.

Re: Harlequins: When did you begin to think a la Cooper, "I can write better than this!"?

[pronker]

I would read just about anything if I felt desperate enough. One friend read Harlequins and tried her hand at writing a western-flavored one. We went to see some cattle branding to get flavor and that alone was memorable. I guess I was thinking about the tipping point in writing, where I didn't want to be so darn passive and got the courage to try writing things down.

Re: Harlequins: When did you begin to think a la Cooper, "I can write better than this!&am

[beatrice_otter]

I've gotten desperate enough to read cereal boxes. 'Nough said.

I would hate writing Harlequins. I could see myself writing some of the higher class books (higher class isn't precisely the word I want, but you know what I mean); but Harlequins are incredibly formulaic. I would get frustrated and feel like I was in a straightjacket before long. My understanding is that the writers of the larger/more expensive books get much greater leeway in their writing.