 |
|
The Gabbers  Amanda"I read anything that holds my attention past the first 100 pages, primarily genre fiction of all types, ’serious’ literature, classics and travelogues." read more...
|
Generation gap
« What every reader should know before going to RWA | Home | Modern Classics »  What decade do you think most contemporary romances are set in? I mean romances ostensibly set today—when would you place them, relative to real people in the present day? Do novels published in 2005 ever strike you as more like 1985? I have the impression most heroes and heroines are described as between 20 and 35, but how old do they seem? Every so often I run across a romance in which the hero and heroine act older than they’re supposed to be. Not necessarily more mature, but as if their attitudes and concerns (and sometimes fashion sense) were shaped a decade or more earlier than the setting of the novel. I’m sure my view of age and maturity isn’t universal, but Tumperkin’s noticed it too: That’s one of the joys of category romance for me. The way the relatively youthful characters always into clothes and pasttimes that are more appropriate for people thirty years older. Do other readers feel the same way? Do some authors write for “their” period—their growing-up years, perhaps? Or is it about fantasy—re-imagining today’s world with values that we like to ascribe to times gone by? Stuck in a moment? Part of my time perception is clearly about pop culture and how the author’s exposure differs from mine. In one Christmas romance, naked playtime meant the fire was built up, the brandy was poured, and the Neil Diamond CD was playing. Wait, what? How many young lovers in their twenties think Neil Diamond is the shiznit? I’d have said about two. So if those two find each other, it’s worthy of note (probably “Dude. I think my parents had that on vinyl”). It made me wonder–did the book’s idea of acting 25 in the year 2000 still mean wearing leg warmers while reading about John Lennon’s death? But it’s not simply characters wearing last year’s clothes; it’s also the situations. Mistresses, flings with the gardener’s son, and shame over unwed pregnancies don’t sound very “now”. And think of Betty Neels: the Dutch doctor may have a spiffy car phone(!), but the rest of the story isn’t even up-to-date to the ’70s. Her heroines wear skirts all the time and (where possible) live with their parents until they’re swept off their feet. Neels was 90 when she died in 2001, so more power to her for retaining that singular vision. But why do I see younger authors writing ostensibly modern stories that hark back to (or invent) eras that they never lived through? Is there some pressure to label characters as young, even if they’re not written that way? It’s possible I underrate the maturity of twentysomethings—maybe I’m one of those infantilized consumers resisting growing up, or maybe I’m ageist (though in which direction I’m not certain). But I often don’t know what to make of these books. On the other hand I don’t always mind doing the time-warp. I’m still re-reading Jennifer Crusie, and some of her books feel like they’re set in the ’80s and ’90s; the women have histories and concerns that seem very Second Wave. However, there are cues in the books that say the characters are deliberately set out of joint with the times. Who listens to Dusty Springfield? Who plans every move by the Maltese Falcon playbook? If the other characters take note of these quirks, for me the character becomes individualist rather than fashion-retarded. Generation gap? When Devon asked how to introduce new readers to “straight-up” romances, I was stymied in part because of these time slips. Forget the fashion issues—I have no idea how to sell a non-romance reader on a 25-year-old virgin who’s been bartered and imprisoned by an otherwise forward-thinking CEO. That world needs some explanation. (Nouveau Gothic?) Am I right to think the wandering time period and culture of some contemporary romances is a barrier to non-romance readers? And if contemporary romances come across as not-so-contemporary after all, does that turn off younger readers? This entry was posted by RfP on Friday, August 15th, 2008 at 6:00 am. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. 16 Responses to “Generation gap”Leave a Comment |
Copyright  This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. |
_sm.gif)
August 15th, 2008 at 10:04 am
My daughter is 13 and loves the Beatles, ACDC, Led Zepplin and Dusty Springfeild! Granted, she listens to her generation’s music too, but those older ones are not gone. When I was her age I was a rabid Joni Mitchell fan (which she also loves becuase of Practical Magic) Right now she’s whisteling A Kiss to Build a Dream on by Lois Armstrong (she’s trying to teach the parrot).
But you being up an excellent point. I have a ST contemp written with a heroine who ownes a county furniture store (think County Living magazine and all of the retro craft blogs out there ) who wears 40 insipired farm dresses and listens to blues. I wonder if that’s considered contemp? *g*
August 15th, 2008 at 10:06 am
edit button? owns *g*
August 15th, 2008 at 10:25 am
I love contemporary romance, but when I’m recommending a book to my romance- doubting friends, I usually go with suspense or paranormal. That way there’s something familiar in there for them to connect with.
I don’t agree that contemporary romances aren’t “contemporary” enough. There are lots of great contemp authors out there getting it right, with realistic dialogue and modern sexual politics. Maybe the hard sell to new readers (if there is one) is that the romance drives the plot. It’s ALL romance, and therefore sadly undervalued.
August 15th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Eva: My daughter is 13 and loves the Beatles, ACDC, Led Zepplin and Dusty Springfeild!
Heh, I love it. I glommed my parents’ music and books too. So okay, I understated Neil Diamond’s fanbase : ) Besides, I’m listening to Beethoven on the radio, and that doesn’t make me an inauthentic woman of 2008.
I love characters who are into music, so I wouldn’t want an author to avoid pop culture for fear of dating her stories–or reference only present-day megahits to make sure they *are* dated properly. It comes down to whether I read those details as intentional. For whatever reason, the throw-away Neil Diamond line jolted me as an odd detail but the pervasive Dusty Springfield songs struck me as character.
a heroine who ownes a county furniture store … who wears 40 insipired farm dresses and listens to blues. I wonder if that’s considered contemp?
She sounds like an interesting character. Which book is it?
Contemporary definitely doesn’t have to be all about the present day or mainstream tastes! I love characters with distinct personalities and interests. I’d read a character who’s addicted to The History Channel, or likes steampunk or reenactment. Or runs a Neil Diamond fan site, LOL.
Jill: I love contemporary romance, but when I’m recommending a book to my romance- doubting friends, I usually go with suspense or paranormal. That way there’s something familiar in there for them to connect with.
I know what you mean: those genres are easy for a suspense or horror reader to connect with. But I love how it sounds–contemporary is more alien than suspense or paranormal? : )
I agree that at least part of what’s alien about it is putting romance front-and-center. (Maybe that’s why I notice these odd details–there’s no shoot-em-up distracting me.) However, I wonder whether romance may also have some stylistic quirks that add to the newbie reader’s culture shock.
There are lots of great contemp authors out there getting it right, with realistic dialogue and modern sexual politics.
Absolutely. Some romance is really well grounded in its period and setting, and I think hybridizing with chick lit, women’s fiction, and erotic romance is adding great variety to contemporaries.
August 15th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
You stole my next post
This is something I’ve pondered often, because I’m obsessed with pop culture references in romance.
I have to admit to being highly amused by how out of touch characters seem. Particularly in terms of clothing and outlook. I’ve noticed this quite a bit in categories. One of the things I like about the Blaze line is that it feels more authentically “contemporary” to me (even though other elements don’t always work for me). The people seem like real twenty somethings.
It’s got to be a matter of what you’re exposed to. I also suffer from a bit of East Coast, NYer snobbery, no matter how much I contain it, b/c I think things like, well maybe that’s how they do it in the Midwest, or down South. (Obnoxious I know, but my parents always would say stuff like that, I guess it took).
It’s tough for authors with the scene setting. General descriptions can make the characters seem out of date. On the other hand, I just finished a book that was chock-full of new and now references, and it made me cringe. Nickelback, Fergielicious, 1o,000 BC…things I’m not sure will stand the test of time, and are lame to boot. It seemed so forced, like everyone was trying to sassy how hip and sassy they were. You can’t win.
August 15th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
I read a lot of Harlequin Presents and something I’ve noticed is that the Present of the 80s-90s often feel *less* dated than the ones from the past 5 years or so, with their heavy emphasis on virginity and mistresses and so on.
I also recall a Presents that I could *not* make myself finish - it was a younger hero/older heroine story,w hich is normally fine with me, but all the references put the heroine in the same time frame as the hero’s mother, which just felt really icky.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:13 am
With the economic slump, I’ve heard that more readers are reaching for books based on fantasy. Maybe the themes seem dated (modern-day prince, 30-yr. old virgin), but they are an understandable reaction to current hard times.
August 17th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Harlequin Presents are the worst ‘offender’ of this type of thing (although I’m not complaining - I find it all very entertaining). I don’t think other contemporary lines (including within HQ) are quite so relentlessly guilty of out-of-step characters. Certainly the very few Blaze titles I’ve read seem much more up to date.
But as you say - how do you sell (or, if caught trying to stuff it into your handbag by a friend who’s just got on the same train, justify) a book like this to a reader who is not familiar with the genre? Some of them are just so very very laughably far from reality. Like the Julia James one I recently reviewed in which the heroine’s ‘mask’ of ugliness was put down, in part at least, to the shame of her having been an illegitimate child. I mean, please!
August 17th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
“She sounds like an interesting character. Which book is it?”
Not out yet. Heading to an editor tomorrow.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Just chiming in with my .02. As a reader, I hate it when a story feels dated. I have no problem with a contemporary woman listening to Neil Diamond if it’s deliberate (meaning the whole retro thing is part of her character). But if she’s listening to him because the author doesn’t know any better (doesn’t keep up with trends, etc.), then I have a problem with it. As an author, I do everything (including gorging myself on reality TV and pop culture) to keep up with what’s hot and what’s not. I think it’s a must for any writer. As a reader, I want my contemporary up to date.
Also, my 13 yr old son likes Led Zeppelin, Aerosmith, the Beatles, Van Halen (Not Van Hagar) and the Stones. But these bands are considered “cool”. I seriously doubt Neil would make the cut with him.
August 18th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Devon: You stole my next post
You should go ahead, and then we can argue the other side. As you say, you really can’t win: books full of current references can fall on their faces too.
I think things like, well maybe that’s how they do it in the Midwest, or down South.
So if you read about two teenage Neil Diamond fans, would you think “Maybe that’s how life is in their town”? I’m not sure you’d be wrong. In some towns mullets are still popular.
the Blaze line … feels more authentically “contemporary” to me
I never see Blazes at the grocer’s. I’ll look around.
willaful: the Present of the 80s-90s often feel *less* dated than the ones from the past 5 years or so, with their heavy emphasis on virginity and mistresses and so on.
I’ve said the same thing. I used to love Presents but don’t read many now because the titles and blurbs have shifted. (If you look at the Romance Wiki lists of titles by decade, you can see the difference over time.) Do you still find Presents that feel less dated? The few new ones I’ve picked up were just as dated between the covers (so to speak), but maybe I don’t know how to decode the new covers.
all the references put the heroine in the same time frame as the hero’s mother, which just felt really icky.
I get that feeling when the hero’s an acquaintance of the heroine’s father; I think the setup may be *meant* to evoke that reaction. Categories are great at pushing buttons–they pack a punch in a few words, and they make no bones about introducing potential squick. Maybe that’s part of why some are so over-the-top with dated social mores–the dissonance and the squick are part of what makes an interesting read.
August 18th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Jill: With the economic slump, I’ve heard that more readers are reaching for books based on fantasy.
I’ve read a similar idea about the fantasy genre, and it tickles my imagination. It’s probably difficult to back up with data. It can be so hard to classify books as fantastical or reality-based; romance is often a blend. Looking at Presents, didn’t the change in the line happen before the US economy slowed down? And that particular line is still dominated by British authors, isn’t it? OTOH, I can think of a few arguments supporting your idea. Much of the world is going through economic uncertainties, not just the US; plus I wouldn’t be surprised if Harlequin knows exactly which types of plots resonate in the big US market. And the economy slowing isn’t the only source of angst for Americans.
Tumperkin: the shame of her having been an illegitimate child
That’s so strange, especially given RWA’s reader statistics. 57% of (US) romance readers are Gen X or younger. Surely a lot of current readers have grown up not seeing “illegitimacy” as a big deal? (Though being a bad parent seems if anything *more* despised now.)
So how many read the books *despite* the time warps? Or are twisted like you and find them amusing? : ) Or out of a weird mixture of attraction and repulsion? That’s me with Betty Neels–they’re hilariously disconnected from reality, but strangely appealing. She’s created a whole world, from physical types through social mores, and while it’s not an attractive reality, everything in her world makes sense by its own logic. Plus, as I said, I think the dissonances are part of why they’re interesting.
Kimberly: I have no problem with a contemporary woman listening to Neil Diamond if it’s deliberate (meaning the whole retro thing is part of her character).
That’s it exactly. Eva’s upcoming character sounds like she’s *got* character, instead of being an Everywoman who’s stuck in the ’70s.
BTW, I love that your son’s already opinionated about authenticity and originality: Van Halen (Not Van Hagar).
August 18th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
This is an incredible challenge for authors. I write both STs and for Blaze. The only reason I feel like I can sound relatively young is because I still have a teenage daughter at home. But in 5 years, I’m not going to know what the latest “hollar that” or AIM lingo is, much less music taste. And that’s assuming that my Canadian editor understands it! My only hope is to read hip YAs.
August 23rd, 2008 at 8:05 pm
[...] Over at Teach Me Tonight, Laura Vivanco discusses the topic of older women in romance vis a vis Charlotte Lamb’s novels. She also points out RfP’s post at Access Romance and about young heroines who don’t really seem young and Robin Uncapher’s post about the time warp in romance. [...]
August 23rd, 2008 at 8:51 pm
*That’s it exactly. Eva’s upcoming character sounds like she’s *got* character, instead of being an Everywoman who’s stuck in the ’70s.*
From your lips to the editors ears…
September 12th, 2008 at 2:18 am
[...] Escapism’s been on my mind since Jill commented: With the economic slump, I’ve heard that more readers are reaching for books based on fantasy … an understandable reaction to current hard times. [...]