For all we see as wrong, some of its appeal might be in its rightness
November 14, 2014 9:04 PM   Subscribe

I've been slightly under the weather for the last week, which means, of course, soup, self-pity and comfort reads. Rather than my traditional winter-sniffles re-re-re-read of the Belgariad, I thought I'd go wandering around the historical romance category. That is: duchess porn.
At Pornokitsch, Jared Shurin expresses appreciation for "5 things in historical romance I wantonly desire to see in epic fantasy," and commenters suggest where to find them. At the Journal of Popular Romance Studies, similarly meta yet more searching questions arise. posted by Monsieur Caution (38 comments total) 34 users marked this as a favorite
 
People who want to read how romance criticism and author/fan-apologetics* has and has not changed may also want to read the ur-text anthology Dangerous Men and Adventurous Women: Romance Writers on the Appeal of the Romance, published in 1992.

* I mean apologetics in the nicest possible way.
posted by Hypatia at 9:29 PM on November 14, 2014 [2 favorites]


There's also the site Smart Bitches, Trashy Books.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:47 PM on November 14, 2014 [5 favorites]


The Dugger article was very thought-provoking. Thanks for posting this! I read more trashy fanfiction then I'd care to admit and it's nice to see an academic take on the questions that seem to come up constantly when I read.
posted by town of cats at 1:15 AM on November 15, 2014 [1 favorite]


I couldn't agree more with points four and five. Series construction in fantasy is often terrible, in my opinion. Either one giant story arbitrarily split into 5 humongous books, with all the flab that implies, or an unwillingness to genuinely let characters develop and ripen. Sure they change in a lot of fantasy books, but it's often so binary: was happy, now sad. Was gentle, now rough/cruel. Was trusting, now betrayer. It's almost always negative, too. There's not so many where characters grow in complexity - and due to complex causes. Cause and effect in fantasy is often depressingly over-articulated and simplistic.

This ties into point five, the humour. One of the reasons I love Jack Vance and Leiber is the sense of humour, or rather whimsy (too much forced humour and you get into Eddings Dad-Joke territory with the worst "banter" in the universe). I think Sword and Sorcery as a genre generally gets this right moreseo than epic fantasy.

Thinking about it, I kinda feel like Sword and Sorcery does series construction the way I like it more frequently as well. I blame the apocalyptic overtones in epic fantasy. There's still a lack of understanding that small stakes can loom large, if they matter to your characters.

This sounds like a huge moan, it's not. It's not that I hate all epic fantasy and love all historical romance (indeed, Heyer has kinda ruined me for historical romance. The glaring anachronisms and thudding dialogue of her successors generally leaves me unsatisfied). But I do think the genres could learn from each other, for sure.
posted by smoke at 1:32 AM on November 15, 2014 [3 favorites]


(indeed, Heyer has kinda ruined me for historical romance. The glaring anachronisms and thudding dialogue of her successors generally leaves me unsatisfied)

Came in just to say something like that.

Also, just struck me how well Bujold is able to pull everything together for all in the Vorkosigan saga and turn it inside out - historical romance set in the far future alternate history
posted by infini at 2:07 AM on November 15, 2014 [7 favorites]


Epic fantasy... not so much. There's the slapstick jester figure - the Tasslehoff Burrfoot or Tom Bombadil - but with few rare exceptions, epic fantasies embrace the ponderous. Self-awareness, I suppose, is seen as the barrier to suspension of disbelief.

This guy needs to be introduced to Terry Pratchett NOW.
posted by sukeban at 4:51 AM on November 15, 2014 [2 favorites]


Except he isn't talking about Pratchett level hilarity - just a kind of gentle humour. Funny to the reader and also funny in the novel.
posted by geek anachronism at 5:16 AM on November 15, 2014 [1 favorite]


This guy needs to be introduced to Terry Pratchett NOW.

Ugh no, Pratchett encapsulates so much that is bad about bad fantasy writing.

I agree with her list completely, with the corollary that many romance books would be improved by dropping the trope where characters failing to communicate basic information (like "that was my cousin I was kissing" or "I think you are cute") is the key plot device for hundreds of pages. There is only so much suspension of disbelief that I can do about a character presented otherwise as entirely self-reliant and smart and yet incapable of saying that one thing despite repeated opportunities to do so.

(And in fairness I've read bad fantasy books that rely on that same device, and it's not improved by leaving out the good things on her list like strong female characters and racy sex scenes every 80 pages.)
posted by Dip Flash at 5:41 AM on November 15, 2014 [5 favorites]


I was brought up short by "my traditional winter-sniffles re-re-re-read of the Belgariad." Seriously? I don't mean to be snarky, but I kind of have trouble with the judgment of someone that has Eddings as his go-to comfort reading.
posted by rodii at 6:43 AM on November 15, 2014 [1 favorite]


Sometimes it's about what you latch onto when you're twelve, yo.
posted by asperity at 6:58 AM on November 15, 2014 [7 favorites]


Yeah, I know, but geez, how tedious it would be to deal with all that banter again and again and again.
posted by rodii at 7:03 AM on November 15, 2014 [1 favorite]


He picked some of the best historical romance authors currently writing. Courtney Milan, especially — she has an excellent blog too: "How to Suck at Typography".
posted by nev at 7:09 AM on November 15, 2014 [1 favorite]


1 thing I would like to see everywhere on the interwebs: people not attaching the suffix "porn" to every goddamn thing just to indicate "detailed focus on." Pictures of food? Food porn. Pictures of old books? Biblioporn. Historical romances that have detailed descriptions of clothes? Dress porn. It's fucking old, people.

/grumpy morning rant
posted by Saxon Kane at 7:33 AM on November 15, 2014


But when you're sick, tedium and repetition are often good things. I just can't agree that our choices in comfort sick reads should be a reason to judge our non-addled tastes.

That said, I can't get through those books anymore when sick, either. Though I will re-read the hell out of early Mercedes Lackey in similar circumstances.
posted by asperity at 7:41 AM on November 15, 2014


I just can't agree that our choices in comfort sick reads should be a reason to judge our non-addled tastes.

Sick reads comfort list includes:

Almost any Heyer, detective or otherwise
Miss Marple
Ellis Peters
Hercule Poirot (depending, cos he can be irritating)
More Heyer
Lindsey Davis
Elizabeth Peters, at a pinch or preferably PD James


then perhaps Draco's Tavern, a Stainless Steel Rat or two, or young Miles Vorsokigan
posted by infini at 7:49 AM on November 15, 2014 [1 favorite]


... people not attaching the suffix "porn" to every goddamn thing just to indicate "detailed focus on." ... It's fucking old, people.

I see what you did there.
posted by Greg_Ace at 9:30 AM on November 15, 2014 [1 favorite]


Best post so far all month; if he had written "Silmarillion" instead of "Belgariad" he would have sold me completely and hello, rodii!
posted by Lynsey at 9:48 AM on November 15, 2014


After my father started raving about Starz's "Outlander," I binge-watched it and then started reading the Gabaldon books (I'm on book #3, Voyager).

Though the first novel was spellbinding, I definitely feel that the Gabaldon books are getting series-itis, and I'm using them to help unwind before going to sleep. I find some historical romance conventions are annoying (though the protagonists are infatuated with each other's appearance, must everyone else be ugly by contrast?). I hardly ever read romance, after a period in my teens when I was willing to read anything set in the King Arthur-verse (especially relatively realistic post-Roman versions; yes, I waded through The Mists of Avalon).

But Gabaldon appears to have a meta sense of humor, as when both Jamie and Claire read romance novels with bad sex scenes (the mid-eighteenth-century version in Jamie's case).
posted by bad grammar at 11:40 AM on November 15, 2014 [3 favorites]


infini - those are pretty much the contents of my kindle right now! Stressful time at work means comfort reads.

This was a very interesting article as a fan of romances and not a fan of fantasy although I feel I should be. Any recommendations for good character-driven fantasy? I tried one Pratchett book and hated it - something to do with movie making? Is there a better one or was that one typical?

One trope in romance I'd like to see burned with fire is the 'maidenhead breaking' scene. I'm starting to thing it's a thing some people must find titillating.
posted by hydrobatidae at 11:55 AM on November 15, 2014


hydrobatidae - then I think you'll like the Miles Vorkosigan series and maybe early Pern - try them and see? It was Barrayar that got me hooked on the Vor but Cordelia's Honor might work better as a proper intro.
posted by infini at 1:16 PM on November 15, 2014 [1 favorite]


The best Pratchett book is Going Postal or possibly Small Gods. His early work is okay but mostly not great.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:02 PM on November 15, 2014


Night Watch or Monstrous Regiment or Amazing Maurice or A Hat Full of Sky for me.
posted by kmz at 3:45 PM on November 15, 2014


Night Watch is amazing but I would not recommend it to somebody who hasn't read the previous Watch books.
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:14 PM on November 15, 2014


I've had a 100% success rate using Mort as the intro book to Pratchett.

And I am one of those people for whom (granted, pretty rarely, I have better comforting options generally) Eddings is comfort reading. Like someone said - it's what you latch onto when you're 12, and that's why it's comfortable.

Having said this, I can't fucking stand the Belgariad, it's the Tamuli that I turn to. (It neatly skips all that incredibly creepy 'I raised my wife!' stuff from the Elenium. By god, Eddings, stop joking about that, it does not make it less skeezy.)
posted by pseudonymph at 4:42 PM on November 15, 2014


I think it's really really daft to suggest Pratchett as a response to this article. Yes, he's funny. Yes he does the kind of woven storyline that some romance authors do. But it is not at all in the same wheelhouse. It isn't the same kind of humour at all, for starters. Secondly they are really encapsulated when it comes to character development which, even for the romance storylines, is very very different to romance novel's character development.

Like, I love Terry Pratchett's work, but it's not an answer to this particular question unless you ignore half the parameters AND have not actually read the kinds of romances novels being discussed.

Same goes for the OP's commenters suggesting Rothfuss and Malazan. Christ almighty they are so terribly wrong. Malazan is fantasy word salad with spiderwebs in place of outlines, Rothfuss is irritating beyond reason (I read both Kvothe books prior to searching the internet for them, on the recommendation of my brother-in-law which turned out to be 'I want you to read them so I have someone to talk about them with' rather than 'I think you'd like them'). They have very little overlap, in themes or structure or feel or narrative or characterisation or voice or plot or intent (or female characters!), with the kinds of romance being described.

Now, Bujold is probably a decent rec but she is very open about her romance influences.
posted by geek anachronism at 7:13 PM on November 15, 2014 [6 favorites]


Same goes for the OP's commenters suggesting Rothfuss and Malazan. Christ almighty they are so terribly wrong.

Oh, I agree completely. I don't think I'd have posted this article if not for the additional comments pointing out women who've been writing fantasy along the lines the guy at Pornokitsch suggested. It's not a sub-genre I'm very familiar with, but the names I recognized as likely appropriate there were Sharon Shinn (whom I've seen recommended on AskMe several times), Kate Elliott (I've read Cold Magic, which was good, though I seem to recall a romance just getting started in it, and I haven't read the sequel), Michelle Sagara (whose work I've only sampled in the past, but it struck me as on target for this), and Jacqueline Carey (whose work is super popular, though I've been told it has more in common with erotica than romance--not sure). It was surprising to me that Jared Shurin didn't mention any other epic fantasy writers like that, and I hope the comments about Rothfuss or Erikson didn't mislead anyone.

Incidentally, I think Bujold is a great recommendation for someone looking for character-driven romance plots/sub-plots in SF/F in general. It's not epic fantasy, but I'd also recommend Mary Robinette Kowal's light and charming Regency fantasy series, The Glamourist Histories, as pretty much a direct attempt to add magic to Austen/Heyer. I've contributed FPPs for two other SF-nal (not fantasy) series that may be relevant too: Sharon Lee & Steve Miller's Liaden Universe (which has like three completely conventional romance novels in the middle of the series, and they are amazing--I won't lie: tears were shed) and Seanan McGuire's Velveteen stories (which have two romantic subplots once things get going, mostly in the second book). I remember it as more of a family drama than a romance, but if Debra Doyle and James D. Macdonald's Mageworlds books ever get a free ebook release, I'll do an FPP on them too. I've also enjoyed just a bit less for plot-point reasons two other semi-romantic space opera series: Catherine Asaro's and Rachel Bach's (a.k.a. Rachel Aaron). I didn't like everything about them, but they're character-driven and worth consideration as gateways for romance readers.

Regarding the Pratchett tangent, I have Definite Opinions, but I'm more interested in what historical romance readers could suggest as good for a fantasy reader. I've read classics, including Georgette Heyer and Daphne du Maurier, plus one random Harlequin when I prepped for a class on reading popular culture, but other than that, nothing that I can recall, and I was grateful for nev's comment suggesting TFA's choices were legit.
posted by Monsieur Caution at 8:18 PM on November 15, 2014 [7 favorites]


I think it's really really daft to suggest Pratchett as a response to this article. Yes, he's funny. Yes he does the kind of woven storyline that some romance authors do. But it is not at all in the same wheelhouse.

If we're talking about a guy who has the Belgariad and the Dragonlance as comfort reads, I think he might enjoy Pratchett alright. This is coming from a fellow Raistlin fan who has read most of Eddings too (although I've never been able to finish the Tamuli, because those books are SLOW).
posted by sukeban at 1:43 AM on November 16, 2014


The line "Medieval morality ... [w]here all sex is more-or-less seen as 'dirty'" suggests that he doesn't know that much about the Middle Ages. Chaucer prescribed.

As for fantasy... I don't know I've not read very much of it for the last few decades, but would humbly suggest The Dancers at the End of Time as I usually do.
posted by Grangousier at 2:29 AM on November 16, 2014


But this isn't open slather 'rec me reads' this is a targetted and precise list of 'what fantasy does A, B, C, D and E?' of which Pratchett gets to maybe 3, if you stretch, and he doesn't come close on the biggest ones.

And I don't know if this is somehow linked to the genderedness of romance - as if those five parameters being discussed can't be all that serious, or all that enjoyable, so therefore we should have a discussion about a (very talent and fun) man who is sort of peripherally linked. Or if it's just that similarly common 'I know you asked for X but I really like Z so here's several paragraphs on why you should read Z that are only tangentially linked to your actual stated goals'. Either way, Pratchett is a great writer but please stop recommending him to someone who has specifically asked for fantasy novels with fucking on screen, lots of ladies with agency, realist descriptive tendencies, interwoven series construction, and humour. Pratchett hits the last two, and the ladies with agency is something of a grey area (the Witches books come close to the bog standard ladies revue of historical romance, but most of the other series' don't).

Or if you do think it's relevant, engage with the details.
posted by geek anachronism at 2:45 AM on November 16, 2014 [2 favorites]


Either way, Pratchett is a great writer but please stop recommending him to someone who has specifically asked for fantasy novels with fucking on screen, lots of ladies with agency, realist descriptive tendencies, interwoven series construction, and humour.

I can't see where Jared demands all the points being present at once and on-screen fucking will necessarily be incidental in series that aren't marketed as Books With People Fucking and pretty much absent from YA whatever, but fiiine, have the Gentleman Bastard series if you want. Sheesh.
posted by sukeban at 4:14 AM on November 16, 2014


and Jacqueline Carey (whose work is super popular, though I've been told it has more in common with erotica than romance--not sure)

I haven't read all of her books, but I've read at least four or five of the most popular, and the categorization is tricky. There isn't a lot of sex (or rather, there's a fair bit of it but the books are hundreds and hundreds of pages long, so the sexy stuff takes ton of reading to get to if that's your focus) but it is fairly extreme sex, and meanwhile the real focus of the books seemed to me to be the relationships (very much on the romance line) and the politics of the society (very much on the epic fantasy line).

It's also the only book series for which I've met someone with a full back tattoo (and Carey has a page of photos of reader tattoos on her website, in fact), so it is getting a strong response and identification from many readers in ways that other books very rarely do, in part because of the way it blurs those genre lines, and especially because of how well the characters are written.

Either way, Pratchett is a great writer but please stop recommending him to someone who has specifically asked for fantasy novels with fucking on screen, lots of ladies with agency, realist descriptive tendencies, interwoven series construction, and humour.

Quoted for emphasis. The FPP sets out a very clear five-point set of criteria, and a lot of the suggestions showing up here just emphasize how little fantasy meets those criteria.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:06 AM on November 16, 2014 [1 favorite]


The FPP sets out a very clear five-point set of criteria, and a lot of the suggestions showing up here just emphasize how little fantasy meets those criteria.

I fail to see where he demands these five points to be all present in one work. I interpreted the blog post as "Here are some things I would like to see more of in the genre of epic fantasy" (with which I agree wholeheartedly, FWIW), not "Tell me recommendations that fulfill these specific requirements".
posted by sukeban at 5:40 AM on November 16, 2014


In the 43 years since I've been able to read, Pratchett was one I could never even find myself picking up, for any reason whatsoever, not even in remote random rural place where there was nothing else in English. Even Harold Robbins was better than nothing. I have no idea why, just throwing it out there.
posted by infini at 6:21 AM on November 16, 2014 [1 favorite]


Can this please not become yet another conversation about Terry Pratchett? I mean, if he has to come up can it please at least be about whether his work fits the five criteria in the article, not just "I could never get into him"?
posted by Lexica at 9:53 AM on November 16, 2014


I really don't want you to feel under seige, Sukeban, but I can't help wonder how much romance you've read if the Gentleman Bastard series is something you would put up as a substitute. Don't get me wrong, I liked the books fine, but they read (to me at least) as quite male-orientated juvenalia (nowhere near so much as Rothfuss, I grant, but still). The two main characters - and the bulk of the cast - are also male. Indeed, I don't know if they'd even pass the Bechdel test?

For me, thinking about this fantasy novels that might fall into this category would likely include:

Megan Whalen Turner,

Garth Nix's Old Kingdom series

It didn't seem to make much of a splash, but I really enjoyed Robert VS Redick's Chathrand Voyage series, in large part because of its complex and well-realised female protagonists.

I can thin of a few other authors that would likely fit the bill, but I've not read them, or I read them and thought they were pretty bad (Ash: a secret history, for example).

You could also swing by these great ask.me questions for inspiration:
Fantasy novels with strong women characters
Fantasy novels with strong female characters 2
Fantasy novels without the sexism.

I will say that his criteria are more circumscribed than those questions - limited as it is to more traditional genres of fantasy.
posted by smoke at 12:56 PM on November 16, 2014 [3 favorites]


For starters fantasy is not limited to YA so onscreen fucking is one of the five points. It's the top point even!

And I concur that if you're recommending Locke Lamora for these purposes you don't have a good handle on either romance or the parameters. It isn't about them being bad, it's that they are utterly unlike romance and do not fulfil the criteria. I mean, for crying out loud, if we're gonna rules lawyer a bunch of 'but he didn't say it had to be all fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiive' here, at least engage with how they fit some of the criteria. Because the sense of humour evident in a lot of romance, the the romance being listed, is not darkity dark sly snickering. It's giggles and guffaws and occasional slapstick. It is intra-diegetical AND meta-diegetical, if you want to be precise. It's rarely cynical and rarely at the expense of other people.

Turner is a great one actually, even if she's a lot more circumspect with the sex than romance. Some of Catherine Asaro's stuff is good as well, again lots of fade to black. I have to check over my borrowing history at the library because there is someone I'm thinking of but cannot remember.
posted by geek anachronism at 1:24 PM on November 16, 2014


but I can't help wonder how much romance you've read if the Gentleman Bastard series is something you would put up as a substitute.

I beg your pardon. Is this about fantasy that has certain elements that are present in the romance books the post author likes, or is this a replacement for romance books? I can't see the goalposts anymore, they're getting blurry.

I liked the books fine, but they read (to me at least) as quite male-orientated juvenalia (nowhere near so much as Rothfuss, I grant, but still)

Definitely not like the Belgariad or the Dragonlance, then.

The two main characters - and the bulk of the cast - are also male. Indeed, I don't know if they'd even pass the Bechdel test?

Ha ha, oh yes. You haven't finished the first book, then? Because there are two women who are responsible for saving everyone's lives.

Then there are the women pirates in the second book, who also have lots of things to say, and better yet, Lynch has this way to make random secondary characters like alchemists or bodyguards or mercenaries or pirates or navy officers women half of the time, which I frankly find refreshing.

And there's the third book, which is half rigging a muggle election in a wizard town, and half a flashback to a theater production when the protagonists were kids. I feared that Sabetha the red-haired absent love interest would end up as a Mary Sue after all the fetishization that Locke has on her, but let me tell you, the ending of the book is *delicious* in that respect.

I would love more female POV, but Scott Lynch is incredibly amusing to read.
posted by sukeban at 1:38 PM on November 16, 2014


(The third book especially would be closer to romance novel: the election subplot has Locke set against Sabetha and they are flirting and screwing over one another's plans all the time (also a bit of screwing proper), the theatre flashback subplot has plenty of slapstick in that they are a bunch of teenage con men -and woman- who *have* to get the production going when the actors are a disaster and the manager just went away with all the money (and also a bit of screwing, too). The denouement is magnificent in that it subverts all the tropes and more that you'd expect in a male fantasy fulfillment plot, shows Locke as a very fucked up individual, and gets Sabetha to make the only rational and proper decision she can make in her situation)
posted by sukeban at 1:56 PM on November 16, 2014


« Older Well, that certainly escalated quickly.   |   The Passing of the Indians Behind Glass Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments