by SB Sarah • Friday, October 03, 2008 at 03:00 AM
Over here in the US of Holy Shit, we have a few problems. A few, big, huge giant, honking seven hundred billion dollar problems. Add to that a light-your-pants-on-fire contested presidential race (aren’t you glad I write a romance blog and not political punditry? I know I am) and you have one very exhausted Sarah who is more than ever grateful for every opportunity to take refuge in the “yes, it will end happily” world of the romance novel. The billionaires, they don’t lose their shirts or invest in sub prime mortgages in Harlequin Presents’ world. They don’t need no stinkin’ Dow. Their money is inherited and, since they’re worldy wise and brilliant, probably collecting more interest sitting in shoeboxes under the bed.
Anyway, over here, it’s crazy pants time. The election is a little over a month away, there’s debates on television (note: I think any candidate who does not answer the damn question asked of them should lose time to talk. There should be a moderator with time docking power, is all I’m sayin) and signs and ads everywhere, and the tension is only going to increase. Which leads me to my next question:
How do you feel about authors discussing politics? A few authors have emailed me privately with videos and links, and I’ve discussed the current presidential race over email with heaps of people, but more than once, I’ve had someone remark that they feel awkward saying anything on their blogs about the political situation. One author said she didn’t feel like she was in a position to get political: whereas it’s ok for actors to embrace activism, for authors of commercial fiction, it’s not ok at all.
My general reaction is, “Why not? Go for it. If you have something to say, say it.” Yes, it may alienate some readers. Yes, it may mean that people who don’t politically agree with you vow never to buy your books again! (Yeah, says I. Riiiight. I’ll believe it when I have access to their bookstore buying history.) Yes, it might raise a particular kerfuffle, but in the long run, these folks live in the same world I do and I am very curious as to what they think. But I mentally keep it separate from their work. They as people do a lot more in a day than merely writing the books I read. So of course they have things to say about taxes and war and expenditure and governmental oversight, etc.
But yet there’s that reticence. And I get it - I totally get it. But I am never comfortable keeping my own mouth shut because it might be better for someone else. John Scalzi agrees. When asked if fiction writers should write about politics, he replied:
The reader who believes a fiction author should keep his or her opinions to themselves is effectively (if generally unintentionally) saying “You exist only to amuse me. You are not allowed to do anything else.” To which the only rational response is: blow me.
I’m not going to hesitate to add my voice to the national dialogue on any subject just because someone somewhere might not be happy with what I have to say. And more to the point, I think it is bad and dangerous thinking for people to suggest that fiction writers should have to live in a black box of opinion.
[My apologies for not being able to remember who sent me that link. But you’re awesome!]
I concur heartily, and do want to hear what people think, or, at least, read about it. I think it’s a cousin to the Romancelandia culture of Be Nice Or Else that silences romance authors on the subject of politics when authors wish to discuss it - though obviously if you’d like to not talk about it, that’s totally understandable.
I’m always dumbstruck, though, by the idea that someone who sends me a video or web page that has to do with their political opinion often includes a “if you don’t support this person, I hope I didn’t offend you.” I am rarely offended if you disagree with me. Telling me I’m a horrible person with no moral compass because I disagree with you, well, that’s obnoxious to be sure. But disagreement itself isn’t offensive - just like offending someone isn’t the same as assaulting them (TM Robin). I hate that two people with different political viewpoints keep quiet when around one another because they might...disagree. Argue. Debate. Oh, shit, dialogue. That’s just terrible. Can’t have that. Holy crap.
So if you’re an author who is very politically exercised right now, do you keep silent on the subject? Do you keep your political commentary in a specific environment, such as your personal non-author-related blog? Does your political activism on your author blog extend to encouraging voting and political involvement but not discussions of a particular candidate? Does the relative prominence of your name as an author mean you’re less likely to be outspoken about your personal feelings about the current campaigns? Or do you prefer that romance be a politics-free zone, from the authors to their blogs?
What’s the fallout if an author you like takes a political stand that you don’t like, and really, does it matter? Is an absence of politics the only way to go when you’re trying to sell something, because we’re so polarized that alienating the sales base is bad idea jeans? What’s your take?
by SB Sarah • Tuesday, September 30, 2008 at 03:49 AM
In a recent comment, Jennifer Echols mentioned No Plot? No Problem, a how-to manual by Chris Baty, founder of NaNoWriMo.
According to Echols, “He suggests that before you sit down to write a novel, you make a list of everything you love to see in novels. When you write your own novel, you should put the stuff from your list in there. Then you should make a second list of everything you hate to see in novels. When you write your own novel, you should make sure none of the stuff from that second list creeps in when you’re tired.”
Ooh, neat. But looking at that idea from the perspective of a reader, I can generate an equally useful list - for shopping and seeking recommendations.
Here’s my list:
Things I Love:
Characters who are mysterious, who don’t say much, but whose deeds are wonderfully telling and could reveal a character who keeps a great deal of depth hidden. I’m all about the steamy unspoken ardor.
Example: Gleason’s Max from the Gardella Chronicles, who carries a burnt rose in his pocket from when Victoria lit it on fire to try to see in the dungeon where they were trapped. He kept it - and would be mortified if anyone found out that he did and asked him why.
Characters who are genuinely funny, not just in a slapstick way but in a witty, clever, and realistic way.
Example: Deirdre Martin’s Power Play, in which a soap opera actress falls for a hockey player. The hockey team’s scenes in particular had me giggling to the point that Hubby wanted to know what was wrong with me.
Plots that are sustained by multiple threads of tension, some large and some small, that don’t line up like links on a chain one after another merely for additional pages. Wait, that’s more of a hate. So let’s go there.
Things I Hate:
Dialogue that is completely unrealistic.
Characters getting angry for no good reason, except to sustain conflict. Flipping out over minor things, getting all icy and disdainful for really stupid shit? GAH. (Harlequin Presents and Helen Brooks, I am LOOKING AT YOU.)
What do you want as a reader? What don’t you want? And as a writer, do you write the plots you love to read?
by SB Sarah • Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 02:31 AM
First, I am just astonished that among the top stories on CNN are Ahmadinejad’s comments at the UN (which are so bugfuck scary shitass motherfucker holy shit that I splutter), and news about Clay Aiken coming out of the closet and Nicole Kidman drinking water to become pregnant. Jesus fucknuts. Juxtaposition of WTF, much?
Second: a rather curious but happy byproduct of the Twilight empire: the actual town of Forks, WA, is receiving a huge tourism boom - which their economy is most happy about. I love that the town is totally into it, from organizing a blood drive from the “Cullen’s” house, to marking a spot for “Dr. Cullen” in the hospital lot. More power to ‘em. May their fire trucks be shiny and new, and their residents happy and mellow.
Now here’s a big question, and each artist has to, I think, answer it on their own, because it’s really a question of ownership and property of art - one that comes up in the court system over and over again. The town’s embracing of their role in Meyers’ series is one manner in which the subject of a creative work adapts to the attention because of it. But consider the artists’ perspectives, and the wide variations of reaction in how their art is used.
In this corner: Suzanne Vega discussing the remixes and interpolations of her song Tom’s Diner (duh duhduh duh, duh duhduh duh, duh duh duhduh na duhduh na...) and how she’s embraced them, even released compilations of various artists’ versions of the same song:
15 years later, “Tom’s Album” continues to sell. People think it is a bootleg and sidle up to me whispering, “Have you seen this? Someone put this together.”
“Yes. That someone was me.”
However, it was a logistical nightmare to administrate. I had to go back to all the people who had taken the song without permission, and ask their permission . . . to use their version of my song!
While still a defender of copyright protection - Vega met with the original remixers of the song, DNA, and arranged for a flat fee agreement after DNA had remixed the song in 1990 and sold it out of a corner store - her perspective is interesting, particularly in the context of isolation in which she wrote the song itself. (Also, the part about Vega’s role in the invention of the mp3 is freaking fascinating.)
And in this corner, we have Annie Proulx, who is pissed as hell about fanfic regarding her characters in Brokeback Mountain, particularly when they send her the product of their fanfic labors. Her response is rant-tastic, because she’s horrified that readers would rewrite her story with a happy ending, stating that:
There are countless people out there who think the story is open range to explore their fantasies and to correct what they see as an unbearably disappointing story....
Most of these ‘fix-it’ tales have the character Ennis finding a husky boyfriend and living happily ever after, or discovering the character Jack is not really dead after all, or having the two men’s children meet and marry, etc., etc. Nearly all of these remedial writers are men, and most of them begin, ‘I’m not gay but….’ They do not understand the original story, they know nothing of copyright infringement—i.e., that the characters Jack Twist and Ennis Del Mar are my intellectual property....
Proulx then states that she thinks that the fanfic rewrites are motivated by the male writers’ feeling that they can write the story better than she, a woman, could. I don’t know about that, as it seems like a huge leap of guesswork to assume the motivations of a fanfic writer, but her perspective as to the ownership of the characters and the ending of their story is different from Vega’s eager collecting of variations, covers, and remixes of her song. I’d love to hear a debate with the two of them discussing intellectual property, and how fans interact with their artistic creations.
What do you think? Would you be irritated with someone taking your characters and writing fanfic about them? Do you think someone who seizes your characters and rewrites the ending is “exploring their fantasies” in a manner which you find objectionable? Or would you collect them for your own amusement? Where do you fall on the Vega/Proulx continuum?
Thanks to Karen and December for the links.
by SB Sarah • Monday, September 08, 2008 at 07:09 AM
It’s a busy morning in Smart Bitch HQ, where I’m hard at work wrestling new software and correcting graphics - something cool is coming, I promise. At least I think it’s cool, anyway. Maybe you will, too.
Anyway, I’m under my desk cursing at the wiring and trying valiantly to pretend like Photoshop and I are good buddies, but I have a couple of questions:
I don’t have any premium channels, but I am dying (ha!) to know what y’all thought of HBO’s True Blood. I’m going to try to watch it online (thank you HBO) later, but I’m so curious what y’all thought.
Also, Anna Paquin does not look like herself - holy cow.
Tiny bit o’ humor: I really love this anonymous mother’s chat board online that sounds really dorky but honestly it’s a great place for fast info and absolutely the bitchiest behavior ever. It’s based in New York but there are moms from all over on it. It’s totally anonymous, very fast, and hilarious. Last night, they were discussing Twilight, and I swear, at least six women said, “I want my own Edward.”
All I could think was, even with the popsicle wang? Really?!
by SB Sarah • Thursday, September 04, 2008 at 05:17 AM
I started writing this late last week while pondering what it is about Edward that has folks so addicted to the Twilight series, and so willing to overlook or excuse what critics find to be some creeptastic behavior on his part. Since then, the first 12 chapters of Midnight Sun have been leaked, much to author Stephenie Meyer’s dismay, and she’s halted progress on the project indefinitely. Whether the leak was a publicity stunt or whether someone she gave the chapters to was too tempted not to share them, there remains a LOT of interest in Sir Edward of Sparklyville, and I’ve been spending way too much time comparing him to Alpha Heroes from Days Of Yore to determine what it is about him that’s so transfixing, so addictive, so amazing that people are literally going bananas over the idea that they won’t get the rest of his perspective from Midnight Sun. And of course, I’m reading Midnight Sun and wondering how much time I can spend in this guy’s head before I go bananas. I warn you: this entry is holy shit long. Don’t say you weren’t warned.
While there seems to be some divide between the folks who love them some Jacob, I remain fascinated with the people who are over the moon about Edward, particularly as he’s portrayed in Twilight.
The more I think about it, and look back on Edward’s appearances and interactions with Bella in Twilight, the more he reminds me of the same old-same old Alpha romance hero —specifically, the old-school Alpha hero recast in glittery YA paleness. The same Alpha hero characteristics that so many readers find either tiresome or downright terrific are present in Edward, and serve to make him addictive and alluring.
Many people have noted how conservative and conventional Twilight is as a romance. They are not wrong, in my opinion. Joanne Renaud was the first to give me the heads up on her opinion that Edward was old-skool all the way down to the punishing kisses. I agree: Bella and Edward’s romance echoes the old skool romances of the beginnings of the romance genre: stories told deep within the point of view of the heroine, wherein the hero is a mysterious figure whose desires and intentions are not known, let alone his feelings. The old skool romance hallmarks are all there, most notably, as Candy pointed out to me after her glut of the old skool romances earlier this year, the idea that the hero’s worldview must be adopted by the heroine in order for her to secure her happy ending, complete with increased social status, wealth, and possible title.
Twilight fits that mold. Bella must become complicit in the secrecy of Edward’s world, and in fact she’s the one who presses to adopt his worldview – by becoming a vampire herself. Within Edward’s family, Bella is special merely because she is Edward’s choice and is absorbed into his family simply on that basis, leaving her father’s home for his, literally and figuratively, following the traditional pattern that takes a virginal woman from her father’s possession and guardianship to her husband’s, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
What set me on the Edward-as-Alpha road to much pondering were the interactions in Twilight after Edward has decided to cease ignoring Bella. Every time he shows up after he’s decided to talk to Bella, he rescues her, and immediately following sweeps in and manages every detail of her life. Moreover, that first occasion of rescue is telling; it comes at a moment of great vulnerability for Bella.
She’s alone at home on a snowy day, convinced she’s going to fall down on the icy sidewalks or wreck her truck on the roads. But she realizes after she gets to school that her father had put chains on her tires early in the morning, before he left and before she woke up, purely to keep her safe. As Belly realizes that her father was quietly watching out for her, an experience she has little familiarity with, in swoops Edward- literally – to save her by bending flying vans to his will. It’s a subtle moment of underscoring: Bella literally travels from her father’s care to Edward’s care in that moment. From then on, Edward saves her over and over again, sweeping in and managing every detail for her. Her father’s role is merely as a figure in the household, and readers of Midnight Sun know that Edward was as much a figure in that household as Charlie, whether Charlie or Bella knew it or not. Consider the sequence of Edward and Bella’s interactions:
She gets nearly crushed by a van. He saves her life.
She faints in science class. He carries her to the nurse, then gets her excused from classes so he can bring her home.
She is followed by creepy guys in a coastal town. He shows up after reading the thoughts of the villains and rescues her at the last moment before they act on their intentions.
Edward’s Alpha Heroism is solidified by the degree to which he micromanages Bella after those three rescues. He knows whats best. But he takes it one step further by becoming an overseer in her life. Because he doesn’t sleep, he can literally stay with her all the freaking time, aside from when he’s not hunting, and even then he worries about her safety. He makes sure she eats; he watches her as she sleeps. He pretty much rebuilds his entire day around being with her. He meets her after class, he follows her home, and her day in the Twilight narration becomes measured by when she’s with Edward vs. when she’s not. He pays a great deal of lip service to the idea of keeping her safe but it’s more a taming of the Alpha Hero, on speed with added crack and angst, because not only does Edward hover over her and pretty much glue himself to her side, but she wants nothing more than to be with him. Every. Minute. All. Day. He drinks blood to survive; she drinks the experience of being with him to avoid depresson.
He tames his desire to kill her and eat her, but he still consumes her, which is the point that made me the most uncomfortable, but may also serve as a primary reference as to why Edward is so alluring a character. While Edward and Bella don’t knock boots in Twilight, Edward manages to insert himself figuratively into her life and become the center of every moment of Bella’s life – and she’s all for it. More than one person commented to me privately after reading my review that the manner in which Bella subsumes her identity and becomes absorbed by Edward almost symbiotically made them as readers profoundly uncomfortable, because it echoed abusive relationships they witnessed or experienced. It wasn’t romantic for them, that totalitarian management - it was creepy.
Plus there’s the fact that Edward doesn’t really do anything else with his endless days. The only one who does anything with that whole vampiric sleeplessness is Carlisle. He doesn’t need sleep? He’s a butt-trillion years old with light years of medical experience? Holy shit, he’s the best ER doctor ever. Imagine what patient lessons he could relate (thanks to Taylor for the link).
But Edward doesn’t DO anything aside from attend school in presence only, play baseball, and drive cars rather quickly. He plays music but he’s already excellent – a virtuoso, in fact. Bella, for all intents and purposes, becomes his hobby. Being near her, whether she knows it or not, is what he does. But because he has more of a life and routine than she does, she is absorbed into his world, partly because she has no real life in Forks herself, and partly because the secrecy of their society demands it.
The biggest characteristic of an Old Skool Alpha Hero is The Rape of the Heroine, which doesn’t literally occur in Twilight, though one could argue that James’ biting Bella could be interpreted as rape, and Edward’s refusal to change her into a vampire as the refusal to do so. Edward does invade Bella’s privacy and home without her permission in order to watch her, and if his commentary is to be believed, to try to resist killing her. That leashed intention to kill, I think, can be interpreted the same as the leashed intent to rape. But in a strange turn, Bella begs for that violation: she wants to be the same as Edward, and she wants him to kill her and change her.
Regardless of who asks for what form whom, Edward’s possession and possessive attitude are alarmingly Alpha. When anyone—his brothers, random serial rapists hiding in small towns, or another vampire—threatens the human he considers his own, Edward goes berserk. His possession of Bella, even in his mind, is complete and total, and her willingness to follow that possession, since he knows what’s best for her, casts her in a sheepish model that I never recovered from as I read Twilight.
Reading Midnight Sun’s first 12 chapters (while I try to intersperse reading The Jewel of Medina at the same time, speaking of going berserk) hasn’t helped much. Edward’s self-loathing is evident, but the “I’m not good enough for her but she’s MINE MINE MINE EDWARD SMASH” attitude reinforces my suspicions: that Edward is an old-skool Alpha male hero in the classic model, dipped in sparkles and dispensed to a younger audience. Perhaps that explains his allure - there are many, many readers who adore the Alpha model in their romance hero, and Edward is no different.
