Of Swords and Parasols

So, last night, prozacpark, lyssieand I had a threesome watched Farscape. Close enough.

Anyway, if you read two of our journals, you know what the conversation probably eventually turned to during post-viewing chat. If you read all three, you know there was no escaping it. Namely, fiction and society and women.  Not that the post's title isn't a dead giveaway.  Now you know if you want to run.

Anyway, we were talking about how we all often have trouble getting into a fandom’s favorite male character. I mentioned that often, part of my problem is that the favorite’s personality and angsty backstory and goals and motives are rather a dime a dozen in romance novels. And it’s not that I dislike them, it’s just that I’ve seen them so often that I’m not as impressed as others tend to be. (Let’s face it, everyone has that reaction to some form of character, be it gender or genre or relationship related. Different tastes and all that.) Eventually, this turned to one of the defenses for slash being that it’s feminist because it’s predominantly romantic and/or sexual fiction being written by and for women. I’m not interested at the moment in getting into whether you or I agree on that stance. However, when I see that brought up, my immediate thought is “but what about romance novels?”

Because, guys? Romance novels? Are romantic and often sexual stories written by and for women, often with the added aspect of featuring a woman struggling against sexism in a society. More obviously so in historicals, but the element is also there in many contemporaries.

Please note here that I’m not about to say romance novels are feminist. Like many things, they can be feminist depending on the approach, but nothing about them is inherently feminist. Being about women doesn’t make something feminist, and being about men doesn’t make something anti-feminist. Ditto for being written by or for men or women. It’s all about what’s done with it. (Because, seriously. Otherwise? Devil Wears Prada is a feminist manifesto.)

( cut for length )

*mostly babble, I believe*

I think a lot of the reason most Hollywood/western romances these days feel like "I love you now"  more than "I'll love you forever"  is because of the "if it doesn't work out, I can try again" mentallity.  Most people look at relationships and marriage as trial and error.  Get married too soon?  No problem just get a divorce.  Etc.  Even in something set in a time where that wasn't the case, the writer's mindset for life seeps in...I often read a historical romance and think "yeah...but after living together for a year..."

I started paying less attention to Hollywood romances and romances novels more and more when I got into anime and manga a few years ago, and now with doramas.  I think this is because they have a much stronger feeling of permanence.  Even though divorce is now more possible, it's frowned upon much more than in western cultures and marriage and relationships are approach with the idea if starting anything means being willing to stick with it for 50 years.  Even the oddest pairings tend to feel more functional and permanent than most of what Hollywood puts out.  Reading/watching Yamada and Ueda in Trick or Kyo and Yuya in Samurai Deeper Kyo or Kyohei and Sunako in Wallflower/Perfect Girl Evolution, or Domyoji/Makino in Hana Yori Dango, anyone used to Hollywood romances wouldn't see how they could ever possibly last, yet if you actually read/watch, you know that they're bizarrely functional in their way, and even though they may sound like they're 5 minutes from killing each other, they're solid(heck, the entire Trick series is essentially one long, bizarre courtship)
Completely unrelated, but The Boys are watching Fearless dubbed.  As disconcerting as the very out-of-sync voices and mouths are, I find this preferable to Roseanne and it's obnoxious laugh track.

ETA:  Apparently if people mention I haven't been posting enough, I spam...and neglect my reading even more than I already am.

This is pretty interesting: on Hollywood and the romance:  http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1651506-2,00.html

I've actually been pondering this for a while.  If you read my LJ, you know that I'm essentially hopeless when it comes to anything resembling a canon pairing, as long a I like them(unless there's an alternative I find preferable to one member, in which case that becomes problematic for me)  That said...I usually avoid romantic movies, and when I read romances, it's more for escapism than romance, or because of genre storylines.  When I do watch romantic movies, they're usually older ones, or ones based on older stories.

I think the reason for this is because, whether its a fluffy romantic comedy or a doomed angstfest, most modern stories, as covered in the article, are more "I love you for now" than "I'll always love you."  Probably why I get more interested when the pairing is a secondary or side concern than when it's the main thing.