Wednesday reading

[kindkit]

Just finished: Jordan L. Hawk's Unhallowed and Unseen, which are m/m paranormal romances. I've read a bunch of Hawk's Whyborne and Griffin books, though not the whole series as I recall, but someone recently recommended his work to me when I mentioned looking for sff about queer men, preferably by queer men. (The last time I read Hawk was before he had come out as a trans man.)

I was wondering if the newer books would be noticeably different than what Hawk wrote before his transition, but they're not, really. Which is to say they're fine, well-plotted stories that play around in a Lovecraftian universe while directly opposing both Lovecraft's politics and his nihilism. I enjoyed the first one well enough to buy and immediately read the second, and I enjoyed the second well enough to plan on buying the third. They're occasionally a bit gory for my taste, but otherwise fun.

And yet. What I always feel frustrated by whenever I read romance is, of all things, the lack of deep characterization. Even K J Charles, the best writer of male/male romance I know of, tends to produce very same-y characters in whom some blatant trauma (abuse, usually, or internalized queerphobia, or some kind of abandonment trauma) substitutes for depth. These characters don't have real flaws or even irritating quirks, they're just misunderstood woobies. They don't have thoughts or feelings that aren't plot-related. They don't have hobbies or favorite foods or an old pair of shoes they wear long past the point of being worn out. Oftentimes it's not even clear why they love the person they love; it's just destiny/authorial fiat. As a result, the stories read like a prose-ified scripts that needs actors to come along to bring nuance and complexity. (I wonder whether this is a result of starting out--as many m/m romance writers in particular did--in fanfic and not being able to move past its conventions.)

Anyway, it frustrates me. Surely romance, of all genres, is the place to have a great big wallow in characterization? I know there are length conventions and the necessity of a plot--and to be honest, what I like best about both Hawk and Charles is the plots--but surely self-published writers in particular could break some of those conventions and try new things?


Currently reading: Still plugging away at Moby Dick. I'm not yet to the point where I gave up last time. The good news is, I'm finding Ahab less intolerable this time through, so maybe I'll make it. I spent probably an hour on Wikipedia last night looking up whale facts, which I think Melville would be pleased by.


What I'm reading next: Last week I had all kinds of plans to read some really depressing horror, but I'm finding that I want something light to contrast with Moby Dick. Maybe I'll finally finish the Whyborne & Griffin series.

Comments

[cathexys]

I think that romance as a genre (whether mm or het) tends to have that problem in general. In fact, the other types of genre cum romance series, where the pair meets in the first book and then gets together at some point, works through their issues, and meanwhile solves crime, explores the universe, battles paranormal creatures or all of the above gives us more time with the couple but then in mystery/SFF/paranormal the genre conventions often invite even more generic characters...

I usually don't care too much, bc when I'm in the mood to read that kind of story, I trust that there exists a depth that just isn't at the center of THIS story. The only thing I loathe is the instalove or, in your much much more eloquent articulation, authorial fiat :) I want to know WHY they love one another, what in particular appeals to the characters about the other!

It's easier in fanfic, bc we are already invested and already know them!!!

And now i'm going through my favorite mm series to think if there is anything I'd rec, anything that has better characterization...

[genarti]

Yeah, I would agree. It's the biggest reason I can't read too many romances in a row, most of the time; the books that don't have that issue are rare and delightful exceptions (at least, ones that I know of), and so one or two can be fun popcorn but more in a row gets very samey.

[aurumcalendula]

I'm glad you liked them!

And yeah, re: deep characterization (or rather lack thereof) - I feel like I've run across that a lot in f/f romance too (tbh how much I notice/am bothered by that usually depends on my mood and/or how much I like the book).

[sovay]

very same-y characters in whom some blatant trauma (abuse, usually, or internalized queerphobia, or some kind of abandonment trauma) substitutes for depth.

I don't read a lot of romance as a genre, but I tend to bounce very hard off the pattern which revolves around both characters believing themselves to be fundamentally unlovable and just needing to accept that really they are very lovable indeed, which is the entire conflict plus some plot impedimenta. Theoretically, people being proven wrong about their fundamental unlovability should be catnip for me. I feel strongly about it in real life! In practice, I agree with you that fictionally it tends to fall into scripts—if only they knew my shameful terrible secret, they wouldn't love me at all, so they had better not find out that I'm chronically ill—and I have generally taken it to mean that I am really not the target audience. Every couple of years I try reading a bunch of usually queer romances and it's not a total strikeout, but I do best when there's something else to the story, and if I read more than two or three at a time I burn out fast.

[lilacsigil]

Yep, this is a big problem for me and why I tend to bounce off the romance genre really hard. I will absolutely read it in fic, but that's when the characters and world-building have been done already, and it's interesting to see where the fic writer will take them. And I've read other genres that have a romance at their core, and yet I don't have a problem with that because there's a problem to solve other than "do they like me?"

[delphi]

That's definitely where I've struggled with romance novels, particularly as someone whose primary romance reading has always been fanfic (where the door into it often starts with loving the characters). I was really excited when the boom in queer romance publishing happened, but then just couldn't easily find the kinds of characters and relationships I enjoy in fic. I know that fanfic is a different animal, drawing from a whole different set of source materials with other options for characterization and character history. But I've enjoyed just enough original romance - and fannish romance based on five-minute fandoms, and canon-blind fic - to know it can work for me when the characters are distinctive/weird/interestingly flawed enough.

I've often wondered if the prolific nature of the romance novel tradition contributes to this. I remember back in the day when buying romance novels was a little like buying comics. New books would show up on the grocery store rack every month, and while you'd pick up your favourite authors' latests, you'd also grab things based on imprints that you knew had the tone, tropes, character types, and explicitness level you preferred. Writers wrote a lot, readers read a lot, and predictability was key. The scene's changed since then, but there are still high expectations for how much a successful romance author is going to write, and I think writing to the romance beats is easier when you're writing character types who might have different aesthetics and backstories each time but relate to the romance beats in more or less the same way and don't require hugely different plotting approaches. Likewise, to keep a steady fanbase of the heavy readers who discuss and recommend work, you probably want your heroes to be as broadly accessible and predictable or at least easily categorizable as possible.

Which likely works great for the people who are there primarily for romance in general, but not so much me, who specifically wants to read about the last people you'd think would be made for romance coming together in unusual ways.