So today I thought I'd talk about villains. I read primarily historical romance novels, so I don't know that my topic will be entirely relevant in regards to contemporary novels, but I definitely welcome contradictions or comments about your favorite contemporary villains.
I like a villain with a motive. An honest to God, legitimate reason for hating the heroine or hero. What I dislike is a villain going to great lengths to make life miserable for our hero for vanity, or even worse, because they are "mad." Using madness as a reason for the villains' actions seems like a cop out, an excuse not to put more work into the villain's character. And I hate the stereotypical petty, bitter, female villain who only causes trouble because her pride is wounded by the hero or heroine. If we're going to work towards legitimate female roles of power in romance novels, these kind of stereotypes aren't even good enough for our villains.
A satisfying villain is ruthless, clever, a little violent even, but also vulnerable. I like complex villains, whose back story is tragic and inevitable, who shows a little honor in the end, even if it is mis-guided.
What kinds of villains do you like? Any characteristics that drive you nuts?
I'm not sure if there will be a post next week, but I will tell you that one of my pet peeves is when the characters on the cover do not have the same hair color as the descriptions of the characters in the book. I doubt I'll be able to make a whole post out of that, but it's been on my mind.
Happy Holidays, season's greetings, and I hope you are snuggled up with the ones you love as we say goodbye to another year.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Thursday, December 9, 2010
To fill or not to fill...
I've had over a decade long love affair with romance novels. Everything from Jean Auel to Jane Feather, Amanda Quick to Cathy Maxwell. After all that reading, I've developed a theory about filler. To me, there are three different kinds of filler: landscape, war, history. If you ask my mother-in-law, she'll say that excessive love scenes are filler, but it'd have to be some pretty convoluted and drawn out love-making for me to skim past it. So here's my breakdown:
1) Landscape. Don't get me wrong. I think the right amount of description of the characters' surroundings is pivotal to the emotional and physical fluency of the story. Page after page of descriptions about the grasses and flowers of the hills, extended direction on the proximity of certain landmarks to the hero/ine's ancestral home, detailed analysis of the chemical makeup of the rocks and cliff=not in the mood anymore. If I need to know which mushrooms in an English forest are safe to eat, put the characters in a situation where they have to forage for food.
2) War. I get that sex and a little bit of violence is a scintillating combination, and that facing death makes a man want to celebrate life (i.e. have sex) but detailed descriptions of battles, fields of wounded men bleeding and crying out, even excessive torture scenes leave a bad taste in my mouth. When done well, violence in a romance novel lends to the depth and breadth of the reader's emotional experience. And certainly, even in a work of romantic fiction we can't exclude other realistic elements of life. Ignoring that thousands and thousands of men died in the conflicts between England and France in the 1800's would be irresponsible. But page after page of battle descriptions makes my eyes glaze over.
3) History. I love history. I love how history can enhance and shade the pertinent details of the characters lives, adding a tangible richness to the plot. History helps make a satisfying, complex story. Unless it reads like a graduate-level thesis. I don't need paragraph after paragraph explaining the succession of kings, the effects of wars and why who started what. I'm already there, ready to believe that the Hero is decended from gods if you want me to. Just give me a good story.
So what about you? What kind of filler has you skimming pages? Any author that is particularly good at avoiding filler?
Next post: my favorite villain.
1) Landscape. Don't get me wrong. I think the right amount of description of the characters' surroundings is pivotal to the emotional and physical fluency of the story. Page after page of descriptions about the grasses and flowers of the hills, extended direction on the proximity of certain landmarks to the hero/ine's ancestral home, detailed analysis of the chemical makeup of the rocks and cliff=not in the mood anymore. If I need to know which mushrooms in an English forest are safe to eat, put the characters in a situation where they have to forage for food.
2) War. I get that sex and a little bit of violence is a scintillating combination, and that facing death makes a man want to celebrate life (i.e. have sex) but detailed descriptions of battles, fields of wounded men bleeding and crying out, even excessive torture scenes leave a bad taste in my mouth. When done well, violence in a romance novel lends to the depth and breadth of the reader's emotional experience. And certainly, even in a work of romantic fiction we can't exclude other realistic elements of life. Ignoring that thousands and thousands of men died in the conflicts between England and France in the 1800's would be irresponsible. But page after page of battle descriptions makes my eyes glaze over.
3) History. I love history. I love how history can enhance and shade the pertinent details of the characters lives, adding a tangible richness to the plot. History helps make a satisfying, complex story. Unless it reads like a graduate-level thesis. I don't need paragraph after paragraph explaining the succession of kings, the effects of wars and why who started what. I'm already there, ready to believe that the Hero is decended from gods if you want me to. Just give me a good story.
So what about you? What kind of filler has you skimming pages? Any author that is particularly good at avoiding filler?
Next post: my favorite villain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)