The Softer Side of Alie
Home of Chef's Like it Hot!
you know me...always perusing the internet...and I happened on this discussion on “What Romance is”...and supposedly what “Romance Isn’t.”
I was quite shocked to find that nearly “Every” woman polled...said that a “Romance” is a Happily Ever After. Not a Happy For Now...not We Tried and it Didn’t Work Now...but a straight up Unadulterated Happy Ending.
Well to this I say foutaise...or in English...Bullshit!
Well you know me...I love to pipe in on this type of stuff... (The literature/art hist/mythology teacher in me can’t help but to!) so I had to put my 2cents in.
According to Webster's Dictionary...
A Romance is by Definition:
a (1) : a medieval tale based on legend, chivalric love and adventure, or the supernatural(2) : a prose narrative treating imaginary characters involved in events remote in time or place and usually heroic, adventurous, or mysterious (3) : a love story especially in the form of a novel
b : a class of such literature
: something (as an extravagant story or account) that lacks basis in fact
: an emotional attraction or aura belonging to an especially heroic era, adventure, or activity.
Webster's Thesaurus defines it as such: a brief romantic relationship...an office romance that ended with hurt feelings on both sides.
Synonyms: amour, fling, love, love affair.
Looking for the Happily Ever After here Guys...huuummm...not finding it...
Dictionary.Com defines it as such:
a novel or other prose narrative depicting heroic or marvelous deeds, pageantry, romantic exploits, etc., usually in a historical or imaginary setting.
the colorful world, life, or conditions depicted in such tales.
a medieval narrative, originally one in verse and in some Romance dialect, treating of heroic, fantastic, or supernatural events, often in the form of allegory.
a baseless, made-up story, usually full of exaggeration or fanciful invention.
a romantic spirit, sentiment, emotion, or desire.
romantic character or quality.
a romantic affair or experience; a love affair.
(initial capital letter). Also, Romanic. Also called Romance languages. the group of Italic Indo-European languages descended since A.D. 800 from Latin, as French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, Provencal, Catalan, Rhaeto-Romanic, Sardinian, and Ladino.
And its sister site:
Thesaurus.com states that:
Romance c.1300, "story of a hero's adventures," also (early 14c.), "vernacular language of France" (as opposed to Latin), from O.Fr. romanz "verse narrative," originally an adverb, "in the vernacular language," from V.L.
*romanice scribere "to write in a Romance language" (one developed from Latin instead of Frankish), from L. Romanicus "of or in the Roman style," from Romanus "Roman" (see Roman). The connecting notion is that medieval vernacular tales were usually about chivalric adventure. Literary sense extended by 1660s to "a love story." Extended 1610s to other modern languages derived from...
Hummm...ah...yea...stillll...not finding that
so called Happily Ever After....
And ya know why...it’s bullshit!
A Romance doesn’t have to have a HEA to be a Romance, no matter what Groups like RWA...or some blog says.
Unfortunately, the masses will rip you to shreds if you deter from this idea, because they have been conditioned by groups like RWA to believe that this is the only archetype for a Romance. So...unfortunately...this is a catch 22...and a proceed at your own risk...unless you’re writing paranormal.
Equally, I would state that Shakespeare has sovereign jurisdiction over the Title “Romance Author,” lol, whether people like it or not. As well, titles like Anna Karenina, West side story, Madame Bovary, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Wuthering Heights, all Tragic Romances…not love stories.
Likewise, Academically Not once is a romance ever described by its so called Happy Ending. That is an antediluvian term, coined by Fairy tales.
Unfortunately Disney has capitalized on that, basically deeming and usurping any kind of romance not HEA as defunct. As well, if people were to read the original tales that Disney appropriated; they would be shocked on what they actually were. HEA is not the be all to existence. Definitions for Romance that say otherwise are someone’s opinion, which is fine; but it isn’t the be all and end all. The Romantic period; Ca. 1750 to 1870 set the foundation for what Romance was to be, and if you look into it, you will find exactly what I’m speaking on. The Romantic period or Romanticism as many would have it, basically meant… freeing the artist and writer from restrains and rules, suggesting a phase of individualism marked by the encouragement of revolutionary ideas.
Is that ironic or what?
The very thing our ancestral artist, painters, and writers insisted on throwing off…groups like RWA are instilling yet once again.
I don’t mean to come off as pretentious, but it really irks me as a Professor when I hear things like what a “Romance,” is supposedly to be.
Romance is filled with Angst, heartbreak, unrequited love, and a plethora of other emotions; so to say that something isn’t romantic because some association labeled it as such, or it isn’t what you believe romance should be; is short-sided and biased.
The teacher in me stands with, "get rid of these antiquated 1950s convoluted antediluvian ideologies; because as you can see…they certainly didn’t come our prolific primordial writers who came before us".
Even if it isn’t our cuppa…it will definitely be someone else’s.
Alie Out ;)