Mmmm.... Mysteries

(Well, Julie Weathers, we're talking mysteries today!)

I love a good Mystery. Cozies are fun. I can’t say I’ve read a whole lot of them compared to the SFF and Romance I’ve devoured, but the few I do read, I quite enjoy. Who isn’t a sucker for Miss Marple or Hercule Poirot or The Cat Who...? There’s a few others I’ve read over the years and sometimes they scratch that itch I get once in a while to be intellectually challenged without being called to account.

I like trying to figure out the whodunnit as I read along. Was I right? Did I get it? If I do, cool. Gold star for me. If I don’t, I marvel at the cleverness of the plot.

Question: if you read mysteries, do you try to figure it out, or do you just cruise along for the ride?
________________________
Her Grace likes an occasional Mystery in her escapist repertoire because, unlike real life, she gets to learn how it all wraps up.

New Romance... or is it?

Over on LiveJournal, AlleyPat discusses Colleen Gleason's article “The New Romance?” and whether or not the HEA (Happily Ever After ending) is necessary to call a romance tale a Romance.

Now, is an HEA necessary, and I mean ABSOLUTELY necessary to make a romance a Romance? For the most part, pretty everyone would say yes.

But there is a trend in some of the crossgenre works to have a strong romance plot and yet not feature an HEA. Some are calling this the New Romance.

Me, I don't know if I want to give it such a label. Genres evolve. They change, they adapt. I think the overwhelming oppression of HEA requirement may stifle some of the strength of storytelling. From the very beginning, you know Our Hero and Our Heroine are going to get together and everything will turn out all right. This knowledge can take the tension and delicious suspense out of a story. It becomes not so much a question of will they get together, but how it'll happen.

I'm starting to think this is weakening stories.

Compare two TV shows I've loved in their time--Star Trek and BBC's Spooks (aka MI5).

In Star Trek, you know no matter what, the main crew will survive whatever comes their way. You know they're going to outsmart them, what you don't know is how. (But woe the Red Shirts. This is a series of disposable extras.)

Then there's Spooks. They get into all sorts of scrapes, and there is some serious tension. Not only do you wonder how they're going to get out of the scrape, but you have some serious angst about whether or not they will. Forget Red Shirts. Spooks features disposable regulars. Main characters die all the time, and it puts some serious tension into the show.

Now, back to Romance. Most of the Romance published in the past thirty years has mandated each story have an HEA.

Perhaps readers are no longer requiring an HEA, because they prefer deeper tension in their stories.

And there is nothing wrong with that.

But there is also nothing new about it.

Georgette Heyer (if you read romance and you haven't heard of her, go google her) has written stories that don't feature obvious HEAs. I recently read her "Cotillion". For pretty much most of the book, I wonder if Our Heroine is going to end up with the guy she's in a sham engagement, or the fancy lord she had a young crush on as a child.

Now, this story isn't exactly "new". It was published before most of today's authors were even born.

Want another romance story that features Not-an-HEA? Romeo and Juliet.

If anything, the mandatory requirement that all Romance stories feature an HEA is the New Romance, and hopefully a genre straitjacket that will be loosened and we can discover the true tearjerk of a bittersweet ending.

World Horror Convention

Yep, you heard me. I'm going to the World Horror Convention next weekend in Salt Lake City.

"But," I hear you say, "You're a Romance writer."

And so I am, mostly. But some of my published stories are a bit dark. Especially that one where Our Heroine attempts to scoop her eyeballs out with a spoon.

Now, there has been a trend for genre-bending the past decade or so. Anyone here read Stephenie Meyer's "Twilight" series? If so, would you call it romance or horror? Or perhaps both?

I love this new trend for genre-bending. In the 80's and 90's I thought many genre books were starting to get stale with the same old tropes, structures and memes. I mean, there are only so many fantasy quest novels one can read before it all starts looking alike. After all, a McGuffin is a McGuffin.

Then some smart cookies started reading outside their usual genre (which, really, is something every writer should be doing) and started applying the earmarks of one genre to another.

And so we got Fantasy Romance. And Science Fiction Mysteries. And Romantic Horror.

At first, some purists thought this invasion from other genres would dilute or corrupt the genre they knew and loved, but the rest of us realised the trend for what it was--a breath of fresh air.

So now today fans of Romance can stand on a hilltop and say, "all this is ours, and that bit over there," and Horror writers can stand on another hilltop and say, "all this is ours, and that bit over there." And "that bit over there" is a timeshare Victorian home that various genres can enjoy on occasion. (Ne'er you mind the flux capacitor in the basement. It's stable.)

And that's one of the reasons why I'm going to the World Horror Convention. Y'all are welcome to come join me.


P.S. for Holly: I think Richard Armitage would play an excellent Mr Darcy.

As Good As Gold

I'm Heidi Kneale and I write the character Daywen Athalia of Beltane.

I'm one of the several Australians here, but I can also claim an American heritage. (American-Australian?)

I'm primarily a Science Fiction and Fantasy writer, but have a soft spot for Romance. I adore cross-genre work, so The Enchanted Faerie suits me rather well. (Now that I think about it, most of my sold fiction does deal with romance as a major theme. Who'd a thunk?) I also write comedy (with a few award-winning musical comedies under my belt), and this streak towards a subtle chuckle is evident in my story, "As Good As Gold".

I am also responsible for Lachlan the Blacksmith, for which I am very sorry (or not).

As EJ has an understandable fondness for Peter Petrelli, I confess my weakness for Guy of Gisborne (in BBC's Robin Hood), played by the gorgeous Richard Armitage, who makes an excellent romantic hero, in nearly everything he does.

It is interesting watching this BBC series. Unlike Heroes, where anything can happen, Robin Hood is constrained by a pre-existing supertext. We all know about the "Rob From the Rich, Give to the Poor", and that Robin Hood's love interest is one Maid Marian.

With the coming of this latest interpretation of the 800-year-old legend, are our women going ga-ga over weedy little Robin? No, their eyes are firmly upon the baddie, evil Sheriff of Nottingham's lieutenant, Guy of Gisborne.

Gisborne has set his sights on Marian, and for the most part, a significant number of fans are willing to support him in his ambition.

Now, had this been a standalone story without a reputation to live up to, the love story could have easily gone Guy's way.

Why?

1. Richard Armitage plays the character very well. And yes, like Peter Petrelli, Guy gets his shirt off--several times--in the second season. (No peaches, though.)
2. Guy is not a cardb0ard character. Sure, he started out that way, but he certainly didn't end up that way. As episodes progressed, we started seeing a softer side to Gisborne. He's actually kind to women (and honours his late mother). Sometimes he hesitates when faced with a moral dilemma. He forgives the fickle Marian (okay, maybe after burning her house down, but he does apologise for that, and other sins, later).
3. There is the genuine potential for him to turn good, or at least, to free himself from the yoke of the Sheriff, and become his own man. There is no evidence that Guy has been mismanaging Locksley in Robin's absence, nor unduly abusing the tenants. Perhaps his sense of nobility will win out in the end. Maybe he'll convince Marian that, as a man of wealth, means and power (not to mention looks gorgeous in black leather), he'd be an ideal husband.

Or maybe not. The legend of Robin Hood just doesn't go that way.

What a shame. Because Robin is not being portrayed as deep a complex character the way Guy of Gisborne is. Robin doesn't struggle with inner demons. Robin doesn't yearn for the heroine. He and his mates run around Sherwood forest having little-boy adventures and getting in and out of scrapes with a light-hearted pluckiness. What on earth does Marian see in him?

Part of writing a romantic hero is making him appealing, and not just in looks. One must consider his character, motivations, and in the case of historical fiction like The Enchanted Faerie, of a certain position and social status.

Money helps.

As does a burning love, or at least, desire, for the heroine.

Can one believe that Marian and Robin are destined for great love? If one ignores the supertext, their relationship is nothing more than a teenage crush. Those of us with romantic hearts know that there must be more to love than the hormonally-spawned adolescent awkwardness these two display.

We want passion. We want desire. We want near-obsession, and a dead certainty that without the other, life is a bleak and desolate landscape.

So, has anyone explained how the faerie works?