Friday, February 10, 2006
Theory # 16: Readerly Theories: The Fantasy of The Good Life
This mostly applies to romance novels, chick lit, and women's fiction. I haven't seen this phenomenon in any other genre. Obviously, it doesn't apply in sf/f.
It seems that an inordinate number of characters, regardless of their personalities or how they grew up, know all about:
Okay, I'm exaggerating, but I see it so much that every once in a while I start wondering if I'm the one who's out of touch. (then, of course, my natural arrogance kicks in & I just get irritated with the authors.)
Plus, what bugs me the most is the implicit snobbishness of these characters--as if spending more on one shirt than most people earn in a month is a virtue. I understand the fantasy appeal of having the characters living The Good Life, but I don't like them looking down on the rest of us while they do so.
Heh. hot buttons. You know, it's perfectly reasonable for someone like Roarke to know fashion. He's into it. Or for Caroline Waverly to know everything there is to know about classical music. But don't try to tell me a blue collar guy knows his Armani and an ex-hooker knows her Bach from her Beethoven. Because either I'm clueless, or the author is, and I know whose side I'm on. :)
My theory is that the authors who do this are trying to portray the characters as living The Good Life, and that these details aren't necessarily things that the authors themselves are all that familiar with, but they're things they imagine would be important to living The Good Life. It kind of goes along with the stereotype of women being into shopping and fashion, and looking for status in a mate as opposed to physical attributes (stereotype! I said stereotype!).
My theory of why it bugs me is that this is not my version of The Good Life. If I had millions, I'd still not be interested in clothing or wine that cost thousands. I like flowers, but given unlimited resources of time, energy, and money, I'd still just be more concerned with what looks good than with the details. It kind of goes along with all those ways I don't fit the female stereotype (top of the list is that I loathe shopping).
And my theory of why I allow it to make me wonder, for a minute, if I'm the one who's out of step is that inside each of us we're still everyone we've ever been. And things like that bring out the shy teenager who, for her entire sophomore year, never wore the same outfit to school twice, and was oblivious when some of the outfits became perforce rather.... odd. (I tried not wearing my hair the same way twice, but ran out of ideas because I refused to spend a whole lot of time on it. The highlight: Olga Korbut's weird looped pigtails.) (My junior year was simpler--that was the year I didn't wear a bra.) I did it to myself, but I felt out of step nonetheless. So it makes me wonder, just for a minute, if I'm not doing something "wrong" again.
Note to self: No more posting on hot-button issues when you're dead tired. :)
...read more
Categories: Theories, Reading
It seems that an inordinate number of characters, regardless of their personalities or how they grew up, know all about:
- fashion (a bricklayer can distinguish Armani from another designer from across a crowded room)
- wine
- flowers (even self-professed black thumbs know the names of every flower they encounter)
- classical music (a woman who grew up in a slum can name a Vivaldi concerto in 6 notes or less)
- perfume (every man and most of the women can identify a woman's brand of perfume at 20 paces)
Okay, I'm exaggerating, but I see it so much that every once in a while I start wondering if I'm the one who's out of touch. (then, of course, my natural arrogance kicks in & I just get irritated with the authors.)
- I seriously doubt I could distinguish a $20 blouse from a $2000 one without looking at it very closely, and I'm quite certain I wouldn't be able to distinguish between a $200 one and a $2000 one without seeing a price tag. And I don't have a clue (nor do I care) how one designer's clothes differ from another's.
- I know there's red wine, and white wine, and sparkling wine, and I recognize what trocken is and Spätlese and Riesling, and a few other things. I know what Glühwein is, and they NEVER mention that. But if I ever spent any time around romance novel characters, I'd stick to water, because they'd think I was an idiot because I don't know about particular vineyards or vintages. (again: nor do I care--we got some wine a few weeks ago that was 2 euro for the bottle. it tasted great. I'll get it again, if I can remember what it was called. I'd much rather have that than the one we bought for 10 euro that tasted like kerosene.)
- I can identify maybe a dozen different kinds of flowers if you give me a multiple choice test.
- I had 7 years of piano lessons. I'm familiar with classical music. I even prefer to listen to classical music when I'm driving. I couldn't tell you the name or composer of anything but Beethoven's 5th, and that only if I heard the distinctive da da da dum.
- I can't stand people who wear enough perfume for me to smell it from 20 paces away, so that one just turns me right off. And aren't perfumes supposed to smell different on different people because of body chemistry? So it makes me think they're wearing enough of it to completely overwhelm the effect of body chemistry--makes me think they're one of those people who walk by you and leave you gasping for air for the next 5 minutes.
Plus, what bugs me the most is the implicit snobbishness of these characters--as if spending more on one shirt than most people earn in a month is a virtue. I understand the fantasy appeal of having the characters living The Good Life, but I don't like them looking down on the rest of us while they do so.
Heh. hot buttons. You know, it's perfectly reasonable for someone like Roarke to know fashion. He's into it. Or for Caroline Waverly to know everything there is to know about classical music. But don't try to tell me a blue collar guy knows his Armani and an ex-hooker knows her Bach from her Beethoven. Because either I'm clueless, or the author is, and I know whose side I'm on. :)
My theory is that the authors who do this are trying to portray the characters as living The Good Life, and that these details aren't necessarily things that the authors themselves are all that familiar with, but they're things they imagine would be important to living The Good Life. It kind of goes along with the stereotype of women being into shopping and fashion, and looking for status in a mate as opposed to physical attributes (stereotype! I said stereotype!).
My theory of why it bugs me is that this is not my version of The Good Life. If I had millions, I'd still not be interested in clothing or wine that cost thousands. I like flowers, but given unlimited resources of time, energy, and money, I'd still just be more concerned with what looks good than with the details. It kind of goes along with all those ways I don't fit the female stereotype (top of the list is that I loathe shopping).
And my theory of why I allow it to make me wonder, for a minute, if I'm the one who's out of step is that inside each of us we're still everyone we've ever been. And things like that bring out the shy teenager who, for her entire sophomore year, never wore the same outfit to school twice, and was oblivious when some of the outfits became perforce rather.... odd. (I tried not wearing my hair the same way twice, but ran out of ideas because I refused to spend a whole lot of time on it. The highlight: Olga Korbut's weird looped pigtails.) (My junior year was simpler--that was the year I didn't wear a bra.) I did it to myself, but I felt out of step nonetheless. So it makes me wonder, just for a minute, if I'm not doing something "wrong" again.
Note to self: No more posting on hot-button issues when you're dead tired. :)
...read more
Categories: Theories, Reading
Comments:
<< Home
I haven't come across these stereotypes much, probably because I stick to historical romances (and that's one reason why I do stick to historical romances - they're less likely to make me feel inadequate. If it's a historical, I know I never can be like the characters).
But if it's any reassurance to you, I can't distinguish clothing brands unless I read the label, I haven't got a clue about wines, don't care much about flowers (in fact, I'm upset to see a bunch of cut flowers, because that means they'll die faster than if they'd been left in the ground with their roots), I can tell Bach from Mozart but apart from Mozart's operas wouldn't be able to name any pieces, and many perfumes make me choke, sneeze and cough. The only aftershave I can identify is that of my ex-boyfriend. It's over 12 years ago that we split up, and that smell still brings back bad memories.
Re: 'what bugs me the most is the implicit snobbishness of these characters--as if spending more on one shirt than most people earn in a month is a virtue' - I think this is one of the reasons that romances get accused of bolstering capitalism. Like you, I think that it's just the authors trying to create what they think are perfect people (although that may indirectly support consumerism if it makes some readers feel inadequate and then aspire to that lifestyle). But personally, if I read about characters who thought these things were really important, I would be so irritated with how shallow they were, I wouldn't care what happened to them.
But if it's any reassurance to you, I can't distinguish clothing brands unless I read the label, I haven't got a clue about wines, don't care much about flowers (in fact, I'm upset to see a bunch of cut flowers, because that means they'll die faster than if they'd been left in the ground with their roots), I can tell Bach from Mozart but apart from Mozart's operas wouldn't be able to name any pieces, and many perfumes make me choke, sneeze and cough. The only aftershave I can identify is that of my ex-boyfriend. It's over 12 years ago that we split up, and that smell still brings back bad memories.
Re: 'what bugs me the most is the implicit snobbishness of these characters--as if spending more on one shirt than most people earn in a month is a virtue' - I think this is one of the reasons that romances get accused of bolstering capitalism. Like you, I think that it's just the authors trying to create what they think are perfect people (although that may indirectly support consumerism if it makes some readers feel inadequate and then aspire to that lifestyle). But personally, if I read about characters who thought these things were really important, I would be so irritated with how shallow they were, I wouldn't care what happened to them.
# posted by 
: 2/12/2006 12:09 PM
: 2/12/2006 12:09 PM
I can think of an unreal good life, but it has much more to do with eating whatever the hell I please without gaining weight than it does with buying expensive clothing.
Although, I must admit I'd like someday to wear a really expensive suit, just to see if it did anything special for me.
Although, I must admit I'd like someday to wear a really expensive suit, just to see if it did anything special for me.
# posted by : 2/13/2006 5:41 AM
: 2/13/2006 5:41 AM
Laura,
I did come up with another, less annoying reason for authors to include details that make the characters look like experts on all sorts of things: POV violation while they're setting the scene.
A lot of how-to articles say to make a scene more vivid, you add specific details. So instead of the heroine smelling good, she's wearing Chanel No. 5, and she's not just wearing cute shoes, she's wearing Jimmy Choos, and I suspect it doesn't even cross some authors' minds that our hero really has no reason to be able to distinguish Jimmy Choos from Pradas.
But yes, that's not a problem with historicals, and it's also a reason for charges of consumerism, particularly in chick lit. Though I do think the characters in chick lit are often intentionally materialisitc.
Doug,
LOL! That's my fantasy, too. I was so intending to lose 5 pounds while my husband was gone for 2 weeks. I forgot that husband gone = stress, and stress eating and dieting are not compatible states. Damnit.
I donno about the expensive clothes making people look better--I've spent too much time snickering at Go Fug Yourself to believe it. But hey, if you do try out an expensive suit, make sure you blog about it, and use comparative pix so we can see just how much difference it makes. :)
I did come up with another, less annoying reason for authors to include details that make the characters look like experts on all sorts of things: POV violation while they're setting the scene.
A lot of how-to articles say to make a scene more vivid, you add specific details. So instead of the heroine smelling good, she's wearing Chanel No. 5, and she's not just wearing cute shoes, she's wearing Jimmy Choos, and I suspect it doesn't even cross some authors' minds that our hero really has no reason to be able to distinguish Jimmy Choos from Pradas.
But yes, that's not a problem with historicals, and it's also a reason for charges of consumerism, particularly in chick lit. Though I do think the characters in chick lit are often intentionally materialisitc.
Doug,
LOL! That's my fantasy, too. I was so intending to lose 5 pounds while my husband was gone for 2 weeks. I forgot that husband gone = stress, and stress eating and dieting are not compatible states. Damnit.
I donno about the expensive clothes making people look better--I've spent too much time snickering at Go Fug Yourself to believe it. But hey, if you do try out an expensive suit, make sure you blog about it, and use comparative pix so we can see just how much difference it makes. :)
Darla, that sounds like the advice to use lots of adjectives and descriptive verbs. You can see why it might be given, but it can go so horribly wrong.
'Look!' exclaimed the Prada-clad heroine, clutching her Gucci-handbag to her Chanel Number 5 smelling chest, her enormous blue eyes opening wide in amazement.
'Isn't he the most gorgeous Brad-Pitt-lookalike, and so sexy in his Calvin Klein jeans?' gasped her conveniently plump and therefore not-heroine-material best-friend, who will, however, be part of a subsidiary romance sub-plot.
'Yes!', choked out our heroine. 'Never in all my 27 years have I seen a man to whom I'd rather give my long-preserved virginity', she mumbled, tossing back her waist-length blonde hair.
'Look!' exclaimed the Prada-clad heroine, clutching her Gucci-handbag to her Chanel Number 5 smelling chest, her enormous blue eyes opening wide in amazement.
'Isn't he the most gorgeous Brad-Pitt-lookalike, and so sexy in his Calvin Klein jeans?' gasped her conveniently plump and therefore not-heroine-material best-friend, who will, however, be part of a subsidiary romance sub-plot.
'Yes!', choked out our heroine. 'Never in all my 27 years have I seen a man to whom I'd rather give my long-preserved virginity', she mumbled, tossing back her waist-length blonde hair.
# posted by : 2/16/2006 12:05 AM
: 2/16/2006 12:05 AM
LOL! Exactly. Sadly, I think I've read that book. :)
This is one of those things that wouldn't have occurred to me if I didn't hang out with the Cherries. I'd have just kept grumping on about how apparently these authors have much higher-class lifestyles than I do and felt slightly inferior and a lot annoyed by it. Instead, I can relax and think they're just trying to set a scene but forgetting about POV.
Post a Comment
This is one of those things that wouldn't have occurred to me if I didn't hang out with the Cherries. I'd have just kept grumping on about how apparently these authors have much higher-class lifestyles than I do and felt slightly inferior and a lot annoyed by it. Instead, I can relax and think they're just trying to set a scene but forgetting about POV.
<< Home
