More summaries from the April 2009 Pop Culture Association Conference, this time a romance panel featuring some of the bloggers at Teach me Tonight! As usual with these posts, keep the possibility of human error (mine) in mind.
“Me, Myself, and I: Love As the Integration of selves in the romance fiction of Nora Roberts”, An Goris, doctoral candidate, U. of Louvain, Belgium
NR always engages with basic narrative conventions of romance genre, but also marred by numerous forms of diversity. Goris focuses on 8 books, out of NR’s 200. Love is presented as a complex, multifaceted, ambiguous emotions. Love as both huge and scary, disruptive, but also simple, basic, real – life’s basis. H/H experience love first as one, then as the other. Calls process the “integration of selves”. Can see this in NR’s writing in her representation of body, mind, and relationships.
Conceptual dichotomy, mind v. body, rational v. irrational, artificial v. natural. Body as vessel of emotional truth. Ex. Characters go pale when shocked, prior to even realizing cognitively they are shocked. Ex. Characters need to touch each other prior to recognition of feelings. H/H emotional journey from conflict to harmony b/t mind and body.
Basic steps: First meeting establishes duality Ex. Suzanna’s Surrender (1991). Usually dislike. Extreme bodily reaction in conflict with mind. Mind rejects body as vessel of emotional truth. Love is unwanted and unwelcome. Love is unwanted. Catches them violently off guard. The fact that these feelings are totally unlike any other feeling they have had for another contribute to h/h’s reluctance to give in to them.
Characters avoid word “love”, use ambiguous terms like “something” or “it.” Love utterance is an almost magical speech act. Signaled by body – “his eyes changed”.
Past couples reenter into the story. Love is still overwhelming for them. But the overwhelming aspect of their love has been accepted and domesticated. It has been fully rationally grasped, boxed in.
Concluding remarks: NR has unique way of using conventions. Namely, love as integration of selves.
[My note: I loved Goris's analysis, and as a philosopher I can see places where she could really push it. For example, for Descartes (whom she mentions) the separation of mind and body is necessary for knowledge. What does it mean, metaphysically, for NR to put the body forward as a site of knowledge? And how can this be connected to the historical association of woman with one side of those binary oppositions? Also, I confess I am not clear here on how NR is unique here. To me, Goris's analysis is wonderfully applicable to many romances I have read. I also loved Goris's proffered explanation for the function of the returning couple form a previous book. ]
2. A Gothic Scheherazade: The Heroine As Story Teller, Angela Toscano [Angela, who has an MLS, is enrolling in the M.A. program in English at Utah in the fall]
[This was a great paper, but I confess I could not follow it that well. I really felt my lack of training in literary analysis. I am sure this summary does not do it justice. Angela -- if you are reading this, please feel free to let me know where I went wrong!]
An analysis of Mary Stewart, Nine Coaches Waiting.
Text possesses meta-awareness of its predecessors and heirs. Why does Stewart use epigraphs? Encounter with the uncanny. Moments of déjà vu, unsettling, fundamental property of the gothic.
[Lots of textual support here.]
Character of Linda grafts allusion, poetics and metaphor onto persons, events in text. She has an inheritance of language, of story, which allows her the consciousness to see and hear what is happening around her. Her romantic imagination allows her to see wider range of possibilities of action than society affords her. She is a captive, domestic imprisonment Makes this a gothic heroine.
Her only escape is her distillation of emotion an event into a told tale. Compare to Scheherezade. Binds Sultan to her solely with her voice. Forces Sultan to be a different person.
Heroic act is like Penelope. Not Hercules in doing, in action, but in weaving stories. Heroism of creation. Power of language is power of creation. Shift from imagination to reality. Because Linda can tell her own story she is able to take charge of her destiny through words. Like God, power of birth and death, justice and mercy. All this is possible despite the horror that haunts the familial ideal, the private and sacred places of the tribe. Naming and defaming skeletons in the closet at the same time.
[My note: she mentions Cixous approvingly, and I would have liked to see more directly the claim that what we are seeing in this character is écriture feminine. That is, if that's the claim Angela was making.]
3. “Milton, Emerson, Kinsale, Cavell: Thinking Through Flowers from the Storm”, Eric Selinger, DePaul University
[This paper pretty much rocked my world.]
Eric introduces himself and says, puzzlingly, “You can call me Daddy”.
Romance aims to engage emotion, Dickson [Help. I need a citation here!] says. To understand a romance novel may not be to understand it at all, since analytical part of brain must be switched off. Writing is instinctive and reading is nonintellectual. Dickson’s argument continues, the good thing is that this puts romance “Safely beyond the reach of stern canonical judgment” Compare haute couture with off the rack retail clothes. Must accept romance genre on its own terms, by its own criteria. Dickson’s claims are based on her experience both as a romance reader and as an editor working with authors at Mills & Boon.
Eric: My experience has been that the experience of the work is profoundly intellectual and playful, asking to be read along with literary canon using tools of literary criticism. Eric uses Flowers From the Storm, by Laura Kinsale. Stands in long tradition of historical, erotically charged books form Avon, which had begun 20 years prior to Kinsale’s texts.
[Eric calls us youngins to task for using “tropes” when we mean “topoi”. Sarah and I roll eyes at each other.]
Ok, I may be laughing too hard to continue this. Eric hands out the original Fabio cover of FFTS [Fabio as Jervaulx??!!! This is a bit of knowledge about this book I could have done without], and then announces that despite his “pirate mouth” (Eric stops to ask if anyone knows what a pirate mouth in fact looks like) and opening scene in which he is in bed with his mistress, Jervaulx has invented noneuclidian geometry and plans to present his results at the Mathematical Society in a few weeks hence.
Many scenes in FFTS have become so well known for their emotional power, the kind of reading Dickson recommends. But there is so much more.
Ex. Motif of noneuclidean geometry pervades the book, patterns of repetition and variation. Eric notes that Kinsale gets the math right, having had a career as a geologist prior to writing romance.
Patterns of chiasmas, crossings, that link Maddie, with Christian, madness and Christianity. He is a soul trapped in a body, she is a body trapped within a soul.
Also, repeated motif of publishing or shared knowledge. Things cannot be known privately but only as they are copied and shared. Maddie can only see her likeness to her own mother when Jervaulx describes it. Jervaulx can only see errors in copy, not in original. Even Maddie’s marriage to Duke requires public reading of letter of condemnation and his public response. Deep aversion to the idea of consciousness or knowledge as private.
Milton’s Paradise Lost is everywhere in this book. Milton’s cottage and Milton himself enter text. Novel makes fetish of Maddie’s long hair, her only vanity. Temple of her hair in first love scene in virginal and seductive. That’s Eve’s hair from Book 4 in Paradise Lost. Maddie’s curiosity, repeated association with gardens, and the painting of Eve in Jervaulx’s chamber underscore this association. Etc.
But Jervaulx is not Adam, but Satan. Christian’s dog is named Devil, Maddie repeatedly calls him Devil. Lots of other examples, some quite pointed and specific. Maddie says “I’m glad thou fell and I can hold thee in thy hands”. Satan and Eve as central couple.
Kinsale says this novel “wrote itself”. And “sometimes the muse rocks.”
Eric doesn’t care whether Kinsale knew or planned this. We would assume she did if this were poetry and the fact that we do not says more about what we expect of romance novels than anything about the novels themselves.
4. Romance Through Faith: The Enduring Stories of Grace Livingston Hill, Darcy Martin, Southern Tennessee State University
“The romance genre owes everything to a minster’s daughter”.
Born with pen in one hand and bible in other. Widow at 34 with two small children. Martin cites bloggers such as Marcheletti and Potter in defining inspirational romance. Every one of Hill’s books meets these standards.
Martin notes many women she knows in Tennessee grew up reading Hill
She notes there are problems: character development in 3 or 4 words. Other problems as well, but still very important texts in romance tradition.
Related posts:
- A Brief Reflection on the Nora Roberts article in the New Yorker On Sunday I was sitting in the movie theater watching the wonderful Star Trek for the second time, and I...
- The Romance Insider, the Reader, the Fan, and the Academic Researcher Or why I don’t accept ARCs, how Romanceland is like rural America, and why fans and academics aren’t so different...
- HaMPO: Help A Moral Philosopher Out: Live Blogging An Academic Conference, Ethics of Welcome to my new feature, HaMPO, in which someone who has a PhD and 10 years professional experience in her...
- Review: Natural Law, by Joey Hill: Is BDSM Superior to Vanilla? Note: This review contains material suitable for adults only. I had read Joey Hill’s The Vampire Queen’s Servant, and didn’t...
- Romantic Fiction as Popular Culture This is a summary of “Reading Romantic Fiction”, Chapter 4 of Joanne Hollows’ Feminism Femininity and Popular Culture. I needed...
- BDSM, Anah Crow, JD Robb, Jennifer Crusie, Megan Hart Popular Culture Association/American Culture Association Annual Meeting April 2009, New Orleans Again, my (sketchy) notes. Hopefully I did the papers...
#1 by Nicola O. on April 11, 2009 - 1:53 pm
Eric doesn’t care whether Kinsale knew or planned this. We would assume she did if this were poetry and the fact that we do not says more about what we expect of romance novels than anything about the novels themselves.
I *LOVE* this comment.
#2 by Tumperkin on April 11, 2009 - 3:56 pm
Loving your work this weekend, Jessica.
And love the sound of Eric Selinger’s paper. I adore FFTS. I’d never thought of Christian as satan before, or paired up with Maddy as Eve. Fascinating that.
I’ve been feeling the lack of my literary analysis training too, as I ponder Judy Cuevas’ Bliss.
#3 by Janine on April 11, 2009 - 5:35 pm
I think you mean Laura Kinsale rather than Lisa Kleypas, and non-Euclidian geometry, rather than geography.
I had noticed and discussed before (years ago) the way that the themes of religion and madness are reflected in Maddy and Christian’s first names, so it was cool to hear that Eric noticed and commented on this as well. I would have loved to have been there for the reading of his paper. I’d also love to know what he would say about For My Lady’s Heart.
#4 by Jessica on April 11, 2009 - 6:35 pm
Janine wrote:
Of course you are right — I changed them. Thank you. This is what I get for blogging on the fly.
#5 by Jessica on April 11, 2009 - 6:37 pm
Tumperkin wrote:
you have no idea how many times this thought has occurred to me this week!
#6 by Taja on April 12, 2009 - 3:50 am
I would have loved to hear the paper on Kinsale! Some things I did pick up on on my own, but there is still much food for thought. Like what was said about knowledge, for example. I feel like re-reading.
#7 by Jessica on April 12, 2009 - 7:59 am
Taja wrote:
Eric said so many other things that I could not get down. It was a revelatory analysis of the book. And the whole project started when he noticed that they ended up outside Milton’s cottage. He felt it could not be coincidence, and set out to explore the Miltonian themes. Fascinating!
#8 by Eric Selinger on April 12, 2009 - 4:53 pm
Hi, Jessica! Thanks for all your work blogging the conference. I can’t tell you how glad I am that you liked the paper; I love that novel, and just want to give it the credit it deserves, and Kinsale the credit SHE deserves. Amazing book.
The “Daddy” joke was in response to Angela Toscano’s paper, which had a riff about how the heroine’s father taught her poetry, which ended up coming in handy. She’d given a little nod to me at that point, as the poetry prof on the panel, so this was my little nod back.
The topos / trope thing… Sigh. I guess it’s a lost cause.
Your paper has me primed to read the Sookie novels–but I can’t until Princeton is done! Wonderful to meet you at the conference–
E
#9 by Angela on April 13, 2009 - 4:05 pm
Hi Jessica.
I was moving toward a reading of ecriture feminine with the Cixous. Alas, as you know, 15 minutes is never enough time to fully develop a theory.
Angela
#10 by Jessica on April 13, 2009 - 8:27 pm
Eric Selinger wrote:
Thank you for explaining – I knew it was a joke, but I did not catch the reference!
I had a GREAT time. Thank you for inviting me. You guys are a very welcoming and intellectually stimulating crowd.
#11 by Robin on April 17, 2009 - 12:49 am
@ Eric Selinger: I think that there is enough overlap between topos and tropos that often either is correct when talking about genre Romance. At least when you’re talking about mimesis of motifs, themes, etc. that have become familiar, even if they are not derived from identifiably foundational texts (or perhaps they all are, which would make the difference between topos and tropos meaningful only semantically, yes?).
In any case, I decided to go with the apparent majority a while ago, because the tide is strong, lol.