NaNoWriMo: Once more with feeling!
Oct. 24th, 2008 06:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
msmcknittingtonToday has been sort of pathetic. It's raining and cold and I slept on my hip all weird so it hurts and Dad broke a lightbulb in the bathroom and I got to spend half an hour picking up glass off all the soft things in the bathroom and BLARGH. And my sister is still not returning my emails, which leads me to believe that she changed email addresses, because the one I'm sending the emails to is her maiden name. And she's simultaneously absentminded and Type A enough to forget to tell anyone that. (We are not exactly alike! Shut up!) Otherwise, she's pissed at me about something. And I have no idea what that could be.
So, yeah. Today has been a day.
Random: Does it bug anyone else that Mediaeval Baebes say their name "Medieval Babes" instead of "Meh-dee-eh-vahl Behbs"? Because it's starting to bug me a little.
On the NaNoWriMo front, I have come to a decision. Since the poll was absolutely inconsequential, because everything was tied everywhere (which might have been my fault for setting it up the way I did -- who knows!), I made the decision in the face of everything everyone told me. In other words, I used golf scoring, and will be writing a tale of love and war and jokes about boobs on the Welsh border.
Yes, I will be writing the novel I tentatively titled Smells Like the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, it will probably be a lot more serious than the title implies, but it is a working title.
And there might be ninjas. I don't know yet.
I've been trying to harness Google for my nefarious research needs, but to no avail. I tried the library, but some monster got there before me and checked out all the books on the middle ages. Of course, there were only two, but I still felt thwarted. So I'm going into this blind, really. I know next to nothing about medieval Wales, unless we want to go counting what happens in "Henry IV, Part 1". And Glyndwr is pretty hocusy-pocusy, mystical, magical in that. Fairly confident the Henry plays are not an accurate reflection of 14th century Wales, to say nothing of the English bias.
Stupid toaster burnt my bagel! Blargh.
Anyway, why medieval Wales?
The answer is actually a very simple one. Generally, when Wales (or Scotland or Ireland) is chosen as a setting for a romance novel, then it is mystical and magickal (the k is so required there) and maybe there are fairies, and the heroine has flaming red hair and brilliant green eyes and it's sort of like an Irish Spring commercial with buxom lasses and men with huge swords. (Oh, fuck! Weaponry! *adds to research list*) Um, this drives me apeshit. I may not know a lot about the medieval period, but I know enough to have the desire to separate the mysticism from the reality. The older, "bodice ripper" novels with Vikings and such are still very much a phenomenon in medieval romance. The only book I can think of that breaks from this is Shanna Abé's The Secret Swan, which has separate issues.
And dammit, I'm tired of assholes and mystical peasants in my medieval fiction. Get out of there!
There's your answer: I think it's very important, unless you're writing fantasy, for the narrative voice to remain neutral and . . . scientific might be the word for it. If there are magickal happenings, then it should be clear that this is the characters' perception of events, not the narrator's. I like my historical fiction gritty, especially when it's medieval, because can we get grittier than that? Victorian era? OK, you might have a point there.
Tangent: Oddly, Elizabethan romances don't grab me. I think it's because I know more about the sixteenth century, and it wasn't a very romantic time for that reason. It doesn't have that haze of ooh, chivalry! and ooh, King Arthur! and ooh, princess clothes! that the medieval period has. I view the sixteenth century rather cynically, because I see it as an endless string of plotting and divorces and executions, even though the middle ages weren't a purer, innocent time or anything. I mean, hangings as spectator sport? I'm a victim of that fairy tale image, too.
Thinking about this has led me to think about the past as a setting for romances. It's pretty much inarguable that romance novels are escapism. A lot of the Twilight reasoning applies here -- the heroines are generally Mary Sues (incomparably beautiful, renders burly men insensible with her unharnessable spirit, supposedly smart as a whip, and generally thinks herself both stupid and ugly), the heroes are passionately tortured by their pasts and incredible wealth and/or brutes who turn into Sensitive Males in the presence of the heroine. I mean, who wouldn't want that ability? "Oh, yes, Wulfstan! Take me away from my life of selfless drudgery and treat me as a princess! In return, I'll put out."
OK, that last sentence isn't really true.
So, the heroines are frequently proxies for the reader and the heroes are uber-males, who are both tender and alpha. Things that work in romance novels don't work in real life. (I keep reminding myself of that.) They pretty much have to be fairy tales at some level -- intrepid young person as lead character, quest for love/money, happy ending with both. Except, at what point does making every romance into a fairy tale start doing a disservice to the history? Is there a point at which you can stop calling a medieval romance novel a historical novel because the history in it is crap?
I think where I might differ from a lot of readers of historical romance is that I find that day-to-day history intriguing. Instead of going, "Chamber pots? Ew!", I go, "Chamber pots? How intriguing? How will the use of chamber pots affect the MC's relationship?" How will this person's interactions with her in-laws be influenced by her status as a member of the enemy family? How will this couple overcome the language barrier? (Um, that's another thing I need to figure out -- whether or not my heroine would know English.) How will the big picture history affect the little picture history?
I think I find stories of people overcoming historical and/or realistic obstacles much more riveting and interesting than those challenged by Big Misunderstandings. "I'm supposed to go and kill her family in battle because my king told me so, and it is my duty to obey my king. But she's my wife and I have a duty to protect her, so is it my duty to protect her from emotional harm or just physical harm?" VS "I've spent most of the book being logical and practical, which is why I'm going to freak the fuck out when a misunderstanding arises that could be solved with a five-sentence conversation."
You see the dilemma. Sometimes I think there are two romance worlds out there -- the one where the characters are nicely developed and the one where WTF? reigns.
In closing, my soundtrack for the next month will be Mediaeval Baebes (Mirabilis and Undrentide) and Garmarna's Hildegard von Bingen, which is, yes, a recording of plainsong written by Hildegard von Bingen in the 12th century, set against some subtle electronic stuff. I also have Love's Illusion by Anonymous 4, for that authentic touch.
The Garmarna album is excellent, and I recommend it to people who like Delerium and other similar groups. Maybe Mediaeval Baebes, though the Baebes have a more medieval sound, really. Emma Hardelin, Garmarna's vocalist, has an absolutely haunting voice.
So, yeah. Today has been a day.
Random: Does it bug anyone else that Mediaeval Baebes say their name "Medieval Babes" instead of "Meh-dee-eh-vahl Behbs"? Because it's starting to bug me a little.
On the NaNoWriMo front, I have come to a decision. Since the poll was absolutely inconsequential, because everything was tied everywhere (which might have been my fault for setting it up the way I did -- who knows!), I made the decision in the face of everything everyone told me. In other words, I used golf scoring, and will be writing a tale of love and war and jokes about boobs on the Welsh border.
Yes, I will be writing the novel I tentatively titled Smells Like the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, it will probably be a lot more serious than the title implies, but it is a working title.
And there might be ninjas. I don't know yet.
I've been trying to harness Google for my nefarious research needs, but to no avail. I tried the library, but some monster got there before me and checked out all the books on the middle ages. Of course, there were only two, but I still felt thwarted. So I'm going into this blind, really. I know next to nothing about medieval Wales, unless we want to go counting what happens in "Henry IV, Part 1". And Glyndwr is pretty hocusy-pocusy, mystical, magical in that. Fairly confident the Henry plays are not an accurate reflection of 14th century Wales, to say nothing of the English bias.
Stupid toaster burnt my bagel! Blargh.
Anyway, why medieval Wales?
The answer is actually a very simple one. Generally, when Wales (or Scotland or Ireland) is chosen as a setting for a romance novel, then it is mystical and magickal (the k is so required there) and maybe there are fairies, and the heroine has flaming red hair and brilliant green eyes and it's sort of like an Irish Spring commercial with buxom lasses and men with huge swords. (Oh, fuck! Weaponry! *adds to research list*) Um, this drives me apeshit. I may not know a lot about the medieval period, but I know enough to have the desire to separate the mysticism from the reality. The older, "bodice ripper" novels with Vikings and such are still very much a phenomenon in medieval romance. The only book I can think of that breaks from this is Shanna Abé's The Secret Swan, which has separate issues.
And dammit, I'm tired of assholes and mystical peasants in my medieval fiction. Get out of there!
There's your answer: I think it's very important, unless you're writing fantasy, for the narrative voice to remain neutral and . . . scientific might be the word for it. If there are magickal happenings, then it should be clear that this is the characters' perception of events, not the narrator's. I like my historical fiction gritty, especially when it's medieval, because can we get grittier than that? Victorian era? OK, you might have a point there.
Tangent: Oddly, Elizabethan romances don't grab me. I think it's because I know more about the sixteenth century, and it wasn't a very romantic time for that reason. It doesn't have that haze of ooh, chivalry! and ooh, King Arthur! and ooh, princess clothes! that the medieval period has. I view the sixteenth century rather cynically, because I see it as an endless string of plotting and divorces and executions, even though the middle ages weren't a purer, innocent time or anything. I mean, hangings as spectator sport? I'm a victim of that fairy tale image, too.
Thinking about this has led me to think about the past as a setting for romances. It's pretty much inarguable that romance novels are escapism. A lot of the Twilight reasoning applies here -- the heroines are generally Mary Sues (incomparably beautiful, renders burly men insensible with her unharnessable spirit, supposedly smart as a whip, and generally thinks herself both stupid and ugly), the heroes are passionately tortured by their pasts and incredible wealth and/or brutes who turn into Sensitive Males in the presence of the heroine. I mean, who wouldn't want that ability? "Oh, yes, Wulfstan! Take me away from my life of selfless drudgery and treat me as a princess! In return, I'll put out."
OK, that last sentence isn't really true.
So, the heroines are frequently proxies for the reader and the heroes are uber-males, who are both tender and alpha. Things that work in romance novels don't work in real life. (I keep reminding myself of that.) They pretty much have to be fairy tales at some level -- intrepid young person as lead character, quest for love/money, happy ending with both. Except, at what point does making every romance into a fairy tale start doing a disservice to the history? Is there a point at which you can stop calling a medieval romance novel a historical novel because the history in it is crap?
I think where I might differ from a lot of readers of historical romance is that I find that day-to-day history intriguing. Instead of going, "Chamber pots? Ew!", I go, "Chamber pots? How intriguing? How will the use of chamber pots affect the MC's relationship?" How will this person's interactions with her in-laws be influenced by her status as a member of the enemy family? How will this couple overcome the language barrier? (Um, that's another thing I need to figure out -- whether or not my heroine would know English.) How will the big picture history affect the little picture history?
I think I find stories of people overcoming historical and/or realistic obstacles much more riveting and interesting than those challenged by Big Misunderstandings. "I'm supposed to go and kill her family in battle because my king told me so, and it is my duty to obey my king. But she's my wife and I have a duty to protect her, so is it my duty to protect her from emotional harm or just physical harm?" VS "I've spent most of the book being logical and practical, which is why I'm going to freak the fuck out when a misunderstanding arises that could be solved with a five-sentence conversation."
You see the dilemma. Sometimes I think there are two romance worlds out there -- the one where the characters are nicely developed and the one where WTF? reigns.
In closing, my soundtrack for the next month will be Mediaeval Baebes (Mirabilis and Undrentide) and Garmarna's Hildegard von Bingen, which is, yes, a recording of plainsong written by Hildegard von Bingen in the 12th century, set against some subtle electronic stuff. I also have Love's Illusion by Anonymous 4, for that authentic touch.
The Garmarna album is excellent, and I recommend it to people who like Delerium and other similar groups. Maybe Mediaeval Baebes, though the Baebes have a more medieval sound, really. Emma Hardelin, Garmarna's vocalist, has an absolutely haunting voice.