prillalar | What The Heart Knows

What The Heart Knows

Since watching Pride and Prejudice a few weeks ago, I've been thinking about how much it reminds me of the classic romance novel structure. I'm not much about the contemporary Harlequins or bodice rippers, but I've been known to collect 60s vintage Harlequins from second-hand stores. They all follow the same formula and P&P, although the miniseries more so that the book, fits in quite nicely.

(I must confess that while I love Austen, I also sympathized with Adrian Mole when he got into trouble at the library for moving all of the Austens from Classic Literature to Light Romance.)

The heroine is usually poor, not desperately so, but not well off.
Elizabeth, check.
The hero is rich.
Darcy, check.
The hero is normally in some sort of position of power over the heroine, often her boss.
This doesn't work so well with P&P, though the difference in social station approximates it.
The hero can be described with words like "sardonic", "sarcastic", "stern", and "saturnine".
Darcy, check.
The hero is dark rather than fair.
Fits with the mini-series. I don't think there was a detailed physical description of Darcy in the novel, though illos I've seen portray him as a brunet.
The hero is nasty to the heroine, causing her to dislike him, even though he's a most attractive man.
Darcy and Elizabeth, check.
The heroine has an amiable admirer who either turns out to be wicked or just not man enough for her.
Wickham, check.
The hero has an old girlfriend who is evil.
Not an old girlfriend, but Caroline Bingley fills this role.
The hero, even though he's been nothing but a jerk all along, does something very nice for someone, causing the heroine's opinion to change, or information is revealed to her about how nice he is.
This more or less fits with Elizabeth and Darcy.
The hero and heroine finally get together and it is revealed that the hero was in love with her all along.
Yeah, pretty much.
Now we're supposed to think that the hero is a great guy and forget what an asshole he was earlier on.
I don't think that fits too well. Darcy actually showed some character growth, which romance novel heroes do not. But it's close enough for government work.

And there you have it. Harlequin Presents Pride and Prejudice. Did I miss anything?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Most modern romance novels stole their structure from Austen, with a heaping helping of the Brontes thrown in (depending on how serious the heroine's plight is).

Unfortunately, most modern romance novels (and I only read Regency era ones, so I'm looking for a good approximation of P&P when I read one) don't have the social criticism or deft comedic touch Austen did.

Yeah, I was going to mention the Brontes. Actualy, Jane Eyre is the prototype for the fifty percent of romance novels that weren't based on Pride and Prejudice in the fifties and sixties (and even seventies).

Young, poor girl (often recently orphaned) ends up working for mysterious (often reclusive) older man in some capacity (personal assistant and governess for his child/nephew/ward were the most common). He has a dark secret, she discovers it *just* after they first exhibit real interest in each other, she flees, they reunite and all ends happily.

Jane Austen and Charlotte Bronte: my heroes! Er. Heroines.

*g*

Those reclusive older men -- what *is* their attraction?

I have only read Jane Eyre once and that so long ago I don't remember it too well. I should pick it up again.

I wonder if there are any romance novels based off Tess of the D'Urbervilles. God, I hope not.

I just knew you were gonna bring up Jane Eyre ...

Jane Eyre is the prototype for the fifty percent of romance novels that weren't based on Pride and Prejudice in the fifties and sixties

Well, in the genre I read (Regency), you can generally split them between fun, light-hearted, occasionally satirical (though never as sharp as Austen) romantic comedies; slightly darker, dealing with the Napoleonic Wars in some way (veteran comes home and inherits/is disinherited/has war wounds; actually takes place on the Peninsula/in the war zone); or faux-Gothic with the horrible uncle/father forcing the girl into marriage, the dark hero with the tortured past... Hmmm... I'd guess Maria Edgeworth and Castle Rackrent was highly influential on Austen and the Brontes, though I never read it, and early 19th c. isn't my thing.

And of course, Castle of Otranto, the granddaddy of gothic novels, was published in the late 1700s, (I want to say 1780s, but ::checks google:: no, it's 1764.

Then there's Taming of the Shrew and Much Ado About Nothing, both romantic comedies in whose footprints some of the best screwball comedies of the 1930s were made.

So that takes some of the romance novel tropes back to the 16th c.

And Patient Griselda, Tristan and Isolde, Troilus and Cressida are all even older stories that contain many elements often found in modern romance novels, iirc...

I wonder how far back we could go and still find these elements. When I'm drinking beer tonight, I'll cast my mind back over my mythology and see what turns up.

Well, I just took you back to the 14th century, and also the Greeks. *G*

You forgot the matchmaking relatives! You know, the well-to-do (but possibly not quite upper-crust) aunt, grandmamma, or godmother who takes the heroine out of her normal setting and allows the brooding, moody bastard of a hero to see her in a new light.

Mrs. Gardiner, check.

Ooh, right!

You forgot the use of purple langauge!

Hee! But the books I read weren't all that purple. Except in one, the author kept using this made-up adjective "shatteringly", like "shatteringly pretty".

she said shatteringly...

hmmm, sounds like a synonym for defecating with elegance.

Y'know, I wonder if there's a substantial subset of romance novels based on The Tenant of Wildfell Hall. I'm guessing it had influence on the ones I read in the 80s where the hero gets angry when he finds out/thinks the heroine might not be a virgin/virtuous widow/whatever. He always turns out to be wrong, just as in Tenant.

It would be interesting to see what patterns in romance novels we could trace back and just how far they go. I haven't read Tenant -- is it worthwhile?

I enjoyed Tenant, with some reservations, mostly about the preachiness of one of the characters. I'm an agnostic and sometimes find such things hard to understand. I posted a bit about it in my journal when I read it - here (http://www.livejournal.com/users/jacquez/275499.html).

I think it should be read more than it is, personally. I certainly enjoyed it more than Wuthering Heights, which I found utterly pointless and unreadable.

Yeah, I would kind of agree with

musesfool and say it's the other way 'round -- Harlequin took the older structure of Austen and turned it into a cliche. But when it comes to the miniseries, I'd agree that it's soapier than the novel, and was probably influenced by later romances.

.m

I don't mean to suggest any time-travel on the part of Jane Austen, of course. *g*

LOL. Oops, neither did I. See what happens you squeeze in an LJ comment between work tasks, frantically hoping your boss won't notice you've got IE up because she's nearly computer-illiterate? *g*

But damn, time travel would be nice. Then she could write some more books for us. :)
.m

Do you know Sappho was the first to use the expression the silver moon (http://www.lunararchives.com/deepin/sappho.htm)? In one or other edition of the scraps of her verse, I read in the preface (by someone who ought to have known better) that ze didn't think much of Sappho as a poet: she used cliched imagery, such as the silver moon (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22the+silver+moon%22+poetry).

The foundations of the Harlequin romance were laid well before Jane Austen (see Chapter 5 (http://www.bootlegbooks.com/Fiction/Austen/Northanger/chap05.html), Northanger Abbey) and I think Charlotte Bronte, more than either of her sisters or even Jane Austen, began to build the structure that is familiar today. Jane Eyre fits the pattern even better than Pride and Prejudice:

1. The heroine is usually poor, not desperately so, but not well off.
Jane, for two-thirds of the novel.

2. The hero is rich.
Rochester, for most of the novel in which he appears.

3. The hero is normally in some sort of position of power over the heroine, often her boss.
Rochester is Jane's employer: Jane advertises for a post as governess and is hired by his housekeeper.

4. The hero can be described with words like "sardonic", "sarcastic", "stern", and "saturnine".
That's Rochester, yes..

5. The hero is dark rather than fair.
That's Rochester, yes.

6. The hero is nasty to the heroine, causing her to dislike him, even though he's a most attractive man.
This doesn't work quite so well, though it has parallels. Rochester isn't a most attractive man - sexy, definitely, but not good-looking - and though Rochester deliberately tells Jane the almost the worst parts of his character (he kept a mistress, he has an illegitimate daughter) the worst of all does not come out until the crashing moment at the wedding - and even that cannot make Jane dislike Rochester, only leave him.

7. The heroine has an amiable admirer who either turns out to be wicked or just not man enough for her.
St. John Rivers.

8. The hero has an old girlfriend who is evil.
Blanche Ingram!

9. The hero, even though he's been nothing but a jerk all along, does something very nice for someone, causing the heroine's opinion to change, or information is revealed to her about how nice he is.
This doesn't fit at all, of course - unless we count Rochester's vain attempt to save his wife's life in the burning building.

10. The hero and heroine finally get together and it is revealed that the hero was in love with her all along.
This really doesn't fit - because Jane and Rochester didn't doubt their love for each other. They were separated by something much stronger: Jane's sense of principle.

11. Now we're supposed to think that the hero is a great guy and forget what an asshole he was earlier on.
But this fits perfectly. Rochester is still the man who married Bertha Mason for her money, shut her up as mad, and planned to marry Jane without telling her it would be bigamy. He shows no repentence for any of these actions. Nevertheless, Jane marries him.

Anyone who doesn't think much of Sappho as a poet needs their head examined. I translated some Sappho one year in a Greek lyric poetry class and I've never read any Greek more lovely. And it's very beautiful in translation as well.

Do you know Sappho was the first to use the expression the silver moon? In one or other edition of the scraps of her verse, I read in the preface (by someone who ought to have known better) that ze didn't think much of Sappho as a poet: she used cliched imagery, such as the silver moon.

Oh, that's like the morons who find the dialogue in Casablanca cliched.

I think Charlotte Bronte, more than either of her sisters or even Jane Austen, began to build the structure that is familiar today.

Sure, Jane Eyre has a lot ot answer for, but Austen was earlier than either of the Brontes.

9. The hero, even though he's been nothing but a jerk all along, does something very nice for someone, causing the heroine's opinion to change, or information is revealed to her about how nice he is.
This doesn't fit at all, of course - unless we count Rochester's vain attempt to save his wife's life in the burning building.

Well, he's injured right? And Jane spends her life caring for him?

I never finished Jane Eyre. It made me want to cry and not in the good way.

Let me second the rec for Tenant of Wildfell Hall, and throw in a rec as well for the 1996 adaptation, which does weird things with the order of the narrative as the story progresses, but makes up for it by featuring a very yummy-looking Toby Stephens.

*

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

What The Heart Knows

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject