Romance Fiction, Male and Female

Back in December, Susan of Texas (The Hunting of the Snark), in a post entitled "Let's Read Some Stupid," features (among others) a paragraph from Stephen Spruiell of National Review Online's (NRO) "The Corner." Spruiell opines:

I'm pretty sure there's never been a period in human history when certain people haven't had this particular kind of unrealistic expectation when it comes to love. We typically refer to those people as women, and they also happen to make up a majority of rom-com-watchers. If there's a connection, it's that women enjoy these films because these films show guys acting like women want guys to act, i.e. irresponsible and hopeless at first before their love for the female lead transforms them into stable, romantic (and telepathic) adults. Stephen Spruiell

Susan replied:

I had no idea The Corner let 13-year-olds write for them.

Which was a good line (as usual), but I had to say:

I dunno. I didn't read the post in question, so I don't know what thesis he was hanging on that assertion about women's narrative preferences. But I think that a lot of the appeal of romantic comedy IS very much because of the scenario he outlines. It's essentially the plot of every romance novel ever written: Bad Boy is tamed by the love of a Good Woman. If you're the right woman and you love him enough, you can always bring him to his knees.

Male romances (aka "Westerns") revolve around the opposite notion: that even the love of a Good Woman CAN'T tame a Bad Boy. After he tastes of (doomed) love, he must always ride off into the sunset. Alone.

Of course, in both romance narratives, the Bad Boy is never all that bad after all. In Westerns he's usually just Dramatically Haunted, by a previous love that didn't work out or an incident of violence in which he didn't acquit himself well enough.

The man's flaws in classic Romance are usually excesses of a traditionally "masculine" virtues (too Honorable, Protective or Independent), or his behavior is the result of a mere misunderstanding that can be cleared up in a climactic revelation scene (after much entertaining angst). Romances can therefore be funny, whereas a true Western is always tragic. A man is what a man is, see, and a man has to do what a man has to do -- and that always means he has to Leave.

Noir fiction of the hardboiled detective variety, another "male romance" genre, has essentially the same theme: It Never Works Out With Women, although in noir it's because of HER, and in Westerns it's because of HIM.

I'm not saying these are realistic themes, or contribute positively to the modern American ethos, but I don't think he's wrong to say that women, even today, are more drawn to Tameable Lone Wolf kind of stories and men are more drawn to stories of Lone Wolves Who Can't Be Tamed.

Personally I like both kinds of fiction, but I'd never mistake them for lessons in living.

Susan anwered:

... I believe he was talking about women wanting immature types that they can make into the type of man they want. I agree many women want to tame a bad boy, but I don't thing they want "irresponsible and hopeless" men to trnasform them into "stable, romantic (and telepathic) adults." I think Spruiell is projecting, here.

True. When are conservatives NOT projecting?

For more on women, men and romance fiction, take in "Tom Terrel's" Ten Ways To Be A Lover: A Man Looks at Romance Novels, a guest story on my moribund Why Your Wife Won't Have Sex With You blog (to which this entry is cross-posted).

P.S. Another relevant story over there is Do Women Prefer Bad Boys?

Sanford/Palin 2012?

A great post on Kos about my benighted governor (who's going to be running for prez in 2012):

As 77,000 unemployed citizens of his state watched in despair, Governor Sanford trumpeted tired free market mythology to defend subverting his state's efforts to pay unemployment compensation. His refusal to request federal funds to help laid off South Carolina workers was unprecedented by any Governor and had even drawn sharp rebukes from fellow Republicans:

"It's absolutely unheard of, it's insane, for a governor of any state not to request those funds," State Senator Hugh K. Leatherman, a Republican who is chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said last week. "I can't believe anybody would be this heartless, and create such a heartless act on these people."

Adding to the mounting evidence that Governor Sanford has no soul, he further flaunted his disdain for workers by politically targeting the very agency tasked with assisting South Carolina's unemployed:

For weeks, Mr. Sanford, newly elected as head of the Republican Governors Association and known for being a fierce free-market foe of government spending, stuck to his stand, questioning the probity of the South Carolina Employment Security Commission and demanding a new audit of the agency.

Of course, it was all theater. He knew the legislature would "force" him to request the funds. But it will make a great story for his 2012 campaign.

As I noted at Kos, the guy is cynicism personified. He's just as plausible and phony as Mitt Romney, but with more brains and no icky religious problem.

He'll be a powerhouse. Especially because I'm sure he's going to be running on how Obama broke the budget, with the unspoken subtext that the budget went out of control because of the demands of ---shhhh!--- BLACK PEOPLE.

That will play like gangbusters here, and if Obama can't get the economy back on track fast enough, it'll probably play elsewhere.

People just love the "low taxes = more money for ME!" line, especially when the negative effects of waterboarding the government will not cause any consequences that affect ME!

My friend Terry remarked to me privately:

I can't help but think there are probably a lot of people who were/are "fierce free-market foe(s) of government spending", who now want their unemployment checks.

Ya think? But Sanford's not thinking of getting re-elected here in SC. He's term limited in 2010. He's thinking of bigger and better things.

The 2012 campaign begins in January 2011. Gotta schmooze a shitload of donors and muckety-mucks to even get started.

Great Moments in Internet Commentary

On a TBogg thread about Red State having kittens over the Washington Post hiring Greg Sargent and claiming that the WP would never hire someone straight from rightwing Blogistan, conveniently (or stupidly*) forgetting the infamous Ben Domenech (a.k.a. "Box Turtle Ben").

Captphealy sez:

I suspect Greater Wingnuttia has a massive case of "Phantom Limb Syndrome", as most of them appear to be laboring under the impression that they still have dicks to swing.

NealDeesit replies:

Still have? Their mistaken belief is that they ever had anything to swing. These morons consistently confuse their "being huge dicks" with "having huge dicks."

----------

*As TBogg notes, "We have almost reached the point where picking on [Red State] is like heckling the kids at the Special Olympics."

The Very Definition of a Modern Major Philistine

Here is a comment I made on a post regarding Jonah Goldberg (of Liberal Fascism fame notoriety) at Susan of Texas's The Hunting of the Snark.

Goldberg is quoted as saying:

[Television s]eries such as Dexter, House, and countless others have elevated egomania, self-absorption, and narcissism to admirable character traits.

I responded:

What. a. dip.

What is it Roy Edroso calls it? Kulturkampf? Right wing philistines somehow believing that the main purpose of art is the promotion of "values."

Worse, they have such a juvenile appreciation of literature and drama that they believe the main character in any fiction must always be the "hero," and it stands to reason (in their eyes) that the writer "admires" all the hero's characteristics. It's like they never heard of the concept of the "anti-hero," where, if there's any conscious promoting going on, it's the writer's profound belief in things CONTRARY to the main character's (professed) values.

The thing about House is that he is in a constant struggle against softer, more "dangerous" emotions and beliefs. His strongest characterological drive is toward Truth at all costs, and the way this otherwise "admirable" quality plays out against his arrogant dismissal of other aspects of Being Human is what drives most of the drama. It's fucking brilliant. And dimwits like Jonah can't begin to grasp it because they think the narrative is CELEBRATING House's approach to life.

No, it's not even merely dimwitted...it's some other word, some other worse adjective that I can't even think of, maybe because what Jonah is is SO awful we don't actually have coherent words to describe it.

So maybe we'll have to resort to ART.

Susan replied by offering a quotation from J.D. Salinger:

Maybe Philistine is a good word for his type. I looked it up and wikipedia has a J.D. Salinger quote: "A person deprived, for life, of any understanding or taste for the main current of poetry that flows through things, all things."

And it also says, [The Phoenicians'] boutique culture could not withstand the Assyrian and later Babylonian expansions into Canaan, however – after which they disappeared as a cohesive cultural group."

The insulated world they hope to live in is truly a little hothouse culture. They won't be able to survive without the backing of a wealthy elite, because they certainly can't survive on their merits. Who wants propaganda, which is predictable by definition, when they could have originality and surprise, which only true art can achieve?

Who wants propaganda, which is predictable by definition, when they could have originality and surprise, which only true art can achieve?

I answered,

Who indeed? Actually, it's clear that there is an audience for predictable fiction (at least), and it seems to consist of fearful people who HATE to be surprised.

Conservatives, by definition.