Well, I guess if you define it in those terms it applies, but I still hesitate to call it that because people think of nora roberts when they think romance novel. Yes, they all had to do with relationships, but really all victorian novels by women did (actually, most novels by women did), because that was the spectrum of women. Therefore, I don't call it that, because it gives that perception that there's nothing else behind victorian novels. Jane Austen's novels criticized society, often times ridiculed the way courting happen, and so on. The way they come off in the movies misses some of the humor and cynicism of it. So your definition of romance applies only to a small extent.
For example, George Eliot could fall under the same category, but I fail to see her books as just romances. They delve into the characters so deeply, that yes the relationships take center place a lot of times, but so do the politics, family conflicts, etc.
I don't know. Just the way you dismissed it, I thought you might be thinking of it like it's portrayed in the movies or a nora roberts type of thing, and that's not the case at all. I have no idea if I've made myself clear, but I'm at work and can't look over this.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timepiececlock) wrote2005-07-26 09:54 pm
Re: *hug back*
For example, George Eliot could fall under the same category, but I fail to see her books as just romances. They delve into the characters so deeply, that yes the relationships take center place a lot of times, but so do the politics, family conflicts, etc.
I don't know. Just the way you dismissed it, I thought you might be thinking of it like it's portrayed in the movies or a nora roberts type of thing, and that's not the case at all. I have no idea if I've made myself clear, but I'm at work and can't look over this.