Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Let's Talk Romance.

Choco hit on a nervy spot in the YA blogosphere the other day with this post about romance in YA. If you haven't read it, go check it out right now. She's jumped on a subject that I've been thinking a lot about recently, so I thought I'd catch the thought-train with a follow-up post on one issue she brought up. See these posts, too, for more insight and background.

***

Lust vs. Love

I'm learning in philosophy class that definition is a key element of an argument. Before I argue: What's the definition of lust? Definition of love?

Lust is, according to my handy American Heritage Dictionary, "intense or unrestrained sexual craving."

Love is, according to same dictionary, something very different. Love is "a deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness."

And while a dictionary definition can never encompass something as huge and mysterious as love, this definition does point to something obvious. Lust and love are not the same thing.

Lust is merely physical attraction and desire. It's got nothing to do with personal connection, mutual understanding, or intentional commitment. Love, however, runs deeper than lust. It sees beyond instant attraction, hot looks, sizzling eyes: Love is a person-to-person thing that's rooted in friendship. Best friendship. And long hours talking, lots of laughing, lots of questioning and arguing and learning to work together.

Mainstream YA fiction has forgotten that. Worse, it's twisted that up.

See, Edward and Bella must be in love because he's hot and she's attracted to his marble moodiness. They must be in love because they both obsess about each other and dream about kissing each other. They must be in love because when they kiss, sparks fly and things sizzle. They must be in love because --

I don't want to rant about Twilight, and I don't mean to single it out. But I think it's a good example of a broader trend, and so I'm going to use it to elaborate.

Why must they be in love?

Speaking as a teenager myself, I know it's easy to fall for "love" stories like Bella and Edward's. The tension in YA paranormal/romance books runs so high it's impossible not to get caught up in eyes staring, hands touching, bodies wanting.

But. What else is there to a relationship like that?

This lust-mance isn't real life. This lust=love stuff is a myth, a sugar-coated and highly addicting myth that we're swallowing like candy - because it is candy. It tastes good for a while. I'm not going to lie: I like sizzling chemistry between two characters who are insanely attracted to each other.

When romance is boiled down to mere sex, though, it loses something valuable. Yeah, it seems like candy; our society, our teen readers, and our YA writers are gulping it down by the handful. But it's just going to make us sick.

Maybe we already are: we're so obsessed with sex - our culture is so saturated with it - that we forget about love and trade it for something cheaper.

How cute would it be to read about two characters who connect like kindred spirits not because they can't stop staring at each other in the halls, but because they trade words that matter? Because they come to know each other? Because they learn the meaning of selfless love -- not selfish lust, but selfless love?

***

I know that some people think that fiction is just fiction, and characters are just characters - and that analyzing romance in YA is just plain dumb. And... to be honest, I think that's a cop-out argument. Books influence their readers; the myth of YA romance has influenced our culture. We've gotta change something - because we've lost something precious.

Comments welcome. Arguments too. I'd like to hear what you think!

12 comments:

  1. I promise to return and leave a more coherent comment later, because it's late and I just finished speed-reading Shakespeare and my brain's a bit frazzled and my eyes are falling shut, so, I just want to quickly say:

    YES YES YES.

    This.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is such a good point! Eye candy is what I like to call it. And it seems to be promoted more than ever, especially in YA but I think it's always been there. Twilight gets hit because it did so well, but there were a lot of YA novels written before Twilight that are no different. It is refreshing to see novels where the characters sacrifice for each other and have a friendship that is lasting, not just when the sparks are flying.

    One good example is Carpe Diem.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great post! I'm glad someone's making that distinction. I realize there's a certain wish fulfillment element going on, which is why the guy always has to be hot, etc., but it would be nice to see something beyond that for a change.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Great points! I have two cents to throw in about YA romance influencing its young readers. Being a middle school librarian, I see all the time how much it does. For a while there, they really did walk around clutching the Twilight books to their chests and debating the hotness of Edward vs. Jacob. However. They're also quick to turn on things and I've noticed that seems to be happening with Twilight and others like it in my library. A lot of my students roll their eyes at it now, which makes me happy in a teensy way, and then they ask for something different, something *good*. Most of them seem to realize it's candy too. They may get all wrapped up in it for the moment, but I think eventually they come looking for substance.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Very awesome and well-put post! I'm glad that you see the distinction between lust and love and that--as an amazing writer--hopefully you'll soon be publishing novels that have a different sort of YA romance. And I really love that last paragraph before the asterisks...I'd LOVE to read romance like that! :)

    And I really do see the argument that we might be taking it too seriously and should stop analyzing --but you're a writer. It'd be pretty bad if you didn't think about the books you're writing. And it'd be pretty bad if I didn't think about the books I'm reading, either. :) Haha.

    Lovely post!

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Christina - eye candy is a perfect way to describe it. Thanks for the example...I want to check it out!

    @Inkwench - wish fulfillment is a huge part of it! I am guilty of making almost all of my love interests hot, if only because it's nice to dream about being pursued by a super hot studmuffin :)

    @Jessi - I'm glad to hear that! That's how I was when I first read it (obsessed!) until I started to realize that it's actually kind of silly.

    @Choco - thanks for inspiring this post. I've been thinking lots about YA romance recently...it's definitely important to think about what we're portraying and enforcing as writers!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I really love this post, and I loved Choco's, too.

    But "oneness"? Seriously? This is why people don't read the dictionary for fun.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I love this post. I want to marry it.

    That is all.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thank you thank you thank you!

    This post was awesome, and I do agree, I want people falling in love over witty banter, not oh you're so hot lets make sexytime.

    I think you really hit the nail on the head!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks you all for joining in the discussion! I know there are many sides to the issue, but it's definitely something worth thinking about.

    ReplyDelete
  11. this post is so important. thanks for talking about it.

    :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. I've been reading and re-reading this post, and really, it is the most coherent and convincing post I've read on the subject yet. I think you've done a great job delineating the differences between "lust" and "love" -- two very different things that often seem to be taken for one another in YA romance.

    I love reading about the chemistry, the UST between two characters as well, but I want to read about those things after they've fallen in love, after seeing an actual basis for their love that isn't instant physical attraction. Physical attraction is all good and well, but that shouldn't be the basis for a long-term relationship -- and in no way is it love.

    I think I wouldn't have so many qualms about current YA romance if lust eventually bleeds into love. I'm all for instant attraction, but if that's all there is to it: I really wouldn't call that romance.

    Love your second-to-last paragraph. I do wish there were more novels like that as well!

    ReplyDelete