Romance Books, It’s Not Enough_Jordan

Image Supplied by New York Post
https://nypost.com/article/best-contemporary-romance-novels/

One of my biggest pet peeves about books is when the entire plot is about two people falling in love. Now when I say this I don’t mean it in a way that’s like “oh romance is boring and no one can enjoy a romance book.” What I’m really trying to say is that: when you make a book purely about romance, you make the character’s lives purely about romance, and that is simply not enough to make a well rounded and enjoyable character. Before recently, I never really had that much of a problem with these types of books, that was until I got my first book that fell under the ‘romance’ genre. The moment I started reading it I thought to myself: “this is just a slice of life book, why isn’t it just called that?” That was until I got to the second chapter, where there and till the end of the book, it no longer mattered about the characters but the romance between the two. I honestly couldn’t finish the book, but I did gain something from it: I learned that romance in itself is not a complex enough genre to write a book. 

Romance should be a theme present in the slice of life genre but should not stand on its own. When you read a slice of life book, you’re reading about the person and how they grow through the book from the first to last pages. Usually, during someone’s life, they will develop crushes, love interests, go through heartbreak, etc. these, or the lack of these, can usually lead to growth of characters or revelation about themselves or the people around them. When you have a romance book the author, usually, throws away all of the character growth and focuses solely on the relationship’s growth. When this happens, the characters usually become watered down because their growth is usually seen only in comparison to the relationship. Characters should be able to live lives outside of their relationships, but a lot of romance authors are so focused on the relationship’s build up rather than focusing on who really allows this build up to happen: the characters. Now I’m not saying that you can’t grow in a relationship, you can, but a lot of these authors simply put these two characters into a relationship and by the end of the book, they’re exactly the same in all aspects except their relationship status. In a good book, the characters are able to grow by themselves, grow in a relationship, and grow out of a relationship, and with a book like this the main focus (genre) of the book is the character’s life (slice of life) and a portion (theme) of the book is their romance. 

‘Romance’ books are not bad, and usually have a lot of benefits to readers but these benefits can be backhanded. One of the best feelings to have is being able to open up a book and see yourself in a main character. Whether it be race, sex, sexuality, religion, culture, all of these things can grow someone’s love for reading and understanding of who they are. One of the main reasons people love ‘romance’ books so much is that they are able to see themselves and people like them getting their happily ever after. This can be seen especially with how Laynie Rose Rizer gained popularity because of her LGBTQIA+ books and her reasoning behind her fame being “People want to see themselves,” (Harris 2023). Another reason why people love romance books so much is because of the outlet romance books give them “Romance told women that it was natural to want,” wrote Emily Sinclair Montague (her username.) But while these things are good they can also be backhanded in their own ways. By having LGBTQIA+ people only in romance books, it can create this focal point around someone’s sexuality and less of who they are as a whole. Yes, someone’s sexuality is a huge part of who they are but it is not everything about a person. This same observation can be used for the other quote by Emily. By saying that romance is ultimately what showed women that it was okay to want is focusing on the woman’s sexuality rather than anything else. It paints women in a way that’s saying: ‘all women want is romance’ when women can want more than that. 

Ultimately I dislike romance books not because of the romance itself but because everything else about a person is usually watered down to make room for the romance. Because of this I believe that romance should be like an add-on to a book, not the focal point, leaving romance being seen as more of a theme rather than its own genre. With viewing romance as more of a theme than a genre of a book, it can allow authors to focus more on fleshing out who the characters are so we can see them grow and develop first. And then put them in a relationship so we’ll actually want the relationship to thrive instead of being like ‘oh they’re together, so what?’ At the end of the day, I really can't say whether or not romance books are good (because that’s subjective,) but I can say that with having romance as a secondary thought rather than the focal point, it can allow there to be more focus on the complex and easy to relate to characters. 

Montague, Emily  Sinclair. “Why Romance Is a Genre to Be Reckoned with (and Respected).” Words of a Feather, Words of a Feather, 29 Sept. 2020, www.wordsofafeather.net/post/why-romance-is-a-genre-to-be-reckoned-with-and-respected. 

Harris, Elizabeth  A. “‘I Just Want Something That’s Gay and Happy’: L.G.B.T.Q. Romance Is Booming.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 30 Mar. 2022, www.nytimes.com/2022/03/30/books/lgbtq-romance-novels.html.

Romeo and Juliet; Tragically Bad (No Offense William) -Sophie

 

Before I say anything, the title’s a joke, don’t get your knickers in a twist. Most of you know that Romeo and Juliet is a play about love and killing oneself for it. It is often spoken of as a great representation of love, and tragedy, with which I can agree only partly. It starts with two idiot children: Romeo (M 16) Juliet (F 13), from rivaling families. They, as it be, fall in love. Being the youths that they are, they decided to run away together, after they got caught in their family's feuds and got their people close to them killed. So, they elope. Before they get the chance to run, Juliet has to run away from an arranged marriage, so she fakes her death with a poison. Her plan runs smoothly with everyone thinking she’s dead. Unfortunately for her, as Romeo lays his eyes upon his beloved’s seemingly dead body, he kills himself- assuming she was actually dead. She wakes, and kills herself to join him in death. The end. Many people enjoy focusing on that last part; the meaningful killing to join a loved one. A love so powerful it breaks social status. Which, I agree, is important. However it is not always the dessert that we cherish most if the main course has a better chef. The play is, past the romance, about death. Specifically, this play involves killing due to feuds. As much as I’d enjoy taking it as a warning not to kill yourself two seconds after you find your beloved unconscious or to not marry someone from a rival family (without a prenup), I take it more as a warning not to kill. 

The first to die is Mercutio (the funniest/best character). He’s both related to Juliet’s betrothed and is also Romeo’s close friend. He is eventually killed unintentionally by Tybalt, as Tybalt tries to kill Romeo. As Mercutio dies he curses the Montague and Capulet houses (Romeo and Juliet’s houses) for being the death of him. This first death is the most important, both leading to all the other deaths and explaining the entire play. In dying in Romeo’s place, he died for someone else, just as everyone did in the play. Tybalt is killed by Romeo for vengeance, Paris is also killed by Romeo over Juliet, then Romeo kills himself, and Juliet follows. It’s significant that they all died for someone else, because it shows how violence can spiral. However, the part I find most important in Mercutio’s death scene is when he curses both Romeo and Juliet’s houses, not Romeo and Juliet themselves. It is not their love nor them as individuals that caused this, but their houses.

The most famous line of the play (annoyingly so), is “Wherefore art thou Romeo,” (Shakespeare, 2.2.35) in which Juliet asks Romeo why he is Romeo. The lovers are, clearly, stupid. Juliet, in saying why are you Romeo, implies that who he is is the problem. However, when she says this, she doesn’t say “Why are you a Montague” (his family name). This contrasts with Mercutio's cursing of the families, because the lovers take it on as an individual problem, as do most viewers or readers of the play.

This play is about death. From when I was a kid, I always heard Romeo and Juliet mentioned following the topic of romance or tragedy, but I’m not sure where it may fit. Romeo and Juliet, ironically, is not about Romeo and Juliet. Romeo and Juliet is a story about how violence is unnecessary, and even in the most pure and innocent of young loves, death can follow if it is being chased. The two families feuded, and what for? This play is about the understanding we can have for each other, and yet, if we are too quick to kill, all the beauty of love is lost. This play is about killing, not for love, but out of misunderstanding.

References: Shakespeare, William. Romeo and Juliet. Dover Publications, 1993.

Percy Jackson, The Lightning Thief: The Godly Blood of a Misunderstood Pre-Teen (Finn)

 

Rick Riordan's iconic book series, Percy Jackson, needs no introduction. The 

series' debut novel, The Lightning Thief, begins by introducing the protagonist, Percy: a 

misunderstood 6th grader with dyslexia who soon finds out that he isn't normal. 

Following a series of supernatural encounters, Percy grows suspicious of his peers, and 

eventually finds out from his friend, Grover, that he is 'half-blood', or a demigod. More 

specifically, his father is Poseidon, the Greek god of the sea, and this discovery is what 

sparks the journey that the novel illustrates.

 

Once he was told this shocking news, the demigod embarks on a journey attempting to 

save the world by stopping a war in the underworld. Along his way, Percy encounters 

more supernatural obstacles where he uses his half-blood powers, repeatedly proving 

himself as he escapes defeat. The tense, shocking moments that the novel creates is a 

strong quality of the book that make it nearly impossible to put down. 

 

In all, The Lightning Thief’s core identity can be seen through Percy’s character; that, 

 

although he was labeled as a ‘troublemaker’ in a school setting, his half-blood journey 

 

repeatedly proved him persistent and fierce. And, although his teachers would most 

 

likely disagree, after reading Rick Riordan’s novel, their assumptions of him 

 

underestimated his character. Although the book was written for a younger audience, I 

 

would be lying if I said it didn’t have me hooked. If you want to find out the outcome of 

 

Percy’s journey, whether or not he stopped the underworld’s war or not, read The 

 

Lightning Thief.

 

 

(Sorry about the words surpassing the limit of the screen, I don't know why its doing that.)