historical fiction,travel?

[saliotthomas]

If i may be so bold as suggesting a new pole ,it would be this one.I like romance but not as a genre.I find good romance is in "normal " classic fiction.Would you classify for exemple Jane Austen as romance?

Have any of you an interrest in it?

 

[Fantasy Moon]

Jane Austen is overrated romance.

 

[dele]

Jane Austen is not a romance writer, at least not by today's definition of romance. Her literature certainly has romance in it, but the happy ending is a by-product of the characters learning some greater lesson, not the goal of the story. Pride and Prejudice, for example, it not so much a love story as it is a lesson on class structure and the way of life in 19th century England. People are too obsessed with marrying up (or at least in the same circle) to give thought to being happy. When a young woman does win the affection of a man outside her station, his family and friends go to great lengths to seperate them. It is only when Austen's characters learn to get over their prejudices that they're able to find happiness.

 

[PipPirrip]

Jane Austen is not a romance writer, at least not by today's definition of romance.

What do you consider to be today’s definition of a romance? I ask as I am curious at what point does a novel stop being a member of a genre.

Personally, I am perfectly happy calling P&P a romance. Yes, it deals with issues of pride and prejudice as the story moves from boy meets girl to boy marries girl, but the basic backbone is there and the reader knows what the outcome is going to be almost from page one.

 

[Stewart]

I think the romance is more of that Mills n' Boon schlock than, say, yer Jane Austens.

However, historical is such a wide category in that it can be any genre, that it's not really worth having. You'd have The Name Of The Rose sitting next to Flashman sitting next to some Bernard Cromwell crap.

 

[silverseason]

You find plenty of "romance" in classic fiction because it is one of the staples of human life (romance, courtship, marriage, sex). But what does the author do with romance? He or she can use it to show the danger of illusion (Middlemarch) or the plight of the girl who has no possibilities in life but marriage (The Way We Live Now) or its possibilities for social gain (The Custom of the Country). Or many other possibilities.

The romance genre, it seems to be, concentrates on the romance as a good in itself with very little attention to these other matters and an obligatory happy ending.

 

[saliotthomas]

I think the romance is more of that Mills n' Boon schlock than, say, yer Jane Austens.

However, historical is such a wide category in that it can be any genre, that it's not really worth having. You'd have The Name Of The Rose sitting next to Flashman sitting next to some Bernard Cromwell crap.

Why not ,and so his scifi,the road could be in it,as well star whores(sorry!)stuff,or I m a legend.all genre are wide.so his romance!
As for the name of the rose it is good but some of his work are tedious ,to say the least!Flashman why not,once in a while.And Cornwell (cromwell was someone else all togethere) you should maybe try it sometime "The winter king" trilogy was'nt to bad.(guess you won't! )not far from Fleming;o'brian,and co.
This is the old debat about major and minor art and the snobery in litterature.Major art is often boring and interresting as minor is often cheap but entertaining!
I love both because i love books as a all,no border,no prejudgement.

 

[BeerWench13]

I love both because i love books as a all,no border,no prejudgement.

I agree wholeheartedly! I love to read. I read all genres and any author/book that interests me. I have found books that were tedious or lacked good plot/character substance, but that was only after I read them. Authors whose styles or stories I do not like, I simply don't read.

There are many books I find that can be classified into two or three different genres. A good example is Dorothy Dunnett's The Game of Kings.