DIALOGUE DILEMMA

-
Oh, now there’s a good question.

Elaine pointed out that there were places in BRITANNIA where ‘the dialogue drops me back into the 20th Century’. That is a fault I have to correct, because there should be no jolt. All of the dialogue should be modern, the slang and references should all be immediately recognizable to today’s reader. It is obvious, though, that some colloquialisms are a step too far – Studmuffin.

I spoke once to an editor who found anachronisms like this extremely jarring. She mentioned a western story, where a Native American character ‘inched’ forward. Others don’t notice, or don’t mind so much. One reader commented that the dialogue was like standing in the same room listening to people speaking.

I will have to let you into a poorly kept secret. Many of the characterizations, situations and dialogue in these stories are reactive. Most appear directly as a result of a strong dislike of preset frameworks accepted in Romance fiction. Not in the formula itself, in the ‘norms’ that have developed.

The dialogue is my reaction against the pseudo classical dialogue I found in so much Historical Romance. Quazi Austen; almost but not quite. Then in some Roman historicals I found characters speaking what I’ve come to refer angrily to as pseudo-dago. Some form of insulting non-specific Mediterranean-ish dialect which not only disrupts normal syntax, but is even occasionally accompanied by mispronunciations. Intelligent Romans – but they don’t speaka so good English.

There is also this thing with the depiction of Celts especially in pop culture, as filth covered semi-Neanderthal creatures living in mud and sod huts even into the C3rd and C4th. Primitive and dirty. Not too bright. Not as human as us. It’s a pet peeve.

The result for me was historical figures in a historical framework who speak and act much as someone you might meet tomorrow on the street.

Then there is the villain in HISPANIA as a rapist. Sorry, that is a direct reaction against my visceral hatred of the idealization of sexually violent and abusive men. I can’t hear anymore about the rape fantasy being the one and only erotic ideal in modern women’s fiction. There are 10 well defined common female sexual fantasies. [I point out here a distinction from specific erotica based on BDSM. Separate issue, different genre.]

I can’t stand it.

I can’t stand the notion that if a man is sexually violent, verbally and emotionally abusive, a drinker, gambler and womanizer –a rake - all he needs is a woman who loves him enough and he’ll come good.

I’d say the thousands of women a year who die in Domestic Violence incidents could argue persuasively against that ideal. If they weren’t dead. Worldwide 30%-50% of all women experience DV, 70% of female homicides are DV. Yes, that means you are twice as likely to be murdered by the ‘rake’ you love as by a stranger in the street at night.

It is alright to have a misogynist or a malignant narcissist as hero. Quite acceptable. But a rapist as antagonist is pushing the limit, I’m afraid; not allowed.

Also, my boys have a fair degree of sexual self control. That too, is a direct result of the poor chaps who people Romance novels and who gad about in a state of painful priapism from the moment they see the heroine. I never knew, growing up, that if a man discovers a persistent groaner throbbing away in his trousers; it is evidence of his deep and eternal devotion. All those boys I could have lived with happily ever after, if only I’d recognized the sign.

Last of course is Magic Dick. That’s an illusion where lovers spring together and pound away to the 1812 Overture - and fireworks light up the sky. I wish I had some magic dick.

I don’t dis Romance novels. They are very popular. I just cannot write them to accepted form – I react.

L.
-