Posts
I spent a few pleasant hours watching old cowboy TV shows during the weekend: Bonanza, Gunsmoke, and Rawhide. I grew up in Malaysia with lots of old Western shows and can pretty much hum the tunes from memory. Hokey as some of the sets and setting were, the stories still resonated and it was pretty amazing watching a plot unfold where no one took off their clothes or obsess about themselves. Of course, cowboys aren't talkative in the first place, so the dialogue was pretty sparse, LOL. I pointed this out to my friend and he said that was because things got solved so much easier in the old days--no nonsense, just shoot! LOL. But yeah, I get what he's saying.
So that gave me an idea about Hell and her commandos. I mean, being a GEM operative, she's just not used to working with all these guys so there's bound to be some kind of conflict.
Back on topic, though--at one time, there used to be a whole load of Western TV shows and historical romances set in the West. Not any more. Editors say that readers aren't interested in reading that period. I wonder how that came about.
I mean, there are still historicals set in that period, but they are very few compared to what we used to have. I wonder why readers suddenly stopped buying romances about the cowboy and the Western front? Is it because it's politically incorrect (Native American portrayals as well as depiction of black and Asian people)? That had never bothered me personally, even back in Malaysia, to watch Hup Seng run around with that funny accent. But I suppose I should be. And maybe that's why Western historical romances aren't so popular any more; too many "shoulds" and "shouldn't" dos to appease different groups of people.
Heck, look at my favorite movie, 300, at the moment. I truly enjoyed it for what it is: a great action epic done in comic book style, with lots of eye-candy. A touch of romance. Lots of male bravado. Nothing too deep, you know?
But already the intelligentsia and historical buffs are out in droves spitting and snarling about inaccuracies and political drivel mouthed by the characters. How dare they depict Spartans and Persians that way? Viewers might take that as the truth!
Seriously? I was twelve when I read Rosemary Roger's Sweet Savage Love, an epic historical romance that isn't in style any more. I was swept into that saga and was horrified at some of the things done to the heroine. So damn politically incorrect! Did I take it as the truth? Nah.
Seriously? Today I still enjoy Harlequin's Presents line, with its billionaires and princes seducing the heroines. Do I REALLY take that world as the truth? Nah. I love Helen Bianchin, but come on. How many gabillionaires does Sydney, Australia have? :-)
Do I really think everyone parties like that during the Regency era?
Do I really think everyone is always bathing in a Medieval era romance?
Nah.
After watching those episodes, with the Cartwrights and their protecting their land, with the sheriff in Gunsmoke, with the Texan cowboys driving a herd of cattle to sell in Rawhide, I miss the archetypal Cowboy in our romances very much.
Sure you can still find him in the archetypal Warrior (SEAL, commando, cop, Spartan hero) but it's not the same without the Wild West to tame. Now I'm going to have to pull out my old historical Lowells. Didn't she write some great cowboys or what?
So that gave me an idea about Hell and her commandos. I mean, being a GEM operative, she's just not used to working with all these guys so there's bound to be some kind of conflict.
Back on topic, though--at one time, there used to be a whole load of Western TV shows and historical romances set in the West. Not any more. Editors say that readers aren't interested in reading that period. I wonder how that came about.
I mean, there are still historicals set in that period, but they are very few compared to what we used to have. I wonder why readers suddenly stopped buying romances about the cowboy and the Western front? Is it because it's politically incorrect (Native American portrayals as well as depiction of black and Asian people)? That had never bothered me personally, even back in Malaysia, to watch Hup Seng run around with that funny accent. But I suppose I should be. And maybe that's why Western historical romances aren't so popular any more; too many "shoulds" and "shouldn't" dos to appease different groups of people.
Heck, look at my favorite movie, 300, at the moment. I truly enjoyed it for what it is: a great action epic done in comic book style, with lots of eye-candy. A touch of romance. Lots of male bravado. Nothing too deep, you know?
But already the intelligentsia and historical buffs are out in droves spitting and snarling about inaccuracies and political drivel mouthed by the characters. How dare they depict Spartans and Persians that way? Viewers might take that as the truth!
Seriously? I was twelve when I read Rosemary Roger's Sweet Savage Love, an epic historical romance that isn't in style any more. I was swept into that saga and was horrified at some of the things done to the heroine. So damn politically incorrect! Did I take it as the truth? Nah.
Seriously? Today I still enjoy Harlequin's Presents line, with its billionaires and princes seducing the heroines. Do I REALLY take that world as the truth? Nah. I love Helen Bianchin, but come on. How many gabillionaires does Sydney, Australia have? :-)
Do I really think everyone parties like that during the Regency era?
Do I really think everyone is always bathing in a Medieval era romance?
Nah.
After watching those episodes, with the Cartwrights and their protecting their land, with the sheriff in Gunsmoke, with the Texan cowboys driving a herd of cattle to sell in Rawhide, I miss the archetypal Cowboy in our romances very much.
Sure you can still find him in the archetypal Warrior (SEAL, commando, cop, Spartan hero) but it's not the same without the Wild West to tame. Now I'm going to have to pull out my old historical Lowells. Didn't she write some great cowboys or what?
Bear with me while I learn. The first button likes the POST. The second button likes the BLOG site. Please help me by "liking" me. Thanks!
5 comments:
Like you, I grew up watching all the westerns (ie Rifleman, Bonanza, Big Valley, Rawhide, Gunsmoke, etc.) I've been hearing that editors are looking for westerns. I know several have said they'd be open to reading a good one. So maybe they're about to make a comeback. :)
As an aside, I like your blog and have no problem reading it when I'm here, but when I receive it via RSS feed you can't read the yellow font against the white background. It's too light. :( Just thought I'd let you know, since a lot of people read blogs via RSS feed.
Hi Jordan,
Yes, I heard about historicals maybe making a comeback. I hope so too. And MEDIEVALS. I really love medievals.
I'm not sure what to do about the font color for RSS. The usual black doesn't read well with this green background and they don't give a choice for this particular template. I'm surprise RSS doesn't have an auto-control for subscribers that change all font colors to black. Let me think about this a bit, 'kay?
Sorry, Jordan!
Um, can I say Diane Whiteside? Her historical romances are going great guns and they're Westerns.
Re the intelligentsia's bitch fest on 300, I think that's par for the course. Isn't that the crowd that would deconstruct "Give me liberty or give me death"? Their problem is a hatred for Western civilization, IMO.
You don't think children learn history from the media? I think you're mistaken on that.
Here are some tidbits on Disney's Pocahontas:
From Steve Harvey's column in the LA Times, c. 1995-96:
When a portrait of a crinkly eyed Smith was shown on "Biography," our daughter Sarah, age 7, said, "Oh, my God! He's got a beard! He's almost bald!"
When a portrait of the Indian princess was shown, Sarah took one look at the somewhat plump, round-faced child and declared: "That is not Pocahontas."
During one commercial break, however, she exclaimed, "There they are," pointing triumphantly to the screen, where the voluptuous Indian maiden and surfer John were indeed frolicking. It was an ad for the animated movie.
And from another article in the LA Times, c. 1995-96:
The film's most important critics—those under 4-feet all—want to know why Pocahontas and John Smith couldn't live happily ever after.
"It was great, but I wanted them to be boyfriend and girlfriend," said Stephanie, 8, on Saturday.
"I didn't really understand why he wanted to go back to England," said Travis, 10.
"I liked the ending," said Erica, 5. "I liked the way Pocahontas ran to the top of the hill. But I would have liked to see her married."
Kathleen,
Yes, Diane Whiteside is great! I love her yummy cowboys.
Hi Rob,
Welcome!
We all have our kiddie dreams and ideas about things we see and hear. At nine years old, I was influenced by lots of incorrectly depicted historical stuff too: Jesus was white; the heart was in the middle of chest; elephants grew wings. That particular study you cited, FOR ME, is thus flawed. You and I know that there is a tricky balance in talking to kids that age about facts and fiction.
Unfortunately, the scales fall off quickly and kids become cynical overnight. Sure, I was brought up in a different era when cynicism in youth wasn't much heard of, but I knew, at 12, and this was without the ever-present Internet to google, that a story is just that--a story.
The DANGER lies in school, where history books (even today) depict "accurate" history as fact. Romance books are always labeled fiction and romance, Rob.
As for your disapproval of the movie 300, which I assume is what brought you here, I get it, but I don't agree with it. There is value in making a movie that generates so much interest in a historical incident. It could encourage a young person to:
1) read more about it
2) travel to distant lands
3) google for facts
4) talk about history
5) learn to debate about thematic undercurrents in movie and book
6) or workout like a maniac (hey, I'm all for males having better bodies these days)
Post a Comment