 |
| Hans Bellmer, The Brick Cell |
There are probably a number of outstanding erotica writers out there who have written delicious novels full of BDSM kinkiness wondering why their royalty checks don’t look anything like those of E.L. James. This post is an attempt to explore why that is, and how the Erotic Romance genre is, philosophically and politically, almost the binary opposite of Erotica.
You would think that genres which predominantly focus on the nasty things two or more people get up to in bed would be closely related. Superficially, and commercially, they look very similar, but readers know they are not. Underneath the hood, ideologically, they stand almost in opposition to each other, despite the subject matter they share.
Modern erotic romance novels conform to the mythic structure of a classical comedy described by Northrop Frye. People meet, they become lovers, chaos ensues, but social order is finally restored in the form of a wedding. Although most erotic romances no longer end with a wedding, the ‘Happily Ever After’ convention is maintained through the explicit culmination of the romance in some sort mutually agreed upon serious and long-term emotional commitment to each other. By the end of the story, we are left with a stable ‘family-like’ unit. We go from order to chaos to order.
Even when the pairings in an erotic romance are non-normative, i.e. gay, lesbian, bi or trans romances, they still ultimately pay obeisance to the prevailing cultural dominance of a ‘normative’ relationship structure: two people, together forever. Even when the story revolves around a menage, it either ends with a pair at the end, and the third party neutralized somehow, or an hermetically sealed threesome that, for all intents and purposes, results in a place of domestic order.
No amount of wild, kinky or transgressive sex in the middle can mitigate the final conservative outcome of a neat, socially recognizable and culturally settled bond. The outcome of all these stories is essentially a conservative one. One that supports and perpetuates the prevailing social order.
I cannot recall who said it, but one very famous murder mystery writer once said that her readers were people who had a very passionate love of justice. No matter how gruesome the murders or thrillingly evil the murderer, he or she is inevitably caught and made to answer for the crimes. The convention of the genre demands it. The readers expect it and are left disgruntled and unsatisfied when the implicit promise of the narrative is not delivered.
I would echo this by suggesting that, no matter how explicit, licentious or debauched the sex, erotic romances promise something similar. These two individual characters with their chaotic taste for erotic adventure find each other and this perfect matching up of desires neutralizes whatever destabilizing influences they might have on society. The inevitable pairing at the end guarantees the reader a return to emotional and sexual order. Erotic Romance lovers are essentially ideologically conservative in their appreciation of a restoration of the social order.
But, according to Georges Bataille (the French writer and thinker who spent more time considering eroticism that almost anyone else on the planet) this conservative social order and eroticism are almost mutually exclusive. Eroticism, said Bataille, is a uniquely human phenomenon that results from an excess of sexual energy. (Unlike almost all other animals, humans indulge in sex far more than the continuation of the species demands. Our instinct to have sex might be procreative, but our desire to have it far outstrips the needs of nature.) This excess, this eroticism, is a dangerous and destabilizing force, he said. Which is exactly why all cultures, in one way or another, have attempted to control the effects of this energy and why so many of our religions, taboos and customs are especially focused on matters of sexuality and violence. Foremost amongst the mechanisms used to control these desires is the institution of marriage and the promotion of monogamous, procreative relationships.
Bataille, Lacan, Zizek, Deleuze, and others have made interesting observations on how one of the most effective ways to control humans within society is through work. Work occupies us, distracts us, commits us to the social order. Spouses, mortgages, and 2.3 children turn out to be a very good way to keep us occupied, working to support them. So the myth of the romantic ideal of the permanent single partner whom we lust after in perpetuity and love eternally serves that hegemonic structure well. Perpetuating that myth through erotic romances encourages us to aspire to that myth in reality, make it our loftiest of all goals, and ultimately to internalize and validate that authority and its rules of social order with enthusiasm.
But the reality is that eroticism is a fleeting, liminal human experience. It does not – cannot – last long. And it would not be so attractive or precious to us if it could. Erotic heights are by their nature impermanent, chaotic, and fundamentally transgressive. Our greatest erotic experiences occur right at the edges of the limits imposed not only from without (in the form of prohibitions, taboos and religious interdictions) but more importantly, at our inner limits of the rules of behaviour we have internalized. Erotic ecstasy is the place where we lose ourselves, not just to another, but to the structured world. This, of course, cannot be sustained. Or rather, it can only be sustained in death.
A person who gives themselves permission to enter this state of erotic rebellion is an anathema to the fabric of social order, since none of the rewards that society can offer them have any value in that moment. They are in a state of revolution against the stable, against categorization, against limitation, against even language itself. And this is what lies at the heart of all the best erotica. This essentially transgressive, anarchic, unconstrained state of being.
It took me a fairly long time to fathom why I, as a writer and reader, had such a deep antipathy toward the narrative structure of erotic romance. What’s wrong with me? Why don’t I like a good love story? Why can’t my characters end up blissfully happy and together forever? I have come to feel that the underlying text of the story-form of the erotic romance is a type of conservative social propaganda. Not ‘unfeminist’ as some feminists have claimed, but simply reflective and supportive of the status quo as regards all our positions as productive, functioning and controllable members of the current social structure.
I am, at heart, deeply anti-authoritarian. And although in my everyday life, I am a quite a law-abiding, acquiescent citizen, I am not interested in taking that part of my world into my fictional writing.
The eroticism that does interest me lies in the opposite direction: that place of impermanence, transgression, and dangerous erotic experience. Its very instability is what I find so blindingly beautiful, intriguing and exciting.
So it is really not so very surprising that, despite the veneer of transgressiveness, Fifty Shades of Grey has done so much better than well-written, more erotic, more informed pieces of erotic fiction. Because beneath all the surface naughtiness, E.L. James’ ‘global shocker’ strongly reinforces a very stable and conservative social order. And, the truth is, most readers are far more comfortable with that.
(And before anyone jumps all over me, I would like to underscore that I’ve used the word ‘conservative’ to mean ideologically at home with the status quo and traditional social structures. I haven’t accused anyone here of voting Republican.)
Hi again, Keziah:
I was giving your comment a little more thought, because it really is packed with wonderful challenging thoughts!
"On the other hand as you point out, the structure of story regardless of genre is essentially conservative, as it establishes narrative order. "
I think you touch on something very interesting here. Does a satisfying narrative's order have to mirror the social order in order for readers to recognize it as 'order'?
Huge question. That's gonna take a lot of pondering.
Dear RG,
I do adore your mind. But I think in the case of this post you are allowing your own perspectives on eroticism to color your conclusions.
"The eroticism that does interest me lies in the opposite direction: that place of impermanence, transgression, and dangerous erotic experience. Its very instability is what I find so blindingly beautiful, intriguing and exciting."
I agree that capturing this sort of cataclysmic, ecstatic, world-destroying experience is one function and one type of erotica. But not the unique function. This is the sort of erotica to which you personally gravitate, but I'd maintain it's not the only type out there.
One flavor of erotica that definitely doesn't fit this niche is the tearing, unfulfilled longing variant. My definition of erotica is literature that focuses on the experience of desire. In my view, desire does not need to be reciprocated or consummated in order to be erotic.
You also sound as though you'd maintain that any erotic story with a happy ending doesn't deserve to be labeled erotica – but when put that way, I suspect you'll have to agree that's nonsense, even though it might not be the sort of erotica that lights your fire.
Erotic romance does have more stringent conventions than erotica. Much of it (to me) seems hackneyed and repetitive. But not all of it. I think it's possible to write something genuinely erotic – and surprising – within the strictures of the genre.
I also feel that you're overemphasizing the propaganda aspect of the HEA – even when it includes marriage. Many women (who constitute the bulk of the romance reading community) view marriage as a desirable state (and I have to say that after 30 years with the same guy, I can't knock it). It pleases them to read about characters bonding, making commitments, marrying, and starting families, not because that's what society wants (after all, does society really support M/M/M BDSM menages?) but because it's what the readers PERSONALLY want.
I don't think it's valid or fair to imply that a desire for order is in some sense inferior to the preference for the chaos to which you subscribe. However, that's one way your post could be read.
Some kinds of order (polyamory, for instance) are as subversive as chaos.
This was very thought provoking and helped me examine hidden assumptions about what "Happily Ever After" really means. My partner and I are heavily into BDSM. I see a good relationship being one where there are cycles of romance and erotic satisfaction fueled by personal growth. Comfortable is the enemy of the erotic so there needs to be a balance over time.
Exceptional, intelligent piece, RG, along with some very thoughtful comments, including those that disagreed with your original point. A lot to think about here. Well done, and a great discussion.
Hi Lisabet,
"In my view, desire does not need to be reciprocated or consummated in order to be erotic"
Oh, I'd agree with you completely there. In fact, unconsummated, it can turn into some very strange stuff indeed.
"You also sound as though you'd maintain that any erotic story with a happy ending doesn't deserve to be labeled erotica"
Um, that's not what I said. There are a lot of happy endings, but they all don't require a pairing for eternity. The only one I'm discussing here is a traditional HEA – love proclaimed, pairing committed to. Certainly this is not the only possible happy ending. But it's the only one acceptable under the 'erotic romance' genre conventions.
"I think it's possible to write something genuinely erotic – and surprising – within the strictures of the genre"
I think this is entirely possible, and I believe it is called 'resistance from within'. A very interesting challenge for those who set out to do it.
As to my overemphasis of the propaganda model of HEA, your objection that many women see it as a desirable state, and that they enjoy having their choices confirmed in fiction pretty well makes my case. I'm not sure how you can really believe that what someone 'personally' wants is not coloured or moulded by dominant normative cultural examples.
And I think society is far more likely to tolerate M/M/M BDSM menages when it is represented as a hermetically sealed love bond than when it is not.
"I don't think it's valid or fair to imply that a desire for order is in some sense inferior to the preference for the chaos to which you subscribe."
I'm sorry, Lisabet, but here I fear you are bringing your own issues to your reading of my text. I don't in any way suggest that a desire for order is 'inferior'. I suspect you read the the world 'conservative' as having negative values. That's not the way I'm using it (A even which I foresaw – hence the addendum to the end of my post).
Polyamory, etymologically, infers an ordered arrangement of sexual relations involving love (amory). The fact that someone felt the need to invent that word to give that state legitimacy, is telling in itself.
If one has any value for the democratic reading preferences of the masses, then eroticism contained and constrained within a permanent love bond seems to be the overwhelming preference of the majority a far as fictional narratives go.
Why the reading masses need to demand that their fictional aspirations mirror their real-life aspirations so closely is my question. And here, I see a powerful propagandistic force at play.
Um, that's not what I said. There are a lot of happy endings, but they all don't require a pairing for eternity. The only one I'm discussing here is a traditional HEA – love proclaimed, pairing committed to. Certainly this is not the only possible happy ending. But it's the only one acceptable under the 'erotic romance' genre conventions.
These days, this isn't completely true. Erotica and erotic romance are muddling together in some very interesting ways.
I'm sorry, Lisabet, but here I fear you are bringing your own issues to your reading of my text. I don't in any way suggest that a desire for order is 'inferior'. I suspect you read the the world 'conservative' as having negative values.
Am I wrong in thinking that it does, for you? Your comment that true eroticism in an erotic romance constitute "resistance from within" suggests that you see romance conventions as a prison. And isn't it your primary thesis that the desire for a HEA stifles the essential element of the erotic, i.e. chaos? Which you view as sublime, or at least more valuable as a human experience than order?
(Or perhaps, as you say, I'm reading these opinions into your essay.)
Hi Lisabet,
"Your comment that true eroticism in an erotic romance constitute "resistance from within" suggests that you see romance conventions as a prison."
I didn't describe 'true' eroticism. I relayed a description of eroticism by Georges Bataille and others.
My comment about 'resistance from within' was in response to YOUR paragraph:
"Erotic romance does have more stringent conventions than erotica. Much of it (to me) seems hackneyed and repetitive. But not all of it. I think it's possible to write something genuinely erotic – and surprising – within the strictures of the genre."
Lisabet, since I don't write HEAs at all, I have absolutely no idea how it feels to write within those conventions. The rather dramatic description of working within those conventions as a 'prison' is entirely yours. So, again, I would say that you are projecting opinions onto me.
I think I made it plain, at the end of my post, what kind of erotic experiences I found of interest to write about. I don't believe that constitutes a statement that any other form is LESS valuable. I did not say that continuing a traditional narrative form was bad. I just said it was conservative.
Such interesting discussion. I'm not sure what I can add, except that I think that if in fact, the big question is: Why are most of us so interested in having our fictional aspirations mirror our real-life aspirations? Then it's highly likely that the answer is: Because certain fictional aspirations just might hold the keys to making certain real-life aspirations come to fruition. The allure of having a seemingly endless amount of road maps, in the form of erotic romance novels (as accessible and as seemingly private as our handheld e-reading devices, no less), of how to have even one fulfilling intimate relationship, on multiple levels, is hard to resist. Having said that, I'd venture a guess that this is one of those so-called "First world problems" as it's highly probable that anyone living in extreme poverty or constant strife or repression, has no interest in reading fictional accounts of such things. Just my two cents.
Hi Angela,
I think your assumptions about people living in poor, developing nations is not entirely accurate.
Most Bollywood plots mirror the traditional romance plot almost exactly.
Oh sorry, I didn't make my last statement very concise. What I meant by "such things" was extreme poverty, constant strife or repression. Who wants to read about what they're already living when it's god-awful? I believe that people unfortunate enough to be living in such dire conditions absolutely want to read books about and/or view films about romance in all its forms, which makes perfect sense. Thanks for starting such an interesting discussion.
This is just so very apt, and it's certainly not just erotic fiction. I know a lot of people who get angry with Hollywood for always churning out the same, story, with the same structure, and the same final satisfaction. But it's not hard to understand why.
Great post on Erotica !!!
RG, I think you have expressed what makes many of us writers of erotica uneasy about writing erotic romance (to earn money or even to get published at all). You have outlined exactly why basing a long-term relationship on sexual attraction alone (or even on sexual attraction as the main ingredient) is likely to have disappointing results in real life & seem less than credible in fiction. However, most people seem to need the stability of relationships, including friendships. The question of how to handle conflicting desires seems to be one of the big dilemmas of life, prob. not completely resolvable.
IMO, the compromise of writing erotic romance about unconventional pairings (not the inescapable male dominance & double standard of traditional heterosexuality) is still conservative in a sense, but its aim is to stretch the cultural status quo.