But keep in mind that you're mentioning the handful that worked, and worked well enough to be remembered. Out of how many attempted?
Far too fond of a good debate not to jump right on this. Can we really use numbers to prove that Y successes out of X attempts proves a rule that Y doesn't really happen? Because I'm going to rebut that by using the same rule, the slushpile-to-purchase factor, much less the slushpile-to-really good factor proves that there is no such thing as a good book. (very toothy grin)
The Lord Peter books were mysetries, first and foremost.
As were Nick and Nora and the good Steeles, and so forth. Yes, the romance is not the driving factor of the plot, but it is a significant subplot. Too significant to entirely discount as a motivating factor, particularly when worked into the plot - Busman's Honeymoon, Gaudy Night, the college reunion episode of Steele... I'd even make a tortuous argument for Northanger Abbey here, although the only mystery lay entirely in the mind of a young, not-too-bright girl.
Now if you want to argue that a book that is romance first and mystery second doesn't work particularly well as opposed to one that is mystery first and romance second, then there's not too much I can say to rebut you - the only romance-first mystery I know off the top of my head is Ashford's The Bargain, and it rises like a wonderful souffle - only to fall just as souffle-like at the denoument.
But getting back to the original thread, how about saying "romance is character, mystery is plot, F/SF is worldbuilding"? Because what makes us reread a book when we already know whodunnit? The characters, which haven't come up yet in the discussion of genres.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: A rebuttal! A rebuttal!
Date: 2004-02-08 09:09 am (UTC)Far too fond of a good debate not to jump right on this. Can we really use numbers to prove that Y successes out of X attempts proves a rule that Y doesn't really happen? Because I'm going to rebut that by using the same rule, the slushpile-to-purchase factor, much less the slushpile-to-really good factor proves that there is no such thing as a good book. (very toothy grin)
The Lord Peter books were mysetries, first and foremost.
As were Nick and Nora and the good Steeles, and so forth. Yes, the romance is not the driving factor of the plot, but it is a significant subplot. Too significant to entirely discount as a motivating factor, particularly when worked into the plot - Busman's Honeymoon, Gaudy Night, the college reunion episode of Steele... I'd even make a tortuous argument for Northanger Abbey here, although the only mystery lay entirely in the mind of a young, not-too-bright girl.
Now if you want to argue that a book that is romance first and mystery second doesn't work particularly well as opposed to one that is mystery first and romance second, then there's not too much I can say to rebut you - the only romance-first mystery I know off the top of my head is Ashford's The Bargain, and it rises like a wonderful souffle - only to fall just as souffle-like at the denoument.
But getting back to the original thread, how about saying "romance is character, mystery is plot, F/SF is worldbuilding"? Because what makes us reread a book when we already know whodunnit? The characters, which haven't come up yet in the discussion of genres.