I couldn't get through The Two Towers, either. But I loved the language in King Arthur. At least, in the version I had.
Natter 58: Let's call Venezuela!
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
I guess I think of romance as knights and dragons and long, episodic narratives, not Austen. I may be using a different definition of romance.
Jorge Amado, though he was lighter on the fantasy and heavier on the sex and romance than most magical realism.
Also very macho writer - very male chauvinist by todays standards, though considered somewhat feminist in his cultural context. Wonderful regional writer - marvelous picture of the society, great warmth, great humanity marvelous characters, marvelous poetic language.
I would compare him on women's issues to Mark Twain on racial prejudice. Genuinely horrified by the injustice of men's treatment of women, genuinely unable to see women as equals.
Like Mark Twain you have to decide if the virtues compensate for the vices - though poetic in a way Twain never was.
Very political. Anti-war, anti-censorship, anti-racism, pro-working class. A romantic in both the best and worst senses of the word.
To me, Austen is the most typically romance of what's been discussed--at least for the modern genre definition as opposed to the medieval sense.
I'd like a contemporary US playwright who wrote a comedy, juliana. And one that is thought of as semi-canonical. I mean, Sam Shepard is the right demographic but the wrong genre.
There's an interesting article about the evolution of "romance" as a genre here: [link]
Gawain and the Green Knight would be fun. Nice and creepy and gory.
Does the playwright have to be American? Samuel Beckett comes to mind.
Also, I will ask ND. A big chunk of his MFA was focused on 20th century American theater.
Burrell, I'm with you on the romance front. I mean, Possession doesn't work under the medieval front at all (and someone at the College Board makes an interesting case for it here [link] but it might be nice for all of the secondary works to be the traditional medievally defined Romance as a contrast point.
Someone argued that Siddharta was a romance in that medieval sense because it's got journey, hope, heroism. I was like, "Dude left his wife and kid alone for YEARS. Are you shitting me!?" That's like saying the BIBLE is a romance!
Okay, there's the distinction. Medieval romance is totally different than the current definition of romance novel.
To me, P&P is quintessentially a novel because it simply plays around with the tropes of traditional romance in an entirely new, and much more realistic, context.