Gothic Romance Forum, a Community for Gothic Romance Fiction and Literature Lovers

I've read many gothics and when I like an author, I start to read all his/her works (if I can find them). Sometimes, I find that the author reworks their plots and have different endings (sometimes, not so different). Sometimes, I find some authors reworking other authors' plots. It can become predictable, but if the author keeps me entertained, I don't mind. When it's poorly written, I find it difficult to continue, especially if I can predict the outcome.

On the other hand, I have collected many VC Andrews books and have never opened any of them. Having not read them, I cannot comment on their quality. I know some on this forum might not consider Andrews gothic, while many others would. I'd say her books do qualify, even if they don't meet everyone's expectations of a gothic.

I saw the movie Flowers in the Attic ages ago and it made me want to read the book, but I never did. After I collected the whole series and read the synopses at the back, I was disinclined to read them. I don't know why. Perhaps, it's because she reworks all the incest themes into her books and I find them unappealing. How much incest or supposed incest can someone tolerate? Do others feel this way? Do others have a problem with reading reworked plots?

I don't like reworked plots either, but it can help a lot when you don't read them back to back and forget about a lot of the details. Variating the genres is best. Unfortunately sometimes I'm curious to read a whole series of books one after the other and then may experience myself that curiosity kills the cat.

I read on other forums that more people suffer this effect and authors that started out being favorites like J.R. Ward, Janet Evanovich, J.D. Robb and Christine Feehan to name a few, had people complaining about the umtieth sequel they needed to read just because they once said they loved the series and now only want to know what happens to the main characters.

Andrews' "Flowers in the attic" was fresh and novel but in my opinion could have done without the sequels and the prequel as well.

In the mid 80s I read about 4 or 5 of the Flowers in the Attic books in a row...halfway through the last one I read I stopped and have never picked up another one. I guess it's all a matter of taste.

Victoria Holt is one who I think reworks her own plots. Personally, when I read traditional Gothic romances I'm reading it for the elements, not the plot, so I don't like ones set in exotic places, or "modernized". I want an old house or castle and lots of sinister goings on with a strong supernatural bent.

I've found that most of our current contemporary fiction writers, of any genre, are more concerned about turning out product rather than quality writing.

(10-04-2009, 09:44 AM)Monique Devereaux Wrote: [ -> ]Victoria Holt is one who I think reworks her own plots. Personally, when I read traditional Gothic romances I'm reading it for the elements, not the plot, so I don't like ones set in exotic places, or "modernized". I want an old house or castle and lots of sinister goings on with a strong supernatural bent.

I've found that most of our current contemporary fiction writers, of any genre, are more concerned about turning out product rather than quality writing.

I agree emphatically! I don't understand why it's so hard for publishers (or producers of any form of entertainment) to understand the simple rule of "If it ain't broke . . . "

Sure, one reader's traditional elements become another reader's clichés, and there's room for ever new and evolving treatments of subject matter. But that, in my opinion, should be in addition to, rather than instead of, the traditional model.

With Victoria Holt, I avoid those of her books set in places like Australia or Africa. Yes, I know that gothic novels set on the coast of Cornwall or the moors of Devon or Yorkshire are cliché stuff -- but that is what I want when I'm in the mood to read a gothic. And I definitely don't want the setting "modernized" to Los Angeles or anything that terrifyingly real. (Note to publishers: It's the escapism, stupid!)

---

(10-04-2009, 09:44 AM)Monique Devereaux Wrote: [ -> ]Personally, when I read traditional Gothic romances I'm reading it for the elements, not the plot

I would also like to zero in on this point, because it's an interesting and important one. While I do appreciate a well crafted, page-turning storyline, I also read gothics for those elements, maybe because they're so evocative of a world that seems more attractive than the real one.

One might say the same about many genres which, ironically, are considered essentially plot-driven. Mystery novels in the "cozy" genre -- the Miss Marple type -- are sought out by readers who wish to revisit the quaint and charming setting of a village or small town inhabited by the delicious threat of danger (although they know it'll all work out OK in the end). You could say the same about many genres, such as fantasy.

I think settings and atmospheric elements in a story are just as important to readers as a good plot, and they're important in a different way. Readers in a specific genre tend to focus on those elements consciously, whereas they only really take notice of the plot if it doesn't work. A good plot should be invisible -- it simply means you're living the story as it happens, and are not conscious of the author or this idea of a "plot". At least this is what I've inferred from hanging around reader discussion groups of genre fiction.

I have no problem with incest as forbidden love - it is Gothic theme and Romantic literature sometimes used sibling incest as symbol of idealized, pure love. About reworked plots... I read and watch Gothics for their atmosphere, created by sets, costumes and (in visual form) photography. Definitely no realistic, gritty stories of despair and filth. Couple of hours ago I watched Mr Sardonicus, 1961 film with quite effective Gothic atmosphere. It begins in foggy 1880 London and moves to Gorslava, a fairytale Transylvania of mist, castles, maidens with pretty dresses, evil aristocrats... It has good script by Ray Russell, based on his own short story - good because it allows the atmosphere of Victorian Gothic reign.