Unwrapping a Minor Rant on MERCY STREET. Shouldn't art imitate life?

One of the reasons I so enjoy historical romance novels, as well as most historically based novels and film adaptations, is because I love history. Having grown up in Virginia, I was taught more than my share of Virginia history as well as US history. Why? Because living in Virginia is living in the footsteps of all who came before us and settled this great country. As Virginians, we are surrounded by history. It’s difficult to journey anywhere in the state where there isn’t a marker, historical monument, or museum extolling the history of the area going back to Jamestown. It’s Virginia and I love it.

Because of my love of history, and because I grew up just south of Washington, DC and Alexandria, when I heard about the production of MERCY STREET for PBS, I was very excited. I’ve seen the first three episodes with three more to go. This is not a review of the show but a commentary on some rather snarky remarks made in a review of this series. Prepare yourself for a minor rant…well, trying to keep minor.

Blurb for MERCY STREET:

Inspired by real people and events, Mercy Street goes beyond the front lines of the Civil War and into the chaotic world of the Mansion House Hospital in Union-occupied Alexandria, Virginia. , Mercy Street takes viewers beyond the battlefield and into the lives of Americans on the Civil War home front as they face the unprecedented challenges of one of the most turbulent times in our nation’s history. 

Set in Virginia in the spring of 1862, Mercy Street follows the lives of two volunteer nurses on opposite sides of the conflict: Nurse Mary Phinney (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), a staunch New England abolitionist, and Emma Green (Hannah James), a naive young Confederate belle. The two collide at Mansion House, the Green family’s luxury hotel that has been taken over and transformed into a Union Army hospital in Alexandria, a border town between North and South and the longest Union occupied city of the war. Ruled under martial law, Alexandria served as the melting pot of the region: with soldiers, civilians, female volunteers, doctors, wounded fighting men from both sides, runaway slaves, prostitutes, speculators and spies.

The intersection of North and South within the confines of a small occupied town creates a rich world that is chaotic, conflicted, corrupt, dynamic and even hopeful — a cauldron within which these characters strive, fight, love, laugh, betray, sacrifice and, at times, act like scoundrels. This series is not about battles and glory; it’s about the drama and unexpected humor of everyday life behind the front lines of war. It’s a fresh twist on an iconic story, one that resonates with larger themes we still struggle with today.

~*~            ~*~               ~*~             ~*~

While reading a blog post at one of my favorite blogs, which will remain unnamed simply because I still like it and don’t want to get banned from it, I could not help but disagree with some of these particular ladies’ ideas regarding the series and in turn, historical romance.

The author of this review felt that MERCY STREET was ‘riddled with modern clichés, melodrama, and a bend-over-backwards attempt to show everyone involved in the Civil War as nuanced, complicated, and principled so as to result in none of the characters in the show being at all interesting or believable’.*

*This is not a direct quote, although close…as an editor, I can’t allow poor writing even to be quoted on my blog. J

Having watched the same shows as this reviewer had, who mind you normally keeps her reviews to costuming and not the overall production, I feel that her remarks are entirely too snarky. I thought about commenting on said blog but had I, I’m sure the reaction would not have been favorable. As I said, I’m a fan of the blog and so have no wish to alienate myself.

However, I took great issue with the statements in the review regarding the true history of the series. Seeing Union soldiers being anything but kind and considerate to the citizens of the city of Alexandria must most certainly be perpetuating a lie. The truth is that Union forces throughout the entire conflict held the city of Alexandria and that wasn’t just a few months, but years. The residents of the city were forced to live under martial law. Businesses were confiscated or shutdown if the owners refused to sign a pledge allegiance to the Union. Homes were confiscated and used for boarding troops, and there was no opportunity or remedy for refusal. Anyone caught doing anything the Union authorities thought unlawful could, and more times than not, be shot on sight. The Union were the victors of the War Between the States and so have been painted as the good guys in modern history books. Heaven knows that our Federal government would never allow such brash behavior to happen under its watch…now would it.

My greatest objection in this review was labeling the series as being riddled with modern clichés…in particular regarding the women in the series.

This review was critical of Mary Phinney for being portrayed as a wealthy widow, volunteer nurse, and a New England abolitionist. Well, the truth is that Mary Phinney was a real person in history. She was in fact a wealthy widow, her late husband being Baron Von Olnhausen…the characters make all kinds of snide remarks about it in the first episode. She was from New England, and she was very much an abolitionist. My question is why this reviewer felt that any of this was in anyway considered modern cliché. Are they implying that a wealthy woman, or any woman in the 19^th century, who no longer had the protection of a husband, must quarter herself away from society and not put her talents, abilities, education, and intelligence to good use?

Their next snarky, and rather ignorant, remarks were thrown at the character of Anne Hastings. This character was not real but she was based on the real Anne Reading who was actually trained by Florence Nightingale during the Crimean War. The reviewer thought her having a sexual relationship with one of the doctors too cliché. It makes me wonder if these ladies think that just because a woman has a vocation and no husband that she wouldn't crave the company of a man.

Anne Hastings and Dr. Byron Hale in bed. *oh my!*

This is where the connection to historical romance novels comes into play.

When defending romance novels, I will hear from those who think of them as fluff, soft porn, and little stories written by silly women and that historical romances are fairy tales and not historically accurate. Reading something like this review lends me to believe that there are some people, who are truly ignorant of history. Are we to assume that there were no sexual relationships outside of marriage other than scandalous affairs and prostitution? That any respectable woman of society who had sex with a man who was not her husband was most likely raped because God forbid she couldn’t have actually desired it.

Are we also to assume that before the 1960’s, there was no pre-marital sex, no sex for widows, for women unhappily married to womanizing men, that there was no homosexual relationships, or as named as another cliché by this review…drug use. All of these things only came about after the so-called sexual revolution of the 20^th century…and even at that, the latter part of the century because goodness knows, women certainly lived quiet celibate lives throughout the rest of it.

I told you this was rant. I object to people, men, and women pressing their politically correct versions of history onto every book, television, and movie production, which in turn, forces it on the rest of us. People have been people, human beings, sexual creatures, weak-willed, and unable to resist vices, emotional, dramatic, and just like the modern us throughout time eternity. Just because it’s not written that way in modern, politically correct history schoolbooks doesn’t mean that it was any different than it is now. The only difference is…we are supposed to be much more accepting of the nature of being human than they were in the last millennium.

What do you think? Is showing characters being human, submitting to their desires, their fears, their loneliness, and their vices simply cliché or is it just portraying real life as it was and is?

If you’ve seen the show, I’d love to know what you think about its accuracy. If not, I hope you’ll check it out. It’s really quite good.

Happy Reading Everyone!

MERCY STREET on PBS, Sunday nights at 10 PM. You can also see episodes at PBS online.

Unwrapping: FIFTY SHADES OF GREY by E. L. James

A few weeks ago, I saw and read more than one interview/article talking about E.L. James and her book FIFTY SHADES OF GREY. My interest, sparked by all of the controversy, led me to download a preview of the book to my Kobo. After reading the preview, I admit I was hooked. I wasn't hooked by the fact that the story centered around a relationship between a so-called older wealthier man and a so-called younger virginal girl or even that the story concerned BDSM (Bondage, Discipline, Sadism and Masochism), I was hooked because for some reason I just had to know what happened. It was like watching a train wreck - I knew it was going to happen, I knew someone was going to get hurt yet I couldn't look away.

This is NOT an actual review but more of a RANT about all of the hoopla surrounding this book so I hope you'll stick with me on this. I can't give you a review as I will not have read the whole story unless I read all three books.

I'm still confused about what exactly IS the controversy regarding this book. I heard some experts say that it was damaging to women. That a story such as this where an older wealthier man of power taking advantage of a younger innocent girl gives women of all ages a warped sense of romance. That a woman fantasizing about such relationships is dangerous to her sense of self-worth.

EXCUSE ME - did they read the book? Because I did and that's NOT what I read.

First of all, FIFTY SHADES OF GREY is NOT a romance novel - not in the true sense anyway. It's been said that this trilogy is a spin-off of sorts of the Twilight series. Although, this author makes it a contemporary minus the paranormal aspects, it's said she drew her original inspiration from the romance that existed between a hundred year old vampire and an innocent young teenager. Of course, I've also heard comparisons to the movie PRETTY WOMAN which I actually see more readily than any comparison to Twilight.
Quite often when I read Ana Steele begging for more from the relationship (she means emotional connection not beatings), I was actually reminded of Vivian, the prostitute, telling her millionaire client, Edward that she wanted more - she wanted the fairy tale.

Whereas with both the Twilight series and PRETTY WOMAN, I felt the emotional attraction as well as the physical and felt the romance surrounding the characters but in FIFTY SHADES OF GREY, you experience only angst, humiliation, anger, resentment and intimidation. There is no happy ending here. In fact, it ended with angry tears and a line that read END OF PART ONE. Imagine my disgust when after reading the entire book on my Kobo, I reached the last page and saw that. If I want to see if Christian ever gets his head out of his ass or if Ana ever grows a pair and tells him where to shove his so that they can possibly fall in love, I have to read two more books. SO EXPERTS - don't compare this book to Romance Novels. It is NOT one and never will be.

Secondly, everything I've read or seen in regards to this book talked about this OLDER wealthier man taking advantage of a YOUNGER VIRGINAL GIRL. 

Okay, Christian Grey is wealthy, very wealthy but OLDER? Read the book. He's supposed to be some kind of business genius who has made his millions and yet is only around 30 years old. Oh my, that's ancient, isn't it?

As for Ana Steele ... oh my, well, she is younger - a whole 8 years maybe, she IS innocent and a virgin, mainly because she's never ever been on a real date. She's a graduating senior from university and she's never really been kissed or much of anything else. That doesn't really make her innocent, it just makes her strange by today's social standards. She has extremely low self esteem and envies her roommate and best friend who has no problems getting action whenever and with whomever she pleases. You'd think after living together for four years, that some of Kate would have rubbed off on Ana, but it didn't.

Christian Grey is a controlling, self-absorbed, emotionally unavailable man who knows immediately that Anastasia Steele is a shy young woman with absolutely no self-confidence who is completely enamoured of him. Whether he is truly attracted to her or to her flaws which make her a perfect target for his dominating ways, I'm still not sure. Whether Ana is truly in love with Christian which is the only reason she submits to his rules and perversions, I'm still not sure. Frankly, I see a young woman with intelligence but lacking in social skills who finds herself intimidated yet completely infatuated with this handsome, intelligent, well versed and very wealthy man who shows her the first real sexually desirable attention that she's ever known. Is she in love with him? I don't think so. I don't feel it. I feel her lust, her need to win him, her need to convince herself that she is truly able to attract such a man. I feel Ana's need to be with Christian as a purely sexual one much the same way that Christian's only need to be with Ana is to satisfy his need to be totally in control of another human being.

Strangely enough, I found Christian Grey attractive except when he was knee-deep into his strange proclivities then my stomach turned as I read the passages. I found some of the BDSM scenes surprisingly sensuous but most of them made me tense and highly disturbed. In particular, the scene when Christian arrives at Ana's apartment after she sends him a sarcastic email. The author can call it what she wants but I read a rape scene that left Ana feeling used, humiliated, and emotionally crushed. Just because a woman is sexually aroused by a man, any man, doesn't mean that she wants the sex. Christian Grey doesn't make love, he doesn't even f--k as he refers to it - he TAKES!! He takes it when ever and where ever he wants. He may say that he is all about giving his Submissive pleasure through which he gains his own but I think he's full of bull and so is the author of this book. This is no romance but rather a study in emotional avoidance and sadistic control.

The author has set up Christian as a tormented, emotionally devoid man even incapable of accepting a gentle touch or any sign of affection. He hates to be touched. He's a man who claims he doesn't date or sleep in the same bed with a woman because he has no need to do so. We see Christian go against these rules with Ana which leads us to believe he might actually be developing human emotions in regard to her but at the same time, he treats her as an object. He approaches her with his offer to let her into his life, into his secrets yet when she informs him that she is a virgin, he's annoyed by this news. Instead of turning her away, he merely shrugs it off and proceeds to remedy the situation. Ana's first experience with sex is one where she is told she cannot touch him, she cannot do anything but lie there, her hands tied with his necktie, and allow him to do his thing. He keeps telling her that everything he does is for HER pleasure which, of course, she believes because she knows nothing else. She has nothing to compare his lovemaking to and so accepts it.

Christian wants desperately for Ana to enter into an agreement whereas whenever they are together or in his red room of pain, as she calls it, Ana is to submit to him in every way but only according to her own stipulations in the agreement. The only problem is that she never actually signs this agreement yet Christian begins to treat her not just as his Submissive when they are together but all of the time. I've researched BDSM enough over the years and seen enough programs referencing it to know this is not the norm. What Christian really wants from Ana is TPE - Total Power Exchange. This is a relationship where he is the Dominant and she the Submissive all of the time, 24/7 and it's not just a temporary, in the bedroom thing, it's all of the time. Christian monitors her every move, who she sees, where she goes, what she drives, what she eats and even what she wears. If she does anything at all that he doesn't like, he threatens her with punishment. Rarely, does he reward her when she does what he wants without his asking. Geez, Ana even mentally refers to him as a stalker. HELLO!

The most romantic, tender, caring thing he ever does is to take her for a ride in a glider which she later refers to as the most special moment of their time together. That certainly doesn't say a whole lot about the time they've spent together, does it? I kept hoping that Ana's enthusiasm for a normal relationship, her influence on him that made him actually want to sleep at her side and to date her, and to actually take her home to meet his family would result in Christian's defenses breaking down. I kept hoping he would curl up in Ana's arms and weep like the unloved child he feels he was. Christian is tormented. Tormented by the meager memories of the first four years of life which I can only assume held a lot of abuse which has left him incapable of showing affection or accepting affection. He sees a psychiatrist but frankly, I think he needs a better one. As for Ana, I think she needs to spend the night in the arms of another man, any man, who will treat her like a woman and not a whipping post.

You're probably thinking, 'geez, she really hated this book' - well, the truth of it is, that I honestly don't know yet. You see, I will admit that once I started reading it, it was seriously difficult to put down. It's been touted as highly erotic and explicit but frankly, I've read much more explicit sex scenes in some of our Happily Ever After Romance Novels than I read in this one. The BDSM scenes were not horrific just unlikable because of the way that Christian was presented in them. He gets aroused by stifling others, controlling others, and giving pain to others. He's not about truly giving pleasure to anyone, not even his family. I can't say if I like or dislike this story because I haven't finished reading it. I have to read two more books to know what actually happens and whether or not I will be satisfied with the end result. Will I read the other two books? I don't honestly know that either. I have not purchased them but I have read the preview for the second one, FIFTY SHADES DARKER and I have the preview for the third, FIFTY SHADES FREED available on my Kobo. At ten dollars a pop, I'll have to wait and decide at a later date if I'll read them - perhaps when I honestly have nothing else to read. But I will say this, FIFTY SHADES OF GREY did nothing for my thoughts of fantasizing and it certainly didn't lower my sense of self-worth. So experts, look for damage elsewhere because you WON'T find it here.

So what do you think of all the hoopla over this book? Will you read it? Have you read it? If you have, I'd love to hear what you thought of it. Please tell me if I'm way off base.

Happy Reading Everyone!!

I'd also like to welcome all my new followers to UNWRAPPING ROMANCE! I love meeting new folks and getting you into our conversations. Feel free to express yourself, we're all friends here.  : )

Unwrapping: Quiz Results and Rant Against a Romance Hater

Well, the results of the Quiz to find out which Romance Hero is your best match are in and the Swashbuckler has taken the lead with 50% of those who took the quiz being matched with him!

He's a man of honour yet wildly adventurous who enjoys a bawdy time with an easy woman as much as a sword fight. But once his heart is stolen, he will defend your honour with sword in hand as quickly as his own. Loyalty is his best quality. 

The next Hero to steal 25% of the hearts of my friends is the Gentleman Lord who is a man of good breeding, manners and speech. He's easily bored and so is always in search of something to take up his time and is not above seeking out any woman with whom he can while away his time. If you're patient and willing to keep him stimulated in thoughts and in activities, you will find this man most willing to stay happily at home and while away his time with you.

The Spy/Agent was the next man to steal away 17% of your hearts and I'm sure he's pleased about that - he doesn't really have time for more of you. He's a man of secrets, living for the thrill of the next mission that may or may not bring him safely back to your arms. He's a man who keeps his truest feelings close to the vest so as not to lose his edge. If you're willing to be patient and not ask too many questions, he might even share a few of his secrets. Once you capture his heart, his loyalty will encircle you with the greatest feeling of safety.

For the rest of you, it was the man who fights the darkness to keep us safe, the Paranormal Hero. He's so deeply immersed in the world of darkness and danger that he probably doesn't have more time to share with a woman. He only matched up to a mere 8% of you. Perhaps he's lonely as he has hones his skills to battle evil and keep the innocent safe. Still, if any of you are willing to venture into his world and are not too afraid of the things that go bump in the night, he might teach you some of his skills so that together you can battle the forces of evil. His love is true and your safety will always be his first priority.

Sadly, no quiz takers matched to the Western Cowboy Hero! Does this mean that we aren't that interested in that tall, lanky man who would rather spend his day with a horse than with his woman or that we are all seeking more danger in our Heroes than what a man of the open range can provide?

Thanks to everyone who took the quiz. I hope you had fun and found out a little bit more about yourself and what kind of Romance reading you might enjoy if you aren't already reading it.

Now, on to my rant against a Romance Hater, Cale McCaskey. I will try to keep this short and not too angry. Wednesday, I read a blog written by this man.  I don't want to give him any more recognition than I have to so if you wish to read his blog - Google him. But I do wish to express my opinion of the trash he spouted in this post since he was hard at work deleting comments that he didn't like so I was unable to express my opinion directly to him. 

He began by insinuating that it doesn't take much more than a child's reading level to read romance novels and that:
"What the modern reader needs to understand is that romance novels by their very nature are meant to be inferior."  Really?

He went on to remark that:
"I think it's safe to say that no Ivy League school will ever teach out of romance novels as part of the curriculum."  Then perhaps you should check with Cornell because I found it in their Doctoral Program.

His next brilliant observation was in regards to JANE EYRE:
"No one would call Jane Eyre a "romance novel." It would instead be referred to as a "classic love story." The very thing that separates classic love stories from romance novels is that romance novels must by default be bad, tacky even, or they'll no longer be classified as romance novels and will get placed in a higher category." 
A Romance Novel is defined by its ending - a Happily Every After - and since Jane and Rochester do live happily ever after considering the hardships they faced after the destruction of Thornfield and Rochester's injuries, I've always considered it a Gothic romance.

His final remark in his original post was the real kicker:
"I find it difficult to respect something that is purposely meant to be a lessor work. One should always strive to do great work. If an author classifies their own story as romance, that tells me that even they don't think much of it. That being the case, neither should we."

I can only ask Mr. McCaskey if he's ever read a Romance Novel and if so, which one? There are many varieties within the genre, and even more sub-genres within the genre, therefore many different kinds of writing styles. To judge all writers by one standard is not only ludicrous but a generalization by someone who has not sampled a large variety of writing styles.

Finally, I read through some of the comments that he did leave available on his post and after an intelligent, most likely, well-read woman asked him if his 'thesis' also applied to all other trashy forms of entertainment not found in an Ivy League curriculum such as listening to pop music instead of classical music, he responded with a statement that would have Bach, Beethoven and Brahms spinning in their graves.
"Classical music, by the way, is nothing but jazz being played incorrectly."

I'm not even going to touch that one except to say as someone who greatly appreciates Classical music and believes that Jazz is played by wannabe musicians who don't read music ... each to their own.

Mr. McCaskey, if you do read mainstream fiction by authors of a so-called 'higher standing' then you would know that many incorporate scenes of romance and sex into their stories. And many times, more often than not I might say, those same characters are still together at the end of said story, even if it's in death. Perhaps it's something you've yet to experience, and very possibly never will carrying around such a hatred for romance, but most of us already know that sometimes love does survive when all else is gone.

To my dear followers and friends, thank you for listening and keep on reading. We know the truth that the Romance genre is one of talent, entertainment, escape and pride. I've always believed that those in the world who feel the need to denegrate others usually do it out of envy and a feeling of self-importance.

Happy Romance Reading Everyone and hope you have dreams of which ever Romance Hero you were matched to and if you haven't taken the Quiz yet, click here to give it a try!!