Yuffie's Writing How-To's

How to AVOID ROMANTICIZING BAD THINGS

A common complaint to many stories lately has been "The author romanticized _______! That's a travesty!" And the critics turn into a giant mob with flaming pitchforks. I feel like this "romanticizing" thing came up after Twilight, where Stephanie Meyer was accused of romanticizing abuse. Then a lot of people put down John Green for so-called romanticizing cancer in The Fault in Our Stars. And there are probably a ton more examples, but those are the two big ones that immediately come to mind.

For the record, I believe Twilight was romanticizing abuse. The Fault in Our Stars didn't romanticize cancer. And hopefully by the end of this chapter, you'll see why!

First off, what does "romanticizing" even mean? Dictionary.com says "to make romantic". Thanks, dictionary.com for using the word in the definition.... So I click on "romantic", and several definitions come up, but the one we're looking for is: "characterized by a preoccupation with love or by the idealizing of love or one's beloved".

In layman's (or my) terms: Romanticizing something is making that thing desirable and ideal to have in a person, which makes them seem sexier or more lovable.

By that definition, claims of a book "romanticizing abuse" or "romanticizing cancer" are quite serious. When people say that, they're really saying "It's desirable to have an abusive boyfriend because him abusing me is sexy and makes him seem more attractive." or "I'll love you more if you have cancer."

As an aside, make sure you use the word "Romanticizing" correctly! Don't throw it at anything and everything, as I believe some readers of The Fault in Our Stars do. And if you hear someone say "so-and-so was romanticized!" don't take their word as doctrine without evaluating the evidence first.

What evidence you ask? Your friendly neighborhood Yuff is here to tell you!

We have to start with how not to romanticize something. Something won't be ideal or desirable if there are legitimate consequences to it. In The Fault in Our Stars, there were many, clear examples of the negative effects of cancer. The pain, the fatigue, the social stigma, depression, loss of hair, loss of entire limbs, the looming prospect of death, the actual death. These far outweigh any "pros" of cancer, which were meeting Gus and free trip to Amsterdam. And Amsterdam was a consolation prize for dying, so that really doesn't count.

Ladies and gentlemen, The Fault in Our Stars DID NOT romanticize cancer.

Now let's look at the book I love to rag on, Twilight. (Let me put out there that there are FAR worse books out there than Twilight, and the only reason I refer to it a lot is because most of you have either heard about it or read it, so it's the example that'll make sense to the majority of you.)

Anyway, it has the notorious scene of Edward disabling Bella's truck so she can't go hang out with her friends, whom he hates. Clear sign of abuse there, but is it romanticized? Ask yourself, were there any consequences for Edward because he abused Bella? Other than a pouty, lamenting Bella, no consequences. He never apologized (as far as I remember) or realized what he did was wrong. Bella eventually forgave him and continued to drool over him, and they lived happily ever after.

If something bad is being romanticized, there won't be consequences. So writing advice: if you want to avoid romanticizing a flaw/health issue/etc. of the love interest or another character, make sure there are significant consequences for it! Really as simple as that!

So what do you guys think? Did Twilight romanticize abuse? Did The Fault in Our Stars romanticize cancer? How about any other books you've read where critics claimed something negative was romanticized--has your opinion changed after reading this how-to? Share your thoughts in the comments!