#on romance

[nixscriptum]

[charl0ttan]

my joy is a romance with a world i had no choice but to be born into. and my love is a romance with a humanity i dont inherently claim for myself

[starseekerstar]

Of course their bond transcends one of friends, siblings and even lovers. It is too intense and too intimate to even try to shove it in one box. But unfortunately romantic is the highest form of love in our society, so that is what they'll have to settle for.

[wtf-is-hockey]

I've been reading your Reid critiques and it's been really fun getting to learn about what makes a good story a good story (by proving the converse lmao). It is disheartening to see that the source material for the show I like is so subpar but I feel like at the end of the day I can't be so critical of Reid because her work is just fluffy airport smut , it's not actually supposed to be good quality writing. that's why when you get upset that rrs editor let this stuff go through my thought is always.. well yeah it's a cheap money grap/playing with paper dolls for a hyperspecific consumer(who isn't going to care about plot, abelism, racism or homophobia). the editor let it pass not because it hit the minimum threshold for social commentary and good writing, but it hit the minimal threshold of someone will carry this from the bookshelf to the cash register.

and it's unfortunate that it has gotten elevated to be held at a critical standard (because it doesn't hold up) and its unfortunate that it is now part of the conversation in social commentary (because it is doing harm). but at the end of the day I don't really hate her for writing bad or not improving her craft throughout her books, because I don't think that has ever been one of her interests. you can see that she isn't really posting about writing tips or inspiring authors and stories, she's still just playing with her paper dolls.

sorry this got long, tldr I don't blame her for being a bad writer(its ok for bad writing to exiat), just for being a bigot and for getting famous, I love your analysis and sorry you had to suffer through those books.

You must be new here.

I have responded to this exact argument many times before (1, 2, 3, 4, and these were just the examples I could find).

I am deeply opposed to the argument that it's "just" romance or any variation thereof. It's "just" a silly beach-read. It's "just" hockey porn. It's "just" smut.

To begin with, there is no genre that is beneath quality because there is no genre that is beneath any other. Arguing that it's not fair to expect quality from these books because they're "just" fluffy airport smut shows a contempt for the genre I don't share. I don't look down on romance. I don't think it's lesser. It's a box like any other to categorize stories by theme, but nothing about it poses any less potential for quality than any other genre. I am not expecting these romances to be literary. I am not using the words "quality" and "literary" here interchangeably. I am critiquing these books based on the conventions of their genre. I'm not expecting them to accomplish anything that is not genre-appropriate. But nothing about romance's conventions are mutually exclusive with quality unless you consider shittiness a convention of romance itself and I don't.

I'm aware it's a cheap money-grab made for an audience that doesn't care about craft. This, to begin with, is not unique to romance. It isn't as though the publishing industry reserves the money-grabbing for romance because romance's audience alone has no interest in craft. Secondly, typically an audience doesn't care about craft the same way the creator in theory does, and this does not absolve the work from critique, nor does it make any sense that it would. But I fail to see how this defends the books anyway. What you are saying is that because the audience doesn't expect better, there's no reason to demand better. That logic doesn't track for me.

The average streaming service TV show is nothing but a money-grab for an audience that doesn't care about craft too, but for some reason, I don't see these same kinds of protests being made when people complain about getting fewer episodes in a season, shows getting cancelled after one season, scripts being written with the assumption viewers are on their phone, shows becoming ever more formulaic and palatable or shows catering to fan service at the expense of the quality of the show. I could make a similar comparison with movies. It is apparently fair to demand streaming services or studios to stop making shitty cash-grabs but not, for some reason, fair to expect publishers to stop publishing cash-grabs because it's "just" romance, the designated trash genre I guess (And why do you think it is that the romance genre is considered the genre beneath quality? You think it's a coincidence that one of the only genres that is very nearly completely written by women is the trash genre that no one expects better from?).

No, it isn't unfortunate that it's being held to a critical standard or that it's become part of a social commentary. You say this like it's something that was never supposed to happen, but that isn't true. All art makes a social commentary and none of it is exempt from criticism. By virtue of being art, these books were always meant to be part of a commentary and were always meant to be critiqued. Commentary and critique are inherent to the creation and consumption of art.

I don't hate her for writing badly or not improving her craft either. I have said before that in a perfect world, everyone everywhere would be able to publish their writing regardless of quality and I wish we lived in that world. I would rather not have to choose who "deserves" to be published because I don't truly believe anybody deserves it more than anybody else. But we live in a world in which a finite number of books are going to be published by any given publisher, and that means that who does and doesn't get published is always going to be based on some metric, and I would prefer that metric, if it's going to exist, to be quality instead of popularity, since when it's popularity, a white woman who doesn't know how to write and apparently doesn't even have enough passion for her craft or genre or stories to feel any need to improve them gets published instead of a writer of color, a queer writer, a poor writer, who all have not only the passion but the skill, who are writing incredible works that will never get appreciation because their writers' don't have enough followers on TikTok.

I can't believe it is apparently controversial for me to say "It shouldn't work like that." I can't believe how many people defend it anyway, and how when they do, they treat it like an inevitability that isn't worth bothering with. Well, it is to me. I went to school for this. I teach this. My life revolves around this. Good writing gives me a reason to live. I'm not exaggerating when I say that the thought that keeps me from killing myself more than any other is all the good writing I haven't read, and all the writing I have yet to do. None of this will ever be "just" to me and if a finite number of books are going to be published, I would prefer publishers publish writers who don't think of their own art, craft, genre as "just" either. Reid doesn't have to be "interested" but as long as we live in a world where she gets the recognition and compensation for phoning-it-in while another writer who is far more passionate and skilled will go forever unknown, in many cases because they are far more marginalized, I am going to criticize her for not giving a fuck.

In short, I criticize Reid the way I do because I have respect and love for writing as a craft, romance as a genre, and, believe it or not, Reid's books. Nobody spends this much time taking books apart and examining all their pieces and finding which parts are broken or in the wrong place or don't belong there if they don't, ultimately, love those books in a way.

[softest-punk]

what are some romance classics from, like, the 1900s or even later? Do you know? I'm stuck in the 1800s with what I studied in English lit at school

The thing about romance is that for a variety of reasons it is a genre which does not, typically, produce classics in the way other genres might. Nothing you studied in English Lit at school could reasonably be likened to a modern romance novel; category romance is a surprisingly young genre.

I am going to assume here that by "the 1900s" you mean the whole 20th century vs. the years between 1900-1910 because in the latter case we will be in trouble because romance didn't really... exist, as a genre yet.

We have to start here by mentioning the early queen of the romance novel: Georgette Heyer, who was writing Regency romance in the 1960s. These books read like they were written in the 1960s in terms of the romantic and sexual mores presented in them, which makes them the kind of thing one has to read with their historical imagination in gear.

Then we hit the 1970s, when romance REALLY takes off as a genre. These were your bodice-ripping highland lairds and pirates and vikings or whathaveyou, and this continues into the 80s only now Fabio is on the cover. These were fundamentally mass-market products, they were always conceived as products rather than literary works, and they read like it. And again: the romantic and sexual mores are these books are of the period in which they were written. These are not books a contemporary reader unaccustomed to them would read for fun, generally speaking.

Contemporary romance takes off in the 90s. The epitomising example of this would be imho Bridget Jones's Diary and I think this is where we hit enjoyable for a modern reader not otherwise accustomed to vintage romance. This is where I'd start if I was looking for an in-road to understanding the romance novels of the past. I would still probably not, as a new reader of romance for pleasure, start here.

Romance through the 90s and into the 00s stays basically like this until Fifty Shades of Grey comes along in 2011, and the genre is changed forever. I could not reasonably call Fifty Shades a good book but I also think Jane Eyre sucks ass as a novel while being able to see the important moment it represents in literary history. Fifty Shades is like that. We're back to bodice rippers but now we know some BDSM words.

I'm going to stop my potted history here because I started writing romance novels in 2009 and I refuse to think of anything after that point as vintage.

All that said: if one wanted to start reading romance for pleasure, I'd advise them to start with whichever book du jour appeals. Pick a trope you enjoy and head over to the Amazon search bar with "[trope] romance" & pick one of the results in the usual fashion. You can get the book elsewhere but they're the only retailer with a functional search.

Romance is not a genre where I'd start with the "classics" for fun because enjoyment of it is so extremely personal. I love romance with all my heart and I would not read 99% of it voluntarily because I simply do not care to. Handily there are so many romance novels being published on a daily basis that I will still never run out of TBR pile.

[kitschy]

[avelera]

It sounds so self-obvious when you say it aloud, but the key to writing romance is that the characters need to be into each other.

I've seen so many so-called "romances" in mainstream movies and shows that somehow fail to achieve this very simple principle. Usually they're het romances but not always. I've also seen established lgbt+ couples who we're told are married but who never show any particular interest in one another to confirm this supposed love in a show-don't-tell manner.

Below the cut I want to explore how to write love (romantic or otherwise), what makes it work in fiction, and the important difference between why characters fall in love vs. why they choose to pursue or stay with the person they fell in love with, because those distinctions matter.

Let's quickly touch on failed fictional relationships before moving onto functioning ones. Because the thing is, it's important to flesh out relationships and romances if they are written into the story even if they aren't the focus of the story or they are doomed to fail as part of the plot.

I see it a lot of times in fictional relationships that are clearly plot points and so the author doesn't bother to invest in them. If a relationship is established with the protagonist just because this current partner is going to break up with them, thus launching our actual romance plot, then there's a temptation not to fully flesh out that doomed-to-fail relationship.

But to skate over the failed relationship is a missed opportunity for a writer. Relationships reveal a great deal about us, as do failed ones. Even if the relationships don't work out, we get the chance to learn what the protagonist is looking for in a relationship, what didn't work in the failed one, and we get to learn more about their love language. This also requires that we see these romantic partners are into each other, or were into each other, and how, before it went sour. Even if it's one sided and doomed to fail, we need to see what the infatuated side of the pairing was into about the other person. Even if it's just physical, that too is revealing.

Romeo was in love with Rosaline before he fell in love with Juliet. But we don't skate over what he loved about her. We learn that Romeo frequently falls in love, he's often impetuous in love (which we will see carried forward later in the famous balcony scene with Juliet). We learn that he is poetic about that love. We learn how much he loved Rosaline, and whether or not we believe he was in love or think that love is wise, it is important for establishing later, when he meets Juliet, the order of magnitude difference between his love of Rosaline and of Juliet. One left him broken-hearted when he lost her, but he quickly recovered. But Juliet? He was willing to die for love of her. The love of Rosaline set up the contrast in how Romeo loves that would be massively important to the impact of the story later.

I bring up this example because many years ago in a high school lit class, the teacher said that Shakespeare never explains why characters fall in love, and so writers don't have to explain why characters fall in love.

It didn't quite sit with me right, because I think it's only half true. The full maxim, and what writers today can learn with regards to romance is:

You don't have to explain why characters fall in love. You do have to explain why they stay together and/or pursue that love.

Actually, it's often better to not explain why a character fell in love. It's ineffable. It just happens. How often have we met or been introduced to someone who is, on paper, perfect for us with similar interests and compatible families or lifestyles, only to not feel any sort of spark? How many grand romances, in contrast, are about people who on paper are terrible for each other but just can't seem to quit one another and keep being drawn back together?

This doesn't just have to apply to romantic love, by the way. How many people are inevitably drawn back to toxic or abusive parents, even though they know this person has a negative impact on their life? How many people stick it out for friendships that damage their health and self-esteem, all out of love?

Again, you don't need to explain why someone loves, but you do need to explain why they pursue it or stick with it. The reasons can be societal, they can be because of guilt, they can be because of adrenaline, or because of long history together, or if it's a successful romance, it can be because they don't just love each other, they also really really like each other!

Now, this might seem somewhat inherently self-contradictory. I'm saying you have to show that people are into each other but that you don't have to explain why they fell in love??

But showing that people are into each other is actually about why they pursue it and stay with the person. The falling in love itself is simply the gravity between them, the magnetic bond, what draws them together. In fiction, we want that to be powerful, overwhelming, inevitable. If the story is about love, we need to see why these people can't walk away, or can't walk away for long, or are miserable when they do. They are drawn to each other, powerfully, destructively or gloriously.

But you can be drawn to someone without having a single conversation or knowing anything about them. We initially fall in love with our image of a person, what they mean to us, what we think they will be in our lives. Real love is about learning who the real person is and continuing to love and to like that person. Real long-term love is loving that person even when they change from the one you first met, and they love you too as you change. But the opposite of love is not hate, it's apathy. The love is the pull.

Why characters are into each other, or why they like each other, is the force that makes them continue to pursue that person. The love itself can be the thing they're into, by the way! "I can't get this person out of my head, I can't put it in words, but they haunt me and I'm into them for that," is a totally valid way to build a romance or character relationship without any other things that they like about each other!

But as said, it can and probably should be more than that in a successful love story. The construction of the love and like of the relationship can also be Love + Long History + Physical Attraction + Deep Understanding. Gomez and Morticia Addams love each other, they'd love each other if the other was unconscious, they'd love each other to the grave and beyond. But they're also into the fact that they're both incredibly extra romantics who love demonstrating their fascination to each other, in ways presumably no other partner could keep up with. They waltz at odd hours, engage in thrilling sword fights, raise a family together based on their shared worldview, and stare deeply into each other's eyes at every opportunity. They don't suffer one another, they adore one another's presence and quirks and foibles. They are seriously whackadoodle into each other and we see it in the joy they take in one another, how much they like each other in addition to that love.

Characters who are in love should be obsessed with something about the person. Remember, these aren't real people, I'm not giving real world relationship advice. This is fiction. You can write a tepid relationship but it will be sort of boring to read. That might be the point! The tepid relationship might be in contrast to your protagonists, for example!

But my point is that in all fictional relationships there should be something in which the characters are each other's biggest fan. In mother/daughter familial love, they might love one another's outspokenness on what is important to them, we can see their eyes shine when the mother or her daughter gives that big important speech, filled with love and pride for them, and encouraging their outspokenness at every turn, inspired by it.

If the love is between two brothers, related or otherwise, we might see that love in darker times. A brother has to pick up the other from jail. It is painful, heartbreaking, but he can't turn away, he can't not do it. That's love. But, maybe the brother he picked up cracks a joke on the ride home, makes the other laugh despite himself, and suddenly, he remembers the good side of the love too, that his brother can always make him laugh. This is important because it shows us not just that these brothers love each other, but why they continue to interact with each other despite the pain and disappointment. That might actually be tragic rather than happy. One brother might not be able to escape because of the other's ability to make him laugh. That too is love, not just the magnetic attraction of it but the reason it continues to draw them together inevitably, that ability to understand one another and make the other laugh, when he really should probably walk away for his own sake.

The reason so much slash shipping exists in fanfiction is because very often, platonic love is fleshed out in the mainstream more often between two same-sex characters with greater depth than romantic love. A mainstream show might present us with a couple who we are told are attracted to each other and from there the writers assume that is enough to explain why they got together. Nothing deeper. No spark of liking one another in addition to wanting one another.

But in a buddy cop film, the buddy cops are usually obsessed with each other. They stand up for one another when the chips are down, they save one another in moments of peril, they look into each other's eyes and discuss what is important to them in life, like solving the mystery they're working on, and in doing so find understanding with one another's worldviews. That is infinitely more satisfying as a love story than simply telling me that a beautiful Barbie and Ken of main characters have slept with each other and therefore are dating and "in love".

Obsession is key. But don't get too bogged down in how the love exists. It exists because that's love. And we are fascinated in fiction by powerful love of all sorts. We love characters who don't just suffer each other but are into each other, ludicrously, obsessively, even tragically. Turn up the love to the whackadoodle maximum and break off the knob and I guarantee, you will at the very least have characters that people will watch with interest. We love characters who are obsessed with something, or someone. Their love reveals to us what is lovable about that character or thing, it makes us love them.

And then, because love alone is not always enough, show us the joy that keeps them coming back to each other. Show us some good times mixed in with the bad, tragic as they might be for how they prevent the cutting of ties that maybe should be severed. Show us why they can't give up and walk away. Show us too why they like each other. That is what draws a good love story together.