What are the Unwritten Rules of Romance Writing?

Jam

Got the hang of it, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
101
Reaction score
27
Location
please don't stalk me. thanks
Deb said ((The Christian romance reader does want spunky in terms of heroines,))

This is what i mean, Deb, we're all writing the same snarky, brave, determined, direct, kickass type of girl who has some avocation outside of wife/mother.

I'd like to write about some of the women who WOULD have existed and thrived in male dominated REAL history - the sly, manipulative, clever, but demure ones don't appear in our books because we don't relate to them. Give me a games playing harem girl or the alpha wife in a Chinese home...Machievelli would shudder.

Unlike the rest of the world of fiction, a romance heroine HAS to be someone the average reader likes and can imagine as herself (ie, bella = generic american any girl)
 

Mr Flibble

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
18,889
Reaction score
5,029
Location
We couldn't possibly do that. Who'd clear up the m
Website
francisknightbooks.co.uk
I'll take a stab at some unwritten rules, if you take them with a grain of salt, they're not truly universal.

1. The heroine can't kill anyone.

Oops. Done that. Um, twice.

{She has to wait for the hero to do it? Oh puhlease. If I saw that, I'd throw the book for her being TSTL. Heroine taking care of business does not emasculate the hero. If you do it right}



4. Generally the violence in a romance novel should not exceed an R or NC-17 rating even if it is a steamy romance where the sex scenes would rate an M. Especially, do not start the book with a graphic rape or gruesome murder. The theme of romance is naturally an optimistic, even bucolic one, and the plot of romance is not typically high-tension/high-stakes, with the possible exception of the climax. Starting with violence and/or horror doesn't create the correct 'contract with the reader' for a romantic story with a HEA.
Oops. Goes with number one really, because she kills the guy in the first chapter while he's trying to...you get the picture


The 'correct contract' is 'the contract you wish to create'. And that means one thing. Show the reader early what sort of book it is. If the book will be violent, show that early, because otherwise, if it suddenly goes from fluffy bunny land to gruesome torture half way through, you're going to piss people off. If you're upfront about it, anyone turned off by it will turn to a book that is more their taste.

Now I suspect you're talking more about contemp romance. If so, and those really are the rules, that's probably why I don't really read it :D



5. You can't use the same main character for multiple books. You can write a series, but you have to switch main characters to someone single. It is bad form to either not give the main character an HEA in the first book, or to disrupt that happiness to create a new conflict in the second book.

Semi oops (I had a new romance and disrupted happiness/conflict in the old one too for the second book).
 

Cathy C

Ooo! Shiny new cover!
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
9,907
Reaction score
1,834
Location
Hiding in my writing cave
Website
www.cathyclamp.com
job's list of unwritten issues is a good one. I'd add a few others:

Laughing AT people. The hero and heroine can laugh with or about the other person (especially the other romantic lead), they can be annoyed at them and fume, but they can't be disrespectful. This goes to the 'cruelty/malicious' issue.

Romantic Tendencies. The hero or heroine can start out busy, or forgetful or thoughtless (at times) but can't be HEARTLESS. You must provide at least one romantic bone in their bodies to build on. This is different from cruel. Just like you shouldn't have a psychopath as the romantic lead (Dexter notwithstanding, because that's not a romance show), you also shouldn't have a true sociopath---who truly doesn't "get" the concept of romance. That's just too hard for the reader to get next to, because anything you do will feel forced. The people must have the capacity to FEEL romance.
 

job

In the end, it's just you and the manuscript
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 27, 2005
Messages
3,459
Reaction score
653
Website
www.joannabourne.com
he says something about "taking himself in hand every night" because she drives himself so nuts.

Oh giggle.

I do think, though, that there's a particular American sensitivity to the subject.

I don't always understand American mores.
 

job

In the end, it's just you and the manuscript
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 27, 2005
Messages
3,459
Reaction score
653
Website
www.joannabourne.com
First two paragraphs of my current book:
. . . a steady supply of batteries for her B.O.B.—battery operated boyfriend—didn't actually need one.
.

I love this . . .

Unwritten rule: Thy heroine shalt not be married. If she is married, then hero should be her estranged husband.

Now there's an important 'rule' I should have listed. 'She shall not commit adultery.'
 
Last edited:

job

In the end, it's just you and the manuscript
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 27, 2005
Messages
3,459
Reaction score
653
Website
www.joannabourne.com
I recently read a book where it happens and it works really well. The book is ONE DANCE WITH A DUKE by Tessa Dare.

ODWAD has a prominent place on my endlessly expanding TBR shelf. I am even more eager to get to it now.

I'm currently reading your 1st book and am very entertained. I'm a French teacher so the French heroine and setting made me cheer.

Oh my. Thank you so much.
I have the most recent book -- Forbidden Rose -- up for grabs today, [Thursday,] at the WordWenches site.
Just saying . . .
 

greta2242

Registered
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
24
Reaction score
3
It might be the genre that we write.
If a man and a woman can satisfy themselves, why does one need a partner? And if one doesn't need a partner, what's the point of looking for one? And if one doesn't need a partner in one's life, then one doesn't need that thing called love? And if one doesn't need that thing called love, what's the point of romance?!?

Maybe I over think it or maybe I understand just a little too well, but I tend to think less of romantic heros or heroines if they are satisfying themselves. The questions above go in my head. I want to read and write romantic encounters where individuals fall in love at the end.

And yes there are definitely exceptions to every rule in this thread.
 

Satori1977

Listening to the Voices In My Head
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
5,975
Reaction score
662
Location
I can see the Rocky Mountains
It might be the genre that we write.
If a man and a woman can satisfy themselves, why does one need a partner? And if one doesn't need a partner, what's the point of looking for one? And if one doesn't need a partner in one's life, then one doesn't need that thing called love? And if one doesn't need that thing called love, what's the point of romance?!?

Maybe I over think it or maybe I understand just a little too well, but I tend to think less of romantic heros or heroines if they are satisfying themselves. The questions above go in my head. I want to read and write romantic encounters where individuals fall in love at the end.

And yes there are definitely exceptions to every rule in this thread.

But masterbation is not the same thing as love or companionship. The point is that men and women can satisfy themselves very easily (sometimes better than a partner, especially if it is a new partner, because you should know your own body very well). Doesn't mean you don't want a relationship, someone to spend your life with. A person to talk with, laugh with, grow old with. One has nothing to do with the other. Many people in healthy, happy relationships satisfy themselves from time to time for a variety of reasons.
 

greta2242

Registered
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
24
Reaction score
3
But masterbation is not the same thing as love or companionship. The point is that men and women can satisfy themselves very easily (sometimes better than a partner, especially if it is a new partner, because you should know your own body very well). Doesn't mean you don't want a relationship, someone to spend your life with. A person to talk with, laugh with, grow old with. One has nothing to do with the other. Many people in healthy, happy relationships satisfy themselves from time to time for a variety of reasons.

This is why Erotica is also romance. And I agree that sex and love are not the same thing. But I know when I read characters having sex on page 1, I'm always doubting the sincerity of the love. I prefer the romantic build up. I don't mind sex in the middle of the book at all. But when I read a book or write, I much prefer the anticipation. If in the meantime the hero/heroine are talking about masturbating, as I reader I would just assume the character is horny. Horny does not equal love.
 

Soccer Mom

Crypto-fascist
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
18,604
Reaction score
8,039
Location
Under your couch
I think it's silly if a novel pretends masturbation does not occur. I read one recently where the hero walked around with a massive, painful woody because he wouldn't sleep with the heroine (his wife, BTW) for the most convoluted reasons, but he was going to her room every night and bringing her to pleasure (yes, it was a Regency) Then afterward, he lays in his bed groaning and drinking brandy. I kept thinking "You still have hands, moron!"
 
Joined
Aug 7, 2005
Messages
47,985
Reaction score
13,245
Maybe I over think it or maybe I understand just a little too well, but I tend to think less of romantic heros or heroines if they are satisfying themselves. The questions above go in my head. I want to read and write romantic encounters where individuals fall in love at the end.
I hope I'm reading you wrong, but are you suggesting someone who masturbates cannot still be in love with another person?

That's definitely not understanding 'too well', if my impression of your post is correct.

All of my characters masturbate. I do. My girlfriends do. Sexual pleasure doesn't always have a direct connection to romantic love, but neither does being a wanker prevent one from also being a lover.
 

Mr Flibble

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
18,889
Reaction score
5,029
Location
We couldn't possibly do that. Who'd clear up the m
Website
francisknightbooks.co.uk
I did read a (very hot btw) erotic romance that was a LOT of masturbation, because,well, you'd have to read it. Healer's Touch by Kirsten Saell. Totally worked for me, because he was really hot for the girl but...and she was hot for him but...and then, because of Plot Issues, because he feels he can't touch her, she taunts him by...

You get the idea. Damn that book gave me a hot flush. Or six. I'm fanning myself just remembering it.
 

CheekyWench

O.o
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
1,445
Reaction score
2,313
Website
www.elysabethwilliams.com
It might be the genre that we write.
If a man and a woman can satisfy themselves, why does one need a partner? And if one doesn't need a partner, what's the point of looking for one? And if one doesn't need a partner in one's life, then one doesn't need that thing called love? And if one doesn't need that thing called love, what's the point of romance?!?

Maybe I over think it or maybe I understand just a little too well, but I tend to think less of romantic heros or heroines if they are satisfying themselves. The questions above go in my head. I want to read and write romantic encounters where individuals fall in love at the end.

And yes there are definitely exceptions to every rule in this thread.

do huh?

I guess mine historical/time travel (cough cheap plug, coming out this month, cough, end cheap plug) has TWO masturbation scenes... one for her and one for him. They're both thinking about the other person, who they are deeply in love with.
So.. there.
:Wha:

I suppose I'm the exception.
 

sunandshadow

Impractical Fantasy Animal
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 17, 2005
Messages
4,827
Reaction score
336
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Website
home.comcast.net
This is why Erotica is also romance. And I agree that sex and love are not the same thing. But I know when I read characters having sex on page 1, I'm always doubting the sincerity of the love. I prefer the romantic build up. I don't mind sex in the middle of the book at all. But when I read a book or write, I much prefer the anticipation. If in the meantime the hero/heroine are talking about masturbating, as I reader I would just assume the character is horny. Horny does not equal love.
The characters who are having sex on page one aren't generally supposed to be in love then, usually they fall in love over the course of the story (assuming it's an erotic romance we're talking about). Personally this seems satisfying and realistic to me because it's how my own relationships would progress, I can't see really falling for someone I haven't slept with yet. Even if you have a crush-at-first-sight on someone, it won't mature into real love unless you get to know them really well by building up an intimate relationship. Intimate doesn't have to mean sex, but certainly having sex with someone does give you a window onto their inner thoughts.
 

Bubastes

bananaed
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 7, 2006
Messages
7,394
Reaction score
2,250
Website
www.gracewen.com
I recently read an erotic romance (Talk Dirty to Me) where the hero and heroine masturbate during phone sex. They don't actually get together until the very end. Masturbation was essential to the plot -- the story wouldn't have worked otherwise.
 

greta2242

Registered
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
24
Reaction score
3
The characters who are having sex on page one aren't generally supposed to be in love then, usually they fall in love over the course of the story (assuming it's an erotic romance we're talking about). Personally this seems satisfying and realistic to me because it's how my own relationships would progress, I can't see really falling for someone I haven't slept with yet. Even if you have a crush-at-first-sight on someone, it won't mature into real love unless you get to know them really well by building up an intimate relationship. Intimate doesn't have to mean sex, but certainly having sex with someone does give you a window onto their inner thoughts.

Yet friends of mine who are NOT Christian right just last week married. They were both in their 30s and I know she's definitely not a virgin. But they did not have sex before marriage, and I'm going to assume that they are this week as it's the honeymoon period. You, the singular person. are not everyone on the planet. And not everyone who decides not to have sex before marriage are simply in crush states. If that's how YOUR mind works, it doesn't blanket the planet.

When I write yes my characters have lots and LOTS of issues. I suffer from lots and LOTS of issues. Either way writing romance is the sunny side of relationships and not the nitty gritty. What you do on your own time is your business.
 
Last edited:

greta2242

Registered
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
24
Reaction score
3
I hope I'm reading you wrong, but are you suggesting someone who masturbates cannot still be in love with another person?

That's definitely not understanding 'too well', if my impression of your post is correct.

All of my characters masturbate. I do. My girlfriends do. Sexual pleasure doesn't always have a direct connection to romantic love, but neither does being a wanker prevent one from also being a lover.

If one is to quote and attack, quote the whole post. There was a whole thought process that went before that part that you decide to quote...who said that people cannot love without masturbate? Masturbation has it's place, but it's not exactly romantic at it's core UNLESS it's written extremely well.
 
Joined
Aug 7, 2005
Messages
47,985
Reaction score
13,245
If one is to quote and attack, quote the whole post.
Oh, that was no attack. That was a request for clarification, which didn't, if you'll pardon the pun, come.
There was a whole thought process that went before that part that you decide to quote...who said that people cannot love without masturbate? Masturbation has it's place, but it's not exactly romantic at it's core UNLESS it's written extremely well.
In your opinion.

Plus, I did not say people cannot love unless they masturbate. I asked if you were saying people who masturbate cannot love.
 

san_remo_ave

Back at it
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,336
Reaction score
628
Location
Middle TN
Website
www.elainegolden.com
Yet friends of mine who are NOT Christian right just last week married. They were both in their 30s and I know she's definitely not a virgin. But they did not have sex before marriage, and I'm going to assume that they are this week as it's the honeymoon period. You, the singular person. are not everyone on the planet. And not everyone who decides not to have sex before marriage are simply in crush states. If that's how YOUR mind works, it doesn't blanket the planet.

When I write yes my characters have lots and LOTS of issues. I suffer from lots and LOTS of issues. Either way writing romance is the sunny side of relationships and not the nitty gritty. What you do on your own time is your business.

Oh, wow. Um, I don't think anyone was judging your frame of reference on the subject of masturbation, Greta. IMO, it was just someone else sharing their opinion. You're each entitled to your opinion. Respectfully.

If one is to quote and attack, quote the whole post. There was a whole thought process that went before that part that you decide to quote...who said that people cannot love without masturbate? Masturbation has it's place, but it's not exactly romantic at it's core UNLESS it's written extremely well.

To try to get this back on topic: I don't believe that masturbation is an 'unwritten rule' to avoid in romance. Some folks may not prefer it, as discussed above, but it very much does exist and is published.
 

Billingsgate

Disappointment to my mother
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
271
Reaction score
31
Location
Hong Kong
Website
www.humorist.net
The characters who are having sex on page one aren't generally supposed to be in love then, usually they fall in love over the course of the story (assuming it's an erotic romance we're talking about). Personally this seems satisfying and realistic to me because it's how my own relationships would progress, I can't see really falling for someone I haven't slept with yet. Even if you have a crush-at-first-sight on someone, it won't mature into real love unless you get to know them really well by building up an intimate relationship. Intimate doesn't have to mean sex, but certainly having sex with someone does give you a window onto their inner thoughts.
I'll offer a man's POV here. I've been lurking around this thread because it's one of the best threads I've ever seen on AW.

However, I have to say that I find the above attitude is what I don't like about most contemporary romances. Who says sex is necessary for a deep, satisfying pre-marital relationship? Sex doesn't give one any more "window into their inner thoughts" than any other sort of shared activity. In fact, I think sex obscures people's real feelings, simply because it's an easy way to SIMULATE intimacy.

Interestingly (and surprisingly) of the people I know who have been married 20+ years and still consider their marriages to be very passionate, around half did not have sex before marriage (including my wife and me; we went out for two years, no sleeping together). This topic came up at a party once, so that's the extent of my scientific inquiry, but the results are interesting nevertheless. None of the people I refer to are fundamentalist Christians (I'm an Agnostic Jew). Perhaps the fact that such relationships cultivated the love and romance WITHOUT relying in any way on sex can account for the passion and longevity in the relationships.

Yet the irony in the romance genre --one of the "unwritten rules", it seems--is that if you have a hero and heroine who don't sleep together, it's consigned to the "Christian" romance back shelf. Very disappointing. I've read a number of contemporary romance novels, some quite elegantly written. I'd say three-fourths of them would have been more emotionally moving without the obligatory sex.
 

san_remo_ave

Back at it
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,336
Reaction score
628
Location
Middle TN
Website
www.elainegolden.com
I'll offer a man's POV here. I've been lurking around this thread because it's one of the best threads I've ever seen on AW.

However, I have to say that I find the above attitude is what I don't like about most contemporary romances. Who says sex is necessary for a deep, satisfying pre-marital relationship? Sex doesn't give one any more "window into their inner thoughts" than any other sort of shared activity. In fact, I think sex obscures people's real feelings, simply because it's an easy way to SIMULATE intimacy.

I absolutely agree with your point that sex isn't "necessary for a deep, satisfying pre-marital relationship".

The essential point I read in sunandshadow's post was (bolding mine):

Even if you have a crush-at-first-sight on someone, it won't mature into real love unless you get to know them really well by building up an intimate relationship. Intimate doesn't have to mean sex, but certainly having sex with someone does give you a window onto their inner thoughts.
And I do agree with sunandshadow that INTIMACY is critical between two people to love, however that is built. For some people, they establish intimacy more easily by emotionally opening up to each other, but for others physical intimacy is the first to establish. Neither is wrong, it's just different for different folks.

Yet the irony in the romance genre --one of the "unwritten rules", it seems--is that if you have a hero and heroine who don't sleep together, it's consigned to the "Christian" romance back shelf. Very disappointing. I've read a number of contemporary romance novels, some quite elegantly written. I'd say three-fourths of them would have been more emotionally moving without the obligatory sex.

Sex does sell, which is why it is so prevalent in the genre. However, there is still sweet romance out there. Barbara Metzger rights fabulous sweet Regency. I've never thought that sweet had to equal Christian category.
 

Cathy C

Ooo! Shiny new cover!
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
9,907
Reaction score
1,834
Location
Hiding in my writing cave
Website
www.cathyclamp.com
Just a word from your friendly neighborhood moderator [puts on flaming pink, feathered Moderator hat that Mac insisted we all buy]: The discussion on this thread is very interesting and has taken a turn I didn't expect. It's a good turn and there are interesting insights. But let's keep the discussion civil. We're a VERY polite room here in romance and, unlike some other forums on the board, don't tolerate name calling or flames.

greta2242, this:

greta2242 said:
You, the singular person. are not everyone on the planet. And not everyone who decides not to have sex before marriage are simply in crush states. If that's how YOUR mind works, it doesn't blanket the planet.

is treading very close to the line of uncivil. You're new, so call this a gentle reminder. Let's all remember that we have opinions and our personal opinions can be very firm and unmoving. But so long as we respect the opinions of others (whether or not we AGREE with that opinion) we'll be good.

[takes off Mod hat, because it's itching]. Back to your regularly scheduled discussion. :)
 

ellisnation

Rhiannon Ellis
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Messages
271
Reaction score
28
Location
wisconsin - the snow state
Website
www.rhiannonellis.com
Sex or no sex? Depends on what the reader wants out of the story.

Clean stories tend to focus more on the romantic/emotional side of things. Not-so-clean romances have a strong focus on sexual tension, then the sex, then go deeper into the feelings stuff. So the reader has a choice to make: Emotional tension or sexual tension?

This is not to say there isn't emotional tension in sexier stories, though. Of course there should be since the aim is for a solid HEA. But let's face it, until h and h hop into the sack, this is where our focus is--BRING ON THE SEX ALREADY!!!

Onto the masturbation thing...I think the reason against this idea has to do with sexual tension for the reader. Please excuse my racy example...Let's pretend for a moment you're watching an x-rated flick (not that any of us do that) and the guy takes care of himself before the chick arrives on the scene. By the time she gets there, unless she's carrying a bowl of popcorn and a dvd, the moment has passed and her presence is useless. At least, this is how it would seem to the viewer. On the other hand, if Jenna Jameson (please tell me I'm not the only one who's familiar with this name) walked into the room, even a totally satisfied man would probably be able to...you know...rise to the occasion ;)

In other words, masturbation scenes could relieve sexual tension for the reader, so tread carefully with this one.
 
Last edited: