Would it still be a romance novel if the main character doesn't fall in love?

ElaineA · Feb 1, 2016

I s'pose I should clarify. When I said, "I learned it all from Outlander" I only meant the Scottish.

Roxxsmom · Feb 1, 2016

ElaineA said:
I s'pose I should clarify. When I said, "I learned it all from Outlander" I only meant the Scottish.

Hahaha.

You're the one who informed me Outlander isn't a romance in another thread anyway.

Marian Perera · Feb 1, 2016

Roxxsmom said:
Sometimes when people start arguing that a story that lacks the required elements of the romance genre (because tragic love stories can be romantic too, or because real-life romances don't always pan out that way), I'm reminded of the stubborn student in a science class who argues that science being theoretical in nature means its conclusions are no more valid than untested hunches, because that's what the word "theory" means to them.

I like that analogy.

And it's usually non-romance-readers who argue that tragedies or stories without romance should be included in this genre, which I don't understand at all. Dislike/avoid the genre by all means, but its requirements work very well for the readers it serves. And those happen to be a lot of readers.

veinglory · Feb 2, 2016

gambit924 said:
Well, I figure sometimes, just being together and having a good relationship, being happy, is fine. She doesn't necessarily have to "be in love". Being together is sometimes just as good. I mean, look at arranged marriages that work out just fine.

Sure it's good. A lot of things are good. But it's not a romance novel.

SylviaFrost · Aug 6, 2016

Nope, nope, nope, nope. On no planet.

Would it still be a romance novel if the main character doesn't fall in love?

ElaineA

All about that action, boss.

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido

Marian Perera

starting over

veinglory

volitare nequeo

SylviaFrost