Problematic sources of happy in HEA?

From my reading the thing you say is missing is exactly what most modern romance is about.

The couple start not being able to commit because they are working on their own self-actualization. The obstacle to being their authentic self might be fixed ideas about who they can be with, baggage from past relationships, trauma, dishonesty, pride etc. Through the story they become capable and worthy of loving and being loved through working on their blocks/prejudices/flaws, and only then can they be in a healthy relationship. So it is not "only love can make me complete" but "only being complete allows me to really love".

An obvious example would be Pretty Woman, where the only real obstacle is that the hero can't imagine lowering himself to marrying a prostitute, and the heroine can't imagine being able to operate in his social circle--but they both overcome these problems. Both people were successfully autonomous in their own rights, but needed to evolve more as people to be able to share a healthy relationship rather than a simply transactional and exploitative one.

And as far as genre goes, I think positive traits (focus on the joy and satisfaction of finding love) are genre defining, and negative traits (characters must become developmentally stunted co-dependents) are not.

veinglory said:

From my reading the thing you say is missing is exactly what most modern romance is about.

The couple start not being able to commit because they are working on their own self-actualization. The obstacle to being their authentic self might be fixed ideas about who they can be with, baggage from past relationships, trauma, dishonesty, pride etc. Through the story they become capable and worthy of loving and being loved through working on their blocks/prejudices/flaws, and only then can they be in a healthy relationship. So it is not "only love can make me complete" but "only being complete allows me to really love".

Click to expand...

That's a good way to put it. It's like in a fantasy, the goal is to defeat the evil wizard. The HEA is achieved when this is accomplished. But often the hero will have to overcome a character flaw before they're able to defeat the evil wizard.

Silva said:

I feel like if there's a more goal oriented plot going alongside the romance in a Romance story, generally the solution to it hinges on the romantic relationship. Like Our Heroine wouldn't have been able to accomplish X if it weren't for the hunky dood that she fell in love with along the way. Maybe this isn't as true as I think it is... most of my romance reading [which indeed was escapism] happened in my teens and was primarily sourced from Christian romances [cuz no sex] where it's all about the heroine learning to be less rebellious/more submissive/trust God more... so I may be pretty biased in my understanding of the genre.

But, if it's just escapism, and I can acknowledge it as such, then that better allows me to set aside my mental quibbles.




*smacks down stack of papers*

"Here, would you like to read my story about two extremely dysfunctional people who are, respectively, bent on proving that the one is delusional and wrong about everyone he thinks he knows well, and the other is a fraud and a liar-- when they're not busy falling in love? You'll love the end; it turns out that the delusional one replaces one fixation with another and the supposed fraud/liar utterly fails at the one thing she's been working towards her entire adult life." [insert a Mr. Bean smiley face here]



Yeah, probably not a romance.

Click to expand...

Can't help you with the genres, but I very much dislike the damsel can't achieve some goal without some dude thing. And yes, I'm one of the apparently few people who hated Pretty Woman. And no, don't like the damsel discovers she's okay only because said dude thinks so.

But.

I would totally read things like your book, where the one fails, if the story is that by failing s/he discovers s/he is fine, wasted so much time worried about being a success when actually they are successful as they are. Flawed characters are okay if the flaws are acknowledged and addressed - as in, not interested in a male love interest who seems like a guy with anger problems, treats the MC poorly etc (but she loves him anyway because...you know, the love of a good woman can over come every kind of anger issue). But if said male is addressing his anger issue and the outcome is left ambiguous (and he's working hard) I might be okay with it. I just hate reading about love interests where I am actively rooting for them to get run over by a tractor, telling the MC - run, Forrest, run - that's domestic violence - don't settle!!!!! so if the MC managed to get out from that, I'd be fine with it (more chick lit I guess)

morngnstar said:

For my tastes, I'm looking for the moment when they're happily together, but I don't care if it's at the end or in the middle, as in Romeo and Juliet or Nicholas Sparks books. But that's just my opinion, and a lot of people disagree, and those aren't officially defined as romance. (Though, practically, I think you'll find Nicholas Sparks on the romance shelf in your bookstore.)

Click to expand...

Yup. Those stories without the HEA/HFN endings are not capital-R Romance genre. Tragedies or General Fiction, maybe.

As someone who occasionally reads Romances, I would be quite upset (probably even pissed off) if an author gave me a Romance story with no HEA/HFN ending. I would feel outright disrespected as a Romance reader, definitely.

(I would assume some of those Nicholas Sparks' books may have the couple together--for the ones in the Romance section, at least? Or maybe Nicholas Sparks is just one of those super-famous authors who are the exceptions to the rule?)

Silva said:

This is food for thought for me. I guess I've been focusing on "only love can make a romance novel complete" and not thinking about it from the character perspective.

Click to expand...

I still think reading some more recent (and a variety of) Romances can help you decide if Romance genre is still the way to go.

Some Romances can have a variety of subplots or side plots alongside the Romance plots. Some don't.

And I don't think there's anything wrong with either one. There is no one Romance "template" or "formula".

It's a matter of taste and/or the matter of how well it's writen. You may not like the same kinds of Romances I like. I know there are some Romances I would never touch, like dark/Gothic Romances. I hate zombies and dislike vampires in general, so I know to avoid SFF Romances that contain such elements. I'm not fond of Dom males (especially in a m/f relationship, with submissive female), so I usually avoid BDSM Romance stories.

And so on.

Romance is an escapist genre with the ending requirement of the HEA/HFN. There are various sub genres and types of Romances out there.

If you don't like any of the Romances out there (and you read a lot of, and a wide variety of, recent ones), then maybe General Fiction with strong romantic elements may be better suited for your tastes. That's just my humble opinion, of course, lol.

Don't try to twist your story to fit a genre, especially a genre you haven't read much of, or don't like much. I believe that forcing a story into a genre can really hurt it.

Read and keep writing. (Optional: And maybe get some beta readers to read some of it, or get some eyes on the query, etc.)

Good luck with it! I believe, if a story is well-written, it will have a genre to call home. ^_^

When romance works best, each person of the couple is made happy not only because they have a romance with that other person, but because being with that other person has also helped them to overcome a challenge, take a daring step, or understand something critical about themselves. To go to the genre-starter, PRIDE & PREJUDICE, Darcy and Lizzie don't just wind up cooing at each other. Darcy learns that he needs to be less self-centered and more accepting; Elizabeth learns to be less judgmental and more cautious. From the time of that first awful proposal and the following letter, even though Darcy and Elizabeth are parted for a time (and bitterly), we the readers already know their lives will be better from that point on--even if they never meet again!--just because they knew and influenced each other. That's the definition of a truly great romance.

In other words, to paraphrase something Roger Ebert said in a review: A love story isn't the station. It's the train.

veinglory said:

From my reading the thing you say is missing is exactly what most modern romance is about.

The couple start not being able to commit because they are working on their own self-actualization. The obstacle to being their authentic self might be fixed ideas about who they can be with, baggage from past relationships, trauma, dishonesty, pride etc. Through the story they become capable and worthy of loving and being loved through working on their blocks/prejudices/flaws, and only then can they be in a healthy relationship. So it is not "only love can make me complete" but "only being complete allows me to really love".

An obvious example would be Pretty Woman, where the only real obstacle is that the hero can't imagine lowering himself to marrying a prostitute, and the heroine can't imagine being able to operate in his social circle--but they both overcome these problems. Both people were successfully autonomous in their own rights, but needed to evolve more as people to be able to share a healthy relationship rather than a simply transactional and exploitative one.

And as far as genre goes, I think positive traits (focus on the joy and satisfaction of finding love) are genre defining, and negative traits (characters must become developmentally stunted co-dependents) are not.

Click to expand...

Yes! This is exactly what I expect from a Romance.

I love Amanda Quick/Jayne Ann Krentz, Julie Garwood, Robin D. Owens, a few others. They tend to write about strong characters who deal with non-romantic plot points while growing as people and ultimately ending up together. The idea of a romance being just about two people finding everything they need in each other doesn't appeal to me.

morngnstar said:

It could also be that the personal goal and the romance have little to do with each other.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what it is in my book. (Spoiler, just in case anyone cares) My MC had a personal goal (solo travel) the entire story. That doesn't change despite him falling in love, and at the end of the story, he continues on his travels without his girl. They are still in love, and they will still be pursuing their relationship. But personal goals come first.

Some readers didn't seem to like this, and some even considered it to not be a HEA. In my opinion, there's nothing happier than finding someone who trusts and respects you enough to let you be yourself. I've always been a very independent person, and I am also disgusted by some romances I read. It often seems like the woman has little to no identity without the man, or sometimes vice versa. That's not attractive to me. I can promise that every romance I write will always feature healthy relationships between two strong and independent people.

As long as you don't call it Romance genre, you can write whatever, and it's all good. (If they get together in the end, then it's fine to call it Romance. Then it just comes down to taste in how a reader likes their Romances.)

When I do read Romances, I read them for a reason...

bunny-gypsy said:

As long as you don't call it Romance genre, you can write whatever, and it's all good.

Click to expand...

Exactly. For me, a book labeled "romance" has to be about the development of a relationship between two people, and the story has to end with them happy and together.

Now a book labeled "romance" might well be about a dysfunctional, unrealistic relationship between two unpleasant characters who end up together, which will irritate me. But at least I won't feel like I was tricked into reading it.

Marian Perera said:

Exactly. For me, a book labeled "romance" has to be about the development of a relationship between two people, and the story has to end with them happy and together.

Now a book labeled "romance" might well be about a dysfunctional, unrealistic relationship between two unpleasant characters who end up together, which will irritate me. But at least I won't feel like I was tricked into reading it.

Click to expand...

+Rep.

Yup! I don't like being "tricked", either.

Even though there are stuff I'm not always fond of in (especially mainstream m/f) Romances, I will definitely defend their right to exist, and I will also defend the Romance readers' right to a HEA/HFN in their Romances.

I think there seems to be a confusion between being in the Romance genre, and having romantic elements. Heck, Gone with the Wind doesn't qualify as a Romance, since it doesn't end with a HEA or even a HRN. A book can be romantic as hell, but not a Romance, just as a book can have a crime in it, and yet not be a mystery.

Marian Perera said:

Exactly. For me, a book labeled "romance" has to be about the development of a relationship between two people, and the story has to end with them happy and together.

Click to expand...

Yes but not necessarily physically together.

andiwrite said:

Yes but not necessarily physically together.

Click to expand...

Uh, no, not for capital R-Romance, lol.

Physically together is kind of an expected trope for many Romance readers...unless you're talking about ghost characters in a Paranormal Romance, or something.

(A lot of popular Romance tends to have some kinds of physical actions, like some sexy times, or some kind of commitment together in some way, and being physically together in some way, at the end.)

https://www.rwa.org/Romance

An Emotionally Satisfying and Optimistic Ending: In a romance, the lovers who risk and struggle for each other and their relationship are rewarded with emotional justice and unconditional love.

Nothing about being together, physically or otherwise. I would say andi's ending fits, if the couple parts with a commitment to be faithful to each other and to reconnect when he finishes his travels.

morngnstar said:

https://www.rwa.org/Romance

An Emotionally Satisfying and Optimistic Ending: In a romance, the lovers who risk and struggle for each other and their relationship are rewarded with emotional justice and unconditional love.

Nothing about being together, physically or otherwise. I would say andi's ending fits, if the couple parts with a commitment to be faithful to each other and to reconnect when he finishes his travels.

Click to expand...

Hmm.... Ok. Perhaps, I should have changed that to: most, mainstream, popular category capital R-Romances.

I understand that there doesn't necessarily have to be physically together the entire time, but most popular, mainstream capital-R Romances do have them together, in some way, in the very end.

Even in some asexual relationships, if it's romantic, it means the couple want to spend the rest of their lives together. As in, together. Living together, usually, though I guess there are some long-distance relationships that could work...

If Andiwrite's characters do get together at the end of the series, then it's a HFN ending (fif they get together in a future sequel?). It's a promise and commitment to get together again--but at a later time. I assume they do get together again?

If they stay separated forever, especially with no contact of some kind (letters, emails, or physical visits, etc), then I would be disappointed as a Romance reader, and I know some other Romance readers would feel the same.

(ETA: New Adult/ New Adult Romances are kind of their own thing. I don't know if those have different expectations than non-New Adult Romances, being a new market.)

Twick said:

I think there seems to be a confusion between being in the Romance genre, and having romantic elements. Heck, Gone with the Wind doesn't qualify as a Romance, since it doesn't end with a HEA or even a HRN. A book can be romantic as hell, but not a Romance, just as a book can have a crime in it, and yet not be a mystery.

Click to expand...

Always this, and it's a very common question that comes up. It doesn't help when you see books like Gone With the Wind or Love Story, and The Notebook included on lists of all time greatest "romance novels" as opposed to "romantic stories." At some point the argument starts over whether or not genre romance readers should be open to romance novels with sad endings, and what's wrong with these people for not liking bittersweet endings anyway?

But andiwrite mentioned that the couple is "together" in a romantic sense at the end of the novel and that they've worked out a solution to their problem--they'll be faithful and weather their time apart (which is finite) as a couple and be together again when it ends. So it's certainly within the letter of the genre law, and it could be very emotionally satisfying to at least some readers and far preferable to a breakup.

Maybe the only way to know how marketable it is within the genre is to write it and to query it as a romance and see how it flies.

Roxxsmom said:

At some point the argument starts over whether or not genre romance readers should be open to romance novels with sad endings, and what's wrong with these people for not liking bittersweet endings anyway?

Click to expand...

Lol, yes, let's not go there.

Roxxsmom said:

But andiwrite mentioned that the couple is "together" in a romantic sense at the end of the novel and that they've worked out a solution to their problem--they'll be faithful and weather their time apart (which is finite) as a couple and be together again when it ends. So it's certainly within the letter of the genre law, and it could be very emotionally satisfying to at least some readers and far preferable to a breakup.

Click to expand...

As long as they get together in some way or implied they will get together at the end, and the Romance is a majority of the plot, not a minor subplot, then it's a HFN ending. If there's no sequel in which the two get together again, then it then really comes down to personal taste on whether or not it's a satisfying HFN ending for some Romance readers.

It wouldn't feel like a HEA ending for me, personally, per se. HFN? Yes. Romances do allow HFN endings.

Roxxsmom said:

Maybe the only way to know how marketable it is within the genre is to write it and to query it as a romance and see how it flies.

Click to expand...

Yes, this. It's also good to keep in mind that different publishers have also have different imprints and different submission details, etc. For example, Dreamspinner, a MxM publisher, has a Bittersweet imprint.

andiwrite said:

Yes but not necessarily physically together.

Click to expand...

I don't understand how a happy-ending romance can have two characters who are not physically together.

Unless they meet every night in their dreams or something similar, and that wouldn't work for me. It would be as dissatisfying as a mystery where, at the end, the detective sketched out a halfway plausible scenario how the murder might have been committed, then said, "But we may never know the truth", so everyone shrugged and went back to their lives. For me, a satisfying mystery is one where we do find out the truth. And a satisfying romance is one where the couple end up happy and in a relationship with each other, physically together.

ETA : Getting more specific, if they have to part temporarily because one of them has unfinished business elsewhere, and they've made a commitment to be (physically) together after that, it works better than if they never meet again but believe they'll always be spiritually together.

But I still prefer romances which end with the couple physically together (i.e. without them separating, or ending before one of them leaves). I want their togetherness to be the happy final note on which I close the book.

Perhaps, there are some Romances out there that are expanding or "pushing the envelope", as the saying goes? I know there are some MxM Romances and New Adult stuff that don't always follow the expected Romance tropes.

I think that it could be a HFN ending, which can still be Romance. However, whether it's a satisfying type of HFN will probably depend on the individual Romance reader's tastes (or the market's tastes)...

It could probably also depend on the publisher, too.

ETA: For me, it wouldn't be satisfying, but maybe it would be for another reader. I would think there could be a niche for more unusual Romances out there.

bunny-gypsy said:

Perhaps, there are Romances expanding or "pushing the envelope", as the saying goes? I know there are MxM Romances and New Adult stuff that don't always follow the expected Romance tropes.

Click to expand...

I think there have always been romances which pushed the envelope. It's not a modern phenomenon. Bertrice Small's A Moment in Time kills off the hero at the end, for instance, though the premise of the story is that the hero and heroine are legendary lovers continually reborn into new bodies and having to find each other in each new lifetime, with some problem or the other cropping up each time to tear them apart. The epilogue has them (in new bodies) meeting for a love-at-first-sight encounter, though I'm not sure whether they found some way to stay happy or whether they expected the cycle to continue.

But as you said, this kind of bittersweet or HFN ending works for some readers, not for others.

ETA : Heh. I was looking up old romances to find a few more that pushed the envelope in terms of a HEA, and I think Rebecca Brandewyne's Upon a Moon-Dark Moor had a prologue where the heroine was widowed (i.e. the hero had died). The rest of the story was her looking back on the past and how they first met, so it wouldn't have worked for me. But I couldn't be certain of the details because I read this long ago. I looked it up on Goodreads and found a five-star review which included this small detail :

And no it's not PC. But he only drugs her once and rapes her a couple of times!

Click to expand...

Just for you, bunny-gypsy.

Marian Perera said:

Just for you, bunny-gypsy.

Click to expand...

Oh, you, flirt! I feel so special, lol. XD

I mean, he only did a couple of bad stuff less than a handful of times. That means he's not so bad! My hero.

(Apparently, not asking for [fictional] rape is such a PC move. Whaaaa?)

Ahem. If you'll excuse me, I'm gonna re-read Nora Roberts's Gabriel's Angel, and then read a few fluffy Harlequin books, to get my mind off of that "loviness".

bunny-gypsy said:

(Apparently, not asking for [fictional] rape is such a PC move. Whaaaa?)

Click to expand...

I guess it's because the book was published during the 80's, when rape was common in a lot of romances. Also, the book is inspired by Wuthering Heights, so the hero is basically Heathcliff, never known for his strong moral compass.

The difference for me is that sex between Heathcliff and Cathy would never have been Rohypnol-facilitated rape, partly because they loved each other (in their own ways) and partly because she would have kicked his ass if he'd tried it. She had her faults, but I can't see her cringe and sob while Heathcliff, er, succumbs to his manly passions - and he'd probably have been bored to death if she did.

It's gotten more complicated now that the concept of romance has been expanded to include multi volume arcs where the couple doesn't have their seminal HEA until the end of the last book.

In Maria Snyder's Poison Study, for instance (published by Luna, an imprint of Harelquin books), the FMC and her man have declared their love and commitment to one another by the end, but she is exiled and has to leave and go back to her homeland, while he has to stay behind to continue with his duties. So they're facing a separation. And while he turns up again in the next two books, and it's clear they're still a couple, the relationship isn't as central to the plot in these volumes (though they're together at the end, and with more physical access, if I remember correctly).

And in the same author's Glass Mage Trilogy, it took the entire three books for the romantic HEA to come together.

Of course, these are hybrid fantasy/romance, so maybe the rules are less stringent?