Why are "tragemances" so popular?

When I finish reading a book, I don't spend much time thinking about couples who got their HEA. They're happy, they're together, they've got a bright future ahead of them...there's nothing left to cause me concern. A romance that ends in tragedy will haunt me for days. I think things like, "If only X would/wouldn't have happened..." or "If only s/he had/hadn't done this..."

Writers like it when their stories linger in the minds of their readers. Personally speaking, a sad or bittersweet ending is going to have a more lasting effect on me than a happy one.

I'm the same way about real life stuff. For example, I'm more likely to wonder about my online friend who was very ill, whom I lost contact with after they announced they were going to the hospital, than my high school friends who by all appearances were living happy, hopeful, well-adjusted lives when we lost touch.

But are they "so"popular? Of course, there are a few big ones...but compared to the shelf space devoted to genre romance? Romance is something like 50% of the paperbook market, isn't it? Personally, I abhor Romeo and Juliet. I will never read Nicholas Sparks. Some people like catharsis. I just don't get it. I cry enough and have enough shit to deal with in my real life...why do I need to show myself that things can be even worse?

Based on your post here, and on another thread, it seems that you do not agree with the HEA/HFN requirement for genre romance. Your posts have given me the impression that you don't respect the genre. Now, maybe I'm wrong, but genre romance is what it is, and it sells very well.

There is certainly a place for "love stories" that do not end happily--you are right, some are very popular. But they do not belong on the romance shelf. If I pick up a romance novel, I expect that HEA/HFN.

I agree they make some money. Whether or not they're popular? I can only answer for me--they're NOT. I write what I want to read. No tissues necessary.

I don't enjoy reading tragedies. I don't want stories to linger in my memory unless it's because they made me laugh or else because the characters were just so darn relatable.

Some people just want a good story and they're fine if the end note isn't a high one. I prefer not to spend money unless I'm guaranteed to finish in a good mood. If I want to absorb other peoples' bad fortune, I'll watch the news.

"Romantic elements" is an entirely different category than "romance." RWA in particular is moving away from celebrating stories that are simply "romantic elements" ones. I don't think the "tragemance" is going to affect the popularity of true romances in any way whatsoever. Ever.

Many things that are not genre-romance are quite popular. I find this neither surprising nor bemusing. Some people really like blue cheese, many like cheddar, some like both. Such is life. Just don't tell them it's one thing and then have it be another. The contents must fit the label.

Genre - Horror, Romance, Westerns, Mystery, LitFic, Fantasy and so on -- is a marketing definition. It exists so booksellers can shelve similar wares together and sell more books. When neighboring books do spark sales, a genre is born. Apparently tragic love stories do not make the cheerful, domestic love stories next to them sell better and vice versa.

It is ultimately the readers who define the genres. A work is shelved as Historical Fiction, Mystery, or Romance when it conforms to the reader's genre expectation. If it doesn't, be there ever so much history, mystery or love between the covers, the book get tossed into General Fiction, which is where Mr. Sparks ends up.

Romance genre requires, (among other things,) a 'central, two-person love story with an HEA'. It's a tough club to get into.

Laer Carroll said:

It makes me wonder Why? And What significance does it have any for those of us who write romance, in either the RWA or the larger sense?

Click to expand...

No accounting for what folks like to read. Sparks sells lots of books. So does Nora Roberts. So do JK Rowlings, E.L. James, Clive Cussler and George R.R. Martin.

I don't think there's a genre-based secret that makes some books best sellers. I think it has to do with the phases of the moon. Or possibly numerology.

I would dispute whether "two-person" still applies based on some of the menage now being shelved.

I agree that nothing can predict a bestseller. Timing perhaps and maybe the ability transcend genre and gender. I have a feeling that there are many men out there who read Nicholas Sparks in the closet!

Personally, I despise Sparks, mostly because I perceive him as sentimental and that's not my style... I have to be one of the few people on the planet who didn't like "The Notebook" and it was solely based on the ending. I find nothing happy, uplifting, or even bittersweet about two old folks dying together, which is what that book/movie became for me. It was actually a good love story but I didn't need the rest. There's a darkened veil over aging and I would prefer for it not be lifted until I get there, thank you very much. And similarly, "Romeo and Juliet" never did much for me either. Two stupid kids with no patience is what it boils down to in my opinion.

But different strokes for different folks as they say.

These days in paranormal romance, it's almost expected to have a less than perfect HEA. The pair are happy for the moment, but their future is usually full of doubts. Usually this resolves itself in subsequent books, as most PR's are series. I don't mind this, but I do get annoyed when it takes 3-5 books, with the same protagonists, for an HEA to be reached. I would expect this out of a fantasy series, but not romance.

I think it depends on the sub-genre you're writing as to what role tragedy plays in the ending. The most important thing is not leave the reader feeling cheated at the end of your book.

veinglory said:

I would dispute whether "two-person" still applies based on some of the menage now being shelved.

Click to expand...

We could point to Maya Banks and others who are bringing menage into 'hot' but mainstream Romance. I do think genre Romance will eventually expand to incorporate menage and multiple partners and so on.
I don't think we're quite there yet, though.

I believe that most people love romance, but they would never pick up a romance genre novel. Also, based on the discussions I've seen on the NaNoWriMo boards over the years, a great majority of people think a "romance novel" is any book with a prominent love story, whether or not it ends with the HEA/HFN. Look at Danielle Steele being shelved in romance sections of bookstores when she's never written RWA-defined romance novels! And most of the reader furor over Fifty Shades of Grey (not to ignite a debate--I read and loved all three books in the series) stems from millions of women who regularly turn their noses up at Harlequin category romances and believe all of the stereotypes about romance from the 80s and 90s, but were excited to find something they love to read--romance, passion, sex, hot hero, etc--packaged in a non-romancey guise.

veinglory said:

Many things that are not genre-romance are quite popular. I find this neither surprising nor bemusing. Some people really like blue cheese, many like cheddar, some like both. Such is life. Just don't tell them it's one thing and then have it be another. The contents must fit the label.

Click to expand...

Very well said. Nicholas Sparks is popular, but he does not write romance. A romantic tragedy is general fiction. And yeah, I like both, but I wouldn't want to confuse one with the other.

Evangeline said:

I believe that most people love romance, but they would never pick up a romance genre novel. Also, based on the discussions I've seen on the NaNoWriMo boards over the years, a great majority of people think a "romance novel" is any book with a prominent love story, whether or not it ends with the HEA/HFN. Look at Danielle Steele being shelved in romance sections of bookstores when she's never written RWA-defined romance novels! And most of the reader furor over Fifty Shades of Grey (not to ignite a debate--I read and loved all three books in the series) stems from millions of women who regularly turn their noses up at Harlequin category romances and believe all of the stereotypes about romance from the 80s and 90s, but were excited to find something they love to read--romance, passion, sex, hot hero, etc--packaged in a non-romancey guise.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but your whole post made me go

I'm a little confused, too. But then, I'm easily confused. I'm certainly not the target market for this type of work. I like tragedies - I've written some as character exercises, not for publication - but Sparks isn't as good a writer as his hype suggests.

The erotica genre is more open to non-happy endings, but romance readers really want that Happy-Ever-After or at least Happy-For-Now resolution. Mess with it at your peril.