Is Romance with a Sad Ending Still Romance?

I think that what you describe would be more along the lines of women's fiction. (otherwise know as realistic fiction LOL)

I took a class taught by a published romance author, and she said:

Inherent in the definition of a romance novel is the Happy Ending.

Also known as HEA.

Good question. Would love to hear differing opinions on this.

It could be considered a love story. They don't require an HEA. For example, works by Nicholas Sparks are love stories not romances because they have sad endings.

Lyra Jean said:

It could be considered a love story. They don't require an HEA. For example, works by Nicholas Sparks are love stories not romances because they have sad endings.

Click to expand...

True. But don't all of Spark's characters die in the end?

"Love story" sounds right.

No, you better give me my HEA or HFN(Happy for Now) or I, as a reader, will throw a shit fit that you labeled it as a romance. Just kidding...but not really.

In the romances I've read they've all followed that very specific formula where they MMC and FMC hook up at the end. But as Chrissy points out, there is room for those stories under the label of women's lit or (depending on tone, content etc.) chick lit (oh the horrors! ;-) Come in, we know we love it. ) I've actually had to swear off romance for a while because all the HEAs were making me mad.

Know who your potential publishers could be. If you're wanting to publish under Harlequin, you'd better have them end up together. Others may not look so much for that.

In genre romance, not really. HEA is a defining feature of the genre.

No.

Ann_Mayburn said:

No, you better give me my HEA or HFN(Happy for Now) or I, as a reader, will throw a shit fit that you labeled it as a romance. Just kidding...but not really.

Click to expand...

This, and not even slightly kidding. The label romance is supposed to indicate books where the couple (or threesome, etc.) is happily together at the end. And ideally, nothing too horrifying or bloody happened on the way there. If it's about love but doesn't end happily, it's fine to write, just don't call it romance or think it can get published as a romance novel.

If it doesn't have a HEA/HFN, it's not a romance.

Lyra Jean said:

It could be considered a love story. They don't require an HEA. For example, works by Nicholas Sparks are love stories not romances because they have sad endings.

Click to expand...

Yes, they usually die, and even though they are dead there is still a connection between the two love interests. I know this sounds terribly cliche, but they often feel their spirit with them after the person has died.

I know the ending of A WALK TO REMEMBER ends with something like

"Our love is like the wind, I can't see it, but I can feel it."

This is, of course, after his wife has died.

I agree with the other posters that a happy ending is a given for a romance..... Yours would fall into the subgenre of romantic tragedy because readers really like to know what they are getting...Personally I wish it wasn't so cut and dried like this because I like to be surprised sometimes!

JustJas said:

I agree with the other posters that a happy ending is a given for a romance..... Yours would fall into the subgenre of romantic tragedy because readers really like to know what they are getting...Personally I wish it wasn't so cut and dried like this because I like to be surprised sometimes!

Click to expand...

I don't. I like to know what I'm getting. If it's UF with romantic elements, I know things may be rough and I'm cool with that. But I read romance for the happy ending. I read mystery for the solution. I feel cheated if these things don't happen.

I don't think romantic tragedy is a sub-genre of romance. I think, like Sparks' novels, it would go under contemporary or literary, depending on style.

JustJas said:

I agree with the other posters that a happy ending is a given for a romance..... Yours would fall into the subgenre of romantic tragedy because readers really like to know what they are getting...Personally I wish it wasn't so cut and dried like this because I like to be surprised sometimes!

Click to expand...

I don't. I read romance because I want the HEA/HFN.

JMC2009 said:

Know who your potential publishers could be. If you're wanting to publish under Harlequin, you'd better have them end up together. Others may not look so much for that.

Click to expand...

Actually incorrect. Harlequin has several imprints that do non-romance and don't require a HEA!

There is a fairly big precedent to cite here - Romeo and Juliet. Considered one of the greatest romance stories of history. Does not have happy ever after in there (at the risk of spoilers for those who haven't had a chance to see it in the last 400 years or so, there are a couple of quite important MC deaths at the end )

In my opinion, the greater the gulf between the MCs and the more they have to lose at the end the better the romance and if they do lose all, all the better

But in terms of modern publishers looking for romance titles, generally they state in their guidelines that they want HEA because that is what the readers expect. Romantic tragedy could be a different genre, I suppose... It is always a good idea to check the publisher guidelines to see what they want rather than work on generalalities. Some may specifically state that it does not have to end happily.

I did manage to sneak a tragic love affair into Transitions. On the surface, you may think that the modern day love tale which ends in HFN is our romance plot but its actually the tragic one that occurs in history which I consider the true romance

No way was R&J a romance. It was the story of a fickle little idiot who'd just been dumped, transferring his affections on a right little minx, then they killed themselves, the end.

Angela James said:

Actually incorrect. Harlequin has several imprints that do non-romance and don't require a HEA!

Click to expand...

That's a point, I haven't made my editor cry for aggges. *pulls out romantic tragedy draft and blows dust off*

Adrianna Burch said:

Wow, pretty unanimous here...and that's what I thought. I still think it's a bit silly. Sure romance novels are more of a cozy book kind of thing, but I get the feeling they're a bit stale nowadays. Meet dude. Stuff happens. have sex. Possibly more stuff happens. Get married/be together forever. It's nice to read up to a point.

Click to expand...

You do realize you've just insulted a good number of AWers who write romance, right? I think my books are a little more that "Meet dude. Stuff happens. Have sex."

I was thinking about writing fantasy, but it's just "Dude finds something. Wizard appears. Some orcs 'n' shit. The end."

Try fantasy romance.

Dude finds girl, wizard appears, then orcs have sex and shit gets married.

Wait a minute, that's not right....

Adrianna Burch said:

Wow, pretty unanimous here...and that's what I thought. I still think it's a bit silly. Sure romance novels are more of a cozy book kind of thing, but I get the feeling they're a bit stale nowadays. Meet dude. Stuff happens. have sex. Possibly more stuff happens. Get married/be together forever. It's nice to read up to a point.

Click to expand...

Yup, that's about it. And that's why I haven't finished reading a romance novel in years. I don't have to. I know how it's going to end.

Didn't watch Episode3 of Star Wars for the same reason.

Ditto that Romeo and Juliet is not and has never been genre-romance. That is romance, and then there is genre-romance, different things.

Genre-romance accounts for 50% of fiction sales by volume, so people want to sell to that audience without actually catering to that audience, and it doesn't fly.