What makes a good romance novel?

SWPelzer

Registered
Joined
May 8, 2019
Messages
15
Reaction score
2
For me, it is a combination of believably (do the characters belong together?), realism (do I believe the characters would do that?) and likability (do I like the characters in this story? I don't have to like everything about them, but in general, I have to find something to make me root for them.). If the story makes sense and the characters are acting in a way that moves both the story and the romance along, and makes sense within the confines of the plot, then I will keep reading. I don't need on the page sex to see that the romance is growing, but I am not against it either as long as it is tasteful.
 

Lirien

Registered
Joined
Nov 8, 2019
Messages
7
Reaction score
1
My favorite love story (it's not considered a romance because of the tragic ending) is Wuthering Heights. Romance or not, this is my favorite romantic story. It was touching and brilliant.

I just have to ask about this. I recently re-read it, it is one of my favourite books, that Kate Bush song is constantly in my head, but... How is that love? It is touching but not in a positive way. Every single character in that book is a life wasted and that saddens me. Don't take this negativelly, I'm truly interested in your reasons why you consider it to be a love story, because this book makes me angry and sad (and I like to re-read it every five years or so).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elenitsa

SnugglePuggle

Banned
Joined
Oct 29, 2019
Messages
111
Reaction score
3
For me, a romance that is good is that it the couple must go through some kind of trail in the middle of their relationship before a happy ending comes in to play. That, as well as the characters are likeable, then its a good one in my book.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elenitsa

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,079
Reaction score
10,776
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
For me, it's interesting characters who change and evolve to become better people because of their relationship, and of course their finding solutions to obstacles that seem insurmountable at first, stories where that path to the HEA isn't clear. I tend to like stories where the characters are walking wounded in some way, and their relationship helps to heal them, and also where both partners have interests and passions that go beyond sitting around being rich.

I have a preference for historical settings over contemporary. Not sure why. Maybe it's because there were more obstacles to togetherness in previous time periods.

I also tend to prefer romantic stories with a fair amount of heat and for male main characters who aren't the traditional take on alpha males. Not saying I want wimpy heroes, but I don't much care for guys who are overly possessive or stalkerish or rapey or who have a general contempt for women until they meet the FMC. And I prefer the FMC be of an active and someone outrageous or rebellious bent, rather than passively waiting for rescue.

I've enjoyed romances that turn traditional tropes on their heads, such as stories where the guy is the virgin (or at least not a serial womanizer prior to meeting the FMC), or where the guy is the one who has the "sub" fantasies, or where the two characters are close to the same age (or the woman even a bit older).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Elenitsa

Unimportant

No COVID yet. Still masking.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
19,519
Reaction score
22,755
Location
Aotearoa
For me, personally, as a reader:
1. I like flawed characters.
2. I like the two characters to complement each other, to have differing strengths and weaknesses.
3. I hate when two characters hate each other, and are a really bad fit personality-wise in the long run, and the only thing going for the relationship is sexual chemistry. Because I find it hard to believe they'll have a HEA. It can work for a HFN, I guess.
4. I like romances where the reason that they 'can't' get together isn't some stupid misunderstanding that runs for 300 pages but could've been cleared up if one or the other asked a simple, logical question.

Against all my expectations, the romance/relationship that I most enjoyed and that has probably stuck with me most strongly over many years is the one in Stacia Kane's Downunder series. They were characters I didn't think I'd like, but -- gosh, was I ever wrong. The storyline was just stupendously well done.

Editing to add: ooh, yeah, and what roxx said. Rapey stalky alpha males squick me out.
 
Last edited:

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,079
Reaction score
10,776
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
For me, what makes a good romance is when the heroine and hero don't start out hating each other.

this is a good point. I've read a few hate to love romances that work, but it's such a cliche, especially when the hatred is based on a big misunderstanding and no one actually talks to anyone to figure out what really happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elenitsa

Sonya Heaney

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 16, 2019
Messages
565
Reaction score
85
Location
Canberra
I also tend to prefer romantic stories with a fair amount of heat and for male main characters who aren't the traditional take on alpha males. Not saying I want wimpy heroes, but I don't much care for guys who are overly possessive or stalkerish or rapey or who have a general contempt for women until they meet the FMC. And I prefer the FMC be of an active and someone outrageous or rebellious bent, rather than passively waiting for rescue.

I've discovered I can't write alpha male-type heroes. It's going to be interesting with the book I'm currently working on, because I imagined him as quite alpha-ish!
 

Raul_Sterling

Registered
Joined
May 8, 2020
Messages
14
Reaction score
1
Location
North of the Alps, south of the North Pole
HEA and HFN necessary?

Hi all!

I'm working on an urban fantasy featuring vampires and whatnot. The story will have a clear romantic/emotional/sensual leaning, but the plot of the story is not to bring the two main characters together as a couple (that might happen in a sequel, though).

I have heard that an HEA, or at least an HFN, is all but expected in romance stories, and that many readers will feel let down if I don't provide one. Is this the case? Should I avoid labeling my story as a romance and go all out on the urban fantasy angle?

I hope my question made sense. If not, please forgive me: I'm a guy, and I'm new to the genre and to this board! =)
 

amergina

Pittsburgh Strong
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
15,599
Reaction score
2,471
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Website
www.annazabo.com
Hi all!

I'm working on an urban fantasy featuring vampires and whatnot. The story will have a clear romantic/emotional/sensual leaning, but the plot of the story is not to bring the two main characters together as a couple (that might happen in a sequel, though).

I have heard that an HEA, or at least an HFN, is all but expected in romance stories, and that many readers will feel let down if I don't provide one. Is this the case? Should I avoid labeling my story as a romance and go all out on the urban fantasy angle?

I hope my question made sense. If not, please forgive me: I'm a guy, and I'm new to the genre and to this board! =)

Your best bet is to market it as an urban fantasy if the heart of the story is *not* primarily about about the romantic relationship between MCs and doesn't end with an HEA/HFN.

As long as you're not billing the story as a genre romance (that is, as primarily a romance novel with vampires), you don't need to have an HEA/HFN ending to the romantic arc. If you're billing it as an urban fantasy, not having the couple end up together is fine. Love stories or sub plots with love interests (or sex or whatnot) don't have to have an HEA. But if you're going to call it a romance novel, it does. Many romance readers are savvy and read outside the genre all the time and are fine with non-HEA books.

Now, if later down the line in a couple books, the people do end up together and have an HEA/HFN, you can say the series has a romantic subplot. But I'd probably just stick to calling it an urban fantasy for now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elenitsa

Raul_Sterling

Registered
Joined
May 8, 2020
Messages
14
Reaction score
1
Location
North of the Alps, south of the North Pole
Your best bet is to market it as an urban fantasy if the heart of the story is *not* primarily about about the romantic relationship between MCs and doesn't end with an HEA/HFN.

As long as you're not billing the story as a genre romance (that is, as primarily a romance novel with vampires), you don't need to have an HEA/HFN ending to the romantic arc. If you're billing it as an urban fantasy, not having the couple end up together is fine. Love stories or sub plots with love interests (or sex or whatnot) don't have to have an HEA. But if you're going to call it a romance novel, it does. Many romance readers are savvy and read outside the genre all the time and are fine with non-HEA books.

Now, if later down the line in a couple books, the people do end up together and have an HEA/HFN, you can say the series has a romantic subplot. But I'd probably just stick to calling it an urban fantasy for now.

Thank you, that was excellent advice. Kudos! :)
 

sohalt

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 14, 2009
Messages
1,725
Reaction score
392
Location
Austria
Website
notsosilentsister.tumblr.com
Transformation. The lovers as a catalyst for each other's growth/healing. In fairy tales, the transformation is actually a restoration, reclaiming your kingdom, your crown, your human shape. Dropping of a disguise. Your lover can see through it, and by seeing through it, bring you back to yourself. Transformation makes it a romance for me; I don't necessarily need a HEA.

Convincing obstacles. Obstacles make it a story; or it would be over too soon. Generally, a good balance of external and internal obstacles will be promising.

External obstacles, to show off the protagonists' capabilities and compatibility, when they work together to surmount them. They shouldn't seem too easily surmountable, because then the couple just won't seem terribly capable and compatible if they fret about them too much. I'm not at all a "love conquers all"-type, so I'm fairly easily convinced by the seriousness of an obstacle, even in a modern setting - I think class barriers, and disapproving families etc, actually make for pretty good obstacles still - but it's perhaps harder to show how that's still an obstacle nowadays, in spite of our characters' best efforts, and I definitely need to see some proper efforts here, so that I can buy into the struggle.

Internal obstacles, based on flaws to overcome, long buried hard-to face truths finally to be faced, counter-productive, no longer useful coping mechanism to grow out of, to make the characters multi-dimensional and dynamic, and provide the narrative necessity for the transformation that makes the romance. I can get very invested in couples who are sure of their feelings from the start, and only kept apart by external circumstances. One of my favourite novels is The Betrothed Lovers, by Manzoni - but I love that novel for the sweeping scope, the colourful cast of characters, the vivid evocation of the historic setting, and that tour-de-force chapter about making your way through the plague-ridden city to find your beloved - the romance isn't the main attraction here.

For the romance to be a main attraction for me, it needs to be a slow-burn, and at least one part of the couple needs to be in denial for a good while. I want some dramatic irony, I want to feel smug about my superior knowledge as a reader, I want to read about the protagonist huff and puff how they're totally unaffected and unsusceptible to a certain person's charms, and go, haha, just you wait.

My favourite obstacles are both external and internal - conflicts of loyality, contradictory goals, prior obligations, love vs duty. "The problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world"-Casablanca type stuff. It's probably my downfall as a writer and reader of romance, because I often end up not at all convinced that the lovers should prioritze their love, in the face of everything else going on in their world. There can be something profoundly anti-social about a no-holds-barred romance, and it's unsettling and powerful and can make for great literature, but I doesn't necessarily make me feel good, which is also something one might reasonably want from a romance. (*cough* Wuthering Heights *cough*. Great novel, shit romance.)

For the escapist fantasy and the HEA you really need to give your protagonists an option to choose both, love and duty, and it takes some real ingenuity to come up with a way to let them have their cake and eat it, after spending so many pages on making that seem impossible. It's a tricky balance to strike - if you try to mine too much tension and suspense out of setting your couple up for that choice, and then save them from that choice, that can feel like a cop-out. But if you don't, you won't have a HEA.

Also tricky, but ultimately easier to resolve in a satisfying manner, and therefore my second favourite obstacle in romance, is that the characters are, in a more or less immediately obvious manner, in their own sweet way, at least a tiny little bit idiots. Just complete, utter, staggering morosexuals.

Which brings me to another element I appreciate: Humour. Lots of people complain about romance heros and heroines too stupid to live, and I agree that a little stupidity goes a long way - there's a real possibility to overdo it. But it's a lot of fun if you do it right! The way to frame the required idiocy of your fools in love in a way that seems still attractive, is to surround them by people who are even more ridiculous.

Whether you use scathing, trenchant oberservations of human foibles like Jane Austen, or puns and goofy, silly slapstick like the Hong sisters, or often both like Shakespeare (and IMHO, also the Hong sisters, in their best efforts) - it will all accomplish the same useful effects: It makes your characters relatable and multi-dimensional (flawless characters are boring and who hasn't been a fool in love?), it provides a challenging, but also ultimately surmountable internal obstacle, it primes your readers for a bit of suspension of disbelief, creating a heightened sense of reality and signalling your intention to use artistic licence (surely, nobody would actually be that stupid; we are obviously not going for gritty realism here), which will make it easier to sell the escapist fantasy and the HEA.

Most importantly, humour makes people lower their guard. Which is why it's also very useful for tragedy (see, Joss Whedon, and, again Shakespeare, and also the Hong sisters, who are all very fond of using comic relief characters before the third acts). First make your audience laugh, and then hit them in the feels. If things are always and unrelentlingly dire from start to finish, we mentally gird our loins, preparing for the bad end and never get too invested in the first place. You have to catch people off-guard, get them invested without immediately noticing, while they still pretend not to take things too seriously after all.

Sure, humour can be used to deflect emotions, but precisely because it's often used like that, it can also be used to make people vulnerable - it's a perfect bait and switch! This second use of humour is what you want for romance. Dropping the disguise also means dropping the armor. At the end, the lovers have to be naked. Nobody gets to save face in a proper romance. At some point, everyone has to be humbled and mortified. Humour is the more gentle way to go about that.

But vulnerability is key, and that's my final requirement, it has to be equal opportunity. No lover must ever retain an upper-hand, they must both risk mortification and rejection, they must both put themselves at each other's mercy at some point. So the couple has to be evenly matched. It doesn't have be apparent - to the reader, to themselves - from the start. It's arguably often more interesting when it isn't. But by the end, it has to be clear that the lovers see eye to eye. Darcy has the status, but Lizzy has the social skills. Rochester has the status, but Jane has sound judgment, and the strong values, and the spine of steel. The challenge is to convince readers that these things are equally powerful. The power in status and money is easy to see; it takes good writing to show us the power in the other stuff. But it can't be mere lip-service - this is a place where you really need to use "show don't tell", you need to think of a plot suited to demonstrate that.

The more unequal the starting point, the more dramatic the reversal of fortunes you need to get to that place. I don't at all mind an asshole alpha hero. Rochester is such a trashfire of a man, I still love Jane Eyre. There's a let of fun in having some guy start out all high and mighty and then reducing him too rubble through the power of love. But you really can't pull any punches when it comes to the reducing to rubble part. Have him be rejected, abandoned, almost killed in an effort at redemption, maimed and permanently disabled, wailing to the heavens, come clean with his god. Have her build a content life without him, find friends, find success in her profession, become financially independent. And then let's talk again.

I don't at all mind an asshole alpha, but I feel that in modern romance they're often not nearly made to suffer enough.
 
Last edited:

Meg

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 16, 2022
Messages
728
Reaction score
2,362
Honestly, I've never read a f/m romance where I indentified with the woman at all. Maybe it's just a me thing. But whatever makes up (cishet female) me, I don't see it reflected.

When I read romance, I read m/m, because then it's just about two people.

(I fear I'm not making myself clear. In my head it's just about two people. That is, the inevitable hetero dynamic has been lifted out.)
 
Last edited:

Unimportant

No COVID yet. Still masking.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
19,519
Reaction score
22,755
Location
Aotearoa
I think the romance I best identified with, and loved, was LaVerle Spencer's morning glory (title?) Which may reflect on me as a flawed person but I still think it was a very well written book. Yanno, four decades ago....

And Anne McCaffrey s The Lady, cuz I'm a horse mad girl.

I reckon sometimes it's about pushing readers' buttons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elenitsa

Jazz Club

It's not wrong, it's dialect
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 18, 2021
Messages
4,009
Reaction score
6,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Honestly, I've never read a f/m romance where I indentified with the woman at all. Maybe it's just a me thing. But whatever makes up (cishet female) me, I don't see it reflected.

When I read romance, I read m/m, because then it's just about two people.

(I fear I'm not making myself clear. In my head it's just about two people. That is, the inevitable hetero dynamic has been lifted out.)
You're being very clear. As another cishet woman, m/f some romance novels can make me so angry I want to throw the book across the room...

I'm attempting to write a romance without all the male dominance stuff. Maybe everybody will hate it. I've heard a lot that the romance reader 'expects' that type of thing and doesn't want to read about 'non-alpha' male heroes. I don't know whether it's true, but I suspect it's the same bullshit they kept telling us for years about how novels featuring POC 'wouldn't sell'. I'm going to try something else anyway, see how it turns out.

(Caveat I'm sure there are plenty of less conventional romances out there. I'm just talking about some of the ones I've read, the submission guidlines for harlequin, etc. I'm aware that doesn't represent the entire romance market. But there still doesn't seem to be any dearth of overbearing male leads and female leads who just can't help falling for them.)
 

Brigid Barry

Under Consideration and Revising
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
8,867
Reaction score
14,187
Location
Maine, USA
(I don't know which part of this post was offensive so to be on the safe side, I'd rather clear the whole thing)
 
Last edited:

lizmonster

Possibly A Mermaid Queen
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
14,532
Reaction score
24,099
Location
Massachusetts
Website
elizabethbonesteel.com
Sooooooo....this is me asking if people could maybe watch the genre stereotyping.

Feminist romance novels exist and sell well.

Some people have alpha male/asshole fantasies.

Romance is a massive genre with many vibrant subgenres, many of which are represented by AW members.

It is possible to enthuse about our work and our ideas without tearing down the work and ideas of others.
 

ChaseJxyz

Writes 🏳️‍⚧️🌕🐺 and 🏳️‍⚧️🌕🐺 accessories
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2020
Messages
4,524
Reaction score
6,203
Location
The Rottenest City on the Pacific Coast
Website
www.chasej.xyz
Honestly, I've never read a f/m romance where I indentified with the woman at all. Maybe it's just a me thing. But whatever makes up (cishet female) me, I don't see it reflected.

When I read romance, I read m/m, because then it's just about two people.

(I fear I'm not making myself clear. In my head it's just about two people. That is, the inevitable hetero dynamic has been lifted out.)

So this doesn't surprise me at all, considering the very long history of slash and BL. But that does make me wonder:
  • Would the same be true of f/f or wlw stories?
  • Are cishet readers interested in stories about trans characters?
Cause over in Fanfiction Land, where writers and readers are more likely queer than not, I know that t4t doesn't need any sort of explanation or handholding. But what does that look like for more mainstream cis readers? Is that something they're going to connect with or understand like they do with cis mlm?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elenitsa

Brigid Barry

Under Consideration and Revising
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
8,867
Reaction score
14,187
Location
Maine, USA
I don't understand most of the acronyms, but assume someone will pick up what they connect with?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elenitsa

Pterofan

Trust me, I'm a writer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
2,132
Reaction score
1,271
Location
Pennsylvania Dutch Country
Website
www.pterosnest.blogspot.com
Maybe this is a derail, but...several years ago one of the county libraries hosted a talk by a local author who wrote for Harlequin. About 25-30 Harlequin fans and/or wannabe authors crammed into the room for tips and secrets. As the Q&A progressed, somehow the topic turned to Robert Parker's Spenser novels. At least a third of the women there turned out be enthusiastic Spenser fans. Not of the stories. Of Spenser and Hawk. Those women did not like designated love interest Susan at all. She could fall off a cliff and they'd cheer. They were there for Spenser and Hawk. For them, that was the real relationship. And these were women who were clearly fans of traditional MF romance, since they'd shown up to meet a Harlequin author.

I was stunned. Up until that moment, I'd thought I was the only one who'd felt that way.

I'm pretty sure Parker didn't intend to write slash. Both Spenser and Hawk were clearly het. (Avery Brooks in the TV version--whoa.) But he did create an epic bromance between two tough, straight guys who would die for each other, so well defined it overshadowed the traditional MF pairing. Was Susan that bad of a character? Welllll...she wasn't a great character. Not as great as Hawk. And Spenser and Susan together in a scene weren't as great as Spenser and Hawk together.

Don't even get me going on Destiel. :D

I don't know what the answer is here. Maybe women aren't written as well in some books as they could be, by both male and female authors. Maybe the writer falls for a certain pairing and they get that extra attention, and the readers pick up on it. If the writer isn't that into their own characters, why should we be?
 

Unimportant

No COVID yet. Still masking.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
19,519
Reaction score
22,755
Location
Aotearoa
So this doesn't surprise me at all, considering the very long history of slash and BL. But that does make me wonder:
  • Would the same be true of f/f or wlw stories?
I don't know what wlw is.

For the f/f romance I've read -- the very early stuff from the 60's - 80's often did feature a butch/femme pairing, but they didn't have the alpha/power dynamics typical of male/female romance of that era. The f/f romances of the last few decades generally don't feature butch/femme because that's pretty much gone out the window in real life. It's just two people, as lorna said, who fall in love and have a HEA, and who happen to both be female.

  • Are cishet readers interested in stories about trans characters?
Speaking only for myself I think yes, very much. They let the reader ride along in the head of someone wholly different to themselves, live something outside of their own personal experiences. Isn't that why we read about characters who are detectives, or dragons, or Navy SEALS, or spies, or lawyers, or demon hunters, or chefs, or vampires, or....


Cause over in Fanfiction Land, where writers and readers are more likely queer than not, I know that t4t doesn't need any sort of explanation or handholding.
I am queer, but I definitely need an explanation for t4t! I don't read/write fanfic, though, so maybe that's the problem.
 

CMBright

Cats are easy, Mice are tough
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 23, 2021
Messages
5,657
Reaction score
7,983
Location
Oklahoma
I would also need to have the acronyms spelled out. Like t4t, the only thing that comes to mind is tit for tat. Which could be completely off base as easily as totally on the nose.

I have never been interested in romance as a genre to read. Which was why I had so much trouble finding the Outlander series in one bookstore where they shelved it in romance. In a competing bookstore, it was shelved in sff. Still not sure if it was romance or fantasy or crossover.
 

ChaseJxyz

Writes 🏳️‍⚧️🌕🐺 and 🏳️‍⚧️🌕🐺 accessories
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2020
Messages
4,524
Reaction score
6,203
Location
The Rottenest City on the Pacific Coast
Website
www.chasej.xyz
oops, my bad, here are definitions:
  • mlm - men loving men
  • wlw - women loving women, sapphic
  • t4t - trans loving trans, no cissies allowed!!!!!
Some people identify as, say, wlw instead of lesbian or sapphic for whatever reason, like inclusivity for nonbinary people. "Gay" is such a broad term now, it no longer exclusively means dudes into dudes, and bl and yaoi have fannish connotations, so you don't want to use those in all contexts (and you probably do not want to use yaoi to label yourself lol)

Maybe one of these days I'll make a giant glossary of queer stuff
 

Jazz Club

It's not wrong, it's dialect
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 18, 2021
Messages
4,009
Reaction score
6,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Some people have alpha male/asshole fantasies.
They're free to enjoy them. I just find the content annoying. It isn't 'tearing down' someone else's work to state that opinion. I'm sure plenty are well-written; I didn't even comment on that side of things.
Romance is a massive genre with many vibrant subgenres, many of which are represented by AW members.
Yeah I made sure to say that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elenitsa

lizmonster

Possibly A Mermaid Queen
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
14,532
Reaction score
24,099
Location
Massachusetts
Website
elizabethbonesteel.com
They're free to enjoy them. I just find the content annoying. It isn't 'tearing down' someone else's work to state that opinion. I'm sure plenty are well-written; I didn't even comment on that side of things.

Yeah I made sure to say that.

I wasn't actually thinking of your post, but okay.

ETA: To be entirely clear, I was responding to a post that has since been amended. I should have been more explicit.
 
Last edited: