ROMANCE!

Do you steer your stories, or do they steer you??? How do I bring my story back to the land of fantasy, instead of reality? Can it be done? (And will Lillie and Scott still get together in the end?!)

I'm at a loss... (help!)

(forgot my sig,)
LL

Seriously, though. We were discussing this on another page. When my characters run away, they decide to settle down and be happy, and the story is over.

My current WIP has 2 romantic subplots and might acquire more of them before it's finished.

My next planned novel has a very strong romantic plot that is very important to the story.

As for characters pulling you whole-hog into romance... I'm not the person to comment (says Gen, who *has* tried writing in romance, the only genre ghetto more marginalized than SF*). Although I would point your attention to Luna, an imprint of Harlequin that publishes fantasy/romance crossovers, labeled as SF.

* Marginalized by the "literary establishment," not marginalized in terms of sales, which tend to dominate a huge segment of the market.

I have always been less than thrilled with romantic sub-plots. I NEVER write them. And now I've got one as a major facet of the novel I'm working on. (It's necessary. Really.)

Assuming it ever gets published, I'm thinking of using a pseudonym, just so I don't have to imagine everyone I knew as a teenager snickering at the idea of me writing anything involving romance!

Nothing of mine will have romance in it.

Seriously, I've never thought about it and probably wouldn't try if I did. You have to have some notion of romance to do it properly, and I am a guy.

I hate romance novels. UGH! Do not go down that row in the book store--picked up an agent who said no romance novels, no women's fiction.

Mira books is taking a serious look at my novel. I about died and screamed when my agent said we are going to the romance publishers with this--it is really romance and women's fiction.

It is a first person story told from the male POV, it does have a serious romance thread--but not the bodice ripper type stuff that I think we all see as "romance."

So I took a trip down that "row" in the book store. There are a lot of books there, SciFi, Fantasy, Gothic, ect--not at all what romance used to be.

And romance writers make good money.

So at this point--I'll take the advance and run. (if Mira wants it)

To be honest, the reason I was so worried is that I can be a pretty sappy, sentimental person, and that side of me was taking over when I was going for "adventure" in this story!

I like the idea of "SMITING" them with something... he, he, he..... *evil grin* (Ha! Take that, you lovebirds!!!)

And Shawn... ... let us know where to find your book, and we'll read it! (I'll admit, I find myself on the dreaded romance aisle a bit too much... )

Thanks, all you lovely people-- this was fun!

(Note to self: YOU ARE THE AUTHOR OF YOUR STORY!!!)

Once the question of "will or won't they" has been answered, it is no longer up in the air, and you can move on to other things.

Even when the focus of the story is on something else, developing romantic tension that resolves partway through the story makes the entire story feel like it drops. You don't have to show the characters angsting, and maybe the only reason why they aren't yet together is something small: because they haven't yet gotten up the confidence to talk to one another, or because in the middle of the crazy madness they feel like it's the wrong time. But if a story starts with romantic tension between lead characters and then resolves it partway through without another complication (with the same characters or another set), it's *really* going to tic me, the reader, off.

I feel like this is a general rule for storytelling. I know it's bad form to draw from outside fiction, but television shows tend to drop in the ratings when romantic tension between leads is resolved. It's why Mulder could kiss Scully's doppleganger, Scully could kiss another man in Mulder's body, and Mulder and Scully could nearly kiss but be interupted by a genetically altered bee sting-- but they never could just kiss until the final episode.

Romantic fiction (and by extension romantic subplots) suddenly made sense to me when I learned one thing: External conflict is what keeps the leads physically together. Internal conflict is what keeps the leads emotionally apart. The story arc is resolved when the leads reach a stable point in their relationship-- an understanding, if you will; or in some cases, the death or defection of one of the leads.

Then the sequel came out. Guess what? Everyone wanted to see the two characters get together, which sparked yet another hook effect in the sequel's storyline. Romance can either be a useful tool or a dangerous blunder. It all depends on how you handle it (in my opinion). I've always tended to keep my romantic creations light and playful (not to mention sarcastic) while maintaining an awareness that the two lovebirds actually do care about each other. Why? Because that's an aspect of real romance I've witnessed in everyday life, and in my own life as well. I think there are many ways to approach this topic...none of them particularly simple.

If two characters quickly come to an understanding without needing to overcome any significant obstacle, then there isn't any romantic tension developed. The effect is much the same as though they started out together.

If your characters are flirting on the first page, and there is no reason it would be implausible for them to be together, then put them together and have done. I say "come to an understanding" because that is more accurate. They should simply agree on the type of relationship they're going to have.

If you try to keep them apart when they want to be together and there is no compelling element of the story or their characters keeping them apart, then and only then is romantic tension developed. And once that happens, you're subject to all the nasty side effects.

quote:

---

Even when the focus of the story is on something else, developing romantic tension that resolves partway through the story makes the entire story feel like it drops.

---

I disagree. I think people THINK this is the case, but I do not believe is as hard and fast a rule as you do.

First of all, most television shows that are unable to resolve romantic tension because their ratings would drop have nothing else. The entire show, for all practical purposes, centered on that romance or, at the very least, the only thing tying the episodes together was the romance. Let's take Lois and Clark, for example, a show I liked until they got married...sure, it was about the new adventures of Superman, but the reason you watched t he next episode was the carry over sexual tension.

Now let's takea nother show I watched for about half a season before I realized they were going to do the same old thing with it...Ed. The show *could* have been about a small town, rather than about a small town lawyer and the girl who couldn't be with him because she wanted to be with a jerk but she was beautiful and could have anyone she wanted...(Never bought that, really....it's not the beautiful part, but she didn't have low self-esteem or anything.) But it *could* have involved the lives of the people of the town, involved some new main characters, hooked some of them up, split them apart, been a whole thing.

Here's a show that does it partway...Friends. It has six main characters. Now, the main romance is Ross and Rachael (which has been stretched out to the annoying point right now...if they weren't wrapping this up in about five more episodes...) But they were able to get two other main characters together, even after stretching out their romantic tension. The reason was that we had lots of character's lives to follow, lots of things happening in everyone's lives, and to be honest, at the moment, the young married couple trying to adopt a baby thread is one of the more interesting ones in the show.

Terry Goodkind's series resolves romantic tension between our main hero and heroine in the third book (I think...maybe the fourth). Granted, he split them up (not of their own choosing) after that, but the actual sexual tension was resolved.

I guess the point is that you can resolve sexual attention as long as 1.) It is not the most important plotline, or has not *Become* the most important plotline in a reader's mind. 2.) If the book still warrants reading based on other threads. Keep in mind that romance, as powerful as it is in our lies, is just a subplot in many stories. It obeys the same rules as any other subplots. To drop it, you have to increase tension by introducing another point of conflict, either on the main plotline of in a new subplot.

Like Survivor said, though, falsely prolonging romantic tension is one of the most annoying things someone can do. This si why television shows that become about a relationship between two characters ultimately fail and lose interest. We become sick of stupid reasons why they can't get together. At the very least, Gen< i have to disagree that it doesn't matter what the reason is. It DOES matter...and it better be good. That is my single biggest problem with the tneri romance on television industry (I don't know if that really is an indsutry. ) In an attempt to make a show last for five years or more, they have a teary-eyed woman saying that she couldn't possibly get together with so-and-so because they're just not meant to be because of the journey they've travelled, which in and of itself is a conjuration of the writers so thin as to be laughable.

I realize that I probably should have explicitly stated that I'm talking about the tension between the two leading characters and/or cases where there isn't another set of characters to create a new source of tension. (I feel like for me as a reader, even the driving alternative plotline should probably involve romantic tension, or the change in the nature of the book will feel strange. But I realize that this isn't true for everyone.)

In the specific case here, Survivor: I did assume that you meant resolving the relationship partway into the book. But even if it's on the first page, I'm still not sure if I agree, although it's for different reasons. If it's possible for two people to get together without any kind of adjustment period, this will work, and it will be "much the same as though they started out together." The thing is, I feel like there will be an adjustment period, and it'll be awkward; they'll be determining the terms of their relationship. As a reader, I'll believe more in (and be hooked more strongly by) unresolved romantic tension with minor angsting than by the negotiation period of a new relationship (or the unrealistic lack thereof).

As for creation of tension being simple: I'm not saying that applying that guideline as you write is simple, or that romantic subplots are simple. I'm saying that thinking about them this way, for me at least, made a lot of strange things about romantic fiction ("Arranged marriage? Slave ownership? Stealing a baby? How are these romantic?") suddenly fall into a sensible order.

Like anything else, resolving romantic tension (between the leads) partway through probably can be made to work. However, I can't think of any obvious examples. Stephan Donaldson's Mirror books come close, but even there, Terisa and Geradin's relationship isn't resolved until she decides not to return to her world-- up until that point, the relationship is still at risk.

I don't think that romance in the story is a bad thing, I think the way it is implemented is what makes it the trashy bodice rippers or a science fiction story where we can feel we are just going through part of the persons life. - I prefer seeing the romance happen, as opposed to having some strange jump from where the person is suddenly married, and we never saw how the two interact -- but again that is me.

To respond to one of your points I wanted to address, Christine:

quote:

---

i have to disagree that it doesn't matter what the reason is.

---

I'm also not saying the reason should be something made up and tacked onto the character for the author's convenience, because nothing in the book-- plot, characters, or anything else-- should be able to strike the reader as a creation of the author: these characters should feel real. It's just that I feel like *everything* in the book should feel real, not just the reasons for the romantic-tension-engendering characters staying apart.

An example, again from the Mirror books. Terisa stays away from Geraden, despite considerable romantic interest, because she isn't thinking of him as a real man. (And this is explicitly stated.) When she realizes this, she gives in, and their relationship develops (although it does not resolve until the end). Is her realizing this coming from the main plot? Not really; it comes from who she is as a character. Does her realizing this have an impact on that main plot? Yes.

The story arcs for television shows are different from those for books, because of the nature of the programming: every week another nice, tidy, story arc, and we have to keep stringing the viewers along while never letting the two leads get together. That is irritating. I've stopped watching a number of shows because it's so irritating (and I suspect it means ensemble cast shows like Friends are easier to write and maintain over time). But I think an "I'm afraid to talk to her because she intimidates me" subplot after six seasons is different from an "I just met her and I'm afraid to talk to her because she intimidates me" subplot in a stand-alone novel.

Sure, they haven't fully built a relationship together, but there is ease and comfort between them. There isn't "tension", they have an evolving relationship, but that evolution isn't a cause for worry or fear.

But in point of fact, I'm going to go further and assert that the only reason you can't "resolve romantic tension" between two characters is when the characters themselves would regard that as the natural endpoint of the relationship.

Once they've done it, there is nothing further to interest either so the relationship will naturally end.

When you're working with that type of character, and only with that type of character, "resolving the romantic tension" too early is fatal to the story.

quote:

---

Is her realizing this coming from the main plot? Not really

---

Jules, I agree that the reason she decides to stay and the final resolution come from her acceptance of the world as real, but I was talking more about the point where she starts thinking of Geraden as a man (ugh, there's no good way to say that, is there? anyway, it's as a real *man* here rather than *real* man), which I would felt was more when Geraden's brother the rake tries to climb in bed with her and tells her that, and she realizes it's true. (And even though Eremis was also a character in the world she'd found herself in, she didn't seem to have any problems thinking of him as a man.)

But yeah, maybe not the best example anyway. I was pulling up a book where something internal in who the character is caused two characters to stay apart, and I'd already mentioned that one... Those are great books. If they weren't a very long two part series I'd have been seriously tempted to choose them for my bookgroup pick.

[rant warning] And responding to a completely different point. Personally, I feel like evolving relationships are a cause for worry and fear for some of us. They're adjustments: how could they not be? I'm sure level of tension depends on who the people are, but for a lot of us the stress of the adjustment period is real.

Resolution of romantic tension under the definition I was proposing means the relationship becomes static, stops changing and growing and put under stress. Any relationship that develops and then gets ignored to focus "the stuff that matters" will fall under this category for me.

Something that's sheerly my opinion, and that I probably can't even begin to defend because of that: Characters falling into bed together define a relationship the way physical appearence defines a character. Does it make a difference in how we think of them? It may. But it can't be the only reason we're given to care. [End rant, and I do realize we're getting into definitional quibbles, and probably arguing for some of the same things. My only remaining very-different-beliefs: 1) changing a dynamic relationship into a static relationship partway through will annoy the reader in me; and 2) "understandings" do not mean the end to romantic tension, stress, and threat to the relationship.]

She is who my agent decided to compare my book to in his pitch letters. Well, after a long phone call while we both surfed Amazon on the Internet, her work it was decided by both of us was a good one to compare my story too, which also has time travel.

Her's has much more graphic sex in it than mine does. (mine's about nill on the graphic sex--I go more for implied)