I'm wondering about this because my own perspectives on what is needful in a relationship are perhaps less common then even I had supposed, so I throw the question open in the hope that with discussion, I can get a feel for how not to bewilder and offend my entire audience when talking about the subject.

What elements are necessary to a compelling romantic interest? Which are factors increasing that interest (both for the reader and the character) and which are detrimental to that interest? What other elements, though genuine considerations in real relationships, should be avoided in talking about fictional ones?

I think unrequited love is the most "romantic" of all. It is all about the chase and not about what happens after, in story telling that is.

I think the key elements are the lover and distance from the object of his/her adoration. The notion of perfection in the admired person is hard to sustain once the lover truly encounters his/her beloved. The sheen wears off in the face of truth.

Or, the story becomes so saccharine that no reader would spend time with it.

Much of what we call romantic comedy these days (sex included) is just a variation on that theme. Ever notice how the principal characters never seem to actually connect, even if they physically are involved? There are separations of understanding that take the place of the older style unrequited love. This is physical love without the depth of interpersonal knowledge. The couples seem to spar rather than learn more about each other. Whether they stay together or break up is secondary to the plot. What really matters is the process, nowadays.

I think this is just a modern take on the old theme of the lover's quest. Striving for the person is only worthy of telling the tale if the loved one is somehow unattainable. There must be an element of tragedy or the lover is just a fool.

So you have to be searching for something in a relationship that you will never actually secure. Whether it is the guy longing after a woman that is 'out of his league' or a woman hoping that her 'bad boy' will turn around, or just the couple that is chasing after 'happily ever after', a goal that it is logically impossible to secure before the end of time (or their deaths, which seems more probable ), there is interest as long as they are always getting closer towards something that is never attained.

I think this happened in Moonlighting. It's about to happen in the X-files. There are others I can't think of at the moment.

I did think of another romantic convention, however, that is not "unrequited." The old couple holding hands walking in the park. We look at them and admire how they've kept the relationship so tender after all these years. (Never mind that she's grabbing onto him to make sure he doesn't fall and break a hip, or wander off and start a fire in the nearest trash can .

I think that if Scully and Mulder ever got together, it would signal that Fox had lost his passion for hunting aliens, or maybe that Scully couldn't help him anymore. She's too important to him as an ally for him to risk what taking her as a lover might do to their relationship. And she cares about him to much to stop being what he needs, a careful and exact investigator.

The main problem with maintaining a relationship after the 'chase' is over is that too many people that write these things think that once the relationship is 'consumated' it then should be completely free of hardship or trials if ithe love is 'true'. So they are stuck with the idea that if there are any difficulties, then the characters should abandon the relationship and go their separate ways, with all potential for further romance killed off (or even more sickly, they have the characters break up and get together in the sort of disfunctional cycle that makes any sane person want to puke).

Take Mulder and Scully. After the first episode we know that they are going to stick together. That's not even an issue. And we also know that they won't 'get it on' unless their partnership fails in some critical way. But that doesn't make us less interested in the crises that threaten their relationship in various ways.

I just don't see that there is any real barrier to writing about people that have stable, committed relationships. I mean, the question 'will they do it' is out of the picture, but there is a question that is even more compelling, 'how do they do it'. Like when you watch a nature documentary about crocodiles. It's less interesting whether they get a particular animal than how they do it. Or maybe it's just me. But it can't be just me, because whenever the prey gets away, they explain what went wrong and show the crocodile getting the next victim good . I love that stuff.

I think Mad About You is not such a great example of a stable relationship. I think they circled each other while married.

Actually, I thought of one print relationship that is kind of romantic and works well. Does anyone else get the "Sally Forth" comic strip? She and her hubby are a model of romance and deep interaction. Odd to say that from a comic strip, but if you read through the things where they deal with work and their smart-as-a-whip kid, I think there's something there that most novels about relationships just don't have.

But more importantly, I don't think that I wanted to just get stuck talking about whether a committed relationship can be interesting. I will assert a priori for the remainder of this discussion that such relationships can be interesting. I feel perfectly justified in doing this because not only is it true, but because only after accepting that such relationships are interesting can we begin to discuss the question of how to make them interesting in literature.

Only the most purile literature doesn't assume that there is something permenent and lasting about a romantic affiliation, even if all that lasts is memory (I know that some literature presumes that conquest after debachery after conquest and so on is interesting, but I regard such as not properly belonging to a discussion of romance, since it is merely a history of unrestrained appetite).

This is a really good question and one that deserves to be discussed at length. Far too many writers substitute sex for romance, and that might just work if the reader has never learned the difference. But there is a difference, a big one! Romance is not a requisite for sex, neither is sex required for romance. If I could just go back to a few points already made to state my stand on this:

I don't believe that the only love story worth telling is unrequited love. Maybe it's because I've been there, and it's not romantic, it's just painful. (Side note - have you ever noticed that most "romance" novels have one of five plots. No kidding! 97% of the time, the plot is unrequited love. That's because the criteria for stories they will accept and publish is incredibly detailed and confined, even down to the fact that they are almost required to have sex before they marry. You write the editors idea of romance, or they don't buy. There is not much room for individualism. Pitiful, isn't it?)

No one ever attains everything they want from any relationship! There are always challenges, ranging from simple to complex, to be dealt with in day to day dealings with the person you love and live with.

TV shows end because the writers run out of ideas, not because the characters decide to get together. "Hey, Ernie, whadda we do now? They've already slept together...Now we have no plot!" Forgive me for saying so, but Scully and Mulder don't really count - the entire show, let alone a relationship, is way too contrived for any part of it to count as realistic! (I'm sure I can expect heated debate about that one! )

Last of all, and most importantly is the point Jackonus made about the old couple walking through the park, hand in hand. Well, now - what has happened in their lives, and their life together to bring them this close together this strongly? Are we to throw away all those years and important events that occured between the time they fell in love all the way up to the time they are old and feeble and cute?

That, gentlepeople, is the story worth telling! Exploring every part, every piece, every joy, every heartache, every hardship that binds two people inseperably together. That is romance with all it's parts intact - the fluttery heart at first meeting, the thrill of the chase, the commitment of a lifetime together with all it's ups and downs, and the best resolution of all!

Our job as writers is to bring even the most trivial, yet the most endearing traits and events to life. How boring is hearing that a man loves his wife enough to get dressed in the middle of the night and go get her 7up because she's sick - or that he stays right by her, holding her hand, while the doctors run an excruciatingly painful test that will determine if they will ever have children? But I can tell you from personal experience that there is nothing, absolutely nothing that cements the hearts of two people together than these sorts of things that seem so boring and trivial, and not worth writing about.

I think something of the same sort went on between the two main characters in the "art lover's mysteries" by Iain Pears.

The couples in both evolved to a point and then seem to hang there with few changes, but changes, through a series of adventures. With both of them couples, both of them -- like with X-FILES -- are involved to some extent in the adventures. But with Parker and Pears, the romance is more subtle(?). And it is involved in domestic matters as well as the adventure.