Is Romance Overrated?

[LAHall]

While I do think the bank is pretty much cashed out on the cliche romance genre, I do think there's a lot of room to do great creative work with more realistic, personal ideas about love (Self-doubt, apprehension, ect.)

[Nakhti]

I think historical romance is always popular, just look at the popularity of Jane Austen novels. I think this kind of book makes for good romantic writing and will always be popular.

AAAARGH!!! DID you just call Jane Austen HISTORICAL ROMANCE??? NO NO NO NO NO. Jane Austen is ROMANCE. At the time she wrote the books, they were contemporary! It's only historical to you and me, but you don't call Dickens Historical Fiction just because it's setting is now in the past, do you??

Georgette Heyer is historical romance. Jezuz wept...

[LAHall]

Woody Allen = historical romance. HUZZAH!

[madhoca]

Jane Austin wrote social commentary, not 'romance'. Georgette Heyer's novels are researched so well two of them are used at Sandhurst when teaching the Peninsula Wars and Waterloo, so she goes slightly beyond being a romance writer sometimes. I don't think there are many women who write to her standard now. The research Bernard Cornwell does for his Sharpe's series comes close, but he's not so focussed on the romantic angle.

[Nakhti]

Jane Austin wrote social commentary, not 'romance'. Georgette Heyer's novels are researched so well two of them are used at Sandhurst when teaching the Peninsula Wars and Waterloo, so she goes slightly beyond being a romance writer sometimes. I don't think there are many women who write to her standard now. The research Bernard Cornwell does for his Sharpe's series comes close, but he's not so focussed on the romantic angle.

I dispute whether 'social commentary' is a genre - it is an important component of her writing, but I think the genre is actually more like romance than any other because the romantic relationships of the female characters are the main focus of the plot.

And your comments on Georgette Heyer seem to imply that writing romance means you can't also be a really good writer and write well researched, historically accurate novels - I think that pretty much sums up the dismissive attitude and general prejudice against romance as 'low brow' fiction that exists today. Mostly that attitude has been fuelled by some really crap genre romance novels and the popularity of Mills n Boon/Harlequin pulp romance, but it's simply not true that historical romance = badly researched schlock. I'm sure there are plenty of women who write to her standard - just not to her exact style and formula.

[MissRis]

I think you have to determine first if you are writing a romance novel or a story that happens to have a romantic aspect? Romance and literature are entwined in a way that is inescapable for a writer (I think). And also, I don't think you can write an romance story that hasn't been told. It's a common narrative trope that writers have been telling for centuries (if not more). Think sonnets, Shakespeare, etc. That's where our modern romance cliches come from. They're a trope because they work - there has to be something standing in the way of the relationship - whether it's class, age, other people whatever.

I would write your story the way you see fit and not worry so much about reinventing the wheel. What I would worry about is whether or not you are writing a romance or another type of story that happens to have a romance involved.

[CrimsonReaper]

If you like romance novels then write one. If you don't like them...

I would not write a straight-up romance because I find the concept ridiculous and in many ways weak and insulting. Most of them boil down to the girl being so special and awesome that she CHANGED a man and made him "better" in some way (gives up being a pirate, reclaims his humanity, blah blah blah). How dare you so be conceited that you believe you have the right or ability to change what another human being has chosen to be. Love is accepting someone for who they are, faults and all. Otherwise is it not love, but an exercise in proving how awesome you are. Most romance novels are just fluff to let readers act out their fantasies. Which is true of many genres. Not faulting romance for what it is. And romantic subtext/subplots can add to the quality of a book if handled well. As in they do not derail the actual plot. Frodo had a ring to destroy. Thankfully the homoerotic hobbit subtext didn't hinder that mission too much...

[madhoca]

The conclusions that you leapt to about my thinking are way off, Nakhti. For one thing, I write romance, so I am not dismissive of the effort that goes into crafting it. I am, however, fully aware that it is deliberately lowbrow and aimed at a mass market--and I have no problems with that. For Mills and Boon, the format and centralisation of the lead's love story is everything. If you haven't got that, no amount of fantastic writing or research will make them accept your work. I am sure Lisa Kleypas has no problems with writing to accepted norms for Romance, and is happy being a bestselling writer. If she has plans to win the Man Booker, on the other hand, she will need to radically review her style and classic trope plots.

Thanks to MissRis for making the distinction clearer. It is what she said that was really underlying my comments above. "A romance" is solely about the romantic involvement of the 2 romantic leads in contemporary publishing understanding, whereas historical fiction with a romantic element, or a work on social mores which involves relationships, romantic and otherwise ... these are all different types of writing.

[Cassiopeia Phoenix]

I don't think romance is overrated. I think, however, that romance is overused (over used?). I see many writers using romance as a decoration or as a "prize" for a character, and there's nothing to do with the plot. They could've cut the romance and the result would still be the same. I don't mind a romance book where the romance it's the main plot... Or for plot purposes and character development.

But people use romance where it doesn't have a function or they do it badly written. Perhaps both, and the result is awful. So bring on the well written romance for plot purposes!

[Kaymindless]

If you like romance novels then write one. If you don't like them...

I would not write a straight-up romance because I find the concept ridiculous and in many ways weak and insulting. Most of them boil down to the girl being so special and awesome that she CHANGED a man and made him "better" in some way (gives up being a pirate, reclaims his humanity, blah blah blah). How dare you so be conceited that you believe you have the right or ability to change what another human being has chosen to be. Love is accepting someone for who they are, faults and all. Otherwise is it not love, but an exercise in proving how awesome you are. Most romance novels are just fluff to let readers act out their fantasies. Which is true of many genres. Not faulting romance for what it is. And romantic subtext/subplots can add to the quality of a book if handled well. As in they do not derail the actual plot. Frodo had a ring to destroy. Thankfully the homoerotic hobbit subtext didn't hinder that mission too much...

Huh. The ones I've been reading lately are much more realistic in the fact that both parties change in the aspect. Except for where the pirate let the woman free herself instead of being socially acceptable.

But people use romance where it doesn't have a function or they do it badly written. Perhaps both, and the result is awful. So bring on the well written romance for plot purposes!

Very true.

[shaylyn]

Sorry, but just to prove the OP's point about there being nothing new in romance... this is a very established trope. Have you read Pride and Prejudice? And even that's probably a relative late-comer to this trope...

So no, not a new twist, but an idea that can definitely work, and has done in one of the most well-loved romances of all time.

Okay maybe "new" isn't quite what I meant. It just seems to be showing up a lot more lately. Like it's gotten more popular recently.

[C.B Harrington]

I've been thinking about writing a romance novel lately, and this begs the question, is romance overrated? The many concepts of romance stories have been repeated throughout history, and I've never really come across a different way of telling the story. It is always : star-crossed lovers, rich man falls for poor woman, in YA I've seen many popular boy falls for nerdy girl, etc. My question is, is there any possible way of creating a romance story without familiar plot lines? I don't want to write a story and my reader say "I know whats going to happen" or "I've read something like this before", I want to catch my reader's attention and make them say, "Wow! That's different" or "I definitely didn't expect that!"

In this way, is it a good idea to mix multiple genres and make it a bit more interesting and different, other than your typical romantic drama? Such as, fantasy romance, mystery romance, horror romance?

Have any of you wrote something different along the lines of a romance? If so, would you like to share? Keep in mind that your ideas are your own and it is wrong to steal another writer's idea, even if you do tweak it.



Thanks and sincerely,
aimiaiko

Romance Novels have a very specific word count and a very specific plot structure. Romance is not something you should attempt with the idea of getting published, without serious research into what your book needs to be. But, romance isn't overrated - what is overrated is contrived romance (in life and in fiction). Real romance isn't flowers, chocolates, candle lit dinners and walks on the beach in moonlight. It's a growing admiration for who someone is, it's the untold sacrifices people make for another, it's laughing and sharing, it's spontaneity and sex in public. In a word it's passion - and passion is reeeeally difficult to write without it being formulaic or cheesy.

But, if you find you have a knack for it - do it, because that is a money making genre for certain.

[Bluesman]

As long as there will be women, there will be a market for romantic stories.

[JonSpear360]

Men are just as interested in romance as women, we just don't seem to like it be the central theme in stories. It is extremely hard for a story to be successful without some romance the protagonist is ultimately fighting for.

[Bluesman]

Men are just as interested in romance as women, we just don't seem to like it be the central theme in stories. It is extremely hard for a story to be successful without some romance the protagonist is ultimately fighting for.

I now realize that is definitely true; most guys also need some explosions and shit to keep it interesting. But we're all rooting for the hero to walk into the sunset with the beautiful girl in the end.

When I think about a "romance novel", though, I think about those 'candle light' pocket books. I thought that was what the OP was referring to.

[ithestargazer]

Is romance overrated? No, no, no. Never. Romance is beating heart of humanity. It gives us hope and excites us and has been an integral part of literature since the beginning. Though the evocative (and kinda creepy) covers of Harlequin novels may line the book store walls they are by no means representative of the genre as a whole. Romance lingers in most (not all I'm sure) books and is an important part of the human story.

It is not overrated at all, though I'm sure the overzealous marketing of certain books (to-movies) have given people the impression that romance is contrived. It's all about how it's written. A well-written book is a well-written book, no matter what genre.

[peachalulu]

I don't think romance is overrated - everyone always seems up for a romance and it shows. They constitue over a billion dollars in books sales! As for running into the same old plots or cliches - some of these are comfort zones for genre readers. They actually look forward to seeing new characters going through familiar routines. A good way to avoid these cliches however, is to know them inside and out - jot down everyone you can think off and start an opposite list. Also decide on what type of romance you want to do. Merging with another genre can help. Like if you don't want to be a Sex and the City clone but want to do a fashion fueled romance merge it with futuristic sci-fi or fantasy. Switch it up - give us a historic romance from a vulnerable guys point of view - he's the blushing virgin!

[Tesoro]

I don't think romance is overrated - everyone always seems up for a romance and it shows. They constitue over a billion dollars in books sales! As for running into the same old plots or cliches - some of these are comfort zones for genre readers. They actually look forward to seeing new characters going through familiar routines. A good way to avoid these cliches however, is to know them inside and out - jot down everyone you can think off and start an opposite list. Also decide on what type of romance you want to do. Merging with another genre can help. Like if you don't want to be a Sex and the City clone but want to do a fashion fueled romance merge it with futuristic sci-fi or fantasy. Switch it up - give us a historic romance from a vulnerable guys point of view - he's the blushing virgin!

Definitely agree. Besides, that is not a "problem" only for romance. Think of murder stories. They are all the same in the end. A dead body is found. Police is put on the case. They start investigating and find out all kinds of things. Here where I live, they are even more narrow and usually the setting is this idyllic little town where everybody knows everybody and all of them are shocked that there's a murderer among them. Things starts to happen, secrets are being revealed... we all know these stories. The thing about them is characters. Setting. Thinks that happen that makes them unique. The same with romance. Setting, tone, character and plot twists can make them very different from each other, even though the central issue is the same.

[cindythompson]

Overrated or not, the fact that people got used to act and it’s a big part of literary arts there’s nothing wrong with it.

[Nick Hudson]

There's pulp romance, and there's actual romance. My fiancée loves her romance books, and though she thinks most of them are cheesy, or kind of trashy (a guilty pleasure), there's others that she finds are exception, quality reads. The Time Traveller's Wife, while not wholly romance due to the obvious science fiction connotations, is a great example of such a piece.