I considered War of the Worlds but the MC does spend a bit of time trying to track down his wife. Debatable if you consider that romance as there is no intimacy but the emotional connection is there.
I do think romance tends to be slightly more formulaic than most other genres but I think you're exaggerating the extent of the problem. There are plenty of romances with more original, meaningful and realistic plots than the bland idealised ones.
That's a very interesting statement. I had a wee think about it, and I believe you're right. Or rather, romantic relationships take up much more fiction 'time' that they do in real life. That's mainly because stories involving relationships are usually about significant points in the relationship ...getting together, falling apart, making choices between partners, losing a partner. They're not about the mundane bits in between. People write (and read) fiction about incidents that stand out, that make good 'stories.' It's interesting that romantic relationships are so often a part of, or the whole of, what makes a story work. I am inclined to believe that finding 'the significant other' and making the relationship last is actually pretty important to most people, whether they're actually in a relationship or not. There are a few exceptions, no doubt, but while seeking the significant other doesn't dominate everybody's life all the time, I think the notion does cross nearly everybody's mind now and again. When the significant other does appear, there are very few people who aren't absorbed—at least temporarily—by the potential for a lifelong partnership with that person. That's probably why so many stories deal with this kind of a relationship. Finding a life partner is important to most people—of central importance to many—but it's also fraught by chance. You really don't have a lot of control over when/if this person is going to appear. When they do appear there are often external problems, or the people concerned aren't quite ready for the leap. "True love doesn't always run smooth." Hence the stories. Romantic stories wouldn't sell if people didn't care about the subject, would they?
At first I thought this question would be simple to answer. After all I've read plenty of books without a romantic undertone. Then I started to think about it. In fact most of the books I've read and appreciated the most had some form of relationship themes or dealt with the consequences of them, but they weren't all romance novels. I guess you can't treat every book that deals with romantic relationships as "romance themed". After all these relationships are a vital part of life and just because someone includes them i a novel doesn't mean it's a romantic story. Come to think of it I think I'd find it boring to read a novel where there's not even trace of love or related subjects. And in the same way I wouldn't want to write one without it either. Romantic or not, love and relationships will always be a part of my book. Even when it's not the major theme.
I'd like to add: The Face in the Frost Jurassic Park And everything written by H P Lovecraft. Like, ever.
I've only read the Martian recently. The story I'm working on right now has no romance. (Well, there is a long dead, previous romance that is referred to once or twice, but nothing that is developed or ongoing.) I love romance as much as the next guy - even the dreaded love triangle. But I found it pretty easy to ditch the love interest and focus on other types of relationships. Adding in a romance would have been distracting and diverted attention away from the story I wanted to tell. There are so many other kinds of relationships to build, and other kinds of love - sisters and friends and family and rivals. She had no time for lover.
Romance adds a bit of flavor to the plot, but I'd rather not read a story focused primarily on that. As a side note, there's a huge deficit of long-term relationships involving elderly characters in fiction.
I'm fine with romance in my plots, though I don't read any books that are strictly romance. But you can always tell when a writer adds 'romance' into a story just for the sake of it being there, and it always feels forced. Nothing makes me groan quite as much as "heroic male protagonist falling for one-dimensional good-looking female character" or "strong, independent female character falling for chiseled-face one-dimensional male character that is devoted to her". Romance done well is great, have at it. But throwing two characters together - or worse, creating an entirely new one just to fit the role of 'love interest' - I would avoid.
Why not read romance as a genre? I suppose if you mean "strictly romance" as in only romance then I would sort of agree. But as long as you spice it up with other character drama or whatever then I don't see why you can't appreciate it as a major element as well as secondary.
The Sherlock Holmes series (Arthur Conan Doyle version) has got pretty much no romance in it. Watson gets married a couple of times, but nothing intimate about those relationships is shown.
I'm pretty sure he's supposed to genuinely love his wives. And there's a build-up for them so that makes actual romantic development which makes it more romantic.
It was a joke. Not a good one, obviously. I do like stories where there's a buildup to a relationship rather than instantly getting it on and 'love at first sight'. There's a realism in a more drawn-out romance that gives it more authenticity.
Oh bloody hell, yes. I'm immediately turned off by that stuff. As well as phrases like; "the one" (you can fall in love more than once), "soulmate" (same except with bullcrap mysticism as well yay), "destined love" (There's no reason to believe things are predestined.) and I hate ideas of "perfect" romances where they're sweet all the time. There are always fights and whatnot. I actually think they make the relationship better. If you can fight with someone and then hours later be having tender, loving intimacy then you know you truly love them. And so on. I just generally have the opinion that an idealized view of life aspects cheapens the real complicated, human things.
As someone who is personally disinterested in anybody romantically, I find pretty much all romance in stories extremely difficult to relate to and I end up mentally mocking them the entire time. Ironically, when it comes to my own work, I find it extremely difficult to avoid putting in simply because I know where and when it would reasonably take place. So on one hand there's lots of characters in relationships but 90% of them are off-page because I couldn't depict it correctly if I took a class in romantic fiction. That, and I really don't think it's necessary to the story if you have a good premise and can write other kinds of relationships well. So, to avoid having to write romance explicitly, I tend to use characters who you either don't want to have romantic attachments because it would be awful, or have everything else be of a higher priority such that to add in romance would just be annoying and would subtract from the story. I did make fun of myself and the romance genera once by having an arguably psychopathic character decide to see what all the fuss was about. On one hand I was actually trying to write it realistically in the way they behaved, and on the other hand I used their internal dialog (it's first person present) to say exactly how much bullshit was going on in an attempt to do a deconstruction of the romantic genera. I made it abundantly clear that the character thought their imitation was really good (though they still didn't see why people enjoyed that kind of thing) but as they learn later, it was pretty hilariously not good, at all. So bad in fact, that the guy she was 'dating' was completely unaware that's what she was doing and just thought she was trying to act civilly towards him as an apology for being a jerk earlier. The way they acted consisted of horrible imitations of cliches from books and movies, except in all the wrong contexts and very frequently with the gender roles backwards. (She realizes this in hindsight.) Because female calling a guy self-conscious, giving him flowers and attempting to sound like they care about them as a person, when they only chose them because they were somewhat attractive, zoning out whenever they talk and pretending to be interested in something inane about other people is traditionally male behavior. Also inviting them to a horror movie and then complaining about realism isn't... exactly... that and guys are supposed to open doors, pick people up and drop them off... and women don't traditionally enjoy getting into fights -verbal or otherwise, mostly otherwise- and stalking people is pretty creepy regardless of gender. That, and the other party usually has to know you're dating them for it count. Thankfully most of that can be attributed to her personality and no one will know what a horrible writer I am . Seeing as I at least think my novel is pretty good, and that the above doesn't count as a romantic theme (in anything it'd be comedic) I'd say the answer is yes so long as it's reasonable for there to be no romance.
Lord of the Flies: there isn't a female or a sexually capable male in the entire novel! I include very subtle romance. The last novel I wrote includes a delicate, bidding relationship between the protagonist and one of the other main characters. The most profound moment of their love is in the final chapter: They hold hands.
IDK about Lord of the Flies, you don't see every boy and it's quite likely some of them are gay. Something could have happened behind the scenes. It is about primality after all. (Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge. Say no more.)
True, you can't escape the prepubescent gay romantically-active boys running around the tropical islands. Tsk tsk....