‘Romance Reasons’

I spend quite a bit of headspace reflecting on romance (perhaps too much for productivity on occasion, although it’s also definitely part of my process to analyse my genre) and there’s a slippery subject that continually refuses to be pinned down, although I have some concrete thoughts about it, and that is: ‘romance reasons’.

Romance has a reputation (earned or not) for big, outlandish plots, complicated schemes to get the characters together, hijinks, drama and improbable meetings. Sounds like fun, right? And it is. But romance is also often criticised for being ‘unrealistic’. Are these two sides of the same coin?

I would argue: sort of, but not really.

One side of the criticism of romance for being unrealistic is the fact that the love depicted in the genre is strong and enduring and dramatic, but we don’t want to imagine that that part is unrealistic. Many people fall in love and it’s an important event in their lives. I don’t think this is the main reason people criticise romance as unrealistic.

I think what most readers mean with this criticism is that the situations the characters find themselves in (only one bed anyone?) are improbable if not actually impossible and therefore unrealistic – contrived. They mean that romance features plot holes more often than other genres or incorrect depictions of certain things from real life (whether you agree or not – this might depend on who you are and what romances you’ve read).

A completely realistic romance could be boring, right? Readers love certain contrivances in romance and even if our main character is an astronaut, the main story is about her falling in love, not her workplace struggles, so there’s not a lot of space to dedicate to her job.

A fiction story is one big contrivance, objectively seen. Many of the most popular and highest-rated romance books have contrivances in them that are highly improbable.

Can you hear the ‘but’ coming?

That doesn’t mean you can give up on making the story believable. It doesn’t have to be realistic – we’re working in fiction, after all. But it absolutely must be believable. That’s the art to writing fiction: allowing a reader to sink into an experience that’s completely untrue, but still absorbing – enabling them to suspend disbelief and enjoy the story.

So what’s the difference between being realistic and believable? Part of the challenge is that different readers have a different tolerance for contrivances, particularly if they further a fun aspect of the story (such as forced proximity between the love interests). For example, a reader might not mind the sudden storm that strands our main couple overnight in a hotel in the middle of nowhere that inexplicably has only one room available, but for others, so many contrivances might take them out of the story and they no longer believe in what’s happening on page.

We can’t make allowances for every reader, especially if they’re not generally romance readers. We certainly can take risks for something especially fun (like the only one bed trope). But I don’t think this means romance is a free-for-all that doesn’t have to make sense. There’s a balance to strike between being completely contrived and striving for a feeling of authenticity.

There’s a keyword in there: striving. Even when we want to include something outrageous and fun in our books (blue aliens anyone?), we still have to try our absolute best to create a story that makes sense in the world it plays in. This includes giving adequate background information (not all at once!), building up these events earlier in the story so when they come, they’re not sudden or jarring and a big one: subtlety.

Romance readers expect a happily ever after and many also like the antagonists to get their comeuppance (although that’s less my bag), but that doesn’t mean the story should be simple or black-and-white. Characters need nuance, consistency and growth – even secondary characters need to make sense and have a presence outside of their usefulness to the plot or the main character. Plot points need research and the appropriate specialist vocabulary where necessary. Avoiding cliche is a good idea, if it feels tired (both in language and plot).

Romance is a genre where readers crave familiarity and comfort and repeating elements is absolutely allowed, but if you think about the really great romances that have been widely popular and are at the top of people’s lists, often it’s because of a particularly memorable, nuanced character or because the writing was so immersive and plausible, despite featuring tropey and outlandish elements. Simply stringing together a bunch of scenes with popular tropes (both plot tropes and character tropes) doesn’t compare. The genre deserves all our efforts to craft the best story we can create. We can’t take short-cuts in the hope that voracious romance readers will come along for the ride.

‘Romance reasons’ are definitely okay sometimes, but I would encourage romance writers to use them sparingly and not as an excuse to skimp on plot or character planning!