The New Face of Romance

by Rachel Ann Nunes 28. March 2010 10:00

At first I was going to entitle this blog Why I Like Romance, but as I started considering the subject, I realized that there are many varieties of romance today, some relatively new on the scene, and I only like some of them.

Years ago, popular romance novels portrayed weak, beautiful, innocent, young women who were rescued by older, experienced, domineering men. In the course of the novel, these men would often kidnap, take advantage, even rape the heroine, but by the end of the predictable storyline, he would win her heart and give her a happily-ever-after ending.

No wonder people thought romance readers weren’t intelligent.

Despite these poor plots, old romances delivered something that is still appreciated by romance readers today: a happy ending, an emotional connection, and hope. Yes, a mental escape every bit as enjoyable as watching a game or going to see a movie.

Yet in other ways romance novels have changed completely. Well, perhaps not completely, as we still have some "Cinderella" stories with helpless protagonists, but for the most part the female characters are confident and strong, or become such—and not because a man makes them that way. Additionally, there are many subcategories of romance, anywhere from straight romance to chick lit (which some argue is women’s fiction and not romance at all), to paranormal and the newer urban fantasies.

I personally dislike straight romances, where the relationship is the sole purpose of the novel and other plot elements, setting, and minor characters are lacking entirely or are poorly written and superficial to the relationship. Generally, these novels are very short and to the point. Many of the national romances seem to fall into this category for me.

But there are numerous romances in the subgenres that have complex plot elements and deeper characterization. As a whole, I believe writers in the LDS market have succeeded in progressing along these lines as well. We have chick lit, historical, inspirational, mystery, and many more subgenres that aren’t what I call straight romance. While romance is a key element in these novels, it is not nearly the focus that it is in most national novels, where the physical element often takes the place of a real plot. Even in LDS novels where romance is the strongest plotline, there is often some deeper element—learning to love again after the death of a spouse, saving a child from drugs, dealing with illness or suicide. These novels would still be able to exist in some form, though changed, without the romance.

Yes, romance has evolved over the years. We have stories with smart, savvy, powerful heroines, who don’t expect to be saved by rich, arrogant heros. The heroines aren’t necessarily young or beautiful and often have a serious past and complex challenges. These heroines are in charge, and they determine their own destinies. They are no longer the rescued, but often the rescuers (or at least they rescue at least as much as they are rescued). Heros are multi-faceted—they now need a lot more than money, good looks, and a domineering attitude to even begin to attract a heroine’s attention. The plots are also more complex (straight, short romances excepted).

Another twist we see in the urban fantasy romance genre is that the main character doesn’t necessarily end up with the guy in the end, or if she does, the relationship may not last more than a book or two. A prime example of this are the Sookie Stackhouse novels, which are undeniable vampire romances, but in which the main character in the course of ten novels has three major romances. There is also a lot of world building, and each of the mythological races has a detailed history.

Or maybe the hero and heroine don’t end up together at all until three or four books later like in the Mercy Thompson series by Patricia Briggs. Many of these novels are published by Ace Science Fiction or similar imprints and have just as many male readers as female. Some could say these aren’t romance at all. They would be wrong. The romantic element is strong and continuous, and though the plot could stand without the romance, it wouldn’t feel the same or have such appeal.

I decided to put my own work up to the test, using my paranormal novel, Imprints, due to be released any day now (see revised cover). As in most modern paranormal romances, the heroine does end up with the hero (at least in this book). However, if you removed the romantic element, my plot would still be intact, though not without some loss of romantic tension. The heroine is smart, resourceful, determined, and talented. She isn’t perfectly beautiful and is in fact rather strange—she doesn’t wear shoes or believe in using microwaves. She also has a past. She isn’t saved by the hero at any time in the book, though she is, after saving herself and others several times, helped during a struggle for her life by another man who cares for her. Which means, of course, that in the sequel, I’m going to make sure she saves him just to get even. Interesting. It seems I’m on the same path as everyone else, which is a good thing for sales—and it’s a lot of fun to write.

Romance is in nearly every book, movie, play, or song ever written, and it remains a driving motive in almost everything people do. The way I see it, it’s just the level of romance people disagree about. I believe this new breed of romance novel, with female characters who make their own decisions, will actually empower women instead of victimizing them as one might argue some of the earlier novels did. Regardless, romance novels in all their types should continue to enjoy a wide appeal.

Comments

3/27/2010 6:08:53 AM #

Ed Snow

I wish I had more experience in this genre in order to add something. I've just started a book in this field written by a friend to see what it's all about and hope to have a better sense in the next 2 months. Do other males have similar experiences, ie, none?

Ed Snow United States

3/27/2010 2:41:10 PM #

Moriah Jovan

I admit I'm a little befuddled by the post because I'm not really sure what the point is. You talk about romance, but then immediately veer off into genres with ROMANTIC ELEMENTS and are not, in fact, ROMANCE. So the definitions are off.

ROMANCE as a genre is wide and broad (from Amish romance and inspirational to no-holds-barred erotica) and none of what has been mentioned in the post as "new" is, in fact, actually new. However, one thing they are--which you admit you don't like--is about the relationship. Everything else is secondary to the relationship or it's simply not a ROMANCE.

I will talk about ROMANCE and not [insert genre here]-with-romantic-elements.

Years ago, popular romance novels portrayed weak, beautiful, innocent, young women who were rescued by older, experienced, domineering men. In the course of the novel, these men would often kidnap, take advantage, even rape the heroine, but by the end of the predictable storyline, he would win her heart and give her a happily-ever-after ending.

In the Harlequin Presents lines, yes. That's the point of the whole line and it's going great guns, so that tells me something about what women like to read. And who am I to judge? If I sneer at their reading choices, does that make my taste BETTER than theirs? Does that make me SUPERIOR to them?

Even so, comparison between the Harlequin Presents line et al., and the sweeping historical bodice rippers of the 1970s and early 1980s isn't possible. The heroines were, generally, ones of adventure, derring-do, far more powerful than their female peers, very often sexually liberated, self-empowered, and more powerful than all the male characters--except one. The hero.

There are valid reasons this was popular way back when (cf Nancy Friday's work in the early 1970s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Friday) and they haven't lost their popularity just because they're now politically incorrect. Further, IMO, there is some basis for the eternal pull of this device in evolutionary biology.

IMO, the devolution of the self-empowered heroine of the 1970s/1980s (whether or not the hero was the raping-and-pillaging sort) into the watered-down miss (in historicals) and the whiny, emo urban fantasy heroine (aka "snarky") isn't progress and it isn't new and it certainly isn't my cuppa.

No wonder people thought romance readers weren’t intelligent.

Damned mob of scribbling women.

...predictable storyline...

They're ALL predictable. Why pick on the genre women produce and devour? Better, why pick on a genre you've mis-defined at the outset? Would you blame a horse for being a horse when you were CONVINCED you were looking at a zebra?

I actually wouldn't have commented but for Scott's post asking for discussion, because there's so much sneering in this post I didn't want to bother. Just more second- and third-hand regurgitated snobbery that means next to nothing, especially when it's been badly defined.

Moriah Jovan United States

3/27/2010 8:24:39 PM #

Lee Allred

Rachel -- Great précis of some of the latest trends and changes in the field. I learned a lot from it. ^_^

Ed -- I read random samples of the genre to try to keep up on it. (I've read one or two of the Sookie Stackhouse books Rachel mentioned.)

If you're thinking of possibly writing in the genre or adapting some of its tropes for other projects, here's my advice:

1) Relationships are paramount to the story. Well, duh, it's called romance for a reason. But when writing, that little fact can be lost in the shuffle of plot, snappy dialog, style, character development, etc. Relationship supersedes all of those. That doesn't mean plot isn't important -- Rachel's article highlights, I think, how much more important plot is in the new types of romance -- but if you have room in a scene or passage for only one, plot or relationship, the safe bet is the latter.

2) Emotional intensity. The emotional intensity, the vicarious emotional interaction far more than vicarious physical interaction, seems to be the key draw of the genre. That intensity is overarching. The male tendency to compartmentalize needs to be watched out for.

3) Vivid descriptions. I'm not talking purple prose and wheelbarrows of adjectives. I am talking fully immersing the reader in all five senses. There's a reason it's called sensual (and sensual does not equal just tactile). Pay extra attention to color. ^_^

http://www.thedoghousediaries.com/?p=1406

The above suggestions can be used to good effect in all genres (well, maybe not mens adventure/Mack Bolan novels), but are particularly key to romance or romance-tinged works.

Here's what I think is a very good primer on writing relationship & intensity. It's a graphic novel, rather than a prose work, but sometimes us guys need a picture drawn for us regarding the mushy stuff. It shows you what kind of effect you need to depict in your romance-y fiction:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/142781340X/

-- Lee

Lee Allred United States

3/28/2010 5:02:57 AM #

Lisa Torcasso Downing

I enjoyed this post. I'm hardly a romance reader or writer, but I do enjoy a nice romantic subplot now and again. I recently read Stegner's Big Rock Candy Mountain, the beginning of which is quite romantic, and I loved that. Of course the story proceeds well past the initial Ahhh moments of early romantic love and explored the protagonists' relationship deeply. That's my cup of tea. And no, the book is not a romance, but it is a book about love and connection.

Speaking of LDS lit, Rachel wrote:  

We have chick lit, historical, inspirational, mystery, and many more subgenres that aren’t what I call straight romance. While romance is a key element in these novels, it is not nearly the focus that it is in most national novels, where the physical element often takes the place of a real plot.

This sound interesting to me. I still have a few titles I purchased the last time romance came up here. I will get to them, I promise...

Lisa Torcasso Downing

3/28/2010 10:35:17 AM #

Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury

For the record, I want to say that I perceived absolutely zero sneering in your post, Rachel.

And I'm looking forward to reading IMPRINTS to see what you've done with the idea.

Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury United States

3/28/2010 5:31:41 PM #

Scott Parkin

I think there is a fair question about where the line between Romance as a marketing category, and romance as an element of story lies.

As an sf writer I've often pointed out that sf is rarely pure, that it's nearly always a science mystery, or speculative horror, or space opera, or tech romance, or speculative history.

I suppose the question is ultimately moot, because genre purity is arguably a construct of fandom not market forces. I suggest that romance (with a small r) is one of the three basic story types, and as such permeates all categories and all forms. Whether the relationship is the prime element or a secondary one determines its marketing category, but the concept of romance is universal to all stories (as are mystery and horror).

Interesting stuff. Thank you.  

Scott Parkin United States