# Romance analysis



## MachineTrooper (Jun 22, 2010)

I haven't read that many romances, but I've been dragged to many a chick-flick over the years. There's a few I really like (_Joy Luck Club; A Walk to Remember; Love & Basketball_...off the top of my head). But I've noticed some frequently recurring elements which got me wondering. There are conventions, or ingredients in the formula (if you prefer) you are more likely than not to see in a romance. I'm wondering how these came to be--are they elements which appeal universally to fans of the genre? Also how, if at all, do the conventions in romance fiction differ from those in romance films?

So here are some of the recurring elements I've noticed:

In the first act, the heroine is either...

1) overworked/too consumed with her career to play the dating game.

2) soured on love by a horrible past experience.

3) in a relationship with someone who is either abusive, unfaithful, neglectful, or all of the above.

In the third act, the heroine receives counsel and/or affirmation from her father, or a father figure (sometimes mother, like _Love & Basketball_) which helps her put things in perspective, leading her to confront her main obstacle.

The heroine and her love interest must suffer at least one breakup (in comedies this will usually be due to a misunderstanding; in dramas due to a social or psychological obstacle, or a looming fatal disease).

The love interest must apologize as if he wronged the heroine, even if he clearly didn't (just saw one last night--_The Other End of the Line_, I think). This is usually a public apology, owning up to his villainy before peers, proving his love for her trumps his pride...

...Which often is how the story ends--the love interest makes his closing argument (usually in public), proving his love for the heroine usually by overcoming some psychological obstacle he's been unable to surmount until this moment.

In comedies, a male homosexual friend seems to be mandatory.

A scene of the love interest cooking/preparing food in the kitchen apparently is a bonus--but perhaps the fad has cooled now (_Failure to Launch_ had one such scene inserted, for no obvious reason other than to show a man in the kitchen preparing a meal--so far as I could tell).

Weddings, and the jewelry associated with them.

________________________________________________________________________________________

For romance fans, do you consider these elements required? Feel-good? Cliche/overused? Effective? Do they speak to some subconscious desire that is almost universal?

If/when some of these elements are left out, do you feel cheated/does it weaken the story for you?

If this topic has been beaten to death already, please forgive me.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

I only read sweet romances, but I have found some similar things with these as well.  Most often it's the breakup that's in just about every book.  Or they hate each other to begin with, and then there usually isn't a breakup but maybe some sort of a separation.

I'm not sure if it's a convention or formula or what.  Mine's a romantic suspense, and I didn't really study formulas or conventions... I just wrote what I thought would be a good story.  And yes, there is a separation.  And there's some kind of social aspect that keeps them apart too... so maybe I followed a formula when I didn't even know it!  LOL!

Vicki


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

For me, the best romances have some other element to carry the story--either an Indian Jones Adventure (or more modern version without the desert)  or a mystery.  Some romances can be carried well by just real life issues cropping up, but the "princess and pedestal"  romances are far from my favorite.


----------



## Beth O (Jul 9, 2010)

I think every genre has it's familiar storylines/plot devices.  I imagine if you did an analysis of sci-fi or mystery or thriller it would be the same.


----------



## MachineTrooper (Jun 22, 2010)

You're right, of course, Beth. Romance is just somewhat new territory for me, so I'm just getting the lay of the land. Also curious about how appealing these elements truly are.

I know what you mean, Vicki. I certainly don't follow formulas, either, but after writing some things, I can often point to familiar landmarks I hit in the genre.

Like Sibel says, pretty much everything's been done. Anything *completely* original would probably be unreadable.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

MachineTrooper said:


> Like Sibel says, pretty much everything's been done. Anything *completely* original would probably be unreadable.


You make a good point. People who read romance stories (or any other genre either) there are certain things they expect. Of course in a romance there's got to be some kind of falling in love. Otherwise, it's not a romance. And every story has to have conflict. Otherwise, it's terribly boring. So, you're right. You can write a totally original story, but without the elements of a story we expect, no one will read it. 

Vicki


----------



## Thalia the Muse (Jan 20, 2010)

I suppose a romance novel in which there was nothing to keep the couple apart would only be about two pages long. 

Brad and Judy met at her mechanic shop. He liked her twinkling eyes and her ability to replace his radiator without overcharging. She liked his smile and his nonchalance about the lettuce stuck between his teeth. They went on a date and it was wonderful -- they laughed a lot, found out that they were both allergic to shrimp and despised the films of Woody Allen, and danced until dawn.

Five weeks later Brad proposed and Judy accepted. His parents adored her; her parents were missionaries in China, but sent an e-mail saying "Great news! And about time you settled down." The wedding was lavish and their honeymoon was absolute perfection.

They had six kids and died very old, happy to the last. 

The End.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

While the majority of romances may be formulaic, if you search around a bit, you can find some that are different and original. There are romance forums on Amazon where the participants seem to know about every romance ever written and if you post there looking for something a bit different, you'll get bunches of suggestions.


----------



## LCEvans (Mar 29, 2009)

There has to be conflict and change and a happy ending. In mysteries, the happy ending means that the criminal is found out and justice is done. But I love romances and mysteries. The enjoyment is in getting to know the characters and finding out how they get together or solve the mystery. I like sweet romances and I especially like Regencies, which are really formulaic and cover a short period of time in history. They're still fun for me. I'm finding elements of mysteries mixed in with the more recent Regencies and that helps to add interest.


----------



## donna callea (Dec 25, 2009)

A romance is a love story.  And I think the most important element has to be the sexual chemistry between the two people who fall in love-- even if it's a sweet romance without any sexually explicit scenes.  Take "Pride and Prejudice,"  for example.  That's definitely a love story-- a wonderfully written, captivating romance in which there's plenty of sexual tension even though no one takes off his or her clothes. And, of course, there's a happy ending.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

LCEvans said:


> There has to be conflict and change and a happy ending. In mysteries, the happy ending means that the criminal is found out and justice is done. But I love romances and mysteries. The enjoyment is in getting to know the characters and finding out how they get together or solve the mystery. I like sweet romances and I especially like Regencies, which are really formulaic and cover a short period of time in history. They're still fun for me. I'm finding elements of mysteries mixed in with the more recent Regencies and that helps to add interest.


I love sweet romance, and mysteries too. I haven't read any Regencies, but it sounds like I would like them. I've gotta check them out. 

Vicki


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

T.L. Haddix said:


> You should definitely try Regencies. Lisa Kleypas, Julia Quinn, Mary Balogh, Stephanie Laurens. There are four names to get you started.


Thanks!! I always love finding new authors and books. 

Vicki


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

T.L. Haddix said:


> Back on topic, there are some very interesting threads on the Amazon forums, particularly under the Romance and Historical Romance communities. One of those threads is "themes you hate", and talk about shrinking an author's ego... whew. That thread is the perfect example of the saying "you can't please everyone".


I don't know about you, but I stayed up all night reading the Phrases they hate thread and laughed so hard my ribs hurt. The Themes they hate had me all in a twist as an author for a while, but in the end I think every theme of any romance ever published got mentioned, and the fact is those ladies still are reading romances, so they can't hate them all that much.


----------



## Beth O (Jul 9, 2010)

You've all peaked my interest.  Where is that thread about phrases they hate?


----------



## Carolyn A (Jul 25, 2010)

Regarding the beginning of romances - where the heroine is not out there 'looking' - I do think it's pretty much a necessary element. Because if she IS out there looking and open to romance, then there'd be no difficulties when a guy comes along who's attracted. They'd start dating, all would go well, get married, the end. Where's da conflict? There must be objections to overcome and misunderstandings in order to have conflict.

And the tone is pretty much set with one of the first romance novels, Pride & Prejudice, right? Elizabeth was pretty much the only one of her sisters who wasn't interested in catching a beau. (Well, Mary wasn't interested ON THE SURFACE, but only because she was even more sour on the subject than Elizabeth, because she was 'plain'.) In this story, Elizabeth had to overcome her initial dislike for Mr. Darcy, because he was too proud (or was he too prejudiced? to quote Tom Hanks in You've Got Mail), and Darcy had to publicly prove that he was not 'above' the Bennetts, by helping resolve the problems with the youngest daughter.

Pretty much the same formula in any fiction - the protagonist is just going along their own way when something happens that makes it so they CAN'T just merrily go their way any more. Even if they're a character who's LOOKING for trouble - eventually they get more than they've bargained for!

Carolyn


----------



## Beth O (Jul 9, 2010)

Oh my!  They are a tough bunch.  They should be doing guest blogs on "Smart Bitches, Trashy Books."


----------



## LCEvans (Mar 29, 2009)

Thanks for posting about the romance threads and the phrases they hate. I must read them!


----------



## Beth O (Jul 9, 2010)

When I first started reading the thread I was appalled.  But then I went back to it and started reading from the most recent ones backwards and I laughed my ass off.  They're actually pretty funny.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

Beth O said:


> When I first started reading the thread I was appalled. But then I went back to it and started reading from the most recent ones backwards and I laughed my ass off. They're actually pretty funny.


I thought the older ones were the funniest. They had the most to choose from at the beginning. The problem with it is you need to start reading when you have a lot of time. I ended up sitting here until 3 or 4 in the morning compulsively reading "just one more page." Did you get to the one where some author was doing a sex scene and had pink dolphins coming out of the ocean? That one's so hard to believe I almost want to look the book up to see if it's true.


----------



## CNDudley (May 14, 2010)

I think conflict drives any plot, no matter the genre. My kids rented CINDERELLA III (I had no vote), one of those Disney-cashing-in-on-a-good-movie-sequels, and it opened with Cinderella and Prince Charming singing about their "Perfectly Perfect Year," or something like that. Absolutely vomitous! Romances without conflict would be like 200 pages of Perfectly Perfect Year.


----------



## Beth O (Jul 9, 2010)

ellenoc said:


> I thought the older ones were the funniest. They had the most to choose from at the beginning. The problem with it is you need to start reading when you have a lot of time. I ended up sitting here until 3 or 4 in the morning compulsively reading "just one more page." Did you get to the one where some author was doing a sex scene and had pink dolphins coming out of the ocean? That one's so hard to believe I almost want to look the book up to see if it's true.


No I missed that one. And yes, I too read way more than I intended. I told my husband I just had to do one more thing on the computer last night and then I'd come and watch TV with him. He finally went to bed without me. Poor guy.

I liked it when the erotica author chimed in. That spiced things up a bit.


----------



## Beth O (Jul 9, 2010)

I know what you mean.  Since I discovered Kindleboards, trying to get any real work done is a struggle these days.  I keep telling myself I'm going to limit myself to 1 hour per day--and then I don't   

Okay, signing off to go do some real work.  Seriously.  I mean it this time.


----------



## MachineTrooper (Jun 22, 2010)

Some great comments on this thread. After seeing _A Walk to Remember_ I bought the book. I think it would be considered a sweet romance, wouldn't it?

There seems to be a consensus that romances must have happy endings. I had always thought of _Romeo & Juliette_ as a romance, but if "HEA" is a requirement, then I understand why it's called a tragedy instead.

I check out audiobooks from the library and listen to them sometimes at work. I'm almost finished with _Natural Born Charmer_ right now. Some of the conventions are tweaked a bit, so it's got the requirements, but doesn't strike me as popping out of a cookie-cutter. Another audiobook romance I listened to was _Flabberghasted_. It was told from the male perspective (1st person, too) and the hero started out actually looking for a romantic connection. I liked the uniqueness of that (not that I'm as familiar with the genre as y'all are). There was still enough potential obstacles, IMO, to provide plenty of conflict. But the book was lackluster. Not because the author broke that 1st act convention, but because (I'm speculating/deducing here) it was a Christian romance and the author was so unwilling to risk offending somebody that there was no sexual tension, no meaningful conflict...not much going for it at all except a quirky narrative voice.

I'm tempted to go look at the hated phrases thread, but can't afford the time and probably wouldn't "get" the joke(s) anyway.

I did hear an amusing comment once from a romance reader: something to the effect that in the steamy love scenes people don't have bodies--only "frames." It rang true from what little I knew.


----------



## chipotle (Jan 1, 2010)

I'm an unapologetic romance reader and I think they are less formulaic than they were 20 years ago when I started. I agree that the Happily Ever After is usually a requirement but I've read so many that I think I've seen it all. But then just last week I read The Madness of Lord Ian Mackenzie and the hero had high-functioning Asperger's (for which he spent his childhood in an asylum). So I guess I can still be surprised.

I also read a few romance book review blogs (including Smart B*tches, Trashy Books and Dear Author) and they are often hilarious. And I second the recommendation for all the Regency authors, especially Julia Quinn. She has a wicked sense of humor.


----------



## Autumn Jordon (Jul 21, 2010)

I too am a romance reader, and author. Romance publishers demand a HEA.  It's why their customers buy their product.  Thier readers want to be swept away into another world by characters who they can identify with.  There has to be conflict. Internal conflict for atleast one main character which as the plot unfolds circumstances will change them personally and they grow. And, of course there is always external conflict. Conflict is not something that if the hero & heroine have a adult conversation, the problem is resolved.

I love reading a great romance and have in many different genres; romantic comedies, romantic suspense, regencies and paranormals. Some of my favorite authors are; Susan Elizabeth Phillips, Kasey Micheals, Brenda Novak, Misty Evans, Eliosa James and  Susan Wiggs.


----------



## Pamela Burford (Jul 25, 2010)

I write romantic comedies and I have yet to include a male homosexual confidant. Let met think...no, not a one. There's a gay secondary character in TOO DARN HOT, but he's deep background. But sure, there are conventions in romance, along with plenty of reader expectations. And there certainly are tried-and-true themes readers love such as marriage of convenience, rags to riches, Beauty and the Beast. The only hard-and-fast rule is a happy ending. I tend to think of mystery novels as being more formulaic than romance because the reader expects to solve the puzzle along with the sleuth protagonist.

Pam


----------



## LCEvans (Mar 29, 2009)

I love the male homosexual friend, but I haven't included one in my own books because it's becoming such a cliche. Still-if readers like it, why not? I may reconsider.


----------



## joshtremino (Jul 31, 2010)

All of the elements you described can be justfied in one way or another. But I think we see the over worked heroine because a large section of the audience will feel that way and will be able to identify with the protagonist. Plus, it provides a distinct contrast for the audience. At one moment, the protagonist is stuck in this dreary world of work and stress, but then she falls in love and the world opens up. To be honest, I like this cliche. =-)


----------



## CDChristian (Jun 4, 2010)

chipotle said:


> I'm an unapologetic romance reader and I think they are less formulaic than they were 20 years ago when I started. I agree that the Happily Ever After is usually a requirement but I've read so many that I think I've seen it all. But then just last week I read The Madness of Lord Ian Mackenzie and the hero had high-functioning Asperger's (for which he spent his childhood in an asylum). So I guess I can still be surprised.


Thank you for mentioning this one. I don't read traditional romances that much anymore, but I had to check this one out on Amazon. It definitely caught my interest!


----------



## flameweaver (Aug 4, 2010)

Beth O said:


> I think every genre has it's familiar storylines/plot devices. I imagine if you did an analysis of sci-fi or mystery or thriller it would be the same.


Ummm... maybe romances have changed a lot since the 80's, when I was writing historical romances, but back then there was definitely a lot of pressure from the editors that made me feel they wanted to stick to a pretty narrow formula. "You can't have a heroine who's been married before." "You can't write a chapter from the viewpoint of somebody other than the hero/heroine." "There aren't enough sex scenes." "The first sex scene is too far into the book." [Geez - Chapter Seven (out of 20) was too late?]

Once we got the second mortgage on the house paid up, I switched to sf/fantasy (which didn't pay nearly as well) and it was GLORIOUS. Nobody ever told me, "You can't do that." You want to do a time-travel story and try to write the 16th century parts in Elizabethan English? Fine. You want to write from an alien's point of view? Fine. You want to insert a newspaper article that Kipling actually never wrote but would have if he'd been there? Fine.

The only editorial pressure I ever encountered was in the matter of the chapter numbers and the equations...but that is another story.


----------



## Beth O (Jul 9, 2010)

I'm not a romance writer.  I write women's fiction, but I always have a romantic subplot.  However, the editors who buy what I write are the same editors who buy romance.  I'm also a member of RWA and other groups with mostly romance authors.  Based on what they've all told me, if you're writing single title romance (as opposed to Harlequins) there are many less rules than their used to be.  You have to have the HEA of course, but with all the paranormal these days, I think it's pretty much anything goes.


----------



## Alice Y. Yeh (Jul 14, 2010)

Thalia the Muse said:


> I suppose a romance novel in which there was nothing to keep the couple apart would only be about two pages long.
> 
> Brad and Judy met at her mechanic shop. He liked her twinkling eyes and her ability to replace his radiator without overcharging. She liked his smile and his nonchalance about the lettuce stuck between his teeth. They went on a date and it was wonderful -- they laughed a lot, found out that they were both allergic to shrimp and despised the films of Woody Allen, and danced until dawn.
> 
> ...


Nice. In any case, I agree with some of the earlier posts: conflict is necessary. A part of me hates reading romances, because I _know_ that it's coming, but then, that's what makes things interesting. Would _Sense and Sensibility_ have been so interesting had Ms. Dashwood and Mr. Ferrars gotten together right away? Nope.

It does bother me when the hero has to apologize when he hasn't actually done anything wrong. The "bold gesture" is overkill, unless it's John Cusack holding a boombox over his head  If we get annoyed by "hit me again" heroines, then why not "punish me for no good reason" heroes?


----------



## MachineTrooper (Jun 22, 2010)

> It does bother me when the hero has to apologize when he hasn't actually done anything wrong.


Glad I'm not the only one, Ayy.


----------



## Beth O (Jul 9, 2010)

MachineTrooper said:


> Glad I'm not the only one, Ayy.


----------



## Alice Y. Yeh (Jul 14, 2010)

@Machine Trooper + Beth: I think anyone who's had to work a retail job can understand our frustration!

In more recently written novels, I've found that the heroine and hero fall in love too quickly...and before people start hurling tomatoes, let me explain: if it's an instant connection, that's great, but we need to see that spark! It took Mr. Darcy _how_ many chapters to get over himself? Romeo and Juliet were an instance of "love at first sight," but anyone who reads their sonnet/conversation_gets_ it. It's the death of decent dialogue and character development, I tell you!

Rant over. ^^


----------



## MachineTrooper (Jun 22, 2010)

By all means, Alice: please elaborate on your rant. My brain is a sponge.

Couldn't love @ first sight still provide tension and conflict (+ decent dialog & character development) if treated right? Forbidden love because of family feuds (Romeo & Juliette), racial/ethnic differences (West Side Story). The lovers are committed to others, or feel obligated to hate each other out of habit/tradition from bad blood in the past. Seemingly insurmountable obstacles like distance--she lives in India, he lives in Utah.


----------



## Alice Y. Yeh (Jul 14, 2010)

Oh, most definitely. I love _West Side Story_! I guess what I'm asking for is a sense of connection. Perhaps it's the set-up or the lack of chemistry, but some of these stories have me going "Huh? Where did that come from?" I'm not sure that I'm explaining this correctly, but basically, I'm not against a premise of "love at first sight"...if it's written in a way that let's me believe in it too. Let me feel what the characters are feeling, or else it'll be rather difficult to swallow.

One way in which chemistry can be demonstrated is through dialogue.



> 93 If I profane with my unworthiest hand
> 94 This holy shrine, the gentle sin is this:
> 95 My lips, two blushing pilgrims, ready stand
> 96 To smooth that rough touch with a tender kiss.
> ...


Besides being an awesome duet of a sonnet, there's a bit of bantering in the sappiness that shows us how they click right away. They _get_ one another, which is why I buy into the whole "love at first sight" business.

Does that help?


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

I think most romance novels are silly and, largely, unrealistic.  Not ALL, mind you, but most.  As a result, I don't seek them out and probably would not read something labeled 'romance' without a very strong recommendation from someone who likes, generally, the same stuff as I do.

That said, I think a good mystery, suspense, or thriller tale is only improved by adding a touch of romance to it.  But the main thing -- the thing most of the words/scenes/chapters are spent on -- should be the story OUTSIDE the 'romantic leads'.  I don't want constant internal dialog by either of them wondering if the other really cares? Bleh.

But, that's just me.


----------



## LDS (Aug 4, 2010)

You figured out the formula for the perfect (i.e. sellable) romance! And worse yet, you shared it on the web!

No doubt the romance publishing consortium will be sending their goons out after you shortly.


----------



## Beth O (Jul 9, 2010)

I spoke to my agent this morning to get the gossip from the RWA conference and she told me editors are asking for Amish romance. There's even a story about it in today's USA Today.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2010-08-09-religiousromance09_CV_N.htm?csp=34news

I can't imagine reading something like that (although I don't generally read romance to begin with) but apparently others can.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

Ann in Arlington said:


> I think most romance novels are silly and, largely, unrealistic. * * * That said, I think a good mystery, suspense, or thriller tale is only improved by adding a touch of romance to it.


One of the many interesting things about these forums is seeing how different we all are. I agree with the first statement. In fact I wrote my romance in rebellion against a lot of the things I saw in romances I didn't like, among them the silly language. As for the second statement, it's hard to know how much romance you mean by a touch, but one of my pet peeves is the supposed mystery or thriller that is actually just a romance with enough of a mystery or other thread in it to give an excuse for the classification. The minute some woman sees the cop pull up and is busy admiring his mouth, buns, etc., in spite of the dead body on the floor, I'm out of there.


----------



## Alice Y. Yeh (Jul 14, 2010)

ellenoc said:


> The minute some woman sees the cop pull up and is busy admiring his mouth, buns, etc., in spite of the dead body on the floor, I'm out of there.


...they do that? I nearly passed out the last time that I saw someone broken and bloody. How on EARTH could the woman admire a guy under those circumstances? A more believable reaction would be, "Please take the scary dead body away, Mr. Policeman. And while you're at it, nab the psycho killer that did this to him." Yeesh.


----------



## Beth O (Jul 9, 2010)

Ann in Arlington said:


> I think most romance novels are silly and, largely, unrealistic. Not ALL, mind you, but most. As a result, I don't seek them out and probably would not read something labeled 'romance' without a very strong recommendation from someone who likes, generally, the same stuff as I do.
> 
> That said, I think a good mystery, suspense, or thriller tale is only improved by adding a touch of romance to it. But the main thing -- the thing most of the words/scenes/chapters are spent on -- should be the story OUTSIDE the 'romantic leads'. I don't want constant internal dialog by either of them wondering if the other really cares? Bleh.
> 
> But, that's just me.


When you're searching for books like that, where do you go to find them? Romantic suspense? A general search in books for Women's fiction? I too like a book that contains a romantic subplot, but that is not a romance. The book "Loved Walk In" comes to mind.

http://www.amazon.com/Love-Walked-Marisa-los-Santos/dp/0452287898/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1281398990&sr=1-1#_

I just never know what to search for to find those books if they don't also easily fall into the category of mystery or thriller. I don't think Amazon has a category for "Women's Fiction" although I wish they did.


----------



## Beth O (Jul 9, 2010)

T.L. Haddix said:


> I do think it is an interesting paradox that romance is heading in two diametrically opposed directions. The Amish versus the Undead, if you will.


I know, that's exactly what I thought. How can both paranormal romance AND Amish romance be hot sellers at the same time. I don't know if she mentioned that to me in hopes that I would write something like that but I know my voice would NEVER work in that kind of fiction, nor do I have any interest in it.


----------



## MachineTrooper (Jun 22, 2010)

I get you now, Alice. Thanks.

LDS: I think I hear them kicking in my door right now...

Anne: I agree. Although I feel 70% + of chick-flicks are a waste of celuloid, I surprised myself by how much I enjoyed well-done romantic sub-plots in other genres. I'm becoming a Wilbur Smith fan, and though some of his romantic sub-plots fall flat, some of them really added to my enjoyment.

The public library only has so many audiobooks, and my boycott of romances was keeping more than half of it off-limits to me. So I've been unintentionally picking up on common elements as I drive. Most of the books have been at least mildly entertaining. But as Alice pointed out, if the chemistry/spark don't come across, I lose interest pretty fast. Same if I don't happen to like the hero or heroine's personality much.


----------

