Romance thoughts...

[j_cheney]

I've been working on section 4 of Iron Shoes, which is the most complicated of the original five sections (5 needs a ton more setting put in, and as such, I believe it will become sections 5 and 6).

Oddly, this story is more of a romance than a fantasy, so I've been doing a lot of thinking about the "elements" that one has to have in a romance.

I'm certain that there are a lot of people who can give you a clearer definition of these elements (perhaps the ladies over at SBTB or Teach me Tonight) and I expect that several "How to Write Romance" Books exist, but I've never read one.

I've got it worked out in my mind that there have to be 3 elements for it to work.

1)Possibility of a Relationship
A no-brainer. There has to be some method of the two people involved actually meeting, and as a result of that meeting, at least one of them has to realize that a potential exists for a romantic relationship. The two people can have known each other for a long time actually, but simply never considered a more intimate relationship before. It doesn't have to be 'love at first sight'.

2)Impediment to Love (special caveat attached)
So, if condition #1 has been met by at least one of the two parties, then they usually start working to overcome #2. This can be just about anything, including the fact that the other hasn't cleared hurdle #1. Their families hate each other (Romeo and Juliette), they don't exist in the same time (Somewhere in Time, The Lake House), life gets in the way, dating someone else, or a serious of ridiculous happenings. Whatever it is, it keep them from realizing they're in love. Could be personal issues (my protag has this), social issues (class distinction, religious differences, political differences) or....one of the two is dead. I've actually seen that, too.

This is the emotional barrier, not the physical one. Essentially, there has to be some thing or multiple things that keep them from immediately swearing eternal abject love for each other. This is often done at separate times for the two people involved. Usually the girl is first then the guy, although scientific research shows that males actually fall 'in love' more easily than females. (I do wish I could cite a study on that, but I'm not going to go hunting for it just to back up an off-hand statement.)

3)Impediment to Marriage/Sex (special caveat attached here, as well)
Depending on what type of romance you're reading, you will have one or the other or both of these. If you read Regency Romances, it's the Impediment to Marriage (a proper RR doesn't really have sex, (special caveat again)). If you read Historical Romances, you generally have both in the opposite order; sex/marriage. If you read Erotica...wait, there hasn't been any sex yet and you're still reading this?

The point being that there must be some additional barriers, or the story will either be very short or very boring.

Special Caveat:
Romance writers make their living mixing up the order of these. Sex first, then a proper introduction, then love...whatever. A RR can have (implied)sex in it if the characters are married, but don't really know each other (a marriage of convenience, a quick platonic marriage before he goes off to war, a childhood betrothal to a distant cousin). Writers come up with the darnedest excuses to have their characters do things, and then work hard to make them seem reasonable.

My girl? Imogen?
Well, she's going about it all in the wrong order, but she's using a bargain as an excuse to do so without feeling too responsible for her actions. I have to sell that in section 1, which I seem to have been 50/50 on in the first draft. I'm working to sell the ItL now in section 4, which is the most important part, if you ask me. We'll see after I'm done with the revision.


Anyhow, that's how I tend to see the parts of a romance story. Just thinking, here.

Comments

[orogeny.livejournal.com]

Ironically, I just took a class in this at my residency. The required text was "A Natural History of the Romance Novel" by Pamela Regis. The presenter was the amazing Nancy Holder.

Upshot: The parts of a romance novel: 1) Society defined; 2) the Meeting; 3) the Barrier; 4) the Attraction; 5) the Declaration; 6) Point of Ritual Death; 7) Recognition; 8) the Betrothal. There must be an HEA ("happily ever after").

Nancy (and Pamela Regis) carefully distinguish "romance novel" from "novel with romance." To be a romance novel, they say, a work has to have all of those eight critical elements. It's sort of like the "Hero's Journey" of love!

[therinth.livejournal.com]

Point of ritual death?

Can you expound? Thanks!

[orogeny.livejournal.com]

Who would have thought, right?

Per Regis, "the point of ritual death marks the moment in the narrative when the union between heroine and hero, the hoped-for resolution, seems absolutely impossible... The happy ending is most in jeopardy at this point."

In Pride and Prejudice (according to Regis), it's Lydia's elopement with Wickham. Elizabeth says "She is lost forever." Mr. Collins writes a letter of condolence: "The death of your daughter would have been a blessing in comparison of this." In Jane Eyre, the point of ritual death is on the steps of the cottage at Marsh End, when Jane says "I can but die." She's also in physical danger of dying from exposure. And Rochester undergoes ritual death, calling to Jane, hoping that he "might soon be taken from the life, and admitted to that world to come, where there was still hope of rejoining Jane."

Apparently in romance novels, the heroine (or the hero) often has an actual brush with death. (I do seem to remember that pattern from back when I was a romance reader.) But often, it's symbolic. Something else or someone else can die, too.

Interesting, eh?

[therinth.livejournal.com]

Fascinating -- and helpful ;).

I haven't read much romance, thought i've always had it in my fiction...except i've got this project coming up that i think i need to do some research for.

Thanks!

[j-cheney.livejournal.com]

I was wondering how you meant ritual death, so I'm glad you explained this.

My heroine? She goes and starts ripping gingerbread trim off the Victorian house. She's basically 'killing' her old compliant self who'd never changed anything left by her husband's first wife (And even dressed like her at his request--she cleans out the closet later) as a way of asserting that it was her life. More re-birth than death, perhaps.

I hope that's close enough. ;o)

[j-cheney.livejournal.com]

You had a class in this? How cool is that?!

I like the Hero's journey, tie in, too ;o)

Did you have a textbook?

[aliettedb.livejournal.com]

That's a pretty good summary--though it does seem to me that the impediment to love and the impediment to marriage/sex can be pretty close to each other (I was thinking of Pride and Prejudice, where the part between the point when she realises she loves Mr. Darcy and the part where they agree to marry is much shorter than the rest of the novel, at least in my recollection)

[j-cheney.livejournal.com]

I do think that's where the variation in romances comes from, playing with where each of the elements falls. But if that romance were written from his POV, the two events wouldn't be that close together, as he did fall in love first (although he did a horrible job of expressing it).