Writing the Romance Novel: What Is a Romance Novel?
What makes books “romance novels” as opposed to “fiction with a romantic theme”? The general litmus test is that if you take the romantic thread out of the story and you still have a story, it’s not a romance novel. The romance plot is the main plot of the novel; everything hinges on it.
Billy Mernit puts it this way: “Rather than asking, ‘will the hero obtain his goal?’ the central question posed by a [romance] is: ‘will these two individuals become a couple?’” (p. 13)
Gail Martin gives the definition this way: “. . . Romance is the story of two people with individual goals and needs, the physical and emotional attraction that holds them together, the conflict that separates them, and their coming together . . . to embrace in love and commitment.” (p. 4)
Leigh Michaels adds an important facet to the definition (emphasis mine):
“. . . The core story is the developing relationship between a man and a woman. The other events in the storyline, though important, are secondary to the relationship.” (p. 2)
Now that’s clarified—the story focuses on the development of the relationship between a man and a woman—we must take the definition a step further (which Gail’s definition begins to do) and define the general structure of a romance novel. Billy Mernit boils it down to three basic elements:
1. Meet: Girl and boy have significant encounters.
2. Lose: Girl and boy are separated.
3. Get: Girl and boy reunite
(pg. 4)
I would add one more to his list:
4. HEA: Girl and boy have a happily ever after ending.
Some call this a formula; most experienced writers consider it our basic plot structure.
In a true romance novel, there must be a lose—something that threatens to tear our hero and heroine apart forever. In the movie Return to Me, it’s Grace revealing to Bob that she was the transplant recipient who received his dead wife’s heart. In Pride & Prejudice, it’s Lydia’s elopement with Wickham. In Sense & Sensibility, it’s Edward’s previous engagment (and seeming marriage) to Lucy Steele. In Jane Eyre, it’s the existence of Rochester’s first wife.
Whether it’s another woman (or man), a secret revealed, family objections, a war, a near-death experience, believing the other is dead, or whatever you can think of, the major conflict of your story must have a very logical and realistic chance of pulling your characters apart forever. (We’ll get into this a little more later in the series.)
For Discussion:
From your favorite book you listed yesterday, or from a favorite movie, pinpoint and briefly explain the three basic key elements (meet, lose, get) of the story. Does your WIP follow this structure?
Writing the Romance Novel: Why Romance?
If we were to survey 100 romance novelists why they write romance novels, we would get approximately 5,000 reasons. But I think what it boils down to is that we’re adrenaline junkies, just like those people who dive off cliffs in Hawaii, skydive, snowboard, or subject themselves to horror films. It’s just that we get our adrenaline rush from the emotions evoked by two characters facing and defeating the odds to achieve what is so rare in real life: a happily ever after ending.
But because we get our rush from experiencing an emotion, our genre is looked down upon, considered at the very bottom of the literary ladder; our readers are considered less literate and intelligent than those who read other varieties of literature. And this is a problem even within genre-writers’ circles. There were times at my grad-school program, which was genre-fiction focused with no genre held in higher esteem than any other (supposedly), when subtle but snide remarks were made by instructors about how little they thought of the romance genre (with one going so far as to rank Christian worldview fiction as the lowest of the low).
If you’re going to write romances, you must prepare yourself for this—and outside of Christian circles, it can be even worse for those of us who write inspirational or Christian romances. If you can’t handle the wink-wink-nudge-nudge, supercilious looks and comments, writing romance may not be for you. Because the truth of the matter is that even though we’re writing about one of the most tender emotions, we must have tough skin to weather all the negative comments we’ll receive.
Once you’re certain you can put up with that, you have a huge decision to make: s*x or no s*x (sorry, don’t want this being picked up by webcrawlers looking for the S word). Or, in other words, are you going to show it or keep it behind closed doors? Most of my readers here are writing for the Christian market—which means no relations before/outside of marriage; and after marriage, it’s always behind closed doors.
One thing I know many writers struggle with is the morality behind if it’s okay to write the graphic scenes, so long as the characters are married. That’s a choice best left up to the individual author. Because I’ve chosen to write inspirational romances, I won’t go into a discussion of how to write those scenes—there are plenty of resources out there, so no need for me to write about something I have no interest nor experience in (the writing part of it, anyway wink-wink-nudge-nudge). But we will discuss every other aspect of writing this most beloved, most maligned genre.
Resources:
There are many sources I’ll be referencing in this series. Here are the seven books that are currently sitting on my desk:
- Writing the Romantic Comedy by Billy Mernit
- Writing the Christian Romance by Gail Gaymer Martin
- Dangerous Men and Adventurous Women: Romance Writers on the Appeal of the Romance, edited by Jayne Ann Krentz
- The Romance Writer’s Handbook: How to Write Romantic Fiction & Get it Published by Rebecca Vinyard
- Writing Romances: A Handbook by the Romance Writers of America, edited by Rita Gallagher and Rita Clay Estrada
- On Writing Romance: How to Craft a Novel That Sells by Leigh Michaels
- How to Write Romances by Phyllis Taylor Pianka
For Discussion:
What’s your favorite romance novel/author? How old were you when you read your first romance novel? Why did you choose to write romances (or why are you thinking about it)?
Upcoming Blog Series—Writing the Romance Novel
I have been convinced by begging, pleading, and chocolate to do my next blog series on the fundamentals and fine art of Writing the Romance Novel.
A little background on my experience with this genre: I have a Master of Arts degree in Writing Popular Fiction, where my “major” was the Romance genre, my thesis was a contemporary inspirational romance novel, and my critical research was on the conventions of the romance genre and the evolution of inspirational romance as a separate genre. I’ve completed five romance novel manuscripts (but I’ve been writing romantic stories since I was twelve years old); my debut novel, Stand-In Groom, will be published by Barbour in January 2009.
All that said, I am nowhere near considering myself an expert on the romance genre. So I’ll be doing a lot of research and giving examples and background and backing up what I say through quotes from romance-writing how-to books. I also hope to be featuring some guest bloggers, both inspirational and mainstream romance writers.
But what’s most important to me right now is to find out what you want to learn in this series. Have you ever gotten low scores on a contest entry because the judge didn’t think your entry fit the genre, and the judge made some comments that you just don’t understand? Are you trying to write a romance for the first time and have questions about the structure? Have you seen things in published novels that you’re wondering if you can use, but they go against general established writing “rules”?
Post your questions and hopefully on Tuesday or Wednesday, we’ll get the ball rolling on this new series!
Fun Friday–A Room with a View on Masterpiece Classics
The Complete Jane Austen series might be over, but PBS isn’t leaving us high-and-dry without our costume-drama fix. This week is the U.S. premiere of the new BBC production of the Andrew Davies adaptation of E. M. Forster’s coming-of-age novel, A Room with a View. As I mentioned yesterday, I’ve never seen the Merchant-Ivory production of the film, nor have I read the book, so I’m really looking forward to seeing this one. I’d hoped that my review copy from WGBH would have arrived in time for me to view it before posting, but unfortunately, the mail must be running slow. 😦
- “To experience the true Italy, one must be a little daring! Eschew the Baedeker, dismiss the Cicerone, and venture out alone…”
— Miss Lavish in A Room With A View
- Lucy Honeychurch (Elaine Cassidy, Ghost Squad) and her nervous chaperone embark on a grand tour of Italy. Alongside sweeping landscapes, Lucy encounters a suspect group of characters — socialist Mr. Emerson and his working-class son George, in particular — who both surprise and intrigue her. When piqued interest turns to potential romance, Lucy is whisked home to England, where her attention turns to Cecil Vyse (Laurence Fox, Inspector Lewis). But now, with a well-developed appetite for adventure, will Lucy make the daring choice when it comes to love? Andrew Davies offers a new adaptation of the E.M. Forster classic.
Since I don’t know a lot about this movie, so I don’t know what to be expecting, I’m going to focus instead on some of the actors it’ll be fun to see in something new. I haven’t seen the main actress, Elaine Cassidy, in anything, but thre are several other names on the cast list that are quite familiar (to me, anyway!):
Laurence Fox as Cecil Vyse. Laurence Fox, who recently got married to Billie Piper (Fanny in the fiasco known as Mansfield Park 2008), has been in several things that some of my regular readers might recognize him from: Elizabeth-The Golden Age (Sir Christopher Hatton), Becoming Jane (Mr. Wisely), Marple: The Sittaford Mystery (James Pearson), Jericho: The Killing of Johnny Swan (Peter Bridgewater), and Gosford Park (Rupert Standish).
Rafe Spall as George Emerson. I’ll mention in a moment why Rafe’s last name may sound familiar. Rafe Spall is probably most recognizable from his roles in the dark comedies Hot Fuzz (DC Andy Cartwright) and Shaun of the Dead (Noel). I find it interesting that with as little leading-role experience as he has, he’s been cast into one of the key roles in this movie. I’ll be very interested in seeing him, knowing what his acting background is.
Sophie Thompson as Charlotte Bartlett. Sophie Thompson is one of those actresses that, if you’ve seen a few British costume dramas, you probably recognize her but have no idea who she is. Well, Sophie Thompson is one of the daughters of actress Phyllida Law, with whom she appeared in the Gwyneth Paltrow version of Emma. But Sophie’s Austen connection doesn’t end there. She played hypocondriac Mary Elliot-Musgrove in Persuasion 1995; her sister, Emma Thompson, wrote the screenplay and starred in Sense & Sensibility, in which Sophie’s husband, Richard Lumsden, played Robert Ferrars. Sophie has also appeared in Gosford Park and Four Weddings and a Funeral.
Mark Williams as Mr. Beebe. If you read my review of the first part of Sense & Sensibility, you may recognize this name. Or if you’re a fan of the Harry Potter movies, you’ll recognize this name. Yes, the actor whom we saw last week as Sir John Middleton in the Regency period will now be giving us Mr. Beebe in the Edwardian period. I didn’t realize until I looked him up on IMDb exactly how busy an actor he is. He’s only 49 years old, and he already has 64 film and TV credits. It’s understandable, because he’s a fun, comedic actor.
Timothy Spall as Mr. Emerson. That’s right, you noticed this actor has the same name as the actor playing George Emerson. Well, Rafe Spall is Timothy Spall’s son. Many people will recognize Timothy Spall as Wormtail in the Harry Potter movies. He also played Beadle Bamford in Sweeney Todd, and Nathaniel in Enchanted. It’s always fun to see actors we so closely identify with a specific role in something totally different.
Sinead Cusack as Miss Lavish. Sinead is not an actress that many Americans who aren’t avid BBC costume-drama viewers would recognize. But anyone who’s seen her loves her and is with me in highly anticipating seeing her in this film. I first came to admire her in her role as Mrs. Thornton, the prickly mother of heart-throb Richard Armitage’s character in North & South. She’s also been in some big-screen thrillers recently, including Eastern Promises and V for Vendetta. But what most people don’t know about her is that she’s been married to the inimitable Jeremy Irons since 1978 (in fact, their 30th wedding anniversary was March 28!).
Timothy West as Mr. Eager. What hasn’t Timothy West been in? He was most recently seen on Masterpiece Theatre in the 2005 miniseries adaptation of Charles Dickens’s Bleak House, as Sir Leicester Deadlock (Gillian Anderson’s character’s husband). West has appeared in TV shows and big-budget films. As with many older British actors, he’s a workhorse, taking roles from Shakespeare to a judge in 102 Dalmatians. He might be most recognizable though as King Francis from Ever After.
A Sense of Closure
I promised I’d post my thoughts on the second part of Sense & Sensibility, as well as final ruminations on The Complete Jane Austen series. Even though I haven’t had the time to sit down with the DVD (which came Tuesday) and pull some screen captures, I figured I’d better go ahead and post this, since I’ve got people bugging me for it. 🙂
Sense & Sensibility Part 2: 
Hattie Morahan really won me over in the second part of the movie. I’ll freely admit I was wrong to call her “so plain as to be nearly homely.” I can mark the change in my attitude toward her portrayal of Elinor from the scene when Lucy Steele reveals to Elinor that she (Lucy) has been secretly engaged to Edward for four years. I also quite enjoyed the symbolism of the scene following when Elinor escapes to a cave to mourn the loss of Edward—and even then cannot allow herself the weakness of tears. That may be one of my favorite parts of this new adaptation.
One of my least favorite parts of the new adaptation is the Palmers.
Except for the fact that they must be introduced because Elinor and Marianne stay at their home when Marianne is so ill, I didn’t really see the point in having them in this film at all. Of course, I already knew that they would never be able to compare with how the characters were played in the 1995 Ang Lee/Emma Thompson version by the incomparable Imelda Staunton and Hugh Laurie. Aside from the fact that both of them are fabulous comic actors, the script they were given allowed them to pull in much of the humor that Jane Austen built through the absolute ridiculousness of those characters in the book. I do like the new Mrs. Jennings—probably because we get more of her character, and she’s not as over-the-top as the character in the 1995 version.
As I said before, this adaptation at times felt like merely an expansion of Emma Thompson’s script for the 1995 version, so I wasn’t really surprised to see almost the exact same interaction and dialogue between Marianne and Mrs. Jennings’s butler in London, the only difference being that he was amused rather than annoyed by her.
Charity Wakefield’s hair continued to bug me (as did Elinor’s bangs, since that wasn’t the style)—even when they went to the assembly, Marianne’s hair looked unkempt. But at least Elinor’s was less severe, as if she’d taken time to try to style it rather than just pulling it back in a bun. In the 1995 version of the film, the assembly is crowded, just as described in the book—where there are so many people, they’re pressing around them from all sides. In this new adaptation, the assembly was well attended, but not crowded. They were able to move around with ease, without having to squeeze through a mass of people. Marianne’s fainting, in the book, is attributed (by everyone but Elinor) to the “press” of the crowd and the heat generated by so many bodies so close together. Also, Col. Brandon was not at the assembly in the book.
Not only did I not like Dominic Cooper in the second part, he came across as nothing but sinister and creepy. I understand why Andrew Davies was tempted to pull Brandon into the assembly scene, to give Marianne even more reason to soften to him because he was there to help her when Willoughby disappointed her, however it made the dueling scene confusing. I wonder how many people who’ve never read the book believe that they dueled over Marianne, not over Willoughby’s seduction of Eliza. In the book, the duel takes place off-page. We only learn about it when Brandon tells Elinor the whole story about his ward and Willoughby’s part in ruining her. Also, in 1811, which is when the book was published, unmarried girls like Elinor and Marianne and the Steele sisters would have worn white to the assembly, not colored gowns. Colored gowns were worn by married women, matrons, and old-maids (like my Julia in Ransome’s Honor).
There also seemed to be quite a bit of confusion over who was related to whom and how. I was very disappointed in Andrew Davies in this aspect. Marianne calls Fanny “aunt,” when Fanny is her sister-in-law. Sir John Middleton calls Lucy and Anne Steele “our nieces” and then introduces them to Elinor and Marianne as “your cousins.” The Steeles were distant cousins of Lady Middleton, and would therefore not have been considered relations of Elinor and Marianne, since they were only related to Lady Middleton by marriage. Then, the worst offense of all, someone refers to Edward as Elinor’s cousin. Edward and Elinor are not related at all, with the exception that Edward’s sister is married to Elinor’s half-brother. Again, it concerns me that this would be quite confusing to those who aren’t familiar with the story as to how all of these people are connected with each other, since the screenwriter couldn’t even keep everyone straight with the right relationship titles.
The two best additions to this adaptation, which were left out of the 1995 version, were Mrs. Ferrars and Anne Steele. Both came across just as I’d imagined them in the book, and the scene when Anne lets slip the truth of Lucy and Edward’s engagement was priceless. And the actress playing Lucy, though insipid instead of humorous, was actually pretty enough to believe that Edward would have fallen for her, unlike the one in the ’95 version. The score for this adaptation was written by Martin Phipps, who created the music, including a heart-rending cello piece, for the 2004 BBC adaptation of Elizabeth Gaskell’s North & South, as well as the newest adaptation of Persuasion. There were a couple of times, especially in the second part, when, if I closed my eyes, I could have been watching N&S, because the theme and instrumentation of the music was so similar.
I did read somewhere that Charity Wakefield (Marianne) is an accomplished and professionally trained pianist and singer. They could have made much more use of this.
The resolution of the Marianne/Brandon relationship bugged me in this adaptation. Firstly, why, if Brandon has his horse right there, would he walk back to the house carrying Marianne after she collapses in the rain? And secondly, the whole comparison between Brandon’s courting Marianne and his taming a horse and training a hawk was borderline offensive. What I want to know is when someone is going to get the timeline of the relationships right. Edward and Elinor are married long before Marianne and Brandon’s relationship begins to mature to the point that they marry. Marianne is courted by Brandon for about a year as she, along with their mother and Margaret, visits Elinor and Edward at their vicarage at Delaford.
Final Thoughts on The Complete Jane Austen Series
I said when I reviewed it that I had a feeling that the new version of Northanger Abbey which aired a couple of months ago would probably be the triumph of the season, as far as the new adaptations go. I will now confirm that—at least in my opinion. While I really like this new version of Sense & Sensibility, for me, it was the new version of NA that really brought something fresh and new to the table. Perhaps because there have never been any other definitive versions made of that film—and because I’ve only read the book once or twice—but it stands out to me as the best new adaptation. However, the 1995 Ciaran Hinds/Amanda Root version of Persuasion remains firmly entrenched at the top of my list of favorite Jane Austen films. The new adaptation of Mansfield Park was a fiasco and the only one of the films that I’m not going to waste money on (yes, I purchased the new Persuasion, even with as much as I disliked it). I can still take or leave Emma, though I’m really happy that they showed the A&E/ITV version of it, which I prefer to the Gwyneth Paltrow version. And there will probably never be another version of Pride & Prejudice made that will be able to compete with the 1995 miniseries, even if I don’t like Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy. 🙂 (Had to get that out there one more time!)
But perhaps my favorite new film shown during The Complete Jane Austen series was Miss Austen Regrets. That came with my “collector’s set” (which included Sense & Sensibility and the new Persuasion), and I am greatly looking forward to viewing it again this weekend. (BTW, isn’t it interesting that PBS used an image of Sally Hawkins as Anne from Persuasion in their banner instead of Olivia Williams as Jane from Miss Austen Regrets?)
Tomorrow, I’ll be posting a “preview” of this week’s Masterpiece Classic, A Room with a View. Adapted by, you guessed it, Andrew Davies from the E.M. Forster novel by the same name. I’m really looking forward to seeing this. I’ve never seen the Merchant-Ivory production, nor have I read the book. So this will be totally new to me.
A Funky Day Translated into Fiction
We all have them . . . those days when we’re just in a funk, feeling like we don’t really want to do anything, like even if we attempt to do anything we won’t accomplish it. I’m having one of those days today. Hard to drag myself out of the bed because it’s overcast and I have a sinus headache. Annoyed with the people on the radio for droning on and on and on about how they need all their listeners to send them money instead of just giving me Morning Edition as usual. Annoyed that it took me longer to get ready this morning so that when I left the house, I knew I would be ten minutes late to work (not that it’s a huge deal if that happens every once in a while, just that I hate being late). Frustrated that after joining Weight Watchers last night, I was so tired that I just sat in front of the TV for a couple of hours before going to bed instead of reading through the materials and figuring out what I’m going to eat today to start the Core plan.
It would be so easy to just give up today. Not deal with the diet until tomorrow. Not post a blog entry. Not write. Just coast. Do what has to be done at work, skip the gym (because my walking partner can’t go tonight), and go home and watch Miss Austen Regrets and possibly pull screen captures from Sense & Sensibility and post my final thoughts on it and the Jane Austen series.
But I’m not going to allow myself to do that. I’m going to take what I’m feeling and pour it into my writing. I’m going to give one of my characters the same kind of funky mood that I have right now . . . which is going to be really bad, because they’re putting on this fancy-schmancy menu tasting for the board of the charity they’re planning a benefit for. There’s nothing like having to put your best-foot forward when you’re in a mood like this!
What do you do when you feel this way? Do you make yourself write? How do you channel your energies (positive or negative) into your fiction?
2008 Genesis Finalists!
Finalists in the 2008 ACFW Genesis contest for unpublished authors were announced yesterday. Please join me in congratulating all of them, but most especially my crit partner and dear friend Erica Vetsch, who is a double finalist!
Chick lit/mom lit/lady lit:
Annalisa Daughety
Tiffany Kinerson
Sara Richardson
Lynda Schab
Erica Vetsch
Contemporary Fiction:
Christina Berry
Dan Case
Lynne Gentry
Jennifer L. Griffith
Jim Rubart
Contemporary Romance:
Annalisa Daughety
Kathleen Haynes
Cara Slaughter
Sandra van den Bogerd
Linda Yezak
Historical Fiction:
Yvonne Anderson
Lori Benton
Mona Hodgson
Christina Miller
Rachel Moore
Historical Romance:
Patty Smith Hall
Myra Johnson
Allison Studer
Erica Vetsch
Karen Witemeyer
Mystery/Suspense/Thriller:
Ed J. Horton
Melanie L. Jones
Janice Olson
Donna Alice Patton
Jane Thornton
Romantic Suspense:
Dani Pettrey
Kelly Ann Riley
Julie Scudder
Jane Thornton
Jenness Walker
Sci-Fi/Fantasy/Allegory: (there are six finalists because there was a tie for the 5th finalist spot)
Lynda K. Arndt
Valerie Comer
John W. Otte
Jim Rubart
Chawna Schroeder
Stuart Stockton
Women’s Fiction: (there are six finalists because there was a tie for the 5th finalist spot)
Heather Goodman
D’Ann Mateer
Sara Richardson
Linda Rondeau
Cynthia Ruchti
Kristian Tolle
Young Adult:
Kasey L. Heinly
Stefanie Morris
Susan Miura
Janet Rubin
Carla Stewart
Menu for Romance: Vote for the Menu!
I’m about to write the scene when the board for the charity Meredith and Major are planning a black-tie benefit for are coming in for a tasting to choose the final menu for the dinner. Since I like all the dishes on the menu, I thought my dear readers could help in choosing the final menu for the Hearts to H.E.A.R.T.S. benefit (raising money for the cardiac unit at Bonneterre’s University Hospital). And believe it or not, I actually found heart-healthy versions of all of these recipes!
The point of the tasting is to narrow the menu down to the choices that will be presented to the guests at the banquet. So if you were attending a black-tie, $500/plate benefit (dinner, dancing, silent auction), what would you want to see on the menu? (Click on the menu to enlarge)
Prize Winner!
Though I’ll have to post the promised Fun Friday entry on Sense & Sensibility this evening (I thought I was going to get today off work, but found out late yesterday afternoon I was going to have to come in, which threw my whole evening off kilter), I did want to pop in first thing this morning to congratulate Leslie S., who won the Amazon gift certificate! Leslie is a newcomer to the blog (and a new ACFW member as well!), so I’m tickled that her name came out of the hat last night.
Featured Blogger on Jane Austen Today
Don’t forget, I’ll be drawing the winner for the $15 Amazon Gift Certificate a little before 10 p.m. (central) tonight. If you’ve been ruminating over how you might want to join the discussion on Hooking the Reader, be sure to get your comments posted today if you want to be entered into the drawing!
I have the great privilege of being the featured blogger on the Jane Austen Today blog. When Ms. Place asked me to do one of my infamous head-to-head comparisons of the actors from the 1995 Emma Thompson version and the new 2008 Andrew Davies version of Sense & Sensibility, I was thrilled! This is someone who blogs about Jane Austen–related stuff full time, asking me to be a guest blogger!
Well, if you’re interested in finding out what I think about the main actors and how they compare in their roles to their predecessors, be sure to check it out:
Sense & Sensibility: A Head-to-Head Comparison
Tomorrow, for Fun Friday, I’ll be doing another head-to-head comparison here, looking at some of the secondary characters from Sense & Sensibility, so be sure to stop by for some fun times with Imelda Staunton, Hugh Laurie, Mark Williams, and Leo Bill.
KayeDacus.com 