Do writers have something against romance?

[Erttheking]

Something that kind of hit me just now. Romance in fiction is rarely ever done straight forward. Granted SOMETIMES it is but more often than not it falls into horrible ruts, the will they or won't they rut, the on and off again relationship rut, the FUCKING love triangle rut, and this is all assuming that one of two don't end up getting murdered.

Wait, I'm being too harsh, there is quite a bit of straight forward romance in fiction. One where the guy hits on the girl, she rejects him but towards the end of the movie they have a big damn kiss moment even if they have no chemistry at all and sometimes there are characters created for the sole purpose of being a love interest...yay?

Ugh. I may forfeit my right to my manhood by saying this, but I really REALLY do enjoy a good love story. I know a lot of people think that stories are over saturated with them but I personally still really enjoy a good one. The problem is that nowadays finding a good one takes a fair bit of effort. More often than not it falls into cliches, is pathetically token, is shallow and unfufilling or some combination of the three.

Simply put, I like romance the best when it's between two Human beings who have personalities and lives OUTSIDE of the romance. I also like romance that skips all of the BS, none of that Tsundere crap, none of that intentionally acting cool and aloof crap, for FUCK'S SAKE none of the annoying contrived misunderstanding break ups, none of the two of them going back and forth like snarky smart asses. I mean it CAN be done right I read something I really liked that was less the two of them being smart asses and more them genuinely HATING each other until they actually learned more about each other and began to calm down, but the problem is that most people don't do that. I don't think a simple relationship built off of trust, mutual respect and gentle affection should really be that hard to write but apparently everyone else disagrees.

Does anyone have any idea why this is the case?

 

[lacktheknack]

It's OK, man. I have no shame in admitting that "Pride and Prejudice" is a damn good book, which is a sappy romance novel that had three central romances. Interestingly, the three romances were very unconventional by today's standards, which supports your statements. The initial romance is a slow, sweet and conflict-free affair (until someone else tries to screw it up). The second romance consists of the two characters hating the hell out of each other and has them slowly realize that they love each other, fighting every damn step of the way (usually, if a woman gives a middle finger to your rushed and tactless proposal that is focused on how rich you are, that's the end of the relationship... not here). The third one is positively troubling: An aloof guy takes advantage of a love-struck teen and is forced to actually suffer some consequences.

Three unconventional romances that make up the "quintessential romance novel". Hmmmmmm.

The thing is, writers are afraid to include central themes that aren't riddled with conflict, because they're afraid the audience will get bored. Maybe there's truth to that. While I personally would find a romance novel that documented an ultra-sappy low-conflict relationship to be gratifying, or a series of successful diplomatic agreements to be satisfying, I'm pretty sure I'm all alone in that. It's not so much that's it hard to write as much as people not wanting to read it.

 

[norashepard]

Not to bring up the whole, uh, gender thing, but I think that might have a large part to play in why there aren't very many "good" romance novels around. The majority of writers are white men, and while not all of them give a shit what anyone thinks of them, I'd hazard a guess that a ton of them would like to avoid having to say "I write romance novels" when people ask what they do for a living. Thus, the amount of people even trying to write good romance novels is incredibly small, so the chances that a good one does come around is slim.

Also, outside of politics, I think the reason most romances are shit is because they are found outside of romance novels, where many are tacked on simply because they "have to" be. Like, Star Wars or something, the main point isn't romance at all. It's space and laser and shit. So the romance that is present is as basic as the writers could make it. Then those shitty romances become the norm, and are thus duplicated until the end of time. And eventually, people start to forget that actual legitimate romance is a thing. (There are real people who I have met who were surprised to find out that romance was even a genre all to itself.)

Plus, most writers just don't care about romance. It would have to take someone (like you!) who really does care about that facet of the story to make it good, regardless of genre.

 

[Nuxxy]

"Fiction" is awfully broad spectrum. You are talking about everything non-factual. Which includes romance novels.

In general, though, stories come from conflict. The more personal the conflict touches, the more you can learn about a character. So it makes sense.

 

[Hero of Lime]

I don't mind a good romance story either, it's just hard to make a good one that isn't cliche ridden. In fact, I wish that if the plot does not revolve around romance in any way, don't shoe horn it in. I hate it when a love story is thrown in just for the sake of it, it feels forced and never turns out well.

 

[Scentedwiind]

Because romance doesn't exist. It is a series of chemical impulses that tell the body what it should do in order to best survive and reproduce. You are no more important to your partner than the food they eat for breakfast. Also, love doesn't exist, nobody loves you and Santa was never real. While we are at it, god is dead and your life has no true meaning.

Short answer... I find it easier to be nihilistic. When I write, I see no reason for true love to exist despite a desire for it to.

 

[llafnwod]

Because romance doesn't exist. It is a series of chemical impulses that tell the body what it should do in order to best survive and reproduce.

You claimed a thing does not exist and proceeded to define it as something that happens all the time.

 

[lacktheknack]

Because romance doesn't exist. It is a series of chemical impulses that tell the body what it should do in order to best survive and reproduce. You are no more important to your partner than the food they eat for breakfast.

Uh... it does exist. As you said, it's a series of chemical impulses that tell the body what it should do in order to best survive and reproduce. Using a less interesting definition does not make something stop existing.

Short answer... I find it easier to be nihilistic. When I write, I see no reason for true love to exist despite a desire for it to.

Finding nihilism to be easier isn't really a valid reason to be exclusively nihilistic in your writing. In fact, knowing that you take the easy route when you're writing turns me off of reading what you write.

Thirdly, we're talking fiction here. The only reason anyone ever reads fiction is to have their desires pandered to and viewpoints challenged/coddled. So people's desire for true love to exist is EXACTLY WHY writers should write it into their stories more carefully.

 

[Salad Is Murder]

Because romance doesn't exist. It is a series of chemical impulses that tell the body what it should do in order to best survive and reproduce. You are no more important to your partner than the food they eat for breakfast. Also, love doesn't exist, nobody loves you and Santa was never real. While we are at it, god is dead and your life has no true meaning.

Short answer... I find it easier to be nihilistic. When I write, I see no reason for true love to exist despite a desire for it to.

Uh oh, looks like someone just finished the first chapter of "Biology and Philosophy for Dummies" at the local community college. Look, at least finish the book before you start quoting it out of context.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

Evidently people need to be reminded of Sturgeon's Law [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_Law]. Most of romance isn't going to be very good since most of anything isn't going to be very good.

As a writer it would be remiss of me not to encourage erttheking to write his own narratives, and provide us all some new counterexamples of what is commonly wrong with literary romance. If you don't like the way it's done, do it the way it should be!

One of my own modest complaints (in fiction that features romance, not just romantic fiction) is that any couple formed in an early part of a story cannot be allowed to stay together for the rest of the story (there are some exceptions, but they're few) given its a soft target for adding more conflict.

238U

 

[Combustion Kevin]

Not to bring up the whole, uh, gender thing, but I think that might have a large part to play in why there aren't very many "good" romance novels around. The majority of writers are white men,

why do I see this come up so often? it's like nearly any creative field is dominated by white dudes!
where do women work? where the black folkes at, yo?
/rant

On a more serious note, I suppose that when you're writing about world-shaking events and grand happenings of the mortal realm, the romance between two people may seems kinda insignificant, and basing world-shaking decisions on personal feeling may seem petty on the characters.

as for the romance genre... egh, I suppose there good writers in there, but you havta wade through the schlock and the cash grabs in order to get it.
Kinda like fanfiction, really.

 

[Ratties]

I could give two shits about romance in general. Always felt the story moves at a much smoother pace when the guy and girl are just friends. Now there is something I would like to see more of. I want to see more genuine friendships between the sexes, without them suddenly going down the romance road.

 

[Scentedwiind]

Because romance doesn't exist. It is a series of chemical impulses that tell the body what it should do in order to best survive and reproduce. You are no more important to your partner than the food they eat for breakfast. Also, love doesn't exist, nobody loves you and Santa was never real. While we are at it, god is dead and your life has no true meaning.

Short answer... I find it easier to be nihilistic. When I write, I see no reason for true love to exist despite a desire for it to.

Uh oh, looks like someone just finished the first chapter of "Biology and Philosophy for Dummies" at the local community college. Look, at least finish the book before you start quoting it out of context.

Forgive me nameless Internet person for offending your intelligence with my sarcastic comment. I shouldn't presume to know the first thing about you and I'd hope you do the same. But where are my manners, I'm Daniel, and I like to write in my free time despite not being great at it. To a certain extent I do even believe in the power of human life to transcend life and time and have written it into some of my stories.

And was the community college joke really necessary? That is quite mean and wrong considering I've spent much of my time this past year working hard in a formal university. I'll be the first to admit that seton hall is not a paragon of education but it serves its purpose for what I can afford to pay.

 

[McKinsey]

Ugh. I may forfeit my right to my manhood by saying this, but I really REALLY do enjoy a good love story.

Sorry, bro, revoking your man card now. Go punch a bear or something.

To answer your question:
a) Romance devoid of conflict and drama is straight up boring. There is no story to tell.
b) For many, many people love doesn't exist. It's not that they are cynical bastards, it's just real life, dude. When you reach a certain age (it's much sooner that you'd think), you begin to see love for what it really is: a set of chemical reactions most of which only occur during the first months (or years, if you're lucky) of the relationship, a person you've grown accustomed to, a habit you're too afraid to try to break because of financial ramifications and general human fear of failure.

Now, I would like you to name a few examples where you think love story is done right. And please try to make it at least XX century.

 

[Trivea]

My biggest problems with romance in novels is, generally, I either hate one or both of the characters, or the romance simply isn't believable. I see way too much of the "ordinary small town girl meets the incredibly hot guy who immediately has eyes for absolutely no one but her" and it's very...

Most people cite Twilight as an example of this, but honestly, I think The Mortal Instruments series is a better example of it: the Male Love Interest, Jace, is a hard-assed bad boy who proudly cares about no one and nothing but himself, even going so far as to walk all over his best friends because he's simply the biggest douchebag on the face of the planet. Enter Clary, Author Self Insertion Character du Jour, who manages to make him a sweet little love-sick puppy dog in two, count them, TWO weeks. (Why do I know this? Because I do try to read/watch something before I claim to hate it, and I read the first book because Aidan Turner was going to be in the movie. Total waste of my time.)

And, really, that's what I tend to hate about romance in most works of fiction. A video game example: FFXIII. I cannot stand Snow and Serah and I cringe every time it's brought up. Why? Because she is quite literally his entire driving motivation, and the game starts with "this is Snow and he's in love with this girl okay so you totally care when she gets turned to crystal and stuff". Yeah, I know, she's Lightning's sister, whatever, that's the type of motivation that you don't have to see character development for. Family doesn't have to be explained beyond "they're family". But you can't care about a romantic relationship until you care about the characters. (It's like Aragorn and Arwen versus Han Solo and Leia.)

Love triangles would be much, much better done if it wasn't obvious from the start which rival was going to win. The Hunger Games did that... better than a lot of other fandoms, but it still left a lot to be desired.

 

[Scentedwiind]

And was the community college joke really necessary?

Your initial comment comes across less "World-Weary Philosopher" and more "Angsty Overwrought Teen", if we're aiming for honesty and not passive-aggressive pandering. This coming from a nihilist.

Just saying.

More talking out of my ass than anything else.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

Writing good romance is hard. Writing bad ones is common practice.

A lot of reasons for this. One is general bad writing, and this stems from so many circumstances. Scripts not translating well across mediums, weak characters, trying to make a hybrid of romance and action and generally failing in both regards, simply bland, bland, repeated tropes. The super serious one with life under control meets the loosely wired slob and they both fall in love, repelled by each other's oppositeness and then have sex thirty minutes later..

Eugh.

I also must point out that it's necessary for a lot of mediums to have romances, or else they don't get funded, or are outright rejected. That's why the new Ender's Game movie is being forced to build up a relationship between Ender and Petra or Ender and Bean, because it wouldn't have gotten a pass if it had remained as disconnected from characters as the book did. A lot of publishers and producers think women are repulsed by pure action movies or books that simply lack a relationship, so they outright reject scripts and books until writers put in romance. And, of course, writers aren't going to completely rewrite the story for this, so they shoehorn in a shoddy, passable romance so they can get accepted and leave the least amount of blips on the radar.

I can't blame them for that.