Favorite Enemies
- A Little Sisterly Advice
- Cheeky Reads
- DRD aka Donna's Blog
- Gunner Marnee's Blog
- J.K. Coi: Living with Immortals
- Just Janga
- Killer Fiction
- Kimberly Killion
- Maggie Robinson
- Maureen O. Betita
- Megan Kelly
- Pam Clare
- Renee Lynn Scott
- Romance Bandits
- Romance Dish
- Scapegoat's Blogspot
- Smartass Romance
- Terri Osburn Writes Romance
- Tessa Dare
- Vauxhall Vixens
Blog Archive
Writing By Numbers
It's well known that I don't have much leisure time these days. Which means instead of taking a week or two to read a book, it takes me months. This means I'm even pickier about what I choose to read. In more than two decades of reading Romance, I've almost never given up on a book. But in the last year I've lost track of how many books I've tossed away. It makes me wonder if the problem is me, or if the books just aren't as good as they used to be. Odds are it's a little of both.
Right now I'm reading an Historical and though I'm far enough in that I'm really enjoying it now, it was touch and go at first. The problem was the obvious formula. Things I enjoyed about Romance before I'm now finding irritating. Here's my list of formula ingredients for Historicals.
1) Instant attraction – The moment the hero sets eyes on the heroine, he feels an attraction like nothing he's ever known. Though we know he's been chasing skirts and lusting over any glimpse of ankle for at least ten or fifteen years, he's *never* met anyone like the heroine.
2) Vanishing Virtue – Somehow the heroine, a young woman raised in a society where virtue is everything and who knows very little if anything about sex, finds herself wrapped in the hero's arms being kissed senseless. All brain cells in her pretty little head disappear as soon as the hero is near.
3) The Declaration – Almost within minutes of meeting, the hero, supposedly a gentleman of the highest honor, declares to the heroine that he will have her in his bed. He doesn't declare that she will be his wife when she finds herself there, he simply states he will have her, end of argument.
4) The Denial – Upon above declaration, the heroine denies she will ever grace the hero's bed all the while her mind keeps telling her she will. She makes a declaration of her own, often insulting the hero whom she finds pigheaded and overbearing then contradicts her own words by falling for a charming smile and a wayward lock of hair.
5) The Change – This is the moment, often not long after making her acquaintance, that the hero realizes he might be falling in love with the heroine. In most cases, the hero is a rake who has sworn off ever marrying. And if he hasn't sworn it off, then he plans on marrying simply to create an heir and doesn't believe in anything as silly as love. Until he meets the heroine and everything changes.
I admit that all of these ingredients can make a great read and appear almost unnoticeable when in the hands of a gifted author. But what I want to know is can we write a Romance without them? Would anyone read a Romance where the relationship is gradual instead of instant? I think this happens much more often in Contemporaries than in Historicals. Not sure why.
What do you think? Do these ingredients bother you or are they the very things you love about Romance? Are there other formula ingredients that bother you? If you're a writer, do you use these devices or do you challenge yourself by trying to avoid them? As a reader, have you gotten pickier about what you read and how often do you find yourself rolling your eyes by page four?
Books by the Crew
35 comments:
You've got the formula down pat. I have to admit. I often find it a bit relaxing to know the formula. But I have a ton of time to read and tend to read for simple distraction. More complex books wind me up too much...
Can one be written without that? I don't know about historicals, but fantasy/scifi romance that I read doesn't march to the same drummer. Usually. Paranormals? Sometimes.
When I write, I find it irritating how fast the hero has to meet the heroine...and how fast they have to 'get it on.' Or at least I've been told to write it that way. But...I don't tend to follow 'rules.'
I understand this stuff about catching the readers/agents/editors attention quickly...but I like a longer build up! I do think it's insulting to rush everything.
I do toss books, and don't pick them back up... Life is too short for books that don't hold my interest.
You know... I don't use these points. I like those gradual romances. I mean, my hero in my last book was going to have my heroine, no matter what. But he'd known her for ten years.
I think the more formulaic the book seems the more likely it hits my wall. :)
I do enjoy formula books from time to time, but I also enjoy the H/H becoming friends before they jump in the sack. I can see being attracted to someone early on... but the falling in love at first site, or immediately, always throws me a little. I don't like when they (especially the hero) mistake lust for love.
I'm a big believer in the friendship (getting to know you) type of romance so that's probably the direction I tend to head in when I write. The "when I write" is a big qualifier there! LOL I've been a bit busy lately, too, Ter!
Try When The Duke Returns from Eloisa James. I think you'll find it a satisfying read!!!
I haven't liked much lately, and they didn't even have your bugaboos, LOL. Right now I'm writing something where there was instant attraction, but deep unhappiness afterward. Plus there are teenagers involved. If it sounds too much like real life, I can't help it!
Ter - I think you're right about these things being more in historicals than in contemporaries and I'm trying to figure out why that is. I think that's why I haven't really been into a lot of historicals lately. Maybe it's because there's been a trend of late to try to make historicals hotter instead of the more traditional comedy of manners/errors, sort of just good banter and some sexual tension.
I don't know.
But I think we can write things that don't have these things and have it be a well told story.
Chance - It's a catch 22 that we have to write to catch the industry's attention but we should really be writing for the readers. And my guess is there are a lot like you and I who'd rather see the relationship grow and develop over time and not this instant meet on page 2 be in love by page 5.
Tiff - I think the idea of the H/H knowing each other long before the book opens is a great way to go. And I can't wait to read these books of yours. Finger crossed for an '09 release but I'm sure we'll see you on the shelves no later than '10.
Irish - I picked up Eloisa's book last week and once I finish the one I'm reading now, I'll likely dive in. I'm going to have lots of time to myself around Christmas so I'm hoping to read WTDR in a couple of days. Fingers crossed!
Maggie - My sister is book tossing. LOL! I really do think the books are very different from how they used to be. The books are shorter and the authors are almost forced to put them together immediately. It's almost as if there's no way to get real substance in there. There just isn't enough time to add the meat. Know what I mean?
Marn - I think part of it has to do with the young, innocent heroines. Heroines are much more liberated in contemps with the freedom to have experience with men and it's not the end of the world. For me, there's just more freedom all around when writing contemp than Historical. Though there's the lush setting and beautiful balls in Historicals that transport us to another time. I guess there's pros and cons to everything, but I'm with you on believing you can write an Historical without these formula points.
Terri, I'm with you on the Disgruntlement Train. I'm really tired of historicals where the attraction is instant; the virtue slips away like water through fingers; and all those others you mentioned.
Of course, I think the difference between a gifted author and the ones who are annoying us is that: the gifted writer makes us care about the characters. If the characters feel real, seem real, and we care about them--then it doesn't matter if they did all those plot points. I think the part that's annoying us is that the plot points are standing out more than the characters. I hate it when you can't tell one historical miss from another, or one rake from another.
Is part of this stemming that historical writers are having to write "shorter" books now (because it's more cost effective)? Basically historicals have lost about 100 pages over the last 20 years--so books that had more historical detail and plot development, character development--we're not allowed that laxity now. Esp not new authors. We have to meet the heroine and heroine together by page 10; they have to be compromised by page 40... It feels more and more...well, harlequin-esque. And though there are some very talented authors who've done or do harlequin novels, most of them feel very 'by the book' and interchangeable.
Hellion - The book lengths definitely have to play into it. When I first started my WIP, the H/H didn't meet until chapter 3 and I was told over and over that would never work. But we all know it does. Look at Sugar Daddy by Kleypas. (ALERT: I am in NO WAY comparing myself to Lisa. Just had to make that clear.) The heroine doesn't meet the hero until the middle of the book. Another example of anything works if you do it well enough.
The H/H in Julia Quinn's Mr. Cavendish, I Presume have known each other a long time. So have her H/H in Minx, Romancing Mr. Bridgerton, and When He Was Wicked. Sophia Nash's The Kiss is another recent one where the H/H have a history, as is Christine Merrill's The Mistletoe Wager. Maybe because I consciously search for reunion romances, I can think of lots of books where the H/H are friends or at least acquaintances before a romantic relationship develops.
The best writers use the formula rather trhan being controlled by it. Eloisa James often uses some convention as a point of departure. For example, she cleverly twists the instant attraction convention in Desperate Duchesses.
I have tossed my share of books this year. I was surprised at the number of Did Not Finish notations in my 2008 list of books. I think I tossed as many contemporaries as historicals though. My pet peeve is probably the contemporary H/H whose sexual mores are closer to the 1970s than to the 21st century.
I do think authors feeling pressured to write hotter and shorter books may be part of the problem. I'm sure book length is the reason I am finding the endings, even of some books I like, less satisfactory.
I still think Hardy and Liberty were supposed to be together and someone told LK she needed to go a different direction.
Tis my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
I'm feeling the need to get the soapbox out today.
This is why I love Pamela Clare's historical novels. The hero and heroine meet early on but usually detest each other and it's no sweet meets or cutsy flowery words and stolen kisses in the dark gardens of a Ton party. I get tired of the same old crap all the time. I mean, I do read it but I'm starting to read it less and less as it becomes more and more predictible. Seems like more authors are writing the cookie cutter version of romance and not thinking outside of the box.
I'm writing no sex in my first book. I will never get published. LOL
Janga, I was thinking of Romancing Mr. Bridgerton too as an example of "non-instant-attraction"--they'd known each other awhile. In fact, that's almost JQ's schtick: the friends who become lovers.
Don't get me wrong, I like hot. (My shelves are lined now with Elizabeth Boyle and Elizabeth Hoyt because of my hot-blooded nature, but I think they do a good job of either twisting the formula AND/OR developing great character where you don't notice the formula.)
Sin - My H/H don't like each other at first either, but then I worry if that's cliche to have them bickering but physically attracted to each other. That's why I'm working hard on developing them as real people and having the real relationship take a more gradual progress. It may never sell, but I'd rather have a story I'm proud of than one I don't like because I plugged in the numbers.
Janga - Can you explain that problem with contemps with me a bit more? Do you mean that the H/H see sex very casually? Because I'm afraid that is still the norm today. We may be more careful about it, but it's still a casual thing in many cases.
Everything's cliche. It's all been done. I think it's about making us care about the characters. How can you make us feel we've not met this particular character about a 100 times before?
I also think this is why authors read a wide variety of stuff because I think anyone can get burnt out on romance novels, even superior ones. Who wouldn't get sick of eating the same thing every day, even if it's your favorite thing to eat? Even I have to switch up my Chinese food takeout with mashed potatoes and fried chicken... Maybe we should be reading "OTHER" stuff so we can appreciate romance novels more???
Good point about everything being cliche. Again I think it's easier to create more unique characters in contemporaries, but that's likely because of the over-abundance of Regencies out there. We need more variety in the Historicals we have to chose from. Another reason we need authors like Pamela Clare who take us out of London and the Ton and the same old same old.
Oh, and I used to read outside the Romance genre and would like to again. It does make a difference. Good writing and story telling is good no matter what the genre.
Yeah, it is hard to write a character in Regency who hasn't been done a 100 times already. *LOL* Even when some authors do "write outside the box" and put a James Bond like character in Regency London, half the time it doesn't work for me because I think, "This would never work in real Regency times."
I mean, I know historicals are "fantasy" but it's why I appreciate Pamela Clare's historicals so much. They feel like they could have really happened and not pure fluff. I mean, even my authors I turn to for "fluff" historical, at least I sorta feel these characters could have existed and were real to the time.
All Romance is fantasy. But if the characters don't feel *real*, then we can't relate. Maybe it's a matter of the lack of variety these days. But then again, there is variety out there if you're willing to look for it. I just don't have time to dig that hard to find something different.
I've set down more books than I've read this year, but I think that's because I've been on the hunt for new authors. I'll try anybody, set it down if I don't like it, and move on to someone else. Found a couple really fabulous new authors (new to me!) and more clunckers.
What I hate most is when an author follows this or any plot formula, and just throws in characters. It could be any character, with any name, and you'd never know the difference because it's all plot.
And personally, I don't think it's a matter of shorter pages, I think it's lazy writing. A good author can present characterization, even with less pages. A hundred less pages, even if you do use a formulaic plot, shouldn't stop you from having room to build characters.
Okay, I'll get off my soapbox too. It's Sin's fault. *g* she got me riled up
Hal - That's an excellent point. You should be able to tell a great story in 50 pages if you do it well. But I think the pressure to have everything happen wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am is a big problem. I'm not saying we need chapters of backstory or info dumping, but it wouldn't be bad to live with these characters for a chapter before they meet each other. Or am I just crazy?
I think that in our day and age where we can have everything at our fingertips with a simple click that wham-bam-thank-you has been de rigeur of late. Look at novels from the 1800s like Jane Eyre and Pride and Prejudice . . . would these novels be published today? I don't know. I could see it making the contest circuit and a judge writing Mr. Darcy seems very unlikeable or getting a letter from an agent: I think there's a problem with having a crazy, locked up wife in Jane Eyre.
Sugar Daddy really bordered on the line between women's fiction and romance for me. I think that's why it was "more" acceptable for readers to get the hero mid-way through the book. SD was really a novel about Liberty's journey and life, as opposed to Blue-Eyed Devil which was more in the structures of romance.
I think it's okay to have "rules" because well, rules are meant to be broken. *g* Shameless plug: curiously enough, I'm addressing a certain rule about heroes this Thursday on Vixens when I talk about my rock star hero, which everyone says you can't absolutely do in romances.
And I don't think that the hero or heroine has to be superbly rich. I think that's just cogwash.
Terri wrote:
"Janga - Can you explain that problem with contemps with me a bit more? Do you mean that the H/H see sex very casually? Because I’m afraid that is still the norm today. We may be more careful about it, but it’s still a casual thing in many cases."
Terri, I stopped reading one writer, who shall remain nameless, because one minute the H/H appear in the same scene and the next minute they are intimately engaged. They haven't even exchanged names, much less talked about birth control and health issues. I call that stupid rather than casual. Perhaps it is less unusual than I believed, but if so, I still don't want to read the books.
As for variety in historicals, Harlequin offers variety in their Historicals--cowboys, Vikings, Barbarians, and Templar Knights as heroes, for example. But the Regency-set books are the most in demand. Readers who prefer that setting seem to be a substantial and loyal majority.
I vote with Hellion on genre variety. As much as I love romance fiction, I think I'd get sick of it if I didn't mix it up with mysteries, literary fiction. poetry, and non-fiction.
Okay, Janga, that takes casual to the extreme. There are books that might specialize in that, but my guess is that's not what you thought you were getting with that particular author. But that might go to the "sex for the sake of sex and not the story" convo which is another blog altogether. :)
I never thought about the push to make the books hotter having an influence on the lack of character development. I'd rather have a good story where I don't notice that the H/H don't have sex until page 250 than have a not so good story with the first sex scene happening by page 30.
*shoves Hal* I did NOT get you all riled up. At least not today. LOL
I have a pretty sweet soapbox don't I?
I agree with everything being said.
Ter- I agree. I want to get to know the main POV first before you start throwing in the love interest or two. I'm a horrible info dumper so I will not throw my hat into that conversation. LOL
I like your soapbox because it makes me look taller. ;)
Info dumping is fine as long as you cut it back during editing. Sometimes you have to write the info to know your characters. NOT that I'm encouraging you to cut any more than you already do!
I admit I caved and have my H/H meet about page 2 or 3. But it's anything but love at first sight. They start not liking each other, move to being friends, the progress into more. That seems more realistic to me.
Oh, and I can't wait to read about your Rock Star hero. Sometimes the most fun is in proving everyone wrong. You write it well enough, you can sell anything.
Ely - I almost missed you! You're exactly right about that old stuff not getting published today. Thank goodness things were different back then!
And that's a good point about Sugar Daddy. But it was sold as Romance (I think) and I think if a brand new author had tried that, she never would have been able to sell it. And that book is AWESOME!
Soapbox anyone!? Why is it the guy always thinks he isnt worthy of the heroine? I swear! I've read about four in a row lately where it's something so idiotic that has him convinced that he isn't the right man for her... "I was a foster child..." Yeah, so? "I don't have a membership in the country club." Yeah, so? "I don't have a college degree..." ????
In real life, don't most guys assume they are Gods gift to anywoman they condescend to smile at?
How come it's never something sorta legit? "I have a small cock and not much experience in bed." "I'm too large and I'll hurt you." "I can't keep a job...had a vasectomy and you want kids...I'm still in debt from the last bankruptcy..." You know, real reasons she should reconsider.
"I was a foster child?" Christie, I love you...but that was hard to swallow.
Climbing off soapbox now. Where did I put that extra hoo....? Sin? You been in my hoo stash? Now I'm going to have to settle for extra glitter! Damn!
Chance - I've met one guy in my life who didn't think he was good enough for me. Other than that, they all thought they deserved better. I'm not sure what that says about me. Hmmmm.....
In the books, there's alway something from the hero's past that has turned him into *damaged goods*. I'm all for characters having issues and baggage, that's realistic. But at some point you have to move on and let the past go!
*running off with all the extra hoo* teeeeheeeheee!
Post a Comment