In which I talk about writing plans.

[ilthit]

This is rather long and I apologize for that in advance. But it's a community for talking about writing, isn't it? So there. 

After 15 years of writing, I'd say I'm definitely a writer, even if all I've published is one minor article in a local newspaper, a few reviews in a super-indie publication and tons of fanfic online. I've never really taken my writing seriously enough to try to make money off it, but I'm going for it at last this year for National Novel Writing Month. 

I know - NaNoWriMo is usually for bad writing, but it's a good excuse to really work hard every day and get a first draft done from start to finish. I have a lot of research and planning to do first, even though all I'm going to attempt is a romance novel. I figured it's got to have a better chance of being published, considering the huge percentage of the book market romance novels dominate, and from what I've seen Harlequin doesn't exactly mind "beginner" errors. 

I got a hold of some romance novels for researching the genre, though before I got them I had already got excited and begun to plot - a plot that I now see I can' t possibly use... Believe it or not, I had never before read a bona fide category romance novel. My first one was Linda Lee Guhrke, and I found it so-and-so, but having since read two others I now see that in its genre it was quite brilliant. There are very clear rules and there seems to be a formula for plot points that I intend to calculate by pagecount next. I want to do the genre justice. It's actually interesting to write such specific genre fiction, as the challenge is to make it original and still make it fit. 

I face several challenges in writing this:

- I will want to improve on the clichés, and that's a difficult balance to keep - I don't want to sound like I'm mocking the clichés the reader is likely to love. 
- I really hate the way the heroes are written. I don't find them attractive at all. I don't know how I'll be able to write one of these silly characters and still like him. 
- The man will have to be stronger and more capable than the woman, and that needs to be one of his appeals. This offends my feminist sensibilities somewhat. 
- I will have a lot of doing trying to stop myself from subverting the clichés (my first urge is to write this about a middle-aged overweight couple who are so mundane it hurts, and show the beauty of their love while they munch on industrial cookies on their tacky 80s pattern sofa).  

Pretty much the only thing I'm sure I can ace are the sex scenes, and even there I think I'll need to hold myself back a little. There's also the problem that I'm not at all used to writing novel-length fiction; I tend to peter out long before 10,000 words. The longest I've written so far was 45,000 words. 

All this makes me think I should just write the novel I want to write; it's got more of a chance to be actually finished, but pretty much zero chance of being sold, despite probably being a better book. 

What do you think I should attempt? Mundane romance (this is the idea that fires me up) or something I can actually sell? 

Comments

[theserubyshoes]

One reason to write genre/entertainment fiction would be because you love that genre (I really love cozy mysteries, although I have no idea how to write one) but another reason might be for the learning experience of writing a completed manuscript. If you (or any of us, including me) wrote an entire romance novel, beginning to end, following the formula (which there's no more shame in than if you followed the recipe the first few times you attempted a complicated cooking dish) you'd learn infinitely more than if you took a writing class, or series of classes.

I know Janet Evanovich wouldn't make the reading list of any university fine literature classes, but she entertains and brings joy to her readers. She started with formula romance, and you can tell that she wrote them very tongue-in-cheek, and appears to still have that laid back (while not condescending) attitude towards her early work.

Maybe a little research would yield some more satisfying examples of the romance genre? I'm not sure what all's out there, but with so many romances published I would hope there's an imprint and at least some authors who write strong female characters. Once you got your name out there (even a pen name, like Janet Evanovich did) you'd have your foot in the door as far as getting an agent/publisher for the books you'd prefer to write. Maybe you'd even end up falling for the genre...who knows? There's such a huge reader base and such an enormous support system for romance writers.

I've talked about this with my family, and my 13 year old son actually made an excellent point. He said when you're learning an instrument you start small with Hot Crossed Buns and whatnot, work your way up to covers of famous bands, then start with the most rudimentary music composition (okay, he didn't say rudimentary, but that was the gist). Using the training wheels of genre/entertainment fiction writing formulas while we're learning the craft is an excellent idea, not a shameful one, and naturally your own style and values will thread themselves through the basic structures of the formula.

It's all so hard to figure out! Sorry this reply is so long ^^; and best of luck.

[ilthit]

Interestingly all the heroines of the three category romance novels I read were more or less strong and capable (ironically the best of them had the most damsel-like heroine and I liked her best!); the trick was that the hero was always stronger and more capable, and that the woman always felt so "protected" by his "strong embrace" or whatever; like she reverts to a baby in the presence of his testesterone aura. I know love is surrender and they write that surrended on each side of the romance, that I like; but masculine prowess does seem a little fetishized here. I guess I can play it without the squick factor to some degree, though I worry my squick is the next girl's turn-on! But that is the kind of challenge that makes the project seem interesting despite everything.

Thank you very much for a long and thoughtful reply!

I would definitely be writing under a pen name... But you made me think of this also as more than something to do for fun or as a money-making scheme. To actually have to try and fit into a time-honoured formula should also make it easier to detect other useable models on which to hang a more original story.

[theserubyshoes]

I love your use of the phrase "time honoured formula." It's very self-defeating for unpublished authors to sneer at formulas and entertainment genres. Once we get the basics of structure down, and those building blocks become part of the compost of our imagination (Graham Greene's words, not mine) we can springboard off to write those from-the-heart opuses.

For writers who can magically sit down and start writing from-the-heart masterpieces without studying the craft, great. For the rest of us who fear we'll end up pumping out reams of unstructured rambling, killing those seedlings of original literature ideas in the process, having some help with the first (or first few) manuscripts is a great idea.

I think we instinctively know which way we want to go...just write and hope for the best, or use a plot & structure book/study genres, etc. and practice the craft. Both ways are valid, and writers would do well to respect all paths that nurture creativity and fulfillment. Formulas become formulas for a reason, yes? =D

[ilthit]

It's very self-defeating for unpublished authors to sneer at formulas and entertainment genres.

I completely agree! If the reader is instinctively expecting some turn of the plot at a certain point and it doesn't happen, it could really diminish reading pleasure. Better to stick to the formula when you're just starting out writing; you can break the rules later. Using the accepted basic grid for the story also doesn't mean it can't be original. The formula is not the plot.

(I'm really beginning to itch to write a "kitchen sink romance". I don't know if that itch would really carry me through 50,000 words of dishes and leaking pipes, but I just love the idea of using the romance novel formula with a Mike Leigh cast.)

I think it's a damn shame, though, that publishers refuse non-formulaic novels for the reason of them not being formulaic. I recently read a book written by publishers called "How Not To Write a Novel" and then proceeded to read an excellent published novel that did a lot of the things they warned against. The excellence of a novel doesn't hang on whether or not it's formulaic or on any other specific dos and donts. Many - most - of my favourite novels are written in the "wrong" way somehow.

[theserubyshoes]

The publishing business is hurting so badly right now, I suppose it's only fair to remember that it is a business and needs to make money. It's sad, but I can understand the reluctance to publish an experimental work by an unknown author. I guess the good news is that experimental literary works do get published...maybe by writers who have already proven themselves a bit to an agent/editor? Either that or by writers who have the colossal luck to break the rules at the right time in the right way, and submit to the right place at the right time with the further luck of having their manuscript read by the right chain of people. One thing I do know is my own personal "luck" hasn't served me all that well up until this point.

Ah, but ONE way we're all lucky is to be writing when e-publishing is taking off. I certainly don't know a whole lot about it, but from I understand there's a lot more creative rope regarding content and length when it comes to e-publishing. I know people are still resisting the idea, and saying they don't want to give up the paper versions and the experience of holding a book, but after living through the same sorts of arguments when people resisted going from vinyl to disc, then disc to electronic files in the music industry I personally am extremely excited to be writing at this particular moment in history.

I'd say my favorite ~emotional/thinker~ sort of novels were written in a more unconventional, "literary" style. Many of my favorite comfort novels, or the ones so compelling that I stayed up all night (for several nights running, sometimes) reading were genre/entertainment novels. The world needs both! Yes, write what you (you=general you...I'm working through all of these same issues myself) love. But there's no shame in loving books with engaging characters and plot elements that are woven around formulas, and were written to entertain. Just make sure you're writing in a genre that has the potential to entertain YOU, or all's lost ^___^

Thanks so much for wading through these replies. I'm on the verge of shelving my current project for awhile and writing a mystery using the book The Weekend Novelist Writes a Mystery, and these exact issues are the ones I've been struggling with.

[ilthit]

I think if the first book has enough of the good stuff, the selling stuff, publishers must overlook specific "mistakes" or even structure. I'm thinking of Jasper Fforde's Thursday Next series. The first novel did have structure, but it also did a lot of the things the "How Not to Write a Novel" book warned against, from giving the main character a pet to describing her face in a mirror. Ah well.

E-books! It's no wonder if there's more rope in e-publishing because it's practically cost-free. I think it'll take more people taking to e-readers before it will take off, though. I find it hard to read books in digital form because my computer is such a perfect entertainment center, and with so many open projects on it, that I just end up working on/playing with something else, but my significant other has an e-reader and has read several books off it. She loves the thing! (She read some bootlegs and some free books from Amazon Books, though, and an e-book often only costs a few euroes, so it's not a great projection for making money in e-books.)

That sounds like a good book! Good luck!

[theserubyshoes]

Hey- I saw this and thought of you:

http://romanceuniversity.org/

=D

[ilthit]

Ooh, thanks for the link!

[sterling]

My advice is simple: Write what your heart desires, regardless of the genre standards, norms, and cliches.

The reason that genres become stale, is often because so many authors try to copy the formula that worked for the existing published authors, and of course, it's not usually their natural style, and so the stories are not as good.

If you write your idea of what a good romance book should be, without trying to conform to the norm, you might even revolutionize the genre.

At the very least, you'll know you wrote something you love. Chances are, if you love it, others will too.

[ilthit]

If I wrote anything other than stale old genre romance, I would have to do it for love and not expect to get published. I might, because I rather want to, but I also kind of want to write one for money! I think I'll try to write a stupid romance first and a clever one only after.

Poor abused romance novels

[jaebility]

You definitely need to read more! Yes, there's a lot of crap in the romance novel genre, but that's true with fiction in general. I recommend starting with Smart Bitches, Trashy Books, an incredible blog by two of the funniest, smartest women on the web - And they're romance novel fans to boot. They spend a lot of time exploring the mythos of romance novels as well as why the rest of the publishing wrold (and the world in general) has such a low opinion of the genre. I can't recommend it enough. Also, the authors (Sarah Wendell and Candy Tan) have recently published an amazing book called Beyond Heaving Bosoms, which is "A guide to the most popular and maligned fiction genre, this hilariously sarcastic but always affectionate study of romance novels is perfect for hardcore fans and dabblers alike." AND IT'S AWESOME.

I completely agree with everything that theserubyshoes said. I also think that you should like what you're writing. Have fun with it! If you hate the genre and are dismissive of it, that'll come across to your readers. There's nothing I hate more than being insulted by an author. If you aren't having fun, how can you expect your readers to? Find something you like about romance (I like the theme of people overcoming incredible odds in order to be with each other; that love is worth struggling against your family or your society, and that love will succeed in the end) and roll with that. And your hero doesn't have to be an alpha male. Really! He can be dorky and awkward, or sensitive and cheerful, or morbid and taciturn.

There is a huge variety of romance novels; not all of them degrade women! Really! I promise! I read historical romances the most, so I can't vouch for these personally, but the sub-genre of paranormal romance is rife with strong, powerful, and kick-ass women. As far as historical romances go, I'm a fan of Eloisa James, who I discovered because she's a professor at my alma mater. Her novels are interesting, well researched, and her feminist beliefs come across strongly. It can be hard to balance feminism and anachronism, but I always thought James handled it well.

Good luck! And again, have fun with it!

Re: Poor abused romance novels

[ilthit]

I love sexy romances and they don't have to be heavy reading, but then they'd have to be, um, fanfiction. What can I say - the characters are better!

I might look up this James person! I was starting to think Linda Lee Ghurke was the only not-entirely-sucky non-fanfic romance writer out there. (Even though she had a silly hero and a somewhat bland heroine and a predictable plot - she had, for one, fantastic sex scenes.) On one hand the fact they publish such off-putting nonsense like The Snow-Kissed Bride (worst of the three) and Dark Reunion is kind of encouraging, though, as I think I can definitely do better, and the goal after all is getting published.

I seriously don't know how I could write one of these, stick to all the rules and still love it. I'm looking forward to writing a kind of a subversion of the genre using people who are as mundane and flawed and unattractive as I can make them, but that's just for my own pleasure. To write one seriously and make it a wish-fulfillment novel, damn... I think I'd have to write fanfic and change the names later. And even then I'd probably end up putting in alien parasites or dryads or something. I guess that's not against the rules, though.

I'll continue reading, then! I stocked up on romances in order to study them, with the kind assistance of friends from abroad, as I couldn't find any in English here in Belgium (until, of course, after I'd stocked up!). I still have one by Lisa Kleypas and one by Annie Burrows, plus a few in digital form (they were handing ebooks out for free on the Harlequin website - still do). I'll also check out the smart bitches and see what they have to say!

Re: Poor abused romance novels

[jaebility]

You really need to read more! Try to get over your bias against them - Really, they aren't all bad. It's true that romance novels generally follow a specific set of tropes, but a lot of books don't rely on tired cliches. And there are lot of just plain good things about romances. For example, romance novels are usually very supportive of women exploring their own sexual desires - Rather than condemn women for being sexual beings, romance novels are generally supportive. Also, in the sexist - if not misogynistic - world of publishing, romance novels stand out as a genre that's written by women, for women, about women.

I was going through my book shelf and I have some more recommendations. In all of these three, the male lead is unconventionally attractive - Not wish-fulfillment-ly (just made up a word there, heh) hot. They're scarred, one's lost a leg, they're all pretty weird. And the female leads aren't models, either.
Wild at Heart by Patricia Gaffney. The main male character in Wild at Heart was raised by wolves, eventually caught as a science experiment by the main female character's father. She's returned to her father's home following the death of her husband, and she and Michael (the MMC), help each other adapt to their new situations. Michael's a complete sweetheart - not at all a ridiculous alpha male - and Sydney (the MFC), is independent and smarter than her Victorian society is willing to admit.

Ravished by Amanda Quick. Another historical. What I love about this book is the main female character. Harriet is a complete dork: She's devoted to the study of paleontology, and her relationship with the MMC never eclipses that. She's a no-nonsense woman who maintains her identity during a difficult time period.

Castle of the Wolf by Sandra Schwab. Yet another historical! Castle of the Wolf is interesting because the MFC is aware of the tropes in gothics and fairy tales. It's also a good verison of the "forced into marriage" plot that romance novels use a lot. She adapts and then excels in her new life, despite her broody and aloof MMC. What I also liked about this book is how adventuous she is sexually. She's not a wilting lily - She's a real woman with real desires.

Aliens and dryads aren't against the rules at all! Again, I don't read paranormal/fantasy romance, but those sub-genres are rife with werewolves, elves, vampires, demons, angels, what have you. In The Sorceress by Claire Delacroix, which is a historical romance published by Harlequin Historicals, the main character is the daughter of a mermaid/lamia. So even in the historical sub-genre, you can include the supernatural. And don't think that the sex has to be conventional - Threesomes, BDSM, anal, toys... It's all good. Romance novels aren't as limited as you seem to think.

And definitely definitely DEFINITELY read Smart Bitches! I can't recommend them enough. They break down their reviews by grade, which is pretty damn handy. Dear Author is another good blog/site, with more helpful reviews. DA also has a feature in which an author is interviewed about her first sale.

Re: Poor abused romance novels

[jaebility]

OH! And I totally forgot about this, but it's incredibly important: The Romance Apologia Scale and, even more important for you, Does an Author Have to Live It to Write It? at DA.

Re: Poor abused romance novels

[ilthit]

Thanks for the links! Will read!

Re: Poor abused romance novels

[ilthit]

Currently reading Stranger in My Arms by Lisa Kleypas. I seem to like historical ones much better than contemporary ones. Still, though, the main couple is boring as all hell and you get adorable dirty-faced children running around melting the heroine's tender heart. Also the hero is kinda rapey. Ew. Some sort of sexy almost-cunnilingus there, though.

I'll see if I can look for those titles for more reading, as I've now near to exhausting my stash (this is the last of them); thanks for the pointers!

I have been reading Smart Bitches; I want to delve into it more than I have, and explore everything they have on the site; just read a few reviews recently.

Er, the first story I pitched to myself as supposedly a romance novel has turned into more of a pulpy scifi adventure with a strong romantic subplot. I'm having a lot of fun with it though and at the moment that's going to be my NaNoWriMo - unless I end up writing it now. Good chance I won't, as I have another projectedly novel-length co-authored fanfic in the works that must take precedence. Whee! Feeling nicely energised.

Re: Poor abused romance novels

[jaebility]

I totally hear you and sympathize - Just finished a novel where the main male character creeped me out. Hope you find better books!

Pulpy sci-fi = awesome. Good luck with that and NaNo! Can't believe that November's so close.

Re: Poor abused romance novels

[ilthit]

No luck so far - all the category romance novels I've read have had heroes that are more or less authoritative douchebags. Since finishing the Kleypas I've read the recommended Ravished and am now some way into Castle of the Wolf, at which point I will be all out again. I'm growing more confident, though, that there must be a market for none-douchebag heroes, if only someone takes the chance to write them... Although it might be a while before anyone (else) would indulge my 50s nerd fantasies. Oh well. (That would so be my gay/possibly threesome erotic novel - 50s rebel without a cause/sweater nerd romance with a side order of the only black girl in the school, postgraduate years. I don't know if I'd ever write it, really, but if someone did I'd be all over it.)

Yes! Man! Better start tightening those synopses!

Say! Have you read any of these Sookie Stackhouse novels that look more like comic fantasy but were for some reason shelved with the romance novels at the store? I seem to recall hearing the name before.

Re: Poor abused romance novels

[anthimeria]

Heyla--I just stumbled across this discussion and thought I'd add my two cents.

The thing about genre writing in any medium (books, movies, tv, comics, etc) is that the good ones adhere to formula while ALSO shaking it up. It's tricky (and a book that's pure formula is more likely to sell), but it's true.

As for romance--I agree, there's a LOT of leeway in paranormal romance. For that matter, the kickass heroine is becoming a cliche of paranormal romance (which is awesome, imho)! Definitely check out the Sookie Stackhouse books, they're good (and symptomatic of lots of paranormal romance, in that they're mystery/romance/urban fantasy cross-genre). Also look at writers like Susan Sizemore, Laurel K. Hamilton's Merry Gentry books, and Patricia Brigg's Alpha and Omega series. I think Alice Borchardt wrote period werewolf romance, too. Some of these are more paranormal than romance, but they're good cross-genre books that have had a lot of success.

Also, your "gay/possibly threesome erotic novel - 50s rebel without a cause/sweater nerd romance with a side order of the only black girl in the school, postgraduate years" novel sounds fun. I don't read much pure romance (I'm into cross-genre, as my list probably reveals), but that sounds right up my alley.

[ilthit]

I agree about the formula. I also find it easiest and most enjoyable to write genre form while challenging it's clichés or mixing it with another genre. I think I need to do some thinking, though, about the relationship between genre conventions and reality.

I've read some phenomenal books that take a genre matter of course, like that ugly aliens are irrevocably evil, and ask the question why. I love the Discworld books for repeatedly taking an unabashedly ridiculous fantasy situation and inflicting realistic characters on it. I think that would be a thing to have in a serious genre novel as well. My beef with Castle of the Wolf (which I'm beginning to think won't have any real werewolves after all, more's the pity) is that while it paints pretty pictures, a lot of the characters and their actions seem based on their roles rather than stemming from the characters themselves in any recognizable form. It's hard to explain but they seem... mechanical somehow. (Also I am so done with loyal blubbering servants. Unless they're Samwise Gamgee, who also kicks giant spider ass, goddamn.)

Sookie Stackhouse is on the list, then! Hee, I notice you not mentioning Hamilton's Anita Blake series. :D I keep hearing that the first few books are awesome and then it gets too dreadful to bear. I was thinking I should check out just the first few books.

I can see how paranormal romance would end up being about a lot of stuff other than the romance - they seem like throwbacks (in a general sense) to the gothic romances, which themselves were more about the gothic than the romance, it seems from my admittedly second-hand point of view. I recently finished the Smart Bitches' Beyond Heaving Bosoms and was surprised to hear them mention the Vorkosigan series as an example of "equal parts sci-fi and romance" - although really the only book in the series that is romance is A Civil Campaign or arguably Shards of Honor (the former being more romance than sci-fi, the latter more sci-fi than romance, while the rest of the series only has love plots as very minor subplots, if that). Oh, well, come to think of it, there's also Falling Free. Okay. But there's, like, eleven books about space battles and three with strong romantic plots! I may care too much. (The Vorkosigan Saga is made of awesome.)

I used to read tons of fantasy when I was younger; I've since strayed, according to my GoodReads list, into historical fiction and 19th/early 20th century fiction, though I see a satisfying smattering of fantasy still there. I still can't shake the feeling that everything's better with a dash of fantasy or sci-fi. Rebel/nerd/girl versus reefer-smoking demon greasers from hell? :D Oh man, I am so there.

[anthimeria]

Re: the Anita Blake thing.

The reason I didn't rec Anita Blake is because, yes, the first handful of books are very good, it's just that Anita is VERY anti-sex in the early books. There's some interesting, vaguely romantic stuff going on, but the books are solid urban fantasy thriller/crime dramas. Not at all the genre you're talking about.

I am also firmly of the opinion that everything is better with a dash of speculative fiction!

[ilthit]

Huh - I heard that one of the good things about her was that she liked sex? Now I'm just confused. Oh well, I don't have to read them at all, of course.

[anthimeria]

The series changes drastically from the early books--in the later books there's a lot of sex. Even a few of the earlier books with sex in are okay. The series changed from a plot-heavy urban fantasy crime drama with an anti-sex heroine to a sex-heavy urban fantasy with monster-related political drama, and Anita's ideas about sex change radically. In some ways it's a very interesting progression for her character. There is a large increase in the page count devoted to sex in the later books.

If you're looking for a mix of sex and paranormal crime drama, try "Blue Moon"--it's the seventh or eighth book in the series, about where the serious sexual issues start (for Anita, anyway. The other characters are an entirely different story).

I do suggest you check them out, at least--they are good, I just didn't initially suggest them because the main character doesn't have sex for the first half-dozen or more books.

[ilthit]

So which of the Anita Blake books are good - the first or the later ones? I realize quality is not directly related to the amount of sex.

And is it really anti-sex, as in suggesting sex is bad, or she just doesn't have it?

I should probably read some of them just to know what it's all about.

Just ordered The Wizard of Earthsea (I read it once ages ago and found it dull, but Le Guin is so well-loved I decided to give it another go) and My Soul To Keep (because I heard good things about Tananarive Due). In the meanwhile I'm cheating on Artemis Fowl with Studying the Novel, though I really should be doing research... What about you?

[anthimeria]

The Anita Blake books--I prefer the early books, which are heavy crime drama. Re: the book's attitude toward sex--Anita Doesn't Like It, but pretty much all the other characters are sex-positive (. . . but sex is complicated), so even though we're deeply in Anita's head, the books' attitude toward sex is positive overall. Anita, as a character, is anti-sex in the early books.

Sorry, I should have made that clearer initially.

I'm in the middle of Highway to Hell, the third "Maggie Quinn: Girl vs Evil" book, a GREAT young adult urban fantasy series. I also just finished Peeps, by Scott Westerfeld, and I'm researching my current worldbuilding project (I write speculative fiction), so I have a stack of books about Victorian fashion and dirigibles checked out of the library.

Le Guin is awesome, though my favorite of her stuff tends to be her nonfiction. I've read a few books of her essays that I love.

How's Artemis Fowl? I never quite got around to that one.

[ilthit]

Artemis Fowl is... It has all the right elements, as in stuff I usually like, but somehow I'm not that drawn into the story, hence the cheating. I've already read five other books since starting it, which should tell you something! I have now delegated it to bath reading, with Studying the Novel as my commute (main) reading.

"Girl vs. Evil" is a fantastic title. :D

Re: Poor abused romance novels

[ilthit]

I am distressed! Hi, sorry, there aren't a lot of people I can talk romance writing with... Feel free to ignore me.

I've been reading a lot of SBTB and enjoying it immensely; experiencing also moments of jaw-drops and lols and groans reading about the best and the worst of the genre. I already ordered their book. Thanks for introducing them to me!

I recently finished Stranger in My Arms which had, if not a rapist-hero, definitely a sexual-assault-hero. I was rather repulsed, so I googled "romance novels and rape" and read the SBTB post on it, plus comments.

I've thought about the rape fantasy before and have had to grudgingly admit it's prevalent with both sexes and here to stay, and all one can argue when it's mentioned is the should-be-obvious-but-too-easily-ignored-when-so-desired difference between fantasy and reality. So that's one subject that probably has been covered enough, but what really distressed me about reading that article is how it further convinced me that what most readers of romantic novels want is a hero who is "dominant". It's taken as a matter of course in the comments; even heroes who don't rape have to prove they are Real Men. In other words, they won't want my men - neither the cool intellectuals or the sweetie-pies that I like.

Thus, I give up! I don't think I will ever be able to write a successful genre-specific romance novel. D: I loathe, loathe, loathe these heroes I've read about, their rippling muscles and animal grunts and hard ugly manimalness. Ew ew ew EW. Why - how... No, I'm not going to ask "how can women want this". I'm sure they'd be asking how come I could possibly fantasize about a sweetie-pie.

I wanted to stick to the rules, but no. I'll have to stick to writing the sort of love stories I like, with "mannish" MFCs and "sissy" heroes (or even better, lesbian romances - hell, if it's not going to sell to the straight market anyway, why not). But, dammit, there's probably a market for those too. It'd just have to be a better book to get picked up.

Just to make damn sure, I also ordered another batch of four specifically recommended romance novels. If they still don't work for me, I'll no for sure this is just not for me - not as such, anyway; I'll still write love stories, just not ones I'll pitch to Harlequin.

[magycmyste]

First - I have one rough draft novel finished (well, I call it finished because it actually came to an end. And end I don't like, and will need to be edited or rewritten, but an end, nonetheless. And, the whole thing needs to be heaivly edited and some scenes filled in). The reason that it ever approached something I could call finished is because of NaNoWriMo. It doesn't make for genius writing, true, but the pressure of NaNoWriMo really can provide a magic spark to your burner. And completing your first draft really is a great feeling (I imagine finishing cleaning it up and getting it publishable would be another great feeling).

Second - I would say write the mundane romance if that's what fires you up. In my opinion, you're a lot more likely to make that great and sell it than if you write something for the sake of trying to sell it. Go with what you feel passionate about.

[ilthit]

:) I'd call that a finished rough draft, too. You have the framework, the rest is editing.

I'm worried you might be right. Unless I find a conventional romance plot and characters that I can get excited about, I'm not even likely to finish the novel. I've nothing against writing romance, I love writing romance, it's just the conventions of romance writing I find off-putting. Historical romances I'm more comfortable with. Setting does a lot. Maybe if I just find the right setting and the right characters and some loophole that lets me write a hero I like i can do this and like it!

I actually already started on one romance novel which would have been a WWI crossdressing lady soldier romance with a fellow officer who's instantly on to her but may or may not be an enemy agent, but that sort of petered out; also, as a hero, he was a little too ambigious. I had a lot of fun with the action scenes though. (Which was a bit of a surprise; I don't usually write action.) Maybe if I rethink the hero and do a bit more research I can see if I can start that one up again. I'll keep it on hold, anyway.

[sweet_sparrow]

I'm not entirely sure how relevant anything I have to say is, considering everyone else already said a lot of what I'd have to say on the matter eloquently.

So, I want to take a (slightly) different path. You say that, before this NaNo idea, you have never read a romance novel before. I don't read a whole lot of romance either, but I dare bet that the kind of romance that excites you can, will and has been published before. The market, however, is huge, so good examples of the kind of romance that excites you are going to require digging to find. I don't know if you've done that, but if you haven't I'd urge you to do so.

Beyond that... I'd say write what you'd enjoy. You sound like you have a very strong grasp of what you like, what you don't like and

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<i.why</i>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

I'm not entirely sure how relevant anything I have to say is, considering everyone else already said a lot of what I'd have to say on the matter eloquently.

So, I want to take a (slightly) different path. You say that, before this NaNo idea, you have <i>never</i> read a romance novel before. I don't read a whole lot of romance either, but I dare bet that the kind of romance that excites you can, will and <i>has</i> been published before. The market, however, is <i>huge</i>, so good examples of the kind of romance that excites you are going to require digging to find. I don't know if you've done that, but if you haven't I'd urge you to do so.

Beyond that... I'd say write what you'd enjoy. You sound like you have a very strong grasp of what you like, what you don't like and <i.why</i>. That may well be one of the most important things in writing, so don't just ignore your feelings on the matter.

Also, while I've never heard of the writer, <a href='http://www.bukisa.com/articles/28984_write-out-of-love-not-for-money'>this article</a> also struck a chord with me. I was actually looking for a quote from a writer who said that you first write for love, then for money. (And some stuff in between, but I can't remember who said it or what the actual quote was.)

It's clichéd, but writing what you enjoy/hate does show. Ultimately, do what you think is best for you and that'll probably indeed be the best choice you could have made. What I'm mostly trying to do in this post is try to destabilise that idea that what excites you is unpublishable by default because I don't think it is. (Yes, a foot in the door with something you like less would be a good start and sometimes necessary. But I'm not sure that's the case here.)

[ilthit]

I'd never written category romances before, though I've read Jane Austens and tons of fanfic. I've been wanting to write a romance for a long time despite the fact it's not a genre I enjoy. I mean, I like reading about romances, but not stories about nothing but romances; also I enjoy good characterisation, not wish-fulfillment characterisation...

*sigh* I'm currently trying to think of characters and setting that fit the rules of romance writing but that entertain and excite me, which kind of means I'm thinking up adventure plots, but that's not against the rules, I'm glad to find. I really feel constricted by the genre in regards to what the main characters are allowed to be like. I kinda want to write lady Indiana Jones/nerdy bookkeeper guy with secret kickass spy tricks but er, that IS against the rules as far as I can tell. Lady Indy/open-shirt long-haired superspy of cool wouldn't be, but I find said idea of superspy completely off-putting. Damn.

[sweet_sparrow]

You seem to be hitting on the right idea to tackle the romance writing for a genre you don't enjoy much: combine it with something you do enjoy! You could be the Mary Stewart of a whole new subgenre!

See, personally, I think your ideas there sound mighty interesting. And hunks come in all shapes and sizes. Just because the mainstream idea doesn't fit your ideal, that doesn't mean it can't work. I'm surely tempted to suggest asking around for romance books with nerdy book keepers are heroes now. They get to be in movies, so surely they get to be in books too...

There's a comment you made somewhere about writers whose work you enjoy breaking the rules, wait, ah here. That one. Not quite what I said but the gist seems to be "Don't do this, do this." Thing is, as long as you know the rules, which it certainly sounds like you do, you can bend them and have success with it. So following that logic, if everything else fits the mold, so to speak, but that one offshoot doesn't, that's not the end of the world and might be the one thing that makes your book stand out (positively) from the others.

'course you could also go the other way and make it an adventure novel with these characters that you really, really want to write and it just so happens that romance is a very large part of how these characters feel about each others. You might want to check out information on 'romantic suspense' or any of the other compound romances to see how it's handled.

(The only ones that come to mind are ones I wouldn't recommend, but... Oh, one I haven't read but which loads of people seem to like: Nalini Singh's Angels' Blood. That might be worth looking into as a hybrid romance novel and how that setting works. I'll go look over what's on my shelves to see if I have any other ideas of what might fit the 'this is how hybrid romance novels might work' category.)

ETA: *too lazy to make a new post* Most of the romance-angled books I have are actually unread and, thus, not much help. I know that The Strangely Beautiful Tale of Miss Percy Parker is romance meets ghost story with a slant towards romance, but I'm not sure Alexi is the kind of hero you'd be interested in writing/reading about. (It's also a debut, and not as well-balanced as it might have been, but I enjoyed it and it's definitely a hybrid with adventureish elements to it.) After that the only books I have that come close to hybrid-romance are fairytale retellings like Robin McKinley's Rose Daughter, or Nancy Holder's The Rose Bride. Both of which are also YA novels. Sorry I can't be of more help. I hope it'll serve as some kind of jumping board for research anyway, though!

[ilthit]

I was gratified to find there are fantasy, sci-fi and thriller romances, which really gives you a lot of rope when it comes to plot and setting, as long as one of your main characters has a trauma to overcome, the man is manly, the two are instantly attracted to each other, etc.

I love nerds! I was never a huge fan of Devlin/Emmerich movies (save Stargate, which I have this inexplicable affection for) but they always have the nerd save the world. *beams* Ah, bless. It's not just fluffy nerds either. Sinister nerds are also awesome. I might not be in the majority there, though.

You're probably right that I could get away with bending one rule. I don't think it should be the conception of the hero, though, so that'll take a lot of thinking. Maybe. No. Maybe if I use the sort of character that is popular with women outside the romance genre? We seem to have a thing for repressed cynical geniuses with, of course, a fragile heart underneath it all. I like Mr Spock and Sherlock Holmes too. Something about repressed geniuses seems to do it for us, doesn't it? And maybe if I get that appeal right, he won't have to be "strikingly handsome" or flex his muscles.

I am so trying to cheat here. :D

One of the novels I read was a suspense romance! It didn't really hit my buttons, but I'm glad I got to sample it. (I'm now reading a second historical romance, and though the plot so far is pretty identical to the first, I'm not hating it as much as I did the contemporary ones. I guess I'm just a slut for sideburns.) Harlequin at least seems to have a whole line for suspense romances.

[sweet_sparrow]

I don't think it's cheating. (But then it was my idea to fiddle with that particular rule in the first place, so that's hardly surprising.)

To be fair when it comes to romance your basic plot list is a little limited. "Hero meets heroine. They fall in love. There are Obstacles! They overcome them and live happily ever after! The End." (Or, of course, the last bit can be replaced with "Rocks fall; everybody dies! The End." if you want a tragic love story.)

I think with romance, if you like romantic things, it's just finding a) the right subgenre, b) the right writers. Harlequin, I think, is still mostly known for its penny romances, not the high quality stuff, but I could be wrong about that. Even so, it's a reputation that the genre as a whole still has. A few days ago Ilona Andrews made the comment that SF/F writers tend to look down on romance writers (it's the last example she's giving) and why they shouldn't. (But for the sake of sticking to her actual point, she doesn't acknowledge that those sneers tend to exist for a reason. And that reason is that romance novels are written badly often enough for those to be the image people have of the genre.

You can see that image rearing its head in your first post too: 'and from what I've seen Harlequin doesn't exactly mind "beginner" errors'. That's not exactly the most flattering description of Harlequin/romance novels there. From what you've said of the books you've read it sounds like they've not done a whole lot to convince you otherwise. Which may be the genre conventions, but may also be the writing style. Might be worth looking into which it is if you haven't already.

[ilthit]

I just this morning wrote out an outline that fits all three and one quarter of category romances I have so far read. The conformity is quite amazing! It goes a lot further than just what you detailed, even. I have yet to see how well page percentages go with the plot points.

Basically, it goes like this: A and B meet and are instantly attracted to each other. At least one of them has a trauma that s/he hasn't quite got over. There is a misunderstanding between them. They are forced to spend a lot of time with each other because of a contract. The attraction begins to seem "deeper than usual" -> first kiss/midpoint. The emotion continues to deepen as they hit some tender points related to the trauma. Then disaster - the misunderstanding deepens or a pre-midpoint ruse is uncovered that throws the man in a poor light. The man must now heroically prove himself and also deal with the trauma, either his or hers; in a way that leaves him emotionally vulnerable/in the woman's power. The woman realizes she has misjudged him and forgives him completely. They get married, or if they were already married (see contract), they have a child.

Every. Single. One.

Okay, well, the suspense one dealt with the final male faux pas a little differently, I admit, but the others fit the above plot perfectly.

I do think Harlequin publishes a lot of trash (who else would have thought Linda Goodnight was worthy of publication?), that's also why I want to try submitting something to them. Lowers the bar, so to speak! I'm not a bad writer, I think, but I'm not ambitious and I do tend to get too emotional, so I thought it'd be perfect.

It still seems to me that if a romance novel is good, it'll no longer be called a romance novel, in the same way that a romantic comedy that is both good and funny (and not British) gets called "a warm-hearted drama". The genre definition has begun to mean "meaningless unfunny bubblegum fluff". See the official reviews linked to on IMDB's As Good As It Gets page - the only reviewer calling it a romantic comedy was the one that didn't like it! Jane Austen and George Eliot (at least her Middlemarch, which is the only one I've read), the Brontë sisters, all wrote romances, but those novels get to shelter under the term of "classic". The Great Gatsby too. I can't really think of a 21st century alternative at this very moment, but I'm sure they're out there - fantastic romantic novels that don't get called that because they're actually good! So a romance novel that is good can never rescue the genre because it is taken out of the genre in the minds of the populace and by the tricks of the publishers, by virtue of being good. That's my theory, anyhow.

[sweet_sparrow]

Percy Parker is going to differ on the ending, a little, just as a warning if you decide to pick that up. But I hadn't thought about the genre that much/far. So I've learned something too! ^-^

Mmm... As long as you're aware of all that, I'd say 'go for it!' ^-^ You're right that it is a foot in the door.

If I hadn't already written a thesis, I would now be tempted to look at your theory on romance novels. I'm not sure it's wholly true, but I'd first have to live somewhere that doesn't shelve every single English book on the same miniscule piece of wall (well, without first need to travel about two hours anyway) and read more romance novels. It'd be interesting to look at, at least, because in my experience people aren't so hesitant to use the romance label for something that's actually quite good. (Or, I should rephrase, I trust them to have the ability to discern good writing from bad since they're all writers, and pretty darned good ones to boot. It'd still make an interesting experiment in its own right. If I do it.)

[ilthit]

I guess there would be a cut-off point of quality, and that good novels also do get published under the Harlequin label but are just not appreciated. It must be a bit of both. It's the publisher's presentation that in the end labels the novel.

[sweet_sparrow]

Oooooooh. I didn't realise we were talking solely about Harlequin romance novels... *dim* I thought we were discussing the genre as a whole. Although, yes, there probably are some good Harlequin novels that are underappreciated, but they'd be very easy to miss.

(Also, call me crazy but My Soul to Take from the new Harlequin Teen publisher sounds pretty interesting plot-wise...)

[ilthit]

Oh no no, I meant romance in general, though mainly category romance. I was just saying that a book published under Harlequin or Mills and Boon also loses credibility, perhaps unfairly; publisher presentation has "condemned" it before it was ever opened. That's one side - the other is that publishers choose to push some novels as romance novels and others not, possibly due to quality, though both might at heart BE romance novels.

[ilthit]

I like the title of the Percy Parker novel, at least, and it sounds like a goth lite novel, which is actually a setting I'd be drawn to. It might be interesting to write as well. Is the romance between the girl and the ghost? (Because it would be if I wrote it!)

[sweet_sparrow]

Ooh, goth lite is actually a pretty nice way to describe it. (I got it described to me as "Victorian ghost buster romance", but I maintain the opinion that there's too little ghost busting to warrant it.) I thought it was a pretty solid debut. (Not perfect, but I'm definitely charmed enough to read more.)

I'm afraid it's not between a girl and a ghost, as such. (They're all kind-of possessed by ghosts that enable them to do their ghost-busting and there's a whole love triangle based on the Persephone/Hades myth being set up. But no actual 'living person/dead person' romance.) I've reviewed it here, if you're curious, but I warn you in advance of spoilers.

I'm... recommending it now purely because I'm curious what you make of Percy, but also because I'm not sure how well it conforms to convention. (Ignore the prologue, though, if you decide you want to give it a try. It's easily my least favourite part of the book.)

A Certain Slant of Light is a ghost romance novel between a living person/ghost, though. Kind of. Haven't read it myself, but here's a synopsis.

[ilthit]

*goes for spoilers!*

A Certain Slant of Light is also a lovely name for a novel. *peeks*

Thanks for the links!