Romance plot conventions

[oyceter]

Because I am having a very interesting conversation with Justine right now...

What are the romance tropes and conventions that drive you nuts? Why?

And which ones almost always work for you? Why?

And which ones are the ones in-between? I.e. if done well, they totally work, and if done poorly, they prompt chucking the book at a wall.

Bonus question: does Doomed Love work for you? What counts as Doomed (or, should I say, DOOMED)? What about love triangles/quadrangles/geometric shapes?

(Note: these aren't limited to romance novels, but to any narrative that involves romance-with-a-small-r.)

Also, please put spoilers in spoiler text! <span style="color:#333333;background:#333333">Spoilers go here</span>

Comments

[jonquil.livejournal.com]

Bulletproof kinks:
* Kidnapping
* Marriage of convenience
* Gritty historicals: Madeleine Robins is a master of this.
* Wit. I'll follow a witty heroine anywhere.
* Swordfighting
* Masquerading, esp. cross-sex

Things that drive me nuts:
* Too Dumb To live
* Subcase: misunderstandings that last too long (heroine thinks hero is gay until last page when everybody else knows he's hitting on her)
* Historicals in which the heroine is clearly a 2000s woman in a long dress: feminist, race and class blind, having sex when she wants it...
* Historicals that are the past as presented by Disney
* Alpha males who don't eventually get kicked in the balls by reality

[jonquil.livejournal.com]

And I love Dooooomed Love. Melancholy, man! That's what it's all about!

[oyceter]

I am a total sucker for the marriage of convenience. Especially when it involves unrequited love (that is of course requited later) and childhood crushes.

Actually, I am a total sucker for childhood crushes in general.

Alpha males who don't eventually get kicked in the balls by reality

OMG YES.

[nestra.livejournal.com]

I love "Best friends who fall in love after X years."

See also: "Best friends forced into a marriage of convenience."

I HATE: "We must have a baby to make our love complete, so here, have an epilogue with either the woman discovering she's pregnant, telling the hero she's pregnant, or having just given birth."

[jonquil.livejournal.com]

I share your hate with a FLAMING FURY. FLAMING.

Susan Elizabeth Peters, I'm lookin at you.

In a not-unrelated hate: The heroine deliberately gets pregnant by an unwilling male. (By which I mean, an SEP character actually has sex with the hero WHILE HE'S ASLEEP.) And then acts like an asshole for the rest of the book.

[oyceter]

Oh, I love the best friends in love one!

And yes yes yes to the baby epilogue hate. Bonus hate for romance series in which the former couples must always show up in later books with a new child every book.

[oracne.livejournal.com]

OH I wish I had time to join in on this right now!

I will save it to read as a reward.

[oursin.livejournal.com]

This one comes up in sf/fantasy a lot, or at least more than I would like (I don't read a lot of straight romances): they are pairbonded in a way that is eternal! there is no-one else for either of them! they are two halves of a whole! And it's ANNOYING!

Okay, there are writers I like (Ann Maxwell, Lee/Miller Liaden Universe) who use this and I can bear it. Maxwell uses the destined two halves who don't realise it (or at least, one half doesn't realise it) in the Firedancer sequence to some effect.

But it irks me as an idea. Possibly because I read Stephen Potter's Antiwoo at an impressionable age, in which he does mild satire on the labour-saving benefits of believing that there is One Person Somewhere Just For You.

[jonquil.livejournal.com]

Yes. I completely agree. Both with your exceptions and with the rule.

Basically, it does half the novelist's work in advance: these people don't have to realize they are suited because they have the ONE MYSTIC PAIR BOND and no choice other than acceptance is possible.

Double the hatred when psychic powers are involved.

[oyceter]

ZOMG YES!

I need to try Ann Maxwell -- I read her romances and loved them when I was a teen but sort of roll my eyes at them now because of the prevalence of alpha bastards and women who do not understand their own sexual responses (if I never read a "he moaned while she gave him a handjob. 'OMG did I hurt you?' she asked" scene or another "she felt strange flutters in her belly and could not figure out why" scene it will be too soon).

Also, now I want to read Antiwoo.

[susanw.livejournal.com]

Bulletproof kink: Cross-class love stories when the man is the lower-class character.

Drive me nuts:
-Cross-class love stories where the supposedly lower-class character is revealed to be the long-lost heir of a noble in the final chapter.
-Titled Regency spies in high society. (If anyone would ever write a Regency spy story set in actual war zone with a character of a social rank who'd realistically take up espionage, THAT would be cool.)
-Men who hate/distrust all women because one woman, long ago, Done Them Wrong.
-Regency Disneyland, or, to steal Jo Beverley's name for it, Prinnyworld. Why, oh why, take this fascinating era of history and all but ignore everything that actually happened?

[oracne.livejournal.com]

Bulletproof kink: Cross-class love stories when the man is the lower-class character.

Have you read THE LEOPARD PRINCE by Elizabeth Hoyt?

I think my favorite like that is Carla Kelly's The Lady's Companion.

[veejane.livejournal.com]

I have an irrational hatred for romance novels that describe what everyone is wearing. Really, I never had any idea so many buff-colored breeches existed in the galaxy.

I don't actually read very many romance novels, though. I just happen to always be picking up the ones with buff-colored breeches. (And lawn. What is WITH people wearing lawn? Even knowning they don't mean a synonym for putting green, for crying out loud, people, invest in a thesaurus.)

[oyceter]

HEE! I have a higher tolerance for clothing descriptions (especially involving the cloth-type used), probably thanks to numerous rereadings of the Little House books and the Anne books. I spent ages and ages wondering what muslin and lawn and cambric were!

Though nowadays, I'm happier if it's the hero who's noticing all the clothing details and is very picky about his clothes.

[grendelity.livejournal.com]

I was actually twitching the other day over the yaoi trope of the tortured-seme-past. It makes me want to hurt things. I'll have to think about this more when I'm less distracted, but...I think one thing that I hate-love are the blatant set-ups for the guy to be the kicked puppy. Like, um, I don't know....female character is in awkward situation with rival guy, usually ends up kissing him, and then main romantic interest happens to see it and "D:"s and such, etc etc. It's so stupid and such tripe, but I am a total sucker for it. XD I will probably have to come back once I think of something more intelligent to say.

[nestra.livejournal.com]

Oh, see, I love Secret Hidden Angsty Past. I mean, I haven't read enough yaoi to have an opinion on that aspect of it, but in the broader scope of media fandom, I love men who are stoic! but nursing a secret hurt!

[oracne.livejournal.com]

okay, so I didn't save it for later.

Generally sword-proof:
*Conflicts that arise from within the characters
*Nice, ordinary heroes (think Carla Kelly)
*PTSD, Napoleonic Wars-style
*Marriages of convenience
*Virginal males (not that you see this one often)
*Banter
*Cross-class romances
*Secretly intellectual heroes/heroines
*Angstful spies, bonus if it's wartime
*Equestrians, musicians, and the well-traveled
*Comfort sex

In-between tropes:
*Virgin widows
*"It was all planned by our parents for us to fall in love! And we never knew!"
*I mostly don't like very young heroines, because I want them to have some life experience.

Things that drive me bugf*ck:
*Destined Lurve and/or reincarnation and/or Genetic Mating or scent-marking or whatever the hell weird shit means there's no WORK to the relationship
*Melodramatic suspense plots
*Instantaneous cures for lifelong angst
*Stupid misunderstandings that could be solved with one conversation
*Historicals in which all behavior is completely modern (though I can sometimes handle modern-sounding dialogue, depending on my mood and the book)
*Women who long to be Mastered by a Man, and not for occasional erotic thrills
*Men who Know What's Best for their women and don't learn better
*Long separations between hero and heroine, especially if reason is stupid

Bonus: doomed love doesn't work for me unless it turns out to be, well, not doomed. I like relationships with more than two characters (have even written some), but get bummed if the triangle turns out to be a pair and one person is left out in the cold.

[cofax7]

Your hates are my hates, although I have an occasional fondness for long separations, because I share katie_m's kink for reunions. I love a good reunion, particularly if there's either hugging or kissing or punching involved.

[the_rck]

Things that almost never work for me (I won't say *never* because there's always somebody who pulls it off, somehow)--

One character's pre-relationship life, dreams, interests and such being devoured by the other character's without negotiation, discussion, etc. I can't deal with that in a romance. I can handle it in a relationship subplot in a non-romance novel, but I don't see it as romantic.

Happy endings in contexts-- particularly historical settings-- where I know that Bad Things are going to hit the happy couple right after the end of the book bother me. This is particularly bad if the Bad Things are obvious enough that I expect everyone to know about them *and* never addressed. Five years before the Revolution is not enough to make me feel that those French aristocrats are going to be okay. 1930 is not a good year to start a family in Warsaw. Family and neighbors aren't universally going to celebrate the relationship of that white chick and her Souix (or whatever) husband/lover, regardless of how passionate they look on the book cover.

I'm not sure what always works for me. It's easier for me to point at things that usually don't work for me.

[oyceter]

One character's pre-relationship life, dreams, interests and such being devoured by the other character's without negotiation, discussion, etc.

OMG YES. Also, in romances, why does it always seem to be the heroine?? (rhetorical question)

Good point about Bad Things looming.

[nojojojo.livejournal.com]

My laundry list:

1. Ditto on the pairbondings; they make me hork.
   
2. Women who are "spitfires". I just see too many of them, and they all act the same -- like caricatures of strong women, having random temper tantrums and making lots of noise but not displaying true strength in the ways that I interpret it. Sometimes being strong means shutting TF up and acting demure. But anyway.
   
3. Noble Savages as female love objects. Not only is it a literary cliche, but in romance these guys invariably are great in bed, ridiculously well-hung, "surprisingly gentle", and large amounts of text get devoted to their "dark skin" (or whatever evidence of savagery they possess). Ick. Ick ick ick ick.
   
4. Pregnancy used as a substitution for real commitment. I can deal with a pregnancy at the end of the romance story. What bugs me is when the pregnancy is obviously the end of the romance -- when you know there's nothing to hold these characters together beyond the passion of new love and the shiny symbol of togetherness that a baby produces. When you can tell that the instant she loses interest in sex or the baby keeps him awake all night, breakup is iminent. Most of Christine Feehan's Carpathian novels seem to have this problem, except they've all got pairbonds so they can't divorce.
   
5. Couples whose biggest attraction to one another is physical, yet they call it "love". Sorry, don't find one-night stands romantic.
   
6. "Protective" men. I don't mind protectors. I mind protectors who constantly contemplate their protectiveness, and make speeches about how it's their duty to protect, and generally act as if protectiveness is the sole function of the Y chromosome. Anne Bishop is notorious for this.
   

More as I think of 'em.

[oursin.livejournal.com]

Oh, ditto on spitfires. One of the reasons I cannot seem to get into paranormal romance is that the protags are supposed to be 'feisty' and are just really, really, annoying, even before they succumb to the alpha werewolf/vampire/whatever.

[ponygirl2000.livejournal.com]

Fun! I don't read a lot of romance novels but I do like romance in stories so:

DOOMED Love is fine by me. I like it in that "this is going to end horribly but damn it'll be worth it" sort of way, but only if both partners have their eyes open about the Doomedness. I hate those stories where the hero or heroine makes some noble heroic sacrifice that dooms the relationship - without letting the other person in on the plan. Because it's even more noble and tragic if the other person makes huge life-altering choices for you?

I also dig unrequited love, with extra points for it being unspoken. Snarky damaged people in love. Relationships where partners admire each other - the "they constantly put each other down so it must be love" has been done to death for me.

I hate soul mates - though I'm fine with love at first sight. Passive heroines (Stephanie Meyers, I'm shaking my fist at you!) and heroes who are obviously assholes but no one seems to realize it. I also hate those dramatic complications that could be resolved with a simple conversation.

[oyceter]

I think the eyes open about the DOOMEDness is what makes or breaks it for me. But only if it's actual DOOMEDness, as opposed to the people fatalistically resigning themselves to a fate that may not be fated, a la "your romance is not actually doomed, you just think it is because you didn't bother asking." But I also like DOOMED Love with two people who are fatalistically resigned, but only if they're horribly broken and the relationship is really dysfunctional and involves and lot of powerplay.

[anenko.livejournal.com]

Kinks:

Crossdressing--especially if it's by the woman.

Best friends or partners. Barring that, a relationship of equals. Barring *that,* some form of positive sentiment which exists outside the bedroom.

A woman who enjoys sex, and knows what she's doing in the bedroom. Virgins are well and fine, but I hate the idea that love is extra special if it's your first time having sex.

Competent women--I don't care if she's an awesome housekeeper, or the best assassin in the known world. I want her to be good at *something* other than looking pretty, being stupid, and getting fucked.

Humour.

Accidental marriage, or being forced together due to circumstances.

The (slow) development of romantic feelings. This does not include hate!sex -> plot device -> true love!

Squicks:

Rape is fine so long as you love the woman and/or are married to her!

A strong woman being made passive as soon as she's married, or the man beds her.

Heroines who are ridiculously naive, no matter what past experience might suggest.

The Alpah Male Asshole who gets away with putting down (and in special cases, sexually assaulting!) the heroine because he's hot, and the hero.

The ever-so-beautiful heroine who thinks she can't possibly be the least bit attractive, no matter how many people tell her she's gorgeous.

Soulmates. The very *word* makes me cringe.

[fmanalyst.livejournal.com]

Crossdressing women in a man's world is one of my favorite kinks. It comes from reading As You Like it and Twelfth Night in middle school.

I hate stupid heroines, and especially stupid misunderstandings.

[littlebutfierce]

I really, really hate when two people are supposedly in "love" but all they've done is have hot sex, or maybe talk to each other a few times. I need to be persuaded that there's some chance that they know each other well enough to really be in love!

I don't tend to like Doomed Love, esp. if it's b/c someone's already married to someone else & the person loves both of the other people. Then I get all annoyed that no one ever considers polyamory as a workable option. I'm reading Tanya Huff's Blood books right now, & I love that there's a long period where the protagonist is sleeping w/, & possibly falling in love w/, two different men (who know about, & have to work w/, each other). But I suspect before long circumstances, if not preference, will make her have to choose. Grrr.

[the_rck]

Then I get all annoyed that no one ever considers polyamory as a workable option.

That's actually what put me off of the cookie cutter Arthurians in high school. I kept seeing books where Guinivere loved Arthur and Lancelot and Arthur and Lancelot loved each other, and I was utterly puzzled by why that was tragic. I could see that it might end badly (any relationship could), that it might be unacceptable to people around them for religious or cultural reasons, that it might mess up their political system somehow, but those were usually not the reasons given for the situation being Tragic.

[morgan-dhu.livejournal.com]

I do not read a lot of books that are specifically marketed as romance - although I do read some - but I enjoy a good romance in a novel of any kind.

What's most important to me in a fictional romance:

1. The characters have some actual basis for being attracted to each other. I can handle soul-bonding and such as long as there is some reason why these two are "supposed" to be together.

2. The characters show a developing emotional and intellectual intimacy and trust, such that by the time there is obviously some level of mutual understanding and commitment, you don't have them not talking about the dark secret from their past, or the stupid thing they did the other day that will drive them apart in order to create false suspence, or whatever.

3. The characters are intelligent people with lives and personalites of their own that do not completely vanish into some indeterminate mush once they become attracted to each other, or worse, one gives up what made him/her a unique character becasue of twoo lurve.

In a romance between a man and a woman, I am completely unimpressed by a man who is a Real Man(TM) - patriarchal, dominating, man is the master of the house, my word is law, I know best, etc. - and by a woman who longs to be possessed, protected, adored, carried off or whatever by such a man. We should all be so lucky that they find each other and ignore the rest of us - but I don't want to read about it.

In a romance between two people of the same gender identity, if the world they are in does not accept this as a perfectly acceptable relationship, I want to see honest examination of the consequences of their relationship, but no self-sacrificing breaking off of the relationship so the other person isn't placed in jeopardy, internalised self-hatred or guilt.

[sarahtales.livejournal.com]

Oh, fun question! Okay, okay. Well, I really think we see very few love triangles in books. And I'm not just talking about, aha, but if he wants her and she wants him then he has to want him for it to be a triangle although I could stand to see more of those. But really, two romantic choices in which the heroine (or hero, but we see this more often with heroines so I'll go with that) has a valid reason for wanting both of them, is emotionally invested to the same degree but possibly in very different ways and is legitimately torn between them in a way that does not make her, you know, dreadful.

I was reading The War for the Oaks for the first time recently and LOVING IT, but I was confused someone had called it a romantic triangle, because imo there's no real choice to be made.

Then in L.J. Smith (Our Secret Vice, not to compare Bull's writing with Smith's at alllll in any way) there is generally a choice of 'my soulmate!... or this other guy, who may be secretly evil. or openly evil! or at the very least milquetoast.' Not love triangles, again.

So I'd like to see more Real Love Triangles. (I like the love triangles in City of Bones by Cassandra Clare and Cross Stitch by Diana Gabaldon. For very different reasons.) I guess it's in betweeny, for me, but when done right it's so good.

I hate it and despise it when characters don't talk to each other. For whatever reason. There's a silly misunderstanding, they've fallen in love at first sight, I don't care. Conversation is my bulletproof kink, and without it up with these romances I will not put!

And what really, really works for me... okay, I can feel this becoming a livejournal post in my head. Suffice it to say that the title of said post may be 'I'll Die If She Doesn't Pick Dorkface.'

[oyceter]

Suffice it to say that the title of said post may be 'I'll Die If She Doesn't Pick Dorkface.'

Yes!

I had more to say except I do not because yes!

There needs to be more picking of dorkface.

[the-willow.insanejournal.com (from livejournal.com)]

LaT (http://latxcvi.livejournal.com/profile) did a thing a few years back asking people how would they describe using particular fairytale phrases they're story romance kink.

I believe she was 'Two Sides Of The Same Coin'

My former roommate witchqueen was 'The Arranged Marriage'.

And mine was/is 'The Unexpected Soulmate'. I love people finding similarities, understanding, compassion and empathy from unexpected sources.

It's part of why I heart the fanfic pairing of Batman/Superman. The Dark Knight and The Boy Scout wouldn't seem to have a lot in common, but there's a central theme of protection and family and responsibility that runs with them both.

*sighs*

I also love a combo of 'Unexpected Soulmate' plus 'Been There All Along' when it's not a neglectful relationship, but a friendship that for busy circumstances was never seen as possibly becoming more.

'The Unexpected Soulmate' covers a lot of what I like or at least how I like it; Buffy & Angel for example with Angel hitting my other kink of 'denied myself so long'

Control freaks make me hot!

On that note, what does not give me a happy, are whiney, wheepy, spineless heroines who get the guy anyway because the plot says so. I also greatly dislike any book where there's man-handling as a show of power, whether the aggressive behavior is coming from a man or a woman.

And by man-handling I mean rough treatment that is obviously a show of superior strength and intended intimidation of the other party.

Annd... I've had this window open since I don't know when. 8pm. And it's 3am now. So I'll try and come back to this and stop being distracted by things/pain/etc.

[frumiousb.livejournal.com]

I am a sucker for the wisecracking duo-- I like the couples with a like/hate relationship who are always trying to get one off at the other's suspense. It worked for me in The Awful Truth and it works for me in books.

I also take a guilty pleasure in transgressive romances across authority lines: boss/worker or student/teacher. I understand all the problems involved with that, but still often like all the same.

In sci-fi/fantasy romances, I have a particular hate for the "little barbarian" female hero. She's a subcategory of the spitfire. No more than 18, and somehow brought up outside of civilization-- she is irresistible to all men and always a genius at something Really Impressive. Generally contrasted with all other women who are stuffy and old by comparison. HATE.

Along those same lines, HATE main female characters who are excessively positioned as animalistic, natural, "all female", etc. You know, where their misbehaviour is fondly tolerated because of how they arch their back like a cat. So dislike that. Will cause me to throw books across the room and into the bin.

Doomed love is okay, so long as it makes sense. Well-done triangles are indeed doomed and can be very interesting. Triangles where the annoying "real" wife will die conveniently of her own alcoholism (or infidelity or stupidity) are another HATE point.

[frumiousb.livejournal.com]

Oh! Forgot that I hate any book of any genre with whiny self-centered hero who spends all of his time brooding about past wounds. Any character at all on the Thomas Covenant model will get a book dumped, unread.

[seitzk.livejournal.com]

OOh! Good question!!!

Absolutely can't stand:

- when an incredibly worldly, intelligent and experienced person is made to fall in love with someone who is naive, silly and needy. (I'm thinking about 70% of all Georgette Heyer books.) In the real world such paragons usually seek the company of the similarly self-actualized.

- when the hero or heroine realizes that they've been in love with their best friend all along, and promptly hops into an OMG SOULMATES kind of relationship with them. There is almost never any indication that the heroine/hero found their friend sexually attractive before. Also, the friend is always all "Great! It's about time!" rather than "Excuse me, this is a surprise, and not an entirely welcome one. Let's talk this through."

- doomed relationship triangles/quadrangles/other shapes. It's called polyamory, people. Unless this is a historical romance with zero possibility of an alternative arrangement, I am sick of the monogamy theatrics! And it's not like even the doomedy-doomed situations couldn't be worked out at least a little.

Bulletproof Kinks:

- worldly, accomplished, intelligent people with lots of emotional armor who fall for someone in the course of the book and begin to show a little humanity.

- non-monogamy without stigma.

- queers in love, without stigma or a nasty ending.

- cross-class relationships

- Stephen Potter. Oyce - read the Upmanships! They are so freaking hilarious. I am ordering Anti-Woo right....NOW.

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

What drives me nuts? "I have had sex but I have never felt like THIS before." Sexual compatibility = true love and vice versa. He is mad with frustration but never just jerks off. Gratuitious name dropping coupled with vague historical details.

What works when it is done well, drives me nuts when done poorly: she teaches him to trust/show vulnerability, he removes the burdens of taking care of herself and others from her shoulders. The prolonged miscommunication plot.

Nearly bulletproof kink: bantering, challenging lovers. Social barriers. Loving what others consider a fault.