I should have posted this on Valentine's Day. (Or not.)

[swan_tower]

So in my SF Novelists post, I made a mention of how a lot of romance novels don't work for me because they're often too focused on the hero and heroine, to the exclusion (or at least sidelining) of other characters. And that reminded me that I had some thoughts I'd meant to post, about why, despite giving it a good shot, I don't think I'll ever be a romance reader.

Before I get into those thoughts, however, let me say up front: the tl;dr version of this is not "romance novels suck." Anyone using the comment thread to bash the genre wholesale will be invited to do their bashing elsewhere. This is about why I'm the wrong reader for the genre.

The reason, in short form, is this: I don't find them all that romantic.

It has to do with where my own personal buttons are. I do not, for example, have much interest in the hornypants model of romance, where the connection between the hero and heroine (or hero and hero, heroine and heroine, or other combinations -- this isn't only a heterosexual or even monogamous thing) manifests first and foremost through their hormones. This is why the Imriel/Sidonie relationship in the second Kushiel trilogy didn't do much for me, because they were so much about lust, and that just doesn't engage my interest. Or, to pick a genre romance example rather than a fantasy-with-romance one, I eventually stopped reading Butterfly Swords because two pages after the main characters met, all they could think about when they looked at each other was physical attraction. That's an important component, of course, but when it's the chief signifier of compatability and connection, I'm not persuaded. It doesn't make me believe in their relationship, not in the way I'm looking for.

So what do I find romantic? Shared interests and goals. Characters who have something in common (besides lust), something really important to them both. Then their relationship becomes a partnership, working together for something outside themselves. To put it in visual terms, I don't want them to be standing face-to-face, looking only at each other; I want them standing side-by-side, looking at something else. I used to say that I like romance when it's the B plot of a novel, rather than the A plot, but lately I've come to realize that's a symptom of my personal inclinations, not the cause. The truth is that when the romance is the B plot, I find it more romantic.

The A plot, you see, gives me context and meaning for the romance. It shows me different sides of the characters, so that when they come together I have a better sense of who they are and why they matter to each other. This is why Phèdre and Joscelin work for me, and Imriel and Sidonie don't; the foundation of that first partnership goes down to bedrock. When they dislike each other, it's for well-grounded cultural reasons. When Joscelin hates Phèdre, it's because he has reason to think she's a traitor. When they begin working together, it's for survival, and to strike back at their enemies, and their trust and inter-reliance grows out of that. As a result, when the really dramatic moments roll around -- the moments where they decide to put each other ahead of something else -- those moments hit harder because that something else? Really matters. To them both. And I therefore care about it a lot more.

I've read romances where one or both protagonists have the attitude of "you are the only thing in the world that matters to me." That? Is not a button that works for me. I like characters who care about multiple things, and those things intertwine. It doesn't always have to be fate-of-the-world level, either (though admittedly, as a fantasy reader I'm accustomed to plots with fairly high stakes). I very much like the Lydia/Wickham byplot in Pride and Prejudice, for example, and would love it even more if it was resolved by joint action between Elizabeth Bennett and Mr. Darcy. (Which, if I recall correctly, is the case in the Bride and Prejudice adaptation.) The higher the percentage of that kind of thing in the story, the more I'm likely to get invested in the romance -- at least until you tip over the edge of "this is actually just about the A plot, and we've shoved a romance in there because we feel obligated to do so."

I know romance novels do include that kind of thing. But it's been a running dissatisfaction of mine, with virtually all the ones I've read, that I want more plot-plot to ground the romance-plot. I picked up Butterfly Swords because it was set in Tang Dynasty China, which, you know, awesome! But then it was all about the hornypants, and I'm sitting there going, "MOAR TANG CHINA NAO PLZ." If the political side had been the plot, rather than a very neglected subplot, and the hero had been somebody invested in that plot rather than a random European outsider shoehorned into the setting (seriously, wtf), then, well, it would have been the book I was hoping to read. As it was, though, it was not for me.

I'm posting this because it's been very enlightening for me to think through my expectations and the conventions of the genre (as seen through friends' reviews, the Smart Bitches website, and the twenty or so romance novels I've read). The more I understand what I'm looking for in a story, the better I'm able to find stories I will like.

But I am definitely willing to take recommendations from those of you who are romance readers, of books you think are likely to supply what I'm looking for. Short form is, more plot = more good (though I will roll my eyes right out of my head if the characters are running for their lives from the bad guys and then stop in a stairwell or broom closet for random nookie). Also, I like stories where the protagonists have known each other for a while, rather than just having met; this, to me, is one of the big romantic selling points in pameladean's Tam Lin. My ideal of romance grows out of friendship and partnership, which both fare better when they're given lots of context. Finally, because of my interests, I tend to gravitate more towards historicals or things with speculative elements, rather than contemporary realistic romance. But they'd better do their history or speculation well, or I'll be kicked right out of the story.

Yeah, I know. I'm not asking for much at all. <g>

Comments

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

I'm tracking this post because I want to see what others recommend! I too have a hard time getting into a lot of books in the romance genre, because I want the lovers to care about something else as much as or even more than they care about each other.

In the past I've often found that my favorite romances come from other genres -- in fact in my twenties I read mysteries predominantly for the romance, with only the vaguest interest in whodunnit and much more interest in how the discovery of the murderer and the subsequent confrontation would affect the MC and his/her love interest. (The most obvious example being Lord Peter and Harriet, but I also followed Anne Perry's Inspector Monk series for about twelve books practically for the romance element alone.)

And I too find that the "love at first sight" idea, and relationships based on being mystical soulmates and/or mutually gorgeous to one another, leave me cold. The marriage of true minds well acquainted with one another appeals to me far more. Sure, I want to see some physical attraction too, but I'd like it to be based on attributes much more singular and interesting than a chiseled jaw or pouty red lips.

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

I'm tracking this post because I want to see what others recommend!

Yeah, I'm hoping for some good recs. The thing is, I adore a strong romance; it's just that the approach I prefer is more often found in other genres. (I've only just dipped my toes into the Lord Peter/Harriet Vane storyline, but I'm looking forward to more. I might have to check out Perry, too -- I've read a couple of hers and enjoyed them, but not the ones with the romance, I think.)

[zellandyne.livejournal.com]

It's not speculative at all, but my favorite romance novel is Jennifer Crusie's Bet Me. Lots of humor, lots of supporting characters with their own plots (some of which the main characters get involved in, some of which they don't).

For spec fic romance, I recommend the Liaden books by Lee and Miller. Each book in the main series has a central romance, but the two leads are always working together to accomplish something: to stay alive, to fight off a planetary attack, to unearth a conspiracy that's been targeting their family for decades, to find lost members of their clan, to rebuild on another world. It's fun. The final book of the series brings all of primary characters together and requires them to coordinate with each other in order to save themselves and their planet.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that the romance happens on the way to the goal. And is important. But is not, in itself, the goal. Also, there are other equally important relationships (between siblings, mostly) that take center stage at times in the books.

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

Both Bet Me (really, Crusie more generally) and the Liaden books were suggested over on my SF Novelists posts about ensemble casts; I'll definitely have to put them on my list. (Especially since I am a sucker for interesting sibling relationships.)

[jennifergale.livejournal.com]

I have to say...I'm consistently entertained by Crusie. I think the most plotty of hers might be Faking It, which isn't really about what the title suggests. The heroine is from a family of con artists. The other relationships are important to the story so...it's not historical, but it fits the bill otherwise.

And rather than make a separate post... Mary Stewart wrote numerous fantastic gothic romances. Madam, Will You Talk (1954) is my favorite...it involves characters who previously knew each other (boy howdy). Stewart's novels are older, usually set somewhere in Europe, and involve bits of local history... Her plots almost always some sort of mystery that throws the characters together. They're very...er. Clean.

[sola.livejournal.com]

Than you for precisely articlating why i have so much trouble being intersted in romance novels. Th only way that the "pure romance" would work for me is when the charachters themselves are so fascinating that i care about absolutely everything that they do.... and i can't think of the last time that happened without rather a lot of context.


Funnily enough, this is why, despite not being interested in romance as a genre, i do find myself reading a lot of fanfic to the effect. That way, you can have a serving of romance with books and books (or hours and hours)' worth of worldbuilding already extant and internalized.

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

Oh my word, how COULD I have forgotten the awesomeness that is Mary Stewart?! Yes, very yes. Love Madam, Will You Talk, This Rough Magic, The Gabriel Hounds and The Ivy Tree (which blows me away every time) especially.

[dsmoen.livejournal.com]

I recently read an erotica novel (hey, I don't mind the lust at all and it usually works for me even if it's not my thing lust-wise), but I found myself distracted: MOAR SURFING PLZ.

So now I'm going back to my own damn erotica novel and add some more surfing.

Edit: FWIW, this book (http://www.fictionwise.com/ebooks/b116562/10-Days-in-Paradise/Dawn-Halliday/?si=0). I started skipping over sex scenes because they bored me. That said, some of the Hawaii description was better than I expected, so win overall.

[jehane-writes.livejournal.com]

For me, it's the /overselling/ of the romance that makes the romance novel genre not work for me. I mean, billowing curtains, sweeping someone off their feet, passionate conversation - it's hard to do subtly, IMO, and easy to make overdramatic overselling that takes credibility out of things. I mean, it's hard to feel romantic when you've moved into the realm of eye-rolling :)

I hear you on story-driven, B-plot romances; I have a weakness for romances where there's some personality conflict, like the Gabe/Gracie snarking, or initial misdirect, like Phedre's crush on Delauney and Joscelin's initial feelings toward her.

Of course, many romance novels don't aim to tug at your /heartstrings/ exactly, ahem.

[sistabro]

I am very much in the same boat with preferring relationships that have a little more.. backing I suppose? Shared goals and trials, friendship, respect and trust that was earned. Also.. I just don't really respect characters who are only wrapped up in each other above all else, and who make deep commitments to one another based on lust, which, one I lose respect for the character, I'm pretty much done.

[teleidoplex]

Heh. We've discussed this at length, so I'm mostly posting this to give you an others my romance rec list. As a reader of romances who can no longer find romances she likes (and blames a change in what is being published rather than a refining of her own tastes. REALLY!), I hear you on the A-plot/B-plot issue. My problem tends to be that in the romance genre, the (mystery/thriller/horror/fantastic) B-plot tends to be dull and predictable, and in the fantasy/sci-fi genres... the (romantic) B-plot tends to be... yeah. Dull and predictable.

That being said, here are my romances that trump all others:

1. The Silver-Metal Lover, by Tanith Lee. This is pure romance. It makes me cry, it's so good. She wrote a... companion book, that I hear is critically amazing and a very hard read for most of the people who love the first book because it strips away a lot of the illusions of romance that the first book establishes. I own the companion, but haven't read it yet because... I'm scared.

2. Temeraire, et. al., by Naomi Novak. Love 'em, and the romantic epiphany Lawrence has at the end of the fourth book makes all the boring travel in the earlier books completely worthwhile. That being said... boring travel.

3. The Ship who Searched, by Mercedes Lackey (and Anne McCaffery, but really... they just slapped her name on it). Tia may be the most awesome shipembodied heroine I've ever read, and Alex is pretty kick-ass too.

4. Restoree, by Anne McCaffery. God... her gender stuff hurts my soul, but... this is one of the first romance novels I ever read, and I still love the _romance_ between Sarah and Harlan. And I may or may not have penned some Mary-Sue fanfic regarding Jokan when I was a teenager. Just sayin' >.>

5. The Darkangel Trilogy, by Meredith Ann Pierce. Forget Irrylath. Keep an eye on the romance with Erin. Something I really couldn't appreciate until I was older and wiser.

Runners-up:

The Fool Trilogy, by Robin Hobb. This would be my number one winner with a bullet, because I *adore* Fitz and the Fool. But... Hobb chickens out at the last second and gives us a totally unsatisfying resolution on what has essentially been the main pairing for... nine books (if you count the Assassin trilogy and the Mad Ship trilogy - both also good). *And* she doesn't allow fanfic. To quote Ladyhawke: "[She] didn't even leave us that. Not even that."

The Time-Traveler's Wife, by Audrey Niffenegger. Another one that *almost* is my number one, except... the ending leaves me very ambivalent (in the best possible way) about whether this relationship was an enriching and constructive kind of love, or a horrific and constricting kind of co-dependency. I haven't seen the movie and don't wish to, because I can't imagine it will leave me as intellectually energized as the book. So, amazing book... but I'm still not sure it's a romance.

I'd write more, but I'm probably over my word limit as is. And you'll notice that, sadly, none of these is from the romance section. I keep hoping...

[galeni.livejournal.com]

Jennifer Crusie's Bet Me is one of my favorite romances. I recommend it to try. (I like all of hers, some slightly more than others.)

Simple romances don't do it for me, either, unless I'm totally stressed and need a predictable but not yet read world to visit. I adore the Mary Russell-Sherlock Holmes stories by Laurie R. King, but most people would call those Detective Stories with Romantic Intermissions, to misquote Dorothy Sayers. And I don't like Detective stories generally, unless I like the main character(s) a lot. Otherwise: boring.

[galeni.livejournal.com]

Madam Will You Talk is my favorite Stewart! Strong heroine, properly convoluted but understandable misunderstandings to drive part of the plot. I also liked Airs Above the Ground and Moon-Spinners enormously. I've lost track how many times I've reread them. Although I think I have Airs memorized now.

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

Is that the same Mary Stewart who did an Arthurian series? I read the first few of those when I was much younger, until the sex in (I believe) the third book made my not-yet-mature self run screaming for the hills.

I think the only reason I haven't picked up Crusie before now is that her stuff is contemporary, and I'm such a hard sell on that. But I've seen lots of people praise her, and I read a post on her blog about what makes a relationship spark that had me nodding a lot, so I should give her a try.

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

The funny part is, my major doorway into story (to borrow somebody's phrase; I should find out whose theory that is and remember the name so I can credit them properly) is character, not plot. But apparently it needs to be character in the context of plot, because it's hard to get me to really be fascinated by people if there's nothing particularly interesting going on in their lives.

Good enough prose can do it, though. There are some characters I could just sit there and watch be themselves, with nothing happening, for like a whole book before I start asking for a plot. :-)

I totally agree that's one of the strong motifs in fanfic, though. The plot and tension and so on have already been provided in canon; now you can wander around endlessly exploring the relationships.

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

It's not so much that I mind lust as, I get bored if that's all that's going on. So erotic novels are not likely to be my thing.

But I'm putting MOAR SURFING PLZ into my critical lexicon alongside "too much boyfriend, not enough roller derby." :-)

(And then there's the "too much sodomy, not enough dinosaurs"/"too much dinosaurs, not enough sodomy" pairing -- but I save that one for special occasions.)

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I often feel the emotion is oversold -- but then again, I think that has more to do with the foundation (at least for me) than anything else. I mean, my god does Dorothy Dunnett crank up the angst and drama in the later books of the Lymond Chronicles; however, by then most readers feel she has absolutely earned it, with the conflict and development that has gone before. It's when that stuff starts happening on page fifty of a stand-alone book that I check out.

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

I definitely want the romantic partner to be one of the most important things in a character's life, at least by the time the romance has hit its full flower. But yeah, if the entire world revolves around that person, then it isn't much like my experience of love, and therefore doesn't mean much to me.

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

My problem tends to be that in the romance genre, the (mystery/thriller/horror/fantastic) B-plot tends to be dull and predictable, and in the fantasy/sci-fi genres... the (romantic) B-plot tends to be... yeah. Dull and predictable.

I read Compass Rose because it was a) polyamorous (I'm in favor of more romantic diversity) and b) a fantasy -- this was one of the books put out by Harlequin's Luna imprint -- but yeah, one of the things that disappointed me about it was the way the fantasy plot got put on autopilot for about half the book while the romance was developed. (Plus it tried to shoehorn too many people into the marriage in too quick succession; given that this was the first book of the series, I would have liked it to take a slower approach, and develop each new character more thoroughly.) But I think I'm more willing to forgive predictability in a romance B plot, because the emotions can feel real to me even if they're a lot like something I've read before. So long as I care about the characters -- which is usually accomplished by the A plot -- I care about their happiness.

Anyway, I don't much expect recs from the romance section, because the whole point of this post is that I don't think what most of the romance section is doing is the kind of thing I'm looking for. Which is fine; clearly it is the kind of thing a great many other people are looking for, because that stuff sells like mad. But I no longer feel like my lack of interest in romance is due to uninformed prejudice, as it was before.

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

Mysteries may be my next Genre To Explore. Once upon a time, I thought of myself as a mystery reader (this was before I discovered fantasy), but mostly I was just a Nancy Drew reader. Nowadays, I think I'm in a similar situation as with romance, except a little flipped: I'm guaranteed plot, so what I'm looking for is a character I really enjoy, and then preferably a historical setting to scratch my fantasy-reader itch.

[jennifergale.livejournal.com]

Yes it is the same Mary Stewart...her Arthurian series came later (I think). Like you, I was too young for that third book and never did return to that series. But! Her early work is just plain fantastic. (Also, no sex that I recall...) The only Stewart book I didn't really care for was Thunder on the Right, which I read during the flight home from Sirens. Man, I spent DECADES looking for that book. So disappointing.

I'm pretty picky when it comes to contemporary romances...I have to be in a very specific mood to push through some of the books I've tried. (I started an Evanovich this morning and I've been marking it up.) But Crusie's something different... Guh. The humor and secondary characters alone...

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

Well, I remember quite liking The Crystal Cave, so I'll put Stewart on my list. I didn't know about her other books, but the enthusiasm people have been showing for them is a good point in their favor.

[aliettedb.livejournal.com]

He. Mostly, I don't like romances for reasons like yours: physical attraction is given pride of place (and while I do recognise the place of physical attraction in a budding romance, I'm firmly in the "common interests" camp for building any meaningful relationships between people. Including romance).

Year of the Unicorn by Andre Norton is probably my favourite book involving a romance, which (arguably) is central to the plot. Except that it's Andre Norton, so old-fashioned YA, and physical attraction is pretty much absent. So not sure whether it counts.

If it doesn't, then it's back to Dunnett--but there's plenty in those books to keep you busy that's not the romance.

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

It seems, from what I can tell, that physical attraction as a foundation for the relationship has become a lot more common in the genre recently; older books were (at least sometimes) more circumspect about that. Unfortunately, that circumspection often went hand-in-hand with things like "the heroine isn't allowed to want it," semi-rapist heroes, and other problematic tropes; plus they didn't necessarily uphold my ideals of inter-gender respect. So, neither classic nor recent romance hits the right buttons for me.

[logovore.livejournal.com]

My favorite Crusie is Welcome to Temptation, and the reason may be germane here: it has a nice strong plot for both heroine and hero, and the romance happens in the process of each of them trying to manage the movie she's trying to make and the election he's trying to win.