Ohhhhhh--wait.

[judetwee]

What makes romance instantly fail for me (as in WRITING NO-NOS FOR BEGINNING ROMANCE WRITERS):

Comments

[doorknocker_dog]

NICE ALLUSIONS TO TWILIGHT.

I'm surprised that you only addressed the lovey-dovey kind of romance, and not the kind that you get in romance novels. But definitely agreeing on pretty much everything, especially the fucking lack of communication leading to "romantic tension". It's not fun, it just gives the reader a headache and the express desire to choke a bitch.

If I write a plausible, not-cheesy Dante/Lady, will that restore your faith in romance?

[judetwee]

That list is basically all that makes me want to put the book down and kill something. My standards for romance are pretty low. I've yet to read a romance novel that subscribes to the older definition of the word ('sublime', 'awe-inspiring nature', 'the pettiness of humanity in the face of forces greater than themselves AKA NATURE', etc)...

I don't really like writing that's only done for the sake of two characters getting it on - that just seems sort of...one-track mind. I don't really agree with fanfiction in general, either (SURPRISE SURPRISE). I only read it in bulk because I don't have enough books on my bookshelf/money to buy more books for my bookshelf/room on my bookshelf/the libraries are so understocked gaaaawwwwd and so on. I look at how amateur writers put their storylines together and prose styles to see what's good and what isn't. Sometimes I manage to get my hands on good books and revel in the glorious feeling of not wanting to kill myself while reading

[ray_thejake]

Very well-taken. This suddenly and vaguely reminds me of "You Suck at Photoshop"...

I think part of the problem is that many of those devices are age-old, but the people using them don't understand them. For example, Shakespeare did an expert job at spinning series of mishaps and misunderstandings into romantic intrigue (or romantic tragedy). However, many people see it as a "device" or "tool" to "plug in" to their stories, rather than an organic part of the characters they've created.

It seems to me an easy-to-say but hard-to-execute solution to most of those issues is to actually develop robust characters and know them well enough to understand who they really are. It's easy to contrive shallow characters and manipulate them like puppets; it's art (and a tricky one) to sculpt rounded characters who interact logically. Consider perhaps Jane and Rochester in Jane Eyre?

[judetwee]

I'd actually considered using Jane Eyre as an example of good romance as I was writing my entry. I think the emotions of the characters are very subtly done, and the characters themselves well-developed and full of a life of their own.

I agree that a lot of people use these things without realizing what they are or why they should use them - as far as they're concerned, the devices are shortcuts guaranteed to net them happy (uneducated) readers. They don't even know they're shortcuts in some cases - they're just doing it because everyone else (or everyone they admire) is doing it. Maybe they don't even notice they're doing it.

Writing for pop culture, perhaps?