Skip to main content

Workin' On It Wednesday #14 -- On Love and Romance

"I don't think romance ever dies...
which might be the cheesiest thing I've ever said."

Agent Ted*


I've been thinking a little bit about romance in fiction, inspired not only by Agent Ted's trenchant comment, but also by Maggie Stiefvater's post on the topic over at her blog. Stiefvater brings up the movie Jerry McGuire, specifically the dramatic scene where Tom Cruise tells Renee Zellwiger "you complete me" and says that this is an example of romantic chemistry that simply does not work for her.

To which I say: sing it, sister.

That scene, to me, was the most objectionable part of an otherwise inconsequential movie, because it's the point where, because of some sappy speech, the woman goes back with a man who has been pretty much nothing but a jerk to her. This is the happy ending? Really?**

Basically, the problem is that, without a real attachment between the characters, there is no way for them to overcome the fact that Tom Cruise was a jerk. Repeatedly.

But, of course, then there's the flip side of that problem, which is that there's not a whole lot of romantic tension in two characters meeting, liking each other, going out on a date, and falling madly in love. There have to be obstacles if the romance is going to draw readers in, and since there aren't a whole lot of evil uncles forbidding young heiresses from marrying the scrappy but kind and intelligent stable boys in contemporary society, these obstacles are typically psychological.

So what to do?

Stiefvater has a couple of good suggestions, which are: (1) your characters should have personalities; and (2) being hot isn't enough, especially if your characters have personalities.

Say, for example, your main character is a hard core punk chick. She parties, she drinks, she curses out teachers in school. She is mad, bad, and dangerous to know. What she is NOT is interested in the captain of the football team. This girl couldn't care less about sports or jocks or high school popularity. She's raging against the machine, and a captain of the football team is the machine, to her.***

Unless...unless she's got a personality. And maybe there's something about her personality that draws her to this particular captain of the football team. Like, say, for example, that she is really committed to animal rights and this particular captain of the football team has recently become a vegetarian because his little sister is making his whole family do it. Or because she saw this particular football player stand up for her best friend, who was getting picked on, and she thinks that's big of him. Or because she's messed up and is attracted to guys that she thinks will treat her badly, and who could be more of jerk than a captain of the football team?****

These are the things that make romance interesting to me as a reader. When a character is three dimensional, she (or he) is going to behave in ways that are not stereotypical, but also that make sense for the character. I dislike Renee Zellweger's character in Jerry McGuire because any woman who takes a man back after he's treated her the way Tom Cruise has is an idiot. Her decision doesn't make sense. Now, if this were a drama, then her taking him back would be an interesting ending, but Jerry McGuire is supposed to be a romance (at least, partly), and this ending? NOT ROMANTIC. It's not romantic if I'm left with the feeling that the characters are bad for one another.

I'm going to go for another cliched example here, and bring up Pride and Prejudice because, frankly, P&P is a book that gets this aspect right. Darcy is a jerk to Elizabeth at first. He's a snob and he's stuck up and he's an ass, even though he's rich. Elizabeth is very intelligent, and a bit of a snob herself, frankly,***** and makes fun of him for his prissiness. Darcy actually comes around first, and realizes that he likes Elizabeth, and proposes to her fairly early on. If she accepted him at that point, the novel would be flawed. She thinks he's a jerk! There's no romance in them getting together at that point.

But over the course of the second half of the novel, Elizabeth realizes that, while Darcy may certainly do some jerky things and may, in fact, have a bit of a stick up his butt, he's also a good guy. He looks out for his sister and his friends. He treats his servants kindly. He doesn't pretend things he doesn't feel. In short, Darcy is a man of honor who improves greatly on closer acquaintance, and Elizabeth learns that she has made a mistake in judging him so harshly. When Elizabeth accepts Darcy at the end of the novel, it is romantic, because we know his flaws and hers, and know that they can overcome them together.

That's the key to romance in fiction, to me--the characters should fit together because of who they are apart.

~~~

*Agent Ted=awesome.

** Incidentally, this is the same problem I had with the ending of "Sex and the City" (a show I didn't actually watch much, but was considering renting via Netflix until I found out how it ended. He's just not that into you, Carrie!). It is also the same problem that social critic Linda Holmes (aka Miss Alli, formerly of Television Without Pity, and one of the most insightful/funny media critics, like, ever) had with Reality Bites, the ending of which seems romantic when you first see it, until you realize that at the end Winona Ryder is saddled with Douchebag McCoy as a boyfriend when she totally deserves better.

***One mistake that people who don't understand teenagers will make is that they will assume that all teenagers want to be at the top of the high school popularity food chain. This is so not true, I don't even know how to explain how untrue it is.

****If we're going for a happy ending here, of course, he won't actually be a jerk and our main character would have to overcome her misperceptions about him.

*****In the setting of the novel, thinking you can marry for love is a bit of snobbery. Marriages were for money, and marrying for love was a luxury few women, including Elizabeth Bennett, could really afford.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Monday Miscellany

1. I've been watching old episodes of The West Wing on Bravo lately, and have come to the conclusion that I love the character of Sam Seaborn. He's smart, he's earnest, he's a good writer, and he's played by Rob Lowe. What's not to love?* 2. I just bought the cutest jacket at Ann Taylor Loft. I know you care, but it's not every day that one can find a white denim jacket with styling reminiscent of Michael Jackson and a tailored waist. I'm just saying. 3. NaNoWriMo proceeds apace. There is no way that I'm going to be able to keep writing at this pace after this month is over, but I'm on track to finish. It's an interesting project...in some ways the speed is freeing and in other ways it's extremely limited, as to make the word count I have no time to go back and revise. 4. Alien and Aliens are amazing movies. Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection ? Not so much. 5. This week's Glee characterization inconsistency watch: Rache...

Jay Takes A Stand

Moonrat, still at Editorial Ass, is making me think a lot lately. She did a recent post here about sexualized violence in print ads, and connected the dots to sexualized violence in books and other media, which got me thinking about how I treat girls and women in my books. To be clear--I'm a feminist. I believe in equal pay for equal work and reproductive choice, and the whole ball of wax. I'm not going to go into detail about all that here because, frankly, there are people out there whose blogs are dedicated to that kind of thing (like Jezebel *) and they do it way better than I ever could. But that's my political orientation, in case you care. So when I was writing The Book, it was very important to me that my female protagonist S did not fall into any of those "heroine needs saving by the hero" tropes that so many books for teenage girls do. Sure, there's something very "romantic" about the hero swooping in and rescuing the heroine, right? ...

The waiting is the hardest part

As I mentioned, I entered the Fangs, Fur & Fey contest over on their blog (there's a link in the sidebar). And the results are supposed to be posted on Monday, which when all the hook writers would find out whether they should send in pages or not. Cool, cool. But, as it turns out, some of the judges are really on their game, and have been turning in entries earlier. Which have been being posted earlier. Which means that for the last two days I've been checking the website obsessively in the hope of seeing my magic number - 121 - up there. Which it has NOT been. 122 has gone up, but not 121. I'm trying to take this as a good sign. ::fingers crossed:: The contest itself has been real eye-opener. Good hooks, bad hooks, good hooks for books I would never read in a million years, bad hooks for books that I think I would love ... it's really cool. I also love the comments that the judges are making, which are usually right, but which also point out just how mu...