# Writing Love



## TheCrystallineEntity

The love that I write about is often [for lack of a better word] 'agape' love. Not just to strictly adhere by the 'four loves' idea, what kinds of love do you guys write about [if any]? I'm curious to see how wildly different other peoples' approaches to writing love [or perhaps how similar] are to mine.

Just off the top of my head, I made a list of many kinds of love:

romantic [same gender or opposite gender or no gender], platonic, family [maternal, paternal, fraternal, and so forth], sexual, passionate, friend/comrade/partner [nakama, as they say in Japan], agape...


----------



## Heliotrope

Hmmmm,  never realized it before but the motivating factor in every one of my stories is love. All kinds of love. Every character in every one of my stories is in one way or another motivated by love. I wonder what that says about me lol? I'm an INFP personality type, so it makes sense I guess.

In my wip it is love between daughter and father,  but I've done mother/son, boy/girl romantic, girl/girl romantic, agape....


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity

In my two fantasy books I've done...ho boy. *deep breath* daughter-father [two fathers], daughter-mother [two mothers], girl/boy [the boy later becomes a girl], girl/girl [so many of my characters are lesbian! ], agape several times [through reincarnation], girl/girl/girl, boy/boy/boy, seven genderless beings all in a symbiotic relationship, and now my head is scrambled so I can't think properly...


----------



## TheKillerBs

Probably bromance.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity

^I find that such a ludicrous term.  

I am highly against teenage slang/internet slang/whatever ridiculous stuff people are saying nowadays. That makes me feel old.


----------



## Christopher Michael

I'm not a romance author, but romance (generally hetero to this point) has figured into the character arcs of almost every one of my stories.
It's generally either a background situation, or a plot element. One time the romance shocked the crap out of me, because I'd toyed with it the entire story and was certain it wasn't going to happen. Then my lead character jumped her partner's bones.


----------



## WooHooMan

Every kind.
I don't see much of a difference between writing any of them.  Writing love is like writing anything character-related: there's motivation for it, development, payoff, a resolution and so on.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

The 4 kinds: slice, puncture, crush, chop... oh wait that's rpg damage types... bah! No difference really, heh heh.


----------



## skip.knox

I shy away from categories. Categorically. I avoid them both instinctively and deliberately. If someone else wants to categorize the relationships in my stories, that's fine and dandy. One advantage of not categorizing my own work is I don't get annoyed with others because they have got it wrong. They're always right.


----------



## TheKillerBs

TheCrystallineEntity said:


> ^I find that such a ludicrous term.
> 
> I am highly against teenage slang/internet slang/whatever ridiculous stuff people are saying nowadays. That makes me feel old.



Wanna feel older? That's a term from about a decade ago when I was in high school.


----------



## Christopher Michael

TheKillerBs said:


> Wanna feel older? That's a term from about a decade ago when I was in high school.



That's a term from more than 20 years ago. It popped up in the 90s.


----------



## Insolent Lad

All sorts and shades of love do show up in my work. One thing I probably do too frequently is kill off the loved one to increase the tragedy and motivation. Have to watch that tendency in me --- it can become too easy a way to move things forward!


----------



## TheKillerBs

Christopher Michael said:


> That's a term from more than 20 years ago. It popped up in the 90s.



Go figure lol. I sit corrected.


----------



## Aidan of the tavern

I've never really thought about it as categories. Love can be such a complicated thing I think about it on a character by character basis, because of how one person's feelings are not always the same kind of love as the other person's.  I guess I am slightly tentative about writing romance, mostly because I haven't tried writing it much, at least not as a central plot point.  If I write romance it tends to be more background or character development, to the plot.  I don't want to fall into the clichÃ© of writing romance as too 'perfect', so no doubt as I get more life experience my writing will be more realistic.  If I can talk about Star Wars for a moment, I actually thought it was really poignant in the Force Awakens, how Han and Leia's relationship had not turned out great, despite the fact they still loved each other.  To me that's more believable.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

Ooh!! This is a cool topic!! 

I think all stories are love stories. To be meaningful I think they all involve love, whether it is the love between people or a character's love of power, etc... Love is so fundamental to being human that a story cannot exist without it, I think. RELATIONSHIPS!! I love relationships and they are the centerpiece of anything I write. 

What kind of love do I write? I was just thinking about this the other day. I think that, hands down, by favorite kind of relationship to write is that between siblings. Sibling relationships are so rocky and full of conflict, but they are SUCH a strong bond. You've been together forever, you know everything about each other, but you definitely didn't choose to be this way...you're stuck, at least until you've come of age, but even then you can't help being related...Having three siblings myself, I relate to stories about siblings a lot. In one of my WIP's my two MC's are siblings. They fight and bicker constantly and are constantly hurling sarcasm and insults at each other but each would lay down their life for the other in a heartbeat. He's the older brother and is a troublemaker and kind of dense, but with a heart of marshmallow, she's the little sister and much quieter but thinks a lot and tries to keep him out of trouble. He's the protective one, but really it's she who's doing the protecting. Lol. Their personalities tend to clash hard but they are SO close. 

I also like to write friendship, which I think is downplayed in modern stories. I especially like close, platonic male/female friendship that never turns into anything romantic. (Since I have a lot of guy friends, and since I just get along with guys more, I wish it was more clearly exhibited in books that a guy and girl CAN be just friends.) Older stories have a lot of very compelling friendships in them (Frodo and Sam immediately springs to mind, and I think Sam is my favorite literary character ever) but in newer stories almost all relationships that close are made out to be romantic. I think its lost on the modern audience that a friendship can be EXTREMELY close without being sexual. 

Third, I do really like romantic relationships. Having almost no experience with romantic love myself, I must say that I don't always feel entirely comfortable writing it, especially the physical side of a relationship. Romantic love hasn't been much of a main focus in my stories recently. Partly because of that, and partly because it tends to distract from rather than build upon the plot. But I do enjoy writing them. 

Stories where you explore the interactions of many different kinds of relationships and how they change...absolutely my favorite. In the story I mentioned above, both my MC's develop close friendships and also romantic relationships. They experience the pain of loss too. My villain's relationships shape him too...mostly with his abusive, sociopathic mother, his wife (who he's in an arranged marriage to and who cheats on him) and his little sister. He becomes a father later on and I end up exploring a lot his ability to love, or lack thereof...I think he wants to love, but his ability is twisted and broken. 

(Twisted, broken love, imperfect love between people who are broken, tends to take center stage in my stories.) 

I absolutely must mention that I love any Slytherpuff (Slytherin/Hufflepuff) relationship. It's awkward to mention this to my Slytherin friend (who's a guy), lol.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

Heliotrope said:


> Hmmmm,  never realized it before but the motivating factor in every one of my stories is love. All kinds of love. Every character in every one of my stories is in one way or another motivated by love. I wonder what that says about me lol? I'm an INFP personality type, so it makes sense I guess.
> 
> In my wip it is love between daughter and father,  but I've done mother/son, boy/girl romantic, girl/girl romantic, agape....



I'm an ENFP


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

In my current WIP, Red Nights, my MC's arc basically revolves around love. Basically, she's an extremely hard, closed-off person and through the story she learns to care about people that aren't herself. She explores her own ability to love...she's wondered before if she's too broken. Friendship love takes the main stage in this story. 

In my other current WIP (which I'll start working on again soon) the main story is centered around the relationship between a father and his daughter (the MC.) 

I even like writing about the love between a person and their pet. I have a dog I really love, but I'm also really fond of cats, and I've always loved animals and it just comes out in my stories.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity

I've decided to do something a little different in my next book. Normally, when a character or characters die in a story, they've died before the story begins, or somewhere in the middle, or at the end for a dramatic conclusion. In my next book, the main character's wife and daughter die entirely by accident at the very beginning of the story, and as the main character reflects on their lives together, you learn more and more about them, and then you learn the reason for her journey: to see if she can contact [not bring them back, but contact] them somehow.

In the fun, whimsical book I'm working on right now, the three main characters are all in a relationship, but their love is multi-layered and unusual. Also, there's lesbian kissing, which is something I haven't done before. [The narrator accidentally paralyzed herself with a library book [long story], and the other two are wondering how to un-paralyze her, so they try kissing her to see if 'true love's kiss' thing actually works.

Cat love features often in my books.


----------



## Chessie

I write mostly romance at this point, and it's really the only kind of love that's been at the center of all my stories. Boy meets girl, they fall in love, there's trouble, they break up, they realize that they can't live without each other, they give something of themselves to be with the other, they make up and live happily ever after.

There's a myriad of options here. It's essentially the same story but it can be new and fresh every time. I'm a romance fiend. It's pretty much all I read. Mulder and Scully have the greatest romance of all time in the Sci-fi/Fantasy genre imo. Lol. But yeah, I love seeing my friends fall in love and live happily ever after. The romance with my husband was like in a book, too haha. We met and I hated him for 3 months. But he slowly won my interest with a gentle and kind approach, always treating me with respect even though I was often mean to him (we worked together at the time). When we started dating, we fell in love really fast and married within months. I'm a romance die hard so that's what drives me haha!


EDIT: Wanted to add that I'm talking about romance as a genre here, which mixes fantastically well with fantasy and that's why fantasy romance is my favorite subgenre in all the world. There's just something fun and fascinating about watching people falling in love to me, and writing about it is an intimate experience with my imagination. It's not about sex. It's not about kissing. It's about learning to trust someone with your heart and your life. A big deal.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity

It sometimes feels like there's not enough girl/girl or boy/boy relationships in fantasy. It's mostly just school/slice of life related.

[I'm a romantic, too, but I'm oddly picky about the types of romance I read.


----------



## FifthView

For me, the most common is familial love.

I don't write much romance, per se, although I think that admiration, appreciation, and friendship, and the very first buds of potential love are common for me also.

My current WIP presents a challenge for me because romance/love plays an important role.  Three characters, all male.  Two fall in love with the same person, but these are two different "types" of love—maybe, because I'm not sure the actual feeling is greatly different.  One of the characters is in his mid-teens, so it's the kind of intense, crush-like love, that develops into a sort of absolute dedication toward the beloved.  The other is a more adult love from someone in his early twenties, hesitant, surprising, because he starts out hunting the eventual beloved for the purposes of imprisonment and punishment.  BUT the common beloved of these two is not someone who can reciprocate.  Well, the story on the whole is meant to be a tragedy.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity

I'm sick of love triangles, so there aren't any in my books. They either annoy me or give me headaches.


----------



## Chessie

TheCrystallineEntity said:


> It sometimes feels like there's not enough girl/girl or boy/boy relationships in fantasy. It's mostly just school/slice of life related.
> 
> [I'm a romantic, too, but I'm oddly picky about the types of romance I read.


You should totally be picky about the romance you read. There's a lot of variation within the genre and being that it's so intimate, it definitely sucks when you've picked the wrong one (had that happen a few times and I threw the book across the room once. The reasons here shall go unsaid *cough* don't shove religion down my throat and say it's a romance *cough* cough*).


----------



## FifthView

TheCrystallineEntity said:


> I'm sick of love triangles, so there aren't any in my books. They either annoy me or give me headaches.



Ah, hah, I hate the way love triangles are played up to increase tension and in order to have a lot of internalized emotion vomited onto the page.  But I'm not working mine as a love triangle.  Love happens, and occasionally more than one person falls in love with the same person.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity

Even if two characters have 'agape' love in my books, there's many reasons why [such as, they are linked together in some way, or are connected through what they were sent to do, or are part of the same being].

The only love triangle that kind of worked for me was Will/Tessa/Jem in The Infernal Devices, but that's mainly because Will and Jem pretty much in love with each other, too.  Or am I just seeing homosexual subtext where there is none?


----------



## Heliotrope

Omg chessie I think I tried to read the same book!


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity

I dislike books that have too much religious symbolism/allegory. *cough Narnia cough* 

I wonder if people will get upset about how free-spirited and open-minded my books are [almost all characters frequently walk around naked, tri-pairings and same gender pairings are common...]


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

TheCrystallineEntity said:


> I dislike books that have too much religious symbolism/allegory. *cough Narnia cough*
> 
> I wonder if people will get upset about how free-spirited and open-minded my books are [almost all characters frequently walk around naked, tri-pairings and same gender pairings are common...]



I liked the Narnia books, but in general I hate allegory.


----------



## TheKillerBs

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> I also like to write friendship, which I think is downplayed in modern stories. I especially like close, platonic male/female friendship that never turns into anything romantic. (Since I have a lot of guy friends, and since I just get along with guys more, I wish it was more clearly exhibited in books that a guy and girl CAN be just friends.) Older stories have a lot of very compelling friendships in them (Frodo and Sam immediately springs to mind, and I think Sam is my favorite literary character ever) but in newer stories almost all relationships that close are made out to be romantic. I think its lost on the modern audience that a friendship can be EXTREMELY close without being sexual.



I agree with this so flipping hard. I think part of why I care so much about writing friendships, especially deep ones, is how little one can find them nowadays (in Western fiction, at least). I don't think I've written many deep boy/girl friendships though. Not outside of Harry Potter fanfiction, anyway.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

TheKillerBs said:


> I agree with this so flipping hard. I think part of why I care so much about writing friendships, especially deep ones, is how little one can find them nowadays (in Western fiction, at least). I don't think I've written many deep boy/girl friendships though. Not outside of Harry Potter fanfiction, anyway.



I wonder why it is that deep friendships are rarely written or discussed?


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity

^Maybe people are too obsessed with romance...or..."shipping"?


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

As for romance...for all my love of relationship stories, I have never been able to interest myself in a romance. They just don't pique my curiosity. I want to branch out and try new things but in this case I don't even have the motivation.

All my favorite books tend to have the romance subplot, but as a SUBplot. secondary to the main story.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

TheCrystallineEntity said:


> ^Maybe people are too obsessed with romance...or..."shipping"?



"Shipping" is a big part of all the fandoms i belong to, but i've never been into it. There is this one pair in this one book that I ship really really hard...but other than that??


----------



## TheKillerBs

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> I wonder why it is that deep friendships are rarely written or discussed?



I think it's a product of how sex-obsessed we, as a society, are. We turn everything sexual. Everything. Even what had nothing to do with sex, like friendship.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

TheKillerBs said:


> I think it's a product of how sex-obsessed we, as a society, are. We turn everything sexual. Everything. Even what had nothing to do with sex, like friendship.



^Probably a significant factor.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity

^There's no sex whatsoever in my books. Characters who want children do so by energy fusion.


----------



## Chessie

TheKillerBs said:


> I think it's a product of how sex-obsessed we, as a society, are. We turn everything sexual. Everything. Even what had nothing to do with sex, like friendship.



Romance doesn't need to have sex. And there are plenty of books about friendships.


----------



## TheKillerBs

Chessie said:


> Romance doesn't need to have sex. And there are plenty of books about friendships.



No, romance doesn't need to have sex but it often does, especially where the romance genre is concerned (also sexualisation doesn't need to have sex either). As far as friendship is concerned, perhaps I am looking in the wrong places, but I haven't seen much in recent stuff. Not in Western works, anyhow.


----------



## Miskatonic

Romance is included in some of my stories but it's not a focal point, so it's not really driving the plot in any significant way. I like using it as a way of showing more of the character's personality and of course as a dynamic between characters.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

Okay a video first to dragon of the aerie you are correct every story is a love story. [video=youtube_share;ubI1vKCCmlU]https://youtu.be/ubI1vKCCmlU[/video]

As for the love in my stories I have one mentor mentee love like father and son. Another that centers on a father finding his son that was kidnap led in chapter 1. And a few side plots of romantic relationships but ones that are internally stable while facing extraordinary outside pressure.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

Chessie said:


> Romance doesn't need to have sex. And there are plenty of books about friendships.



Quite true. But I took it more in the sense that romantic relationships are generally sexual in nature, rather than romantic stories or subplots including or portraying sex.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

Brian Scott Allen said:


> Okay a video first to dragon of the aerie you are correct every story is a love story. [video=youtube_share;ubI1vKCCmlU]https://youtu.be/ubI1vKCCmlU[/video]
> 
> As for the love in my stories I have one mentor mentee love like father and son. Another that centers on a father finding his son that was kidnap led in chapter 1. And a few side plots of romantic relationships but ones that are internally stable while facing extraordinary outside pressure.



Haha.

I had no idea "mentee" was a word...but that is an important kind of relationship.


----------



## Chessie

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> Quite true. But I took it more in the sense that romantic relationships are generally sexual in nature, rather than romantic stories or subplots including or portraying sex.



They are, in fact, the same thing. It's still a plot focused on a romance, whether it's at front stage or not, the plot points/journey is the same. You might be thinking love story, which is not the same thing.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity

^Complicated.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

Heck. Buddy cop flicks follow romantic formula in a great many ways.



Chessie said:


> They are, in fact, the same thing. It's still a plot focused on a romance, whether it's at front stage or not, the plot points/journey is the same. You might be thinking love story, which is not the same thing.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

Chessie said:


> They are, in fact, the same thing. It's still a plot focused on a romance, whether it's at front stage or not, the plot points/journey is the same. You might be thinking love story, which is not the same thing.



I prefer not to split hairs on definitions when that isn't the point of the discussion. Last we discussed this it quickly turned into a fight and I don't want to go down that road. But my statement applies to both, no?


----------



## Heliotrope

Demesnedenoir said:


> Heck. Buddy cop flicks follow romantic formula in a great many ways.



Yep, buddy love/ romance follow the same plot points, whether it is buddy cop, or just buddy love like Wayne's World, or I Love You Man... they all follow the same plot points. So Lethal Weapon, Wayne's World, and Gone With the Wind are the same story, essentially.

_Two people hate each other, then are forced to work together to solve a problem, then learn to love each other, then their egos can't stand the fact they actually need someone so they fight and hate each other again, but then they realize they really need each other after all and are best together. The end. _

Gone With the Wind strays a bit in that Rhett leaves at the end... so that might be what Chessie describes as a love story instead..?


----------



## Chessie

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> I prefer not to split hairs on definitions when that isn't the point of the discussion. Last we discussed this it quickly turned into a fight and I don't want to go down that road. But my statement applies to both, no?



I'm not fighting, simply explaining that there's a difference and that's decided by genre. A love story with a happy ending is a romance, that's the proper definition, not me splitting hairs.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity

^Who decides these sections and categorizations?  People are very strange.


----------



## Chessie

TheCrystallineEntity said:


> ^Who decides these sections and categorizations?  People are very strange.



The market decides. The publishers decide. Romance as a genre has been around for ages. Love stories can be anyone and anything, right? But if you're talking about romance--being two people falling in love and living happily ever after--that's a genre or plot system. Anyone wanting to go into publishing should know the difference between genres and what various markets want. I'm simply sharing information. But ya'll can believe what you want. I don't care, it doesn't affect me any.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

I'm the type that doesn't know how my story will end until I've written it, so in my case, i suppose it's not helpful to think of my writing in terms of one or the other. I might decide to kill one of the parties involved without prior planning...


----------



## Heliotrope

Yep, Chessie nailed it. Literary fiction can get away with more play in the boundaries, but typically genre fiction follows certain patterns that readers come to expect. Straying too far from the pattern may make it difficult to categorize your work, and may make readers upset when you don't pay out on the expectations you've set up from your cover and blurb. Chessie writes a lot of romance, so she is the expert on that, I write more action/adventure and have more experience with writing for readers that expect certain patterns and payouts from that genre.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity

^^I'm often the same. Or, I think I have it all planned out, and then a plot twist comes along and surprises me as much as the characters.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

TheCrystallineEntity said:


> ^^I'm often the same. Or, I think I have it all planned out, and then a plot twist comes along and surprises me as much as the characters.



This happened to me all the time in my WIP. All my outlines I attempted were wrecked by my MC and her crazy snap decisions. 

Romance is a genre with a precise definition, I see...but in my stories, I prefer to freestyle everything. Never liked categories, labels and limits, never have. So I'm really pretty indifferent to them. Formulas too have always bamboozled me. 

I don't even think about what genre my stories are, lol. I just write them. If they fit into a category, great! If they don't...hmm. I suppose I'm in trouble? Idk...heehee.


----------



## Heliotrope

Good luck presenting them to an agent them, if that is what you hope to do


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

Heliotrope said:


> Good luck presenting them to an agent them, if that is what you hope to do



I'm sure not all writers know what will happen with their stories before writing them...or what their stories will become. Or even what they are writing at all. 

If the stories I like to write are deemed unacceptable by the publishing community...well, so be it...? I have no interest in conforming to formulas. They either bore me or irritate me. That said, do strict formulas define every genre, or everything written and published? Sure, I can figure out where my story belongs after its done. But making it conform while I'm writing it? I would much rather let it do its own thing. I enjoy it. 

I guess it's a very good thing I don't write romance. I hate knowing what must happen in the end.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity

> Romance is a genre with a precise definition, I see...but in my stories, I prefer to freestyle everything. Never liked categories, labels and limits, never have. So I'm really pretty indifferent to them. Formulas too have always bamboozled me.


I'm exactly the same. I take my genres and demolish them! 
All of my stories actually have happy endings [amazingly], but in my next story, the ending will possibly be bittersweet.


----------



## Chessie

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> I guess it's a very good thing I don't write romance. I hate knowing what must happen in the end.


Hmm. It feels like I may be getting insulted but I'll let it go. Quite simply because ignorance is bliss, and I don't care what you do with your stories. Knowing that my couple ends up together is just part of writing genre fiction. I don't care or expect you to understand. Like I've said before, you and I are in different places when it comes to writing. So, you do you.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

Chessie said:


> Hmm. It feels like I may be getting insulted but I'll let it go. Quite simply because ignorance is bliss, and I don't care what you do with your stories. Knowing that my couple ends up together is just part of writing genre fiction. I don't care or expect you to understand. Like I've said before, you and I are in different places when it comes to writing. So, you do you.



Nonono! I don't mean that at all  

I just mean, I don't always want a happy ending, or even to know what kind of ending I'll have. I like to try new stuff with each story, and take it in whatever direction or whatever turn I feel like. 

I'm sure there's a huge amount of variety within the romance genre...how else could it be so huge? 

Not insulting. Really sorry if it came off that way :/


----------



## Caged Maiden

Oh man! I'm late to the conversation again! 

Ok, I LOVE love. Every book I write has a strong relationship element, however, depending on the story, I explore love in different ways. I write complicated relationships, whether they're parent/ child ones or romantic. 

Probably the most extreme example from one of my stories is a woman who is leaving home with her "brother" to flee an unsafe situation...and in chapter two, she jumps into bed with her guard, thinking they'll part in a few days and it'll just be a weekend fling (she leads a very solitary existence under the thumb of her grandfather). But then they're ambushed and a lot of other stuff, and her guard helps her to safety and they fall in actual love, and he finds out her brother isn't her brother, but her son, fathered by her own dad, who she killed a dozen years earlier. The story is further complicated by the fact that she once loved the boy as a baby, but in recent years has grown to despise him because she feels he's the reason she hasn't found real love. She blames him for her loneliness. Her guard levels to rescue her son from a ransomer, and while he's gone, the woman is in the care of an old family friend who's a werewolf. But while they're hiding out, he kisses her and she is shocked because he's never shown an interest in her, and he tells her that he doesn't blame her for breaking off their engagement, that he understands, but he wanted her to know he's not a monster, but a normal man underneath his shifter nature. She reveals that she didn't know they were engaged, and then discovers that her grandfather accepted the engagement and then broke it, all without telling her anything. So there's a bit of a love triangle there (okay, a fully formed one), and the woman chooses the guard over the werewolf (she's pregnant, btw), and she rejects the new guy. When the guard returns home, they marry and he adopts her first son, and then he has to leave again, but signs a birth certificate for the unborn baby...in the event he doesn't return and is killed. But when he runs into trouble on his journey, the woman organizes a company of mages to aid him, and she marches them north, leaving her newborn daughter with the family friends...while the werewolf guy adamantly refuses to let her go alone, and he accompanies her. Now, the guard knows about the love triangle, and when the woman and the werewolf arrive in the north, she's upset to find her husband with his arm around a young girl, and she quietly fades into her company of mages and is going to return home, but the guard and the werewolf guy talk, and when he learns his wife is there, he goes to find her. She says she is okay with him finding a younger, better girl, and understands that their whirlwind romance wasn't as real as they'd both hoped...but he tells her the girl is his long lost niece, and that he's been faithful. Later in the story, there is a battle and the guard is wounded mortally. The werewolf guy is there and all he'd have to do is walk away and the husband would die, but instead he heals him with magic because he loves the woman and knows she's in love with her husband. And he has a brotherly love for the husband and respects him even though he still loves the wife. 

The next book is set fifteen years later, when the newborn daughter is being raised by the werewolf, the daughter of the woman he loves, and she finds out he's not her real father. He realizes his wife is the one who told the girl the truth about her parentage, and he sends his wife packing, kicking her out of the house...the mother of the two young boys the girl has always known as her brothers. And when she asks her not-dad about it, he says that they'd been living a lie too long, that he never loved her, and she never loved him. The girl is in love with a village boy that the not-dad disapproves of, and then the boy is kidnapped and she thinks he's dead. She blames her not-dad for the disappearance and a huge plot of distrust begins, where her grandparents reveal he's been in love with a woman for a long time, and he's never gotten over her. But the girl can't get over the boy who is gone. 

Later in the book, a woman comes in the middle of the night and drops off a baby to the house. It's the not-dad's baby he had with some woman in a neighboring kingdom, and the woman who delivers it has a weird relationship with the not-dad, and the girl notices it. She suspects that's the woman he yearns for. Late in the book, the werewolf not-dad takes her to the kingdom where her parents are the king and queen (having won the war), and he introduces them to her, but doesn't reveal who they are just yet. The whole book, the girl has known her not-dad is in love with this woman, but now knows she's the queen, and she confronts him about it, accusing him of being dishonest and loving another man's wife. And then she learns those are her real parents, and she has to come to terms with the fact that she loves her not-dad and the real parents are strangers. And while the love triangle tension isn't a thing I made a big deal of, when the king is assassinated, the two remaining people in the love triangle decide that they won't dishonor their dead friend who is important to them both. And the girl leaves to avenge a father she never knew but loves because she's seen what a good man he is (when the woman's first son he adopted tells the girl all about the man who was a father to him when he didn't need to be). 

Oh, and the girl is reunited with her kidnapped villager, but to complicate their relationship (and the rekindling of their love), he's now in the army, fighting against werewolves that kill villagers, and she desperately loves her werewolf family and can't tell him about them, but she feels she can't be in love with someone who would war against the only family she's ever known.

That is by far my most complicated love story, but it's my favorite! All kinds of love. Family, parent/ child, young love, mature love, a love triangle where the three people all have a good relationship (though one is definitely the third wheel), and sibling love. 

I think love is one of the most universal things to write about. Love and fear. I write about both...A LOT!


----------



## Demesnedenoir

Not all interest in a story has to do with not knowing the ending... otherwise, romance and mystery, at least these two powerhouse genres would not exist. Still and always one of my favorite examples for many things is Columbo... the fun and entertainment of Columbo is not whether he will get the killer (he will, and we know who it is!) it is how he's going to put it to the dumb ass who thinks they pulled off the perfect murder and the arrogant upper class mouse vs the working man's cat game that they play. It's a perfect formula and a helluva lot of fun.

In fact, in romance and mystery, solving the crime or the couple getting together aren't really the story. That is more or less a prop of the formula, the real story is how this "happy" ending is achieved against what is most often great odds against a bunch of barriers that can range from a super genius criminal to social status differences to personality conflict, etc. The ending really isn't whodunnit or throwing a bouqet, it's the final piece of the puzzle in the mystery, or the final barrier overcome for love in romance... and in many cases, there are subplots assisting in carrying the story, giving it momentum and additional interest, as well as serving as obstacles.


----------



## Christopher Michael

This is off topic a bit, but worth a brief discussion, I think. If you don't want to conform to a genre, that's fine. You can do cross genre, even spec fic, and be okay. The problem is, if you're writing a genre fic you are absolutely going to encounter conventions and tropes that the readers expect you to hit. If you DON'T hit them, you're going to lose readers, thus sales.
The fun thing, however, is the pure amount of flexibility you have _between_ those plot beats.


----------



## Chessie

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> Nonono! I don't mean that at all
> 
> I just mean, I don't always want a happy ending, or even to know what kind of ending I'll have. I like to try new stuff with each story, and take it in whatever direction or whatever turn I feel like.
> 
> I'm sure there's a huge amount of variety within the romance genre...how else could it be so huge?
> 
> Not insulting. Really sorry if it came off that way :/



Knowing where and who the characters stick with at the end doesn't register into the end itself when you tally everything else going into that final scene:

-the character's emotional journey + achievement or not of story goal
-literally the entire book of scenes coming before the final point that are its building blocks
-details such as setting, character emotions, the aftermath of the final battle (internal and external), tying in theme, satisfying the reader, etc.
-and since we're talking about love in this thread, how the relationship between the hero and his/her love interest, best friend, family member, etc comes to a resolution from the buddy breakup scene that got them to this point.

And these are just a few (big) things to consider when bringing the book to an end. Knowing that someone ends up with so and so doesn't take any of the above into account. So, no, you still technically do not know the ending if all you have is "joe and mary end up happily ever after" or "Mrs. Butcher killed Joe in the basement with a cleaver". You still--do not--know anything not to mention making it believable to the reader. It really isn't easy, nor does it make writing endings any easier. I invite anyone who thinks it sounds easy to give it a try sometime.


----------



## FifthView

Demesnedenoir said:


> In fact, in romance and mystery, solving the crime or the couple getting together aren't really the story. That is more or less a prop of the formula, the real story is how this "happy" ending is achieved against what is most often great odds against a bunch of barriers that can range from a super genius criminal to social status differences to personality conflict, etc.



This morning, a metaphor occurred to me.  It's a little like preparing to watch the Olympics pairs free skating competition.  You know many of the same spins, jumps, throws, etc., are going to appear.  They always do.  But you don't know exactly how they will be used, and until the pair starts you don't know the music they'll be using or how they'll interpret it.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

Chessie said:


> Knowing where and who the characters stick with at the end doesn't register into the end itself when you tally everything else going into that final scene:
> 
> -the character's emotional journey + achievement or not of story goal
> -literally the entire book of scenes coming before the final point that are its building blocks
> -details such as setting, character emotions, the aftermath of the final battle (internal and external), tying in theme, satisfying the reader, etc.
> -and since we're talking about love in this thread, how the relationship between the hero and his/her love interest, best friend, family member, etc comes to a resolution from the buddy breakup scene that got them to this point.
> 
> And these are just a few (big) things to consider when bringing the book to an end. Knowing that someone ends up with so and so doesn't take any of the above into account. So, no, you still technically do not know the ending if all you have is "joe and mary end up happily ever after" or "Mrs. Butcher killed Joe in the basement with a cleaver". You still--do not--know anything not to mention making it believable to the reader. It really isn't easy, nor does it make writing endings any easier. I invite anyone who thinks it sounds easy to give it a try sometime.



That's quite true. 

and of course It's not easy! :/ I'd never say it was easy. Endings are hard no matter how you plan them. Especially being emotionally satisfying. I faced that struggle just recently in ending my WIP...

The comment about romance not being a good fit for me was a really generalizing statement. But we're headed off topic.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

FifthView said:


> This morning, a metaphor occurred to me.  It's a little like preparing to watch the Olympics pairs free skating competition.  You know many of the same spins, jumps, throws, etc., are going to appear.  They always do.  But you don't know exactly how they will be used, and until the pair starts you don't know the music they'll be using or how they'll interpret it.



The stories you may write within even a well-established frame are infinite. (Without getting mathematical about it. Lol I suck at math.)


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

Back on topic though, is it true that every story involves love in one way or another? The difference is in how it's expressed and explored, right?

It's a very primal and fundamental part of being human. And I do strongly believe that all stories are in some way, however roundabout or subtle, about being human.

Edit: or maybe this is another tangent...


----------



## FifthView

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> The stories you may write within even a well-established frame are infinite. (Without getting mathematical about it. Lol I suck at math.)



Ah, if you pay good money for a ticket to see Olympic-level pairs skating, but it's a first round hockey match, you might be irritated.

If you pay good money for a ticket and in the middle of the performance, a clown car drives onto the ice, 20 clowns climb out and start pelting the pair of figure skaters with cream pies–you'll either be very angry or laugh like crazy, heh.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

Christopher Michael said:


> This is off topic a bit, but worth a brief discussion, I think. If you don't want to conform to a genre, that's fine. You can do cross genre, even spec fic, and be okay. The problem is, if you're writing a genre fic you are absolutely going to encounter conventions and tropes that the readers expect you to hit. If you DON'T hit them, you're going to lose readers, thus sales.
> The fun thing, however, is the pure amount of flexibility you have _between_ those plot beats.



Idk what I'm writing. I'd prefer to figure out how or if I can sell something within a certain framework after I've written it. That may change later in my life. But at this point I'm just exploring my ideas and what I like to write. Im 16, I have plenty of time to figure it all out.


----------



## Heliotrope

FifthView these figure skating analogies are awesome! 

There was a post a while back about how people actually love spoilers, and I've come to believe this to be true. We all love our favorite books or our favorite movies and we read them over and over and over again, despite the fact that we know how it will end. We know what happens at the climax. We know what all the plot points are. Which goes to prove that there is something more to our favorite stories that keeps us coming back. It is not about the formula, which we have memorized. It is about the theme. The lesson. The growth by the end. We cling to that part and we come back so we are reminded again of why we love the story. 

With readers and new books it is the same. They know they like Heist books because it follows a certain pattern. They know the con artists are going to get the money. That is part of the fun. It is how that plays out that is interesting. People that love romance know the two people are going to fall in love. That is not the point. They want to see how it happens.


----------



## Chessie

Heliotrope said:


> FifthView these figure skating analogies are awesome!
> 
> There was a post a while back about how people actually love spoilers, and I've come to believe this to be true. We all love our favorite books or our favorite movies and we read them over and over and over again, despite the fact that we know how it will end. We know what happens at the climax. We know what all the plot points are. Which goes to prove that there is something more to our favorite stories that keeps us coming back. It is not about the formula, which we have memorized. It is about the theme. The lesson. The growth by the end. We cling to that part and we come back so we are reminded again of why we love the story.
> 
> With readers and new books it is the same. They know they like Heist books because it follows a certain pattern. They know the con artists are going to get the money. That is part of the fun. It is how that plays out that is interesting. People that love romance know the two people are going to fall in love. That is not the point. They want to see how it happens.



I was just thinking about mysteries in particular. Agatha Christie is my favorite author. I've read pretty much her entire list. M.C. Beaton is my second favorite mystery author. She writes cozy mysteries, same as Christie did. I always know the sleuth (either Agatha or Poirot) is going to catch the killer at the end. I know the killer is usually someone who seems the least likely but has the most to gain from the murder. Still, I've read a crap ton of these books for a reason. I love figuring things out along with the sleuth, and there's also plenty of information off page that is kept from me throughout, and etc. This doesn't take away the enjoyment. In fact, I'd get super pissed if I picked up a book that said "mystery" and the sleuth died at the end because the author wanted to be artistic. Genre conventions exist for a reason: because it's what readers want. For everything else, there's always literary fiction.


----------



## Heliotrope

Exactly. Which is why it is important to know what "kind" of story you are writing, and what the reader is going to expect, because then you can set it up right from the very beginning with a fantastic hook. 

So, as you know, when writing romance, the whole point is to get the two together at the end, so at the beginning it is important to make them as far apart as absolutely possible, as in, make them as much of an unlikely couple as possible so that right from the beginning the reader is hooked, wondering "How the heck are these two possibly going to get together?" 

That's why they read the story. That's what they want to see. It's the same with any book. Make the crime as strange or mysterious as possible so the reader wonders how the heck the detective is going to figure it out. Make the heist as hard as possible so the reader wonders how the heck the con man is going to get away with it. Make the couple as unlikely as possible so the reader wonders how they could end up together. 

Stories take planning and foresight.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

In a sense, part of the reason I worked in breaking bones to tell a character's fortune into Eve of Snows (book 1) is to forewarn the reader that things aren't going to go as expected, and that there are bigger badder things at play than initially presented... Plus, the uncertain way in which the info is presented raises questions while indirectly telling them the ending. It is also an important aspect of the world, so it was useful to have it presented early.

Never underestimate the entertainment value of giving away an "ending".


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity

^I frequently hint about the identity of the dark force throughout my book, without making it too obvious [although it seems obvious to me in retrospect, but that might just be because I'm the author].
I recently realized that reincarnation gives a whole new dimension to relationships, and Book I and II quickly fit together into one book just by realizing that.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

Heliotrope said:


> Exactly. Which is why it is important to know what "kind" of story you are writing, and what the reader is going to expect, because then you can set it up right from the very beginning with a fantastic hook.
> 
> So, as you know, when writing romance, the whole point is to get the two together at the end, so at the beginning it is important to make them as far apart as absolutely possible, as in, make them as much of an unlikely couple as possible so that right from the beginning the reader is hooked, wondering "How the heck are these two possibly going to get together?"
> 
> That's why they read the story. That's what they want to see. It's the same with any book. Make the crime as strange or mysterious as possible so the reader wonders how the heck the detective is going to figure it out. Make the heist as hard as possible so the reader wonders how the heck the con man is going to get away with it. Make the couple as unlikely as possible so the reader wonders how they could end up together.
> 
> Stories take planning and foresight.



Ok this has been a lot of discussion unrelated to the OP...maybe I should just stop saying stupid things...


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

Demesnedenoir said:


> In a sense, part of the reason I worked in breaking bones to tell a character's fortune into Eve of Snows (book 1) is to forewarn the reader that things aren't going to go as expected, and that there are bigger badder things at play than initially presented... Plus, the uncertain way in which the info is presented raises questions while indirectly telling them the ending. It is also an important aspect of the world, so it was useful to have it presented early.
> 
> Never underestimate the entertainment value of giving away an "ending".



That's foreshadowing, right? Not giving things away per se.


----------



## Chessie

Foreshadowing and promising an ending are two different things. Foreshadowing is the planting of a seed for something big later on. Promising an ending has more to do with genre conventions.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

I digressed as my brain is wont to do, heh heh. It's a relative.



DragonOfTheAerie said:


> That's foreshadowing, right? Not giving things away per se.


----------



## FifthView

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> Ok this has been a lot of discussion unrelated to the OP...maybe I should just stop saying stupid things...



Ah, my impression of the appearance of that rabbit hole was simply that you were talking about the way you write, i.e., you like to "pants" a story, discovering it as you progress, so setting out to write a romance is anathema because for all you know it'll be a different kind of story by the end of your discovery.

Nothing wrong with that.  

Somehow the discussion moved away from "not wanting to know the ending" _vis-Ã -vis pure discovery writing_ to an impression of your method as being "knowing the ending of a story is bad" and "the expected ending for romance stories is too predictable" –but I think this veered off course and wasn't at all your intended meaning?  Perhaps by the time you have discovered the full ending of a story, and after revisions etc., the story would indeed fit within the normal expectations of a genre; you just don't like starting out with a predetermined ending when you begin writing.

I do believe that the genre romance has some strong expectations attached to it, but that would be a subset conversation in a conversation about including love in our stories.  It's an important subset in my opinion, for anyone wanting to write a romance story, but that doesn't seem to apply to you (unless perhaps you give that genre a try for some future story.)


----------



## Chessie

FifthView said:


> Ah, my impression of the appearance of that rabbit hole was simply that you were talking about the way you write, i.e., you like to "pants" a story, discovering it as you progress, so setting out to write a romance is anathema because for all you know it'll be a different kind of story by the end of your discovery.
> 
> Nothing wrong with that.
> 
> Somehow the discussion moved away from "not wanting to know the ending" _vis-Ã -vis pure discovery writing_ to an impression of your method as being "knowing the ending of a story is bad" and "the expected ending for romance stories is too predictable" —but I think this veered off course and wasn't at all your intended meaning?  Perhaps by the time you have discovered the full ending of a story, and after revisions etc., the story would indeed fit within the normal expectations of a genre; you just don't like starting out with a predetermined ending when you begin writing.



Perhaps it was the broadly stroked brush of "knowing how a story ends is bad" without knowing that's what was said, but we're all responsible for how we say things, especially when it comes to literary standards and the process other writers take to create their books. I don't care how anyone else does things because it doesn't directly affect me. What I do care about is when the assumption and myths are put out there that are harmful, like...knowing your ending is bad. I've already explained my take on this, exhaustively enough. We come here to talk about writing and learn from one another. That's hard to do when people's attempts to be helpful are disregarded in the name of "art".  

Far as love stories go, I think the ending discussion is valid to this one because it depends on the type of love you're writing about, which is why it came up in the first place. It depends on genre and audience. All stories are basically love stories anyway.


----------



## FifthView

Chessie said:


> You might be thinking love story, which is not the same thing.





Chessie said:


> A love story with a happy ending is a romance, that's the proper definition, not me splitting hairs.



I'm not so sure about this, although I'm fascinated by the idea of a love story having a particular structure or expectations that are different from a romance story.

Personally, and not to screw down too deeply into my own subjective metrics....The word "romance" implies activity and endeavor.  At least it carries this connotation for me.  One _romances_ another.  A romance story, then, has this set of actions meant to accomplish an endeavor–building a particular kind of relationship when none existed before.  _A pas de deux_ [or _trois_, heh!]  The action is all about achieving that happy state of union.

A love story can be about the love but without that same kind of effort and/or intention.  For one, in some love stories the two people might begin the story already in love.  In another type, the two parties might be falling in love naturally as the story progresses, not aiming for it, contemplating it much–i.e., not really romancing each other.  And there can be other stories in which the surface plot is revealed to be incidental, maybe even in truth merely a subplot, as we come to understand that the story was really about love?  I'm stretching here, trying to remember various impressions of different love stories I've encountered in the past.  A love story about a long-time spouse descending into Alzheimer's would not necessary have a sad ending even if the situation is sad, but rather could be uplifting and reaffirming of that love in total effect.  Hmmm.....


----------



## Chessie

What I mean by love story is very fluid. It can be love for someone else, a thing, or love of Self. But every story has this in some capacity driving the character's actions.


----------



## FifthView

Chessie said:


> What I mean by love story is very fluid. It can be love for someone else, a thing, or love of Self. But every story has this in some capacity driving the character's actions.



I doubt that we can say all stories are really love stories, however...heh.

I am interested in stories about love, or those that can be called a love story, as distinguished from every other story ever written _and_ from romance stories.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity

In my latest story, the two characters start the story already in love with a young child to care for, but then I go back and tell how they met and how their relationship developed bit by bit.


----------



## Heliotrope

Interesting analysis. I'm not sure what the distinction is either... Chessie if you want to weigh in on how they are used that might be helpful? 

I saw it in a similar way as you, FifthView... Romance is a specific genre with specific plot points and expectations. When I think of romance I think of Meg Ryan lol. (Oh god, I'm old). 

But a love story could be as simple as a subplot and doesn't have to follow any specific pattern. Is that right Chessie?


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity

In the other book I have planned, the main characters are a trio all in love with each other.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

FifthView said:


> Ah, my impression of the appearance of that rabbit hole was simply that you were talking about the way you write, i.e., you like to "pants" a story, discovering it as you progress, so setting out to write a romance is anathema because for all you know it'll be a different kind of story by the end of your discovery.
> 
> Nothing wrong with that.
> 
> Somehow the discussion moved away from "not wanting to know the ending" _vis-Ã -vis pure discovery writing_ to an impression of your method as being "knowing the ending of a story is bad" and "the expected ending for romance stories is too predictable" –but I think this veered off course and wasn't at all your intended meaning?  Perhaps by the time you have discovered the full ending of a story, and after revisions etc., the story would indeed fit within the normal expectations of a genre; you just don't like starting out with a predetermined ending when you begin writing.
> 
> I do believe that the genre romance has some strong expectations attached to it, but that would be a subset conversation in a conversation about including love in our stories.  It's an important subset in my opinion, for anyone wanting to write a romance story, but that doesn't seem to apply to you (unless perhaps you give that genre a try for some future story.)



I only meant it in reference to my own writing and what I like to do...I didn't mean that everyone should do it my way or that another way is bad :/ Knowing your ending isn't bad, but I don't like it...so, I guess for me it's bad. 

And I really would dislike writing romance. I just would. I can't motivate myself to read even one romance novel, as much as I want to read EVERYTHING. I like the ability to not know for sure how things end up. I like crossing genres and twisting them and breaking them. I guess it's too bad if I can't sell those stories, because I love to write them. 

I would hate having to write within even one genre, probably. Some of my stories might turn out fitting nicely into one genre...but a lot end up a historical/horror/sci-fi/dystopian/steampunk/fantasy mashup. Like, I think everything I'm planning now combines at least three genres and subgenres. 

Also, I would hate having to write knowing what the ending would be like, or even what kind of story I was writing...I do really like figuring out things as I go. 

So, basically, genre annoys me and so does knowing what happens. Probably explains pretty well what I'm thinking and feeling, especially with the "It's a good thing I don't write romance" comment. 

No insult is intended to people who do like romance. But I wouldn't be able to do it. There's no need to tell me how much freedom is afforded within the parameters because I'm aware. I don't like the parameters. I know that a lot more goes into an ending than who ends up with who. I don't like knowing who ends up with who.

In my current story I left the possibility open for a romance, but as the story progressed it became clear that wasn't right. Which is just as well, since then I killed the guy. (I didn't know whether he would live or die right up until when it happened, either.)


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity

It's impossible to tell what sort of genre my book is. It's all over the place.


----------



## Chessie

Heliotrope said:


> Interesting analysis. I'm not sure what the distinction is either... Chessie if you want to weigh in on how they are used that might be helpful?
> 
> I saw it in a similar way as you, FifthView... Romance is a specific genre with specific plot points and expectations. When I think of romance I think of Meg Ryan lol. (Oh god, I'm old).
> 
> But a love story could be as simple as a subplot and doesn't have to follow any specific pattern. Is that right Chessie?



Not sure what you're asking. Is it my comment about love vs romance or about all stories involving love somehow?


----------



## Chessie

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> Also, I would hate having to write knowing what the ending would be like, or even what kind of story I was writing...I do really like figuring out things as I go.
> 
> So, basically, genre annoys me and so does knowing what happens.


If genre annoys you, then why do you read EVERYTHING? You *do* realize that you're basically reading the same stories over and over again, already coming into it with expectations as a reader:

-epic fantasy= the hero saves the world
-dystopian= the world is saved
-science fiction= the hero saves the world
-etc...


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

Chessie said:


> If genre annoys you, then why do you read EVERYTHING? You *do* realize that you're basically reading the same stories over and over again, already coming into it with expectations as a reader:
> 
> -epic fantasy= the hero saves the world
> -dystopian= the world is saved
> -science fiction= the hero saves the world
> -etc...



I meant in my writing, but...I suppose in my reading it applies too. 

And wouldn't that be why I read everything? Because I don't like reading the same kinds of things over and over again? I'm constantly wishing writers would branch out, both in their ideas and in their handling of them. Reading too much of the same is boring to me. I don't really expect anything of a book other than that the story is executed well. Confused at what you're getting at. Or why you feel the need to contradict me on what I say I enjoy/like/prefer. :/


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

I'm not contradicting the fact that genres have expectations attached to them, included in the definitions. Fantasy includes the fantastical, for instance. If it didn't it would be something that isn't fantasy That's true. 

But I don't like being limited to one genre when I write. And sometimes genre feels limiting when I read (though this is a different kind of thing.) As in, "Why are all these books just the same story with the same tropes over and over? There are so many more possibilities. Where are those stories?" 

^That said, my comment originally referred to my writing.


----------



## Chessie

I'm simply offering a different perspective.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity

So, which books do you feel handled love well, in your opinions?


----------



## FifthView

Heliotrope said:


> Interesting analysis. I'm not sure what the distinction is either... Chessie if you want to weigh in on how they are used that might be helpful?
> 
> I saw it in a similar way as you, FifthView... Romance is a specific genre with specific plot points and expectations. When I think of romance I think of Meg Ryan lol. (Oh god, I'm old).
> 
> But a love story could be as simple as a subplot and doesn't have to follow any specific pattern. Is that right Chessie?



Some genres are broader than others with respect to story elements and story types.  If we say that fantasy is a genre, I think it's a very broad genre with respect to these things, whereas the romance genre is more restricted.  On the other hand, a romance tale could be set in a sci-fi world, the wild west, or our modern world and have none of the fantasy elements that distinguish a fantasy–as well as in a fantasy.  

I think the problem with thinking about love stories as opposed to romances is that they are defined according to different types of element.  Well, I don't know exactly how we'd describe a "love story" by any other factor than that it's _about_ a love between two people, in which case a romance might be considered a subgenre of a love story; on the other hand, perhaps "love story" is no more a genre than "revenge tale" or "bereavement tale."


----------



## Heliotrope

Yes, that's how I thought if it, in the same sort of sub genres as "revenge story" or "survival story"... so maybe it has more to do with the goal?


----------



## Christopher Michael

FifthView said:


> on the other hand, perhaps "love story" is no more a genre than "revenge tale" or "bereavement tale."



This is the way I tend to think about it, honestly. "Love Story" is, to me, no more than a subplot, or secondary arch, within a story. It could be ANY story, even if not every story. Romance is a genre, or at least a subgenre inside every genre (You've got Spec-Fic Romance, Supernatural Romance, etc...). And, obviously, every Romance contains the Love Story, but I do not consider every Love Story to be a Romance.
I utilize variants of the Love Story inside most of my fic, because I'm a hopeless romantic and love Love. But I don't write romance. I don't like the conventions of the Romance genre, and despise almost every Romance I've ever read. But I love the limitless abilities you get to play with the Love Story.


----------



## FifthView

Christopher Michael said:


> This is the way I tend to think about it, honestly. "Love Story" is, to me, no more than a subplot, or secondary arch, within a story. It could be ANY story, even if not every story. Romance is a genre, or at least a subgenre inside every genre (You've got Spec-Fic Romance, Supernatural Romance, etc...). And, obviously, every Romance contains the Love Story, but I do not consider every Love Story to be a Romance.
> I utilize variants of the Love Story inside most of my fic, because I'm a hopeless romantic and love Love. But I don't write romance. I don't like the conventions of the Romance genre, and despise almost every Romance I've ever read. But I love the limitless abilities you get to play with the Love Story.



I don't think we should demote love stories to subplot status only, because some stories are best characterized as love stories first (or second, see below.)  

Today I happened to overhear one of the songs from the soundtrack of _Brokeback Mountain_, and it reminded me of the movie.  Its top-level genre is drama, but that's an _extremely_ broad genre.  I also think it's a love story, and the love story aspect is second only to the drama category.  It's not a romance story—even though a romance is within it.  It's really about a love impeded by insurmountable obstacles (interior and exterior obstacles.)  It's _about_ the love.  I wouldn't call that a subplot.

Movies are often categorized a little differently than novels.  IMDB and other sites call BB a _romantic drama_, but in literature "drama" typically refers back to plays/scripts, heh, and I don't think _Brokeback Mountain_ would be characterized as a romance of the type being discussed here.

It would be possible to write such a tale in pretty much any setting, fantasy, sci-fi, contemporary, with other insurmountable obstacles impeding the normal development of the type of romance story we've been discussing.*

*Edit:  Eh, _Romeo and Juliet_.  Another example of a love story that's not a typical "romance story."


----------



## oenanthe

It is AMAZING to me how many people are so eager to talk about how much they hate romance.

seriously. I'm astonished by the unthinking ease of your condemnation of the biggest and most profitable genre out there.

And I can't help but think about how the romance genre is a genre that is mostly written by women, and mostly read by women.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

oenanthe said:


> It is AMAZING to me how many people are so eager to talk about how much they hate romance.
> 
> seriously. I'm astonished by the unthinking ease of your condemnation of the biggest and most profitable genre out there.
> 
> And I can't help but think about how the romance genre is a genre that is mostly written by women, and mostly read by women.



Who was talking about hating romance? 

I wouldn't want to write it and I can't seem to interest myself in reading it, but "hate" is completely the wrong word.


----------



## Chessie

oenanthe said:


> It is AMAZING to me how many people are so eager to talk about how much they hate romance.
> 
> seriously. I'm astonished by the unthinking ease of your condemnation of the biggest and most profitable genre out there.
> 
> And I can't help but think about how the romance genre is a genre that is mostly written by women, and mostly read by women.



Thank you!! Although this is a fantasy site, so I doubt many here read romance, which one needs to do a lot of in order to understand it's not just kissy this flirty that. There are real emotional journeys with real consequences and impact for characters. 50% of all books sold are in the romance genre (which include the different subgenres like fantasy, sci fic, mystery, etc. There is no romance category under other genres. If the story's main plot is about two people falling in love and staying together forever, then it's genre romance no matter what the setting or catch is).


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

but seriously we've gone off on a huge tangent. Does anyone else here love writing sibling relationships? They're my favorite and I want to talk about it.


----------



## Ireth

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> but seriously we've gone off on a huge tangent. Does anyone else here love writing sibling relationships? They're my favorite and I want to talk about it.



Ooh, those are fun. I have a few of those in my main WIP. There's a pair of adult brothers (the MC's dad and uncle) who kick ass together and support each other and generally get along great; a dysfunctional brother/sister relationship between a prince and a princess (the prince is the villain, the princess is an ally to the MC) that drives a significant part of the backstory, and identical twin brothers who are friends of the MC, and minor characters.


----------



## Miskatonic

oenanthe said:


> It is AMAZING to me how many people are so eager to talk about how much they hate romance.
> 
> seriously. I'm astonished by the unthinking ease of your condemnation of the biggest and most profitable genre out there.
> 
> And I can't help but think about how the romance genre is a genre that is mostly written by women, and mostly read by women.



Biggest and most profitable does not equal quality.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

It's absolutely normal to dismiss the romance genre if you don't like it, just as it's perfectly normal to dismiss and deride the fantasy genre if you don't like it, or all genre fiction if you are a literary snob, LOL. Heck, I know people who only read history and who mock all fiction, they have no interest in it whatsoever. More power to them.

I for one have zero interest in the emotional journey of a love story as the main plot of the story (romance genre)... none whatsoever. I just don't give a shit, but a whole lot of people do. So what, nothing personal.

In a sense, romance and fantasy (and maybe all genre really, but these two at least are known for it) are similar in one thing at least... they have a core audience who reads a lot. The audience compared to the general population is relatively small, but voracious, and when a romance can be blown through in a day or three's read, and the reader is popping open the wallet again... and when combined with the formulaic style of the genre which allows for pumping out volumes to keep the reader slobbering for more it equals money maker. That's all good for writers.

Romance could be considered a subgenre of fantasy, but then, isn't all fiction? LOL.

I won't pick on the writing of romance too much, because most genre fiction's writing is iffy or bland or worse. However, because of the pulp nature of romance in general as breeze through reading, the formula of story is more important than quality of writing (I'm differentiating here... you can write a great story and write not so great, so to speak... and a whole lot of genre fiction is done this way... honestly, IMO, so is much of literary fiction, it's just a different bad). Again, whatever works, I just won't read it. I've only got so my breaths in my body left.


----------



## Miskatonic

I'm the same. I don't have any problem with romantic elements and character romances taking place in the story, as long as that isn't what is driving the main plot.


----------



## FifthView

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> but seriously we've gone off on a huge tangent. Does anyone else here love writing sibling relationships? They're my favorite and I want to talk about it.



Well it's huge.  And it's only a part of the whole notion of "Writing Love."  But I think that discussing the various aspects of romance stories is fitting for the topic.

That said, yeah, I think the love family members have for one another is a great sort of love in fiction.  It's the one I most enjoy, or at least it's tied with the love between friends/comrades.


----------



## Russ

Chessie said:


> Thank you!! Although this is a fantasy site, so I doubt many here read romance, which one needs to do a lot of in order to understand it's not just kissy this flirty that. There are real emotional journeys with real consequences and impact for characters. 50% of all books sold are in the romance genre (which include the different subgenres like fantasy, sci fic, mystery, etc. There is no romance category under other genres. If the story's main plot is about two people falling in love and staying together forever, then it's genre romance no matter what the setting or catch is).



The Romance genre is a funny thing.   It makes a lot of money, but gets no respect.  I have a bit of a perspective on the romance genre and why people think about it that way.

Firstly let me say some of my good friends make their living writing romance/erotica and I have known a number of very senior people at Harlequin over the years.

Romance got a bad rap, to some degree because of its success.  The books turned over very quickly and the demand was (as is) very high.  So they needed to put out a lot of material to keep up with demand.  This led to a need to standardize the series and imprints so that a lot of them could be produced in not a lot of time.  This made a great deal of romance formulaic, and publishers were quite happy to let aspiring writers know exactly what those formulae were in very strict terms.  This lead to a perception that all romances were formulaic and simple.

Some of them are, and some of them aren't.  They still sell like crazy.

I can actually think of at least one  romantic subgenre of another genre.  Romantic Suspense is a subgenre of the Thriller/Mystery genre and is doing very well these days.


----------



## FifthView

The only romance I've read over the last 5-6 years–and really, ever–has been what is called "m/m fantasy romance," i.e., romance between gay/bi men in a fantasy setting.  It's a genre that's taken off compared to what was once available.  

A quote I think I've cited before:

Love does not consist in gazing at each other, but in looking outward together in the same direction. 

–Antoine de Saint-Exupery.  (Some begin the quote with, "Life has taught us that....")​
I include it here because it helps explain two sides of the m/m fantasy romance I've encountered.

On one side are those stories which really are about the two men forming a relationship, like Ginn Hale's _Lord of the White Hell_ [2 books but really only one story split into half, for sales presumably.]  I greatly enjoyed it for its characterization and interesting worldbuilding, but the typical fantasy plot, involving a villain, was extremely threadbare, a veneer really.  The two characters who'll form a relationship don't spend much time planning how to defeat this villain, are reactionary only, because they are too busy gazing either within or at one another.  The circumstances of the villain's existence are incidental and aren't given much attention by Hale.

The other side would be a series like Lynn Flewelling's _Nightrunner_ series.  For the most part, the two characters gaze outward together, have a shared interest in solving a mystery and defeating whatever foes exist.  Even in the first two books, before they are a solid couple, their attentions are greatly focused on the exterior threat.  

Now, the first example really is a romance story, although I do think it's something of a milieu story also.  The second example probably shouldn't be characterized as a romance story.  

The second example is interesting for me because it's the sort I'd prefer to read.  I'd say that after the first book and a half of the _Nightrunners_ series of books, the characters have basically moved into a state of married love.  The question of their being together is a non-question.  And as a married couple, they can focus on shared endeavors instead.  In the Random Chat thread recently, I'd said that "Bones" Brennan and Seeley Booth were a favorite fictional couple–and I think it's for the same reason.  Married love, rather than romantic pursuits.  Even in the earlier seasons, when there is some romancing and they haven't yet established a relationship, they often break away from romantic pursuits to focus on a common goal of solving a murder and catching the bad guy.  So I wonder if this "married love" is basically like love of a friend/comrade that I generally prefer in my fiction, but with some added romantic elements.


----------



## oenanthe

Miskatonic said:


> Biggest and most profitable does not equal quality.



Heh! if you think it's so easy I invite you to try it.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

FifthView said:


> The only romance I've read over the last 5-6 years–and really, ever–has been what is called "m/m fantasy romance," i.e., romance between gay/bi men in a fantasy setting.  It's a genre that's taken off compared to what was once available.
> 
> A quote I think I've cited before:
> 
> Love does not consist in gazing at each other, but in looking outward together in the same direction.
> 
> –Antoine de Saint-Exupery.  (Some begin the quote with, "Life has taught us that....")​
> I include it here because it helps explain two sides of the m/m fantasy romance I've encountered.
> 
> On one side are those stories which really are about the two men forming a relationship, like Ginn Hale's _Lord of the White Hell_ [2 books but really only one story split into half, for sales presumably.]  I greatly enjoyed it for its characterization and interesting worldbuilding, but the typical fantasy plot, involving a villain, was extremely threadbare, a veneer really.  The two characters who'll form a relationship don't spend much time planning how to defeat this villain, are reactionary only, because they are too busy gazing either within or at one another.  The circumstances of the villain's existence are incidental and aren't given much attention by Hale.
> 
> The other side would be a series like Lynn Flewelling's _Nightrunner_ series.  For the most part, the two characters gaze outward together, have a shared interest in solving a mystery and defeating whatever foes exist.  Even in the first two books, before they are a solid couple, their attentions are greatly focused on the exterior threat.
> 
> Now, the first example really is a romance story, although I do think it's something of a milieu story also.  The second example probably shouldn't be characterized as a romance story.
> 
> The second example is interesting for me because it's the sort I'd prefer to read.  I'd say that after the first book and a half of the _Nightrunners_ series of books, the characters have basically moved into a state of married love.  The question of their being together is a non-question.  And as a married couple, they can focus on shared endeavors instead.  In the Random Chat thread recently, I'd said that "Bones" Brennan and Seeley Booth were a favorite fictional couple–and I think it's for the same reason.  Married love, rather than romantic pursuits.  Even in the earlier seasons, when there is some romancing and they haven't yet established a relationship, they often break away from romantic pursuits to focus on a common goal of solving a murder and catching the bad guy.  So I wonder if this "married love" is basically like love of a friend/comrade that I generally prefer in my fiction, but with some added romantic elements.



This is an interesting point to make. Aside from love stories/romance stories, I think that writing about an established relationship ("married love") is a different thing altogether.  

The relationship is still evolving, as is any relationship, but it's stable. There's no question over whether the characters will be together because they're already together. Difficulties in the relationship might cause conflict, I guess, but the "how are they going to get together?" thing isn't there. Yeah, I suppose it is similar to the friend/comrade type of love 

Is it me or are there not many stories like this...? 

I suddenly have the urge to read a fantasy story about an elderly married couple roaming the countryside slaying orcs and dragons...


----------



## Chessie

Russ said:


> The Romance genre is a funny thing.   It makes a lot of money, but gets no respect.  I have a bit of a perspective on the romance genre and why people think about it that way.
> 
> Firstly let me say some of my good friends make their living writing romance/erotica and I have known a number of very senior people at Harlequin over the years.
> 
> Romance got a bad rap, to some degree because of its success.  The books turned over very quickly and the demand was (as is) very high.  So they needed to put out a lot of material to keep up with demand.  This led to a need to standardize the series and imprints so that a lot of them could be produced in not a lot of time.  This made a great deal of romance formulaic, and publishers were quite happy to let aspiring writers know exactly what those formulae were in very strict terms.  This lead to a perception that all romances were formulaic and simple.
> 
> Some of them are, and some of them aren't.  They still sell like crazy.
> 
> I can actually think of at least one  romantic subgenre of another genre.  Romantic Suspense is a subgenre of the Thriller/Mystery genre and is doing very well these days.



A fellow Indie shared some stats that she put together (on another forum) and it showed Thriller & Suspenseful romances being the highest selling ones. So...here's an idea for you. 

Also, @ Miskatonic, there's a lot of crappy books in every genre, unfortunately. And seriously, for everyone who thinks writing believable romances is easy, try it someday. It requires specific elements done carefully, and it takes a lot of study in order to be able to understand it, just like fantasy. All of us have probably read a million fantasy books and know what goes into them--so if a mystery writer decided to write an epic fantasy, there's a lot they would get wrong writing one based on their inexperience with the genre. Same goes for romance, which, btw...is a big deal for humans in general. How many love songs have been written and become huge hits? What drives us to go to the clubs Friday night or to treat cuties with affection? Many of have fallen in love and lived happily ever after. Not to mention if romance didn't exist none of us would be here.

You guys act like it's a dirty thing lol. It may be "formulaic" but so is epic fantasy and space opera. Genre fiction, as Des said, in general is formulaic. Who cares? We all still read it.


----------



## Chessie

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> This is an interesting point to make. Aside from love stories/romance stories, I think that writing about an established relationship ("married love") is a different thing altogether.
> 
> The relationship is still evolving, as is any relationship, but it's stable..



Marriage stable? *HA!*

It's hard work, cookie.


----------



## FifthView

Well the universal Romance Story theme song would probably be this:






--although to be truly accurate, both parties would be singing it to each other simultaneously, heh.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity

> This is an interesting point to make. Aside from love stories/romance stories, I think that writing about an established relationship ("married love") is a different thing altogether.



The two main characters in my next book are married, and have a child to look after as well. They aren't 'heroes' in that they save the world; they just try to live the best they can.


----------



## Miskatonic

Chessie said:


> A fellow Indie shared some stats that she put together (on another forum) and it showed Thriller & Suspenseful romances being the highest selling ones. So...here's an idea for you.
> 
> Also, @ Miskatonic, there's a lot of crappy books in every genre, unfortunately. And seriously, for everyone who thinks writing believable romances is easy, try it someday. It requires specific elements done carefully, and it takes a lot of study in order to be able to understand it, just like fantasy. All of us have probably read a million fantasy books and know what goes into them--so if a mystery writer decided to write an epic fantasy, there's a lot they would get wrong writing one based on their inexperience with the genre. Same goes for romance, which, btw...is a big deal for humans in general. How many love songs have been written and become huge hits? What drives us to go to the clubs Friday night or to treat cuties with affection? Many of have fallen in love and lived happily ever after. Not to mention if romance didn't exist none of us would be here.
> 
> You guys act like it's a dirty thing lol. It may be "formulaic" but so is epic fantasy and space opera. Genre fiction, as Des said, in general is formulaic. Who cares? We all still read it.



Which is why I don't binge read genre fiction in the first place.


----------



## Chessie

Fair enough point.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

Chessie said:


> Marriage stable? *HA!*
> 
> It's hard work, cookie.



Stable as in...the characters are together, and they will remain so. There's no question about what their relationship is.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

Miskatonic said:


> Which is why I don't binge read genre fiction in the first place.



Same...

I think most of what I read would fall under literary fiction? Not 100% sure of the division between the two though.


----------



## TheKillerBs

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> and they will remain so.



Well, divorce is kinda a thing.


----------



## Ireth

TheKillerBs said:


> Well, divorce is kinda a thing.



Yes, but that would counteract the idea of a *stable* relationship.


----------



## Chessie

Ireth said:


> Yes, but that would counteract the idea of a *stable* relationship.


Not at all considering how many arranged marriage books there are out there.


----------



## TheKillerBs

Ireth said:


> Yes, but that would counteract the idea of a *stable* relationship.



That's kinda the point. It isn't stable and you don't know that the characters will remain together.


----------



## FifthView

TheKillerBs said:


> That's kinda the point. It isn't stable and you don't know that the characters will remain together.



If I wrote a story involving a married couple, I wouldn't be sure to include every possible marriage arrangement and outcome that we might suppose to be possible on the basis of the entire history of the human race.  It's a single instance.  And barring death, they will not part; it's a given.  This kind of marriage happens.


----------



## Chessie

Arranged marriages are a thing in fantasy. I've read a few fantasy books with that situation. So, the journey is really about their emotional journey, not the label of the relationship itself. Meaning even if characters are married, they're still undertaking an emotional journey within story and that should be threatening their status all the time.


----------



## Ireth

TheKillerBs said:


> That's kinda the point. It isn't stable and you don't know that the characters will remain together.



But Dragon stated specifically that the relationship they had in mind IS stable and thus will NOT lead to divorce. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

I mean, if I wanted to write about a married relationship that was fractured and dysfunctional, I could, I suppose...

HALP. Everything I say turns into a
disagreement.


----------



## Chessie

It's discussion not disagreement. The internet is a fabulous thing.


----------



## FifthView

Chessie said:


> Arranged marriages are a thing in fantasy. I've read a few fantasy books with that situation. So, the journey is really about their emotional journey, not the label of the relationship itself. Meaning even if characters are married, they're still undertaking an emotional journey within story and that should be threatening their status all the time.



Nope, with the exception of death, unless they are unkillable immortals.

And by mentioning "married love," I didn't mean a reference to the institution of marriage.  The two characters I mentioned were not even technically married in the sense of making vows.  But I think it's fair to call it a "married love," for want of a better word.  Common law marriage?  Call it committed love, unquestioned love and partnership, whatever, if the term "married" brings bad associations.


----------



## TheKillerBs

Ireth said:


> But Dragon stated specifically that the relationship they had in mind IS stable and thus will NOT lead to divorce. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.



Let me clarify. The state of marriage is not a stable relationship. Chessie said it better, probably because she isn't stealing minutes to post from work.


----------



## Chessie

FifthView said:


> Nope, with the exception of death, unless they are unkillable immortals.
> 
> And by mentioning "married love," I didn't mean a reference to the institution of marriage.  The two characters I mentioned were not even technically married in the sense of making vows.  But I think it's fair to call it a "married love," for want of a better word.  Common law marriage?  Call it committed love, unquestioned love and partnership, whatever, if the term "married" brings bad associations.


It should still be about the emotional journey though. Isn't that what internal goals are? Just because a couple lives happily ever after doesn't mean there aren't problems and threats to the stability of their marriage. Your argument doesn't make sense on a social & scientific basis alone. But alas, that's just my opinion and I seriously need to go write! 



TheKillerBs said:


> Let me clarify. The state of marriage is not a stable relationship. Chessie said it better, probably because she isn't stealing minutes to post from work.



LOL I am actually. My manuscript is staring me in the face!


----------



## FifthView

Chessie said:


> Your argument doesn't make sense on a social & scientific basis alone.



You haven't met my parents and my sister, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Incidentally, there's another thread I've thought of starting but have worried it'd be too complex and potentially contentious, concerning the role of character desires and needs in stories.  It would probably tie into this topic quite well, but maybe best to save that discussion.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

FifthView said:


> Nope, with the exception of death, unless they are unkillable immortals.
> 
> And by mentioning "married love," I didn't mean a reference to the institution of marriage.  The two characters I mentioned were not even technically married in the sense of making vows.  But I think it's fair to call it a "married love," for want of a better word.  Common law marriage?  Call it committed love, unquestioned love and partnership, whatever, if the term "married" brings bad associations.



^This. 

What I'm referring to is that the characters are already committed to each other. Sure, their relationship still is in a state of evolution constantly, but they are still together, and their commitment means they'll stay together. That's really all I meant by the relationship being stable. 

And I guess you could write about characters' journeys trying to maintain the stability of their marriage. And yes, divorce is a thing. But I was picturing a story about two characters who are in a relationship and it's just a fact, like two characters being brothers, and the plot isn't centered around them trying to stay together or maintain stability. and it addresses and discusses the nature of their relationship a lot, showing the ups and downs and ins and outs, but the main plot is something outside of their relationship. I guess I imagined the relationship as a subplot. Like the idea I mentioned with the elderly married couple slaying orcs. 

But, yeah, you could totally write the story of the emotional journeys of two married people. Would it be the same as a romance? The characters are already together, but the goal has not been achieved.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

You can write a story exploring a relationship without having its stability be threatened, correct?


----------



## TheKillerBs

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> You can write a story exploring a relationship without having its stability be threatened, correct?



You could. You would still have to come up with something to keep it interesting though.


----------



## FifthView

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> You can write a story exploring a relationship without having its stability be threatened, correct?



Absolutely.  For instance, the exterior threats could inspire a desire to protect a loved one, a fear for the loved one's wellbeing.  Maybe on a technical level the potential for death is a threat to the stability of the relationship; but I don't think this is what Chessie's referring to.  It could be the two are worried about people outside that relationship, the state of the populace, the state of the world, and the story explores how they work together.  It's not all about exploring how their own partnership can be threatened with dissolution, the internal doubts about the viability and worthiness of remaining a couple.


----------



## Ireth

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> You can write a story exploring a relationship without having its stability be threatened, correct?



I'd like to think so. My WIP Bellringer has a f/f relationship as its subplot; the main plot revolves around the MC and her love interest thwarting the efforts of a man who wants to kill all werewolves (which is a big deal since the MC is one). The only threats to the relationship are external -- people trying to kidnap and/or kill them. And in the end they're not ready for a happily ever after; they've just realized that they actually love each other rather than just being friends and sharing a room. I don't even have them kiss once.


----------



## Chessie

I just think that the idea of a romantic relationship never being unstable is completely unrealistic. There's always something going on that could lead people to separate. Always. Even outside influence such as a family member's death. Anything could cause it, really. But I rest my case.


----------



## Ireth

Chessie said:


> I just think that the idea of a romantic relationship never being unstable is completely unrealistic. There's always something going on that could lead people to separate. Always. Even outside influence such as a family member's death. Anything could cause it, really. But I rest my case.



The point isn't that they *could not* separate. The point is that they *don't*. That's all I'm going to say.


----------



## Gryphos

It might be interesting to discuss the idea of the rejection of certain kinds of love by characters.

For example, one of my stories deals heavily in the concept of family. The main characters consist of the three children of an earl, setting off on a quest to avenge her murder out of a sense of honour. One of the siblings is Fletcher, who growing up managed to just about resist her parents' attempts to groom her to be sold away for political marriage and fulfilled her own desire of becoming a knight just like her older sister. The main thrust of Fletcher's arc is that she comes to the realisation that she doesn't love her parents, as one supposedly should, but outright embraces her hatred for them. Despite being told by them many times that 'everything we do is for your own good', she basically turns around and says 'no, f*ck you'.

She recognises that there is no inherent reason to love one's family, and in doing so, she rejects that form of love. To add a sinister flavour to this, when she finally confronts the murderer of her mother, she thanks him, before killing him anyway.

I find the idea of rejecting love interesting, and it can probably be applied to all forms of love for interesting character development.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

Chessie said:


> I just think that the idea of a romantic relationship never being unstable is completely unrealistic. There's always something going on that could lead people to separate. Always. Even outside influence such as a family member's death. Anything could cause it, really. But I rest my case.



True. But the story need not include or focus on that.


----------



## FifthView

Chessie said:


> I just think that the idea of a romantic relationship never being unstable is completely unrealistic. There's always something going on that could lead people to separate. Always. Even outside influence such as a family member's death. Anything could cause it, really. But I rest my case.



About fifteen years ago, maybe a little less, I was with my mom and I suddenly realized something, so I asked her, "Have you and Dad ever fought?  I can't remember you ever really fighting?"

And she said, Nope.  Although she did add that they'd had maybe three big disagreements.  But these weren't relationship-threatening, apparently.  And three big disagreements in what would have been about 30 years of marriage at that time is rather remarkable.  I thought so, at least.

Supposing that the world is chockablock full of potential spoilers, it's reasonable to create a fictional marriage and throw these things at it, with the goal of exploring those aspects and possibly ending that fictional marriage.  But I don't think it's reasonable to say that every marriage will encounter an irresolvable, marriage-ending catalyst, nor even that every marriage is riddled with fault lines and only the very lucky ones avoid splitting.  A fictional story only need span a reduced timeline in any case, i.e. not encompass 70 years of life for the characters, and I don't see the absolute need for throwing these things at the marriage in order for an entertaining and enjoyable story to be created.


----------



## TheKillerBs

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> True. But the story need not include or focus on that.



It wouldn't be a story about the relationship in that case though.


----------



## FifthView

TheKillerBs said:


> It wouldn't be a story about the relationship in that case though.



Is the only thing interesting about any relationship its instability, or the fact that it can end?  I don't think so.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

TheKillerBs said:


> It wouldn't be a story about the relationship in that case though.



I disagree. 

A story could explore the relationship between two characters without anything ever coming within range of tearing them apart. It might focus around the evolution of their relationship and how they both adjust. It might focus on how they both react to an outside force. It might be about how they discover new things about each other and grow closer to each other. It might just focus on the ups and downs of their relationship without any of the low points being low enough to snap the relationship in two. It might be on the surface a story about how they defeat an evil overlord, but really it would be about their relationship. 

All these things probably would involve strain on the relationship, and struggle to coexist peacefully or be happy and satisfied. But any of those conflicts within the relationship might never come close to ending it. 

And the conflicts might not even be within the relationship. They might come from outside, and still affect the relationship.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

FifthView said:


> About fifteen years ago, maybe a little less, I was with my mom and I suddenly realized something, so I asked her, "Have you and Dad ever fought?  I can't remember you ever really fighting?"
> 
> And she said, Nope.  Although she did add that they'd had maybe three big disagreements.  But these weren't relationship-threatening, apparently.  And three big disagreements in what would have been about 30 years of marriage at that time is rather remarkable.  I thought so, at least.
> 
> Supposing that the world is chockablock full of potential spoilers, it's reasonable to create a fictional marriage and throw these things at it, with the goal of exploring those aspects and possibly ending that fictional marriage.  But I don't think it's reasonable to say that every marriage will encounter an irresolvable, marriage-ending catalyst, nor even that every marriage is riddled with fault lines and only the very lucky ones avoid splitting.  A fictional story only need span a reduced timeline in any case, i.e. not encompass 70 years of life for the characters, and I don't see the absolute need for throwing these things at the marriage in order for an entertaining and enjoyable story to be created.



I think it's sad that in modern society we think of marriage as something of a ticking time bomb ready to go off.


----------



## TheKillerBs

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> I disagree.
> 
> A story could explore the relationship between two characters without anything ever coming within range of tearing them apart. It might focus around the evolution of their relationship and how they both adjust. It might focus on how they both react to an outside force. It might be about how they discover new things about each other and grow closer to each other. It might just focus on the ups and downs of their relationship without any of the low points being low enough to snap the relationship in two. It might be on the surface a story about how they defeat an evil overlord, but really it would be about their relationship.
> 
> All these things probably would involve strain on the relationship, and struggle to coexist peacefully or be happy and satisfied. But any of those conflicts within the relationship might never come close to ending it.
> 
> And the conflicts might not even be within the relationship. They might come from outside.



Actually, it seems like you agree with me. You're talking about elements impacting a relationship. How those elements can influence the relationship can be positively or negatively. But as the reader, I cannot know what the end result will be until the resolution of the story/arc.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

TheKillerBs said:


> Actually, it seems like you agree with me. You're talking about elements impacting a relationship. How those elements can influence the relationship can be positively or negatively. But as the reader, I cannot know what the end result will be until the resolution of the story/arc.



Well...oops? lol.


----------



## Nimue

This conversation doesn't make any sense. This digression started by Dragon saying that a story with a married couple means their relationship would be stable and its ending status predictable.  People: Not necessarily, the relationship could be unstable in these ways.  Other people: No, we're talking about a stable relationship.  Why does it need to be unstable?  ...This misses the reason Chess was talking about the possibilities of instability in the first place.  Now it's is an argument about the nature of marriage?  Why?


----------



## Russ

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> I disagree.
> 
> A story could explore the relationship between two characters without anything ever coming within range of tearing them apart. It might focus around the evolution of their relationship and how they both adjust. It might focus on how they both react to an outside force. It might be about how they discover new things about each other and grow closer to each other. It might just focus on the ups and downs of their relationship without any of the low points being low enough to snap the relationship in two. It might be on the surface a story about how they defeat an evil overlord, but really it would be about their relationship.
> 
> All these things probably would involve strain on the relationship, and struggle to coexist peacefully or be happy and satisfied. But any of those conflicts within the relationship might never come close to ending it.
> 
> And the conflicts might not even be within the relationship. They might come from outside, and still affect the relationship.



You could choose to write about a relationship that was evolving that did not come close to falling apart.  You could also write about  my choice of what to have for dinner tonight.  It would be missing a certain excitement.

Good fiction requires reader investment in good characters with something at stake.  People care about high stakes.  They don't want to watch me play $5 blackjack they want to watch million dollar poker tournaments where there is a lot at stake.  That is why at the end of the apprentice someone gets fired not demoted or put on probation.

Readers like high stakes.  If the relationship is the a subject of the fiction, putting it at risk keeps the stakes high.  I think it is one of the reasons where you rarely see fantasy fiction without violence.  Life and limb are stakes people will care about.


----------



## Russ

Chessie said:


> A fellow Indie shared some stats that she put together (on another forum) and it showed Thriller & Suspenseful romances being the highest selling ones. So...here's an idea for you.



I don't have what it takes to write romantic suspense,  but I am at peace with that.  

I really believe that people miss out when they downplay or don't consider the romance genre from either a technical writing or business perspective, especially people who are going indy.  The techniques used to market indy or small press e pubs in romance and erotic have been proven time and time again to be incredibly effective.

For instance I have spent some time talking with Lexi Blake and have seen her do a great presentation on how to be a successful indy writer in genre fiction that was not at all related to romance in general.  And she has put how many books in the NYT top ten as an indy writer?  Her business model is awesome.  Polished and professional, logical and not that hard to emulate.  Well worth the time to learn about it if you want to do structurally sound writing and make a living at writing.  I would say the same thing about CJ Lyons.

Even if you never want to write romance, there is a lot to be learned from it and I think you miss out if you don't make the effort to learn from them.

There are flashier and more controversial people talking about indy publishing (holding back rant here) but there are few doing a better job systematically than some of the indy and small e presses in the romance and genre field in keeping their clients happy and creating an income stream.  And you don't even have to name your character after a popular alcohol.


----------



## FifthView

Nimue said:


> This conversation doesn't make any sense. This digression started by Dragon saying that a story with a married couple means their relationship would be stable and its ending status predictable.  People: Not necessarily, the relationship could be unstable in these ways.  Other people: No, we're talking about a stable relationship.  Why does it need to be unstable?  ...This misses the reason Chess was talking about the possibilities of instability in the first place.  Now it's is an argument about the nature of marriage?  Why?



Well, to be fair to DOTA, that original comment included "married love" in quote marks.  And, "it's stable. There's no question over whether the characters will be together because they're already together."

That's a far cry from saying a couple being married means the relationship by definition is stable.  DOTA was referencing my own post in which I gave an example of an established relationship in which the question of its existing is not a question.  DOTA was referencing a specific case.

Now, for my part, I've mostly been thinking in terms of having such a couple and not of writing a story _about_ such a relationship, i.e. the primary focus of the story isn't the relationship.  (So....the "married" couple are focused on an exterior antagonist, together, or looking outward together and engaged in a common endeavor.)

I do think we sometimes run into problems when using the word "about" in this way.  Is _Romeo and Juliet_ about love, or is it about civil dysfunction, or about both of these things in conflict?  Same with _Brokeback Mountain_:  Is it about their love or about the social and internalized barriers to that love or about both at the same time?

_Edit: _ So, to complete the thought, heh, are the _Nightrunners_ books about each of their central plots involving various antagonists, or are they about the married couple engaged in fighting against these villains and thus also to some extent about such a relationship?  It can be a complicated question and I wonder if that word "about" might sometimes cause unnecessary confusion.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

Russ said:


> You could choose to write about a relationship that was evolving that did not come close to falling apart.  You could also write about  my choice of what to have for dinner tonight.  It would be missing a certain excitement.
> 
> Good fiction requires reader investment in good characters with something at stake.  People care about high stakes.  They don't want to watch me play $5 blackjack they want to watch million dollar poker tournaments where there is a lot at stake.  That is why at the end of the apprentice someone gets fired not demoted or put on probation.
> 
> Readers like high stakes.  If the relationship is the a subject of the fiction, putting it at risk keeps the stakes high.  I think it is one of the reasons where you rarely see fantasy fiction without violence.  Life and limb are stakes people will care about.



Might the stakes in a story primarily about a relationship center on something external, for example, the goal they are both trying to achieve? 

I consider my MCs' relationships central to my stories...but, that doesn't mean the relationships themselves are threatened. 

You could argue that the story isn't really "about" the relationship if the main conflict isn't centered around the relationship, but I don't see it that way. If both characters are central to the story and fighting/suffering/struggling together, the main conflict might be external. But the main transformation, the emotional journey, might center around their relationship. In my view, that would be the deeper point of the story, or what the story is really "about." 

This conversation *is* going in confusing directions...


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

FifthView said:


> Well, to be fair to DOTA, that original comment included "married love" in quote marks.  And, "it's stable. There's no question over whether the characters will be together because they're already together."
> 
> That's a far cry from saying a couple being married means the relationship by definition is stable.  DOTA was referencing my own post in which I gave an example of an established relationship in which the question of its existing is not a question.  DOTA was referencing a specific case.
> 
> Now, for my part, I've mostly been thinking in terms of having such a couple and not of writing a story _about_ such a relationship, i.e. the primary focus of the story isn't the relationship.  (So....the "married" couple are focused on an exterior antagonist, together, or looking outward together and engaged in a common endeavor.)
> 
> I do think we sometimes run into problems when using the word "about" in this way.  Is _Romeo and Juliet_ about love, or is it about civil dysfunction, or about both of these things in conflict?  Same with _Brokeback Mountain_:  Is it about their love or about the social and internalized barriers to that love or about both at the same time?
> 
> _Edit: _ So, to complete the thought, heh, are the _Nightrunners_ books about each of their central plots involving various antagonists, or are they about the married couple engaged in fighting against these villains and thus also to some extent about such a relationship?  It can be a complicated question and I wonder if that word "about" might sometimes cause unnecessary confusion.



I learned about the importance of defining one's terms in my study of logic, but nothing has hammered it into my head like spending time on this forum...


----------



## Demesnedenoir

It is amazing how often I find myself saying some variation of... depending on how you define it, heh heh. Language and communication are a B, but of course, if they weren't, writers wouldn't have a job... depending on how you define job... and writer... oh goodness.



DragonOfTheAerie said:


> I learned about the importance of defining one's terms in my study of logic, but nothing has hammered it into my head like spending time on this forum...


----------



## TheKillerBs

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> I learned about the importance of defining one's terms in my study of logic, but nothing has hammered it into my head like spending time on this forum...



It's the internet. Miscommunication will happen. Don't sweat it.


----------



## Heliotrope

FifthView, 

The example I gave on that post was Richard and Khalan from the Sword of Truth series. I know, I know, people will give me a hard time about liking the series (sheepish face) but as a kid I LOVED it. 

Richard and Khalan had that sort of 'married' love you speak of. I think they did get married in later books. But the focus was not on their relationship (which added nice characterization and stakes to the plot) it was on saving the world. So the 'love story' was a really nice side plot, similar to the love story between Han Solo and Princess Leia. Star Wars is not a romance, but it has a nice little love story sub plot that adds a nice human dimension to the characters. 

Richard and Khalan often had to fight to stay together, or had to split up to beat the bad guy, and sometimes they fought and questioned their relationship and to me (as a teenager) it felt very real. But that was not the focus of the story. 

Often time the "love story" b-plot is what carries the "theme" of the story. So if I'm using Blake Snyder's story types: 

HUNGER GAMES was a "Dude with a problem" with a "buddy love b-plot." 

The theme: There is more to life than simply survival. 

In the first act Katniss (and Gale) believe that life is simply about survival. They must hunt, feed their families, do what they need to do to survive. They believe if they get picked for the games it will be no different than hunting in the woods. They will just kill off the opponents and do whatever they need to do to survive. 

Prim is picked for the Games, and in survival mode, Katniss volunteers for her sister, knowing she can survive better than Prim can. She fully intends to simply win, then come home and forget it ever happened. 

B-Plot: Peeta (the love story) carries the theme. He believes there is more to the games than simply survival. He wants to show the capitol that they can throw him into an arena, but they can never make him a monster. They can never change him. He knows he is not going to survive and he doesn't care. He isn't going to go out swinging. He wants to go out as himself. He wants to stay true to his beliefs of goodness and kindness. We are shown that he took a beating from his mother once simply so that he could share some bread with Katniss a few years earlier. That is they type of person he is. He believes in humanity. Katniss does not understand this mindset. 

They are forced into the Games, which is the main plot. The main goal for Katniss is to survive. But over the course of the games she begins to make alliances, she learns to "play the game", she is forced to spend more time with Peeta, where she starts to fall for him for real, and she learns that life can't just be about survival. It has to be about something more. It is not so black and white as she and Gale once believed. She begins to admire Peeta's view of the world and himself. 

So by the end she has learned the lesson she needs to learn. Life is about standing up for what you believe in, trying to make change, caring about more than yourself. And that is why she and Peeta win at the end. 

So the story is "Dude with a Problem" (Katniss must survive the Hunger Games) and the "buddy love" romance b-plot is what carries the theme.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity

I've totally lost track of the discussion.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

TheCrystallineEntity said:


> I've totally lost track of the discussion.



Me too. Sorry


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

Heliotrope said:


> FifthView,
> 
> The example I gave on that post was Richard and Khalan from the Sword of Truth series. I know, I know, people will give me a hard time about liking the series (sheepish face) but as a kid I LOVED it.
> 
> Richard and Khalan had that sort of 'married' love you speak of. I think they did get married in later books. But the focus was not on their relationship (which added nice characterization and stakes to the plot) it was on saving the world. So the 'love story' was a really nice side plot, similar to the love story between Han Solo and Princess Leia. Star Wars is not a romance, but it has a nice little love story sub plot that adds a nice human dimension to the characters.
> 
> Richard and Khalan often had to fight to stay together, or had to split up to beat the bad guy, and sometimes they fought and questioned their relationship and to me (as a teenager) it felt very real. But that was not the focus of the story.
> 
> Often time the "love story" b-plot is what carries the "theme" of the story. So if I'm using Blake Snyder's story types:
> 
> HUNGER GAMES was a "Dude with a problem" with a "buddy love b-plot."
> 
> The theme: There is more to life than simply survival.
> 
> In the first act Katniss (and Gale) believe that life is simply about survival. They must hunt, feed their families, do what they need to do to survive. They believe if they get picked for the games it will be no different than hunting in the woods. They will just kill off the opponents and do whatever they need to do to survive.
> 
> Prim is picked for the Games, and in survival mode, Katniss volunteers for her sister, knowing she can survive better than Prim can. She fully intends to simply win, then come home and forget it ever happened.
> 
> B-Plot: Peeta (the love story) carries the theme. He believes there is more to the games than simply survival. He wants to show the capitol that they can throw him into an arena, but they can never make him a monster. They can never change him. He knows he is not going to survive and he doesn't care. He isn't going to go out swinging. He wants to go out as himself. He wants to stay true to his beliefs of goodness and kindness. We are shown that he took a beating from his mother once simply so that he could share some bread with Katniss a few years earlier. That is they type of person he is. He believes in humanity. Katniss does not understand this mindset.
> 
> They are forced into the Games, which is the main plot. The main goal for Katniss is to survive. But over the course of the games she begins to make alliances, she learns to "play the game", she is forced to spend more time with Peeta, where she starts to fall for him for real, and she learns that life can't just be about survival. It has to be about something more. It is not so black and white as she and Gale once believed. She begins to admire Peeta's view of the world and himself.
> 
> So by the end she has learned the lesson she needs to learn. Life is about standing up for what you believe in, trying to make change, caring about more than yourself. And that is why she and Peeta win at the end.
> 
> So the story is "Dude with a Problem" (Katniss must survive the Hunger Games) and the "buddy love" romance b-plot is what carries the theme.



I was reading this and I thought, "I wish The Hunger Games was as interesting as she makes it sound." 

I found that book so disappointing.


----------



## Gribba

Ok I am very late joining in here but... :wub:

I am madly in love with LOVE!!! I love LOVE!!! 
I write all kinds of love. When I write about love in my stories, love is something that either drives my character/s and/or is part of the development of that person.
Love is this amazing thing that happens between people! I am not going to go through all the types as they have been mentioned in this thread, anyway... 

What I find fascinating and amazing about romantic love, is that it begins with facing the possibility of rejection. Allowing oneself to either receive love as well as give it and begin living the story and writing the memories, of that love. Or taking the rejection and closing the book on it and be prepared to allow another book to open, regardless of the pain of former rejection. That is the first bravest parts of love.
But romantic love is also deeply based in trust, giving someone your trust before it is earned, trust in love, and by doing so you are trusting another person with, all of you. Trust that, that person will treat it with care and proof worthy of it. It is incredibly vulnerable thing to do, which is the other brave thing about love. Choosing love is such a brave choice and I love when it is done well in a story. 
I do not always include romantic love in my stories but I tend to like having some form of love in my story, often as a small part of the story for the overall growth of a character (because love in general, is also about growth as a person, compromise, hard work and well, SO much more and that provides a large room for a character to grow in).

I tend to like all kinds of love in stories i read and I mean fantasy & sci fi novels (I have only read very few romance novels so I can not say much about that genre).


----------



## FifthView

Heliotrope said:


> FifthView,
> 
> The example I gave on that post was Richard and Khalan from the Sword of Truth series. I know, I know, people will give me a hard time about liking the series (sheepish face) but as a kid I LOVED it.



Y'know, I loved the series too--in the _Legend of the Seeker_ version, heh.  Haven't read the books.



> Richard and Khalan often had to fight to stay together, or had to split up to beat the bad guy, and sometimes they fought and questioned their relationship and to me _*(as a teenager)*_ it felt very real.



Ha, y'know, I've thought of commenting on the teen/YA vs __________ aspect of things.  There are a lot of songs that I once loved but now when I listen to them, I'm somewhat _meh_.  An awful lot of music is written from a teen/YA point of view which, honestly, probably shouldn't be restricted to those real age groups but still....The themes don't have the same kind of pull for me now as before.  This might be a serious digression however.

I do think that the way love is used in a subplot can be very interesting.  

I'm going to take a look at Blake Snyder's story types, because I've been thinking that "love story" or "revenge tale" more often describe a _story archetype_ than a genre, per se.  Either, for instance, can fit within the broader genres like fantasy, sci-fi, western, period-historical, and so forth.  Kinda like romance stories.  Perhaps on one level (or sub-sub levels, heh) they could be called genres.  Let's add "heist story" to that mix.  But the romance story also happens to have become a well-recognized genre slot for marketing reasons—people like reading that kind of a story.  (So it's easier to find a romance story than, say, a revenge tale?  I mean, beyond using a Google or Amazon search for the term?  Amazon does have a "heist" category, I've just discovered.)

Used as a subplot, a love story or romance can do a lot for characterization, theme, etc.  But sometimes, the relationship is just the relationship, a flavor, not a subplot, and might provide an opportunity for improving these things without also needing an emotional rollercoaster ride, breaking up and getting back together, doubting and turmoil in paradise.  Did Mr. and Mrs. Weasley ever go through that or contemplate divorce?  Honestly, it's been so long I don't remember.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity

I highly suggest [to those of you who can stand violence, blood, and nightmare fuel] to read the epic manga Claymore. It explores many aspects of love as well as the truth of what humanity is. 
Here are the twin goddesses of love, Teresa and Clare:












[Don't watch the anime; it's terrible.]


----------



## Heliotrope

FifthView said:


> Y'know, I loved the series too--in the _Legend of the Seeker_ version, heh.  Haven't read the books.
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, y'know, I've thought of commenting on the teen/YA vs __________ aspect of things.  There are a lot of songs that I once loved but now when I listen to them, I'm somewhat _meh_.  An awful lot of music is written from a teen/YA point of view which, honestly, probably shouldn't be restricted to those real age groups but still....The themes don't have the same kind of pull for me now as before.  This might be a serious digression however.
> 
> I do think that the way love is used in a subplot can be very interesting.
> 
> I'm going to take a look at Blake Snyder's story types, because I've been thinking that "love story" or "revenge tale" more often describe a _story archetype_ than a genre, per se.  Either, for instance, can fit within the broader genres like fantasy, sci-fi, western, period-historical, and so forth.  Kinda like romance stories.  Perhaps on one level (or sub-sub levels, heh) they could be called genres.  Let's add "heist story" to that mix.  But the romance story also happens to have become a well-recognized genre slot for marketing reasons—people like reading that kind of a story.  (So it's easier to find a romance story than, say, a revenge tale?  I mean, beyond using a Google or Amazon search for the term?  Amazon does have a "heist" category, I've just discovered.)
> 
> Used as a subplot, a love story or romance can do a lot for characterization, theme, etc.  But sometimes, the relationship is just the relationship, a flavor, not a subplot, and might provide an opportunity for improving these things without also needing an emotional rollercoaster ride, breaking up and getting back together, doubting and turmoil in paradise.  Did Mr. and Mrs. Weasley ever go through that or contemplate divorce?  Honestly, it's been so long I don't remember.



Ha! I didn't have the channel that the show aired on here in Canada so I bought the dvd's lol. Not as good as the book, they changed a lot, but I still reread the series every couple years. Usually when I go camping. There is still something about it I really like. 

If you liked the show try the first book. There is a lot there to like in a cliche fantasy sort of way. I always find it funny I've been on this site for a few years now and that series rarely comes up. Same as Robert Jordan's series Wheel of Time...

Edit: omg just started watching the first episode again for fun. Craig Horner! Talk about love. I'm way too old for him lol. I can't watch the opening scene without tearing up a bit though, as it was such a part of my childhood. It was the first book I bought for myself that was a grown up book when I was thirteen. My dad read it at the same time as me and there is so much in it a child shouldn't read (some serious BDSM with the Mord Sith) but my dad didn't say anything and didnt tell me not to read it. He was a fantasy nut too though. He probably just prayed I wouldn't tell my mom.


----------



## Christopher Michael

Chessie said:


> I just think that the idea of a romantic relationship never being unstable is completely unrealistic. There's always something going on that could lead people to separate. Always. Even outside influence such as a family member's death. Anything could cause it, really. But I rest my case.


Late to the discussion- wasn't near a computer all day, didn't get to involve myself in any conversations. This makes me sad. lol

Anyway, I'm going to vehemently, even violently, disagree with you here. The idea of every romantic relationship being inherently unstable and on the edge of exploding into separation is the conceit that is unrealistic. There are relationships, I am in one and so were my parents (until the death of my Father), where separation is not possible. We won't even use the word "divorce" in a joking manner, because it is something we refuse to entertain. 50% of marriages end in divorce, but that also means 50% do NOT.
It's a large part of the reason I stopped reading comics, especially Marvel. They took relationships that had survived the worst the writers could throw at them for 50 years and threw them away because "marriages are boring." (That is literally the reason the Spider-Man writers gave.)
I don't mind people writing about an unstable relationship where anything could cause it to fall apart. Those exist, and do make interesting reading. But so do relationships that nothing short of death could cause to separate.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

There does seem to be a conceit these days that there is always something wrong beneath the surface, and this doesn't just apply to romantic relationships, just look at settings.  It is part "makes a better story" and part humanist dogma that can blur into a strange form of propaganda.


----------



## TheKillerBs

I think you're doing a false equivalence by saying that being unstable means it's on the verge of blowing up. Uranium-235 is an unstable isotope, but that doesn't mean that it's on the verge of a fission chain reaction.


----------



## Russ

Christopher Michael said:


> Late to the discussion- wasn't near a computer all day, didn't get to involve myself in any conversations. This makes me sad. lol
> 
> Anyway, I'm going to vehemently, even violently, disagree with you here. The idea of every romantic relationship being inherently unstable and on the edge of exploding into separation is the conceit that is unrealistic. There are relationships, I am in one and so were my parents (until the death of my Father), where separation is not possible. We won't even use the word "divorce" in a joking manner, because it is something we refuse to entertain. 50% of marriages end in divorce, but that also means 50% do NOT.
> It's a large part of the reason I stopped reading comics, especially Marvel. They took relationships that had survived the worst the writers could throw at them for 50 years and threw them away because "marriages are boring." (That is literally the reason the Spider-Man writers gave.)
> I don't mind people writing about an unstable relationship where anything could cause it to fall apart. Those exist, and do make interesting reading. But so do relationships that nothing short of death could cause to separate.



Actually something less than 50% of marriages end in divorce, and the way they count is kind of odd.

But on a cautionary note, I think we should perhaps refrain from discussing the inherent stability or instability  (by the way these are sword fencing terms as well) of marriages by way of personal examples.  It doesn't really help the conversation (either way) and risks people personalizing things too much.

Just a thought.


----------



## FifthView

Demesnedenoir said:


> There does seem to be a conceit these days that there is always something wrong beneath the surface, and this doesn't just apply to romantic relationships, just look at settings.  It is part "makes a better story" and part humanist dogma that can blur into a strange form of propaganda.



Maybe part of the issue is with the idea of _stability_, in a stable=boring kind of way.

Elsewhere, I've mentioned that I think all stories are essentially about change.  If everything is in stasis, that's bad; something needs to break.

But _what_ needs to break, where is the change — ah, the $24,000 Question.

Sometimes I think there's a bias toward seating this change in deep character mind/heart.  It's not enough for a character to want to steal the evil king's most treasured magical bauble (heist); no, some long-held cherished dream, childhood trauma or loss, etc., must be behind this effort motivating the character, and better yet, maybe the character will "learn a lesson" and grow as a person during the heist.  The heist is not a heist but merely an occasion for showing character growth/change.  Similarly, if those planning the heist are a married couple, well, having them bicker, fight, dredge up their long-buried baggage, and possibly split as a couple would be great, right?  Adds tension, because how are they going to finish the heist if they break up, how can the man work with the woman on such a delicate, dangerous mission if he's just discovered she's been having an affair with his brother?

Of course, those things can work _marvelously_, heh.  But I think some character change can be less intense, less primal or deep-seated, and still allow interesting, engaging stories and characters.

I've also been wondering if the strength of teen/YA characters, and what makes them a go-to source when building a cast, lies in the fact that those ages are natural periods of growth, instability, change, and emotions like doubt, insecurity, narrow-sightedness, possessive love, etc.  So, there's a measure of built-in instability.  Not that all adults have progressed far from those periods, heh, and perhaps like that Fremen Bene Gesserit Reverend Mother, many who are old are still "young" inside.


----------



## Heliotrope

FifthView said:


> Maybe part of the issue is with the idea of _stability_, in a stable=boring kind of way.
> 
> Elsewhere, I've mentioned that I think all stories are essentially about change.  If everything is in stasis, that's bad; something needs to break.
> 
> But _what_ needs to break, where is the change — ah, the $24,000 Question.
> 
> Sometimes I think there's a bias toward seating this change in deep character mind/heart.  It's not enough for a character to want to steal the evil king's most treasured magical bauble (heist); no, some long-held cherished dream, childhood trauma or loss, etc., must be behind this effort motivating the character, and better yet, maybe the character will "learn a lesson" and grow as a person during the heist.  The heist is not a heist but merely an occasion for showing character growth/change.  Similarly, if those planning the heist are a married couple, well, having them bicker, fight, dredge up their long-buried baggage, and possibly split as a couple would be great, right?  Adds tension, because how are they going to finish the heist if they break up, how can the man work with the woman on such a delicate, dangerous mission if he's just discovered she's been having an affair with his brother?
> 
> Of course, those things can work _marvelously_, heh.  But I think some character change can be less intense, less primal or deep-seated, and still allow interesting, engaging stories and characters.
> 
> I've also been wondering if the strength of teen/YA characters, and what makes them a go-to source when building a cast, lies in the fact that those ages are natural periods of growth, instability, change, and emotions like doubt, insecurity, narrow-sightedness, possessive love, etc.  So, there's a measure of built-in instability.  Not that all adults have progressed far from those periods, heh, and perhaps like that Fremen Bene Gesserit Reverend Mother, many who are old are still "young" inside.



Oddly enough, speaking of Blake Snyder's story types, he also is adement that story stakes should be "primal" (even using that same word). He argues that stories should appeal to the most primal human natures. A caveman should be able to understand the stakes. This makes the story more universal. 

For example, pretend we have a story about Joe, a used car salesman. Joe hasn't been doing so well lately and is about to lose his job. 

Ok. So sort of interesting, maybe. Except people lose their jobs all the time. Many readers will say "So what? So he loses his job? he can just go work at Walmart for a while until he gets back on his feet. What's the big deal. Suck it up Joe. Stop being a whiny baby. We've all been there." 

So, what the writer needs to do is make Joe's plight more primal. It's not so much that he is going to lose his job... it's that he lost a bunch of money to a poker game and if he loses this job he will also lose his house. 

Ohhhhhh, losing your home is pretty primal. Even a caveman could get worked up about that. 

But that is not all. 

He has a know it all father in law who has been constantly telling his daughter what a good for nothing Joe is. If Joe loses this job, and his house, he will likely lose his wife too. 

And to add the icing on the cake, his wife is pregnant. 

Even worse. His home and his wife? His baby! Hell no! Now the caveman is banging on his chest. Come on Joe! Pull it together! You have to keep this job! 

Primal = Universal stakes that people actually care about.


----------



## FifthView

_[Edit:  @Helio,  I was writing this when I noticed you'd commented, so...maybe this relates?]_

Eh, I'd just follow-up



> But I think some character change can be less intense, less primal or deep-seated, and still allow interesting, engaging stories and characters.



It's difficult for me to parse through the importance of deep-seated character traits, because I do like my characters to have depth.  I think the roles those traits play in telling the story can make a difference, i.e., how we use them.

_Still waters run deep._  I think of how a largely-unchanged and unchanging character might still have depth, including insecurity and fears and hopes, and how these traits might _inform_ the character and the story.  Something like William Munny in _The Unforgiven_.  The fundamental character changes and growth happened _before_ the story even begins.  And yet, he has a depth that informs so much about the story and the decisions he makes.  He does undergo some small bit of change during the course of the movie.  He'd begun in a state of having solidly chosen to forsake his old outlaw ways, he thought—a promise he'd made to his wife—and at the end of the movie he reverts a bit to those old ways, breaking his promise.  But it's not a fundamental change (in fact, could be proof of the absence of a fundamental change) so much as a decision he makes that will be a temporary decision.

But what would be the "opposite" of _Still waters run deep_? Heh, constant turbulence at the top.  Again, children, teens and YA characters make this fairly natural.  You want auto-baked tension, "change," stakes written at a "10" regardless of what they may be?  Here you go.

I'd never read this before, but today I did a search for "still waters run deep" and found this use of the idea in a fable from 1692:

A Country-man that was to pass a River, sounded it up and down to try where it was most fordable: and upon Trial he made this Observation on't: Where the Water ran Smooth, he found it Deepest; and on the contrary, Shallowest where it made most Noise. _There's More Danger in a Reserv'd and Silent, than in a Noisy, Babbling Enemy_.​
—well, that last bit was true of Munny, heh.  But sometimes, when I read that constant emotional turbulence in other stories, the constant bickering, the bursting forth of charged words inspired by baby-selfishness and insecurity, and....etc.,  there's a shallowness to it.

So for me, it's not so much a question of whether a character has fundamental character traits, whether positive or negative traits, etc., but how these are put to use in the telling of the story.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

Yeah, change is the bread and butter, and "risk" is the cheese, in the grilled cheese story, heh heh. And writers tend to be messed up troublemakers just itching to make their characters' lives miserable! Muwahahahahahaha! And the seemingly idyllic blowing up is fun... Such as I watched a Bones the other night where John Ratzenberger (Cliff from Cheers) is married to a woman in this ideal, loving marriage, a sweet older couple, together forever sort of thing... who end up being thieves and unrepentent murderers, it was beautiful.

The troubling part is art tends to reinforce a growing cynicism in society, but hey, what can you do... a good story is a good story, LOL.



FifthView said:


> Maybe part of the issue is with the idea of _stability_, in a stable=boring kind of way.
> 
> Elsewhere, I've mentioned that I think all stories are essentially about change.  If everything is in stasis, that's bad; something needs to break.
> 
> But _what_ needs to break, where is the change — ah, the $24,000 Question.
> 
> Sometimes I think there's a bias toward seating this change in deep character mind/heart.  It's not enough for a character to want to steal the evil king's most treasured magical bauble (heist); no, some long-held cherished dream, childhood trauma or loss, etc., must be behind this effort motivating the character, and better yet, maybe the character will "learn a lesson" and grow as a person during the heist.  The heist is not a heist but merely an occasion for showing character growth/change.  Similarly, if those planning the heist are a married couple, well, having them bicker, fight, dredge up their long-buried baggage, and possibly split as a couple would be great, right?  Adds tension, because how are they going to finish the heist if they break up, how can the man work with the woman on such a delicate, dangerous mission if he's just discovered she's been having an affair with his brother?
> 
> Of course, those things can work _marvelously_, heh.  But I think some character change can be less intense, less primal or deep-seated, and still allow interesting, engaging stories and characters.
> 
> I've also been wondering if the strength of teen/YA characters, and what makes them a go-to source when building a cast, lies in the fact that those ages are natural periods of growth, instability, change, and emotions like doubt, insecurity, narrow-sightedness, possessive love, etc.  So, there's a measure of built-in instability.  Not that all adults have progressed far from those periods, heh, and perhaps like that Fremen Bene Gesserit Reverend Mother, many who are old are still "young" inside.


----------



## Heliotrope

FifthView said:


> _[Edit:  @Helio,  I was writing this when I noticed you'd commented, so...maybe this relates?]_
> 
> Eh, I'd just follow-up
> 
> 
> 
> It's difficult for me to parse through the importance of deep-seated character traits, because I do like my characters to have depth.  I think the roles those traits play in telling the story can make a difference, i.e., how we use them.
> 
> _Still waters run deep._  I think of how a largely-unchanged and unchanging character might still have depth, including insecurity and fears and hopes, and how these traits might _inform_ the character and the story.  Something like William Munny in _The Unforgiven_.  The fundamental character changes and growth happened _before_ the story even begins.  And yet, he has a depth that informs so much about the story and the decisions he makes.  He does undergo some small bit of change during the course of the movie.  He'd begun in a state of having solidly chosen to forsake his old outlaw ways, he thought—a promise he'd made to his wife—and at the end of the movie he reverts a bit to those old ways, breaking his promise.  But it's not a fundamental change (in fact, could be proof of the absence of a fundamental change) so much as a decision he makes that will be a temporary decision.
> 
> But what would be the "opposite" of _Still waters run deep_? Heh, constant turbulence at the top.  Again, children, teens and YA characters make this fairly natural.  You want auto-baked tension, "change," stakes written at a "10" regardless of what they may be?  Here you go.
> 
> I'd never read this before, but today I did a search for "still waters run deep" and found this use of the idea in a fable from 1692:
> 
> A Country-man that was to pass a River, sounded it up and down to try where it was most fordable: and upon Trial he made this Observation on't: Where the Water ran Smooth, he found it Deepest; and on the contrary, Shallowest where it made most Noise. _There's More Danger in a Reserv'd and Silent, than in a Noisy, Babbling Enemy_.​
> —well, that last bit was true of Munny, heh.  But sometimes, when I read that constant emotional turbulence in other stories, the constant bickering, the bursting forth of charged words inspired by baby-selfishness and insecurity, and....etc.,  there's a shallowness to it.
> 
> So for me, it's not so much a question of whether a character has fundamental character traits, whether positive or negative traits, etc., but how these are put to use in the telling of the story.



Yeah, again, I think a lot of this comes down to primal stakes actually. Stakes that actually matter vs. having a character get worked up about shallow things like a breakup with a casual girlfriend. Deeper/more primal stakes = deeper character that then doesn't have to be all teen angsty all the time. 

I was trying to think of a writer known for being "cool" emotionally vs. "warm". Some writers love to explore feelings on the page, others loathe it. Hemingway is the best example I can think of as a "cool" writer. If I think of the book The Sun Also Rises the main character is rather stoic. In fact, I would argue that not a whole heck of a lot happens as far as "shallow turbulence" through the entire story. There is very little action. Only a few arguments. The rest is sort of left to the reader to figure out... and boy, what a story it is. 

We see this character as missing something. But we don't know what. He was in an accident in the war. That is all we know. We see that he loves this woman, but he does nothing to get her. In fact, he plays the "friend" almost to a fault, while she sleeps around with almost every man they meet. She is constantly flirting with other guys around him, going off with other men, getting engaged (but they never last)... and the whole time this guy picks her up and drops her off and buys her drinks and longs for her.  The whole book is heartbreaking and the reader wonders why? Why doesn't he do anything about this? Why doesn't he tell her how he feels? But all the turbulence is under the surface. Still waters running very deep. Nothing happening on the surface. 

It isn't until the end they are in the cab together. He has picked her up once again from a hotel room and she hints that they should have been so happy together. They should have been more than they are. 

But they can't be. Because, the most primal (I think) of all primal stakes... He had his *thing* blown off in the war. And so he believes he can't be anything to her, and she sleeps around but never settles on anyone else. 

I'm pretty sure a caveman could understand having his *thing* blown off and the psychological and physical repercussions of that. 

So when the stakes are primal not a lot has to happen on the surface.


----------



## Nimue

> But what would be the "opposite" of _Still waters run deep_? Heh, constant turbulence at the top.  Again, children, teens and YA characters make this fairly natural.  You want auto-baked tension, "change," stakes written at a "10" regardless of what they may be?  Here you go.
> 
> ...
> 
> But sometimes, when I read that constant emotional turbulence in other stories, the constant bickering, the bursting forth of charged words inspired by baby-selfishness and insecurity, and....etc.,  there's a shallowness to it.




To run with this, and head in a direction that possibly-maybe brings us back around to the OP...

I very much enjoy reading and writing romance, but I find myself gravitating towards characters who are kind and courteous in love.  Relationships that you could see lasting for a long time, quiet though they might be.  What I don't particularly like is characters that are controlling, mercurial, bickering or distrusting, and stories where these flaws are blamed on being in love.  Power imbalances, coercion, or deceit as a central plot element of a romance? Not my cup of tea.  But all these things are often used in romance lit and rom-coms and subplots of other works because they bring inherent conflict.  Things that would be rather undesirable in real life are currency for the storyteller.

I don't know that I would go so far as to call this route shallow--another viewpoint might call a reliance on external conflict and a lack of deeply-flawed characters shallow writing, to be honest.  Neither is easy to do well and in a compelling way.  I just know that bickering doesn't appeal to me in the same way that people being consistently good, trusting, and honest with their partners does.  Fortunately, I'm currently writing for an audience of one, so nobody need agree with me on this...


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity

It's funny; on this other forum I frequent, I usually say random things or try to insert something meaningful while everyone else is having conversations around me. 

^





> I very much enjoy reading and writing romance, but I find myself gravitating towards characters who are kind and courteous in love. Relationships that you could see lasting for a long time, quiet though they might be. What I don't particularly like is characters that are controlling, mercurial, bickering or distrusting, and stories where these flaws are blamed on being in love.


Kind and courteous works well for me, as well. I highly dislike couples in stories who seem to always be at each other's throats, so to speak, or are sarcastic or actually mean to each other, as if they aren't really loving.


----------



## Svrtnsse

It's kind of to my surprise that I found myself enjoying writing the romantic parts of my stories. It didn't match at all with my original idea of what I wanted to write. It's a pleasant surprise though, and it gives me ideas for stories I previously wouldn't have thought of.


----------



## Christopher Michael

TheKillerBs said:


> I think you're doing a false equivalence by saying that being unstable means it's on the verge of blowing up. Uranium-235 is an unstable isotope, but that doesn't mean that it's on the verge of a fission chain reaction.



Although I don't disagree, we're responding to the concept Chessie raised that "There's always something going on that could lead people to separate. Always." Because that's a blatant falsehood.


----------



## Christopher Michael

Russ said:


> But on a cautionary note, I think we should perhaps refrain from discussing the inherent stability or instability  (by the way these are sword fencing terms as well) of marriages by way of personal examples.  It doesn't really help the conversation (either way) and risks people personalizing things too much.



Valid point. I was simply bringing up the point that _not_ all marriages are inherently unstable. Personal experience is all I've got by which to prove that, well that and the aforementioned statistics.

On a completely impersonal note, I don't see how stating "all marriages are inherently unstable" makes a good premise for writing love or romance. I'm not arguing that the unstable relationships, the ones that _do_ face potentially relationship ending situations and manage to either survive, or end up back together, are somehow bad. I just get bored with _every single_ relationship in fiction having to go through that. Give me a married, unioned, or whatever bonding/pairing you feel like having, who is rock steady. They disagree, argue, sometimes even fight. But there's never any doubt, at all, that they are committed to each other and that they're going to be together through the entire story. They face the worst life has to throw at them in the fic, and they don't budge in their commitment to each other.


----------



## Christopher Michael

Svrtnsse said:


> It's kind of to my surprise that I found myself enjoying writing the romantic parts of my stories.


It's always kind of surprised me how much I enjoy writing that aspect. I can't write, and have precisely zero interest in writing, a pure romance. But that interplay inside my genre or cross-genre fic? I love it, and live for that interplay between characters. It's almost more fun when the romance catches me by surprise.


----------



## TheKillerBs

Christopher Michael said:


> Although I don't disagree, we're responding to the concept Chessie raised that "There's always something going on that could lead people to separate. Always." Because that's a blatant falsehood.



Not only do I disagree about it being a falsehood, I feel that calling it such is belittling the labour that the people involved in these healthy for-life marriages put into their relationships to keep them healthy and for-life.


----------



## Miskatonic

TheKillerBs said:


> Not only do I disagree about it being a falsehood, I feel that calling it such is belittling the labour that the people involved in these healthy for-life marriages put into their relationships to keep them healthy and for-life.



There's a big difference between disagreements, spats, or other forms of confrontations that lead to a heated argument, and events that lead to people actually separating from each other. 

My parents may have had arguments every once and awhile, or got on each others nerves, but it was never to the point where they considered living separately.


----------



## Christopher Michael

TheKillerBs said:


> Not only do I disagree about it being a falsehood, I feel that calling it such is belittling the labour that the people involved in these healthy for-life marriages put into their relationships to keep them healthy and for-life.



They have the healthy and for life marriages *precisely* because they made the decision that nothing, no matter what, could lead them to separate. If Divorce is on the table, at any point, you cannot have a healthy and for life marriage. So, yes, it is a false statement. And it is not an insult to the people who _have_ those relationships to say that.

That being said, let's go ahead and drop it. This has little or nothing to do with the topic, and I'm tired of this tangent.


----------



## Miskatonic

I use the element of romance as another means to put people into situations where there morals/ethics are tested/questioned. Does allegiance to family and country come first? When is someone beyond being forgiven? Can the person love someone despite what they have done in the past? Is the greater good more important than the happiness of two people?

This is more important to me than focusing intimately on the relationship between two people as the main plot. You can write an entire book that deals with the relationship dynamics that exist between two people and get to the very foundation of why they are together. This is the type of story I'm not interested in writing. Currently that is. No star-crossed lovers in the near future.


----------



## TheKillerBs

I'm going to say one last thing before dropping the subject. Very few people go into marriage thinking they will get divorced. Even among people who get divorced, divorce was never on the table... until suddenly it was, and that spelled the end of that marriage. If it was as simple as people deciding that their marriage would be for life, divorce would be an extremely rare thing indeed.


----------



## Russ

Christopher Michael said:


> If Divorce is on the table, at any point, you cannot have a healthy and for life marriage.



Now it appears that both sides of this discussion have decided to make some pretty radical and likely false statements.


----------



## Heliotrope

Yeah, it's mindsets like that that I believe actually lead to more divorces. This idea that your marriage is supposed to be happy and perfect all the time or there is something wrong with it. Nope. Marriage takes work. Hard work. It's not pretty. It's not perfect. It gets pretty ugly. If you go into a marriage thinking it's going to be perfect forever then you are in a world of hurt IMO. However, that is neither here nor there. 

I can't believe I'm contributing to this nonsense.


----------



## FifthView

@Helio:  I think that by introducing the word "primal" in this very long thread, I induced a bit of change in its direction heh–maybe by striking a primal nerve hah!



> Oddly enough, speaking of Blake Snyder's story types, he also is adement that story stakes should be "primal" (even using that same word). He argues that stories should appeal to the most primal human natures. A caveman should be able to understand the stakes. This makes the story more universal.



I think that maybe the issue for me is in whether we can "appeal to the most primal human natures" in more ways than by displaying a character going through deep, life-altering emotional and mental turbulence relating to long-held deep desires and personal life goals–or, for the sake of the topic in this thread, relating to a romantic relationship's internal stability.  I think we can.  

There does seem to be a modern bias for appealing to primal human natures through creating extreme intimacy with a main character.  The need to feel loved and lovable is rather primal, I think; so, let's make the MC insecure, let's have petty disagreements escalate due to that insecurity, let's have the threat of abandonment and betrayal.

Because we want to induce change and the things change brings into our story for the reader, like uncertainty, doubt, hope, tension, curiosity, suspense....having a character's path shaken so often by insecurities, emotional buttons being pushed, her own ill-considered actions springing from these things and the results of her actions, may add those elements.

....But really, how big are those stakes?  Bobby might not really love her, poor thing!  In a romance story, this_ is _the story, and that's a major stake.

In a character story (a la MICE), that may be a major stake, because in a character story the movement is from _"Character in one state in life but wants another state in life"_ to _"Reaching that new state in life," _and a significant portion of that change will involved a character's ability to keep from stabbing herself in the foot, in the heart, in the head–and falling back to the original state in life or something worse!   

But when Big Baddy is threatening the world...?

The potential danger in relying on character instability as a major vehicle of change is something I'll call the "CW Network Effect."  This is where the entire plot of the season could be resolved in probably 3-5 episodes, but we need 24 episodes so we're going to have the group break up, fight, hide Major Secrets from one another for self-centered reasons or because they are embarrassed or insecure, throw in love and hurt feelings and misunderstandings so these people can't work together....Basically, we have at least 19 more episodes we need to make, and we haven't really given thought to any other way to create interesting try-fail cycles involving the villain.

So to use a sports metaphor, it's like watching a championship game in which any changes in fortune are due to unforced errors.  And Team X makes lots of these, almost every play.  Now, if someone were to script that game, heh, he might be thinking this is going to be extremely boring for fans of Team X.  So we need to make Team Y at least as bumbling, or make Team Y weak, or else keep Team Y off the field/court for most plays just so viewers don't know Team X is destined for a loss in the first third of the match–and Team X is going to make enough unforced errors while alone on the field, heh, there's no danger of the game being decided in _their_ favor in the first third of the match.

So for me, that's the danger.  From my own reading experiences, I'd say there are a lot of bad or mediocre fantasy novels that fall into this method of creating turbulence or creating try/fail cycles and tension.  This could be a case of amplification simply because those instances stuck in my craw, so take "a lot" with that grain of salt.

But unforced errors, self-created obstacles, and so forth are not inherently bad and can create many interesting situations if applied with finesse rather than as a hammer to break up everything–in many types of stories.  When I mentioned the word _primal_ before, in context with the idea of change, I meant this kind of focus, i.e. having deep character changes and turmoil carry most of the weight of introducing "change" to the story and all the things change brings.  So I've been at a bit of loss when trying to decide how to respond to your comments, because I wasn't arguing against appealing to primal human natures.  (Although I think a discussion of what these comprise could be interesting. )

BTW...Demesnedenoir had mentioned a conceit of "always something wrong beneath the surface," prompting my initial comment, and I do think a further discussion of whether starting out with a pane of glass riddled with cracks is always a great method for increasing a reader's impression of the stakes, heh.  I mean, even a very tiny pebble could shatter the whole thing; is there a primal fear of pebbles?  A boulder would be too obvious?  Heh.  Now I'm wondering whether I'd admire a couple who decides to build a house of cracked glass more than a couple who would choose sturdier stuff...Perhaps a story about either couple could be very interesting.


----------



## Heliotrope

Damn you and your super intense posts FifthView! Now instead of making lunch for my kid I'm going to sit here for the next hour trying to unpack that  

_I think that maybe the issue for me is in whether we can "appeal to the most primal human natures" in more ways than by displaying a character going through deep, life-altering emotional and mental turbulence relating to long-held deep desires and personal life goals—or, for the sake of the topic in this thread, relating to a romantic relationship's internal stability. I think we can. 

There does seem to be a modern bias for appealing to primal human natures through creating extreme intimacy with a main character. The need to feel loved and lovable is rather primal, I think; so, let's make the MC insecure, let's have petty disagreements escalate due to that insecurity, let's have the threat of abandonment and betrayal._

So I read a great book one time on writing comedy, and this was the example they used for the character of Micheal Scott. Micheal's deep "need" is to be liked. In fact, the author (who had written tv comedy for a number of years) argued that pretty much every character's deep need is "to be liked." However, they go about it in different ways. I think this comes back to that idea of "Every story is a love story" because inherently (some people believe) the core of every characters motivation is to be "loved." So they write in these insecurities so that the character is forced to act, forced to continue to maintain that equilibrium of 'being liked'. So Micheal Scott has this inner conflict of trying to run a business, but also to be liked by his staff. This is the driving force behind every episode. How does he do that? Often he can't, which causes a lot of trouble, which causes the plot to go in many hilarious directions. 

I'm not agreeing that all characters have an innate drive to be "loved" (though it is an interesting concept).. however, I do think most stories need a character that is deeply flawed in some way? A character that needs something, inside himself, in order to be whole? 

I think, maybe, I would need a concrete example of what you mean? I'm not sure I'm understanding correctly what you are saying when you say "Primal as meaning having deep character changes and turmoil carry most of the weight of introducing "change" to the story and all the things change brings"? 

I believe that characters need to be intrinsically motivated and that motivation is what leads them to make choices, and then eventually those choices lead them to having to make change. The more deeply rooted the motivator, the stronger the character? No? 


And yes, I do think starting out with a pane of glass riddled with cracks is the better method of increasing the reader's impression fo the stakes. If you (and we are speaking hypothetically right?) show the couple building the home of already shattered glass then the reader knows it is fragile. It could be easily broken. If they like the couple and want the couple to be okay then they will be riveted, because they know that even the tiniest pebble could destroy the home. It is not the fear of the pebble that is primal, it is the fear of the couple not making it that is primal. The fact that it is so fragile adds to the tension and the hope they will be okay in the end.

This is why typically we see a lot of irony in the characters used for certain roles in fiction. Was Tolkien not "building a house of shattered glass" when he used Frodo, the Dwarves, the Elves, and the men as the fellowship to deliver the ring? He could have used battle hardened warriors (A sturdy, bullet proof house) but where is the fun in that? Where is the story in that?


----------



## Russ

FifthView said:


> Now I'm wondering whether I'd admire a couple who decides to build a house of cracked glass more than a couple who would choose sturdier stuff...Perhaps a story about either couple could be very interesting.



A couple that _decides_ to build a house of cracked glass I don't think would be admirable because they fall into the TSTL category.  If you have a choice the sturdy house is always better.

But characters (unlike writers) often don't have a choice.  They are who they are and have to work with what they have.  I do think readers are happy to invest in characters who are willing and able to rise above the fact that they have been handed a cracked glass house.


----------



## FifthView

Heliotrope said:


> I'm not agreeing that all characters have an innate drive to be "loved" (though it is an interesting concept).. however, I do think most stories need a character that is deeply flawed in some way? A character that needs something, inside himself, in order to be whole?



Decades ago, I saw or listened to an interview of someone whose life's work was helping the terminally ill, and this included often being with them in their final days, hours, moments.  He said that the most common deep questions/concerns they voiced at those times were not about, oh, a business continuing or whatever, but two:  _"Have I loved (well) enough?" _and _"Have I been/Am I loved?" _ I don't remember who said it, but this has always stayed with me.  When everything else is stripped away, all those other drives, motivations etc. — Like, Gotta find a good job!  Gotta look my best every Sunday for church!  Gotta order the next book in series X! — this deeper concern came to the fore.

You had mentioned appealing to primal human nature, and so in the part you quoted I wasn't talking about every character's nature, per se, but about real human beings' nature.  I.e, I wasn't saying "characters have an innate drive to be 'loved,'" I was giving an example of a real human need or desire.  I mean, if you are appealing to something....gotta be something off the page, right?  Also, unlike Michael Scott's desire to be liked, this need to be loved may not include "by everyone" in it. 

I think that maybe our difference in looking at this may actually be quite germane to this conversation, because your example of Micheal Scott is focused on how it shaped his interpersonal actions.  I.e., no putative "primal desire" is worth considering if it can't be used to explain everything a person does, be a _driver_ and better yet, _THE driver_.  So....



> So they write in these insecurities so that the character is forced to act, forced to continue to maintain that equilibrium of 'being liked'. So Micheal Scott has this inner conflict of trying to run a business, but also to be liked by his staff. This is the driving force behind every episode.



^This really goes back to the start of this line of dialogue, my comment to Demesnedenoir.  _The driving force behind every episode._  No heist involving stealing an evil king's magical bauble can be interesting enough, moving enough, entertaining enough if the theft isn't intimately tied to that thief's deepest, darkest, strongest primal need.  Possible ultimate result:  The heist story is not really a heist story; that's a veneer for showing 20 weeks' worth of notes from a psychiatrists' sessions in treating that thief.  And maybe if this is a character story, that's what it should be.



> I think, maybe, I would need a concrete example of what you mean? I'm not sure I'm understanding correctly what you are saying when you say "Primal as meaning having deep character changes and turmoil carry most of the weight of introducing "change" to the story and all the things change brings"?



Ok, so let's look at the opposite, by looking at the opposite of _My 20-Week Treatment of the Legendary Thief Rygaf_, by Dr. Phil. 

_Guardians of the Galaxy_. Why was Peter Quill stealing that infinity stone at the beginning of the movie?  Was it his deep desire to have his mother back alive? Well, who knows.  We didn't get an inside track on his motivation for stealing it.  But that theft wasn't the whole movie.  I think that in the whole of the movie, we can only plausibly associate his actions with a deeply held desire in one area, and that's in his relationship with women; but we have to surmise this by adding some knowledge we bring to the movie, and it's only a guess.  He's finding "substitutes," which is why he's promiscuous, until he meets Gamora and then it's a little more serious. (Putting on my Dr. Phil hat here.)

Drax is certainly motivated by a deep desire/need.  He's out for revenge against the movie's villain(s).  Gamora, also, given her past and consequent hatred of Thanos and desire to leave his control.  But Quill?

The Guardians are all motivated by friendship more and more as the story progresses, and this may certainly appeal to _our_ primal desires.  And they want to save a planet and the galaxy.  These things might spring from deep desires within them and _inform_ the story and their actions as well as motivate them, even drive them at some point, so it's not as if I'm advocating for the use of characters with no characterization, heh.  They even bicker, have disagreements, sometimes due to insecurities (drunk Rocket.)  But the catalyst for these particular changes comes from without, the infinity stone and Ronan.  If Ronan hadn't been out for the stone, Quill would have easily sold it at that shop and End of Story.

To the degree that a desire for friendship, saving friends and the galaxy became motivators, these were only tweaked, brought to life, through introduction of the exterior threat.  The arc of change for the whole story is "Threat to me/friend/galaxy appears" .... "Threat removed."  It's basically an Event movie (MICE).   Most of the changes in the movie can be broken down similarly.  Each of the Guardians are antagonists to one another after that shop scene; so "threat appears.....threat disappears."  They have common threat after that (imprisonment) which they work together to remove.  They then decide to go sell the stone, either out of greed (not one of those deep, dark, life-long dream sort of motivators) or, in the case of Drax and Gamora because they have ulterior plans relating to a deep motivator.  An exterior catalyst causes some more change—the Collector's assistant blows up the shop.  And then, yes, change comes from "within," when Drax calls Ronan; but then Ronan becomes the Threat that must be removed.


----------



## Heliotrope

I think I see what you are saying... so no deep intrinsic messed up psychological motivators there... except... 

Not to die. 

Which is a pretty primal motivator. lol. So Quill is being hunted by a genocide happy maniac and creates a team to stop him from taking over the universe. Seems pretty primal to me. in an "Event" story the motivator typically is "not to die", in which case one does not need a file with Dr. Phil as a prerequisite to be motivated into action.


----------



## Christopher Michael

Heliotrope said:


> Yeah, it's mindsets like that that I believe actually lead to more divorces. This idea that your marriage is supposed to be happy and perfect all the time or there is something wrong with it. Nope. Marriage takes work. Hard work. It's not pretty. It's not perfect. It gets pretty ugly. If you go into a marriage thinking it's going to be perfect forever then you are in a world of hurt IMO. However, that is neither here nor there.
> 
> I can't believe I'm contributing to this nonsense.



Just because I say putting divorce on the table makes for a weak marriage doesn't imply I think it's rainbows and unicorns farts. It means I think leaving divorce as an option means you have an easy out when it gets difficult. Making that a non option at the start, varying extreme situations such as adultery or abuse, makes you far more likely to work through the issue since you're "locked in."


----------



## Heliotrope

Are you married?


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

Heliotrope said:


> Are you married?



I'm not, but I'm not even in the discussion soooo


----------



## FifthView

Heliotrope said:


> Not to die.
> 
> Which is a pretty primal motivator. lol.



Yeah, I wanted to mention death a few times and probably wrote way too many words about it before deleting them and writing way too many words anyway, going in a different direction.

But again, if we are going to appeal to the most primal human natures, or provoke responses from readers, there are plenty of ways to do that besides having, say, Quill's inner thoughts about imminent death written out on the page.  Seeing him in action, for instance, or the look on his face–or the look on another's face, a witness to the danger.  Not to mention the visual expression of the danger itself.  Cinema has this advantage of being able to show exact human expressions, heh, and other things like the swelling musical score, the close-up, the slo-mo, the explosion...These approaches have analogues in writing; but sometimes maybe it's easier to appeal by having that running inner dialogue of doubt, fear, etc.


----------



## Heliotrope

FifthView said:


> Yeah, I wanted to mention death a few times and probably wrote way too many words about it before deleting them and writing way too many words anyway, going in a different direction.
> 
> But again, if we are going to appeal to the most primal human natures, or provoke responses from readers, there are plenty of ways to do that besides having, say, Quill's inner thoughts about imminent death written out on the page.  Seeing him in action, for instance, or the look on his face—or the look on another's face, a witness to the danger.  Not to mention the visual expression of the danger itself.  Cinema has this advantage of being able to show exact human expressions, heh, and other things like the swelling musical score, the close-up, the slo-mo, the explosion...These approaches have analogues in writing; but sometimes maybe it's easier to appeal by having that running inner dialogue of doubt, fear, etc.



Yes, but this is the difference between cinema and narrative. Depending on the type of narrative used you could spend a quite a bit of time in Quill's head running through death scenarios, or you could just show his desire not to die in his actions. It comes down to what sort of a writer you are. I tend to be a warm writer and favor first person or close third narrative where I can really get into the deep underlying emotions in my characters. Another author may be cooler (I use Clive Cussler a lot) and not get too deep into psychological factors... however, Clive Cussler almost always uses 'imminent death" as the motivator for his books. 

However, I think this is simply covered in "show don't tell", as in, don't just have the MC sitting around talking about how afraid he is of dying (obviously), though I do think there is value in narrative in that we ARE more intimate with the character than in a film. That is the whole point of narrative. That is the biggest underlying difference between writing fiction and writing screenplays. I think reader wants to have a deeper connection to a character in a book. 

Side note: I have noticed that in the past "event" stories seem to be more prevalent. I was talking about Swiss Family Robinson and Robinson Carouso and Treasure Island with my boy tonight... all "event" stories, all using "death (starvation/walking the plank/being killed by savage natives)" as motivating factors. It seems that at some point in the late 70's people started to get bored with that and wanted to explore deeper/darker parts of the psyche (except maybe Poe who always seemed interested in deep dark parts of the psyche).


----------



## FifthView

Yeah, I was also thinking about the rise of close, intimate third corresponding with this ... hah, bias.  The word I used way, way up there^.

For me this goes back to the _Still waters run deep_ metaphor. I've also begun to think it relates to our old conversation about being "on-the-nose" vs not being on-the-nose. 

Just because a character's innermost, deepest motivators, history, desires aren't being churned up to the top of the narrative, driving it and the plot, doesn't mean those things don't exist and can't inform the narrative or appeal to the reader, I think.

A lot of the bad or mediocre writing I've encountered has seemed too "on-the-nose" in its approach toward dealing with these character depths.  

This is oddly relevant to the intimate third vs omniscient third discussion we had, when Chessie quoted Marcy Kennedy talking about closeness vs distance for narrative voice.  That way of thinking about narrative, closeness vs distance, broke a conceptual logjam for me, and I find myself thinking of limited third and omniscient through that lens every time now.  (It's not that one is always close and the other always distant, at two extremes, however, since there's a continuum within each approach...)  So...keeping those character depths hidden, way down under all that still water, may seem to describe this "distance." Plunging way down into those depths to where all the turbulence is or, perhaps, bringing that turbulence to the top of the narrative may seem to describe that "closeness."  

But I think that would be an oversimplification, because we can write intimate third without plunging so far down–not all characters are neurotics, and in fact many may not be incredibly introspective or tied in to their own desires and deepest motivators.  Similarly, a more distant narrative approach does not mean that those depths remain utterly hidden or even greatly hidden, having little effect on the actions of the characters, the narrative–or the reader!

So...this topic of ours began as a result of the suggestion that a married couple as primary MCs _could_ be rather boring if there's no turbulence in the marriage.  I.e., if their relationship as described and shown on the page didn't dredge up a froth from their inner depths.  (Hope I'm not oversimplifying that point of view by use of this metaphor.)  And then, through various steps, it led to this idea of appealing to primal human natures. I think that these "primal human natures" are automatically brought to the narrative by the readers, they are numerous (so fear of abandonment, loss of relationship is not the only avenue into a reader's interest, heart, whathaveyou), and can be provoked in many ways not requiring so deep a submersion into the MC's psyche.

I'm not saying that deep submersion is an auto-fail, not at all (although I do think there are dangers in it, as there would be for a too-distant narrative approach that results in walking cardboard, depthless characters.)  But only that there are other ways of going about it, heh.




Heliotrope said:


> Yes, but this is the difference between cinima and narrative. Depending on the type of narrative used you could spend a quite a bit of time in Quill's head running through death scenarios, or you could just show his desire not to die in his actions. It comes down to what sort of a writer you are. I tend to be a warm writer and favor first person or close third narrative where I can really get into the deep underlying emotions in my characters. Another author may be cooler (I use Clive Cussler a lot) and not get too deep into psychological factors... however, Clive Cussler almost always uses 'imminent death" as the motivator for his books.
> 
> However, I think this is simply covered in "show don't tell", as in, don't just have the MC sitting around talking about how afraid he is of dying (obviously), though I do think there is value in narrative in that we ARE more intimate with the character than in a film. That is the whole point of narrative. That is the biggest underlying difference between writing fiction and writing screenplays. I think reader wants to have a deeper connection to a character in a book.
> 
> Side note: I have noticed that in the past "event" stories seem to be more prevalent. I was talking about Swiss Family Robinson and Robinson Carouso and Treasure Island with my boy tonight... all "event" stories, all using "death (starvation/walking the plank/being killed by savage natives)" as motivating factors. It seems that at some point in the late 70's people started to get bored with that and wanted to explore deeper/darker parts of the psyche (except maybe Poe who always seemed interested in deep dark parts of the psyche).


----------



## Heliotrope

Ahhhhhhh... 

Ok, so my take on it is this: 

IF you are writing (or reading) an "Event" story, in which the married couple are lost at sea, or in an airplane crash, or have to solve a crime, or have to save the world, then no, it does not matter if they are the most boring, loving, happy couple in the world. They could have little to no turbulance in the relationship and in fact could have a very solid relationship and still have a very good story. 

Again, I'll use Clive Cussler as the example. He has a husband/wife series out called the "Sam and Remi Fargo Adventures." In these books the man/wife team solve mysteries all over the world. They have a wonderful marriage, are true to each other, love each other. Zero turbulance. I own quite a few of the books and love how the two play off of each other to solve each mystery. The change in each story is how the world is different before the mystery, and after the mystery is solved. There is no change in Sam and Remi's relationship because that is not the point of the story. 

However, if a book is written specifically as a romance, then the focus of the change needs to be on the relationship. So, you start with a rocky relationship and you show how they make it better. There needs to be turbulance in a romance because the entire point of the story is to show how the couple overcomes the turbulance and becomes stronger by the end.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

Heliotrope said:


> Ahhhhhhh...
> 
> Ok, so my take on it is this:
> 
> IF you are writing (or reading) an "Event" story, in which the married couple are lost at sea, or in an airplane crash, or have to solve a crime, or have to save the world, then no, it does not matter if they are the most boring, loving, happy couple in the world. They could have little to no turbulance in the relationship and in fact could have a very solid relationship and still have a very good story.
> 
> Again, I'll use Clive Cussler as the example. He has a husband/wife series out called the "Sam and Remi Fargo Adventures." In these books the man/wife team solve mysteries all over the world. They have a wonderful marriage, are true to each other, love each other. Zero turbulance. I own quite a few of the books and love how the two play off of each other to solve each mystery. The change in each story is how the world is different before the mystery, and after the mystery is solved. There is no change in Sam and Remi's relationship because that is not the point of the story.
> 
> However, if a book is written specifically as a romance, then the focus of the change needs to be on the relationship. So, you start with a rocky relationship and you show how they make it better. There needs to be turbulance in a romance because the entire point of the story is to show how the couple overcomes the turbulance and becomes stronger by the end.



^Thaaaaaat's what I was waiting for someone to say!! 

A relationship in a story, even a relationship that forms the centerpiece of the story, need not have instability in it. But if the story is ABOUT the relationship, and the conflict isn't coming from any outside source, the conflict has to come from within. Which, I guess, means the stakes should ideally be very high.


----------



## Christopher Michael

Heliotrope said:


> Are you married?



As previously mentioned, yes.


----------

