This week: the return of Writing Wednesday!
I like reading. (Gasp! Shock!) However, I’ve become pickier and pickier in my reading. I no longer feel compelled to finish a book just because I started it. I have waaay too many books waiting that might be better to waste time slogging through something I don’t enjoy. And after all, isn’t that why I read? Because I enjoy it?*
So I really appreciate that the reading public’s eye-time is valuable, and I know that I have to do all I can to make any eye-time I get worthwhile. I’m always interested in what it is that keeps people reading, myself included. To me, characters—people I care about—and mysteries—questions the story has raised that I want to see answered—are key in getting me to read on.
The “mystery” in a romance should be fairly obvious: will they get together or won’t they? I think it can work well to have the intended couple obvious toward the beginning of the story, but sometimes, it seems like the developing romance is a foregone conclusion—even to the characters. A total lack of conflict between the couple throughout the book raises no questions in my mind about the outcome. To put it bluntly: I lose interest.
Don’t get me wrong: I don’t care for a couple that squabbles bitterly throughout a novel only to do a complete 180 in the last ten pages. I don’t hold out much hope for them. But I need to be wondering about the outcome to feel compelled to read to find out what happens.
This weekend, Livia Blackburne posted a fascinating study on uncertainty in romance: when college-aged women were shown profiles of men who’d seen and rated the women’s profiles, the women were most attracted to the men when they were not told whether the men had rated them average or highly.
The uncertainty made all the difference—the women who were told the men (imaginary, by the way) rated them highly were interested, but not as much as the uncertain women. The uncertain women also reported thinking about the men more often.
For a writer, uncertainty is a powerful tool, and not just in romance. The uncertainty in any story question is a major factor in keeping people reading, and the question of a developing relationship is the biggest draw in a romance (which, it should be noted, is heavily read by women, of course).
Sometimes, though, uncertainty isn’t as viable an option. We’ll need another source of suspense in the romance, but we’ll talk about what to do in those situation—next time (Friday, I hope).
What do you think? What keeps you reading a romance?
*Enjoying reading, to me, doesn’t mean that I have to read something less-than-serious. I enjoy “thinky literature” as well as “mindless escapist genre novels” (and there’s no condescension intended!).
Photo by Courtney Carmody
But wait – what if the couple *do* get together quickly, and yet everything outside their relationship – their families, their society, pirates, what have you – is trying to keep them apart?
I think the conflict trying to keep them apart would have to be strong enough to look like it might succeed. I can see it being done well, and I can also see it being less convincing. (For example, her mother is conniving against the relationship and her mechanism to cope is to run to him and commiserate. No real danger there.)
We have to be uncertain that they’ll have a happy ending.
Ah, well, to be perfectly honest I was thinking of my story when I wrote that comment 🙂
Let’s see if I can do this in a nutshell:
here and heroine meet, various circumstances mean they’ll be travelling together but social norms being what they are in the 15th century, things move slowly at first
then her adoptive family tries to keep them apart, but they get married, then he falls ill and they think it’s fatal…
then her real father shows up, is against her marriage, but meanwhile the hero recovers
then her father gets captured and she and her husband work together to save him – at the end, her husband’s life is also in danger and this time her father helps, thereby showing that he’s come to accept her marriage.
And they live happily ever after 🙂
I’m kind of torn about this idea of “predictability”. If I’m reading a modern mystery where a couple meets and is antagonistic, I am bored and skim through the romantic subplot quickly because it’s so obvious that they’re going to reconcile their differences before the end of the book. The standard “They meet, they misunderstand each other, they quarrel, then they get together at the midpoint of Act 3” — yawn. But in some older fiction that I grew up enjoying, like the mysteries of Patricia Wentworth and Ngaio Marsh, when there is a romantic subplot it’s pretty much smooth sailing from the beginning — and I remember liking that. For instance, Marsh’s “Overture to Death” still stands out for me as an excellent mystery, even though the young lovers encounter pretty much zero in the way of realistic obstacles. I enjoyed watching them progress towards “happily ever after”. But perhaps that’s merely that mysteries from the 1930s and 1940s hadn’t learned to use the “misunderstand/dislike/reconcile” cliche and straight-line romance was all you could get.
I’ve read of a recent study where it’s suggested that people who read spoilers actually enjoy the work more that is “spoiled” thereby. If I know that B is coming at the end of the book, I admit it’s interesting to watch how a writer gets from A to B. I’m not interested in the plotting, but the technique is occasionally worthwhile to observe. But I would much, much rather be led to believe that I’m getting A to B and end up with A to W, or J, or the square root of 149. THAT would keep me reading. So, not necessarily uncertainty but subversion. I like to be led down the garden path and then have it end by falling over a cliff.
I think we actually agree here. To repeat from the post, “Don’t get me wrong: I don’t care for a couple that squabbles bitterly throughout a novel only to do a complete 180 in the last ten pages. I don’t hold out much hope for them. But I need to be wondering about the outcome to feel compelled to read to find out what happens.”
In a story where the romance is a main plot, the story question is “Will they get together?” The answer is “Yes,” and you know that going into a romance (by definition, as per the RWA, and as in a mystery: you know they’ll solve the crime, unless it’s a highly literary mystery). The genre is formulaic (not a criticism), and that’s exactly why readers read. The purpose of the subversion—and the conflict between the lovers—is to create the uncertainty.
But remember, too, that in a mystery, there’s uncertainty—aren’t you disappointed when five pages in, we meet a likely suspect, and the rest of the book he just looks guiltier and guiltier, no other likely suspects show up and then—gasp!—he confesses when asked a direct question? That’s the mystery equivalent.
😉 If I sounded like I was disagreeing, then I expressed myself poorly. Really, I suppose I like a lot of different approaches — subversion, uncertainty, even cliche — as long as they are well written and keep me thinking. You know, like this blog 😉
Oh, okay! I thought you were disagreeing, but I couldn’t quite figure out how your argument was really different, LOL. Confusing myself.
Thank you!