Romances are very complex and often difficult to write. It's easy to write a romance, don't get me wrong. But writing a good romance? That can be near impossible, especially in these days when the majority's views on 'romance' differ so strongly from any previous ideals. In modern day, when Twilight is considered the epitome of romance to hordes of teenage girls who are soon to be women, I have to wonder how thatbecame the new ideal. I have made it quite clear in earlier works of mine that I detest Twilight. I don't use the word detest with any hyperbole; I honestly find myself sickened and concerned with my own age group when I think about the Twilight series. The 'romantic' element is the main reason for this.
Perhaps I'm too young to even give my viewpoint on this. I'm not even out of my teens yet, in fact. However, when I look at the way the media panders to my age group, it feels sometimes like I'm the only one who goes 'This is bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.'
Remember how I said in my last Twilight rant that I was finished with complaining about it? Yeah, I lied. I'm going to have to use it as an example of how not to write a romance because it's the greatest example I can get from modern literature that is both popular and that I have actually read. With that little addendum out of the way, I shall begin. I'm writing this in list form since a) it's easier, and b) I read Cracked articles far too much.
How Not to Write a Great Romance
1.) Your characters are unlikable or boring.
Well, duh. Your characters have to be likable (or at least relatable) for your audience to latch onto your work. Characters who do nothing or value, say nothing of value, or are nothing but self-centered pricks who walk around with blinders on are rarely liked. Sadly, in recent years that type of character seems to have taken off. I blame it on the Mary Sue complex. Story-telling is fascinating because of the way audiences react to works. We all long to see ourselves reflected in the images we see presented before us. We long for it so much that we excuse a work for having a character who is, essentially, nothing but a blank slate to press ourselves onto.
It seems that authors these days are afraid to give their romantic leads any kind of flaws, for fear that the intended audience of the work won't be able to connect to those characters. Here's my view - if a character doesn't have any flaws (at least intentional ones) then I feel a complete disconnect from them. I'm a flawed person. You're a flawed person. We've all got issues. Why do the heroines or heroes we're supposed to connect with have absolutely nothing we can relate to on a personal level? Why would we pay money for an overly long self-insert fanfic when we could always read one of those online for free?
I'm not just talking about the biggest self-insert fic of them all, Twilight. I'm talking about the movies that are made to pander to a certain kind of audience. See any Meg Ryan romantic comedy, excluding When Harry Met Sally, and try and figure out why she is the lead when she is the dullest part of the story in nearly every case. Sure, her frumpy and neurotic demeanor may be relatable to some women, but her personality is usually lacking any kind of flair. She's the self-insert fic to the middle-aged bracket whereas Twilight is the self-insert fic to teenage girls.
Since this section is getting to be long, I should probably wrap it up with an example of some positive romantic leads in books and/or movies. Read any Nick Hornby novel. Yes, any Nick Hornby novel, especially High Fidelity. His characters are deeply flawed and sometimes hard to sympathize with, but watching them develop as the story progresses is one of the best parts of reading his works. They'll never wind up as 'perfect' characters, but they don't need to be. They are themselves - fascinating, selfish, stubborn, mercurial, and always growing.
2.) The romance completely overrides any semblance of plot.
Also known as a Romantic Plot Tumor. Writing romance as the main plot of your story can often end in disaster. This is related to the point I made at the start. Anyone can write a romance, but very few can write a good romance. If the romance between your leads is all your story has going for it, then it's going to be a very dull story. Not to say a romance can't be interesting. It's just that more events need to happen to really make your story take shape. If all the story will do is show us all the various ways the leads love one another, or why they can't be together, or all the angst they have because they can't be together - well, that's going to get old very fast. Stuffing a 400+ novel with only that will be downright torturous. The same goes for movies. Unless there's a real action and conflict to push the story forward, then the entire work will be stuck in a rut.
Some examples of this include: Grease, wherein the 'will they, or won't they' romance was the only plot that made any sense and stayed consistent, so it has to be considered the main story-line; and Twilight, obviously. There's no point in elaborating by this point on what a snore-fest of romantic self-gratification those books and films are.
If the romance is going to be the main focus of your story, then try to spice it up a little. Have the romance be a chance to look deeply into the psychology of the characters. Have them question themselves and look into their pasts. Even if the current plot of the story is nothing but a romance, their recollections might be something thrilling and can add greatly to character development.
A good example of a romance-centered story is The Dreamers. Okay, okay. I know it's a French art film, but hear me out. The characters are not only complex and interesting, but the dialogue is quick and provokes thought, there is action interspersed with everyday life and romantic/sexual encounters, and it makes the audience question morality and society in general. Even if you're turned off by what the film shows you, you can't deny that it's hard to look away and even harder not to think about. The thought-provoking questions the main romance invokes in its audience is what makes this film so memorable.
3.) The 'will they, or won't they' element doesn't make sense.
So you have two characters who are truly, madly, deeply in love with one another. They would cross miles, sail seas, and fight armies to be with their one true love. Therefore, having an obstacle in their way would make perfect sense and make the story more interesting, right?
Well, in most cases, yes. Having two lovers torn from each other by the cruelties of circumstance makes for an interesting plot, most of the time. However, you have to make certain that the 'will they, or won't they' principle actually works within your story. Considering that every romantic comedy ever made ever has used this principle, it's become rather difficult to discern when it works and when it doesn't. From my point of view, this sort of conflict needs to be hinged on something of worth; animosity between characters should not be the main reason they are torn apart/are denying their feelings, a la You've Got Mail.
This sort of conflict should really come from a much more complex reason, such as race issues, religious differences, cultural differences, feuding families/nations, or some sort of supernatural/beyond their control barrier keeping them apart. Psychological reasons for keeping characters apart can also be fascinating, as it's an inward instead of outward struggle and adds more weight to the plot; you wouldn't only be rooting for the romance to work, you would be rooting for one or both characters to find a healthier way to live and overcome their issues.
Sometimes 'will they, or won't they' works if the question isn't 'Will they get together?', but instead 'Will they have a happy ending?' Think Aimee and Jaguar, which has elements of both, and is also a deeply moving story without needing the romance to add further heartache.
4.) The romance is tacked on at the last minute.
Ginny Weasley, much? Okay, okay! Don't kill me. Let's be honest here, the Ginny/Harry subplot came right the fuck out of nowhere, at least in the movies. Since I haven't actually read all the books (shame, shame) I can only go by what I saw on film. One moment, Harry is crushing on a gorgeous Chinese-Scottish babe (who wouldn't?), and then the next moment Ginny is in the picture and Harry is macking on her like the last love interest never existed. And I'm left sitting there going, "Wait, what? What did I miss? Is my DVD broken? Who broke my DVD?! WAS IT THE RUSSIANS?!"
This usually doesn't happen in works intended to be romances. In most cases, this happens in a broader story, but the romance is still supposed to be an important factor. Now, I do enjoy Harry Potter, at least the movies; but I was so taken aback by the sudden romance that I lost a little love for the movies then and there. I understand the longing to inject romance into a story. People like romance, unless they're cynical (or pretending to be cynical so they don't have to admit they cried at Titanic. Twice).
Still, throwing in a romance nugget when the rest of the story was finely developed seems a little...lazy. If a story has a romance, it should be as well-rounded as the rest of the plot, or close enough that it doesn't stand out, even if the romance doesn't get as much attention or time to develop. I understand it's hard juggling various plotlines when you have a large number of characters you need to focus on. But keep in mind - if it's your main character and his/her romance seems out of the blue, your audience will notice.
5.) You don't follow through, or tease the audience.
Sex and romance often go hand in hand, wouldn't you say? Of course, there are always exceptions. I would actually love to see a love story between two asexual people, but that's probably too much to ask for. My point is, sexual compatibility is an important part of love and relationships. If you're not sexually compatible with your partner, there will always be a rut in the relationship. The same goes for characters. If there's no chemistry between them, no longing for each other that's tension-building and even sensual, then watching their 'romance' play out will be downright boring.
That's not to say a story needs sex. If the characters are young, I would suggest very strongly that you keep sexual tension down to a minimum (I'm looking at you, James Patterson). But sex is a natural part of any love story and shouldn't be shied away from, unless for some moral fears you have. Or unless you want your book or movie to be 'more widely marketable.'
I've seen a story that really should have a meaningful sex scene between characters completely glance over it. Sometimes a book will build up the sexual tension so much that I'm dying for the moment when the characters finally give in and let their desires take over; then, for no reason I can think of, it fades to black. I was lied to. I was teased! All that time I was hoping for a good resolution to the sexual tension built between the love interests, and all I get is a lousy "next morning scene." If your story already has profanity, drug use, and other adult themes...then why shy away from sexuality? It's nothing but a cop-out on the part of the writer and can be infuriating in some cases.
On the other hand...
6.) Porn, porn, porn...where'd my plot go?
Romance is not all about sex. Trust me, I like a good roll in the hay as much as the next hot-blooded individual, but I like cuddling just as well. Affection is not always shown in big, physical gestures. Sometimes a simple act of holding your partner at the right moment can bring an overwhelming feeling of love to your heart or his/hers. Characters need small moments like this to ground them in reality and make them sympathetic. If all they do is sleep with everything that moves, they become far less relatable. Smut is fine, of course. I've written some myself. However, pure smut makes for a poor novel. Don't base everything around sex, unless you want to alienate a large portion of your audience.
7.) Love triangles: the plight of the disposable love interest.
Have you ever read a book or watched a movie where the lead character has a love interest whose only role in the story is to be a small hurdle for the lead character to prevent he or she from getting together with his or her real true love?
Did your mind just flash with about a hundred different examples of this? That's because the character of the disposable love interest is so common in media that it's become cliche. Normally, the disposable love interest is a nice enough person; flawed, yes, but no more so than the protagonist. However, they just aren't perfect enough for the protagonist, who has apparently been gifted with a very high set of standards. A common trend these days is for the disposable love interest to let the protagonist be with his/her 'true love' because they only want happiness for the protagonist. This happens a lot in romantic comedies, such as You've Got Mail (though that was resolved a tiny bit better, if not lazily), Sleepless in Seattle (two disposable love interests in that case), and Sweet Home Alabama (I have yet to grasp why she would choose the other guy).
Then there's the direct opposite of the above, wherein the disposable love interest is a complete dickbag whom you know is going to get the boot by the end so the hero can 'rescue' his/her love interest from the disposable love interest's horrible grasp. This tends to happen in more male-driven sex comedies, such as Wedding Crashers, Revenge of the Nerds (which I liked, by the way), and Old School. It's the 'knight in shining armor' idea. The protagonist is anything but knightly, but his competition is such a bastard that the protagonist looks chivalrous in comparison.
I love when movies go against this cliche or put a spin on it. Check out movies like Wet Hot American Summer, The Road to El Dorado, or The Princess Bride. They have their own interesting way of twisting the expected, in some cases going against social norms to do this. Don't be afraid to do something new with a love triangle. Yes, sometimes you are presented with more than one option when it comes to love, but that doesn't mean it has to be a struggle like it is in the movies. And hey, I approve of menage a trois. Wouldn't that be a fun way to end a romantic comedy?
8.) Characters are together. Now what?
So you've finally wrapped up your big romance plot-line. Your characters are together, smooching it up big time and planning a wedding/party/orgy/whatever. The question is: what now? Clearly, if your entire story has been focused only on their romance, then a good ending can be hard to come by. Sometimes romance novels or movies peter out in an anti-climactic way because the writer(s) have no idea how to finish up the last bits of the story. Loose ends in the plot are left hanging. Questions are never answered. Your main goal was completed, so why should you bother with the rest of the plot?
Well, because your audience will be annoyed if you think story-telling is over just because everybody's getting laid (or getting paired up, however you want to look at it). Big, romantic endings tend to work considerably better in film because it's such a visual medium; a film audience will be far less likely to go "Wait, that's it?" if a film ends with the two leads kissing and it fading to black than if a novel tried to do the same.
It can be difficult to come up with a great ending once you have those romantic loose ends tied up. The two most common forms of ending a romance novel I've seen are with an epilogue, showing where the characters are now and how the romance has developed, or with dialogue between the romantic leads (sometimes with more characters involved). Both these ways can work quite well and can even be a heartwarming note to end the story on. In fact, I prefer these methods over one that has become more painfully common: the self-centered inner monologue of the hero or heroine.
Usually these inner monologues will be something along the lines of "I finally know what I want", "I won at the end", or "he/she is mine." I find this highly irritating, as it makes the love interest of the story into nothing more than a prize to be won, instead of a character in their own right. It makes the romance seem unequal and selfish on the part of the character speaking. Which brings me to my next point...
9.) The romance is unequal/selfish.
As stated above, I hate when a love interest is seen as nothing more than a prize to be won. This is why unexpected romances tend to warm my heart a little more because it's less about one or the other person trying to 'win' the other, but about how you can't really help who you fall for. There are so many examples of love interests treated as objects that listing them all would add a thousand more words to this already lengthy document. I point my finger of shame at Twilight, especially; I'm still amazed at how utterly selfish and possessive both leads come off as, though maybe that means they really are 'meant for each other.'
If a character has to beg for love, then what the hell kind of romance is that? The answer is that it isn't romance at all, it's a childish obsession. It's possessiveness taken to such an extreme that it's scary to witness. When you're past the sociopath age of nine, this sort of behavior really isn't acceptable. A character should not, under any circumstances, feel that stalking, pressuring, barraging with phone calls, letters, chocolates, anything is a good idea. Forcing themselves onto another person is not romantic or spontaneous, it's sexual assault.
The love interest of your story must be developed, or it will come off as if he or she truly is nothing but a prize. The story might as well be about winning a race or a spelling bee if that's the case. A romance should be created for the chance to meld two interesting, creative minds together to see what comes from it. A love interest who does nothing but stand there and look pretty won't capture anyone's heart. Or they shouldn't, anyway.
Some good examples of balanced romance: When Harry Met Sally, Two Weeks Notice, Sideways, Brokeback Mountain, Once Upon a Marigold, and The Importance of Being Earnest (yes, the characters are all quite shallow, but they're all equally entertaining and share amazing chemistry).
10.) Tragedy: It was all for nothing?
I despise tacked-on characters deaths. You know when I really despise them? When it's at the end of a romance novel or romantic movie. You spent the entire story with these characters and might be rooting for their romance to work out, then you get to the end and one of them dies. And all you can think is, "Why did I watch this? What was the point?"
My personal view is that unless the novel is intended to be a tragedy, a la Aimee and Jaguar, Bent, or Wuthering Heights, then you shouldn't kill off the love interest. Stuffing the love interest in a fridge serves no purpose, if it's done at the end of the story. If your story is meant to be a prologue for a tale of revenge, well fine. But that's not really a romance, is it? That's a complete tease that should never be labeled as a romance.
Spending an entire novel reading about two characters overcoming the odds and finally get together feels pretty futile when you discover one of them has an incurable disease and doesn't have much longer to live. Is this supposed to show the fleeting nature of life? Because most romances aren't that deep. Nor should they try to tack on a deeper meaning when they clearly aren't that profound. I'm looking at you, City of Angels.
Basically, if you feel that a character death is necessary, make sure there's a damn good reason for it in your otherwise innocuous romance. Killing someone off purely to make people cry is, in my opinion, reprehensible from a literary standpoint - not to mention completely lacking in creativity. Why end your romance on a downer if the only point is to wrench tears from your audience? Every death should have a meaning, just as every character you give life should have meaning. Never, ever take your characters for granted by sacrificing them for nothing. They deserve much better.
---
I've gone on for far too long now. Perhaps I've angered some, or made others think hard about the nature of romantic stories. I hope for the most part I've done the latter, though I would be fine as long as I've done both. I made this list mostly for myself, as I'm trying to write a romance of my own. Will I succeed? I don't really know. However, maybe if I follow my own rules and remember the lessons I've learned from writers greater than myself, I can at least come up with something to be proud of.
Remember the line from "Nature Boy"? Say it with me now: "The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return."
on Tuesday, 01 May 2012
in animated movie review
