History SoYouWantTo / WriteALoveStory

For god's sake, make sure the two characters bring out good things in each other. This was a major criticism leveled against the OfficialCouple in HarryPotter: that Ron and Hermione encourage each other to be flawed instead of virtuous. Well, maybe not Ron so much; but whenever Hermione goes around doing bad things, like punching idiots or breaking school rules, this raises Ron's opinion of her. (Add in the [[FanPreferredCouple Harmonian]] faction and things get really heated.) Similar irritations have been leveled against the immortal [[Literature/{{Twilight}} Bella Swan]]: she's {{wangst}}y and self-absorbed before Edward comes along, and ''even more'' wangsty and self-absorbed after. He's not encouraging growth, he's [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling enabling]] her dysfunctional behavior (to use the shrink terminology). Of course, that's a tricky line to walk; while there's clearly such thing as being too positive and supportive (and not calling someone on their baggage), there's such thing as being too negative as well. Besides, loving relationships aren't based on yelling at each other to improve; they're based on loving a person for who they are. But, conversely, a person who loves you no matter what is the only person it's worth improving yourself for. (This, incidentally, is where Devin and Cory get off the love train; they are such different people that they ''can't'' encourage each other to become better.)

As a caveat: do ''not'' throw in a sex scene just because you can. Needless, gratuitous sex depiction is called {{Fanservice}}, or PanderingToTheBase, or--let's be frank--pornography. If you are going to include a sex scene, it should be ''part of characterization.'' If your characters having sex is an important event ([[CaptainObvious typically, it is]]), then acknowledge that it happened, yes, but don't rub The Reader's face in it; use the discretion shot, or a SexyShirtSwitch, or whatever. If you ''do'' provide details about the act, then make sure the details add to the story, or say something about the characters. There is rationale for including it, to be fair: in TheBible, "[[GetTheeToANunnery to know]]" sometimes means "to have sex with." And when you have sex with someone, you certainly get to know some very intimate things about him or her that most people will never learn. So if you think you can add to the CharacterDevelopment, go for it... but don't go overboard unless you want to be accused of purveying smut. (Or ''do'' go overboard, and embrace the smutdom. [[TheInternetIsForPorn There's a market for that too!]])

Finally, this is also a good place to mention that the romance genre is basically the ''only'' mainstream genre where explicit / erotic content is permissible. ItsNotPornItsArt. Such stories often verge into PlotWithPorn, which doesn't help the romance genre escape its trashy reputation. But hey: SexSells. (And remember that the larger majority of RomanceNovel buyers are women, so hey, maybe [[AllWomenAreLustful All Women]] ''[[AllWomenAreLustful Are]]'' [[AllWomenAreLustful Lustful]].) Whatever the case, you do not ''have'' to include sex in your story; you can go SexyDiscretionShot, or have the characters stay chaste until the back cover has closed, or even just avoid the topic entirely, as Disney films do. But if TheyDo, remember that writing sex has its own set of pitfalls: ErectionRejection, IKEAErotica, PurpleProse and so forth.

If we had a "[[SoYouWantTo/WriteErotica So You Want To Write Erotica]]" page, this would be the time to link to it; but we don't, as TVTropes would NeverLiveItDown. But, as someone who has contributed fiction to {{NSFW}} sites, this editor can attest: if you go to the HollywoodSex page and just parrot that idealized swill, the consumer will eat it up. While HollywoodSex has nothing to do with how actual people do actual sex, the fact is that nobody ''wants'' to see reality; they get that every night in bed anyhow. They come to ''you'' for something more glamorous. If you absolutely must have more help, Google will help you find erotic-fiction how-to guides; they will probably be on NSFW sites, but the good news there is that those writers tend to know what they're doing.

There are two basic layers in any relationship. One layer is that oft-used word, '''Chemistry''' and has to do with your desired traits. Ask yourself right now: what do you look for in a potential mate or significant-other? TroubledButCute? YamatoNadeshiko? CloudCuckooLander? [[EyesOfGold Blonde eyes]], [[YaGottaHaveBlueHair blue hair]]? Well, those are your desired traits. If Marty wants to be swept up into the arms of someone TallDarkAndSnarky, then when such a person walks into "Marty's Books and Stationery" some time during the second page of the novel, The Reader expects them to end up together. Likewise, Quinn is looking for someone feisty and independent who won't just play the fainting violet. Oh, and maybe HeroesWantRedheads. When Quinn walks into that bookstore and sees the fiery-haired proprietor chewing someone out, The Reader expects Quinn to be interested. Why? Because of desired traits; because of chemistry. That makes Marty's presence in Quinn's life (and vice versa) a ChekhovsGun. This is how LoveAtFirstSight justifies its existence, incidentally, and it's also where OppositesAttract comes into play; in general you don't want to date someone who's an exact clone of you. ([[ScrewYourself Unless you do]]. If you do, please don't tell me about it.)

Anyhow, you've got your two (or more) leads, Jordan and Chris. Probably, one or both of them has friends and/or family members. There may also be a Danny to serve as RomanticFalseLead, the JerkAss, the PsychoExGirlfriend, the StalkerWithACrush, the WrongGuyFirst or the other girl in a FirstGirlWins / LastGirlWins scenario. The LoveTriangle is OlderThanDirt. How about the BettyAndVeronica dichotomy? LoveDodecahedron?

Anyhow, you've now got, Jordan, Chris and Danny, plus whatever additional supporting cast you decide to put in. Now comes the hard part: all three characters need personality. Who they are, after all, affects how they're going to relate to each other, and the romance (sub)plot is all ''about'' that relating. There are a gazillion different ways characters can relate to each other romantically, from SlapSlapKiss to SickeninglySweethearts to OppositesAttract, but you should pick one (or several) and make them your focus. This, of course, requires a fairly thorough understanding of who Jordan, Chris and Danny are ''before'' they meet and begin to variously fall in love with each other, so get cracking.

There are two basic layers in any relationship. One layer is that oft-used word, '''Chemistry''' and has to do with your desired traits. Ask yourself right now: what do you look for in a potential mate or significant-other? Those are your desired traits. If Marty wants to be swept up into the arms of someone TallDarkAndSnarky, then when such a person walks into "Marty's Books and Stationery" some time during the second page of the novel, The Reader expects them to end up together. Likewise, Quinn is looking for someone feisty and independent who won't just play the fainting violet. Oh, and maybe HeroesWantRedheads. When Quinn walks into that bookstore and sees the fiery-haired proprietor chewing someone out, The Reader expects Quinn to be interested. Why? Because of desired traits; because of chemistry. That makes Marty's presence in Quinn's life (and vice versa) a ChekhovsGun. This is how LoveAtFirstSight justifies its existence, incidentally, and it's also where OppositesAttract comes into play; in general you don't want to date someone who's an exact clone of you. ([[ScrewYourself Unless you do]]. If you do, please don't tell me about it.)

The other layer is '''Compatibility'''. This one doesn't get as much press, partially because it's harder to explore in the time frame of a love story, and partially because a lot of Americans (the predominant consumers and producers of the RomanceNovel) think "love" is some sort of magic black box which they have no hope of understanding. "Look! WhenThingsSpinScienceHappens!" So here's the inside of that black box: shared values. If "desired traits" are what you look for in a partner, shared values are what you look for in ''yourself''. Ask yourself right now: now that you've met this girl/guy whom you have chemistry with, what are you going to do now? Are you going to have mad hot sex? Are you going to recline upon a sun-drenched meadow and quote poetry to each other? Are you [[ImGoingToDisneyWorld Going To Disney World]]? ''What kind of life do you want to live'', and does your (potential) mate want the same thing?

This is one of the ways the WrongGuyFirst plot or BettyAndVeronica situation can get resolved: Devin spends some time with Cory, and enjoys the mechanics they have together; Cory is a good person, but is living a life that goes in a different direction than Devin's, and in a way unsuitable for long-term entanglement. (Alternately, Cory's just psycho.) No, it's Robin, TheNondescript, the plain one, who really fits. True, Robin is kind of boring, because they share so much in common... But consider where Devin stands with Cory. Devin wants to be a full-time doctor, and Cory wants to have a full-time career as well... and they both their spouse to stay at home with the kids. Who's going to abandon their career? Devin wants to travel the world, but Cory hates airplanes. Devin's dearest, most cherished dream is to join a charity organization and help fight AIDS... and Cory thinks zebras are baffling and is scared of catching diptheria from some snot-nosed cave-chested African kid with ribs like xylophones. With all this in mind, do OppositesAttract anymore? Do you ''really'' want to spend your life with someone who's going to be at cross-purposes to you, all the time?—whose happiness ''requires'' your misery, and vice versa? Or do you want someone who dreams your dreams, and shares your values? Like Robin, for instance?

For god's sake, make sure the two characters bring out good things in each other. This was a major criticism leveled against the OfficialCouple in HarryPotter: that Ron and Hermione encourage each other to be flawed instead of virtuous. Well, maybe not Ron so much. But whenever Hermione goes around doing bad things, like punching idiots or breaking school rules, this raises Ron's opinion of her. (Add in the [[FanPreferredCouple Harmonian]] faction and things get really heated.) Similar irritations have been leveled against the immortal [[Literature/{{Twilight}} Bella Swan]]: she's {{wangst}}y and self-absorbed before Edward comes along, and ''even more'' wangsty and self-absorbed after. He's not encouraging growth, he's [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling enabling]] her dysfunctional behavior (to use the shrink terminology). Of course, that's a tricky line to walk; you can't go in scolding and critical and expect someone to love you for it. (Hell, paranoia is a more likely reaction to such an approach, because in RealLife such a person often has an agenda, and rarely are your interests first on their list.) Besides, loving relationships aren't based on yelling at each other to improve; they're based on loving a person for who they are. (This is where Devin and Cory get off the train: because their dreams are so different, they ''can't'' encourage one another to become better people.) But, conversely, a person who loves you no matter what is the only person it's worth improving yourself for.

Speaking of WishFulfillment, it's quite easy to fall into a situation where only one of the romantic leads has any CharacterDevelopment; the other is a StaticCharacter because, frankly, they're [[MarySue already perfect]], and are simply there to transform the other (who was BeautifulAllAlong, of course, but needed some external agent to really bring that out in them). It's not a coincidence that this perfect character is often of the same gender as the author. Aside from how thoroughly The Reader can psychoanalyze you from such a character, it's good policy in general for ''both'' leads to have problems they must overcome. The whole point of ''any'' social relationship is that it improves both parties somehow. That's difficult if one of those parties is in no need of improvement.

(I can hear you saying it already: "Wow, {{Tropers/SlvstrChung}}," for that is indeed who wrote this article, "you're expecting a lot of us. Most romance novels don't get into ''anywhere'' near this level of characterization and such. You just shot down ''Literature/{{Twilight}}'', the most successful romance of our time. What the hell kind of standards are you asking for? And why should we bother?, when an author can get rich off [what you call] total crap?" And the answer is of course that you're right. SturgeonsLaw is still in effect; 90% of everything ''is'' crap. And unfortunately, most of the consuming population are idiots who wouldn't know good from bad if their life depended on it, which is why you can write crap and still get rich. ''My'' answer is that I'm not teaching you to write in the 90%; I'm teaching you how to be part of the ''10%''. [If you need help being part of the 90%, then frankly you're beyond help.])

If we had a "[[SoYouWantTo/WriteErotica So You Want To Write Erotica]]" page, this would be the time to link to it; but, as TVTropes is attempting to ''avoid'' a trashy reputation, we don't. (Besides, whichever poor soul wrote the damn thing would NeverLiveItDown). But, as someone who has contributed fiction to {{NSFW}} sites, this troper can attest: if you go to the HollywoodSex page and just parrot that idealized swill, the consumer will eat it up. While HollywoodSex has nothing to do with how actual people do actual sex, the fact is that nobody ''wants'' to see reality—they get that every night in bed anyway; they come to ''you'' for something more glamorous. If you absolutely must have more help, Google will help you find erotic-fiction how-to guides; they will probably be on NSFW sites, but the good news there is that those writers tend to know what they're doing.

As mentioned, a lot of love stories concern a guy and a girl. Can you subvert ''this'' in a way that subverts the MoralGuardians? (Have you noticed that every "named" character in this document has had a GenderBlenderName? That was deliberate.) Hint: treat the characters as though they were normal human beings. [[TruthInTelevision They are]]. Besides, people don't generally think of themselves as being depraved or screwed-up. ...Okay, sometimes they do—because the ''culture'' around them ''tells'' them that [[AllOfTheOtherReindeer Different Is Bad]]. But, as you, Dear Reader, probably know from personal experience, [[TheStoic one learns to make peace with that]] (since the alternative is [[KillEmAll to go mad]]). There's no reason being a member of an alternative sexuality would be any different. So a gay man (a lesbian) (a bisexual) (a transgender) (a transsexual) a isn't going to think of himself as weird because of such. As different, sure... But he's okay with that. Different ''isn't'' bad.

Infidelity is another issue you could approach. Obviously, you need to be ''very'' careful with this one, because it could easily devolve into a FamilyUnfriendlyAesop. But the simple fact is that people become unhappy in their relationships sometimes, and begin to look outside that relationship for emotional and/or sexual satisfaction. Sometimes the cheater is a heartless bastard. But sometimes their spouses change. What if, after being married to Randy for thirteen years, Drew discovers that a change of life-direction is in order? Drew decides to re-invent: changes job, changes wardrobe, picks up new hobbies, starts drinking like a fish (or stops). Suddenly Drew is living a completely new life... one that Randy can't stand. By way of cosmic accident, Randy is now married to the wrong person.

Now, the traditional marriage vows address this: when you say, "For better or for worse," what you're saying is, "I promise to not only love the person you are today, Drew, but [[HonorBeforeReason the stranger you will be tomorrow]]." And generally, one should keep one's promises. But the fact is that a spouse ''can'' become a stranger... and, like it or not, love is completely voluntary. It's something you choose to do. Push comes to shove, you can probably learn to love ''anyone''... but should you ''have'' to? But then what about your vow? You could write some very interesting stories about the interplay of emotions and the GrayAndGreyMorality of this situation. (And notice that we haven't even ''added'' Morgan into the fray yet; we're still talking about why Randy wants to cheat in the ''first'' place.)

As mentioned, most love stories have happy endings, or at least a BittersweetEnding (''{{Titanic}}'' and ''AWalkToRemember'', for instance). Also, almost ''all'' love stories end with the male and female leads together, even if one or more of them does not necessarily remain ''alive'' for much longer after that. Can you subvert this ''without'' The Reader hating your guts?

A lot of romance stories, particularly movies, involve young unwed characters who are HollywoodHomely at worst, GoodLookingPrivates most of the time. Divorcees, widow/ers, the honestly unattractive and desperate ChristmasCake types don't get a whole lot of attention. And yet, with the divorce rate in America approaching 50%, a substantial portion of the dating pool is going to be "previously owned" or "past their sell-by dates". (This editor once dated a woman who was divorced. Both of us were 25 at the time. Average age of ''first'' marriage in America is 27 for men, 25 for women.) Want to tackle this? For that matter, how about a story about husband and wife putting the spark back into their marriage? This may sound boring, but you could end up with a ''huge'' readership: for all that romance novels offer escapism, there are readers who like to be able to take something useful out of their fiction, something they can actually apply to their own lives. If there weren't, we wouldn't have an "UnfortunateImplications" trope.

One formula this editor has been wanting to employ for a while, but never gotten round to, is the "inside-out love story". Most romances focus on BoyMeetsGirl and what happens next. How about a story that goes in the other direction?—that ''ends'' with the BoyMeetsGirl, and instead focuses on what happens ''before'', and on ''why'' they'll fall in love instead of the falling itself? For that matter, how about AnachronicOrder? ViennaTeng has a song called "[[http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=vienna+teng+recessional Recessional]]" which tells the love story backwards, but has anyone else done this?

Here's another bit of advice, proved perfectly by Patrick Rothfuss' debut novel ''TheNameOfTheWind'': don't make the character ''attractive'', make the character ''lovable''. A lot of beginning writers (especially on NSFW sites or in {{Lemon}} fics) fall into this trap: they go into excruciating detail about Heather's HairOfGold that flows in a molten river to just past her 16th vertebra, BlueEyes that stretch precisely 4/5ths of the way towards her temples, perfect 34DD breasts, and so on and so forth. They are trying to create a "perfect woman," someone The Reader will inevitably find attractive. Well, they've already failed, because This Troper has always been a fan of {{Pettanko}} {{Pale Skinned Brunette}}s, and while This Troper isn't exactly ''turned off'' by Heather, he's not exactly panting like a dog either. And that's not what The Writer wanted. (Plus, all this detail about Heather's looks is often boring... which is the last thing you want, especially in the opening paragraphs of your story, which is where it's most likely to appear.) We have a trope on this very phenomenon, called "InformedAttractiveness," but no real sense of how to avert it. At least, before Patrick Rothfuss.

How does this relate to casting? Simple: by using this technique—by getting The Reader to empathize with your hero and/or heroine—you can then make them look like ''anything you damn well please'', and still have The Reader love them. Your male lead could be the ugliest man on Earth. His love interest could have features all out of proportion, saggy wide flap-boobs and a nose that's too large. Heck, you don't ''have'' to describe them, not much at all; just glimpses, flashes, capsule images. A tall lean man with an arrogant bearing, all cropped dark hair and brooding eyes—even if that's all you give, that's enough. Even better, that leaves The Reader's imagination free to fill in details about your rakish, dashing hero... And tell me this: who's going to be better at inventing The Reader's perfect man, you or The Reader? Invoke this. Exploit this. Give The Reader just enough of a coathanger that they can create ''their version'' of your character, and then leave it at that. Stories are always better when The Reader ''is'' the Casting Director.

In love, there are no stunt doubles.

Finally, this is also a good place to mention that the romance genre is basically the ''only'' mainstream genre where explicit / erotic content is permissible. [[ItsNotPornItsArt It's Not Porn: It's Art!]] OrIsIt? Such stories often verge into PlotWithPorn, which doesn't help the romance genre escape its trashy reputation. But hey: SexSells. (And remember that the larger majority of RomanceNovel buyers are women, so hey, maybe [[AllWomenAreLustful All Women]] ''[[AllWomenAreLustful Are]]'' [[AllWomenAreLustful Lustful]].) Whatever the case, you do not ''have'' to include sex in your story; you can go SexyDiscretionShot, or have the characters stay chaste until the back cover has closed, or even just avoid the topic entirely, as Disney films do. But if TheyDo, remember that writing sex has its own set of pitfalls: ErectionRejection, IKEAErotica, PurpleProse and so forth.

Another good place to look is [[{{Ptitleidkp0hmb6z6x}} Limyaael's Fantasy Rants]], particularly the [[http://limyaael.livejournal.com/tag/rants%20on%20romance Rants on Romance]]. Limyaael specializes in fantasy, but she has branched out enough that you'll find critiques that are applicable to just about any genre or topic. Romance is only one of them. There isn't necessarily much on What To Do, but there's a ''lot'' on What ''Not'' To Do, and hey, that ought to help narrow it down some.

Now, you get to choose how much you want to play up all these things and levels and facets. Most HollywoodRomance doesn't follow the same lines as most RealLife romances, because, hey: RealityIsBoring. For that matter, True Love Is Boring, at least according to [[TheDarkTower Roland of Gilead]], and he's got a point. ItsUpToYou what you end up with, and how much of what. But this is where you ought to ''start''.

Here's another bit of advice, proved perfectly by Patrick Rothfuss' debut novel ''TheNameOfTheWind'': don't make the character ''attractive'', make the character ''lovable''. A lot of beginning writers (especially on NSFW sites or in {{Lemon}} fics) fall into this trap: they go into excruciating detail about Heather's HairOfGold that flows in a molten river to just past her 16th vertebra, BlueEyes that stretch precisely 4/5ths of the way towards her temples, [[BuxomIsBetter perfect 34DD breasts]], and so on and so forth. They are trying to create a "perfect woman," someone The Reader will inevitably find attractive. Well, they've already failed, because This Troper has always been a fan of {{Pettanko}} {{Pale Skinned Brunette}}s, and while This Troper isn't exactly ''turned off'' by Heather, he's not exactly panting like a dog either. And that's not what The Writer wanted. (Plus, all this detail about Heather's looks is often boring... which is the last thing you want, especially in the opening paragraphs of your story, which is where it's most likely to appear.) We have a trope on this very phenomenon, called "InformedAttractiveness," but no real sense of how to avert it. At least, before Patrick Rothfuss.

For god's sake, make sure the two characters bring out good things in each other. This was a major criticism leveled against the OfficialPairing in HarryPotter: that Ron and Hermione encourage each other to be flawed instead of virtuous. Well, maybe not Ron so much. But whenever Hermione goes around doing bad things, like punching idiots or breaking school rules, this raises Ron's opinion of her. (Add in the [[FanPreferredCouple Harmonian]] faction and things get really heated.) Similar irritations have been leveled against the immortal [[Literature/{{Twilight}} Bella Swan]]: she's {{wangst}}y and self-absorbed before Edward comes along, and ''even more'' wangsty and self-absorbed after. He's not encouraging growth, he's [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling enabling]] her dysfunctional behavior (to use the shrink terminology). Of course, that's a tricky line to walk; you can't go in scolding and critical and expect someone to love you for it. (Hell, paranoia is a more likely reaction to such an approach, because in RealLife such a person often has an agenda, and rarely are your interests first on their list.) Besides, loving relationships aren't based on yelling at each other to improve; they're based on loving a person for who they are. (This is where Devin and Cory get off the train: because their dreams are so different, they ''can't'' encourage one another to become better people.) But, conversely, a person who loves you no matter what is the only person it's worth improving yourself for.

Here's a hint: if you're bad at characterization, you cannot write good romance. Period. Hell, one could make the argument that you can't write good ''anything''. This editor is biased in favor of character work, so take this with a grain of salt, but in his opinion fiction comes in only two parts: CharacterizationTropes, and {{Necessary Weasel}}s. What precisely that weasel is depends on your genre: in an action movie, it's explosions; in a science-fiction movie, it's AppliedPhlebotinum; in a comic book, it's StockSuperpowers; in a love story, it's angst, WillTheyOrWontThey, SlapSlapKiss, etc. But the point is that these are just props, just disguises, just the particular language the story uses to tell itself. If you ''strip away'' these weasels, you're left with characters standing naked and exposed, and they're either interesting or they're not. And if they aren't, no amount of gratuitous fan-service will make the story good.

The same is true in a love story. The NecessaryWeasel is, again, romantic content... but both in RealLife and in fiction, you can't fall in love unless both you and your LoveInterest have personalities. As such, romance is an extension of character(ization). Besides, The Reader doesn't care if two strangers fall in love; that's happening right this very minute, somewhere out there in the wide world. The Reader only cares about your characters' love story if The Reader cares about ''the characters''. In other words, all your leads need to be strong enough, more or less, to be hold down a story ''on their own'', without the assistance of their romantic partners and any chemistry resulting thereof. (One hopes some Hollywood screenwriter will see this paragraph some day and get the hint. Or [[Literature/{{Twilight}} Stephenie Meyer]].) So brush up on your CharacterizationTropes, because if you only have a ShallowLoveInterest, instead of an actual character, you have no love story.

The same is true in a love story. The NecessaryWeasel is, again, romantic content... but both in RealLife and in fiction, you can't fall in love unless both you and your LoveInterest have personalities. As such, romance is an extension of character(ization). Besides, The Reader doesn't care if two strangers fall in love; that's happening right this very minute, somewhere out there in the wide world. The Reader only cares about your characters' love story if The Reader cares about ''the characters''. In other words, all your leads need to be strong enough, more or less, to be hold down a story ''on their own'', without the assistance of their romantic partners and any chemistry resulting thereof. (One hopes some Hollywood screenwriter will see this paragraph some day and get the hint. Or [[{{Twilight}} Stephenie Meyer]].) So brush up on your CharacterizationTropes, because if you only have a ShallowLoveInterest, instead of an actual character, you have no love story.

For god's sake, make sure the two characters bring out good things in each other. This was a major criticism leveled against the OfficialPairing in HarryPotter: that Ron and Hermione encourage each other to be flawed instead of virtuous. Well, maybe not Ron so much. But whenever Hermione goes around doing bad things, like punching idiots or breaking school rules, this raises Ron's opinion of her. (Add in the [[FanPreferredCouple Harmonian]] faction and things get really heated.) Similar irritations have been leveled against the immortal [[{{Twilight}} Bella Swan]]: she's {{wangst}}y and self-absorbed before Edward comes along, and ''even more'' wangsty and self-absorbed after. He's not encouraging growth, he's [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling enabling]] her dysfunctional behavior (to use the shrink terminology). Of course, that's a tricky line to walk; you can't go in scolding and critical and expect someone to love you for it. (Hell, paranoia is a more likely reaction to such an approach, because in RealLife such a person often has an agenda, and rarely are your interests first on their list.) Besides, loving relationships aren't based on yelling at each other to improve; they're based on loving a person for who they are. (This is where Devin and Cory get off the train: because their dreams are so different, they ''can't'' encourage one another to become better people.) But, conversely, a person who loves you no matter what is the only person it's worth improving yourself for.

(I can hear you saying it already: "Wow, {{Tropers/SlvstrChung}}," for that is indeed who wrote this article, "you're expecting a lot of us. Most romance novels don't get into ''anywhere'' near this level of characterization and such. You just shot down ''{{Twilight}}'', the most successful romance of our time. What the hell kind of standards are you asking for? And why should we bother?, when an author can get rich off [what you call] total crap?" And the answer is of course that you're right. SturgeonsLaw is still in effect; 90% of everything ''is'' crap. And unfortunately, most of the consuming population are idiots who wouldn't know good from bad if their life depended on it, which is why you can write crap and still get rich. ''My'' answer is that I'm not teaching you to write in the 90%; I'm teaching you how to be part of the ''10%''. [If you need help being part of the 90%, then frankly you're beyond help.])

And finally, just about any real-world advice column will have something you'll find useful. Remember, you're not playing in a world of abstract fantasy; you're trying to create characters who fall in love the same way real people do. So why not just ''study'' how real people fall in love and apply it to your characters? The TruthInTelevision can't hurt. (Except when RealityIsUnrealistic. But let's not get into that.)

Here's another bit of advice, proved perfectly by Patrick Rothfuss' debut novel ''TheNameOfTheWind'': make The Reader ''love'' the character. A lot of beginning writers (especially on NSFW sites or in {{Lemon}} fics) fall into this trap: they go into excruciating detail about Heather's HairOfGold that flows in a molten river to just past her 16th vertebra, BlueEyes that stretch precisely 4/5ths of the way towards her temples, [[BuxomIsBetter perfect 34DD breasts]], and so on and so forth. They are trying to create a "perfect woman," someone The Reader will inevitably find attractive. Well, they've already failed, because This Troper has always been a fan of {{Pettanko}} {{Pale Skinned Brunette}}s, and while This Troper isn't exactly ''turned off'' by Heather, he's not exactly panting like a dog either. And that's not what The Writer wanted. (Plus, all this detail about Heather's looks is often boring... which is the last thing you want, especially in the opening paragraphs of your story, which is where it's most likely to appear.) We have a trope on this very phenomenon, called "InformedAttractiveness," but no real sense of how to avert it. At least, before Patrick Rothfuss.

As mentioned, most love stories have happy endings, or at least a BittersweetEnding (''{{Titanic}}'' and ''AWalkToRemember'', for instance). Also, almost ''all'' love storise end with the male and female leads together, even if one or more of them does not necessarily remain ''alive'' for much longer after that. Can you subvert this ''without'' The Reader hating your guts?

Finally, this is also a good place to mention that the romance genre is basically the ''only'' mainstream genre where explicit / erotic content is permissible. [[ItsNotPornItsArt It's Not Porn: It's Art!]] OrIsIt? Such stories often verge into PlotWithPorn, which doesn't help the romance genre escape its trashy reputation. But hey: SexSells. (And remember that the larger majority of RomanceNovel buyers are women, so hey, maybe [[AllWomenAreLustful All Women]] ''[[AllWomenAreLustful Are]]'' [[AllWomenAreLustful Lustful]].) Whatever the case, you do not ''have'' to include sex in your story; you can go SexyDiscretionShot, or have the characters stay chaste until the back cover has closed, or even just avoid the topic entire, as Disney films do. But if TheyDo, remember that writing sex has its own set of pitfalls: ErectionRejection, IKEAErotica, PurpleProse and so forth.

Hmm. LoveTropes, maybe? Check out RomanceNovelPlots, RomanceNovelTropes and the RomanceArc for more ideas. Or visit the RomanceNovel section of your bookstore. Or read Nicholas Sparks.

Here's a hint: if you're bad at characterization, you cannot write good romance. Period. In fiction, as in RealLife, love requires personality, and as such is an extension of character(ization). Besides, The Reader doesn't care if two strangers fall in love; that's happening right this very minute, somewhere out there in the wide world. The Reader only cares about your characters' love story if The Reader cares about ''the characters''. In other words, all your leads need to be strong enough, more or less, to be hold down a story ''on their own'', without the assistance of their romantic partners and any chemistry resulting thereof. (One hopes some Hollywood screenwriter will see this paragraph some day and get the hint. Or [[{{Twilight}} Stephenie Meyer]].) So brush up on your CharacterizationTropes, because without characters you have no love story.

You also, as mentioned, need to have characters with actual personalities. Fortunately, you have an old friend to help you out: ChekhovsGun.

There are two basic layers in any relationship. One layer is that oft-used word, '''Chemistry''' and has to do with your desired traits. Ask yourself right now: what do you look for in a potential mate or significant-other? Those are your desired traits. If Marty wants to be swept up into the arms of someone TallDarkAndSnarky, then when such a person walks into "Marty's Books and Stationery" some time during the second page of the novel, The Reader expects them to end up together. Likewise, Quinn is looking for someone feisty and independent who won't just play the fainting violet. Oh, and maybe HeroesWantRedheads. When Quinn walks into that bookstore and sees the fiery-haired proprietor chewing someone out, The Reader expects Quinn to be interested. Why? Because of desired traits; because of chemistry. That makes Marty's presence in Quinn's life (and vice versa) a ChekhovsGun. This is how LoveAtFirstSight justifies its existence, incidentally, and it's also where OppositesAttract comes into play, since in general you don't want to date someone who's a clone of you.

One of your first stops is [[http://www.smartbitchestrashybooks.com/index.php Smart Bitches, Trashy Books]], the ZeroPunctuation or {{Cracked}} Dot Com of the romance genre. A small cadre of smart bitches review trashy books, pointing out not just what works and what doesn't, but ''why'' the work or not-work happened. As a writer, that's worth its weight in gold to you (or it should be).

Generally, a love story is supposed to fall on the flowery, rainbow-hued end of the SlidingScaleOfIdealismVsCynicism. This doesn't ''have'' to be, but at the very least, The Reader expects a HappilyEverAfter. This is one of the places where writing a love subplot (as opposed to a RomanceNovel) gives the arc more leeway; The Reader will hate you for it, but since saving the world doesn't neccesarily involve getting the girl... (Heck, for AntiHero [[TheDarkTower Roland of Gilead]], saving the world meant ''sacrificing'' the girl.)

Of note is also the film ''Paris, Je T'Aime,'' a collection of 20 short films about love set in the most romanticized city of all time, Paris. This superb collection runs the gamut, from LoveAtFirstSight, to Love At First Bite, to [[SlapSlapKiss Love At First Punch,]] Unrequited Love, to relationship retrospectives, to falling out of love, falling back ''in'' love, keeping yourself in love, and the eulogy to a dead love affair - as well as a woman's brief love story with Paris itself. Definitely worth a watch.

(leaving this open in case someone else wants to add some)

There are far too many to list here. Basically, this is anything that gets listed under TokenRomance, StrangledByTheRedString, ShippingBedDeath or similar tropes. Avoid anything you see on those pages like the plague.

The other layer is '''Compatibility'''. This one doesn't get as much press, partially because it's harder to explore in the time frame of a love story, and partially because a lot of Americans (the predominant consumers and producers of the RomanceNovel) think "love" is some sort of magic black box which they have no hope of understanding. "Look! {{When Things Spin, Science Happens}}!" So here's the inside of that black box: shared values. If "desired traits" are what you look for in a partner, shared values are what you look for in ''yourself''. Ask yourself right now: now that you've met this girl/guy whom you have chemistry with, what are you going to do now? Are you going to have mad hot sex? Are you going to recline upon a sun-drenched meadow and quote poetry to each other? Are you [[ImGoingToDisneyWorld Going To Disney World]]? ''What kind of life do you want to live'', and does your (potential) mate want the same thing?

For god's sake, make sure the two characters bring out good things in each other. This was a major criticism leveled against the OfficialPairing in HarryPotter: that Ron and Hermione encourage each other to be flawed instead of virtuous. Well, maybe not Ron so much. But whenever Hermione goes around doing bad things, like punching idiots or breaking school rules, this raises Ron's opinion of her. (Add in the [[FanPreferredCouple Harmonian]] faction and things get really heated.) Similar irritations have been leveled against the immortal [[{{Twilight}} Bella Swan]]: she's {{wangst}}y and self-absorbed before Edward comes along, and ''even more'' wangsty and self-absorbed after. He's not encouraging growth, he's [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling enabling]] her dysfunctional behavior (to use the shrink terminology). Of course, that's a tricky line to walk; you can't go in scolding and critical and expect someone to love you for it. Paranoia is more likely, because in RealLife such a person often has an agenda, and rarely are your interests first on their list. Besides, loving relationships aren't based on yelling at each other to improve; they're based on loving a person for who they are. (This is where Devin and Cory get off the train: because their dreams are so different, they ''can't'' encourage one another to become better people.) But, conversely, a person who loves you no matter what is the only person it's worth improving yourself for.

Well, there's ''RomeoAndJuliet'', but take it with a grain of salt: the AlternateCharacterInterpretation, that the title characters were complete morons, is starting to become the ''Standard'' Character Interpretation. The epic of ''our'' time is probably ''{{Titanic}}'', or perhaps ''BrokebackMountain''. In between is a wide variety of authors and stories, some of which are good, some of which are {{Romance Novel}}s, some of which is hidden at the porn sites and at least one of which got somewhat derailed because [[SpiderMan the male lead got bitten by a radioactive spider]]. For more directed reading, visit [[http://www.smartbitchestrashybooks.com/index.php Smart Bitches, Trashy Books]], the ZeroPunctuation or {{Cracked}} Dot Com of the romance genre.

Another good place to look (for both Greats and Fails, actually) is [[{{Ptitleidkp0hmb6z6x Limyaael's Fantasy Rants]], particularly the [[http://limyaael.livejournal.com/tag/rants%20on%20romance Rants on Romance]]. Limyaael specializes in fantasy, but she has branched out enough that you'll find critiques that are applicable to just about any genre or topic. Romance is only one of them.

Anyhow, you've got your two (or more) leads, Jordan and Chris. Probably, one or both of them has friends and/or family members. There may also be a Danny to serve as ThePaolo, the JerkAss, the PsychoExGirlfriend, the StalkerWithACrush, the WrongGuyFirst or the other girl in a FirstGirlWins / LastGirlWins scenario. The LoveTriangle is OlderThanDirt. How about the BettyAndVeronica dichotomy? LoveDodecahedron?

The RedStringOfFate is a visual motif that has long been associated with love in Asian cultures. The heart symbol is a good one. Umm, there's flower motifs, for there is a language of flowers; for flowers are peculiarly the poetry of Christ.[[hottip:*:If you get that reference, you're awesome.]][[hottip:*:Benjamin Britten, Rejoice in the Lamb! I'm pretty proud of getting that one...] Supposedly, giving a woman daisies means something else than giving her roses. You could play with WesternZodiac or EasternZodiac themes. And there's always The RuleOfSymbolism, which works on ''anything''. You could make a peach mean sex. You could also make it mean "[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn Invisible Pink Unicorn]]." ItsUpToYou.

The RedStringOfFate is a visual motif that has long been associated with love in Asian cultures. The heart symbol is a good one. Umm, there's flower motifs, for there is a language of flowers; for flowers are peculiarly the poetry of Christ.[[hottip:*:If you get that reference, you're awesome.]] Supposedly, giving a woman daisies means something else than giving her roses. You could play with WesternZodiac or EasternZodiac themes. And there's always The RuleOfSymbolism, which works on ''anything''. You could make a peach mean sex. You could also make it mean "[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn Invisible Pink Unicorn]]." ItsUpToYou.