History SoYouWantTo / WriteALoveStory

There is room for a sort of "inside-out love story." Romances typically focus on BoyMeetsGirl and what happens next. But for most people, meeting the [=wo/man=] of your dreams isn't the first act of the story, it's the ''last''; and there's a great deal of set-up, CharacterDevelopment and {{Foreshadowing}} leading up to it. So how about a story where the LastGirlWins? How about, for that matter, a story that focuses on what happens ''before'' they meet, and on what makes the two characters compatible? If you think it's impossible, check out ''Series/HowIMetYourMother''. Ted doesn't meet The Mother until the series finale, and the prior nine years are spent setting up, in detail, his Chemistry and Compatibility needs. The story isn't about how Ted fell in love with her, but ''why''. And it works, because--again--romance is all about personality. Since we've spent nine years learning why Ted and The Mother are perfect for each other, the HappilyEverAfter is a ForegoneConclusion. (Also, the title of the show is a WalkingSpoiler). Additionally, while Ted spends a lot of time dating [[WrongGirlFirst Wrong Girls First]], the thing is that this is ''very'' much TruthInTelevision. When you get down to it, dating is all ''about'' dating the wrong people first, and figuring out ''why'' they are wrong for you, so that you can find your OneTrueLove and/or recognize them ''as'' your One True Love when you find them. (Unless you live in a fairy tale where you can expect your soulmate to drop into your lap. [[CaptainObvious Most people don't]].) In fiction, most love stories have the leads meet at the beginning of the first chapter; in real life, they meet at the beginning of the ''last'' chapter.

Anyhow, you've got your two (or more) leads, Jordan and Kris. And the thing is, ''that can be all you need''. {{Conflict}} in a romance typically comes in the flavor of Character vs. Character, but jJordan and Kris can totally be those characters. In fairy tales, the OfficialCouple never fights after they get together; in RealLife, they absolutely do. While couples in romantic relationships (are expected to) approach life as a team, helping each other out and picking each other up, there will always be times when they are set at odds, and you can mine that as a source of drama.

Anyhow, you've got your two (or more) leads, Jordan and Kris. Probably, one or both of them has friends and/or family members. There may also be a Dannie to serve as RomanticFalseLead, the HopelessSuitor, the {{Jerkass}}, the PsychoExGirlfriend, the StalkerWithACrush, the WrongGuyFirst or the other girl in a FirstGirlWins[=/=]LastGirlWins scenario. The LoveTriangle is OlderThanFeudalism. How about the BettyAndVeronica dichotomy? LoveDodecahedron?

Anyhow, you've now got Jordan, Kris and Dannie, 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, Kris and Dannie are ''before'' they meet and begin to variously fall in love with each other, so get cracking.

# '''Compatibility''', the second layer. 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 "chemistry" 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 how is this potential mate going to help you live it? Because if we're talking about a relationship that's meant to go on indefinitely, then at some point they are going to have to become a ''part'' of this life you want to live. So we'd better make sure they fit in.

This is one of the ways the WrongGuyFirst plot or BettyAndVeronica situation can get resolved: Quinn spends some time with both Robin and Tracey, and distinctly enjoys having a relationship with Robin because Tracey is TheNondescript in comparison, almost identical to Quinn in some respects. But Robin is living a life that goes in a different direction than Quinn's, and in a way unsuitable for long-term entanglement. True, Tracey is kind of boring, because they share so much in common... But Quinn wants to travel the world, but Robin hates airplanes. Quinn loves animals and wants a dog, but Robin is allergic to animal dander. Quinn wants to be a full-time doctor, and Tracey wants to have a fulfilling law career... and they both want their spouse to abandon their career, StayInTheKitchen and have BabiesEverAfter. With 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?

(Pro tip: When you love someone, it's not just because you love them; it's also because you like who ''you'' are when you're with them.) (This is also why TrueLoveIsBoring. Whatever it is that you wanna do, well, eventually it's going to be your routine. Ideally, you want someone who fits into your routine. Ideally, you want someone who wants to be bored the exact same way you do. Ideally, you'll find them.)

While most romances have focused on a man and a woman--say, one of the [[Literature/{{TCWGTHAH-Heroes}} Romantic Heroes]] who meets one of the [[Literature/{{TCWGTHAH-Heroines}} Romantic Heroines]]--today those rules are bending, and guy-on-guy and girl-on-girl is becoming more acceptable. Heck, today it [[{{Polyamory}} doesn't even have to be only two people!]] Of course, there will be outcry from MoralGuardians if you choose to go in those directions; but there's NoSuchThingAsBadPublicity, so maybe this is something you'll want to invoke. Having said ''that'', remember that most readers treat the RomanceNovel as comfort food: they want something reassuring and inoffensive, as opposed to being challenged to their core. There's a time and a place for everything, and a love story may not be the right place to try and make people re-evaluate themselves. (Feel free to take that as a challenge.)

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? {{Adorkable}}? CloudCuckooLander? [[SupernaturalGoldEyes Eyes of gold]], [[YouGottaHaveBlueHair hair of blue]]? Well, those are your desired traits. If Quinn wants to be swept up into the arms of someone TallDarkAndSnarky, then when such a person walks into "Quinn's Books and Stationery" some time during the second page of the novel, The Reader expects them to end up together. Likewise, Robin is looking for someone feisty and independent who won't just play the fainting violet. Oh, and maybe HeroesWantRedheads. When Robin walks into that bookstore and sees the fiery-haired proprietor chewing someone out, The Reader expects Robin to be interested. Why? Because of desired traits; because of chemistry. That makes Quinn's presence in Robin'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 keep it to yourself.)

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 how is this potential mate going to help you live it?

This is one of the ways the WrongGuyFirst plot or BettyAndVeronica situation can get resolved: Quinn spends some time with both Robin and Tracey, and distinctly enjoys having a relationship with Robin because Tracey is TheNondescript. But Robin is living a life that goes in a different direction than Quinn's, and in a way unsuitable for long-term entanglement. True, Tracey is kind of boring, because they share so much in common... But consider where Quinn stands with Robin. Quinn wants to travel the world, but Robin hates airplanes. Quinn loves animals and wants a dog, but Robin is allergic to animal dander. Quinn wants to be a full-time doctor, and Haley wants to have a fulfilling law career... and they both want their spouse to abandon their career, stay home and have BabiesEverAfter. With 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? Like Tracey, for instance?

(Pro tip: When you love someone, it's not just because you love them; it's also because you like who ''you'' are when you're with them.)

So, do you see what we're getting at here? In order for you to write this romance well, your characters need a fair bit of CharacterDepth: personality, BackStory, hopes and dreams, etc. You need to know each character's Desired Qualities ''and'' Shared Values. And you, The Writer, need to set ''all'' of them up as {{Chekhovs Gun}}s, where the firing / pay-off / [[IsThatWhatTheyreCallingItNow bang]] ([[IncrediblyLamePun ha-ha]]) is the blossoming of love. If you want to go even further, you'll need to start coming out with facets to each character. Remember, each of us acts differently depending on context: when you are in private with your spouse or significant other, you act differently than you do when alone with your parents ([[ParentalIncest unless you don't]]. If you don't, please keep it to yourself). Likewise you act differently around your children, your friends, your coworkers, etc. News flash: well-realized characters have the same level of complexity.

Now, you get to choose how much you want to play up all these things and levels and facets. Most Hollywood Romance doesn't follow the same lines as most RealLife romances, because, hey: Reality Is Boring. For that matter, TrueLoveIsBoring. ItsUpToYou what you end up with, and how much of what. But this is where you ought to ''start''.

Speaking of WishFulfillment, it's quite easy to fall into a situation where just one of the two romantic leads is saddled with all the CharacterDevelopment. He or she was BeautifulAllAlong, but they end up needing an external agent--the other romantic lead--to draw that out of them. The other lead, though? InvincibleHero. StaticCharacter. UnequalPairing, though a bit downplayed. And, by strange coincidence, 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. Not only does it make a better story, not only does it avoid creepy allegations of WifeHusbandry (or DistaffCounterpart of same), but 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.

It's been iterated already, but let's continue to re-iterate: ''you must have characterization.'' Romance is incredibly vulnerable to the EightDeadlyWords ("I don't care what happens to these characters") because a romance arc is nothing ''but'' Things Happening To These Characters, with almost no chance for a DeusExMachina like ChandlersLaw. There must be characters and they must be likeable. What does it matter if two people you don't know fall in love with each other? Because that's happening ''now'', right this very minute, somewhere out in the wide world. Strangers are falling in love! Are you excited? No, of course not; you don't know them, they don't matter to you personally. There's no reason for you to be excited about this, beyond a vague sense of altruism. The same applies to characters. If The Reader doesn't know them, care about them, empathize with them, and root for them, your story has already failed.

Romance and relationships are fairly intrinsically linked to sex, and the romance genre is one of the few mainstream genres where eroticism is permissible. Such stories often verge into ExplicitContent, which doesn't help the romance genre escape its trashy reputation. But hey: SexSells. Whatever the case, you are not required 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 you ''do'' want to include it, you can.

As a caveat: do ''not'' throw in a sex scene just because you can. Needless, gratuitous sex depiction is called {{Fanservice}}, PanderingToTheBase, or--let's be frank--pornography. If you are going to include a sex scene, it should ''provide CharacterDevelopment.'' Believe it or not, that's possible. In Literature/TheBible, the phrase "[[GetTheeToANunnery to know]]" is sometimes a euphemism for getting it on... and when you have sex with someone, you certainly do learn things about them that most everyone else on the planet will never learn. ''Voila'', character development--particularly if the revelations ''are'' sexual in nature. But if you're not going to go for character development--if the only important fact is that your characters are ''having'' sex--don't rub The Reader's face in it. Use the discretion shot, or a SexyShirtSwitch, or whatever. (Or ''do'' go for it, embrace the smutdom, and aim for the sex sites. [[TheInternetIsForPorn There's a market for that too!]])

A lot of romance stories, particularly movies, involve young unwed characters who are HollywoodHomely at worst, attractive fit types 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 about one in four marriages in America ending in divorce, a significant portion of the dating pool is going to be "previously owned" or "past their sell-by dates". 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" index.

There is room for a sort of "inside-out love story." Romances typically focus on BoyMeetsGirl and what happens next. But for most people, meeting the [=wo/man=] of your dreams isn't the first act of the story, it's the ''last''; and there's a great deal of set-up, CharacterDevelopment and {{Foreshadowing}} leading up to it. So how about a story where the LastGirlWins? How about, for that matter, a story that focuses on what happens ''before'' they meet, and on what makes the two characters compatible? If you think it's impossible, I advise you to check out ''Series/HowIMetYourMother''. Ted doesn't meet The Mother until the series finale, and the prior nine years are spent setting up, in detail, his Chemistry and Compatibility needs. The story isn't about how Ted fell in love with her, but ''why''. And it works, because--again--romance is all about personality. Since we've spent nine years learning why Ted and The Mother are perfect for each other, the HappilyEverAfter is a ForegoneConclusion. (Also, the title of the show is a WalkingSpoiler). Additionally, while Ted spends a lot of time dating the [[WrongGirlFirst Wrong Girl(s) First]], the thing is that this is ''very'' much TruthInTelevision. When you get down to it, dating is all ''about'' dating the wrong people first, and figuring out ''why'' they are wrong for you, so that you can find your OneTrueLove and/or recognize them ''as'' your One True Love when you find them. (Unless you live in a fairy tale where you can expect your soulmate to drop into your lap. [[CaptainObvious Most people don't]].) While most love stories have the leads meet at the beginning of the first chapter, if you look at the dating life of an actual human being you'll note that they meet their (eventual) life partner at the beginning of the ''last'' chapter.

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... and, perhaps more worryingly, sometimes this can be a reasonable response. Consider what happened just before the camera started rolling on the SitCom ''Series/{{Friends}}''. Ross Geller learns that Carol (née Wittick), his spouse of several years, has just had her ClosetKey turned, and is a confirmed lesbian. They divorce, and Ross's introduction in the pilot episode is moping over the end of his marriage. What did Ross do wrong? ''Nothing''--aside from marry a lesbian; but, in both his and Carol's defense, neither of them ''knew'' she was a lesbian at the time, and you can't really avoid something you don't know about. The thing about long-term relationships is that ''people have CharacterDevelopment''. They change job, change wardrobe, pick up new hobbies, start drinking like a fish (or stop), discover a new angle on their sexuality, etc. (It doesn't even have to be sexual orientation; maybe, in another version of the story, Carol gets ''really'' into a particular kink, while Ross doesn't.) Suddenly, Carol wants to live a completely new life... and, through no fault of his own (or anyone's, really), Ross and Carol are married to the wrong people.

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, but [[UndyingLoyalty the stranger you will be tomorrow]]." And generally, [[ThePromise 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 GrayAndGreyMorality of this situation. (And notice that we haven't even ''added'' a third party into the fray yet; we're still talking about why someone might want to cheat in the ''first'' place.)

This article is focused on the creation and execution of a love story: two people meeting, discovering they really like each other, and deciding to stay together for the forseeable future. Since this can be a subplot in just about any genre, this article aims to be relatively generalized, as opposed to being specific a "Write A RomanceNovel" SoYouWantTo. (That's why it's named the way it is.)

And finally, just about any real-world romantic-advice column will have something you'll find useful. You can't be a good writer if you aren't a student of human nature. 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? Just as one example, John Cheese of ''Website/{{Cracked}}'' also wrote a column, [[http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-you-know-its-time-to-get-married/ Five Ways You Know It's Time To Get Married]], which does an excellent job of describing what it's like to be inside a working, functional relationship--something Cheese would know, having been in a crap-ton of dysfunctional ones before. (It also doubled as a WackyMarriageProposal.) Another is Tim Urban of Waitbutwhy, who wrote a double article on "How To Pick Your Life Partner" -- [[http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/02/pick-life-partner.html one part]] focusing on all the things people get wrong, and [[http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/02/pick-life-partner-part-2.html the other]] on what to do instead.

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 in NSFW and/or {{Lemon}} fics) fall into this trap: they go into excruciating detail about Heather's blonde hair that flows in a shining river to just past her 16th vertebra, blue eyes 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 any reader who prefers PetitePride and RavenHairIvorySkin may--well, they may not be ''turned off'' by Heather, they're not exactly panting like a dog either. (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.

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? {{Adorkable}}? CloudCuckooLander? [[SupernaturalGoldEyes Eyes of gold]], [[YouGottaHaveBlueHair hair of blue]]? Well, those are your desired traits. If Quinn wants to be swept up into the arms of someone TallDarkAndSnarky, then when such a person walks into "Quinn's Books and Stationery" some time during the second page of the novel, The Reader expects them to end up together. Likewise, Robin is looking for someone feisty and independent who won't just play the fainting violet. Oh, and maybe HeroesWantRedheads. When Robin walks into that bookstore and sees the fiery-haired proprietor chewing someone out, The Reader expects Robin to be interested. Why? Because of desired traits; because of chemistry. That makes Quinn's presence in Robin'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.)

So, do you see what we're getting at here? In order for you to write this romance well, your characters need a fair bit of CharacterDepth: personality, BackStory, hopes and dreams, etc. You need to know each character's Desired Qualities ''and'' Shared Values. And you, The Writer, need to set ''all'' of them up as {{Chekhovs Gun}}s, where the firing / pay-off / [[IsThatWhatTheyreCallingItNow bang]] ([[IncrediblyLamePun ha-ha]]) is the blossoming of love. If you want to go even further, you'll need to start coming out with facets to each character. Remember, each of us acts differently depending on context: when you are in private with your spouse or significant other, you act differently than you do when alone with your parents ([[ParentalIncest or at least I hope so]]. If you don't, don't tell me). Likewise you act differently around your children, your friends, your coworkers, etc. News flash: well-realized characters have the same level of complexity. You know you've really achieved a RoundedCharacter when you can't decide how s/he should react to a situation because s/he gave you multiple options, and they're ''all'' in-character. But back on topic.

Speaking of WishFulfillment, it's quite easy to fall into a situation where just one of the two romantic leads is saddled with all the CharacterDevelopment. He or she was BeautifulAllAlong, but they end up needing an external agent--the other romantic lead--to draw that out of them. The other lead, though? InvincibleHero. StaticCharacter. And, by strange coincidence, 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. Not only does it make a better story, not only does it avoid creepy allegations of WifeHusbandry (or DistaffCounterpart of same), but 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.

As a caveat: do ''not'' throw in a sex scene just because you can. Needless, gratuitous sex depiction is called {{Fanservice}}, PanderingToTheBase, or--let's be frank--pornography. If you are going to include a sex scene, it should ''provide CharacterDevelopment.'' Believe it or not, that's possible. In Literature/TheBible, the phrase "[[GetTheeToANunnery to know]]" is sometimes a euphemism for getting it on... and when you have sex with someone, you certainly do learn things about them that most everyone else on the planet will never know. Voila, character development--particularly if the revelations ''are'' sexual in nature. But if you're not going to go for character development--if the only important fact is that your characters are ''having'' sex--don't rub The Reader's face in it. Use the discretion shot, or a SexyShirtSwitch, or whatever. (Or ''do'' go for it, embrace the smutdom, and aim for the sex sites. [[TheInternetIsForPorn There's a market for that too!]])

A lot of romance stories, particularly movies, involve young unwed characters who are HollywoodHomely at worst, attractive military types 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 about one in four marriages in America ending in divorce, a significant prtion of the dating pool is going to be "previously owned" or "past their sell-by dates". 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" index.

There is room for a sort of "inside-out love story." Romances typically focus on BoyMeetsGirl and what happens next. But for most people, meeting the [=wo/man=] of your dreams isn't the first act of the story, it's the ''last''; and there's a great deal of set-up, CharacterDevelopment and {{Foreshadowing}} leading up to it. So how about a story where the LastGirlWins? How about, for that matter, a story that focuses on what happens ''before'' they meet, and on what makes the two characters compatible? If you think it's impossible, I advise you to check out ''Series/HowIMetYourMother''. Ted doesn't meet The Mother until the series finale, and the prior nine years are spent setting up, in detail, his Chemistry and Compatibility needs. The story isn't about how Ted fell in love with her, but ''why''. And it works, because--again--romance is all about personality. Since we already know that Ted and The Mother are perfect for each other, the HappilyEverAfter is a ForegoneConclusion (even aside from how the title of the show is a WalkingSpoiler). Additionally, while Ted spends a lot of time dating the [[WrongGirlFirst Wrong Girl(s) First]], the thing is that this is ''very'' much TruthInTelevision. When you get down to it, dating is all ''about'' dating the wrong people first, and figuring out ''why'' they are wrong for you, so that you can find your OneTrueLove and/or recognize them ''as'' your One True Love when you find them. (Unless you live in a fairy tale where you can expect your soulmate to drop into your lap. [[CaptainObvious Most people don't]].)

For that matter, how about AnachronicOrder? The story does not need to be told in the normal manner. Music/ViennaTeng has a song called "[[http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=vienna+teng+recessional Recessional]]" which tells the love story backwards. An insane composer of musical theater named Jason Robert Brown decided to do both orders at once, and penned ''Theatre/TheLastFiveYears''. It's about a man and a woman who fall in love, get married and eventually divorce, but the difference between them is that all of Cathy's scenes take place BackToFront, whereas Jamie's happen in the normal order. (Brown elaborated on this structure by making every single song a monologue, with the other character not present, or at least not allowed to respond. It also creates even more energy and excitement around the single moment when their timelines cross, on their WeddingDay.) And finally there's ''Film/FiveHundredDaysOfSummer'', which is roughly front-to-back but does a great deal of skipping around, its narrative sequence more shaken up than a salad.

Because most {{Romance Novel}}s are written by Americans, the ArrangedMarriage doesn't get touched upon much, and when it does it's inevitably a PerfectlyArrangedMarriage. Why does this have to be so? A love story is about two characters discovering that they love each other, regardless of when (or if!) they get married. Now, Western sensibilities declare this must happen ''before'' the wedding bells ring; MarriageBeforeRomance is basically unknown in those cultures. Simply put, this is ValuesDissonance. It is ''entirely'' possible for a person in an arranged marriage to develop love for their spouse as time passes, and, in RealLife, many do. Besides, if networking can find you jobs and new friends, why not try it for finding a spouse? It might be more successful than doing it yourself (as some of those divorcees might remind you).

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 spouse changes. Consider what happened just before the camera started rolling on the SitCom ''Series/{{Friends}}''. Ross Geller finds out that Carol (née Wittick), his spouse of several years, is a lesbian, because she's just had her ClosetKey turned. They divorce, and Ross's introduction in the pilot episode is moping over the end of his marriage. What did Ross do wrong? ''Nothing''--aside from marry a lesbian; but, in both his and Carol's defense, neither of them ''knew'' she was a lesbian at the time, and you can't really avoid something you don't know about. The thing about long-term relationships is that ''people have CharacterDevelopment''. They change job, change wardrobe, pick up new hobbies, start drinking like a fish (or stop), discover a new angle on their sexuality, etc. (It doesn't even have to be sexual orientation; maybe, in another version of the story, Carol gets ''really'' into a particular kink, while Ross doesn't.) Suddenly, Carol wants to live a completely new life... and, through no fault of his own (or anyone's, really), Ross and Carol are married to the wrong people.

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, but [[UndyingLoyalty the stranger you will be tomorrow]]." And generally, [[ThePromise 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'' a third party into the fray yet; we're still talking about why someone might want to cheat in the ''first'' place.)

You can set a love story anywhere. A TokenRomance is not defined by setting, but rather by the tone and focus of the story. Does your romance integrate smoothly into the rest of the story? If it doesn't, can you ''change'' the story to make it fit? If you decide to do this make sure you get it right; The Reader will call foul if you don't. A romance novel revolves around a love story but the Reader can tell if you have too much hand in moving events.

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 in NSFW and/or {{Lemon}} fics) fall into this trap: they go into excruciating detail about Heather's blonde hair that flows in a molten river to just past her 16th vertebra, blue eyes 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 any reader who prefers lesser endowments and RavenHairIvorySkin may--well, they may not be ''turned off'' by Heather, they're not exactly panting like a dog either. (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.

Rothfuss avoids this whole mess with his female lead by, instead of spending any amount of time on her appearance, making it clear that his [[PointOfView First Person Narrator]] is absolutely smitten. He {{lampshades}} the whole process via a wonderful interlude where the FirstPersonSmartass is reduced to spluttering when he ''tries'' to describe Denna's appearance, knowing there is no way he can do it correctly. In the end, he just admits straight out that he never saw her with eyes of flesh; he always looked upon her with eyes of love. "She was beautiful, to Kvothe at least. At least? To Kvothe, she was most beautiful." Even better, Rothfuss makes Denna interesting as a character, one that The Reader respects and cares about, even if they aren't necessarily head-over-heels with her the way our poor besotted narrator is. And now we're solidly on Denna's side, so that we (to quote [[Literature/TheGreatGatsby Nick Carraway]]) "concentrate[d] on [her] with an irresistible prejudice in [her] favor." Now it doesn't matter what she looks like, because our regard for her is based on something far deeper than the shallow accidents of appearance.

This is one of the ways the WrongGuyFirst plot or BettyAndVeronica situation can get resolved: Quinn spends some time with Robin, and enjoys the mechanics they have together; Robin 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. No, it's the other love interest Tracey, TheNondescript, the plain one, who really fits. True, Tracey is kind of boring, because they share so much in common... But consider where Quinn stands with Robin. Quinn wants to travel the world, but Robin hates airplanes. Quinn loves animals and wants a dog, but Robin is allergic to animal dander. Quinn wants to be a full-time doctor, and Haley wants to have a fulfilling law career... and they both want their spouse to abandon their career, stay home and have BabiesEverAfter. With 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? Like Tracey, for instance?

Make sure the two characters bring out good things in each other. This was a major criticism leveled against the OfficialCouple in ''Literature/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 Haley get off the love train; they are such different people that they ''can't'' encourage each other to become better.)

It's been iterated already, but let's continue to re-iterate: ''you must have characterization.'' Romance is incredibly vulnerable to the EightDeadlyWords ("I don't care what happens to these characters") because a romance arc is nothing ''but'' Things Happening To These Characters, with almost no chance for a DeusExMachina like ChandlersLaw. There must be characters and they must be likeable. What does it matter if two strangers fall in love with each other? Because that's happening ''now'', right this very minute, somewhere out in the wide world. Are you excited? No, of course not; they are strangers to you, you don't know them, they don't matter to you personally. (I mean, you probably don't hate them or anything, but you're not excited either.) The same ''must'' be true of your characters. If The Reader doesn't know them, care about them, empathize with them, and root for them, your story has already failed.

A quick word on love itself, particularly the "[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_theory_of_love Triangular Theory of Love]]" developed by Robert Sternberg (link leads to Wiki/TheOtherWiki). Simply put, Sternberg believes that love can consist of any combination of the following three qualities: '''Intimacy''', '''Passion''' and '''Commitment'''. With your friends you have intimacy—emotional intimacy, by the way, not physical—so that you feel you can tell them anything, and they will still stand by you; a very close friendship can also involve commitment as well. Having a crush is passion only. [[FourthDateMarriage Commitment and Passion]] together result in fairly shallow relationships: yeah, you have great sex, and you're with them, but do you really ''know'' them? Get all three together, and you're in good shape... but, as any mother or father can tell you, then you have to work at maintaining it. Passion is generally the first to go in a marriage, resulting in DeadSparks.

Rothfuss avoids this whole mess with his female lead by, instead of spending any amount of time on her appearance, making it clear that his [[PointOfView First Person Narrator]] is absolutely smitten. He {{lampshades}} the whole process via a wonderful interlude where the FirstPersonSmartass is reduced to spluttering when he ''tries'' to describe Denna's appearance, knowing there is no way he can do it correctly. In the end, he just admits straight out that he never saw her with eyes of flesh; he always looked upon her with eyes of love. "She was beautiful, to Kvothe at least. At least? To Kvothe, she was most beautiful." Even better, Rothfuss makes Denna interesting as a character, one that The Reader respects and cares about, even if they aren't necessarily head-over-heels with her the way our poor besotted narrator is. And now we're solidly on Denna's side, so that we (to quote [[TheGreatGatsby Nick Carraway]]) "concentrate[d] on [her] with an irresistible prejudice in [her] favor." Now it doesn't matter what she looks like, because our regard for her is based on something far deeper than the shallow accidents of appearance.

While most romances have focused on a man and a woman--say, one of the RomanceGenreHeroes who meets one of the RomanceGenreHeroines--today those rules are bending, and guy-on-guy and girl-on-girl is becoming more acceptable. Heck, today it [[{{Polyamory}} doesn't even have to be only two people!]] Of course, there will be outcry from MoralGuardians if you choose to go in those directions; but there's NoSuchThingAsBadPublicity, so maybe this is something you'll want to invoke. Having said ''that'', remember that most readers treat the RomanceNovel as comfort food: they want something reassuring and inoffensive, as opposed to being challenged to their core. There's a time and a place for everything, and a love story may not be the right place to try and make people re-evaluate themselves. (Feel free to take that as a challenge.)

Yeah, yeah, I know. You're looking at this page title and thinking, "God, why does this exist? It's self-explanatory, nobody needs this!" Maybe it is, and maybe no one does, but decent romance is harder to write than you might think. The biggest problem is that you don't have any room for error: Love is a universal part of human life, and (especially in Western culture) is generally considered the epitome of positive experience; the standards are high, and audiences will nail you if you mess it up. Plus, if you can do it well, you might be able to make a killing off of it; according to TheOtherWiki, romance novels account for ''more than 50% of all paperbacks sold.''

A quick word on love itself, particularly the "[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_theory_of_love Triangular Theory of Love]]" developed by Robert Sternberg (link leads to TheOtherWiki). Simply put, Sternberg believes that love can consist of any combination of the following three qualities: '''Intimacy''', '''Passion''' and '''Commitment'''. With your friends you have intimacy—emotional intimacy, by the way, not physical—so that you feel you can tell them anything, and they will still stand by you; a very close friendship can also involve commitment as well. Having a crush is passion only. [[FourthDateMarriage Commitment and Passion]] together result in fairly shallow relationships: yeah, you have great sex, and you're with them, but do you really ''know'' them? Get all three together, and you're in good shape... but, as any mother or father can tell you, then you have to work at maintaining it. Passion is generally the first to go in a marriage, resulting in DeadSparks.

This might be a good time to mention another bit of RealLife techology: the "[[http://www.5lovelanguages.com/learn-the-languages/the-five-love-languages/ Five Love Languages]]" developed by marriage counselor Dr. Gary Chapman. Simply put, Chapman asserts that there are five main ways a person can express love or affection: Words of Praise (saying nice things), Receiving Gifts, spending Quality Time together, Physical Touch, and "Acts Of Service" (the only of the five that doesn't have its own article on TheOtherWiki, but basically starts with the words, "Here, let me do that for you"). While all human beings are fluent in all five languages, people tend to specialize in one or two. For instance, AllMenArePerverts, so Physical Touch would be a big deal for just about any male character (or male actual-person). Vice versa, a HollywoodHomely woman (or ''actual''-homely woman) might put a lot of importance being told she's beautiful, because so few people ever say that to her, and even fewer mean it. But what if your characters [[PoorCommunicationKills don't speak the same language]]? Devin loves giving gifts, but to Haley gift-giving is the least important of the five languages; Haley's very touchy-feely, but that just gets Devin's back up because the [[DefrostingIceQueen Ice Monarch isn't Defrosted yet]].

* 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 [[ILoveYouVampireSon 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.

Anyhow, you've now got, Jordan, Kris and Dannie, 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, Kris and Dannie are ''before'' they meet and begin to variously fall in love with each other, so get cracking.

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''. Many audiences are biased in favor of character work, so take this with a grain of salt, but fiction usually 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 mainstream 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 {{fanservice}} will make the story good. (Just ask [[Film/{{Transformers}} Michael Bay]].)

To prove it, let's keep looking at RomanceNovelPlots and the RomanceArc. In a typical ThreeActStructure, the RelationshipUpgrade occurs at the end of the first act, and the Inevitable SecondActBreakup or ThirdActMisunderstanding setting up the final resolution. (The two twists seem similar, but the first is, "Jordan dumps Kris for something Jordan did" while the other is "Jordan dumps Kris because of something Kris ''thinks'' Jordan did, which is either totally false or only true FromACertainPointOfView.") What's the break-up about? What causes it? What is the Thing Jordan Did? To answer that, you need to look at... Jordan's personality and [[CharacterFlawIndex Character Flaws]]. Is Jordan a cheater? A compulsive liar? An inveterate gambler? A lazy layabout who can't keep a job? Secretly an axe murderer? Because Kris' reactions to any of these things will also depend on what ''Kris'' wants. The sort of person who wants BabiesEverAfter will treat an unemployed thumb-twiddler differently than someone who is SecretlyWealthy.

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? {{Adorkable}}? CloudCuckooLander? [[SupernaturalGoldEyes Eyes of gold]], [[YouGottaHaveBlueHair hair of blue]]? 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.)

This is one of the ways the WrongGuyFirst plot or BettyAndVeronica situation can get resolved: Devin spends some time with Haley, and enjoys the mechanics they have together; Haley 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, Haley'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 Haley. Devin wants to travel the world, but Haley hates airplanes. Devin loves animals and wants a dog, but Haley is allergic to animal dander. Devin wants to be a full-time doctor, and Haley wants to have a fulfilling law career... and they both want their spouse to abandon their career, stay home and have BabiesEverAfter. With 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? Like Robin, for instance?

There is room for a sort of "inside-out love story." Romances typically focus on BoyMeetsGirl and what happens next. But for most people, meeting the [=wo/man=] of your dreams isn't the first act of the story; it's the ''last'', and there's a great deal of set-up, CharacterDevelopment and {{Foreshadowing}} leading up to it. So how about a story that goes by that pattern?—that ''ends'' with the BoyMeetsGirl, and instead focuses on what happens ''before'', and on what makes the two characters compatible? If you think it's impossible, I advise you to check out ''Series/HowIMetYourMother''. Ted doesn't meet The Mother until the series finale, and the prior nine years are spent setting up, in detail, his Chemistry and Compatibility needs. The story isn't about how Ted fell in love with her, but ''why''. And it works, because--again--romance is all about personality. Since we already know that Ted and The Mother are perfect for each other, the HappilyEverAfter is a ForegoneConclusion (even aside from how the title of the show is a WalkingSpoiler). Additionally, while Ted spends a lot of time dating the [[WrongGirlFirst Wrong Girl(s) First]], the thing is that this is ''very'' much TruthInTelevision. When you get down to it, dating is all ''about'' dating the wrong people first, and figuring out ''why'' they are wrong for you. After all, you can't find your OneTrueLove if you have no idea what they should be like. (Unless you live in a fairy tale where you can expect your soulmate to drop into your lap. [[CaptainObvious Most people don't]].)

For that matter, how about AnachronicOrder? The story does not need to be told in the normal manner. Music/ViennaTeng has a song called "[[http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=vienna+teng+recessional Recessional]]" which tells the love story backwards. An insane composer of musical theater named Jason Robert Brown decided to do both orders at once, and penned ''Theatre/TheLastFiveYears''. It's about a man and a woman who fall in love, get married and eventually divorce, but the difference between them is that all of Cathy's scenes take place BackToFront, whereas Jamie's happen in the normal order. (Brown elaborated on this structure by making every single song a monologue, with the other character not present, or at least not allowed to respond. It also creates even more energy and excitement around the single moment when their timelines cross, on their WeddingDay.) And finally there's ''Film/FiveHundredDaysOfSummer'', which is roughly forward-to-back but does a great deal of skipping around, its narrative sequence more shaken up than a salad.

Because most {{Romance Novel}}s are written by Americans, the ArrangedMarriage doesn't get touched upon much, and when it does it's inevitably a PerfectlyArrangedMarriage. Why does this have to be so? A love story is about two characters discovering that they love each other, regardless of when (or if!) they get married. Now, ''Western'' sensibilities declare this must happen ''before'' the wedding bells ring; MarriageBeforeRomance is basically unknown in those cultures. Simply put, this is ValuesDissonance. It is ''entirely'' possible for a person in an arranged marriage to develop love for their spouse as time passes, and, in RealLife, many do. Besides, if networking can find you jobs and new friends, why not try it for finding a spouse? It might be more successful than doing it yourself (as some of those divorcees might remind you).

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 Blair 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 Blair can't stand. By way of cosmic accident, Blair 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 [[UndyingLoyalty 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 Blair wants to cheat in the ''first'' place.)

This might be a good time to mention another bit of RealLife techology: the "[[http://www.5lovelanguages.com/learn-the-languages/the-five-love-languages/ Five Love Languages]]" developed by marriage counselor Dr. Gary Chapman. Simply put, Chapman asserts that there are five main ways a person can express love or affection: Words of Praise (saying nice things), Receiving Gifts, spending Quality Time together, Physical Touch, and "Acts Of Service" (the only of the five that doesn't have its own article on TheOtherWiki, but basically starts with the words, "Here, let me do that for you"). While all human beings are fluent in all five languages, people tend to specialize in one or two. For instance, AllMenArePerverts, so Physical Touch would be a big deal for just about any male character (or male actual-person). Vice versa, a HollywoodHomely woman (or ''actual''-homely woman) might put a lot of importance being told she's beautiful, because so few people ever say that to her, and even fewer mean it. But what if your characters [[PoorCommunicationKills don't speak the same language]]? Sam loves giving gifts, but to Dana gift-giving is the least important of the five languages; Dana's very touchy-feely, but that just gets Sam's back up because the [[DefrostingIceQueen Ice Monarch isn't Defrosted yet]].

Because here's the thing: When you do something, it's not what you intended that matters; it's how it's ''perceived'' that matters. Sam could spend five hours hand-crafting something for Dana... and if Dana just doesn't care, then Sam wasted all that time. Dana (on the other hand) loves to give back-rubs and massages, which Sam maybe could use because of the amount of stress Sam picks up over the course of life, job and etc... and which Sam doesn't care about, because "physical comfort" is way low down on the list of My Priorities. "Why are you offering me this worthless thing?" Well, it's ''not'' worthless to the giver... But it's not the giver's opinion that matters. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. (Which is where you learn to ''share'' the giver's opinion; this is called Empathy. But that's another "So You Want To" article.)

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.

A lot of romance stories, particularly movies, involve young unwed characters who are HollywoodHomely at worst, attractive military types 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". 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" index.

For that matter, how about AnachronicOrder? The story does not need to be told in the normal manner. Music/ViennaTeng has a song called "[[http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=vienna+teng+recessional Recessional]]" which tells the love story backwards. An insane composer of musical theater named Jason Robert Brown decided to do both at once, and penned ''Theatre/TheLastFiveYears''. It's about a man and a woman who fall in love, get married and eventually divorce, but the difference between them is that all of Cathy's scenes take place BackToFront, whereas Jamie's happen in the normal order. (Brown elaborated on this structure by making every single song a monologue, with the other character not present, or at least not allowed to respond. It also creates even more energy and excitement around the single moment when their timelines cross: on their WeddingDay.) And finally there's ''Film/FiveHundredDaysOfSummer'', which is roughly forward-to-back but does a great deal of skipping around, its narrative sequence more shaken up than a salad.

Because most {{Romance Novel}}s are written by Americans, the ArrangedMarriage doesn't get touched upon much, and when it does it's inevitably a PerfectlyArrangedMarriage. Why does this have to be so? A love story is about two characters discovering that they love each other, regardless of when (or if!) they get married. Now, ''Western'' sensibilities declare this must happen ''before'' the wedding bells ring; MarriageBeforeRomance is basically unknown in those cultures. Simply put, this is ValuesDissonance. It is ''entirely'' possible for a person in an arranged marriage to develop love for their spouse as time passes, and, in RealLife, many do. Besides, if networking can find you jobs and new friends, why not try it for finding a spouse? It might be more successful than doing it yourself—an idea supported by that nearly-50% divorce rate.

There is room for a sort of "inside-out love story." Romances typically focus on BoyMeetsGirl and what happens next. But for most people, meeting the [=wo/man=] of your dreams isn't the first act of the story; it's the ''last'', and there's a great deal of set-up, CharacterDevelopment and {{Foreshadowing}} leading up to it. So how about a story that goes by that pattern?—that ''ends'' with the BoyMeetsGirl, and instead focuses on what happens ''before'', and on what makes the two characters compatible? If you think it's impossible, I advise you to check out ''Series/HowIMetYourMother''. Ted doesn't meet The Mother until the series finale, and the prior nine years are spent setting up, in detail, his Chemistry and Compatibility needs. The story isn't about how Ted fell in love with her, but ''why''. And it works, because--again--romance is all about personality. Since we already know that Ted and The Mother are perfect for each other, the HappilyEverAfter is a ForegoneConclusion (even aside from how the title of the show is a WalkingSpoiler).[[note]]Or, at least, it ''should've'' been a ForegoneConclusion. But then, that's why the ''HIMYM'' series finale is one of the most controversial endings in recent memory.[[/note]] Additionally, while Ted spends a lot of time dating the [[WrongGirlFirst Wrong Girl(s) First]], the thing is that this is ''very'' much TruthInTelevision. When you get down to it, dating is all ''about'' dating the wrong people first, and figuring out ''why'' they are wrong for you. After all, you can't find your OneTrueLove if you have no idea what they should be like. (Unless you live in a fairy tale where you can expect your soulmate to drop into your lap. [[CaptainObvious Most people don't]].)

The RedStringOfFate is a visual motif that has long been associated with love in Asian cultures. The heart symbol is a good one. There's flower motifs, for there is a language of flowers.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.[[note]]If you get that reference, you're awesome. Benjamin Britten-that IS pretty obscure![[/note]]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.

For that matter, how about AnachronicOrder? The story does not need to be told in the normal manner. Music/ViennaTeng has a song called "[[http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=vienna+teng+recessional Recessional]]" which tells the love story backwards. An insane composer of musical theater named Jason Robert Brown decided to do both at once, and penned ''Theatre/TheLastFiveYears''. It's about a man and a woman who fall in love, get married and eventually divorce, but the difference between them is that all of Cathy's scenes take place BackToFront, whereas Jamie's happen in the normal order. (Brown elaborated on this structure by making every single song a monologue, with the other character not present, or at least not allowed to respond. It also creates even more energy and excitement around the single moment when their timelines cross: on their WeddingDay.) And finally there's ''Film/500DaysOfSummer'', which is roughly forward-to-back but does a great deal of skipping around.

There is room for a sort of "inside-out love story." Romances typically focus on BoyMeetsGirl and what happens next. But for most people, meeting the [=wo/man=] of your dreams isn't the first act of the story; it's the ''last'', and there's a great deal of set-up, CharacterDevelopment and {{Foreshadowing}} leading up to it. So how about a story that goes by that pattern?—that ''ends'' with the BoyMeetsGirl, and instead focuses on what happens ''before'', and on what makes the two characters compatible? If you think it's impossible, I advise you to check out ''Series/HowIMetYourMother''. Ted doesn't meet The Mother until the series finale, and the prior nine years are spent setting up, in detail, his Chemistry and Compatibility needs. The story isn't about how Ted fell in love with her, but ''why''. And it works, because--again--romance is all about personality. Once we've met The Mother and seen that she and Ted have chemistry, and once they meet each other, the HappilyEverAfter is a ForegoneConclusion (even aside from how the title of the show is a WalkingSpoiler). For that matter, how about AnachronicOrder? Music/ViennaTeng has a song called "[[http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=vienna+teng+recessional Recessional]]" which tells the love story backwards, and there's further room in this narrative space if you want to exploit it.

While most romances have focused on a man and a woman--say, one of the RomanceGenreHeroes who meets one of the RomanceGenreHeroines--today those rules are bending, and guy-on-guy and girl-on-girl is becoming more acceptable. Heck, today it doesn't even have to be only two people! Of course, there will be outcry from MoralGuardians if you choose to go in those directions; but there's NoSuchThingAsBadPublicity, so maybe this is something you'll want to invoke. Having said ''that'', remember that most readers treat the RomanceNovel as comfort food: they want something reassuring and inoffensive, as opposed to being challenged to their core. There's a time and a place for everything, and a love story may not be the right place to try and make people re-evaluate themselves. (Feel free to take that as a challenge.)

There is room for a sort of "inside-out love story." Romances typically focus on BoyMeetsGirl and what happens next. But for most people, meeting the [=wo/man=] of your dreams isn't the first act of the story; it's the ''last'', and there's a great deal of set-up, CharacterDevelopment and {{Foreshadowing}} leading up to it. So how about a story that goes by that pattern?—that ''ends'' with the BoyMeetsGirl, and instead focuses on what happens ''before'', and on what makes the two characters compatible? If you think it's impossible, I advise you to check out ''Series/HowIMetYourMother''. Ted doesn't meet The Mother until the series finale, and the prior nine years are spent setting up, in detail, his Chemistry and Compatibility needs. The story isn't about how Ted fell in love with her, but ''why''. And it works, because--again--romance is all about personality. Once we've met The Mother and seen that she and Ted have chemistry, and once they meet each other, the HappilyEverAfter is a ForegoneConclusion (even aside from how the title of the show is a WalkingSpoiler). 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, and there's further room in this narrative space if you want to exploit it.

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... (Even better, sometimes involves [[SadisticChoice sacrificing the girl]].)

Well, there's ''Theatre/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 the early 20th centur is probably ''Film/{{Titanic 1997}}'', 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]].

The gifts people give, and how they are received, can say a lot. Whether it's a fancy diamond necklace, a pretty shell, or a tool for TheMechanic, things are expressed—and, furthermore, things are perceived.

And finally, just about any real-world romantic-advice column will have something you'll find useful. You can't be a good writer if you aren't a student of human nature. 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? Just as one example, John Cheese of ''Website/{{Cracked}}'' also wrote a column, [[http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-you-know-its-time-to-get-married/ Five Ways You Know It's Time To Get Married]], which does an excellent job of describing what it's like to be inside a working, functional relationship--something Cheese would know, having been in a crap-ton of dysfunctional ones before. (It also doubled as a WackyMarriageProposal.)

Another good place to look is LimyaaelsFantasyRants, 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.

As mentioned, most love stories have happy endings, or at least a BittersweetEnding (''{{Titanic}}'' and ''Film/AWalkToRemember'', for instance). Also, almost ''all'' love stories end with the romantic leads in a love relationship with each other, even if one or more of them does not necessarily remain ''alive'' much longer. Can you subvert this ''without'' The Reader hating your guts? Can you create a HappilyEverAfter that ''doesn't'' involve the two main leads together?

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 the early 20th centur 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]].