History SoYouWantTo / WriteALoveStory

A lot of romance stories, particularly movies, involve young unwed characters who are HollywoodHomely at worst, attractive fit types most of the time. Divorcees who MarriedTooYoung or had a StarterMarriage, 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? Because there is an obvious market for it. 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 need an "UnfortunateImplications" index.

One of the easiest ways a WrongGuyFirst plot or BettyAndVeronica situation can get resolved is by just handing someone the VillainBall, but a much more authentic way is something we've already hinted at: a DifferingPrioritiesBreakup. The trope's page quote provides a perfect example: Ted and Robin, two of the leads in ''Series/HowIMetYourMother'', are dating, but it becomes clear just how different they want their lives to be. Robin wants to travel the world, while Ted wants to settle down and have BabiesEverAfter (with her), and fundamentally there is no relationship that could make them both happy ''at the same time''. 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 BirdsOfAFeather, someone who dreams your dreams?

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 Chemistry ''and'' Compatibility desires. And you, The Writer, need to set ''all'' of them up as {{Chekhovs Gun}}s, where the firing / pay-off / [[SexualEuphemism bang]] ([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.

Well, there's ''Theatre/RomeoAndJuliet'', but take it with a grain of salt: the AlternativeCharacterInterpretation, that the title characters were naive children who rushed into an infatuation (or just morons), is starting to become the ''Standard'' Character Interpretation. The epic of the early 20th century is probably ''Film/{{Titanic 1997}}'', or perhaps ''Film/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 [[ComicBook/SpiderMan the male lead was bitten by a radioactive spider]].

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''. It may be an oversimplification to divide stories this way, but we're gonna do it anyway: 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 anything in the StockSuperpowersIndex; 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]].)

And here's the worst part: it's even ''more'' true for 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. (Falling in love is ''about'' personality.) As such, romance is an extension of character(ization). In other words, all your leads need to be strong enough, more or less, to hold down a story ''on their own'', without the assistance of their romantic partners and/or 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 SatelliteLoveInterest, instead of an actual character, you have no love story.

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 Chemistry ''and'' Compatibility desires. 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.

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 Wiki/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]]? Bryce loves giving gifts, but to Alex gift-giving is the least important of the five languages; Alex's very touchy-feely, but that just gets Bryce's back up because the [[DefrostingIceQueen Ice Monarch isn't Defrosted yet]].

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 [[TheNotLoveInterest 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.

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 Wiki/TheOtherWiki, romance novels account for ''more than 50% of all paperbacks sold.''

If you ''have'' decided to go for it, you now skirt a whole new set of pitfalls: FetishRetardant, IKEAErotica, PurpleProse and so forth. We do somehow have a [[SoYouWantTo/WriteASexScene So You Want To Write A Sex Scene?]] page that we slipped past Administrivia/FiveP, and it's going to have most of your help; if you need more, actual NSFW sites like Website/{{Literotica}}, and ''their'' So You Want To departments, will be your best bet.

"TrueLoveIsBoring" seems like a depressing, destructive trope, but it's TruthInTelevision, and this is exactly why. 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, your partner wants to be bored the exact same way you do.

(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.)

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. And there's always Mark Manson, an extraordinarily talented columnist who has written extensively on dating and relationships. Just as one example, he polled 1,500 people who had been married for at least 10 years and found [[https://markmanson.net/relationship-advice the list of 10 things all those couples do]].

# '''Chemistry'''. This oft-used word deals with with your desired traits. Ask yourself right now: what do you look for in a potential mate or significant-other? TroubledButCute? EndearinglyDorky? CloudCuckooLander? [[SupernaturalGoldEyes Eyes of gold]], [[YouGottaHaveBlueHair hair of blue]]? Well, those are your desired traits. If Alex wants to be swept up into the arms of someone TallDarkAndSnarky, then when such a person walks into "Alex's Books and Stationery" on the second page of the novel, The Reader expects them to end up together. Likewise, Bryce is looking for someone feisty and independent who won't just play the fainting violet. Oh, and maybe HeroesWantRedheads. When Bryce walks into that bookstore and sees the fiery-haired proprietor chewing someone out, The Reader expects Bryce to be interested. Why? Because of desired traits; because of chemistry. Bryce's presence in Alex's life (and vice versa) is 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.)

# HappilyMarried. If an alliance is formalized by a marriage, it will be stronger if the husband and wife, y'know, actually like each other. Likewise, grandchildren will survive better if both of their parents are around. (Keep in mind that history was quite HarmfulToMinors: before 1800, you only had a ''50% chance'' of living past your 5th birthday.) Consequently, the PerfectlyArrangedMarriage was the goal when at all achievable. (Keep in mind that "PerfectlyArrangedMarriage" is ''also'' OlderThanDirt.) Having said that, these priorities are numbered because they were important {{In That Order}}; if you weren't happy in your marriage, you were expected to keep up the HappyMarriageCharade.

Also, remember when this article said that marriages served "different purposes" in historical contexts? That was LiesToChildren. These priorities are still the main criteria that modern people apply to love marriages. We just don't apply them {{In That Order}}.

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 someone]]" is sometimes a euphemism for getting it on... and when you have sex with someone, you certainly do learn things about them that very few other human beings 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!]])

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. 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).

This also seems a decent time to touch on the function of marriage historically, especially since the ArrangedMarriage is OlderThanDirt. Today, the emphasis is that you should MarryForLove, but this is NewerThanTheyThink; it's OlderThanSteam, but not by much, and as recently as 1813 [[Literature/PrideAndPrejudice Elizabeth Bennet]] was debating between whether she should marry for love or enter a MarriageOfConvenience. While today we see marriage as a form of self-expression and self-fulfillment, it served different purposes throughout most of history:

# BabiesEverAfter. What better way to seal a pact than with grandchildren? Besides, most people want to see their line continue -- especially if they were BlueBlood and had titles and property to pass down. This flies in the face of belief that nobody talked about sex back in the day. Not only didn't they, they ''must'' have, because sex -- or at least children -- was literally one of the reasons you were getting married. They just didn't necessarily do it as ''publicly'' as we do it today. ("Hi, r/sex on Website/{{reddit}}, I'd like to ask complete strangers some questions about my genitals.")
** (This also raises the question of homosexuality, which -- as far as modern science can tell -- occurs in about 10% of the population. The answer to that was that it was allowed to be an OpenSecret. As long as you provided your spouse with babies, you might have the freedom to do whatever you wanted -- or ''whoever'' you wanted -- on the side. Relatedly, homosexuality was not considered to be a 'life choice' back then the way it is now.)

Also, when we said that marriages served "different purposes" in historical contexts, that was LiesToChildren. These three priorities are still the main criteria we apply to love marriages. We just apply them in a different order today.

As mentioned, a lot of love stories concern a guy and a girl. Can you subvert ''this'' in a way that sidesteps MoralGuardians? (Have you noticed that Alex, Bryce and Casey each has 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 to GoMadFromTheRevelation). 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 themseslves as weird because of such. As different, sure... But that's okay. Different ''isn't'' bad.

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''. It may be an oversimplification to divide stories this way, but we're gonna do it anyway: 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]].)

There are two basic layers in any fictional, on-page relationship. In RealLife it might be different; a blogger named Kris Gage has identified [[https://medium.com/@krisgage/the-only-3-things-i-need-in-a-partner-602f1bc765f0 emotional self-sufficiency, critical thinking and friendship]] as the three most important things ''she'' looks for in a partner, and she's made a good case for it; but writing such a character isn't particularly interesting. Pro Tip: '''''TrueLoveIsBoring.''''' This is a fact that really, really cannot be overstated. But boring fiction doesn't sell well, so, as writers, we need to spice it up a little. And so let us consider the two basic layers to any fictional, on-page relationship:

# '''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 a ''relationship''. Ask yourself right now: now that you've met this person whom you have chemistry with, what are you going to do with them? 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, and that's easiest if they fit in.

One of the easiest ways a WrongGuyFirst plot or BettyAndVeronica situation can get resolved is by just handing someone the VillainBall, but a much more authentic way is something we've already hinted at: a DifferingPrioritiesBreakup. The trope's page quote provides a perfect example: Ted and Robin, two of the leads in ''Series/HowIMetYourMother'', are dating, but it becomes clear just how different they want their lives to be. Robin wants to travel the world, while Ted wants to settle down and have BabiesEverAfter (with her). 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 BirdsOfAFeather, someone who dreams your dreams?

But let's say you decide to add in other characters -- which is also realistic. Very few human beings live in total isolation; they have friends and/or family members. There may also be additional romantic attachments, because those can make for really juicy drama: the 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?

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 now 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 their own, Ross and Carol are married to the wrong people.

# '''Chemistry'''. This oft-used word deals with 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 Alex wants to be swept up into the arms of someone TallDarkAndSnarky, then when such a person walks into "Alex's Books and Stationery" on the second page of the novel, The Reader expects them to end up together. Likewise, Bryce is looking for someone feisty and independent who won't just play the fainting violet. Oh, and maybe HeroesWantRedheads. When Bryce walks into that bookstore and sees the fiery-haired proprietor chewing someone out, The Reader expects Bryce to be interested. Why? Because of desired traits; because of chemistry. Bryce's presence in Alex's life (and vice versa) is 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.)

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? Because there is an obvious market for it. 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 need an "UnfortunateImplications" index.

Generally, a love story requires a bare minimum of two characters—the ones who are going to fall in love. So you'll need your LoveInterests first.

While most romances have focused on a man and a woman--say, 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.)

Anyhow, you've got your two (or more) leads, Jordan and Haley. And the thing is, ''that can be all you need''. {{Conflict}} in a romance typically comes in the flavor of Character vs. Character, and Jordan and Haley can totally be those characters. (More on this later.) 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 now got Jordan, Haley and Dannie, plus whatever additional supporting cast you decide to put in. Now comes the hard part: making sure all three characters have ''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, Haley and Dannie are ''before'' they meet and begin to variously fall in love with each other, so get cracking.

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 Haley for something Jordan did" while the other is "Jordan dumps Haley because of something Haley ''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 Haley's reactions to any of these things will also depend on what ''Haley'' wants. A GoldDigger will treat an unemployed thumb-twiddler differently than someone who is SecretlyWealthy.

# '''Chemistry'''. This oft-used word deals with 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 Haley wants to be swept up into the arms of someone TallDarkAndSnarky, then when such a person walks into "Haley's Books and Stationery" on the second page of the novel, The Reader expects them to end up together. Likewise, Jordan is looking for someone feisty and independent who won't just play the fainting violet. Oh, and maybe HeroesWantRedheads. When Jordan walks into that bookstore and sees the fiery-haired proprietor chewing someone out, The Reader expects Jordan to be interested. Why? Because of desired traits; because of chemistry. Quinn's presence in Evan's life (and vice versa) is 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.)

As mentioned, a lot of love stories concern a guy and a girl. Can you subvert ''this'' in a way that sidesteps MoralGuardians? (Have you noticed that Jordan, Haley and Dannie each has 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 [[AxCrazy 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.

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. 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.

Also, when we said that marriaged served "Different purposes" in history, that was LiesToChildren. These three priorities are still the main criteria we apply to love marriages -- just in a rather different order.

Finally, there are a ''vast'' number of tropes that are AlwaysMale, AlwaysFemale, or related to the {{Double Standard}}s we use to judge both men and women. Many of those tropes relate to this genre. How many of them can you invert, subvert, GenderFlip or flat-out avert? (Have you noticed that Jordan, Haley and Dannie have never once been referred to by a gendered pronoun? Again, that was deliberate. What if you were to read them again, but this time reversing all the sex assumptions you made? Which read was more interesting?)

* '''NeverMyFault''': A lot of people believe this about themselves. So if something Jordan does causes Haley pain or problem -- gambling addiction, maybe -- Jordan may have difficulty accepting their responsibility and altering their behavior.
* '''TheStoic:''' A lot of people have trouble expressing their emotions, believing that doing so makes them weak. A lot of people have trouble ''letting other people'' express their emotions for the same reason. The problem comes when Jordan hits some sort of TearJerker for which emotional expression is a completely appropriate response, and Haley is all, "No way, not gonna help you deal with it." (Or, worse, when ''HALEY'' hits the TearJerker but still refuses to air the issue, and thus cope with it.)
* '''ActualPacifist:''' Fighting with anyone ''sucks'', and in general, we don't want to do it. But if Jordan and Haley are having a serious problem, and Jordan would rather ''keep'' running from the problem, and thus allow it to continue occurring... Well, when's the problem gonna stop?
* '''ItsAllAboutMe:''' A lot of people believe this about themselves. They make good talkers but bad listeners. At which point Jordan has a problem because Haley is in a relationship with them and it is, at least in theory, Haley's ''job'' to listen to Jordan's problems, and yet Haley refuses to.
* '''IWorkAlone:''' Fundamentally, a relationship is about sharing. Some people have trouble doing this (see "The Stoic" above). If Jordan isn't ready to be honest -- and, more importantly, ''[[WhatKindOfLamePowerIsHeartAnyway vulnerable]]'' -- with Haley, the relationship isn't going to last long.
* '''FairWeatherFriend:''' In general, relationships are fun. But what happens when it stops being fun?, as it inevitably does. Does Haley tough it out by Jordan's side? Or just back off and let Jordan try to fight their way out alone?
* '''ThickerThanWater:''' ...Well, what kind of person ''doesn't'' rush home if their mother is on her deathbed? Not Jordan, that's who. But where does that leave Jordan's co-workers? Where does that leave Haley? Where does that leave ''the children'' Haley and Jordan have together?

(And, to be clear: we still haven't added Dannie into the equation yet. As mentioned, earlier, all you really need if you want drama in a love story is to have two people who are attracted to each other.)

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 Wiki/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]].

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. Devin could spend five hours hand-crafting something for Haley... and if Haley just doesn't care, then Devin wasted all that time. Haley (on the other hand) loves to give back-rubs and massages, which Devin maybe could use because of the amount of stress Sam picks up over the course of life, job and etc... and which Devin doesn't care about, because "physical comfort" is way low down on Devin's list of 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.)

For that matter, how about AnachronicOrder? The story does not need to be told in the normal manner. Music/ViennaTeng has a song called "[[https://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. The only time their timelines cross is 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.

If you ''have'' decided to go for it, you now skirt a whole new set of pitfalls: ErectionRejection, IKEAErotica, PurpleProse and so forth. We do somehow have a [[SoYouWantTo/WriteASexScene So You Want To Write A Sex Scene?]] page that we slipped past Administrivia/FiveP, and it's going to have most of your help; if you need more, actual NSFW sites like Website/{{Literotica}}, and ''their'' So You Want To departments, will be your best bet.

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 Jordan 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.

But let's say you decide to add in other characters -- which is also realistic. Very few human beings live in total isolation; they have friends and/or family members. There may also be additional romantic attachments, because those too are good for drama: the 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: making sure all three characters have ''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.

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. A GoldDigger will treat an unemployed thumb-twiddler differently than someone who is SecretlyWealthy.

# '''Chemistry'''. This oft-used word deals with 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, Evan is looking for someone feisty and independent who won't just play the fainting violet. Oh, and maybe HeroesWantRedheads. When Evan walks into that bookstore and sees the fiery-haired proprietor chewing someone out, The Reader expects Evan to be interested. Why? Because of desired traits; because of chemistry. Quinn's presence in Evan's life (and vice versa) is 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.)

As mentioned, a lot of love stories concern a guy and a girl. Can you subvert ''this'' in a way that sidesteps MoralGuardians? (Have you noticed that every character on this document that isn't from a pre-existing work of fiction 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 [[AxCrazy 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.

Finally, there are a ''vast'' number of tropes that are AlwaysMale, AlwaysFemale, or related to the {{Double Standard}}s we use to judge both men and women. Many of those tropes relate to this genre. How many of them can you invert, subvert, GenderFlip or flat-out avert? (Have you noticed that this article has never once used a gender pronoun ''for'' any of its "named" characters? Again, that was deliberate. What if you were to read them again, but this time reversing all the sex assumptions you made? Which read was more interesting?)

A lot of love stories end up resorting to things like the IdiotBall, {{Love Triangle}}s and other over-the-top stuff because they can't figure out how else to make the story interesting. This is partially because of a belief that once the romantic leads get together, there must be a HappilyEverAfter: Drama is ''over''. No more {{conflict}}! And since stories run entirely on conflict, a pair of people who don't have any will make for a boring story. So one of the best things you can learn is that when two people get their RelationshipUpgrade, it doesn't ''cancel'' conflict, it just ''changes'' conflict. There will still be struggles and problems, even in a relationship that works most of the time. Just as some examples:
* '''NeverMyFault''': A lot of people believe this about themselves. If one of their behaviors causes pain to their partner, they might have problems facing that fact and altering their behavior.
* '''TheStoic:''' A lot of people have trouble expressing their emotions, believing that doing so makes them weak. A lot of people have trouble ''letting other people'' express their emotions for the same reason. This can be problematic if either member of the relationship has encountered a TearJerker for which emotionality ''is'' an appropriate response.
* '''ActualPacifist:''' Fighting with anyone ''sucks'', and in general, we don't want to do it. But if a couple are having a serious problem and one of its members would rather ''keep'' running from the problem, and thus allow it to continue occurring...
* '''ItsAllAboutMe:''' A lot of people believe this about themselves. They make good talkers but bad listeners. And if they're in a relationship and it is now, at least theoretically, their ''job'' to listen to someone else talk about their problems...
* '''IWorkAlone:''' Fundamentally, a relationship is about sharing. Some people have trouble doing this (see "The Stoic" above). If they aren't ready to be honest -- and, more importantly, ''[[WhatKindOfLamePowerIsHeartAnyway vulnerable]]'' -- with their partner, the relationship isn't going to last long.
* '''FairWeatherFriend:''' In general, relationships are fun. But what happens when it stops being fun?, as it inevitably does. Will your partner stick with you?
* '''ThickerThanWater:''' ...Well, what kind of person ''doesn't'' rush home if their mother is on her deathbed? But how does that impact their family / friends / spouse / children?

Here's another bit of advice, proved perfectly by Patrick Rothfuss' debut novel ''Literature/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.

Rothfuss avoids this whole mess with Denna, his female lead. Instead of spending any amount of time on her appearance, Rothfuss makes it clear that his 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.

How does this relate to casting? Simple: by using this technique—by getting The Reader to empathize with your lead 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 at all! Just give 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. Because that leaves The Reader's imagination free to fill in their own personal details about your hero... And tell me this: who's going to be better at inventing The Reader's perfect man? The Reader? Or you?

Well, there's ''Theatre/RomeoAndJuliet'', but take it with a grain of salt: the AlternativeCharacterInterpretation, that the title characters were naive children who rushed into an infatuation (or just morons), is starting to become the ''Standard'' Character Interpretation. The epic of the early 20th century is probably ''Film/{{Titanic 1997}}'', or perhaps ''Film/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 [[ComicBook/SpiderMan the male lead got bitten by a radioactive spider]].

# '''Chemistry'''. This oft-used word deals with 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.)

One of the easiest ways a WrongGuyFirst plot or BettyAndVeronica situation can get resolved is by just handing someone the VillainBall, but a much more authentic way is something we've already hinted at: a DifferingPrioritiesBreakup. The trope's page quote provides a perfect example: Ted and Robin are dating, but it becomes clear just how different they want their lives to be. Robin wants to travel the world, while Ted wants to settle down and have BabiesEverAfter (with her). 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 BirdsOfAFeather, someone who dreams your dreams?

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 Quinn and Robin 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 people you don't know, and don't care about, 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.

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!]])

As mentioned, a lot of love stories concern a guy and a girl. Can you subvert ''this'' in a way that sidesteps 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 [[AxCrazy 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.

Finally, there are a ''vast'' number of tropes that are AlwaysMale, AlwaysFemale, or related to the {{Double Standard}}s we use to judge both men and women. Many of those tropes relate to this genre. How many of them can you invert, subvert, GenderFlip or flat-out avert? (Have you noticed that this article has never once used a gender pronoun for any of its "named" characters? Again, that was deliberate. What if you were to read them again, but this time reversing all the sex assumptions you made? Which read was more interesting?)

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 their own, 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: the need to balance HonorBeforeReason, the HappyMarriageCharade, and the very human and normal desires to participate in love and sex. (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 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, and 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 BirdsOfAFeather, someone who dreams your dreams?

"TrueLoveIsBoring" seems like a depressing, destructive trope, but it's TruthInTelevision, and this is exactly why. 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.