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.''

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.)

!'''Necessary Tropes'''
Hmm. LoveTropes, maybe? Check out RomanceNovelPlots, RomanceNovelTropes and the RomanceArc for more ideas. Or visit the RomanceNovel section of your bookstore. Or read Nicholas Sparks. But here's the heart of it, from a [[http://www.smartbitchestrashybooks.com/index.php/weblog/comments/unmasked_by_cj_barry/ review]] of a romance novel: "The characters should allow each other to evolve in such a way that, without the other, each one would be less than when the book started. There’s a satisfaction in seeing attraction and love heal, grow, and develop people into even better versions of themselves".

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]].)

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.

!'''Choices, Choices'''

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, 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.)

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.

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]].)

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.

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.

!'''Pitfalls'''
!!'''Setting Up Romance'''
It's possible to overdo a romance. The result, if it's a subplot, is a RomanticPlotTumor. If it's a RomanceNovel, the result is generally {{Glurge}}. Both outcomes are often delivered with a side of PurpleProse. Conversely, it's possible to underdo it. The result in ''that'' case is StrangledByTheRedString or DesignatedLoveInterest. Whatever relationship develops between the two characters, it needs to walk the line of believability between the two extremes.

You also, as mentioned, need to have characters with actual personalities. That may seem a lot of work, but the good news is, if you're writing or have ever written before, we'll be using a tool to set up these personalities which you are very familiar with: ChekhovsGun.

There are two basic layers in any relationship. One layer is that oft-used word, '''Chemistry''' and has to do with your desired traits. Ask yourself right now: what do you look for in a potential mate or significant-other? 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.)

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: 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?

(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 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.

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''.

!!'''Romance Misfires'''
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.)

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.

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.

!!'''Multiclassing into NotSafeForWork'''
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 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!]])

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.

!'''Potential Subversions'''

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?

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.

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.

There is room for a sort of "inside-out love story." Most romances focus on BoyMeetsGirl and what happens next. How about a story that goes in the other direction?—that ''ends'' with the BoyMeetsGirl, and instead focuses on what happens ''before'', and on what makes them compatible? ''Series/HowIMetYourMother'' pivoted on this idea: 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, but has anyone else done this?

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.

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.)

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?)

!'''Writers' Lounge'''
!!'''Suggested Themes and Aesops'''

LoveRedeems. LoveMakesYouEvil. LoveHurts. LoveMakesYouDumb. LoveMakesYouCrazy. We could go on about ThePowerOfLove. Alternately, you could eschew all forms of {{Anvilicious}} and just write about ThePowerOfLove. It's good stuff. It can change a life. (Heck, according to [[Literature/TheBible one prominent book]], it changed the world.)

!!'''Potential Motifs'''

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.

!!'''Suggested Plots'''

RomanceNovelPlots. The RomanceArc.

Having said that, it was mentioned earlier but can be mentioned again: a romance arc is ''very'' easy to thatch into just about any other plot, genre or ouevre. People have mated it to epic fantasy, science-fiction, mystery, comedy, drama, tragedy, Westerns, historicals... Hell, [[Creator/JamesCameron one madman]] put it on a sinking boat. And, in that movie, the romance arc ''shared'' top billing with the whole sinking-boat part. You can make a romance arc ''equal partners'' with any other genre, not just a subplot.

!'''Departments'''
!!'''Set Designer''' / '''Location Scout'''

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.

!!'''Props Department'''
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.

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.)

!'''Costume Designer'''
!!'''Casting Director'''

In general, romance stories star attractive people, for the same reason porn movies tend to star attractive people: it's escapism, and we all want to think of ourselves as attractive. The good news is, in stories, you can make anyone attractive.

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 [[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?

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.

!!'''Stunt Department'''

In love, there are no stunt doubles. (As many a man ExiledToTheCouch has learned.)

!'''Extra Credit'''
!!'''The Greats'''
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]].

Two honorable mentions:
* 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.
* The films ''Film/TronLegacy'' and ''Film/PacificRim'', which handle the love story via the almost-unseen ImpliedLoveInterest trope. You could do worse than study these films' handling of romance as a ''subplot'', one that (realistically) takes a back seat to the Action Movie foreplot of people fighting for their lives.

!!'''The Epic Fails'''
There are far too many to list here. Basically, this is anything that gets listed under TokenRomance, StrangledByTheRedString, ShippingBedDeath or similar tropes. Avoid anything you see on those pages like the plague, unless you're really eager to find out how ''not'' to do it.

!!'''Directed Reading'''
One of your first stops is [[http://www.smartbitchestrashybooks.com/index.php Smart Bitches, Trashy Books]], the WebAnimation/ZeroPunctuation or Website/{{Cracked}} Dot Com of the romance genre. A small cadre of smart bitches review trashy books, pointing out not just what works and what doesn't, but ''why'' the work or not-work happened. As a writer, that's worth its weight in gold to you (or it should be). And hey: [[http://smartbitchestrashybooks.com/blog/seduced-by-virginia-henley-a-guest-review-by-redheadedgirl at least one review]] was written by a troper!

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.

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.)