Holy Worlds Christian Forum :: View topic - Romance for the Unromantic

Frodo's relative that buys Bag End (her name escapes me)

I have almost no experience with romance, being very sheltered.

This may sound silly, but could someone define 'mushy'? Sometimes it helps me to understand a subject if the thing we're discussing is clearly defined and agreed upon.

Anyone notice the "2 guys and a girl" stereotype going around in movies and writing?

BushMaid wrote:

Anyone notice the "2 guys and a girl" stereotype going around in movies and writing?

I do notice, now that you mention it. I don't have a problem with it in general, but it seems the girl never picks the guy I wish she would XD

I am as unromantic as it gets.

I am a hard-core guy

The best of books were written by authors who were writing for themselves and just writing to write. Write the best book you can, write the book you would want to read.

I'm not a huge fan of having some hugely powerful girl who basically takes the role of a man but I don't like the kind who spend their time swooning on the sidelines either. I say just develop them like a normal character.

I think we can write something that our readers will enjoy, without necessarily writing to sell. We are all humans, we all love certain things. I think it is valuable for us to find what readers like, then filter that through Christ’s standards and see how we can write to best serve Him. We are not called to be dull, boring writers; we are called to be godly ones.

Don't write to sell. Write for God.

I want it to be more about a father's relationship with his daughter. I want it to be about love, not "romance". To show how a human can shrivel up and die without love.

To me there is a difference between romance and love. I am completely unromantic and none of my stories are romances but that doesn't mean there is no love stories within in my stories.

Ardent emotional attachment or involvement between people

Author:	Reiyen [ December 14th, 2010, 11:10 pm ]
Post subject:	Romance for the Unromantic
I am as unromantic as it gets. The fact is that I am a hard-core guy who can't even understand where girls are coming from 65% of the time. I have one female character in my whole novel who is only on a few pages and speaks maybe a few sentences. Yet one thought terrifies me, "Maybe I need a romance to sell?" Let's face it. My audience will be significantly reduced if I can't get any females to read and buy. Does anybody here have any ideas for me?

Author:	Rachel Newhouse [ December 15th, 2010, 10:47 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Romance for the Unromantic
You don't need "romance" to sell your book to girls. Some of us would actually vastly prefer it if you didn't have any mushy-lovey stuff! Many of us read (and write) books that are predominantly about guys. The Fellowship of the Ring is a decent example of a universally popular book in which the majority of the characters are guys. In some cases, a predominantly guy cast is inevitable and preferable. Depending on what you believe about the female position in life (not going to get into that debate here), there are situations you might write a book about that wouldn't be conducive to a female focus. For example, if I were going to write about soldiers on the front line, the book is going to revolve around the guys and that's just fine. I would, however, have females on the sidelines - at home and on the civilian front. FotR is a good example again. In my opinion, there aren't any female main characters - but there are women that play a role from their place in life. Frodo's relative that buys Bag End (her name escapes me), Galadriel, Arwen, etc. These characters give the story dimension and bring home/civilian life into the picture to frame the adventurous plot. As a reader, I would vastly prefer to read about godly women playing a role from the sidelines - as supportive families, aides, and allies - than a story with romance. I also want to see the female involvement in the story be natural, not forced for the sake of "having a female MC." Be realistic. What role do ladies play in your life? Your mother, sisters (if you have any), aunts, the librarian...

Author:	Airianna Valenshia [ December 15th, 2010, 10:57 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Romance for the Unromantic
Yep. I second all of Philli's words. Since she and I are so similar, I have little to add. As a side note, I'm a girl, but I love "guy" books. G.A. Henty is awesome. Not all girls thrive on romance. While you will cut down some of your audience, I think you might be surprised to find you won't cut out that much. However, be prepared, if your book gets published and turns into the next best selling Blockbuster release, they are going to add a girl.

Author:	Ciela Rose [ December 15th, 2010, 11:13 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Romance for the Unromantic
Philadelphia wrote: Frodo's relative that buys Bag End (her name escapes me) Lobelia Sackville-Baggins. Although romance definitely isn't necessary in a book, I feel like it evens out the characters and the plotline. It might be just me, but there are certain sides of the characters that only come out with tragedy and romance accordingly. It's almost like a recipe, lots of adventure, lots of action, a tiny bit of tragedy, a touch of drama, and a hint of romance (just an example, I'm not saying that all books should follow this ). So while I don't like lots of mushy stuff, I like it when a book has a minor, clean romantic thread in it. That being said, it's not necessary for a good book. If the book contains well rounded characters and a great original story plot, then I'll read it in a heartbeat. I've enjoyed reading some G.A. Hentys and historical novels where romance isn't mentioned even once! So if you don't want to go with the mushy stuff (and we'd rather you didn't) whatever you write is fine with me. Don't just cater to the audience so that your book can be sold, but tell a story that you would enjoy reading yourself.

Author:	Celearas [ December 16th, 2010, 9:53 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Romance for the Unromantic
I would say; who cares about your audience? The best of books (LotR, HP) were written by authors who were writing for themselves and just writing to write. They weren't looking over their shoulder like "Oh no, this might not appeal to blahblahblah." So who cares? Why are you writing, to get sold or because you love to write? Chances are you're not going to make a ton of money with this book no matter if you put romance in or not, so just write! Write the best book you can, write the book you would want to read. And for the record, I avoid books where it seems like the author dropped in romance just for the sake of appeasing the "girls." (Read: stereotypical girls who can't look deeper than a few cliche lines. Often don't read good books anyway.) But of course, I'm Ms. Forever A Miss, couldn't care less about romance, and see males as people to debate theoretical physics and tramp around in forests with. So maybe I don't speak for the masses. I don't know. I don't really care. Carry on. And I'm sorry, Phil, but I just couldn't let what you said slide. Galadriel? Playing a part on the sidelines? Really? She's the most powerful person in ME save Sauron, she tears down and cleanses Dol Guldur; she's not some sweet stay at home empty nester who spends all day making dinner for Celeborn (don't get me started on this dude). On the sidelines? Survived the Helcaraxe, was taught wisdom by a Maia, inspired the Silmarils, really? And then Eowyn? Just playing the part where she was? First she governs a country then she takes initiative, goes into battle, and rocks it out. So basically; let some women be important! Powerful! It's realistic, and has been all throughout history, even in times that were highly patriarchal women were writing books, doing Mulans and going into battle, influencing people on the throne or actually being on the throne. It's even biblical; Deborah? However, don't drop in a woman for the sake of having one purely because she's a woman. If it works out great, write her realistically and if she's awesome even better, but when people drop in women just for the sake of a romance or because they think a book has to have a Speshul! women, it's actually demeaning, cliche, and otherwise not good. Again, carry on. Sorry I'm so feministic, I just thought it was sort of on-topic and had to talk about one of my biggest pet peeves. Actually, I'm not that sorry. It's an online forum.

Holy Worlds Christian Forum https://archive.holyworlds.org/

Romance for the Unromantic https://archive.holyworlds.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1646	Page 1 of 1

Author:	Lady Elanor [ December 16th, 2010, 10:11 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Romance for the Unromantic
I have a massive collection of Biggles books, almost the whole collection over 100 in total) and he hardly ever has girls in his books! In fact his main character moans how so many films/books always have girls in them. I don't mind some romance in books but they are so very seldom put forward in a clean way I steer clear of them! I think your book should be fine without any girls in It certainly wouldn't put me off. Help! I'm supposed to be studying, not coming on HW for a while and I can't tear myself away!

Author:	Willow Wenial Mimetes [ December 16th, 2010, 1:47 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Romance for the Unromantic
You can definitely get away with no romance in your book. If people want romance, then that's what they will read, but if your book is marketed as "Action/suspense" or "mystery" they aren't probably going in for romance. They want excitement, and mind bending stuff, and interesting characters. However, you will never be able to get away without good, strong, emotional bonds between characters. They don't have to be romantic. But your characters have to relate to each other, and care about each other, or despise each other on a plane where the reader can feel those emotions. And I might mention that romance does tend to balance a book out. And so do women. I read and enjoy mostly male books, but there is something to be said about a "feminine touch." Same thing with books that are all about girls. (I really, really disliked, Little Women. Except for a single character, even the men were feminine. ) It depends on what feel you want for your story, but women have things men do not, and men have things women do not. And the gender ratio affects the atmosphere of the story.

Author:	Riniel Jasmina [ December 16th, 2010, 7:21 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Romance for the Unromantic
If you've only got one girl (which totally works) I wouldn't make it romantic. It makes it feel like that's the main point of having a female role. I'm not a huge fan of having some hugely powerful girl who basically takes the role of a man but I don't like the kind who spend their time swooning on the sidelines either. I say just develop them like a normal character.

Author:	Rachel Newhouse [ December 16th, 2010, 11:58 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Romance for the Unromantic
Celearas, I was speaking strictly about Galadriel's role in The Fellowship of the Ring ("book 1") only. I know there's more to her story, but from the perspective of Frodo at that time, she was someone who crossed his path and aided him on his way. I hope I didn't confuse anyone, there. I agree that women are vitally important, both in fiction and in real-life. But this thread isn't about whether or not females can be important, but about whether or not romance, specifically, is necessary to appeal to the female readership. Which we have agreed that it's not. I might've gotten a bit off-topic by talking about sideline characters, but that's just my personal preference for female roles in predominantly "guy" books. I agree with you, too, that one should write what appeals to them. There is an element of market research, but in general, I feel it is better to write what you would want to read.

Author:	Ardyth [ December 17th, 2010, 6:14 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Romance for the Unromantic
While I completely agree that romance is not necessary to having a strong and interesting female character (and it's a good idea to have at least one somewhere), I also don't think romance has to be mushy. What about chivalry? It depends on the society, but there might be room for non-mushy romance if it's a culture where men carry tokens into battle with them as a reminder of a woman they respect and care about. Obviously this depends on the culture, but doesn't involve any mush. Also, romance within marriage can be non-mushy. A character being concerned about the welfare of his wife and children back at home can add a feeling of dimension. He could miss her company or advice or just being able to relax and feel at home. So, while I don't think it's needed, especially for the sole main female character, you could add some hints that romance exists around the story as a color or texture to the world without getting into mushy stuff. I also agree that a girl doesn't needs romance to be herself, romantic relationships work better and are more solid when both people are confident in their own identity, look at Mary, she didn't need romance, God was enough for her and rightly so, and yet she didn't need to be warrior woman either, not that I have anything against warrior women, but it's a common stereotype that you have to be one or the other. I think women can be both feminine and strong in their identity and that's overlooked in fiction often. It's one of society's lies to us that we're nothing if we don't have a boyfriend or husband, so by taking a new direction, you could help combat that.

Author:	Lady Eruwaedhiel [ December 17th, 2010, 9:20 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Romance for the Unromantic
I have almost no experience with romance, being very sheltered. This may sound silly, but could someone define 'mushy'? Sometimes it helps me to understand a subject if the thing we're discussing is clearly defined and agreed upon.

Author:	Calenmiriel [ December 17th, 2010, 11:33 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Romance for the Unromantic
Lady Eruwaedhiel wrote: I have almost no experience with romance, being very sheltered. This may sound silly, but could someone define 'mushy'? Sometimes it helps me to understand a subject if the thing we're discussing is clearly defined and agreed upon. I've had a boyfriend before and don't ever plan on having another until after school (and possibly college.) So, I do have an idea of what they're talking about. My guess of what they are calling "mushy" is really blatant romance, compliments everywhere, constant flirting, and lots of physical affection such as embracing or kissing. At least, that's what I consider "mushy" to be. shrug Reiyen, I have personally been a romantic all my life. (I was the girl saying Little Foot and the girl long neck from The Land Before Time should fall in love!) But I do enjoy books with little or no romance. Such as The Castaways of the Flying Dutchman, The Golden Goblet, ect. It depends on the reader's mood and what they are looking to get out of a book. Adventure? Romance? Drama? It's all up to the author on how they are led to write. Since you describe yourself as a very "hard-core guy", forcing yourself to incorporate romance into your story may make it stiff and unnatural, if you know what I mean? Write what you feel led to write. ^^ ~Calen

Author:	Rachel Newhouse [ December 18th, 2010, 5:04 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Romance for the Unromantic
Agreeing with Calen. "Mushy," to me, is blatant, exaggerated, trite, and sappy love. Giggling, flirting and fluttering, melodrama. Ken & Barbie from Toy Story 3 are mushy. Also, "mushy" describes stories where the romance is heavy-handed or absorbs the entire plot.

Author:	BushMaid [ December 18th, 2010, 10:17 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Romance for the Unromantic
Most girls definitely don't need romance in a book for them to enjoy it. Let me think... only about 3 of my top ten favourite books have any romance in it. If you add a character to please the public even though it cramps your writing style, generally the public will pick it up, and not like it. You can usually tell when someone is writing something that goes against what they'd prefer. Anyway, as authors, we don't want to follow a trend, or please the public. We want to write something that is "Out there"! I hate mushy romances. Life isn't like that in reality, generally. I'd rather something down to earth. I would suggest that you go with what you feel comfortable writing: Don't add a girl character to please the public if you don't want to. Anyone notice the "2 guys and a girl" stereotype going around in movies and writing? Oh... just does an inventory of past novels and realizes she has written one with said stereotype Nevermind me then!

Author:	Tsahraf ChahsidMimetes [ March 19th, 2011, 11:19 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Romance for the Unromantic
Distant screams echoed through the dim, arched stone hallways. Clanks, thuds and shouted orders filtered in with the cloudy sunlight. The little girl was wandering down hallway after endless cold hallway. Sometimes, at hurrying footsteps, she jumped into an empty doorway, waited until more huge soldiers rushed past and were gone. She wandered, peeking into every room she passed, searching. She cried out, listening for that voice she knew so well. She called again, her small voice bouncing off the stone walls. "Daddy?" Is that part of your story?

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Arias Mimetes [ December 19th, 2010, 12:16 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Romance for the Unromantic
BushMaid wrote: Anyone notice the "2 guys and a girl" stereotype going around in movies and writing? I do notice, now that you mention it. I don't have a problem with it in general, but it seems the girl never picks the guy I wish she would XD Romance isn't really necessary, and at the same time there's nothing wrong with it as long as it's clean. If it fits the story I think it's okay, but you shouldn't put it in there simply for the sake of having romance. I love that kind of thing, but if the romance overshadows the plot, I start disliking it. If I want romance as a plot, I'll read a romance novel (which I don't read, by the way =P).

Author:	BushMaid [ December 19th, 2010, 12:36 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Romance for the Unromantic
Arias Myles wrote: BushMaid wrote: Anyone notice the "2 guys and a girl" stereotype going around in movies and writing? I do notice, now that you mention it. I don't have a problem with it in general, but it seems the girl never picks the guy I wish she would XD Haha! No they don't for me, either.

Author:	RedWing the Purple [ December 19th, 2010, 1:59 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Romance for the Unromantic
I have absolutely no experience with romance...but it's something that I'm learning to put in at least some of my books. (Or at least trying to. How one who has never even had a crush on someone is supposed to put romance in a book, I don't know. Possibly a good idea for a thread later...) Not all of them, but some. Sometimes it's not even a big theme, just a sort of side thing between some minor characters, or something that's simply mentioned. But it's usually there. Romance is a part of life. It's something God created, and it can be beautiful. It's /supposed/ to be beautiful. It's natural, and to have a book with absolutely /no/ romance whatsoever could possibly be a tad...er...unrealistic? Of course, that always depends on the book. And I also think having romance for the sake of having romance in there could be a train wreck. Unless of course you disguise it so well that it's not apparent that it's there for the sake of it being there. Though, I can't stand mushy. I cannot. (Though, Ken and Barbie mushy is okay, simply because it's supposed to be mushy and therefore hilarious. ) My Two Cents.

Author:	Skathi [ March 18th, 2011, 5:07 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Romance for the Unromantic
I agree with the girls. I like it when a guy and a girl in a book fall in love, but I hate mushy stuff. It has to be a strong, godly love, and definitely not the focus of the story... more a sideliner that enriches it. But most of the time I read books without a hint of romance, and enjoy them just as much--or more! But isn't it irrelevant what people want in books? It's not our mission as Christian writers to be crowd-pleasers. Don't write to sell. Write for God.

Author:	Whackem [ March 18th, 2011, 7:33 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Romance for the Unromantic
I think it was the book the Black Arrow whence came the greatest quote about romance I've ever heard: Like death and the plague, marriage comes to all. Coming from a guy who used to be unromantic (Times change) the main thing I focused on was the more He-man aspects of fantasy. Slaying dragons, combat, quests, companions, fearsome pets, great adventure. Don't write your book to appeal to others, write your book as you want it written. All you, keep all outside influences out of it. This is the one place where you have ultimate freedom. If you really want a romance then what I find to be the best way of dealing with it is just have the two characters in question spend time together and let it run naturally. You know these people well enough to know what they'll say and do. It's just like real life, it may work and it may not. Have fun with it. By the way, none of us guys know where girls are coming from 65% of the time.

Author:	Airianna Valenshia [ March 18th, 2011, 10:32 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Romance for the Unromantic
smiles I think the thing to remember is that God created marriage and love. He is the author of it. These things are not bad, at all. In fact, they portray an aspect of God's character. We are created to love. Sin has taken that love and perverted it. We just have to be careful we write as God sees love, and not as the world does. I think we can write something that our readers will enjoy, without necessarily writing to sell. We are all humans, we all love certain things. I think it is valuable for us to find what readers like, then filter that through Christ’s standards and see how we can write to best serve Him. We are not called to be dull, boring writers; we are called to be godly ones. We are not called to tickle people’s ears, but we are called to be loving. I think the thing we have to really be careful of is that we don’t lose sight of the fact that we are trying to sell our work in an effort to reach people for Christ. If you don’t write in an appealing fashion, no one is going to read what you have to say. This doesn’t mean compromise, it means insight. I've found that God has a marvelous sense of humor.

Author:	Tsahraf ChahsidMimetes [ March 18th, 2011, 11:50 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Romance for the Unromantic
Reiyen wrote: I am as unromantic as it gets. Read the book of Ruth. Esther. Song of Solomon. Reiyen wrote: I am a hard-core guy It is not good that man should be alone: the only thing God said was not good in Genesis 1 and 2. Celearas wrote: The best of books were written by authors who were writing for themselves and just writing to write. Write the best book you can, write the book you would want to read. I agree very much. The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien p. 412, from a draft, "Of course the book was written to please myself (at different levels), and as an experiment in the arts of long narrative, and of inducing "Secondary Belief". Celearas wrote: Deborah? Actually the Bible says that Deborah judged Israel; remember what God told Samuel, the last judge, (1 Samuel 8:7 ) The only women that ever ruled Israel was Athaliah. And when Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead, she arose and destroyed all the seed royal. 2 Kings 11:1 I am sorry that you think this way, but I am not at all sorry that you told us what you think. Riniel Jasmina wrote: I'm not a huge fan of having some hugely powerful girl who basically takes the role of a man but I don't like the kind who spend their time swooning on the sidelines either. I say just develop them like a normal character. I say the same thing. Women can be powerful, but it has to be done in the right way: Christianly. Women should be the secret treasures rather than the uninteresting persons. If you want to learn about romance, read the Bible. It is filled with romantic insight we can use. The Lord of the Rings has an astonishing romance in it. Watership Down has an interesting romantic perspective. smiles slyly Airianna Valenshia wrote: I think we can write something that our readers will enjoy, without necessarily writing to sell. We are all humans, we all love certain things. I think it is valuable for us to find what readers like, then filter that through Christ’s standards and see how we can write to best serve Him. We are not called to be dull, boring writers; we are called to be godly ones. Very right. Excellence is key: God invented and ordained excellence. If God says its good, then good people will like it. Sorry if this post is terse. Or long winded. Cassandra wrote: Don't write to sell. Write for God.

Author:	Aemi [ March 18th, 2011, 11:55 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Romance for the Unromantic
My story is not about romance (the MC girl being only thirteen). I want it to be more about a father's relationship with his daughter. I want it to be about love, not "romance". To show how a human can shrivel up and die without love.

Author:	Aemi [ March 18th, 2011, 4:23 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Romance for the Unromantic
I'm glad you like my signature. But, what exactly do you mean?

Author:	Rachel Newhouse [ March 18th, 2011, 10:46 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Romance for the Unromantic
Airianna made a wonderful post. But just as some people are called to marry, some are called to be single for Christ. (1 Cor. 7) Both can be very beautiful when done in a God-honoring way. Write what God calls you to write, whether that is "romantic" or not.

Author:	Aemi [ March 19th, 2011, 12:56 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Romance for the Unromantic
Oh, yes it is. The girl and her father got separated when the enemy army finally broke the siege, raided the castle, and started killing everybody inside. The raid is winding down now, so the girl has crept out of her hiding place to look for her daddy.

Author:	The Bard [ March 20th, 2011, 7:36 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Romance for the Unromantic
To me there is a difference between romance and love. I am completely unromantic and none of my stories are romances but that doesn't mean there is no love stories within in my stories.

Author:	Rachel Newhouse [ March 20th, 2011, 10:02 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Romance for the Unromantic
Joe Clemons wrote: To me there is a difference between romance and love. I am completely unromantic and none of my stories are romances but that doesn't mean there is no love stories within in my stories. Well said. I usually take "romance" as a negative form of love, but I know not all people interpret the word that way.

Author:	Aemi [ December 29th, 2011, 4:19 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Romance for the Unromantic
I think that "romance" is something you cannot really understand until you have experienced it yourself. But anyone can understand love. The Bible has verse after verse of wonderful definitions of truest love. As for writing a female character: I think girls and boys, men and women, are often more similar than you think. We are all human, after all; it's not like we're two different species. Yes, there are differences, but I don't think you have to worry about them too much, at least in the first draft. (Of course, I could be mistaken. ) I've read a romance series with a woman as the main character. It was written by a man, and I think it was well done. He probably had lots of advice from his wife.

Author:	J. Grace Pennington [ December 29th, 2011, 8:47 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Romance for the Unromantic
reads through thread with interest It's interesting how different everyone is. I am just about as romantic as they come (in all ways, not just romantic love, though that's a big part of it). I personally do enjoy stories with romance more. Not icky romance, but clean, sweet romance. The kind I want to have one day. I'm naturally more romantically oriented than most people I know, though, so my opinion may not be the same as everyone's. The best way I know to write good romance when one has not experienced it, is to study those around you. Married couples you know, young and old, study friends' courtships, and well-done romances in stories you like.

Author:	Airianna Valenshia [ January 1st, 2012, 10:44 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Romance for the Unromantic
My Daddy can be very romantic. Not just with his wife, but also his daughter. It is not negative. The world has perverted romance. The definition of the word is technically: Quote: Ardent emotional attachment or involvement between people My Daddy shows love in many ways. He shows he is romantic by designing a new wedding ring for my mom on their 15th anniversary (with all sorts of clever symbolism and aspects of their salvation story) and getting on his knee and presenting it to her. You can have love without romance. Some men are not romantic, and guess what, that's fine. God made them that way. Other men, like my Daddy, can be romantic, though it is something they go out of their way to do, rather than doing naturally. And a few men are naturally romantic. Love is essential to every story, be that love between a man and woman, a man and his God, or a man and his family. Romance is optional.