She’s written a lot, the penner of legendaries. But now her quota is a Romance. Polaris has never written a Romance, having always turned her nose up at them. Now she’s been ordered to complete one and is given a pre-made: Meridith. The problem is, Polaris’s pride has left her void of any knowledge of the craft of a Romance and Meridith, whilst being handed to her as a ‘Romance Rookie-Pre-Made’, is anything but. Polaris needs to learn Romance inside and out and find a way to apply it to the ever-oblivious, ever-carefree Meridith in order to complete the novel. However, despite her increasing humility as a writer and growing understanding of what a Romance is, it will be for nothing if she can’t overcome the fact that one of Meridith’s intendeds is being written by Octans, the Tybalt to Polaris’ Romeo, and the Horror King. As Polaris’ growth inspires a strong bond between she and Meridith, she not only needs to find someone she deems suitable enough for her character and finish the novel, but she needs to protect her from the pen of Octans, which etches with blood rather than ink.  

Romance. Defined by The Bedford Glossary of Literary Terms as “fictional works involving some combination of… high adventure, thwarted love, mysterious quests, and improbable triumphs” (Murfin & Ray 2009, 446). Examples used by the same glossary include Wuthering Heights (Brontë 1847), The Scarlet Letter (Hawthorne 1850), Love Story (Segal, 1970) and the works of Harlequin and Danielle Steel (Murfin & Ray 2009, 447), who both frequently produce Romance works. Popular novels that meet this definition are The Notebook (Sparks 1996), Me Before You (Moyes 2012), Outlander (Gabaldon 1991), Sense and Sensibility (Austen 1813) and The Fault in Our Stars (Green 2012). Despite being almost two-hundred years apart, there are clear similarities that reflect this definition. Each convey a story of love between two individuals who wade through their struggles, whether it be time, status, ideals or sickness, to be together. Romance is also defined as both the idea of the world told “as it ought to be and not as it is… therefore, unrealistic – or romantic” and a “love story” (Ramsdell 2012, 26-27). Put simply, Romance is a fantastical love story, the obstacle being something that keeps the ‘true’ pair apart, with adventure and triumph in tow. On the other hand, Romance has also been described as a “transnational political and artistic coalition between women” (Davis 2013, 63). It’s thought that Romance is ‘feminine’, particularly traditional Romance, and the reason has been posited to be that Romance was designed for women against a masculinised reality (Davis 2013, 64). It has also been explored as a political statement and insight into political history, challenging issues of race, gender, class and sexuality by using, inventing and altering tropes (Davis 2013, 65). This doesn’t mean that Romance isn’t about the love story but gives diversity to the genre and allows it to evolve and explore issues of society whilst providing entertainment.   

Romance is ever present in other genres, merging with many. Outlander (Gabaldon 1991), Dead Until Dark (Harris 2001), Words in Deep Blue (Crowley 2016) and Dracula (Stoker 1987). Historical, Fantasy/Supernatural, Young Adult and Horror. All contain elements of Romance and yet fit nicely into other genres. This evolution accommodates new demands and expectations (trends) arising as eras change: modesty to sexy, European to multicultural, lord and lady to vampire and werewolf, damsel to heroine (Ramsdell 2012, 42-43). Proper Elinor Dashwood (Austen 1913) to aggressive Claire Randall (Gabaldon 1991). Throughout the history of Romance, it is suggested there are ten sub-genres: ‘Contemporary’, ‘Mysteries’, ‘Historical’, ‘Traditional Regency’, ‘Alternative Reality’, ‘Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered’, ‘Inspirational’, ‘Ethnic/Multicultural’, ‘Linked’ and ‘Erotic’ (Ramsdell 2012, 83-786). It is also discussed that there are individual tropes for these genres, such as ‘interracial romance’ as a popular characteristic of ‘Colonial Romance’ as part of ‘Historical Romance’ (Davis 2013, 64). Whilst the sub-categories seem self-explanatory, they display the relationship that Romance has with other genres, showing that what was trendy during those times isn’t not relevant to the genre today. Outlander (Gabaldon 1991) was adapted into a television series in 2014, Pride and Prejudice (Austen 1813) merged with the booming zombie genre in the 2009 novel Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (Grahame-Smith & Austen 2009) and then was adapted into a movie in 2016 (Steers 2016). Of course, the critical elements of a Romance remain, no matter how many features from other genres are introduced: a love story split in two and the journey to stick them back together.  

Throughout time, Romance has given us memorable and well-known pairings: Romeo & Juliet (Shakespeare ca. 1596-1595), Tristan and Isolde (Georgaris 2006), Katniss and Peeta – The Hunger Games Trilogy (Collins, 2008-2010), Lancelot and Guinevere – The Once & Future King (White 1958), Catherine and Heathcliffe – Wuthering Heights (Brontë 1847), Claire and Jamie – Outlander (Gabaldon 1991) and Ron and Hermione – Harry Potter (Rowling 1997-2007). And with such pairings come the participating tropes. The rival: Tybalt, Marke, Gale, Arthur, Edgar, Frank and Viktor/Lavender. The obstacle: family rivalry, family loyalty, impending death, loyalty, personality, time and the inconvenience of growing up in the throng of magical struggles… and puberty. Ten popular plot tropes of Romance “according to romance writers of America” are: friends-to-lovers, fate, second chance, secret love, first romance, strong heroine/hero, reunited lovers, love-triangle, the sexy rich woman/man and the sassy heroine (Jackson 2018). Several of these fit into the examples above and most of these will appear any successful Romance novel. They’re evident, even in controversial or ‘deemed-trash-after-the rose-coloured-glasses-come-off’ works such as The Twilight Saga (Meyer 2005-2008) and Fifty Shades of Grey (James 2011-2012). These works carried the effective tropes of Romance but also raised issues such as negative love lessons, possessiveness and the glorification of domestic violence (Hancock 2017; Douglas 2016; Goodfriend 2011), showing how Romance delves into more than the love story (Davis 2013, 65).  

In my work, I will touch on most, if not all, tropes evident in successful Romance. Not only will there be the mandatory love story, but I will challenge the popular conventions to question their place in the genre. I will not be focusing on sex, as Doctor Dana Percec suggests Romance does (Romance: a History of the Genre, Percec 2012), placing my work more towards Contemporary Young Adult Romance rather than Mills and Boon. For it to be successful, I will use the foundations of Romance that have been laid out in significant works that have come before me. Without the tropes, it will have no relation to the other works at all and fail to be part of the genre, but I do not intend to reproduce them exactly. The piece will relate to all of these works either directly or in response to them.  

I have chosen Romance to explore in my creative piece, as it was a genre I disliked and thus have little experience with. My focus is to use my piece to educate myself on and explore the Romance genre. My work will participate in the genre by using the history of Romance to construct it. My goal and purpose will force the work’s engagement with the existing ideas of Romance to ensure it truly becomes a Romance. Like many Romance works, it will also partake in another genre, or at least borrow features from it. This will be done with my protagonist’s experience with Fantasy and my antagonist’s experience with Horror. I intend to do this to show that Romance exists very well with other genres but can also dominate them, not merely being a standard love-story inserted into another genre. For example, with Outlander (Gabaldon 1991), The Twilight Trilogy (Meyer 2005-2008) and Words in Deep Blue (Crowley 2016) where they seem Historical, Supernatural and Young Adult, but are still clearly Romance, not being overshadowed by their partner genre. This, however, does not mean that I intend to follow the standard recipe for a Romance in its conventional way.  

Through my two main characters, I will both follow the tropes and subvert the genre, using each one as an obstacle to the novel itself. In order to do this, my primary protagonist, Polaris, will attempt to use every Romance trope she can find to try and complete the novel quickly but, because of the personality of Meridith and the stubborn nature Polaris has when it comes to Romance, they will not work out in their favour and or put them further from the end of the novel. As the relationship between Meridith and Polaris becomes something of a bond, even without Meridith’s knowledge, no basic character will be good enough for Polaris, who will tear apart the conventional intendeds in her Romance. No playboy, childhood friend, bad-boy, rich man with a flattering suit or gentle neighbour is worthy of Meridith, whether she knows it or not. Any emotional triangle will be repelled by Polaris’ pen, and fate is just a red cord she’ll cut if she must. Her friend, Alphard, will behave as an unbiased character towards the genre, suggesting the traditional form but also considering the effects of how Polaris and Meridith are subverting the genre. The piece will not merely focus on the romantic expectation but will explore how these can be shaped to the individual for that true ‘happy ending’, challenging what readers are given to think is desirable. I will also use the antagonist, Octans, and his ‘character’ to contest tropes that I disagree with, not in the sense that they should not make up (because they already do regardless) the Romance genre but in such a way they will confront those who feel such tropes are applicable to real life and can be treated as such. By this I mean that fiction can cause the same misconception as proposed psychological theory. A Romantic can cause the same misconceptions as a Psychologist. For example, Sigmund Freud almost taught that children wanted to be abused (his concept of the early Psychoanalytical Theory had severe consequences, suggesting that children were to blame for sexual abuse and desired it (Person 2013), this also led to accusations that he “contributed to societal denial and minimisation of sexual assaults on children” (Joyce 1995, 199-214)) and I believe that some authors have taught that it is okay to be dominated, abused and psychologically-dependent on a counterpart and that this is, not only normal, but desirable Romance. Like Freud, they too were criticised, but are still published material. As a writer, even with fiction, I feel that I have a duty to make sure such misconceptions do not arise from what I produce, especially in something, despite not being bound by realism, as close to reality as Romance. My purpose for this is to create a work that, whilst is open to the Romance genre, is honest.   

I feel that a challenge of my work will be ensuring that I am responding to the genre with my purpose rather than making a mockery of it. Whilst it is easy to say this is not my intention, I think I will have to be careful in making sure it is not received as such. I also think that adhering to my ideal of not promoting what I deem ‘dangerous’ or ‘inappropriate’ might also be an obstacle. Whilst it might seem simple, I feel that it would be wrong to assume that such misconceptions would be so obvious as all readers bring their own interpretation to written works. However, I also do not want to restrict my work because of these potential issues and risk having white and red flags surrounding tropes. To combat this, my writing will need to communicate effectively by using my style, characters, settings and placement of the Romance conventions. I hope to produce a work that is honest to myself and a representation of my learning about the Romance genre. I intend to challenge the tropes but also utilise them so what I write indeed becomes a Romance. 

References  

Austen, Jane. 1813. Pride and Prejudice. United Kingdom: T. Egerton, Whitehall.  

Austen, Jane. 2014. Sense and Sensibility. 4th ed. United Kingdom: Penguin Random House.  

Brontë, Emily. 1847. Wuthering Heights. United Kingdom: Thomas Cautley Newby.  

Collins, Suzanne. 2008-2010. The Hunger Games Trilogy. United States: Scholastic.  

Crowley, Cath. 2016. Words in Deep Blue. Australia: Pan Macmillan.  

Davis, Emily. 2013. Rethinking the Romance Genre: Global Intimacies in Contemporary Literary and Visual Culture. United States: Palgrave Macmillan.  

Douglas, Caroline. 2016. “The Problem(s) With ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’.” Odyssey, September 19, 2016. https://www.theodysseyonline.com/the-problems-with-fifty-shades-of-gray.  

Gabaldon, Diana. 1991. Outlander. United States: Delacorte Books.  

Georgaris, Dean. 2006. Tristan and Isolde. Directed by Kevin Reynolds. Produced by Moshe Diamant, Lisa Ellzey, Giannina Facio, Elie Samaha, Ridley Scott & Tony Scott. United States: Scott Free. Film.  

Goodfriend, Wind. 2011. “Relationship Violence in ‘Twilight’.” Psychology Today, November 9, 2011. https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/psychologist-the-movies/201111/relationship-violence-in-twilight.  

Grahame-Smith, Seth. & Austen, Jane. 2009. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. United States, Philadelphia: Quirk Books.  

Grahame-Smith, Seth. & Austen, Jane. 2009. ‘Pride and Prejudice and Zombies’ adapted by Steers, B. Directed by Burr Steers. 2016. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. Produced by Sean McKittrick, Allison Shearmur, Natalie Portman, Annette Savtich, Brian Oliver, Tyler Thompson & Marc Butan. United States: Screen Gems. Film.  

Green, John. 2012. The Fault in Our Stars. United States: Dutton Books.  

Hancock, Laura. 2017. “The Real Reason That 5 Shades of Grey Poses a Danger to Society.” Huffington Post, October 28, 2017. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-real-reason-that-50-shades-of-grey-poses-a-danger_us_59f3b177e4b05f0ade1b5746.  

Harlequin. “Company Information”. Accessed August 14, 2018. http://corporate.harlequin.com/.  

Harris, Charlaine. 2001. Dead Until Dark. United States: Ace Books.  

Hawthorne, Nathaniel. 1850. The Scarlet Letter: A Romance. United States: Ticknor, Reed & Fields.  

Jackson, G.L. 2018. “All The Kissing’s Favorite Romance Tropes.” All The Kissing (blog), February 13, 2018. https://allthekissing.com/2018/02/atk-romance-tropes/.  

James, E.L. 2011-2012. Fifty Shades of Grey Trilogy. United Kingdom: Vintage Books.  

Joyce, Patricia. 1995. “Psychoanalytic theory, child sexual abuse and clinical social work.” Clinical Social Work Journal, 23 (2): 199-214. Accessed August 17, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02191683.  

Meyer, Stephanie. 2005-2008. The Twilight Saga. United States: Little, Brown and Company.  

Moyes, Jojo. 2012. Me Before You. United Kingdom: Michael Joseph.  

Murfin, Ross & Ray, Supryia M. 2009. The Bedform Glossary of Critical and Literary Terms. 3^rd ed. United States: Bedford St. Martin’s.  

Percec, Dana. 2012. Romance: the History of a Genre. United Kingdom: Cambridge Scholars.  

Person, Ethel S. 2013. On Friend’s “A Child is Being Beaten”. 2^nd ed. United Kingdom, London: Karnac Books.  

Ramsdell, Kristin. 2012. Romance Fiction: A Guide to the Genre. 2^nd ed. United States of America, Libraries Unlimited.  

Rowling, Joanne K. 1997-2007. Harry Potter Series. United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Publishing.  

Segal, Erich. 1970. Love Story. United States: Harper & Row.  

Shakespeare, William. ca. 1595-1596. “Romeo and Juliet.” In The Complete Works of Shakespeare, 11^th ed. United Kingdom: The Hamlyn Publishing Group LTD, 1968  

Sparks, Nicholas. 1996. The Notebook. United States: Warner Books.  

Stoker, Bram. 1897. Dracula. United Kingdom: Archibald Constable and Company.  

White, T.H. 1958. The Once & Future King. United Kingdom: Collins.