Balls and Walnuts
more than you ever wanted to know
SBD: Help me end this thing.
I’m close. So very, very close.
At the risk of abusing Beth’s Smart Bitches Day tradition, I’m going to use this morning’s post to solicit help in ending my romance. Specifically, I need information. I figure the collective experience of my romance-reading readers beats the crap out of my meager investigations any day of the week.
We want . . . information.
Is it, or is it not de rigeur in a romance novel for the hero to overcome challenges and prove himself in the denouement? Well, whether it is or not, I’d like you to give me examples of how this was done in your favorite romance novels. Or in your most hated romance novels, for that matter — it’s all grist for the mill.
Trust me, I have something in mind for all of this information, and it’s not what you think. My betas will, I hope, be pleasantly surprised.
D.
I had to look it up to get specific: “Conflicts are resolved, creating normality for the characters and a sense of catharsis, or release of tension and anxiety, for the reader.”
So he would do something hero-proving then? After he rescued the girl from the burning ship and killed the baddie (or some other climax)?
Hmmm. Not a novel, but we just finished watching Music and Lyrics, and the hero proved himself by telling the popstar that her sexy pseudo-Indian dance was killing the song–is that the sort of thing you had in mind?
I think it depends on whether or not the hero has an arc. Sometimes, it’s the heroine who has to prove herself. Which is what happens to all 3 heroines in the recently finished The Unfortunate Miss Fortunes. All 3 of them had to overcome personality/magical gift clashes to prove themselves by defeating their evil aunt.
I have to say, I’m having trouble thinking of a specific example of a hero proving himself. My favorite romances generally have the heroine proving herself instead.
I’ll try to think of some specific examples & come back later.
Is it extraordinarily dim of me to admit that I don’t fully understand the question?
Does the hero HAVE to anything in the denouement? I don’t *think* so. But I’ve read all sorts of Romances with all sorts of endings. Some of which worked for me and others of which didn’t.
For me BOTH characters have to change, and they have to recognize that change in themselves. They have to somehow admit (if just to themselves) that they are changed for the better for being with the partner, or that they are “complete” as a whole, or that they have discovered something about their own person or psyche, or the importance of trust and honor in the world by being with the partner.
That’s the only happy ever after (HEA) I need in a Romance. A lot of readers demand a wedding or an outright commitment to monogamy at the end. If I can see that the two recognize that they will be forever joined at the hip because of their need (non-sexual) for each other (A non-sexual emotional need which of course creates great lust), then I see them as bonded and the wedding and all that is superfluous.
BUT, both characters have to change during the Romance. Because if one character shows up at the beginning saying, “You complete me. I fully understand now how to trust another person, now that I have met you.” Well then. That’s just gross. Stalkerish. Yuck. (But a LOT of paranormal werewolf/vampire romances are like that and people suck them up with a straw. But not me.)
And after all that writing, I’ll just say that I still don’t quite understand what you’re asking me. What is it that you don’t want your hero to do?
Since Beth isn’t around to guide us on this SBD, I will tell you that I bitched about a sex book.
Ack! I must have really flubbed this one.
I’m looking for a few common ending tropes. Stuff you often see happening towards the end of a romance . . . the big denouement “moves.” Or are there no trite situations to exploit?
Your comments are helpful, though, even if they’re not what I asked for 🙂
Carrie, I’ll stop by in a bit. Sex book = good, good, good.
I don’t know why, but this is harder to answer than it sounds. I think that’s because the big denouement in a lot of cases isn’t things like saving the damsel in distress, but instead biting the bullet and laying open the heart – something these men are extremely loathe to do for a variety of reasons. The hero makes himself vulnerable to the heroine, he doesn’t prove himself physically strong.
On the other hand, there is that classic ending from Pride & Prejudice (though of course even it includes that moment when Darcy makes himself vulnerable in front of Elizabeth for the second time). Anyway, he goes to the trouble of finding Elizabeth’s sister Lydia and Mr. Wickham and forces them to marry in order to save Elizabeth’s family from the shame the family would otherwise face. But he does this not so he can bring it to Elizabeth’s attention as a proof of love, he does it just for her sake out of love and begs those who know about it not to tell her of his involvement. He also (like she does) takes things she told him to heart and set aside his pride to admit he had been wrong. So he does these things, but not with a derring-do, swashbuckling kind of attitude, but with tenderness and out of love.
Well, I think you’ve given me the key. It won’t be as funny as I had hoped (I really wish I could hear at least a few sappy/trite tropes) but it will still work. Thanks.
Well, there’s the grovel scene. That’s a famous scene. But they’re hard to do well. (If you have a complete jackass for a hero, one who has lied and cursed the heroine out for most of the book, then you have to make him grovel for her forgiveness at the end. But if you’ve spent the whole book portraying him as a jackass, then it’s hard for the reader to “get” his transformation.)
That’s about the only scene I can think of that’s a set piece. Suspense romances usually have the hero and heroine declaring their commitment to each other earlier in the book, and then the ending consists of finding the bad guy and either having him conveniently dispatch himself so as not to muddy the hands of the hero or sending him off for his punishment.
1980’s historical romances seemed to depend upon on the kidnap scene. I HATE THOSE. Heroine hauled off to villain’s lair, sure the hero won’t rescue her because he never had much use for her anyway, but while she’s in solitary confinement she beings to realize that she really does love him. And then when he shows up to rescue her: Yay! Kill the bad guy, kiss, and everything’s great. Read the kidnap plot about four hundred times. Hate it.
(Except when Kate writes one. No, really.)
I’ve got reservations about making the scene funny. Would have seemed to me that – for a book to work as a straight romance – that scene needs to feel sincere.
But I’m not a writer, so that may be a failure of imagination on my part. And if you’re writing something more like chick lit, I could see how it would work.
Marianne, trust me — humor works in this instance.
Suisan, this helps. Thanks.