Breaking the Rules: Why Some Authors Get Away With It

Rules are made to be broken.

If every historical romance author took notice of my twelve “historical romance deal breakers” and endeavored to avoid them all, would their books be better…or just boring?

I think probably both would happen.

Many of my favorite books use a well-worn plot and make it unique and different by creating lovable, memorable characters and settings that draw me into the story with them. The author doesn’t need to break a rule to keep me turning the pages. Even though I know there’s going to be a Happy-Ever-After ending—that’s why I read romance novels, after all—I am still eagerly anticipating the scene where the hero and heroine discover their feelings are returned and anticipate a long life together.

On the other hand, some of my favorite books break some of the rules—and I love them just as much! Does this make me schizophrenic? Indecisive? Hypocritical? Maybe. Maybe not.

So what’s the difference? Why will I rant over one book with a ditzy heroine, and rave over another with a similar problem? My intuition tells me it’s the skill of the author that makes the difference.

If the ditzy heroine stays ditzy and gets the hero anyway, I’m disappointed with both—the heroine because she hasn’t grown or matured during the story, and the hero because he is stupid enough to fall for a ditzy heroine who will probably be ditzy her whole life. Yeah, I know—it happens. But not in the romance stories I enjoy. I want my hero and heroine to be worthy of each other. Not perfect, but moving in that direction, at least.

Most heroines aren’t ditzy, but they still have much potential for growth. I read a story recently where the heroine started out being very superficial and unsympathetic. To be frank, I almost couldn’t believe she was the heroine and kept looking for someone more worthy to come along. It seemed to get worse before it got better. But with the right man, she gradually began to evolve into a mature, caring woman, and I found myself applauding for her. Doesn’t everyone like to see an underdog win in the end?

Character is the key.

Diana Gabaldon is a case in point. There are many things in her books that I don’t particularly care for, such as violence, long separations, rape, infidelity (although I still can’t decide if it’s infidelity if your husband hasn’t been born yet—or died 200 years ago), and lots of information about 18^th century medicine that I never really thought I wanted to know. But instead of wanting to throw the book against the wall—and if I did it would probably damage the wall—I lap it all up. Why? It’s the characters. I love Jamie and Claire. They seem like real people to me. I want to read everything about them, even the not-so-pretty aspects of life. Diana can put them through the wringer—and she does—and they still emerge victorious, together, and stronger than ever. After the first book in the series, they are middle-aged, soon-to-become grandparents. And we readers love them more than ever!

Characterization is important in any novel, but in romance novels it is particularly important. Who wants to read a romance between unlikable and/or cardboard characters? If the reader doesn’t care about them, she won’t be motivated to finish the story. The author has to make me care whether or not the prince proposes to Cinderella. If I think Cinderella is going to turn out to be nag or the prince is going to be a tyrant, well, the whole “sailing into the sunset” thing doesn’t seem quite believable.

Authors: whether you decide to follow or ignore my twelve “deal breakers,” make sure your characters are compelling and readers will buy your book in droves.

That’s my opinion…and I’m sticking to it.

What do you think about rule-breaking? Do you have some favorite authors who can get away with it? Or do you have some rules of your own not mentioned here?

Historical Romance Deal Breaker #12: Excessively Cruel Heroes/Heroines

Dec1

This is the last of the series of what I call “deal breakers”—characteristics that make a book a wall-banger instead of a pleasurable diversion.

In my next post I plan to explore why it is that some of my favorite books are guilty of breaking some of my most heinous rules. Why can some authors get away with it and others not? The author in me wants to know!

Overview of Susana’s Historical Romance Deal Breakers

As fond as I am of happy endings, they have to be convincing happy endings. And although it’s natural for couples to quarrel and subsequently reconcile, I agree with my friend, author Selene Grace Silver, that in cases where a couple has parted due to betrayal or excessive cruelty on the part of one or both, it’s difficult to believe that such a thing would not occur again. It would require a great deal of groveling on the part of the guilty party to satisfy me.

Do such things happen in real life? Of course. But even Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor couldn’t make it work the second time, no matter how much they loved each other. It would be nice if love were enough to ensure a happy ending, but alas, it is not. There has to be trust. And true forgiveness. And whatever separated them the first time needs to be dealt with, whether it be alcoholism or infidelity or out-of-control anger.

Some examples I’ve run into in historical novels:

A hero discovers on his wedding night that his wife is not a virgin and repudiates her publicly without allowing her a chance to explain. Hypocritical judge and jury.
A hero suspects his wife of sleeping with his best friend, so he divorces her and leaves her penniless. She is forced to marry the best friend to give her child (the hero’s since she never did commit adultery) a home. Then the hero finds out the child is his and wants her back. (Shaking my head in disgust at this one.) Loser.
A husband who has been estranged from his wife decides she needs to give him an heir and forces her to live with him; however, she has to sleep in the nursery because he shares the master bedroom with his mistress. No kidding. Jerk.

What do you think? What examples have you found of excessively cruel heroines? I confess the more memorable ones for me involve cruel heroes.

*Disclaimer: This series of “deal breakers” is meant to refer to books labeled historical romances, and not to erotica, which is a completely separate sub-genre and has an entirely different purpose.

Historical Romance Deal Breaker #11: Long Separations

Nov21

Literally decades of reading historical romances have led me to develop strong opinions of what defines a truly satisfying story, so the other day I set about making a list of characteristics that turn a potential five-star read into a one- or two-star. Admittedly, there are some skillful authors who manage to successfully incorporate one or more of these scenarios in their books; however, I have run across quite a few more who in my opinion haven’t quite managed it.

These are what I call “deal breakers”—characteristics that make a book a wall-banger instead of a pleasurable diversion. Not surprisingly, many involve character, particularly, the character of the hero and heroine. They have to be likable. They have to be three-dimensional, i.e., well-drawn-out characters with flaws, not fairy princesses. And they have to be able to fall in love, convincingly, the head-over-heels kind of love.

Overview of Susana’s Historical Romance Deal Breakers

Historical Romance Deal Breaker #11: Long Separations

When the hero and heroine are apart for years at a time—I’ve seen couples separated for as long as ten years—a reconciliation just does not seem likely.

For one thing, can you really expect them to be celibate for so long a time? Even if the heroine does manage it, it’s not likely that the hero will, and I find it difficult to believe that a man can be sexually active with other women for a long period of time and still be “in love” with the woman he can’t have. After awhile, the memory of the previous love fades in comparison with the real woman in front of him. And the woman left behind has to worry about the ticking of that biological clock. Can she afford to wait an indefinite number of years for a man who may never return?

Secondly, it detracts from the romance if the couple spend too much time apart. One feels regret at the wasted years, the unhappiness and tragedies suffered during their long separation. And if their separation was caused by arguments or incompatibility, well, you have to wonder if those same problems will return to plague them again. (Like Richard Burton and Liz Taylor. The second time definitely was not a charm.)

On the other hand, if the characters have matured during their time apart, it is possible for this scenario to work. Too many times, however, little has changed except their circumstances, and one is left feeling as though something is lacking in the HEA.

Scenarios I’ve seen that I didn’t care for:

The hero goes off to war and the heroine’s father forces her to marry another.
The hero and heroine marry and separate/divorce and then get back together years later.
The hero has no way of supporting a wife, so he goes off to seek his fortune while the heroine has no idea whether he will ever return.

I have to admit, however, that some of my favorite books do incorporate long separations, such as Diana Gabaldon’s Outlander series. In the case of Jamie and Claire, there was no alternative but to separate, and although some of the events that occurred during their separation caused them both much pain, the joy of their reconciliation more than made up for it. Frankly, I’ll read everything Gabaldon writes about Jamie and Claire. Some of the more tender scenes between them make me want to swoon! (How in the heck does she do that? The writer in me wants to know.)

What do you think about long separations?

Historical Romance Deal Breaker #10: Waifs and Silly Heroines

Nov4

Overview of Susana’s Historical Romance Deal Breakers

Historical Romance Deal Breaker #10: Waifs and Silly Heroines

Okay, I’ll admit to a partiality for feisty heroines who aren’t willing to stand aside and let themselves be walked on. However, a spoiled, selfish, immature heroine who heedlessly seeks out disaster without any concern for the consequences just makes me want to scream.

There’s something about a helpless waif that tugs at my heartstrings. However, a heroine who remains dependent on others—parents, lover, friends, etc.—seems rather gutless to me. I realize that, historically, women were expected to always be dependent, “protected,” by men, but a woman who consistently allows herself to be guided by the will of the others—in spite of her own wishes—can only end up with a satisfactory HEA through luck, i.e., her “protector” turning out to be considerate of her happiness. While waif-like heroines can be acceptable, I always wonder what would have happened if her luck had not been so good and she’d ended up with a bully.

And that’s why I prefer my waif heroines to evolve into spunky kid heroines. From being kind, passive, and insecure in the beginning, she begins to show some spirit, become defiant, and realize that she has the internal strength to make her own way in the world. And even if she ends up with an alpha hero, I know she won’t be a complete pushover, that he will have to respect her opinions in the years ahead.

So yeah, I love a good spunky heroine. But when does “spunk” become foolhardiness? Let’s talk about Lydia Bennet, the ultimate in silly heroines, from one of my favorite classics, Pride and Prejudice.

Lydia is the quintessential hormonal teenager. She drools over the handsome soldiers with her sister, thriving on their attention. To her, it’s a popularity contest, the more attention—whether good or bad—the better. She doesn’t care that she’s making herself look ridiculous or that “her way of getting a husband” may not turn out so well in the long run. If she had not been so fortunate as to have Mr. Darcy—along with her father and uncle—to bribe Wyckham to marry her, what would have become of her (not to mention the stain on her sisters)? Would she have become a courtesan or a prostitute? Starved to death? (There wasn’t any sort of “safety net” for spoiled, willful heroines in the 19th century.)

Her youth is a mitigating circumstance, along with her parents’ indulgence. But she did have older sisters who tried to rein her in, and she not only ignored them, but ridiculed them for not attracting as many beaux as she did. Even fifteen-year-olds have choices in life, and she made all the wrong ones.

Yet it is still possible that she could evolve into a satisfactory heroine. After she matured and repented of her youthful mistakes and put her life back on track. Considering that there was virtually no chance in those days of divorcing her husband, however, it would be a difficult path to take unless he conveniently died, which would also be problematic, since she and any children would undoubtedly be left penniless. So. . . how do you historically redeem a heroine like Lydia Bennet Wyckham without resorting to contrivances such as a sudden inheritance or a chance encounter with the perfect hero? Could she emigrate to America as an indentured servant and redeem herself through hard work? It’s hard for me to see the Lydia I know doing that, but I suppose it is a possibility.

While I have read stories where such deeply-flawed characters have been satisfactorily redeemed, they are few and far between. Most of the time, I end up in a state of disbelief, wanting to throw my Kindle against the wall because the author relied on some form of contrivance to get there, instead of convincing me of the character’s genuine transformation.

What kind of heroines do you prefer?

Historical Romance Deal Breaker #9: Contrived Endings

Oct27

Overview of Susana’s Historical Romance Deal Breakers

Historical Romance Deal Breaker #9: Contrived Endings

And this means fairy godmothers (or the equivalent), surprise inheritances, hidden treasure.

I have to confess that sometimes when I plot a story, I set up a situation that is so impossible that I can’t find a way out of it.

That happened to me with the novella I am currently writing. Fortunately, I offered it up to fellow writers’ group members at our annual Brainstorming Weekend, and after about 20 minutes of intense brainstorming by 11 of us, it was obvious that what I needed to do was make a slight change in the parameters of the story. Which was quite easily done.

In real life, people did (and do) face impossible situations. And it’s quite possible that one or two did get help from relatives and friends, and maybe even discovered buried treasure in the back yard. But when these things happen in a novel, I usually feel cheated. Because I want to know that my characters either managed to extricate themselves from their difficulties, or that they had the strength of character to survive in spite of them.

For example, I read a novel once where the hero and heroine were dirt poor, since the heroine’s guardian refused to approve their marriage. They made the courageous choice to live together in poverty. So far, so good. The extent of their poverty, however, was such that it began to pull them apart. The hero was seriously considering leaving the heroine for her own good when suddenly the guardian changed his mind and released her inheritance. Suddenly everything is all rosy again. But I’m left with a feeling that this pair really doesn’t have what it takes to survive a lifetime together, and that’s just not a satisfactory HEA.

Now, I think the guardian’s change of heart might actually have worked, had the author given us some preparation ahead of time. Was he starting to regret his ultimatum? Why? And had the author not shown us clearly that this couple’s relationship was too shaky to survive even a few weeks of hardship.

In real life, these things happened to people sometimes, but for me, a proper HEA leaves me with a feeling of certainty that my hero and heroine have what it takes to survive—happily—the challenges that will face them in the future.

That may be why I’m such an obsessive fan of Diana Gabaldon’s Outlander series. Jamie and Claire live in a hazardous world and undergo one crisis after another, with barely a single serene moment in between. And yet that single moment is so deeply meaningful that it gives them the perseverance they need to survive the next catastrophe. I seriously doubt I will ever get enough of Jamie and Claire. I love them.

What do you think about HEAs dependent on lucky circumstances?

Historical Romance Deal Breaker #8: Promiscuous Heroines

Oct12

Overview of Susana’s Historical Romance Deal Breakers

Historical Romance Deal Breaker #8: Promiscuous Heroines

Unmarried women in historicals—especially Regencies—should be virginal, or at least the next thing to it. It’s not fair, but women who slept around were considered sluts in the early 19th century, by the upper and lower classes alike, and gently-bred young ladies were chaperoned so closely that they had little or no opportunity for sexual experimentation.

But you wouldn’t know it by the number of stories I’ve seen lately where young ladies walk out on the terrace and allow their escorts all sorts of liberties that would terrorize any gently-reared Regency innocent. Okay, perhaps a kiss is acceptable, so long as the gentleman has honorable intentions.

One book I read took place at a house party where young ladies and eligible gentlemen were crawling into each other’s bedrooms; there were adulterous liaisons, some involving ladies and male servants. No respectable Regency parent would allow his daughter to attend such a ramshackle houseparty in the first place, let alone leave her unchaperoned long enough to be despoiled by some licentious rake.

Don’t get me wrong: proper young ladies are allowed to have the normal desires and passions of youth; they simply are not allowed to indulge them until after the wedding (or close enough to it). What I mean is, to a Regency young lady, her reputation is of primary importance. Any gentleman who is interested in her must understand that she is not simply another barq of frailty who can be molested and then discarded as he sows his wild oats.

That’s one big difference between historical and contemporary romance. In a historical, the romance must be the focus. Sexual tension: yes. Sexual experimentation: not so much.

Widowed heroines should be virtuous. In other words, they do not take advantage of the freedom allowed by their widowed status to indulge in discreet affairs. At least not with anyone but the hero, and only then when their relationship has deepened into love. “Willing widows,” who have had multiple affairs before the hero comes along, tend to leave me cold. Reeks of contemporary. Who’s to say the hero isn’t just using her like all the rest? Not romantic.

Now, I’ve seen heroines who were forced into prostitution find love and redemption with an understanding hero. A talented author can do it. The trickier part, however, is dealing with the attitudes of society with such a pairing. While Charles Fox did indeed marry his mistress, she was never accepted in society, and I’m sure many a high-stickler gave her the cut-direct when they crossed paths. Such a situation has the potential of casting doubt on the credibility of the HEA. To pretend that unpleasant scandals of the past can be completely wiped away as though they never existed is just not realistic.

In the more sensual historical romances (and erotica), as opposed to the traditional Regencies, authors can take more license with these social mores. And, as I’ve said in previous posts, there are a few authors who are skillful enough to break the rules and still leave the reader sighing contentedly. But more often than not, when I run across heroines who are allowed to sleep around without parents or chaperones noticing, I just want to throw the book against the wall.

Because if I wanted to read a contemporary romance, I wouldn’t buy a historical one. Jeesh.

What do you think? Am I expecting too much of my passionate heroines?

Historical Romance Deal Breaker #7: Drop-Dead Gorgeous Heroes

Sep29

Overview of Susana’s Historical Romance Deal Breakers

Historical Romance Deal Breaker #7: Drop-Dead Gorgeous Heroes

Don’t get me wrong: I like an attractive hero as much as anyone else. But I don’t really care for one who is so good-looking that serving maids drop their trays at the sight of him, and women flock to him by the dozens. Because even if the heroine is gorgeous herself, it just seems unlikely that a guy facing that much temptation everywhere he goes would be faithful to one woman forever, no matter how much he wants to. Especially if he’s never even tried to stick to one woman for any length of time. And especially in historical romances, where gentlemen aren’t really expected to be faithful to their wives.

And as much as I’d like to believe otherwise, a gorgeous hero falling for a plain-jane heroine is just not believable either. There has to be something attractive about a woman for a man like that to notice her. Perhaps he is the only one who sees it. But he’s not going to be thinking about her inner beauty during the entire story, at least not enough to prevent him from noticing all the beautiful women throwing themselves in his path. And speaking for the plain-jane heroine, how happy an ending can it be when she has to face this sort of thing the rest of her life? A very clever author might be able to manage it, but most stories like this leave me unconvinced.

Actually, a hero doesn’t have to be more than moderately attractive, in my opinion, as long as he has the requisite heroic qualities and truly loves the heroine. Perhaps it’s because I am one of the women who does not tend to judge by outside appearance. A hero with a scar or a limp or even a few wrinkles doesn’t phase me, as long as his other qualities measure up.

Judging by the washboard chests of the heroes on the covers of most romance novels, however, I’m thinking perhaps I’m in the minority on this. But then, I was never one to buy a book based on the cover; I’d read the blurb on the back to get a hint of the plot first. Attractive covers are nice, but I always carry an image of the characters in my mind as I read, and often they don’t look at all like those some artist (who may not have even read the book) conceived.

What about you? Do you drool over heroes with ripped chests or prefer them to have more substance?

Historical Romance Deal Breaker #6: Heroes With Mistresses or Who Sleep With Servants

Sep7

Overview of Susana’s Historical Romance Deal Breakers

Historical Romance Deal Breaker #6: Heroes With Mistresses or Who Sleep With Servants

A rake actually has great hero-potential: he’s done just about everything, sown his wild oats, and concluded that for him, women have only one use. Well, two, actually, since someday he’ll need an heir. But after awhile—although he might not admit it—there is a certain emptiness in his life that all the carousing he engages in doesn’t fill.

He’s finally ready to meet the heroine. And when he does, his life is never the same again.

If he has a mistress at the start, he has to get rid of her fairly quickly after he meets the heroine, and he can’t be sleeping with her or anyone else while he’s falling in love with the heroine. There can’t be any hint of emotional ties to the mistress either. He might not be aware of what’s happening to him, but there have to be indications right away that his attraction to other women is diminishing. And that his attraction to the heroine is growing, even though he may fight it with everything he has.

And while I know it’s very 21st century of me to object to gentlemen who sleep with servants, I find it icky when a powerful man uses an underling for sex, even if it’s consensual. Even if it happens before he meets the heroine; it’s just icky. And a proper hero cannot be icky.

It’s a bit different, however, if it happens when he’s an adolescent experimenting with his sexuality. A fully mature hero who has learned to control himself draws the line at taking advantage of his dependents.

Prostitutes and serving wenches, willing though they may be, also have a bit of an ick factor. Too much interaction on these lines—even before the heroine comes into play—makes me wonder about his chances of having contracted the French pox. It only takes one, after all.

And for that matter, I really like a hero who takes some precautions against siring bastards, no matter how primitive and unreliable the precautions might be. But if he does have any illegitimate children, he takes full responsibility for them.

A man who lives only for his own pleasure without any concern for the consequences is a sex addict. And sex addicts just do not make good heroes. Period.

What do you think? Am I expecting too much in my heroes? I’d love to know what you think.

Historical Romance Deal Breaker #5: Unattractive or Drop-Dead Gorgeous Heroines

Sep1

Historical Romance Deal Breaker #5: Unattractive or Drop-Dead Gorgeous Heroines

Heroines who are fat and/or described as “plain” or unattractive

Like the majority of readers, I am not the most attractive person out there. I’m middle-aged, struggle with weight issues, and use artificial means to enhance my hair and facial features. I consider myself “average.”

Also like the majority of readers, I like to fantasize about being more attractive and irresistible than I am. When I read, I’m picturing myself as the heroine; her experiences are mine, right up to the HEA at the end.

It just doesn’t do it for me when the heroine seems to have virtually *no* physical attractions. Especially when this is paired with too many psychological issues stemming from her doubts about her physical appearance. A little of this goes a long way, for me. I want the story to be about the characters falling in love. If I wanted to read a story that is more psychological drama than romance, I wouldn’t read romance.

While the heroine does not have to be drop-dead gorgeous (see below), she absolutely must have some attractive qualities. She might have mousy brown hair, but her figure should be unobjectionable and she might have the most intriguing grey eyes. Maybe her breasts aren’t voluminous, but she has a small waist and neat ankles (whatever that is). She may be considered plain by many, but we get to see from the beginning that the hero finds some things about her attractive, which become even more appealing once he becomes better acquainted with her.

You get the drift.

Considering the growing number of books featuring fat and unattractive heroines—and the readers who seem to rave over them—I wonder if I’m in the minority here.

However, I also have a problem with:

Heroines who are so beautiful and sweet that everyone falls in love with them (even birds and wild animals)

I also find it difficult to identify with heroines who are too perfect. (Actually, I want to slap them silly.)

In a romance it is important to create three-dimensional characters because the characters are the story. If the main characters in your story are too good to be believed, you risk your story becoming a Disney movie, with its happy cartoon characters sailing off into the sunset. Even if you enjoy cartoons, surely you have to wonder if Cinderella and her prince really did live happily ever after without ever once clashing over raising the children or the price of glass slippers. You don’t have to be diabetic to suffer from the effects of consuming too much sugar.

A heroine can be beautiful, but she has to have some flaws too. Perhaps she perceives her nose is too long. Or she’s too tall or too short. Or her hair is too dark to be the current trend.

Her flaws can also be emotional. Perhaps she fears that people only like her because of her physical attractions. (I had a roommate like that once; I never thought she was that beautiful. Oh well.) Or she’s plagued with shyness. Or she blurts out things better left unsaid. Or she thinks she is unworthy because of her birth or social class or a past indiscretion.

I adore a good HEA. I feel cheated if I don’t get one. But I want them to seem at least somewhat realistic. I want to be convinced that my hero and heroine love each other enough—have survived enough challenges as their romance developed and matured in the story—that their relationship is strong enough to survive the uncertainties of the future.

Am I the only one who feels this way? Have you run across any five-star reads with extremely ugly or extremely attractive heroines? Do tell!

Historical Romance Deal Breaker #4: Cliffhanger Endings

Aug24

The fourth deal breaker is cliffhanger endings.

There’s nothing more annoying than to get to the last chapter of a book and discover that it’s not the end. That you have to buy another book to find out how your protagonists fared.

If I really care about the characters, I may buy the sequel. But I am seething inside, and any chance I will ever trust that author again is virtually gone. Even if it’s a favorite author.

If the sequel isn’t even available yet, there is no chance I will buy it. Because months later, I won’t likely care about those characters anymore.

Why do authors cheat their readers this way? If it’s meant as a technique to promote books, it’s a misguided one indeed. Nobody likes to be teased or manipulated. Eventually, readers will get disgusted and move on.

I adore a good romance series, with cameo appearances by protagonists from previous books. I love it when secondary characters from a previous book become the protagonists in the sequel. If the books aren’t spaced too far apart (i.e., I haven’t had time to forget all about them), I will buy all of them just to make sure my old friends are still doing well.

But if there’s no satisfactory HEA at the end of the book—if I discover that instead of being rewarded for their suffering, my hero and heroine have more tribulations in store for them in the next book—I’m seriously wanting my money—and my time—back.

What do you think? Are there some authors who can get away with teasing their readers with cliffhangers?