It’s probably no secret that I’m struggling with Anna in the current trilogy. Bob is not; he’s nailing his half. But along with struggling to make her come alive on the page–yes, this is the final draft–I’m also struggling with the romance. Which is making me think hard about how to put romance on the page. It’s not sex. It’s not even banter, although people who can banter, regardless of their relationship, are probably enough in sync to have a good relationship. No, it’s what they do. As Aristotle said: Character is action.
So I watched two old romcoms last night since movies are pretty much based on action. One of them blew the romance, the other nailed it, and I realized that the reason was good old Aristotle again: It’s what the lovers did.
The movie that nailed it did it all the way through, arcing the romance through action, but especially in a scene in a restaurant. They’re having lunch and arguing about business, but all the way through, he takes his ice out of his glass and puts in hers, she takes the garnish off his salad and puts it on hers, he takes the beets out of her salad and puts them in his, and when he misses one, she says, “Beet! Beet!” which lets the viewer know that they’re not swiping from each other, they’re taking care of each other, that over the months they’ve been working with each other, they’ve come to really know each other. I loved that scene the first time I saw it, and watching it again last night just sold it all over again.
The thing about the beets is that it’s not a romantic gesture. It’s not serenading somebody (although that can work if it’s not a traditional serenade like John Cusack holding up that boom box or Heath Ledger escaping campus police while singing in a football stadium–it’s not bringing flowers and candy, it’s not going down on one knee, and it’s definitely not sex. It’s throwaway moments that betray how the characters feel, straight from their lizard brains to their bodies, the stuff they so subconsciously because it’s what the other needs in the moment. And for some reason, the smaller the action, the more it resonates. Of course, they’d save each other from death, they’d probably save anybody from death. But beets? Beets are personal, a tiny detail most other people wouldn’t know, and if they did, wouldn’t think of acting on.
There are a hundred other scenes from other movies where one person just reacts to the other without saying anything or calling attention to it–John Cusack kicking broken glass out of Ione Skye’s way as they walk, Matthew Macfadyen’s famous hand flex—but getting that on paper is tough because it’s words describing actions, and the more words you use, the more you’re emphasizing what has to be a throwaway moment (that restaurant scene is not about the beets). Fewer words, bigger impact.
So that one of the ten million details I’m working on now.
What do you think?
71 Responses
I love it when actions are portrayed well without a lot of explanation. Don’t ask me how that’s done on paper, though. The Cobweb Bride by Vera Nazarian has a good example of a sub-plot romance that arcs forever across the trilogy, and its usually just the odd little look or action noted, but not described or made a big deal of, and you just start noticing it as a reader at some point, and sure enough, they get together at the end.
I think you nailed it with an air conditioner and a bridge in Agnes and in the double meals with family in Bet Me where they each knew eachother better than their families and also were fine with them as is. I think you can do it again.
The air conditioner was mine, the bridge was Bob’s. Great minds.
And those dinners were fun to write. Hmmm, must cogitate. (Nate’s an orphan.)
I will say that one of the great thing about the dinners is that they were mutual.
I’m not able right now to think of a moment where Agnes gives back as much as she gets in a way that shows she knows exactly what he needs.
I think that’s inherent in the situation. Somebody is trying to kill her, the wedding is being sabotaged, and she’s about to lose her house. He was sent to protect her, which actually adds to her problems. But she welcomes him in, feeds him lavishly, and when life goes to hell for him, she’s there, accepting everything about him, which considering his job, is big. I think he’s arranged his life so that he doesn’t need anything until he meets her and realizes there’s a whole lot more to life than the job. It doesn’t hurt that he meets her just as he’s having an existential crisis. As Carpenter says, he’s tired. And then there’s Agnes.
Even an orphan has “family” – people that are important enough to him that he wants their buy-in for an important relationship. Bob to the contrary, no person is that solitary that they have no one.
In this case, it’s true. Nate had a foster mother who was wonderful, but elderly and she died a couple of years before the story opens. He’s been in the military and the FBI, moved around a lot, has plenty of friends but, I think, is closed off to deeper relationships. He’s a good agent and a good casual friend, but avoids anything deep. He meets the heroine when she picks him up for a one-night stand, mainly because she’s furious with somebody else. They start about as far apart as two people can be, which is good for character arc.
There is no one he has stayed in touch with through all the moves ? No one he would rescue immediately if in trouble ?
I really loved the scenes you wrote so many years ago when she picked him up and when he found her again plus all that happens in between.
I don’t see huge numbers of romcoms, so I turned to the Google AI, which informs me the film with the beets is “Two Weeks’ Notice.” The aggravating thing is that I’m a Sandra Bullock fan and hence probably did see that film, but don’t remember it. Clearly no romance in my soul, but then Jo Walton says that genre romance is really about economics, not love.
I have nothing helpful to say about finishing the novel, except that Aristotle is a good place to start.
No apostrophe in Weeks. I looked it up and still forgot to change it. Feh.
I don’t like everything about Two Weeks Notice, but they built that romance really well, considering it was about two people who were nuts.
Now I want to rewatch that movie. And apparently I own it…
I was pleased to find that I owned it when I went to look for it. For evidently about twenty years.
I too found that I own it, but have not yet rewatched.
The thing I remember most about ‘Two Weeks Notice’ is the startling appearance of Trump in the middle of it. I must have watched it in 2016 or sometime in his first term (cos I was barely aware of him before that), and it certainly gave me a shock.
Unfortunately that memory has blotted out any recollection of the romance arc!
It’s annoying how many things I will read and see years after they came out with a reference to him. It’s annoying, but I understand he was part of the culture in a different way. I’m more mad at how the last 10 years have been.
It has been a while since I saw Two Weeks notice. I don’t remember him popping up, I definitely remember the beets.
I saw that movie before I realized who he was, so it was just a sidetrack, for me.
In my last ms I had a short exchange between the H&h about hanging pictures and the editor wrote next to the hero’s reply “that’s so romantic” and I certainly wasn’t trying to do that. So sometimes it is the small moments that add up to putting romance on the page.
I was going to watch Two Week’s Notice again but now that FrozenPond said Trump was in it, however briefly, I can’t.
Trump has about four sentences with Hugh Grant and he’s gone.
Four sentences too much. It was irritating when the movie was new and just repulsive on rewatch.
Only slightly related, but I have come to realize lately that I don’t love big character arcs anymore. I am not sure I ever did. I was making a list of books that I keep coming back to, let’s say the Goblin Emperor or Murderbot and pretty much all of the main characters are people I like from page one. They tend to have a strong moral center and do not deviate from it and as such I don’t think they grow exponentially as people in the stories, small subtle changes, yes. Big epiphany turn your life around moments, not so much. The world around them is hard enough and watching them navigate it provides enough drama or stress to make the story interesting. Maybe this is why I am not a huge fan of YA. Too much coming of age.
And then I realized that is why I like k-dramas so much but cannot stand Hallmark movies. Korean stories are still fluffy and silly and almost slapstick at times. The plots aren’t particularly well done, or believable, but both main characters are almost always good people in difficult situations. Whereas American Romance seems to require that one or both mcs be fairly unlikeable at the beginning. Sometimes in K-dramas there isn’t a villain at all and that is very interesting to me.
Now, how this connects to the question above? I’m not sure. My thoughts are only half baked. I guess it is an extension of no grand gestures? When a relationship is built on small things you don’t need to go to the extreme to prove your affection for someone?
I have a hard time with romcoms, especially those made after the late 90s. A lot of them suck, but there are a few stand outs. I always liked Music and Lyrics although critics said there was no chemistry between Barrymore and Grant. I think that maybe it was just a smaller, quieter kind of romance?
my avatar changed. Maybe I typed my email in wrong? Fuzzy this morning.
Oh good, my smirk is back. I don’t know who I am without the cheezy porno purple guy.
Everyone should have a cheesy porno purple guy.
I would have thought a wrong email would have sent you to moderation jail, unless Jenny happened to be online to spring you. Which evidently she was, since her replies have time stamps close to your post.
I have a hard time with romance novels written after the nineties. I’m tired of relationships built on sex and sex scenes that just about the sex. I know that makes me sound like a prude–nothing against sex here–but unless something interesting and different is happening, something is changing between them, then there’s no point. Just write “the sex was great” and move on. I do disagree about no character arc in Murderbot, I think Murderbot has a huge character arc over the books. It’s why I like doing the trilogies, they can be completely different by the end of the trilogy and it happens organically. That was another thing I liked about Two Weeks Notice: it takes place over months. The way they grew together was completely organic, the way it blew up was not a Big Misunderstanding, it was the result of both of their flaws, the way they reconciled was that they both realized those flaws and went after each other. The first time I watched the ending, I thought, “Why didn’t she just say yes? It’s Hugh Grant,” but watching it this time I realized that he comes after her, apologizes sincerely, makes himself vulnerable, and if she just accepts that, she hasn’t changed. So she rejects him because that’s what she’d do (her mother’s voice in her head), and then realizes and does a Rom Com Run. They go after each other.
I liked Music and Lyrics, too.
Jenny do you not consider your books romances?
I certainly love them.
And there are some authors who write really great romances including Courtney Milan and Joanna Bourne. (And others but they are not coming to mind.)
I just think there are a lot of really bad ones out there too.
Depends on which books.
I like romance because I like character in motion, and romance can be very moving, both in character growth and in emotional resonance. It’s a great genre. But I think it’s also misunderstood by both some writers and some readers. It’s like porn: we know it when we see it but it’s hard to define.
So my first 8 books, for Harlequin and Bantam, were romances.
I think the books I did for St. Martin’s Press were romance hyphenates. Tell Me Lies was romance/women’s fiction. Maybe This Time was women’s fiction/ghost story/romance. Agnes and the Hitman was romance/thriller. The Unfortunate Miss Fortunes was cosy mystery/family story/romance. Anytime I collaborate, the genre’s get smushed together. I have no idea what I’m writing now with Bob. Thriller/family/romance? I try not to think about it, but I’m pretty sure there will always be a romance in there somewhere.
They’re fabulous. That’s all I care about. I don’t feel the need to identify the genre.
If it helps my favourite books of yours are Manhunting, Anyone But You, Charlie All Night, Fast Women and the Liz Danger/Vince Cooper series.
Often there was friendship/companionship before either of them felt love or lust. That worked for me.
I said out loud to someone the other day “I like the romance genre but I like it best when something besides the love happens” and I’ve been thinking about this ever since. I’ve dnf’d a double handful of books lately because they are only the push-pull of the romance, and we are told/shown/demonstrated nothing of the rest of their lives, and why we might care. Jobs, family, art theft, murderers, rampaging robots – none of that shows up. I like best the story to be about something, and the romance happens beside it.
I’ve never understood that because I have never known anybody to experience just a romance without the rest of life intruding. Even when I was the most wildly in love, there was other important stuff to deal with that affected the romance. So, yes, I definitely agree. Even Barbie and Ken had other interests. (Beach.)
I agree. It’s hard to care unless something else interesting is happening, like local color or interesting jobs. Possibly why I like much of Ali Hazelwood. Also, somebody somewhere on a podcast said that she liked best a then-recent trend in romances where he and she connect significantly before the end and then work together to solve some problem.
Yeah, I put that badly. Murderbot absolutely grows, as does Maia in the Goblin Emperor. I think what I am struggling to say is that I always liked them. My best example is Emma, which is close to my least favorite Austen. It just takes so long for me to like here. Whereas I always liked Lizzy or Anne from Persuasion.
Early to mid 2000s was when I started reading romance as an adult-type person, so I have a soft spot for that era and growing up in a repressed Catholic household all the sex felt… liberating? Maybe that is why smut is comforting to me. Very low stakes.
But I can’t read the current trend of m/f contemporary romance to save my life. I keep trying, for some reason, and dnfing in disgust. I feel like it is very trendy for the main characters to have a very big turning point and I am wading through the first half of the book to find someone I want to spend time with.
Music and Lyrics was great. And I completely agree about romances that are more sex than story. I’m fine with some sex, if it means something in the context of the story, but I need to actually have some damned plot in there.
Controversially I really didn’t enjoy Heated Rivalry because for me it just seemed exactly that – all sex and no real conversation, just endless hook ups.
Ooh, I need to rewatch Music and Lyrics. I think I only saw it the one time, and enjoyed it.
Lupe, totally agree! Big gestures of everlsdting love… please no. Small but consistent acts of respect, caring and kindness, YES!!
But then, I’ve never been particularly passionate myself and treasure a solid and strong friendship over a whorlwind romance anytime.
I love ‘Music and Lyrics’ and believe Drew Barrymore has chemistry with every living thing.
Also a fan of Grant’s later romance, also dealing with creativity, ‘The Rewrite’ with Marisa Tomei.
I seldom see movies and am prejudiced on the side of books. I’m enjoying this conversation.
I think books have opportunities for romance through action, speech, and situation. (I don’t remember the formal definition of situation; I mean, where a scene takes place and who is in the room.)
For example, Darcy’s retort to Elizabeth that clinches a conversation in Pride & Prejudice develops their romance. Elizabeth says “And your defect is a propensity to hate everybody.” Darcy answers. “And yours is willfully to misunderstand them.”
The action is minor here — an increasingly personal and emphatic argument. The situation is very funny: they are sparring in public to the extent that Miss Bingley deliberately interrupts it. And the language, meant to be formal, breaks down into a personal understanding of each other. In fact, the statements are false.
Sorry for rambling.
I think that is another reason I really like k-dramas and occasionally newer limited series tv shows. It’s a longer format for story telling than a movie, but without the open-ended style of tv that I grew up with that inevitably devolved into the story breaking down as the writers tried to stretch it one more season, or cliff-hangered it and then it didn’t get renewed. I have a lot of respect for shows like Schitts Creek or Justified that left every season finale in a good place. Both of those shows also chose to end when the writers felt the story ended.
When in doubt add in a dog or cat. I love the grumpy guy who doesnt initially want the pet but then takes such good care of the animal and would kill anyone who tries to harm them.
I just read the first story in We’ll Prescribe You a Cat by Syou Ishida. Michelle, this book will be right up your alley.
I think the author Jennifer Crusie is a great person to study for romances that work. She was certainly part of my inspiration.
I like characters who like/love each other despite their quirks, and show this tolerance in little ways, like the beets scene. I think this is what real life love is like (from my dim memory of it). The things that other people look at and say, ew, that’s weird, are just part of the whole package to someone who is falling in love. You can show this on the page with small gestures or casual comments, without making a big deal about it.
I like romance/cozy mystery in any form, as am now reading mostly for happy endings to save my mental health in this currently tough social/political environment. A part that makes any story wonderful is quick-witted banter, which Jenny does better than anyone, an element of what makes her books so intelligent.
The business of being in sync re beets, etc., is particularly nicely illustrated by her and Bob’s trilogy of Liz Danger and Vince Cooper doing nice things for each other.
Thank you. I was particularly proud of the air conditioner, but I think my fave now (bragging) is the engagement ring T-shirt. That’s a guy who knows his woman even when she’s not sure.
That was a great touch. I might have cheered and scared the cats when I read it.
Love how Jenny often (usually?) adds a dog and/or a precocious kid or teen: looking forward to the Anna trilogy to catch up with some of them now grown!
As a general rule, in my reading experience, it is nigh impossible to overdo adding a dog, but I’ve read lots of cozy mysteries and some romances (not Jenny’s) where a precocious female teen, evidently a Mary Sue for either the author’s vanished childhood or the one she wishes she’d had, is way overdone. Jenny is not guilty here. I gather that some of her teens are modeled more on her daughter than on herself.
Ice Pirate Zombies. Or. Little Melvin.
There are definitely not enough pirate zombies in romance these days.
I love the Matthew Macfadyen hand flex in Pride and Prejudice! It was so unexpected and unique. I do not remember the salad stuff from Two Weeks Notice. The scene where she picks out his clothes for him is good. I must watch that again. I’m with you on the sex as romance idiocy.
There is such a warm feeling between your characters, which is lovely. After I finish a read, I want to go back and just be in that environment again.
Except for Little Melvin. Big mistake, Little Melvin.
Wasn’t that a movie with Kurt Russell?
Also, animals seem to be good judges of character: if an idependent creature like eg a cat takes a shine to a grumpy guy and slowly his soft snd caring side emerges… I melt.
This was meant as a reply to Michelle…
I agree with you re: characters. I like them good too. The problem with characters who have faults is that most of the times those faults are artificial, made up by the writers just because writing manuals say so. In many cases, the fault is alcoholism. Sometimes, drug addiction. Sometimes, some family issues. But they are not needed for the story in most cases.
I meant this as a reply to Lupe, but in came out down here, unconnected. Sorry.
Did you ever hear that joke, at least partly based on reality, that three of the most popular topics for book sales are Abraham Lincoln, doctors, and dogs. So anyone wanting to sell a lot of books should write “Lincoln’s Doctor’s Dog”
This made me think of the movie, Possession with Aaron Eckhart, based on the novel Possession by A.S. Byatt – it’s about 2 literary sleuths falling in love while discovering a secret romance between 2 Victorian poets. It’s romantic and witty but not romantic comedy.
I love the book Possession.
Your post is why I love your books and read everything you write. You not only understand romance, you deliver it on the page. I have every confidence that you will nail it for Anna. Can’t wait.
Small caring gestures are romantic, the right present that shows the giver knows the person are romantic, defending the person against attacks (I am thinking verbal not physical) is romantic.
And anything that shows the person is not perfect but perfect for that person.
I am pretty sure half the audience at my wedding were thinking “thank god they found eachother because no one else would have them” . Well, maybe not but you get the idea.
Slightly different topic–remember a while back I asked people for series suggestions for my BIL (dealing with cancer and having vision issues, so mostly listening to audiobooks), and everyone was great and gave me so many good ones?
I wrote them all down on a piece of paper and kept trying to get the time to email him the list. Which I have now lost. (*headdesk*) Does anyone remember which post that was on? I can’t find the post either.
June 25.
My scrolling expertise finally paid off
Thank you! You’re the best!
And that is why I love your books and read everything you write. You not only understand romance, you deliver it so wonderfully on the page.
So true. It’s the small moments of consideration and kindness that show love.
There are posts prompts on social media called unspoken rules in our marriage that show all the actions that make their relationships flourish.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DbYbFwMRtlf/?igsh=MWIyeXJ6N3Fsam85dg==
Late to the party but as it happens I was recently having this conversation. The absolutely most romantic thing I have ever read in a book, the thing that made me go “Awww,” was Shane getting Agnes an air conditioner because he saw it on her list. Because HE PAID ATTENTION.
I think another romantic thing is planning ahead to make the person happy or protect them when they are sad. My DH once ordered a Navajo rug for my birthday and hid it in the basement and had my 5 year old bring it up when he was in Australia. We exchanged the rug —it looked very different in real life than on the screen—but still a great memory.
And I read recently about a woman who was still sad years later about a miscarriage and her husband asked what would make her feel better on the anniversary of it and made the reservations 8 months in advance .
Of course another element in this which I think is always there in romance is that it’s personalized.
It works for that person in ways it wouldn’t for anyone else.
Hence I have never found red roses and giant diamond rings romantic. And it’s why so many women get annoyed when they get chocolate and roses for Valentine’s Day.
And it’s why an engagement ring t shirt works.