Why are HEAs necessary?

morngnstar said:

I'm not an industry expert. My purely intuitive opinion is that if you ask someone, "What kind of book do you want to read today?" not many will say, "General Fiction".

Click to expand...

They might not say "general fiction," but lots of people read these books. I suspect the majority of books my dad reads are classified as such, as are a good fraction of the books my fiance reads.

And there are a lot of people who look down on genre fiction, perhaps romance in particular. Slapping a "romance" label on a book is a sure way to make sure some people won't touch it with a ten-foot pole.

morngnstar said:

My personal point of view as a writer is that I prefer to write love stories with happy endings. But as a reader I don't mind a book with a sad ending, and I certainly never mind being in suspense about how it will turn out.

Click to expand...

But a lot of romance readers do not share your view. They do not want to be in suspense; they want to be guaranteed of an HEA/HFN.

The requirements for romance might seem narrow. But even with these requirements, it is an enormous genre.

LJD said:

But a lot of romance readers do not share your view. They do not want to be in suspense; they want to be guaranteed of an HEA/HFN.

Click to expand...

Exactly. When I read speculative fiction or historical novels or thrillers or general fiction, I'm fine with being kept in suspense about relationships. When I read romance, I want the safety net of knowing there's a happy ending.

morngnstar said:

Try to imagine if you had these kind of inflexible rules in other genres. What if fantasy said you can't have any technology invented after 1700 [...]

Click to expand...

I don't think that's a very good comparison. Other genres DO have "inflexible" rules. Mystery novels must end with the mystery being solved. Tragedies end with death. YA novels can't have lengthy, detailed erotic sex scenes. Fantasy novels end with the hero winning. Romance novels end with the main couple together.

as a reader I don't mind a book with a sad ending, and I certainly never mind being in suspense about how it will turn out.

Click to expand...

I mind, and so do other readers. That's why it's a genre rule. If you enjoy tragedies: more power to you. Me, I hate being gobsmacked by an unhappy ending. It's depressing and it eats at me. If I'm reading a science fiction or fantasy novel, I don't mind being uncertain about character relationships. But when I read a romance novel, I'm reading an entire book about one relationship, so that relationship sure as hell better have a happy ending.

Having a romance novel with an unhappy ending is like having a fantasy novel where the hero loses.

I understand your struggle, morngnstar, and I feel bad for you. There is a market for these things, it's just not the Romance market. A lot of writers don't quite fit their chosen genre. I wish you luck.

LJD said:

And there are a lot of people who look down on genre fiction, perhaps romance in particular. Slapping a "romance" label on a book is a sure way to make sure some people won't touch it with a ten-foot pole.

Click to expand...

This is a good point that I hadn't really considered. I guess I've been lost in the romance world lately. Seems like all I see are romance publishers and agents looking for romance. Like attracts like, I guess. Thanks for the reminder that other audiences are out there. I needed that.

ViridianChick said:

Other genres DO have "inflexible" rules. Mystery novels must end with the mystery being solved.

Click to expand...

Is this a legit rule? In the thread I linked where we had a similar discussion, people were saying that mysteries don't necessarily have to end like that.

ViridianChick said:

Fantasy novels end with the hero winning.

Click to expand...

Really, that's a rule? A Game of Thrones (the first book, not the series) didn't. In Romance even each book of a series must end with HEA/HFN. And I could imagine a fantasized version of the fall of the Roman Empire making a very good fantasy series. In the end the bad guys (barbarians) win.

Tragedy is not just triumph flipped on its head. You don't just want to write a fantasy novel where the evil wizard wins. Tragedy has to mean something. You don't just want to write a romance where the couple have a big argument and break up. But there are lots of ways to write tragic romance that are meaningful, and even enhance the significance of their love.

I understand your struggle, morngnstar, and I feel bad for you. There is a market for these things, it's just not the Romance market. A lot of writers don't quite fit their chosen genre. I wish you luck.

Click to expand...

Maybe you missed the part where I said I write happy endings. Maybe you are confusing me with another poster.

I'd just like to see more variety in romance, that's all.

andiwrite said:

Is this a legit rule? In the thread I linked where we had a similar discussion, people were saying that mysteries don't necessarily have to end like that.

Click to expand...

Yes it is a legit rule, pretty much ever since early mysteries like Sherlock Holmes. The killer or what have you doesn't need to be caught, which is I think where you're getting tripped up, but whodunit part is always solved.

morngnstar said:

Tragedy has to mean something. You don't just want to write a romance where the couple have a big argument and break up. But there are lots of ways to write tragic romance that are meaningful, and even enhance the significance of their love.

Click to expand...

If it ends tragically, it doesn't fit into the romance genre, no matter how significant and meaningful the ending might be to the author.

I'd just like to see more variety in romance, that's all.

Click to expand...

There's plenty of variety (or at least opportunity for variety) in romance. Sub-genre, characterization, level of heat, setting, etc. But if it varies from the HEA/HFN ending, it's not a romance.

morngnstar said:

Really, that's a rule? A Game of Thrones (the first book, not the series) didn't.

Click to expand...

I don't think that Game of Thrones (a novel with dozens of "main" characters, no clear protagonists or antagonists) is an example. Especially since you're talking about a single failure in the first book.

Maybe you missed the part where I said I write happy endings. Maybe you are confusing me with another poster. I'd just like to see more variety in romance, that's all.

Click to expand...

Huh. I did see that, but I guess it slipped my mind. In that case, I'm surprised you see a problem. There are many tragic romances available to you, they're just not labeled "Romance" with a big R.

ViridianChick said:

I don't think that Game of Thrones (a novel with dozens of "main" characters, no clear protagonists or antagonists) is an example. Especially since you're talking about a single failure in the first book.

Click to expand...

Keep the analogy in mind. What if you said, "It's okay that there's no HEA, because it's not exactly clear who the hero and heroine are. Anyway, it's just book one of a series." That book wouldn't get published in romance.

Huh. I did see that, but I guess it slipped my mind. In that case, I'm surprised you see a problem. There are many tragic romances available to you, they're just not labeled "Romance" with a big R.

Click to expand...

I just think creative freedom is a good thing in principle, is all.

morngnstar said:

Keep the analogy in mind. What if you said, "It's okay that there's no HEA, because it's not exactly clear who the hero and heroine are. Anyway, it's just book one of a series." That book wouldn't get published in romance.

Click to expand...

In line with the Game of Thrones analogy: I think it would be more accurate to say "It's okay there's no HEA, because there are dozens of sympathetic couples and only one of them has been murdered." And that book might be shelved as romance.

Because (I've been meaning to say this) a book in a series does not have to end happily. Some publishers ask for it, but it's not a genre requirement. Fifty Shades is romance; the first book ends with Ana walking out on Christian. Captive Prince will be published as erotic romance; the first book ends with the heroes hating each other.

morngnstar said:

I just think creative freedom is a good thing in principle, is all.

Click to expand...

This isn't a creative freedom thing though. Let's take Game of Thrones for a second if you will. It's classified as Fantasy because of the setting even though there's no obvious magical element in the first book, it is however set in a psuedo historical war of the roses era type approximation of england. The secondary world setting without an obvious science angle is what makes it Fantasy, and as it goes on into subsequent books the magical part slowly becomes apparent. Fantasy then, as proven by GoT, has either a magical/paranormal element or is set in a secondary world. Those are the rules of the Fantasy genre, and within them lay many possibilities. Genres have conventions, rules is you will. To say it is ok for one to have a defining trait and not the other because "creative freedom" is hardly fair, and I would even say disingenuous.

morngnstar said:

I just think creative freedom is a good thing in principle, is all.

Click to expand...

Creative freedom is great. But if an author's devotion to their creative freedom conflicts with my expectations from a book I spend my money and time on, that could be a problem.

For instance, I want the mysteries I read to be solved in the end. So even if an author feels it's realistic and fascinating to never reveal the solution, and it's very important to that author to be free to do this, it won't matter to me. I'll look elsewhere when I want another mystery novel.

Lillith1991 said:

This isn't a creative freedom thing though. Let's take Game of Thrones for a second if you will. It's classified as Fantasy because of the setting even though there's no obvious magical element in the first book, it is however set in a psuedo historical war of the roses era type approximation of england. The secondary world setting without an obvious science angle is what makes it Fantasy, and as it goes on into subsequent books the magical part slowly becomes apparent. Fantasy then, as proven by GoT, has either a magical/paranormal element or is set in a secondary world. Those are the rules of the Fantasy genre, and within them lay many possibilities. Genres have conventions, rules is you will. To say it is ok for one to have a defining trait and not the other because "creative freedom" is hardly fair, and I would even say disingenuous.

Click to expand...

You've proven my point. Fantasy usually has magic, but, it's not a hard and fast rule. If a book doesn't have magic, but it's obviously fantasy, then I guess we'll just have to adjust our definition of fantasy ("secondary world setting without an obvious science angle"). But if a book is obviously about romance - the central plot is about two people falling in love - but doesn't have a happy ending, instead of broadening the definition of the genre, you exclude the book.

morngnstar said:

You've proven my point. Fantasy usually has magic, but, it's not a hard and fast rule. If a book doesn't have magic, but it's obviously fantasy, then I guess we'll just have to adjust our definition of fantasy ("secondary world setting without an obvious science angle"). But if a book is obviously about romance - the central plot is about two people falling in love - but doesn't have a happy ending, instead of broadening the definition of the genre, you exclude the book.

Click to expand...

Yup, you do.

Those arbitrary romance assholes! Who do they think they are?

You know what you should do? You should refuse to follow their rules! Write what you want, and let the chips fall where they may!

And if the chips fall in the direction of you being unable to find a publisher, there's always self-publishing!

Fight the power, my sister.

By the way, point of fact, Game of Thrones had undead in the prologue. And I think dragons were at least mentioned in book one, though they don't appear.

morngnstar said:

By the way, point of fact, Game of Thrones had undead in the prologue. And I think dragons were at least mentioned in book one, though they don't appear.

Click to expand...

And dire wolves. Dire wolves are just fantasy, right?

There's no REAL dire wolves? *looks over shoulder nervously*

Captcha said:

And dire wolves. Dire wolves are just fantasy, right?

There's no REAL dire wolves? *looks over shoulder nervously*

Click to expand...

I thought a dire wolf was just sort of a really big wolf. I guess not real, but neither all that fantastic.

morngnstar said:

You've proven my point. Fantasy usually has magic, but, it's not a hard and fast rule. If a book doesn't have magic, but it's obviously fantasy, then I guess we'll just have to adjust our definition of fantasy ("secondary world setting without an obvious science angle"). But if a book is obviously about romance - the central plot is about two people falling in love - but doesn't have a happy ending, instead of broadening the definition of the genre, you exclude the book.

Click to expand...

No, actually, I didn't. Fantasy hasn't had to include magic since at least the 80s if not a bit earlier, and I said either or. I never stated both things had to be present. There's Fantasy novels with no magic whatsoever, and people enjoy them just as much. What makes them Fantasy is the secindary world bit I outlined earlier. (Thank you for pointing out that GoT does have a magical element from the start.) A great deal of Fantasy includes both elements, but theres no rule forbidding them from including one. Why? Because including one or the other doesn't mess with reader expectations of the genre. As a Fantasy reader I expect on of the two things be present or for them to be combined, and from those three options I get a crap ton of options in what to write about and read.

Lillith1991 said:

No, actually, I didn't. Fantasy hasn't had to include magic since at least the 80s if not a bit earlier, and I said either or. I never stated both things had to be present. There's Fantasy novels with no magic whatsoever, and people enjoy them just as much. What makes them Fantasy is the secindary world bit I outlined earlier. (Thank you for pointing out that GoT does have a magical element from the start.) A great deal of Fantasy includes both elements, but theres no rule forbidding them from including one. Why? Because including one or the other doesn't mess with reader expectations of the genre. As a Fantasy reader I expect on of the two things be present or for them to be combined, and from those three options I get a crap ton of options in what to write about and read.

Click to expand...

So what happened in the 80s? I guess they expanded the boundaries of the genre, and some readers had to adjust their expectations. Everything turned out okay.

amergina said:

There are plenty of folks out there who market self-published books as romances even when they don't have HEA/HFN endings... would be interesting to see how those books do and what romance readers think of them.

Click to expand...

That's one reason I let other people (reviewers whom I trust, like Smart Bitches, Trashy Books) take the risk with self-published romances before I read them. I discovered Courtney Milan that way, so I won't rule out self-published books altogether.

But if there are any authors who feel I should broaden my expectations by being open to unhappy endings in romance, I'd rather know in advance so I don't make the mistake of reading their books when I want something different.

amergina said:

It's generally the reader's expectations that form a genre, not the other way around.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Right on the nose.

Marian Perera said:

I discovered Courtney Milan that way, so I won't rule out self-published books altogether.

Click to expand...

Courtney Milan self-publishes? Wow. I never realized.