Da Rulz
Writers like to talk about rules– what to follow, what to break– but in every discussion about romance people chafe. They don't want to follow "a formula" and hence argue that everything from point of view shifts to happily-ever-after is up for debate.
I'm here to tell you– if you write a love story that ends with the hero and heroine walking away from each other and is told largely from the point of view of the heroine's cat– it's NOT A ROMANCE NOVEL. It may be a perfectly good story, a great work of literature! However, romance novels REQUIRE a happily-ever-after ending. Without that, it's a like a car that doesn't move, or a TV that doesn't show pictures, or a pen that doesn't write. A pen that doesn't write is a stick.
If HEA is an immutable rule– then what else qualifies as rules worth adhering to? Three act structure? Yep, I'd say that's a given. How about that the heroine and hero must meet in the first chapter?
Well… they don't *have* to, but stories are supposed to begin at the start of the action. Since the action of a romance novel is the relationship, I'd say it's a safe bet that the hero and heroine should meet pretty early on.
That's the thing about guidelines worth following– when you analyze the reason for the rule, you start to see why it exists. In fact, a good rule is one you might find yourself following even though you weren't aware of it. For example, I learned only today that in romance novels, the first man a heroine meets should be the hero.
Sounds formulaic, doesn't it? But once I started thinking about this idea, I realized that I've done this in every story I've written. It just felt right. Thinking further, I recalled books that didn't follow this rule– where the heroine flirted with a waiter, or met another guy at the party, or ogled a UPS man before she met the hero. I realized I HATED that I couldn't figure out who the hero was. HATED. I didn't finish reading any of those books.
It's not that I like my books predictable (though maybe I do), it's that I like to know where the author is going with their story. Why does that waiter/partygoer/UPS guy show up? Will I ever see him again? Maybe he's the villain or a subplot hero, but by introducing him before the hero, the author pulls the reader's attention to a meaningless throwaway character. Or at the very least a character who matters less than the hero.
The best rules make inherent sense.
I recently wondered (aloud on Twitter) why my worlds become so complex. Specifically, I wondered why I often set out to create two opposing groups– like vampires/humans, mermaids/dragons– and a third group always finds its way in. I remember reading once that the best settings for paranormal romance included relatively straightforward, built-in conflict. For example: Psy-Changeling. You had the Psy. You have the Changelings. Simple!
So where was this third group coming from?
I asked around and learned that Robert McKee discussed this in his book, Story. Apparently, all well-drawn worlds require a force to offset the two opposing forces. So if your story is about Good vs. Evil, you need a third force– for example, Apathy. A conflict with only two opposing forces is two dimensional. The third force casts shadow, brings in nuance. (This can be found in the chapter titled The Principle of Antagonism.)
Apparently, this is a rule.
I can tell it's a good rule because it makes sense. Storytellers do it without even meaning to, because it feels right. In fact if I look at Psy-Changeling I realize that from the start Nalini Singh did have a third, opposing force: humans. (She also had dissonance within the Psy camp.)
My point is this: a lot of writing rules exist for good reason. They may have been honed by some lines or publishing houses to what feels like a formula at times, but a lot of the premises actually make good sense.
What about you? What was the last rule you learned and thought, "Well, that makes sense!" What's a rule you don't believe in? How do rules differ from formula?
