Thoughts on contemporary romance and character motivation

Tomorrow I start writing my first contemporary romance. Actually, that's not wholly true – I've started a few but haven't ever finished them. This time I will. I've planned it, I've dived into my characters, I've worked out who they are and what they want and I'm excited to begin and end.

I love contemporaries. Some authors, such as Jennifer Cruisie, have turned them into a masterful artform (I really need to get onto getting some more Cruisies – roll on end of financial year…)

When you get into categories, it can be a bit hit and miss. For those not into the romance genre, category romance is the wording used to describe the Harlequin/Mills and Boon books. For longer books, mostly published by presses such as Avon or Berkeley, the term is single title.

Anyway, categories can be a bit hit and miss because often they rely on some standard tropes. Some people do a brilliant job with the trope. I have twice since March read Paula Roe's The Billionaire Baby Bombshell and I've loved it both times. Paula's using the 'secret baby' trope, but she's come up with a new twist on it that means I wasn't sitting there wondering why she was such a mole as to not tell him about the baby and why is he so thick that he hasn't worked out it's his. Paula not only had a twist on the 'secret baby' trope but more importantly, the character motivations were right so it made perfect sense that he'd get the shock of his life when she turned up with a baby.

Character motivation is a major part of why these tropes work and why they don't. A well-worn one is the 'misunderstanding'. One of the characters has heard something, or seen something, and made a judgement about the other character (or someone close to them) and it colours everything in between.

A classic is that one thinks the other cheated on them. There might be a confrontation about it, or there might not, but the first is SURE it happened, even though it didn't. Then the couple go through the entire book, the first hurt and angry and bitter, the second unable to do something about it until somehow, the first realises it wasn't true and all is forgiven.

This trope annoys me more than just about any other because most of the time I don't believe the misunderstanding would last as long as it does. If I had a dollar for every time I've yelled at a book 'Just have a chat about it and all will be well!' I'd be a rich girl.

The problem here is character motivation. When you're in love with someone, you're not going to automatically believe the first rumour you hear about them. Particularly when you confront them over it and they say it isn't true, and maybe even offer some evidence it isn't true. Doesn't matter how Alpha you are.

Now, if you'd been burnt before, either by a previous partner or by this one, then you could well have a violent reaction. Even if you think they might be innocent, you just can't bare the pain of that moment and so you up and leave (until you meet again, which is often where the romance novel starts). But if you've got NO REASON to believe that this person would cheat on you, why would you believe the rumour? Why would that rumour mean you automatically walk out on them? It makes no sense to me.

But time and again, authors decide that they need a character to react a certain way in order to provide the conflict and it doesn't matter if it doesn't mesh with how the character would act, or whether a sensible person would believe it. They go ahead, and then you've got pages of one half being angry and the other passively trying to love them back to happiness until miracle of miracles the truth is revealed and then all can be well.

I. Hate. It.

In her fabulous book 'The Art of Romance Writing', Valerie Parv says "with a romance novel, so much of the plot is predetermined that you have more of a chance of writing an original story if you start with your characters.'

Word, Valerie. Word.