Is romance really a must have in a spy thriller?

[Samuel , Director]

Exactly what is says on the tin. There are some good romances (Steve Konkoly's Danny and Jessica Petrovich, Tom Clancy's Jack and Cathy Ryan, Robert Ludlum's David and Marie Webb and Ian Fleming's James and Tracy Bond) in the spy and military thriller genre but it's one of the most delicate parts which I've found at times many writers do not particularly excel at.

For me, I'm of the school which finds it unnecessary. There are other perfectly feasible ways of humanizing characters (such as mentor-student, comradeship, paternal and so forth) and they don't involve a cliché, ham fisted and soppy affair which only lasts till the end of the book. In my view, any romance which exists solely to titillate the reader can slow down the pace of a thriller and wastes potential pages which could have been devoted to action and other plot relevant scenes which drive the story forward.

What's your take on the matter? Does having a romantic subplot make a normal spy thriller great?(Ian Fleming's On Her Majesty's Secret Service is a fantastic example of this)or are there too many books in which the romance isn't developed well and is not necessary to make a good spy thriller?

[Checkman]

Romance can bog down the works. "Never So Few" (1959) is a pretty fair WWII movie set in Burma/India. It follows the exploits of an OSS unit fighting behind the Japanese lines with guerillas. Stars Frank Sinatra,Steve McQueen and Gina Lollobrigida. Directed by John Sturges (The Eagle Has Landed, The Magnificent Seven, The Great Escape, McQ). Sounds great right? And for the most part it is except for that blasted romance that goes on between Sinatra and Lollobrigida. It takes up at least 1/3 of the movie and bogs it down terribly. Makes the movie drag and it doesn't even ring true.

[Ryan]

Absofreakinglutely unnecessary :-)

[Samuel , Director]

There are many good spy and military thriller writers who can write brilliant and epic plots. Few of them are skilled in crafting a quality romance subplot without it being ham fisted and irrelevant to the story at hand.
Tom Clancy was good because he actually developed his romance over the Ryan saga with the people in question dealing with the trials of matrimony similar to the rest of us.

But then there's the other side of the scale. Take Chris Ryan's Strike Back for instance. The main female character is a stock damsel in distress, who's relationship with the main character is shoehorned in crudely. And then there's the Alex Hawke books which are a light Parody of the Fleming era of Bond.

[Jack]

Romance is part of the Human experience. Stress and highly charged moments bring on all human emotions. Like all other things, It's how it fits. I had a little romance in my last book and a little in this one. Very little. But it is there. I like it if done well.

[[deleted user]]

If a romance is meant to seriously impact on the plot of the book (a spy ends up betraying his country because of love), then it may enhance the story. If not, forget it. Having the hero chase girls constantly, like in the James Bond movies, only makes the said hero look unprofessional and immature. In real life spying business, womanizing is a recipe for disaster most of the time.

[Jack]

Michel wrote: "If a romance is meant to seriously impact on the plot of the book (a spy ends up betraying his country because of love), then it may enhance the story. If not, forget it. Having the hero chase gi..."

In the book I'm writing now, Amy Lynn, Golden Angel, my protagonist is a woman and she is being clumsily courted by another spy. It's just an occasional nod and banter. It's a little more complicated than that but not much. It's also one of many little story lines. I think a little emotion makes a character real. I;m not much into the superhero type spy. She's fairly human with all the foibles that go with it.

[Samuel , Director]

Read this book which beautifully exemplifies Checkman's point. The story was brilliant. The plot phenomenal, the research was well done (except for putting a manual safety on a Glock 26), and the characters, both protagonists and antagonists well rounded and did not stoop to caricature. However, the author tried to throw in some unresolved sexual tension between the American National Security advisor and an old flame who became a Navy SEAL. I dreaded the moments when they interacted, finding them cringe-worthy and turned what could have been two perfectly good heroes into a pair of immature, melodramatic prima donnas.

[J.T.]

I think romance at this period in society and military with women in combat can create an interesting twist. Throwing off an operation due to feelings between a couple creates fresh tension in the genre.

[Jack]

Romance is part of my life. It's part of most peoples lives. If you are a smart, capable, physically fit human, you will be enticed sexually. We don't write about cheeto eating mommas boy basement dwelling video game experts who masterbate to porn. We write about men and women who take action, who live adventurously.

I think time frame has something to do with it. If the book takes place in a week or less, yeah, there is probably no need for a relationship. However, if your book, or series spans time, that part of life should be included. If I am a single, 6ft+ muscular male, I'm screwing something and it will be something exceptional. Just saying.

[Andy]

Romance, or the appearance of, can be a tool to blindside the reader and a protagonist or two.

[Jack]

BTW, My latest in the series, Amy Lynn, The Lady of Castle Dunn, is a spy thriller romance. I threw the kitchen sink at it. That being said, I don't do porn. Your Christian grandma could read it.