By Linda Lovely
I write Romantic Suspense-Romantic Thrillers. The genre marries
spine-tingling suspense with romance—the degree of heat ranging from tepid to
wildfire. However, one romance cliché seems to thrive in every segment of the
genre, and it makes me grind my teeth.
What’s the cliché?
Each time it appears the hero and heroine might find eternal love an internal
conflict arises to tear them apart. This relationship yo-yo is credited with
building tension and prompting readers to eagerly flip pages to see if the
(IMHO often quarrelsome) lovers will eventually hurdle over their emotional
roadblocks and/or stupidity. Of course, since a happy ending is mandatory, the
novel ends with the hero and heroine—who have fought like gamecocks
throughout the book—pledging undying love. Given their prior habits, I always
wonder what would happen if there were more chapters. Would another
imaginary insult pop up and lead to divorce?
Based on conversations with other authors, I suspect writers
knowingly incorporate this yo-yo cliché in their novels because they believe agents
and editors consider it essential for the romantic story arc to succeed. I’m
not buying. Romance readers are more savvy/intelligent than that.
I do understand that internal conflicts up the emotional stakes and
build tension. Yet I find it difficult to swallow that a heroine and hero will
squander time squabbling if they’re fighting for their lives. Once the hero and
heroine join forces and begin working as a team against the exterior threat, I
think all their energies would be directed toward eliminating the threat not
nitpicking their relationship.
 |
| October 1 release date. Pre-order now. |
RYes, the couple might have private reservations about their
long-term relationship because (fill in the blank). In my newest romantic
thriller, DEAD HUNT, those “blanks” include a past romantic interlude that
ended badly, feuding families, professional conflicts, planted evidence, and,
yes, a few impetuous mistakes.
However, I tried hard to avoid conjuring stupid
misunderstandings to pry the heroine and hero apart at a crucial moment simply
because it was “time” for another breakup. For instance, when the
heroine in DEAD HUNT is presented with “evidence” of her lover’s deceit, she does not accept
it on face value. She investigates.
I think author J.D. Robb has aptly demonstrated that a
couple (Eve and Roarke) can have a hot romance, fight bad guys, and treat the
reader to lots of tension without wasting time on meaningless quarrels that
make a reader want to scream “You idiot!” at the hero or heroine or both.
Okay, romance readers, do you agree?
