Okay, I had to take a walk to parse out my thoughts on this, but here's what I ultimately came up with. My gut instinct said, "No, they can't be apart." And the reason I think that holds true is that in a genre romance the expectation is not *only* that the protagonist(s) have a happy ending. That's possible all sorts of ways (solve a crime, beat the bad guy, reconcile with family, make new friends, figure out what to do with your life). But in a romance the expectation is that the central *relationship* will have an HEA. This is why if I read a book and at the end I don't believe the relationship will last it has failed for me as a romance. I would argue that a wholly non-sexual, non-romantic enemies-to-friends story would fit the genre conventions of a romance better than a story of a romantic relationship that ends. Because it's the forming and building of a lasting relationship bond that is key to the story. I would like to see more asexuality and aromanticism entering the genre and pushing the boundaries in that respect. Obviously, I am only one reader, and different people take different things away from their reading. But when I am looking for a romance, I'm expecting the formation of a lasting relationship between the protagonists, and something that didn't meet that expectation would leave me feeling unfulfilled.
All this said, there absolutely can and should be books where romantic partners ending separately is the happy ending. As for how those books should be marketed, well, that opens up a whole boatload of worms about the publishing industry that I think are beyond the scope of this discussion.
This is an excellent point! "Because it's the forming and building of a lasting relationship bond that is key to the story." I think that line does a lot of work toward defining what it is about romance that we read for.
One of my favorite things I've ever written is a "female friendship romance" which is, as you say, "a non-sexual, non-romantic, enemies-to-friends story." It was kind of inspired by the movie "For a Good Time Call" which is a female friendship rom com. It's all the same beats as a romance, about the building of a lasting friendship.
And omg book marketing. Boatload of worms indeed.
I hope you had a nice walk! Thank you for sharing your thoughts!
I think a book can be romantic without being a romance, but if a book is categorized as a romance, then by nature of that romance being the A plot, the main couple (or throuple or poly grouping) not ending up together romantically isn't satisfying. It might be satisfying as a character arc (for both/the whole romantic unit, even!), it might be satisfying as a narrative, it might be thematically satisfying, but characters who spend a book falling in love not staying in love means that the romance plot wasn't satisfied. There's a lot of semantics here, obviously (what is "satisfying" and what are the parameters?) but I would say if you're writing a mystery book and you don't solve the mystery at the end, it's not really a mystery, it's whatever else the book was about with a mystery as an aspect of the narrative. Likely, the unsolved nature of the mystery is a metaphor for something- that doesn't make it a mystery novel, though. If you're writing a romance book where the romance isn't solidified by the end, it's not really a romance, it's whatever else the book was about with a romantic narrative device.
I can be intellectually happy that a couple/etc is happy if apart at the end of a book with a strong romantic subplot, but not narratively satisfied if my expectation of the book as a romance ends without the romance.
I wonder if finding happiness with other partners romantically would satisfy me, though, if we want to tease out the hypothetical. Like La La Land ish, where we spend most of the narrative watching two people fall in and out of love, and in the end they learn a lot from that love but those lessons are best applied to other partners, no bad blood. Would we consider THAT an HEA? I think most readers wouldn't, just from an expectation standpoint, but on a technicality I might say yes. As a thought experiment, yes. But in reality, I doubt it would fly.
The comparison with mystery is really helpful here, as it often is. An unsolved mystery and romance that doesn't end with folks together? Sounds like literary fiction ;-)
The distinction between intellectually satisfying and narratively satisfied is a great distinction too. When I read a romance there is a deep yearning for the people to get together and I don't think I would be as emotionally satisfied with another ending even if it "made sense."
I agree with all of this! If I am reading A Romance, I want the couple I have followed for the entire book to be together at the very end. That is why I am reading A Romance. If I am reading anything else, I am more than happy to see characters end the story happily alone, but not if I have intentionally picked up A Romance. And, I say this as a happily single 46 year old woman. My life is great! But, I'm reading Romance for the fantasy of the HEA.
Such a great question and discussion! And one of my favorite things to examine is how Jane Austen - who might be the OG of the romcom - really has some very ambiguous HEAs. In Mansfield Park, she writes a complicated heroine, Fanny Price, who slays all around her and comes out on top of a harmful situation - but her "hero" of this novel is tepid, so lukewarm! Austen can't be bothered to give us the HEA details - saying that she'll leave us to our own imaginations to fill in the blanks on how long it took for our hero to recognize the value of our heroine and to come to an HEA.
And, the ending of her first published novel, Northanger Abbey, is fraught with complications and banal indignities and the author/narrator breaks the fourth wall, turns down the momentum and the magic, and addresses to the reader directly to say that because it's obvious in the book you're holding that there are only a few pages left of this story, we MUST therefore be hastening toward perfect felicity. If you say so!
I think the HEAs in our foundational romances are way more complex than we tend to think - and that is one of the secrets to why Austen's stories endure. Thanks for another great discussion!
As always, thank you for bringing the Jane insight! She is definitely the OG of the romcom and the romance. I didn't realize/remember how nuanced some of her HEAs are and it gives a lot to think about and discuss. Also
"she'll leave us to our own imaginations to fill in the blanks on how long it took for our hero to recognize the value of our heroine and to come to an HEA." LOLS what a great optimist/pessimist test!
And I now want to sign all my emails with "hastening toward perfect felicity." :-)
If the couple or thruple isn’t together (doesn’t have to mean marriage) at the end, then no it’s not an HEA. That’s one of the reasons I stopped reading women’s fiction and started reading romance.
Okay, I had to take a walk to parse out my thoughts on this, but here's what I ultimately came up with. My gut instinct said, "No, they can't be apart." And the reason I think that holds true is that in a genre romance the expectation is not *only* that the protagonist(s) have a happy ending. That's possible all sorts of ways (solve a crime, beat the bad guy, reconcile with family, make new friends, figure out what to do with your life). But in a romance the expectation is that the central *relationship* will have an HEA. This is why if I read a book and at the end I don't believe the relationship will last it has failed for me as a romance. I would argue that a wholly non-sexual, non-romantic enemies-to-friends story would fit the genre conventions of a romance better than a story of a romantic relationship that ends. Because it's the forming and building of a lasting relationship bond that is key to the story. I would like to see more asexuality and aromanticism entering the genre and pushing the boundaries in that respect. Obviously, I am only one reader, and different people take different things away from their reading. But when I am looking for a romance, I'm expecting the formation of a lasting relationship between the protagonists, and something that didn't meet that expectation would leave me feeling unfulfilled.
All this said, there absolutely can and should be books where romantic partners ending separately is the happy ending. As for how those books should be marketed, well, that opens up a whole boatload of worms about the publishing industry that I think are beyond the scope of this discussion.
This is an excellent point! "Because it's the forming and building of a lasting relationship bond that is key to the story." I think that line does a lot of work toward defining what it is about romance that we read for.
One of my favorite things I've ever written is a "female friendship romance" which is, as you say, "a non-sexual, non-romantic, enemies-to-friends story." It was kind of inspired by the movie "For a Good Time Call" which is a female friendship rom com. It's all the same beats as a romance, about the building of a lasting friendship.
And omg book marketing. Boatload of worms indeed.
I hope you had a nice walk! Thank you for sharing your thoughts!
I think a book can be romantic without being a romance, but if a book is categorized as a romance, then by nature of that romance being the A plot, the main couple (or throuple or poly grouping) not ending up together romantically isn't satisfying. It might be satisfying as a character arc (for both/the whole romantic unit, even!), it might be satisfying as a narrative, it might be thematically satisfying, but characters who spend a book falling in love not staying in love means that the romance plot wasn't satisfied. There's a lot of semantics here, obviously (what is "satisfying" and what are the parameters?) but I would say if you're writing a mystery book and you don't solve the mystery at the end, it's not really a mystery, it's whatever else the book was about with a mystery as an aspect of the narrative. Likely, the unsolved nature of the mystery is a metaphor for something- that doesn't make it a mystery novel, though. If you're writing a romance book where the romance isn't solidified by the end, it's not really a romance, it's whatever else the book was about with a romantic narrative device.
I can be intellectually happy that a couple/etc is happy if apart at the end of a book with a strong romantic subplot, but not narratively satisfied if my expectation of the book as a romance ends without the romance.
I wonder if finding happiness with other partners romantically would satisfy me, though, if we want to tease out the hypothetical. Like La La Land ish, where we spend most of the narrative watching two people fall in and out of love, and in the end they learn a lot from that love but those lessons are best applied to other partners, no bad blood. Would we consider THAT an HEA? I think most readers wouldn't, just from an expectation standpoint, but on a technicality I might say yes. As a thought experiment, yes. But in reality, I doubt it would fly.
The comparison with mystery is really helpful here, as it often is. An unsolved mystery and romance that doesn't end with folks together? Sounds like literary fiction ;-)
The distinction between intellectually satisfying and narratively satisfied is a great distinction too. When I read a romance there is a deep yearning for the people to get together and I don't think I would be as emotionally satisfied with another ending even if it "made sense."
Thank you for your thoughts on this! :-)
I agree with all of this! If I am reading A Romance, I want the couple I have followed for the entire book to be together at the very end. That is why I am reading A Romance. If I am reading anything else, I am more than happy to see characters end the story happily alone, but not if I have intentionally picked up A Romance. And, I say this as a happily single 46 year old woman. My life is great! But, I'm reading Romance for the fantasy of the HEA.
Cheers! Romance makes a promise and lot of us read for that promise...otherwise we pick up a different genre.
Such a great question and discussion! And one of my favorite things to examine is how Jane Austen - who might be the OG of the romcom - really has some very ambiguous HEAs. In Mansfield Park, she writes a complicated heroine, Fanny Price, who slays all around her and comes out on top of a harmful situation - but her "hero" of this novel is tepid, so lukewarm! Austen can't be bothered to give us the HEA details - saying that she'll leave us to our own imaginations to fill in the blanks on how long it took for our hero to recognize the value of our heroine and to come to an HEA.
And, the ending of her first published novel, Northanger Abbey, is fraught with complications and banal indignities and the author/narrator breaks the fourth wall, turns down the momentum and the magic, and addresses to the reader directly to say that because it's obvious in the book you're holding that there are only a few pages left of this story, we MUST therefore be hastening toward perfect felicity. If you say so!
I think the HEAs in our foundational romances are way more complex than we tend to think - and that is one of the secrets to why Austen's stories endure. Thanks for another great discussion!
As always, thank you for bringing the Jane insight! She is definitely the OG of the romcom and the romance. I didn't realize/remember how nuanced some of her HEAs are and it gives a lot to think about and discuss. Also
"she'll leave us to our own imaginations to fill in the blanks on how long it took for our hero to recognize the value of our heroine and to come to an HEA." LOLS what a great optimist/pessimist test!
And I now want to sign all my emails with "hastening toward perfect felicity." :-)
If the couple or thruple isn’t together (doesn’t have to mean marriage) at the end, then no it’s not an HEA. That’s one of the reasons I stopped reading women’s fiction and started reading romance.
OMG love that - aren't we all just hastening toward perfect felicity, and not at all ironically LOL. :) :)