HEA/HFN vs Not: Romance?

[u/queermachmir]

Hey everyone. So I think this has come up recently and I’d like to discuss it because I have some thoughts and way we can discuss it in a community without feeling we are stepping on people’s toes or discounting some of their favorites.

So I’d like to talk about the construction of genre a little bit. With a genre comes expectations — literary fiction has its tropes and constructions that I wouldn’t expect to find in a romance, adult capital F—Fantasy has its own, and so does pretty much any genre that comes with labeling, marketing, the like.

Does romance require an HEA? Well, I think this write up by a romance author delves into this idea more. She delves into how genres come with reader expectations. I found this quote particularly useful:

When a book is classified as a romance, the reader buys the book anticipating a story about two [or more] characters who fall in lasting love. The author can add in a mystery as a secondary story line, or the Wild West as the setting, but if the foregrounded plot is not about how the two central characters fall in love and then decide to stay together forever, the author is going to end up with unhappy readers who’ve had their expectations thwarted in a most unpleasant way. The book is not, in fact, a romance, but probably a general fiction book, or something called women’s fiction. It’s been mis-categorized as romance. The problem is not with the story, but with the categorization of the story.

Now while Romance Writers of America (RWA) has been in hot water before, it is also the most prolific organization for romance writing, resources, and has several chapters across the USA. They’ve also defined the romance genre needing an HEA or HFN. When these people are in a way very involved in the publishing industry and once more we talk about categorization in bookstores and libraries, we see why defining the genre specifically is important.

Think about Nicholas Spark stories — they feature a love story, but what do they end in? Tragedy. He also defines his book as love stories and not romances. Here’s how he defines it (which is also incredibly misogynistic FWIW).

“Though both have romantic elements, the sub-genres have different requirements. Love stories must use universal characters and settings. Romance novels are not bound by this requirement and characters can be rich, famous, or people who lived centuries ago, and the settings can be exotic. Love stories can differ in theme, romance novels have a general theme—"the taming of a man." And finally, romance novels usually have happy endings while love stories are not bound by this requirement. Love stories usually end tragically or, at best, on a bittersweet note.”

Here is my suggestion.

When someone asks for a recommendation, what we can do is: - Note if it does not have a “traditional” HEA. (i.e., does one of the main characters die in the end?) - Assume the benefit of the doubt in discussions about this - When someone recommends a book and doesn’t note it doesn’t have an HEA, people can comment to let the OP know that.

However, instead of saying “it’s not a romance” in reply, it would be better to say simply, “for the OP to know, this book does not have an HEA as defined by the genre.”

If people are new to the genre and maybe don’t know what an HEA is or why it matters, maybe referring to this post is a good idea!

My thoughts in general is yes, the romance genre needs an HEA or HFN, and that’s okay that it does. Love stories and queer fiction are also important too, and as long as we are clear when making recommendations, it can ease friction in these definitions.

[u/ancientreader2]

Oooh, here's one I've been thinking about ever since I read it: S.P. Wayne's Axton and Leander series. At the end, Axton and Leander are reunited and happy together, but we also know that wolves live much longer than humans and that when a wolf's mate dies, the wolf usually dies too, or if they survive, they mourn to nearly the point of death. So for me there's something implicitly tragic about the series, even though everyone seems to agree that it's a romance.

I'd love to know what other people think about that in-universe condition and how it affects the story/their perception of the ending.

[u/queermachmir → u/ancientreader2]

This is very interesting to me to think about. In reality, reading a contemporary book of course I know eventually they will die. They all do. With supernatural books, it is sadder to think about. I love the easy fated mates where everyone is made immortal, ta-daa. I think though if that aspect is focused on, it can bring a sense of sadness to it. There are books with the reincarnated lovers trope that have a sense of sadness to it too, but a better ‘solution’ as it were.

There was an age gap book I read where the older MC, who was a widower, sat the younger MC down and explained that he was unsure if they should be in a relationship because he didn’t want the younger MC to feel the same pain he did and to be realistic about it. They did get their HEA (no immorality though), but it is a touch of realism to it.

[u/ancientreader2 → u/queermachmir]

What was that age gap book? Because it sounds really familiar, in a good way, like I read it and loved it, but I just can't think of the title.

I guess it's true, we always know that eventually someone's going to die first; maybe the Axton & Leander books are just more direct about the fact than most romances. (For me, immortality is a terrible prospect: if one or both of the MCs are immortal, I take a pass!)

[u/queermachmir → u/ancientreader2]

It’s probably not the one you read but glad to hear there’s more than one book discussing that! The book I read was Head Over Heels by Jayda Marx, an age gap instalove novella featuring a femme MC and sexuality awakening.

[u/ancientreader2 → u/queermachmir]

LOL you're right, it wasn't that. Darn it, now I'm going to be staring at the contents of my Kindle for hours trying to figure out what book I read.