the ask@AAR: An HEA? An HFN? How do you define a happy ending?
I’m not sure how old you have to be to cringe when you hear the K-I-S-S-I-N-G song. For those of you whose childhoods were blessedly free of this rhyme, it went like this:
And that, for many of us, was the happily ever we encountered in romance. Marriage and children were the goal and were found in ending after epilogue.
Mercifully, the definition of an HEA (happily ever after) has expanded both in romance and in society. Love is love and romance novels now grant HEAs to lovers of all combinations and backgrounds. “does a happy dance”
It’s clear the definition of an HEA–a requirement for romance novels–has expanded beyond what it was decades ago. And even the requirement of the HEA is changing. Many novels now have an HFN (happy for now) and no longer do couples have to marry or procreate to ensure their place in the romance novel pantheon.
What do you think? What do you need, by the end of the book, for a romance novel to work for you?
I need to end a romance feeling that the hero and heroine fit each other well, that they’ve reached a point where they are secure in their commitment. For me, any hint of insecurity or disharmony really bothers me and leaves me unsettled. I need to be able to picture them safe and happy together, as equals.
In fact I find that regularly books end too abruptly for me. We have wrenching conflict that is solved a mere couple pages from the end. I’m left still with my emotions all in disarray from the conflict, and haven’t had enough pages with the hero and heroine in peace together to soothe those emotions. This is why I always enjoy an epilogue that can do that for me.
It might also be why I enjoy those much decried treacly marriage and baby epilogues very much. I don’t require them in every book I read, but when they are there they are definitely a bonus for me and put a smile on my face. (As long as they don’t require the characters to change who they are fundamentally).
@Dabney – Well, in all honestly I can’t really respond to your “tone” comment because tone policing is considered an ad hominem attack. When someone says they disagree with a person’s tone, they’re really saying that they disagree with that person’s ideas. And I’m fine with disagreement. In fact, I kind of expect sensitive issues like age or race or gender to provoke difference of opinion. I challenged your views on an Issue. You don’t seem to want to respond to my explanations, and so we can just move on, which I”m more than happy to do as well.
I don’t need marriage, kids, or really anything else to believe in a couple’s HEA. As long as I think they’re good for each other and that they’re committed to whatever it is that they want from each other, that’s fine for me.
I do need to believe that there’s room for change and sadness and challenge in their relationship. If I don’t think that, then I’m content to think of them as Happy For Now and that’s often enough too.
Your comment about room for change, sadness, and relationship challenges got me thinking about romance series in which prior couples make a cameo appearance. Wouldn’t it be interesting if the earlier characters’ first cameo appearance in the book was them undergoing a struggle or strain in the relationship? Then, of course, this being a romance, it gets resolved near the end of the story when the new couple gets their HEA/HFN? I think that could potentially be a good subplot. Anyway, I think that would be a good way to show challenge for past couples since romance isn’t generally conducive to sequels starring the same couple (unless they have an ongoing mystery series or something, but I digress.)
Yes, Nan, I like that too. Both with the main couple of a former book, or with some important secondary character. Though come to think of it, there is a lot of both out there, what comes immediately to my mind:
Nalini Singh’s Archangel series has a couple of books where the main couple of book one struggles with settling into their new lives.
I like Natural Born Charmer for the secondary romance of the parents actually was better imo than the main couple. Edith Layton had novellas where the parents reconciled during the children’s romance.
Yes, I like that more than the treacly cameos where everyone is just growing cute children and having family parties and interfering in the new couple’s lives.
“Yes, I like that more than the treacly cameos where everyone is just growing cute children and having family parties and interfering in the new couple’s lives.”
Ha ha! Treacly cameos is just the right term for it. Sometimes I wonder, if everything is going so well, why are these past characters even entering the book except as an obnoxious “Look at us! Remember us from the first book? We’re still alive and nothing is amiss in our perfect little lives!”
The HEA/HFN distinction sort of bothers me a bit, because unless the story actually shows the couple all the way up to the point where they die at the exact same moment at age 92, all endings are HFN. Marriage and baby epilogues don’t indicate that the couple will truly be happy forever, just that they are happy at this point. That’s not really any different from showing them at the point where they had first agreed to be a committed couple. Wherever the author stops the story, the reader is still left to extrapolate that they’ll be happy.
When I read, I don’t particularly think about whether an ending would be considered a HEA or HFN. I just think, has the author demonstrated satisfactorily that this is a relationship with legs? I need to feel that the couple has resolved the most important obstacles that were in their way and has a solid dynamic with good communication so that they can deal with whatever comes at them. Different couples will naturally come to this point at different places, and it should make sense for the story that has been told.
I’ve closed many a book that technically offered me a HEA shaking my head over how unhealthy the relationship seemed to me, and I often find endings that are technically HFN more convincing as HEAs, often because of the point mentioned above that when two characters who have known each other a week rush towards engagement, I have doubts. There are also sometimes books where the insistence on a traditional HEA with marriage and children compromises everything I’ve been told about the characters up to that point. I can’t read those and think “ah yes, HEA.” And sometimes I’m not convinced that one or both characters is ready for a relationship by the end of the book, or I think the couple is not really well-suited to each other and will make each other miserable eventually, or that they haven’t really dealt with the potential issues enough.
So I guess for me, a HEA has nothing to do with whether there’s a marriage and babies at all, and neither does a HFN. If at the end of the book, the author has convinced me that this is a couple with staying power, it’s a HEA. If I doubt the couple, no matter how many babies they’ve had, it’s not.
I know I posted this before, but when I finished Taylor Fitzpatrick’s THROWN OFF THE ICE (a beautiful love story but with no HFN or HEA), I was put in mind of two quotes:
“If you want a happy ending, that depends on where you stop the story.” —Orson Welles
“All love stories have unhappy endings.” —Ernest Hemingway
I would add, there’s a difference between a love story and a capital-R-Romance…and I’m fine with that.
Hemingway is such a jerk though. When I read A Moveable Feast, I couldn’t believe what an asshat he himself said he was! Wells cheated on wife after wife and was notorious for being awful to those who worked for him.
I say this just because I think we constantly hear about love from men who don’t in any way revere love. I’m not saying your quotes are wrong, DiscoDollyDeb–I love your perspective–but that we are so conditioned to see love stories through the eyes of men given that men are the ones that history has traditionally decided are quoteworthy.
I love these quotes on happy endings:
“What greater thing is there for two human souls, than to feel that they are joined for life–to strength each other in all labor, to rest on each other in all sorrow, to minister to each other in silent unspeakable memories at the moment of the last parting?”
– George Eliot
“When you realize you want to spend the rest of your life with somebody, you want the rest of your life to start as soon as possible.”
–Nora Ephron
Oh you hit on one of my pet peeves about the men. Some of them just have NO SHAME. I remember reading David Boreanez going on about his wonderful wife and marriage and love and all I could think was that he had been sharing one of Tiger Woods mistresses and part of her tell all interview was about how Boreanez was off fooling around with her while his poor wife was in labor! I think he was texting his wife or something. Unbelievable.
Obviously it’s his wife’s decision to put up with him and the marriage but I REALLY don’t want to hear him blather about his love for her etc. Sorry David.
Regarding Orson Wells, I remember that Rita Hayworth had said her marriage to him was the happiest time in her life and he was horrified saying “If that was happiness the rest of her life must have been horrible”. At least he admitted it.
Yes, very well put.
I want to believe that the couple has a healthy attachment to each other (I really worry when we have super possessive super jealous people or super childish dependence as love, both are not healthy and so not a good end).
And I want to believe they have what they need to solve/thrive in their circumstances. mostly meaning inner resources, Strength, courage, intelligence, patience, skill, whatever, but of course, the outer circumstances must be ok, too, at least to a degree where I trust that they will be able to manage their further lives.
That is it.
No difference HEA or HFN.
I only notice HFN when it does not convince me. A couple that has fought and broken up a few times, and the story ends with them reconciled, but I do not see how this reconciliation is different from the ones before. HFN as an armistice, not a peace. An inveterate adventurer has gone off alone dozens of times, and at the end of the book stays with the other person, but no clue whether they are staying, this time. HFN as a respite in the oasis,
All others I accept as HEA,
Like you say, because they can be, it is just unknowable whether they will unless we see them die at a very old age – which is also not really a happy end, it’s it?
I dunno. As someone who is nearing sixty with a spouse of over 30 years, I can’t think of a greater happy end than my husband and I dying at a very old age, after years more of marriage. But I’m old so of course I’d think that!
I’m in my 60s and married for decades, too. So I like the idea of dying old only a short time apart from each other. He’s my reason, and without him life would be bleak indeed. So yeah. Side by side coffins sounds kind of nice.
Agree fully. 55 myself, I relate.
I just doubt that I would be happy with a romance where the epilogue said “ and sixty years later, they died holding hands, in their sleep” ?
I love the feeling of truly believing at the end of a romance that this is exactly what will happen to the couple. But would I want it spelled out?
Maybe in some romance, yes, where it really fit, but having a version of this as often as we currently see “dozens of babies” epilogues ??? ( which I hate, nearly always, btw)
I have very dear neighbours next door. She will be 93 and he will be 97 in February. He’s not well but very sharp; she’s very active still, driving, socialising, etc. When she calls out the paramedics for him, I am the first person she calls to be with her (they have no children or other family) and I see the abject terror in her eyes. I dread the day. They have been married for 71 years. HFN, yes. HEA, debatable. Not pleasant but reality.
I read Ainslie Paton’s _The Love Coupon_ and remember feeling distinctly uneasy with the ending because the hero essentially has to change his personality to be acceptable to her heroine. She’s a bubbly extrovert and he’s an intense and quiet introvert. They clash throughout the novel and somewhat reluctantly decide to be together at the end, though it’s the hero who acknowledges that being an introvert is a bad way to live. The author clearly is enamored with her heroine and keeps trying to assert to readers that carefree and extrovert living is where it’s at. As an introvert, I hated that definition of happiness and find the notion that a person can simply change who they are troubling.
I definitely agree with you about problematic portrayals of our fellow introverts. As much as I loved “Lady Derring Takes a Lover,” the heroine’s insistence upon her boarding house tenants gathering in the parlor four times a week would definitely send me running!
If you are interested in a romance with two introvert leads, I recommend “The Outlaw’s Heart” by Amy Sandas. (Thanks AAR for the rec!) It certainly isn’t my favorite HR, but I appreciated how the author wrote a convincing romance between two introverts without falling into a Stockholm syndrome trap.
I really hate romances where one partner has to change who they are and what they want entirely to be with the other. Years ago it was the women who had to do it “for love” and now the trend seems to be the men have to.
I really dislike it and it’s not “feminist” to me or “pro-women” when the woman is the one being the jerk now. I really love to read about a partnership. Not everything is going to be 100% equal in life but I want to feel like the life a couple has together is something they both want and build equally.
Agreed! It’s definitely not a feminist principle for either sex to want to feel superior to the other. I find it incredibly romantic when two people accept their partner’s intrinsic qualities, even if they are very different people. I can also say as an introvert that it would be impossible for me to wake up one morning and decide I’m an extrovert or someone who lives spontaneously by the seat of my pants so that my partner can be happier with me. I find that notion offensive and just silly.
It seemed a while ago that there was a trend to make women super strong and ready to strike out physically at the hero. I recall a dreadful scene in Nora Roberts’s Sea Swept where the heroine literally beats up the hero in a fit of rage. Maybe it’s my own reading taste, but I don’t encounter those types of scenes in romances now and hope they’ve disappeared.
“It seemed a while ago that there was a trend to make women super strong and ready to strike out physically at the hero. I recall a dreadful scene in Nora Roberts’s Sea Swept where the heroine literally beats up the hero in a fit of rage.”
Ooh! That sounds terrible! Being a strong woman doesn’t mean beating up the hero any more than a strong man would beat up the heroine. That’s assault and assault is definitely not something that should be happening between the good guys in a story as far as I’m concerned. If that was ever a trend, I’m glad it isn’t anymore (hopefully).
Was it the Nora Roberts book where the heroine hits the hero in the face and the family all thinks it’s funny because he’s never gotten his nose broken before? I remember being horrified. Who thinks that is any way romantic or OK? I’ve enjoyed my share of Roberts’ work but I remember wondering how that got published.
I do think there was a trend where “strong woman” had to equal physical strength with a lot of authors. Not all heroines have to be daredevil kickboxers. I certainly enjoy a heroine who is strong in that way but I know plenty of women that I consider “strong” that can’t wrestle a bear or crack a safe and never want to be the life of the party.
I think most of us ardent readers, if not introverts ourselves, certainly can identify with introverts or have some of those qualities so it seems really silly to write a book where the introvert is “cured”.
Yes, it was the book where the heroine, Anna, beats up the hero, Cameron, at the end of the book, and his family finds it amusing. As I recall, as the series progressed, there was a running joke that Cameron feared his wife’s temper. I remember finding that unsettling as a joke because, of course, if the situation was reversed, would anyone laugh at a woman fearing her husband’s temper? I haven’t read Nora Roberts in years though and so I don’t know how she portrays feminism in her current books.
**applauds wildly** Equality isn’t one partner walking over the other, regardless of gender.
I would rather see an HFN ending for a young couple (college or early twenties) than a quickie insta-love wedding. The latter is unrealistic to me.
I like what Oprah Winfrey had to say when asked recently her thoughts on Prince Harry’s and Meghan Markle’s decision to forge a different kind of life together. To paraphrase, adults think through their choices together and settle on a course of action that they feel will bring them happiness and peace, and no one has any right to say anything. I want to shorten that and make it a bumper sticker.
In fiction though, we judge because we want an author to persuade us that a couple has made the right decision for themselves. I want an author to convince me that two consenting adults are entering a loving and respectful partnership that works for them and their own unique characteristics and needs in life. I don’t need an “ever after” promise, marriage, 2.5 children, a picket fence, etc. I just want to read a story of two people agreeing on terms that suit them in life.
Totally OT, but why do people care how Harry and Meghan choose to live? I want to see what she wears and for them to be happy. Period. Same for all the royals, except Charles who is a big fat cheater so I have issues with him.
People in the UK care re H&M because they have expended a good deal of taxpayer money and goodwill on them. She seems to many not to have given her (undobtedly exalted) position much of a try and the pair of them now have an opportunity to besmirch a much loved and internationally admired institution with commercialism in a crass and objectionable way. Further, they are seen to be relying on “advisors” in the USA who have no real understanding of the British monarchy and therefore are not capable of providing knowlegeable advice to H&M. Of course people want them to be happy but, unlike the rest of us, they appeared unwilling and/or unable to accept their lot in life and just get on with it. A life that, though not for all, nonetheless is certainly easier than managing a boring job, mortgage, kids, elderly relatives, taxes and medical bills, etc, etc. As for Charles, I tend to agree with you, KesterGayle, but accept that Camilla has tread the straight and narrow since their marriage with good humour, manners and a willingness to put in the effort without discernable complaint.
I don’t live in the UK and obviously don’t know any of the parties involved. But, my take is that this is Harry pushing for a more private life. His mother died because she was turned into a photo op, and it sent young Harry into a tailspin. Understandably so. Losing a parent at a very young age is hugely traumatic, and when it happens on the world stage it’s magnified by about a billion percent. He sees, rightly or wrongly, the media frenzy over Meghan as a repeat of what happened to his mum. Why they don’t just quietly retire to the country, I’m not sure. But I can understand his worry and while I think moving to another country may be a bit drastic, I wish them well.
The POV of the British public is something I have very little awareness of since I don’t really follow the Royals except for opportunities to see what they wear, especially those hats! I do love a good hat…
And, I’m not crazy about Camilla either, since she’s a cheater, too. But yes, both she and Charles have worked hard to redeem themselves, and have largely succeeded. I just have a long memory and, apparently, I hold grudges!
I wasn’t trying to turn this into a Harry/Meghan debate per se because when I see Oprah Winfrey’s words that no one has a right to interfere in a couple’s decision on what makes them personally happy, I think that’s where we leave it, or should leave it. I guess I wish that is where people could leave it. You state that “of course everyone wants them to be happy,” and I would hope that’s true (not convinced it is), and that should be the end of the sentence. However, you added a “but” and go on to recant what you stated because of your own ideas of what should make people happy. What sounds like a nice life for you obviously wasn’t for them. Isn’t that the definition of finding one’s authentic way forward in life and not living by the standards others try to establish for us. My mind is going back to a troubling AAR blog on why age gaps are wrong. Someone even offered a numerical figure on what should be an acceptable age gap between a couple. It’s judgmental and people should be able for themselves and as a couple why they want to be together. Anyway, that’s one of the aspects of romances I most enjoy — the ability to define one’s own happy ever after — and maybe that’s the issue that stood out the most for me in the recent stories about Harry and Meghan. They seem to love each other and choose to be together in life and therefore they get to decide what kind of life they want together.
Yes, Nan!
I am not able to in any way judge the difficulties that H&M had to face, and how painful they would be from the inside.
I did see a lot of amazingly rude, offensive and racist comment written by journalists in UK media (not private persons on blogs or comments), which is really appalling,
So, I admire them for trying to change something, to make their life work, after having given the predetermined script of royalty a try. It looks adult and thought out to me. And a guy who puts his wife and new family first, instead of his birth family, I always have a soft spot for them, I admit to that.
But I just do not know, and beyond wishing everyone well, and admiring courage to stand up against an established system, I Have no opinion on how they live their lives.
Hi, Lieselotte. Thanks for the nice comment, but I didn’t mention anything about the royal family.
It feels as though you are saying the only acceptable way to see others is to never make a judgement about what works for them. I may be misunderstanding you and if I am I apologize.
Given that I wrote that troubling column about age gaps in romance and that, for me personally, I am going to respond. I find large age gaps in relationships in romance a no go–just as others do cheating, for example–I wonder at why it’s not OK for me to say that’s what works for me.
“It feels as though you are saying the only acceptable way to see others is to never make a judgement about what works for them.” I see a lot of that going on lately, Ms. Grinnan. I sometimes joke that I am not so much prejudiced as “judgist.” By which I mean, I look at something and make a judgment about it, whether that’s about a book, movie, issue, etc.
I think it’s absolutely okay to share an opinion about what works or what doesn’t. It’s also okay to agree to disagree. Sadly, I have encountered some people online who say agreeing to disagree is somehow a copout instead of a legitimate conclusion to a disagreement that obviously isn’t going to get resolved. I think of it instead as a “Let’s diffuse this kerfuffle and move on. It’s okay that we have different preferences/beliefs.”
As for the age gap topic, that happened before I was a commenter here.
It’s always been incredibly important to me that AAR be a place readers feel comfortable talking about their opinions. We don’t share the same opinions/values/perspectives and, in most cases, it’s necessary that we feel it’s OK to share ours.
I REALLY don’t like May/December romances and I feel fine about saying so!
“It’s always been incredibly important to me that AAR be a place readers feel comfortable talking about their opinions.” I really appreciate this. It is a big reason why AAR is the only place where I post comments anymore (sadly, I think SBTB gave me the boot…)
What do you mean “gave you the boot”? They won’t let you comment there? Wow. I think I’ve only ever blocked one person and that was after years of issues.
I made an admittedly contentious post on SBTB (politely, though I hope!), got a few upvotes, and then it disappeared from the website. When I tried to comment elsewhere on SBTB, my comments would disappear immediately like they were being blocked. So I e-mailed them with a semi-apologetic note with the subject “Sorry, in the doghouse again…” (or something like that) to ask if I was banned. Never heard back.
It’s really for the best though. I looked at SBTB’s coverage of the Courtney Milan, Davis, and RWA scandal and noticed the comments I skimmed through felt a lot like an echo chamber. That is to say, there really wasn’t a debate/differences of opinion like we saw here at AAR.
I know I sometimes blunder what I’m trying to say, whether in real life or on the internet, but I do hope I haven’t been too much of a nuisance here at AAR. :)
SBTB is not a neutral site.. It is an avowedly intersectional feminist romance site, and more so now than ever given our cultural moment. In the first days of the RWA scandal, the moderators explicitly stated that anti-diversity comments were not acceptable and that people who made such comments were not welcome. One moderator flat out told a commenter that she was not welcome there. I personally love the site and value their politics, but that is my own personal politics, and I thought they handled the Milan case well. I have no knowledge of any particular poster being removed, but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that they decided not to allow some to post there.
“SBTB is not a neutral site.” Yeah, I kind of learned that the hard way. But for the record, I never commented on the RWA scandal on their site. (Couldn’t have even if I wanted to given how my comments were blocked before that happened.)
“One moderator flat out told a commenter that she was not welcome there.” That is SBTB’s decision. Just as it is my decision to no longer visit their website. But I’m glad you still find value in it. Personally, not being able to comment there any more took out the joy of reading their blog posts. My own fault for not playing nice, I guess. But life goes on.
Sorry!
Judging fiction, and having likes or dislikes, or concepts that do not work for you, all fine. I have that too, as demonstrated in this conversation, too. Having opinions, and judging facts, is part of the fun of a good debate. As long as we do it with a respectful tone/ mood towards the others.
I am wary of judging real people and their life choices with strong emotions on how they should or should not be – for instance H&M. In the end, we cannot know what will work for them. That was all I tried to say.
Sorry Nan, meant Blackjack.
Agreed! I feel the same pretty consistently, and that certainly includes example of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.
@Dabney- I’ll try to clarify using your example. If you find age gaps personally troubling, then it would be fine for you to find a partner in life who is roughly your age. That’s not though where your blog left things. The blog judges other couples’ relationships who do not meet your personal criteria of what makes you happy. Many people find loving partnerships with large age gaps. That’s their choice, and I do admit to feeling queasy intervening and making negative comments on what others decide works best for them.
Let’s be clear: the ask@AAR is about asking what people like in romance novels. When I ask a question there whether it’s how readers feel about age gaps or about HEAs, is about romance novels. What we like or don’t like in romance novels often has little to do with what we do or don’t like in romance.
Ah, see I view literature, culture, and real life as deeply intertwined, and so judging ideas in a text is connected to judging how people actually live. Writers write about ideas already pre-existing around us and how consumers of culture respond to those ideas is linked to how we live.
I have a good friend who is happily married with six children to a man roughly 15-17 years her senior. She’s told me how hurt she’s been by prejudice she’s encountered from family and even strangers. I know that I’ve encountered backlash from people when I divorced years ago, again when I chose to live outside of marriage with my current partner, and when my current partner and I chose never to have children. Judgment is all around all of us, but my view is that two consenting adults get to decide on the life they want to live, and if they aren’t harming themselves or others, it’s really no one else’s business.
People are remarkably judgmental about the children issue. Hubs and I never wanted kids, even as kids ourselves. We married at 35, so we knew ourselves pretty well, and I got fixed. I was amazed at how many people, often ones that I barely knew, had opinions about that. I don’t much like kids; why on earth would I want to live with them?
To the record, we have no regrets about this choice, and our ‘kids with tails’ have been quite happy about it, too!
If I had adhered to my family’s views about how to live my life, I would be so desperately unhappy. I write about the kids issue frequently as it really bothers me in romances that having children is conflated with a happy ending. I fully support anyone who feels children are necessary to their personal happiness, but I also wish the romance industry recognized that not all couples believe in this version. In contemporary romances, I wish this issue would be better addressed because there are just more choices for people.
I don’t find kids a particularly persuasive component of an HEA. For me, kids, if you want them, are about personal choices/life satisfaction. I’d have loved my husband and we’d have had an HEA whether or not we had kids. I’m much more persuaded by what happens to couples personally–in between them–than I am their external circumstances.
Whoa–the idea that I’d have to like, in real life, what I like in art is so beyond my ken, I can’t imagine it.
It makes me uncomfortable when any commenter here at AAR shames others for what they like to read. To me that sort of judging shuts down conversation and if there’s one thing I’m sure the world needs now is conversation. It’s my hope that all of us at AAR can figure out a way to talk about what we and others read with compassion rather than criticism.
Well, as a literature teacher I have to admit that I’m a little surprised whenever I encounter readers who believe the ideas they read in a novel (or any cultural product) are unrelated to the ideas already existing in society and history. I’m not sure from what you’ve written if this is actually something about which you disagree though? Perhaps what you disagree with is my argument that people’s ideologies and values pull them toward ideas in fiction just as they pull us toward ideas we encounter in real life. I don’t want to go too far down the rabbit hole of what people personally like or don’t like, because I don’t actually care; I’m a cultural reader and I care more about what kinds of views and ideas get put forth in fiction and in real life on issues relevant to our moment. And that might sound very alien to you I suspect, but your statement above about feeling personally shamed because we disagree on an issue is equally alien to me.
How we all think about “age” is an issue in our society, and I tend to agree with Sandra Antonelli, who wrote a blog here at AAR not too long ago on this very topic, and wrote that age is one of the forms of discrimination that is still pretty acceptable and all too prevalent – in real life, in the fiction real live authors produce, and in the reader responses that follow. So, is the debate around “age gaps” in fiction (or real life) connected to ageism? I think it’s uncomfortably close and often becomes conflated. Why? Well, when I listen to the conversations on this issue here on romance forums, and in real life, I hear concerns over an older person preying upon a younger person (victimization), or an assumption that a younger person is not mature enough to decide what’s best for them, or that either an older or younger person is disconnected from the reality of the other’s life because numerical age trumps everything else, etc. I’m sure there’s more! The bottom line though is that those all seem to me negative assumptions that stereotype people by age – i.e., ageism. My personal opinion is that someone’s mental maturity is a bigger factor than age, which is just a number, after all. If a forty-year old falls in love with a sixty-year old, is that unacceptable or unattractive? And as I’ve written already here, I believe consenting adults get to define their own personal version of happiness – that is compassionate to me. I do think the notion of putting forth an acceptable age standard for a couple is uncomfortably judgmental for all the reasons I listed above. Doing so doesn’t feel compassionate to me. Why do you feel that your construction of age as a category is compassionate?
I’d just ask that you help us in our goal to make all voices feel welcome. Again, I’d like AAR to be a place where no one feels shamed by their reading choices. Or condescended to. Or addressed in a tone one might address a recalcitrant student. Thank you!
“Whoa–the idea that I’d have to like, in real life, what I like in art is so beyond my ken, I can’t imagine it.” I totally agree with you, Ms. Grinnan. Like you, I am able to separate art from artist, distinguish between stories from real life beliefs, and put on blinders (as you said) when reading something from a different time period.
Blackjack, I also understand what you’re saying about life influencing art and vice versa. Literature, movies, etc. are often cultural products that can potentially reinforce or change peoples’ hearts and minds.
But I must disagree that the reflection between fictional stories and real life is equal or total. For example, I sometimes enjoy reading books with anti-heroes and/or morally ambiguous characters (think “Midnight Cowboy,” “The Godfather,” Elmore Leonard’s “Bandits,” “P.S. Your Cat is Dead”). That does not in any way mean I approve of those kinds of behaviors in real life. But I can and do enjoy reading them as fun escapist fantasies that have no significant overlap with my real life existence.
Certainly, H&M can decide what makes them happy though it simply needs to be completely outside the structure and, admittedly, the strictures of the British Royal Family. And, with various things that have come out in the last day or two about plans put in hand up to 18 months ago by Meghan, this could indicate this was not a decision made after a decent try-out, I suspect that they may never have intended to fulfil the roles of senior royals. And I did not say, Blackjack, that their life sounded “like a nice life”. That’s not at all what I said or implied and I accept that it’s probably NOT a nice life at times. The simple fact is that in marrying Harry, Meghan was marrying more than the man. If, having given it an honest and considered chance, it was not for her (them), then fair enough. It merely seems to me that happiness might have been achieved along with enjoying a wonderful opportunity not available to many to do much good in the world within the Royal Family – had they taken more time and effort – i.e. the HEA or at least an HFN might have been on the cards.
And to Lieselotte, you commented that “amazingly rude, offensive and racist comment written by journalists in UK media (not private persons on blogs or comments), which is really appalling,” This is continually brought up but when asked, those who say it when interviewed on TV, radio or in journalistic interviews usually can’t or won’t cite examples. One commentator who raised this issue, when asked in an interview that I listened to, implied that the interviewer speaking to her, as a “privileged white man”, wasn’t worthy of being instructed by her with examples. I can’t recall seeing anything such as you describe in the mainstream press and I read 2 national print daily papers every day and headlines from most of the others. Yes, if Harry hadn’t (apparently, as reported) persisted in reading the comments posted by moronic readers of, for example, The Mail Online, he might have felt happier. IMO, for what it’s worth, the online world populated by people posting in complete anonymity is disgusting and we really should just ignore it. It’s just a reeking gutter.
elaine, I stand corrected – I have not done my research in depth, and I have not actually evaluated the quality of the sources I read or that are mentioned, myself. I completely accept that you have done so, and know where I only read, saw hints and have simply ideas/Impressions.
I do not read blogs or comments, just articles themselves that look like just fun (I like looking at clothes sometimes) on rather serious media outlets. My main reading is NYT and Guardian (of international media, local is not relevant to this debate), and I follow the links from there sometimes, I only occasionally online search for the royals, when I am curious about something like clothes they wore at a function, or when something happens like now, where I am actually much more fascinated by the money trail of how they are financed and how that works, and not so much by the whole “he said, she said, …” part. in such media, I also read opinions sections, but tend to avoid the comments, because I agree with you, there is much ugliness in them. I may go from there to a link posted by the media outlet, that is it.
To me, the way M was portrayed when they were commenting on her family, clothes or on behavior in public felt skewed and mean to me, especially when they were comparing her to Kate, in articles that seemed to me to be written by professionals. I am not saying the reporting is nice when it comes to Kate, she is also regularly criticized in a horrible way (body shaming!) but it still felt skewed to me. So, without going into depth, I felt that yes, the burden she bore was heavy, and could not have been expected up front. Also, my general experience of prejudice and racism is not that people are up front about it, but that it is expressed in the constant “you are not good enough” or “you do not quite fit in”. Again, I am not an expert on that either.
Finally, they are not my royals, I do not finance them out of my tax money, so in the end, the opinions I have are obviously less carefully researched and less deeply considered than on topics where I am somehow personally touched.
So overall, elaine, I stand corrected and will not comment on this anymore unless I do my homework, which as of now, I do not intend to do, other interests and little time.
Thanks for a lovely and thoughtful post, Lieselotte. The only comment I would make is that, of the national daily papers in the UK, the Guardian is certainly considered as the most left-wing of the lot with The Daily Mail probably the most right-wing. I try to understand both sides of the argument when I can by reading a range of opinion but my hat is off to you for the reading you do as I understand you don’t live in the UK. I keep up with the good old LA Times as that’s where I grew up but I also enjoy the international newspaper reviews on BBC radio when we get to hear what Bild, Le Figaro, Corriere della Sera, etc. In English, I hasten to add, have to say.
I think I’m the outlier here. I need nothing more than “true love” between the MCs. I need the writing to convince me that the MCs truly belong to one another. Beyond that, I’m good. So, for me, books like Sharon Kay Penman’s Here Be Dragons, Niffenegger’s Time Traveller’s Wife, Anya Seton’s Katherine, and Taylor Fitzpatrick’s Thrown Off the Ice are all fabulous romances.
I remarked elsewhere that after reading a few Barbara Cartland’s I “gave up” on romances because of the “sameness” I perceived in her stories. But thinking back on it, as a teenager, I loved Erich Segal’s Love Story, Helen Hunt Jackson’s Ramona, Benedict Freedman’s Mrs. Mike, and Colin Higgins novelization of Harold and Maude. So my warped sense of what is or is not a romance was formed by what I could find on library shelves that satisfied my affinity for stories about people in love – even if no one else considered them “romances”.
“So my warped sense of what is or is not a romance was formed by what I could find on library shelves that satisfied my affinity for stories about people in love – even if no one else considered them ‘romances.'”
Your comment reminds me about the post I made a few topics back about whether or not there should be a category of love stories called “tragic romances.” A few people at AAR commented (were you one of them? can’t remember now…) that it would definitely be a small niche because people read romances specifically for the HEA/HFN. Hey, I agree. But I still think the classification “love story” is a little vague for sadder tales that contain romantic elements without a happy ending. Your examples of “Love Story” and “Harold and Maude” are what I would definitely classify as “tragic romance” if I were given rein over New York publishing romance category definitions.
Now, do I want my romances to end with an HEA/HFN? Absolutely! But I think an official categorical designation for the stories you mentioned needs to be created for those seeking a good cry.
Harold and Maude is one of my favorite movies, and I love how they used Cat Stevens’ music in that film.
As for the topic, HFN often works for me, and like others have said is often more convincing.
Yes, that was me! Your terminology “tragic” romances is interesting . . . I’ve been thinking about it and I get what you mean by it.
But I don’t think of these books as “tragic”. MCs meet and fall in love and life is full of challenges. The luckiest characters are those who find partners who see (or will see) each other through everything life offers to its logical end. I focus on the falling, acknowledging and negotiating that others here are referring to – sometimes, if I’m lucky, well beyond the initial blush (of love, not sex!). I don’t need marriage, or kids either; and it doesn’t matter to me that the author chooses to share the details of one MC moving on as long as they were “oh so right” together, for all the rest of it. I think that is why some of us also look for romances with more mature MCs . . . characters with some appreciation for what life can be like; and it can be particularly sweet to us as readers when we find characters with partners willing to move forward despite what they know, rather than characters who are blissfully ignorant of what is to come. Some of my favorite “romances” focus on relationships well into them: Into The Wilderness by Sara Donati, Suburban Renewal by Pamela Morsi, The Ocean Between Us by Susan Wiggs, and several “marraige of convenience” stories.
But that is just me. I understand the “official” definition of a romance, and that many readers want all that the future might hold to be a pleasant blur (just as many readers prefer little or no angst in their romances as well). I like some of those titles too. It just isn’t a defining characteristic for me.
Mrs. Mike is totes a romance!
I loved MRS. MIKE when I first read it back in 8th grade (the early 1970s) and I still have a battered copy I picked up at a used book sale years ago (I also have a book that Mary Katherine Flannigan—the inspiration for MRS. MIKE—wrote, but I’ve never been able to make it through that one). I’ve been reluctant to reread MRS. MIKE because I’m sure I would notice a lot of racism and “otherizing” of indigenous people that went right over my head as a teenager.
I am grateful that I am easily able to put on my “written in a different time” blinders when I read much of what I loved as a younger person.
Yeah, me too for some. And, like DiscoDollyDeb, there are several I just have to leave in the memory bank. Ramona, written in something like 1875, is another one that I just can’t bring myself to recommend or reread for the same reasons.
Most romances are stories about the launch/takeoff of a relationship. I consider the ending HEA or HFN if I believe based on the story I read that the launch was successful. This is why I DON’T believe some endings are happy/successful—most often when the “hero” is an abusive jerk or totally distrusting for most of the story. Sequels will affect how I view an ending—a mid-course correction story can devalue a previously happy ending.
I agree with most things said here, but especially with what DiscoDollyDeb says about wanting to feel that the couple are solid enough to cope with whatever life throws at them down the road. I know I’ve written reviews of books in which I’ve not felt that the relationship will last far beyond the last page.
I find an HFN to be the more convincing ending when the characters are young; I don’t read much YA or NA (is that still a thing?) but I think the HFN when both protagonists are in their teens-early twenties is more believable than an HEA. Maybe that’s the elderly cynic in me talking!
As long as the relationship is currently in, “a good place” I am happy. My reread of Lord of Scoundrels will end when they leave Paris because the first half is what makes the novel special, and that is a perfectly acceptable ending relationship position for me.
I like a nice ending where the main characters are clearly happy together. I don’t need babies ever after, or even marriage, to make that happen, but “we’re going to stick together because we love one another” is a good one.
I need to feel that the characters are committed to one another, that the conflicts they encountered in the story are either resolved or they have agreed how to deal with them on an ongoing basis, and that they suit one another as partners. If there is an epilogue involving pregnancy or babies, I much prefer it to be a few years down the line, after they have been together and had the chance to establish themselves as a couple. HFN is fine in younger couples, or sometimes in couples who may be pulled apart by duty, like military service or something. But I prefer HEA.
Wow! I love all the responses I’ve read so far.
Personally, I love that the definitions for an HEA have expanded considerably. I remember reading one former romance author’s blog post where she said the requirements used to be super stringent as in the hero could be a rake but the heroine had to be a virgin until the wedding night, the story had to end with a wedding or at least an engagement ring, no on-page sex unless it was super euphemistic, etc. Thank goodness the genre has loosened up enough to allow more varied stories and conclusions.
I believe the broader definition of an HEA is especially important in stories starring queer characters. The heteronormative model in traditional romance novels of love-courtship-marriage-baby epilogue doesn’t always work in non-heterosexual relationships. Heck, it doesn’t always work in heterosexual relationships! While there’s certainly nothing wrong with the old standard, it’s nice to see some variety in stories and happy endings that suit the characters in question.
HFNs are fairly new to the romance game, and I adore them! Not only do they allow for more storytelling options, but they permit the possibility of a sequel with the same characters. I realize most romance novel series may include a former couple in a cameo appearance, but sometimes, like in “Lady Derring Takes a Lover,” the HFN is a good signal that the hero and heroine’s story isn’t complete yet. Because the author took the HFN rather than HEA route, I have a good feeling the hero and heroine are going to have a huge bearing on the plot of the sequel which stars side characters from the first story.
As for the ASK question about what works for me in an HEA or HFN? What works for me is if the conclusion of a romance feels true to the characters and setting rather than an expectation that is shoehorned into the narrative. By which I mean, I agree with a lot of AAR posters who have said the almost obligatory baby epilogue often feels tacked on rather than an organic part of the story. I have no problem with characters’ HEA including children, but the author better show me throughout the story that such an ending makes sense and feels natural.
“the main plot of a mass-market romance novel must revolve about the two people as they develop romantic love for each other and work to build a relationship. Both the conflict and the climax of the novel should be directly related to that core theme of developing a romantic relationship ……. a romance novel must have an “emotionally satisfying and optimistic ending ……. ”
According to Wikipedia, this is from the RWA’s requirements of a romantic novel. I guess it is good enough for me in the main. I think my more specific requirements are based on the subgenre, the quality of writing, characters whose company I enjoy for the length of the book, a plot that interests me and I can accept as more or less realistic and a hero I can fall in love with. And I prefer the HEA to the HFN but will accept the latter if I feel it may develop into an HEA.
As long as the couple is together and in a good place by the end of the book I am satisfied. In fact when the book takes place over a short period of time, and particularly in contemporary romances, I prefer a HFN ending. If people are together a week or a month in a book and they are already married/engaged/planning a family it makes me wonder about their impulse control and common sense.
I tend to like book series as well that follow up on the couple a few months, a year etc down the road so we know roughly what’s happened. Some authors really overdo it though -Kristen Ashley is an author that truly goes for the overkill.
#cosign
I don’t mind ambiguous on contemporary romances because I feel like it tracks with how a lot of people do relationships these days. I was thrown, however, by a recent historial where the epilogue clearly showed that the main characters didn’t get married and were perfectly happy cohabitating, while mostly being accepted by (Victorian era) society. It really didn’t ring true for me because it didn’t feel in line with the social conventions of the time and actually sort of ruined the story for me.
I agree that HFNs in contemporary romances can make a lot of sense. HFNs can work in HR too but only if the author establishes such an ending in a convincing manner. Happy cohabitators accepted in Victorian era society? I’m sure there were probably some rare outliers, but I doubt many people would have been A-Okay with such an arrangement. That kind of epilogue would take me out of the story too.
On the subject of unconventional HEAs and HFNs in HR, I am always intrigued how an author is going to make a queer relationship work in a setting where homosexual acts were legally punishable offenses. But to my surprise and delight, some authors, like Cat Sebastian, generally manage to pull it off. Like any other subgenre or niche, sometimes historical queer HEAs are done well and other times done badly. At least these kinds of books are available through mainstream romance publishers now.
@Nan: so true about the unrealistic “happily unmarried” endings in historical romances. The 19th-century novelist George Elliott (aka Maryanne Evans) was in a long-term relationship with a married man (whose wife had deserted him, but a divorce was still not achievable) and, while her lover was welcome in society, she herself was completely ostracized. It’s probably not a coincidence that when her lover died, Elliott married a man half her age and swanned about society—fully “rehabilitated” with a ring on her finger.
Thanks for the historical tidbits about George Elliott. Being ostracized for having an unconventional relationship was a real risk and in many places today still is. But I’d say Ms. Elliott got her happy ending despite the odds. Those are the kinds of stories that make for great romance plots with period appropriate HEAs/HFNs. And like I said, some HR authors can make the unconventional work. Real life people certainly did!
IMO KJ Charles is the best author of queer HR around – even better than CS and if you haven’t read her you really must!
I like to feel confident that the main characters have a relationship that is strong enough to handle whatever the future holds—and, as any of us who have been married for a long time can tell you, the future always has some trials and tribulations in store for us (good things too, I hasten to add). Two of my very favorite “comfort re-read” romances—Julianna Keyes’s TIME SERVED and Cara McKenna’s AFTER HOURS—are both more HFN than HEA—and that’s fine for where the books end. In fact, in AFTER HOURS, the h&h haven’t even said “I love you” by the end of the book.
I like to feel that the heroine is with the hero because he is the best possible choice for her, rather than because he is her only choice.
The ending does not really matter much all that much to me, the book is over at that point and I am moving on.
All I require fror a romance ending is for the main characters to be together at that point and for all (or at least most) obstacles raised along the way to be resolved in a believable way that fits the characters, but the journey there is the important part.