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…)