Is there anyone here who is quite familiar with the genre of romance novels? Is there anyone here who considers her- or himself an _expert_ on the genre?

I would be _very_ interested in talking (*) with someone knowledgeable about the genre itself.

In addition, I am interested to know what people's opinions are as to particular titles that fall into _both_ the following categories: (1) well-written, and (2) best-sellers.

In the next message, I will say something about why I am asking.

(*) Re: "talking": online is fine; here in the forums, via direct-messaging, or using "outside" email addresses are all fine. I would propose the latter, as it will be more convenient, but I am not insisting on being given a personal email address! Indeed, it would probably be best not to post an email address to this forum; maybe send me a direct message telling me an email address, and post here to tell me to check my messages, if you are interested in corresponding that way.

OK, here is why I am asking.

I intend to write a romance novel. Indeed, I have already started.

But I have never read a romance novel; or, rather, I had never read one until this past weekend.

So I had always assumed that what made a novel a romance novel as opposed to mainstream fiction (or historical fiction, or detective fiction, or science fiction, or whatever) was simply two elements: (1) a strong female protagonist, and (2) a particular interest in sexual and emotional tensions between the protagonist and one or more main male characters.

So: (i) I have wanted to write a novel for a long time; (ii) I had an idea for a novel which, for reasons I will get into with any interested correspondent, would be particularly easy and fun for me to write; (iii) the novel would have a strong female lead and would address the sexual, emotional and social tensions between the protagonist and the people around her; and (iv) I understand that romance is about the most lucrative sub-genre of fiction to get into. So I thought my course was clear.

First step: familiarize myself a little with what's already out there.

I checked two romance novels out of my local library. The first of them (let's call it HW) seemed to be a fantasy/historical setting colliding with a modern setting, but turned out to be a science fiction romance; the second is detective romance (let's call it AQM). I have read the first, and looked briefly at the second (I will read it this week).

HW is _god-awful_. It is rife with grammatical error, run-on sentences, etc. Much worse than that, its author is absolutely ignorant of _everything_ she writes about, and her ignorance strongly impacts one's ability to take her plot, descriptions, etc. seriously. Still worse than that, all of the female characters speak in the same narrative "voice", and all of the male characters speak in another narrative voice, distinguishable from the females but not from one another.

But worst and most salient of all is the narrative strategy which has the narrator describe everything, from elements of the characters' personalities to cultural elements to plot elements. Nothing is left for the reader to infer. We do not figure out that the male lead is heroic because he acts heroic in the face of danger (indeed, he is never given any significant challenging situation to prove himself on); rather we are told, repeatedly, that he is heroic. We are not shown the female lead proving herself resourceful; rather we are told, repeatedly, that she is resourceful. We are not permitted to decide for ourselves whether another character is indeed "super-intelligent" by seeing her resolve complicated problems or perform complicated analyses impressively or insightfully; rather, the reader is assured that she has a powerful intellect. And so on.

Parenthetically, AQM, which I have not read yet, may not be as bad; its prose, at least, does not appear at first glance to suffer from the defects of HW.

These observations had a chilling effect on me. HW was not itself a best-seller, but its author is a repeat best-seller, with tens of novels undet her belt and tens of millions of her novels in print in a dozen languages. She obviously knows how to write a romance novel. There is _no way_ I will be able to write as she does. Is my novel a doomed enterprise from the very start?

Here are some specific queries:

(1) Is my characterization of the romance genre basically accurate? That is, can a _successful_ romance novel be essentially literature so long as it has a strong female lead and portrays sexual tension?

[Most important question:]
(2) Is it an essential feature of a _successful_, popular romance novel that the reader is not required to draw inferences about the characters from their actions? That everything is spelled out? So that the reading experience is not very different from the experience of watching a sit-com on television? To put it another way: is the romance-reading public _turned off_ by a novel which requires the reader to learn about its characters from their actions, i.e., a novel that requires a little _work_ on the reader's part?

(3) Does the romance reader appreciate a "well-written" romance (whatever well-written means; not an easy concept to define with precision) more than an ill-written one? Same as? Less than?

(4) What _does_ "well-written" mean in this context?

(5) What are some examples of good, best-selling, well-written romance novels from the last few years?

So, you're just looking for modern romance? I really enjoy reading romances from the Regency England period, so I don't mind helping you out if that's of interest.

Contrary to some of the really bad romances I've read through the years, I can assure you that a well-written book is just as important as in any other genre.

It is my opinion that I'm an intelligent enough person that I can make judgements on the characters without its being spelled out for me. In fact, I'd rather have the author assume that I'm creative and imaginative enough to do so. To spell it out for me in great detail assumes that I have no abilities to imagine. And, that's annoying.

I have read books in which the characters have been explained to me in some way and have found, in my mind, to not even be that way after all. And, that's probably even more annoying. As an example, I recently read a book where the male protagonist was, to the author, a strong, take-charge man who any woman would fall in love with. I felt that the character was a complete jerk. Even to the end of the book when you're supposed to feel like everything's been wrapped up. He was a horrible person - and nothing changed that in my eyes.

I don't see having the imagination to picture the characters (and gather, from the descriptions of the actions or other details) as "work." Rather, this is why I read in the first place. I can watch tv or a movie to have everything done for me. I want the author of a book to consider me as having the ability to see his or her character as he or she does. Or, perhaps even see the characters in a different light. That's the power of reading; you get to see the characters as your mind's eye sees them. Nothing is "wrong" in literature, if you're able to use your own imagination.

What I usually find, in talking to other people (and, even from reading some horrible romances) is that the romance genre is considered to be beneath "real" literature. And, a novel that's written with that attitude will be beneath it. However, a well-written (both in using correct English rules and in the story itself) IS real literature.

The best romances I've read have taught me something new. The great authors do a lot of research ahead of time to make sure that the facts they are using, the locations they are using and all other aspects are as true as possible. I do not feel that just anyone can write a romance - just as not just anyone can write any other genre. If romance is seen as something anyone can do, it's not being done properly.

I also feel that a really good romance has, what I call, the "heart-factor." You should leave me on the last page with my heart being touched in some way. I should feel the emotions and the passion (for lack of better word) in the story. I shouldn't be just reading it; I should be picturing the story with my emotions. I'm not sure if that makes sense. But, it's a quality of an excellent romance that sets a "so-so" author apart from one that really knows how to write. For instance, look at "Jane Eyre." The proposal scene in that book tugs at the heartstrings. You can feel the emotion of Jane and Edward. You're not just reading words there; there is really something in that scene that gets you involved. That's what you're going for.

And, by the way, I once read that the sign of a good novel is the feeling of "what happened next?!" at the end. Don't feel that leaving a thread or two unanswered is wrong. Sometimes, leaving your readers wanting more is exactly what you're after. Let them use their imaginations to fill in even more of the happy ending.

Does any of this help at all?

Oh yes, that helps.

What you say is certainly the "right" answer in that it is what I was hoping to find out was true; now I just need to work out whether you are typical, i.e. whether most readers of romance feel the same way.

Re: looking down on the genre as sub-literary, of course all genre fiction gets that; my own favorite genre (when I stray from "real literature") is science fiction, which certainly suffers from the same credibility problem. Certainly in the world of science fiction the typical fan can't tell the difference between good writing and bad, and is far more interested in the writer's ideas than in the writer's skill in putting sentences together (and discriminating readers who actually separate the wheat from the chaff exist, albeit in a minority). But, that said, I have NEVER read a published science fiction novel whose writing was anywhere near as bad as the writing in HW, nor anywhere near as "dumbed-down" and pre-digested. So I always assumed that romance's bad rap was similar to science fiction's bad rap, i.e., essentially undeserved, but was quite shaken by my first experience (related above).

Re: my setting of choice, I'm happy to get into more detail outside the forums, but actually my own project involves a medieval setting.

Thanks very much Linda -- now that I have found an intelligent and discriminating reader of romance, any chance that (a) you can put me on the track of a few well-written, successful, historically-set, worth-reading romances, and (b) you will be interested in corresponding on this a little further? (I am quite interested in your thoughts on the final tug at the heart-strings and the what-happens-next feeling.)

The reason that I do NOT---or at least very rarely, when nothing else is at hand---read "romance novels" is that so very many of them are so poorly written. Certainly there are some good ones out there, and some discriminating romance readers (like Linda) as well. But from what I've seen of "Best-selling" romances and romance authors, the pre-digested form seems to be the preferred one.

I'm a big SF and mystery fan, and I consider myself to be one of those people who prefer their wheat seperated from the chaff, so to speak. Here of late, I've been REALLY disappointed with some authors who started out writing some fairly good mysteries but are now churning out clumbsy plot-lines heavily padded with 'romance'. (Please---I'll take Hercule Poirot's brain over some dumb-but-hansome romantic lead every time!)

The quality of writing in a novel shouldn't locked into the genre it falls into---any genre should produce works capable of being considered "literature". Romances don't HAVE to be dumb, but so very often they are, I think because it's faster and easier to turn them out like that, and because people do buy them anyway. Please, try to write the very best book you have in you!

I do have to say that I don't read the "best seller" authors. I'm trying to think of an example to give you, and I'm coming up short. But, you can probably guess at most of them.

I go for the books written by lesser-known authors. And, I think a lot of that is because I have found the lesser-known ones to be the ones that spend more time doing research on their subjects and plot lines. The ones that are churning out novels by the boatload are doing just that - churning out books without taking the time to put quality in them. They are going on their name factors instead of their quality.

I once read a book in which the male protagonist started acting very strangely throughout the book. Come to find out, the dishes that he was eating out of were tainted with a chemical that was common in the time period, but was something that slowly got into the bloodstream and would poison people. It was something that we don't have now, but was more common in items back then. And, there was a section in the back of the book that gave the history of this poisoning that had taken place back in history. I found this quite refreshing - to be able to read a book and learn something new about history at the same time. I think that's also one of the reasons I love the Regency period. I've learned an incredible bit about the time period through these books. The nobility, the clothing, the leisure activities, etc. I used to kind of hide the fact that I read these books until I realized that they were so educational at the same time that they were entertaining. I've learned a great amount of vocabulary from them, too.

Xaosdog, how is it that I knew exactly what you were thinking about with your first sentence? Because a dear relative of mine during a job disatisfaction period thought of it himself, and he did read all sorts of things to see if he couldn't do it...
My women friends and I have devised a formula but I might have to give it to you by pm.
As I'm isolated from ready supplies of English reading materials and refuse to read something in translation unless there's nothing but "Le Monde" as an alternative, I do read novels if someone gives them to me...I also get them from flea markets.

It's an enjoyable pasttime and there are many levels of these sorts of books, either the heavily historical ones, from which I glean all sorts of information, to the ones in which the setting is pretty much interchangeable as long as the basic bodice straining to be free prerequisites are satisfied...
If I were to write one, it would be somewhere in the middle.
They say that many of the top romance novel writers are actually men, but I'm not so sure.
Don't know if you've read many lately but they're getting very very racy! Whew!
Someone famous recently said that women don't really care that much about actual imagery whereas men like it, yet they respond to a romance novel much more.
I do have a limit though...I once received a big box of books from someone moving, and their grandmother had given them a bunch of those Cartland type prince and princess ones...I might leaf through them to see what people see in them...but I wouldn't sit around for an hour reading them.
There is some very interesting writing going on with half fantasy and romance...it's got a genre name, can't think of it.

Oh, Linda, I agree SO much about the sex-scene thing! Generally sex is better left to the imagination, and the only time I actually want to read about what the characters do together in bed is A)when it's pertanent to the story line, and B)after I've come to know and understanding their motivations and their feelings for one another. In most cases, this requires a LONG novel, or a series of novels.

Not that they're romances, but they are very historically interesting---have you read much Anne Perry? I'm a mystery fan, and these are both well-written, well-plotted mysteries, but they really made Victorian England come alive. So often the characters motivations arise from social issues that we never think about today, or think about in a completely different light that the Victorians did.

But back to the initial question of what makes a good romance novel--I don't know, but I have one HUGE pet peeve!
So very often the male and female lead start out by striking sparks off one another, making one another angry over totally trivial things, holding a grudge, etc. I can't STAND this! People that I react to the way these folks do, I take pains to never see again. I find this a very juvenile approach---adult men and women can admit it when they're atracted to one another, and work toward developing a good relationship. These 'I hate you, but I love you' relationships are so shallow you just know they'll fall apart once the lust is satisfied.

That's exactly what I meant, the bodice is straining, the woman is some spirited lass dashing the guy with a bucket of water whilst riding bareback on a horse or something and he's saying, "hmm, a woman with spirit!" I once read one where the woman was sold into slavery, came back to Europe, then went to the Islands somewhere...and they never consummate their relationship until the last page! Now that's what I call keeping up the tension!

Cecelia Holland is someone who has a lot of integrity...
Not the funnest read in the world...but I enjoy her work.
Mary Stewart.
Zoë Oldenbourg, I saw her in translation finally in the UK this year...she writes in French.

It all depends on if you're contemplating what really sells well, or keeping your integrity as a writer...fine line sometimes.

Thanks for everyone's input thus far; everything is helping me shape my intuitions about the genre. No matter what I learn, I intend to go forward with the novel, and no matter what I learn, I will not be "dumbing" anything down, or predigesting my characters' personalities for the reader. However, that leaves a lot of room for shaping my story-line, and I'd like to angle within that room for what will grab the discriminating and the less discriminating reader alike (assuming, as I do, that there is sufficient overlap between those categories).

So, I really hope this discussion rages on, and if it does, I will be monitoring it closely even when I refrain from sticking my oar in.

But here is my oar stuck in regarding what has been discussed so far.

To me, degree of raciness is something of a red herring. Jumping into a sex scene too early is probably bad writing for a couple of reasons; my conception as to what makes good psychological drama and as to what makes a good romance (probably well-informed as to the former and certainly ill-informed as to the latter) involves following a sexual tension from its very earliest stirrings through its growth into something that colors the characters' actions in a measurable way, always without referring to it directly, and only after it is too palpable to be ignored should it be acted upon. Whether the resolution of the tension is something that involves crass copulation or not should be dictated by constraints inherent to the particular novel rather than anything external to it (like a formula for the genre)... But then, those decisions made, and the psychologically interesting groundwork laid, if the hero and heroine do end up getting it on, the relative raciness or chasteness of that scene is surely unimportant? (Please let me know if you think that is wrong.)

I'd be interested in exploring a little further what Linda meant about the what-happens-next resolution of the novel. It reminded me of some advice I received when I was writing an essay for the upcoming "Chicken Soup for the Outdoor Soul." An early draft told a true story without tweaking any particular aspect of it for added or lesser emphasis; after a discussion with a "Chicken Soup" fan, I included some story details I had excluded previously, and put greater emphasis on others, in order to achieve one particular textual "locus" of poignancy. In the final version, which has been accepted for publication, the text builds to one particular moment designed to create a lump in the reader's throat. So I think this kind of advice can be extremely useful not just in "giving the people what they want" but also in creating a work that is exemplary within its genre, a work with good internal integrity.

So: is Linda talking about something as simple as creating characters the reader cares about to the extent of still caring what happens to them after a plot reaches a natural resolution, or is she talking about a plot which naturally suggests that further maneuvering will be called for?

I'm still sort of hoping someone will be able to say, "My favorite romance novel is X; it is flawless. I love it because ABC. At the end, heroine H does DEF, which left me, the reader, understanding/wondering/hoping that... [what???]" Essentially a brief analysis _with particular examples_ of why a favorite novel deserved to be a favorite novel. I'm not looking for a formula to copy, heaven forfend, but rather a way of bootstrapping myself rapidly to a deep(ish) understanding of my proposed genre. What makes it so very compelling???

[Et bien sur, bruyere, t'as bien identifie mes motives. Je souhaite de tout mon etre que ce roman soit mon issue du cabinet. Et j'attends avec impatience le formule dont t'as parle...]

The standard, OVERDONE (ALMOST every romance I have ever read) story is the huge, very muscular, perfect hair, perfect teeth, perfect tan man and the size 3 waist, double D topped, perfect hair, perfect teeth, eyes are limpid pools etc woman hate each other at the beginning. I mean HATE the very sight, very thought of each other. As the story progresses, they still hate each other but secretly lust after each other, and that makes them both mad, because they can't understand why they would be so physically drawn to someone they hate. About mid story they both SUDDENLY realize they like the other, but since they are supposed to hate each other, neither will admit it. Then comes the crucial moment where fate throws them together for a kiss! How could that happen? " I HATE him/her." They part ways, but can't forget the memory of the kiss. A few chapters later, somehow, someway, they fall into bed/hayloft/whatever is convenient. During the rosy glow of "after", they are suddenly realizing just how they have loved each other all along, and start making wedding plans.

I would love to see where average looking people can be the main characters, since there are more ordinary people in the world than there are super good looking people.

A fresh story line would have them not hating each other at the beginning, and if there must be physical love, keep most of it to the imagination. Every romance novel has far too many descriptions of loins, bosoms, etc.

I wish you luck with this! I have always thought of trying to write the kind of story that I would like to read, but so far I have either been to scared or too lazy to try.

Babymoo brings up an excellent point. I, too, would dearly love to see a story that didn't have gorgeous people. It would be wonderful to have a woman who isn't stick thin with long, flowing hair being paired with Mr. Tall Dark and Handsome.

Yet another reason "Jane Eyre" appeals to me - the two main leads are not "lookers." Neither one was incredibly attractive in the world's eyes, but they were beautiful in each other's eyes. Now, that's good writing.

Exactly, Linda! It is supposed to be about love making two people beautiful in eachother's eyes! In most books they are already so good looking that they are somewhat conceited, even if they don't realize it themselves, and they have to work through their pride to be able to admit that they love the other.

I read a contemporary British writer recently, not sure if it would qualify XD, but I'll get you the reference...she was a standup comic and ends up sharing an apt with a photographer from New York.
They end up in the bathtub with each other...
That's what I call taking steamy to the edge and back!
Plus what I really loved is, it isn't quite the Bridget Jones' diary stuff but the woman is built like...well a normal woman and assume that physique...I appreciated that. The BJones diary and its ilk for me, well, they're too close to home!


I think that both men and women read her work too. Those characters pop up in another novel of hers. I'm not sure of her name!
By the way, I looked at my bookshelf and as I can only buy that sort of book here in France, they are distributed by a circuit thing, I probably have spent a lot of money on them...I read lots of things though, just stock up when I travel.
For me, it's like chocolates...

I think that with your historical and mythological background though...you could make a pretty strong thinking woman's romance book. Just put straining tunics yearning to be freed and I don't know...

Nobody has done Crete lately have they? I'm thinking Mary Stewart but perhaps I'm mistaken.

OH yes, can we start a chapter of RLA here? Rochester lovers anonymous?
I'm Heather, and I don't know why, but that guy gets to me!

OK xaosdog, here you go:

My favorite romance novel is "A Knight in Shining Armor" by Jude Deveraux. I love it because the female lead is a real person (it even mentions her physical and personal flaws specifically), ditto for the male lead. The setting is very unique, and all the characters are very well fleshed out- there are no "perfect" people, no heaving bosoms. The end was perfect, because it was the only thing that realistically could happen.

If you want to read some really good romance novels, here are the best, in my opinion:

Jude Deveraux
A Knight in Shining Armor
Wishes
The Heiress
The Princess
Sweet Liar
The Duchess
An Angel for Emily
Legend

Judith McNaught
Remember When
Paradise
Perfect

Nora Roberts
Jewels of the Sun
Born In Fire (3rd in a trilogy)
Face the Fire (3rd in a trilogy)
Finding the Dream

These are my favorites because they are each unique- in one, the main character is a glass blower, in another a film star surviving a scandal; some have very unique love scenes, like being up in a tree, and others have unique proposals, like giving the 12 days of Christmas.

Whatever aspect it is, make something- the setting, the plot, a character or both main characters, the love scene, the proposal, etc- spectacular and *unique*.

Romance readers have read a thousand times about the woman being swept up and carried off to bed, and the man dropping to one knee under the moonlight...YAWN.

Give us something new- make her a lion tamer, him an anthropologist...whatever!

And yes- the story itself should be good, well written, with good grammer, spelling, etc.

The sex scene should be in the last 1/3- to 1/4 of the book. If you have it before I'm halfway through, I'm disappointed. What's to look forward to?

ps- if you want more input, PM me

ShadowHippie

Shadow's authors are different from the ones that I read. However, everything else she says is absolutely on target as far as how I feel, too.

In reply to:

---

Whatever aspect it is, make something- the setting, the plot, a character or both main characters, the love scene, the proposal, etc- spectacular and *unique*.

---

Yes!

One of the above posts made me think of this, in a way I hadn't before---

Taking these guidelines into account, I'd have to say that MY favorite romance story was one I read in a science-fiction magazine! Sorry, I'm too old and forgetful to tell you which one, or the name of the story or the author, but---it was set in India, and both the protagonists were very 'unlovely' people. She was a bit too plump, with crooked teeth and one eyebrow, and he was skinny, had a lisp, and wore glasses. Theirs was an arranged marriage, the best each of their parents could do for them. On their honeymoon journey, their train was wrecked, and they had to walk for miles thru the jungle. They fell asleep on the way, and each dreamed of his or her perfect mate.

When they awoke, each found that the very ugly mate they had half-hated had been transformed during the night. Each beheld their perfect, dream mate when they looked upon one another.

Of course, it was only their eyes which could see the changes that had been wrought. To everyone else, she was still short and fat and a bit too hairy, and he was thin as a reed, and pale and pasty, and half-blind to boot. But their children were beautiful, veritible gifts from the gods---as was their love for one another.

On another note, I'd never really thought of Mary Stewart as writing 'romance' novels, but I guess they do qualify. I loved her trilogy about Merlin. I guess they DID have romantic elements in them, but I've just never thought of them that way. If they represent the 'romance novel', I guess I need to read more of them!

MsBatt, that sounds similar to the movie, "The Enchanted Cottage" with Dorothy McGuire and Robert Young.

xaosdog, I have an update, based on something that's happening right now.

I'm currently reading a book that I'm having the hardest time getting through. The story's good, the characters are good, the plot is good, but I'm just not finding that I'm reading it nonstop like I sometimes read books. I couldn't figure out why until today.

It's because there's no secret glance into the eyes. There's no "accidental" touch of a hand upon a hand. There's no stolen kiss out in the garden at a dance. At least, not yet. I'm supposing (hoping) that it's going to come in time.

While I'm still of the opinion that the characters do NOT need to jump into bed at first meeting, I do think that there must be some kind of hint to the reader that the man and woman are falling in love. There must be that look, that touch and that kiss at some point, or you lose the romance of the whole situation. We must feel the love they are beginning to have for one another, or the story starts to fall flat. And, you start losing your readers.

I still have hope for this book. That's why I haven't given up on it. However, I am a bit disappointed that I'm 3/4 of the way through with it, and I can't tell that they have feelings for one another.

Don't save the romantic words and emotions for the last couple of pages. It's not good writing.

Thanks, all. Everything everyone has said is going into my plans. This forum is like gold to me.

Drafting, by the way, is going well.

Shadow, I haven't had an opportunity to check out any of the books on your list yet, but I absolutely will, and thanks very much for putting the list together.

Linda, I very much appreciate your taking the time to come back with your update. This is very useful info!

Sorry I don't have time right now to acknowledge everyone individually -- but like I said in a prior post, even when I am not posting, I am monitoring this thread pretty closely. I am overwhelmingly grateful to everyone who has put her or his two cents in here.

Hi Xaosdog, I know some people that have been down the same route for the same reasons, but the only one who managed to get one written was my sister. She worked with an eye to a particular publisher - in her case, Silhouette books. She chose Silhouette (or Harlequin, Mills and Boone, etc.) not for their overall literary merit, but because they sell like hotcakes and literally hundreds are published every month.
It also wasn't a bad idea because if you don't read romances in general, you don't have to start absorbing a whole new genre. You can just read about 20 of the books put out by one firm and see eactly what they want, because it's essentially formula writing. Each line has its own particular guidelines The one I remember my sister agonizing over was that Silhouette didn't want anything in the book to happen by coincidence. The heroine never runs into her true love on the street, she waits for him to come out of the building.

Other than that, I don't know much, but it is a real plan. Yes, my sis sold the book, she made some money and started another one, but then things changed for her and that was the end of it. Why not? Good luck!

I think that one of the things that are really wanted in romance novels is a less predictable plot. I can't say I am a romance novel expert, but I read some from time to time. I think one of the worst features of it is that after reading the first chapter I can tell you for sure what will happen in the last one. May be the thing that's responsible for that is that there is not enough room in a usual romance paperback for more than two developed characters. There is a man and a woman and it's obvious that they will end up together and all the other characters usually seem more like props that are standing there and giving out free info on the two main characters.
I see how many other responses here ask for a not-so-perfect heroine. I've read books with such and I think there is one drawback here. It is quite obvious why the character likes the beautiful heroine, but when a man after being introduced to a plain-looking woman for 5 minutes is ready to throw her on the bed, it does strike me as quite unnatural. It's a totally different thing once they get to know each other.
In my personal opinion, the heroine is really important in this kind of novel. I read some totally worthless novels with a see-through plot and unbelievable situations just because I really liked the main character and felt for her as a person.
One thing I find when defining romance novels as a genre is that they should be an easy-read. I just think that if I'm looking for a serious book, I probably won't pick up a romance novel. It's not that romance should not have serious issues in it, or should not be a book that you can learn something from, but that too many technical things, psychological analysis, and such may spoil the relaxing experience people pick-up the books for. That doesn't mean that romance should leave no room for thought, but that reading it should not make you reread one paragraph three times just in order to understand what the author is talking about.

In response to
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I see how many other responses here ask for a not-so-perfect heroine. I've read books with such and I think there is one drawback here. It is quite obvious why the character likes the beautiful heroine, but when a man after being introduced to a plain-looking woman for 5 minutes is ready to throw her on the bed, it does strike me as quite unnatural. It's a totally different thing once they get to know each other.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That makes it obvious that the hero is only lusting after the heroine at the beginning. The whole point of romance is to fall in love with each other. If the theory is that the heroine HAS to be beautiful in every way so that the hero will love her, is it necessary to go on calling them ROMANCE novels? They should get to know each other at least somewhat, whether the heroine is a total beauty goddess or a plain jane, to bring the romance into the story. Otherwise it is obvious that the writer simply wants the first chapter to be steamy. That is the draw of some of those books - if the first chapter is THAT steamy, then what will the REST of the book be like? It is simply a way to keep the reader reading. Personally, I would rather keep reading a well developed, well written story of two people falling in love than to see how much steamier the story is going to get. Don't get me wrong, I get a kick out of the steamy parts, too, I just like to see the characters develop somewhat first, and have the buildup to the steam.

Also by saying that it seems unnatural for a man to want to throw a plain looking woman on the bed after 5 minutes (paraphrasing), that the "rest of us" are less deserving of love and affection - even lust - than the truly beautiful women. Truth is, there are FAR more of "the rest of us" than there are truly beautiful women.