Thursday, December 1, 2011

Romance, Romance

by Kathleen Ernst

I had lunch this week with two friends who (good pals that they are) told me they loved The Heirloom Murders, my second Chloe Ellefson mystery. They also agreed that they’re ready to see some action between Chloe and and cop Roelke McKenna.

romance 123 RF In the first book, Old World Murder, Chloe was recovering from a bad breakup and definitely not ready for a new romance. In book 2, she tries to figure out what kind of man she might want to be with. Book 3, which I’m still revising, offers some new ideas about her life, her wishes, and the possibility of a relationship. (Roelke is definitely still in the picture.)

Here’s the challenge: I hope to write many books about Chloe, which presents a common dilemma. Stringing the possibility of romance along for too long can become annoying. Getting two people together too quickly can kill the tension, the energy.

Some of my favorite authors have handled things between two main characters differently. One kept them apart a little longer than I liked—five or six books, maybe. Another killed the guy off, leaving the heroine to start fresh (and upsetting many fans, based on online reviews.) Another chose to get her couple married quite quickly, and then let the inevitable frictions between spouses provide tension in the books that followed.

I’ve tried to build some complexity into both of the main characters, Chloe and Roelke. Falling in love isn’t a simple thing for either of them. Still, I don’t want to frustrate readers, either.

There’s no single right answer, of course…but I’d love to hear your thoughts!

couple holding hands 123RF

http://kathleenernst.com

Images from 123RF.

9 comments:

Vicki Doudera said...

I have the same dilemma with Darby and Miles! I'm finally truly "getting them together" (ahem, ahem) in book 4, but honestly, I'm not sure what will happen next. Think I'll just trust the process and my subconscious to figure it out. (But I do not think I'll kill him off.)

Sorry that's not more definite...

Kathleen Ernst said...

I think you nailed it, Vicki - "Trust the process."

Beth Groundwater said...

Any series with a romantic subplot has that problem! I have the same issue with my river ranger Mandy Tanner and her boyfriend Rob. I'm reminded of the old Moonlighting TV series that I enjoyed so much that kept the sexual tension going for so many years between the PIs, then once the relationship was consummated the show tanked.

Kathleen Ernst said...

That's become the standard benchmark, hasn't it? People refer to "The Moonlighting Effect" and shudder.

G.M. Malliet said...

Keeping the mystery in the forefront and the romance as a subplot that doesn't overwhelm all the rest - very hard to do! I don't have an answer except that, like you, Kathleen, I don't generally care for series where the lovers are kept apart artificially - spats and misunderstandings - for too long.

Shannon Baker said...

Please let me know when you figure this out! Sounds like lots of us are in the same boat.

Dru said...

I look at book 2 as the tease and book 3 as the near commitment, but by book 4 I think the couple should have some sort of relationship, but you do have to go where your muse takes you.

Darrell James said...

I always like the idea of an unfinished love returning for a second chance. I think putting two characters together and stringing out the romance for a long period is a series killer (but that's just me.)

Kathleen Ernst said...

Thanks for the comments! Especially helpful as I start work on #4.