Thursday, August 9, 2012


I finished my latest book. Spear of Retribution. In a discussion with a friend (about this book), the subject of romance was raised. It might not be as romantic as my other books.

"It has sex..."

"Romantic conflict was solved kinda early..."

"It has sex..."

But I pondered on the conundrum of sex vs. romance. What defines romance? It depends on our viewpoint, I believe. In our current culture we expect extravagant gestures. Jewelry, flowers, fancy dinners.

My hero/heroine are in a survival situation. A long-term survival situation facing a series of unexpected dangers. And the story is circa 1820s in the wilderness. Different expectations.

What constitutes romance in those circumstances?

A fish for dinner. A hot pool for a bath. Guarding each others backs. Caring for each other when there are injuries. Sharing the last of the food. Taking time to explore the many avenues to sensual fulfillment. Arranging a shelter in the woods.

What constitutes romance at my house?

Fixing dinner for me. Arranging some time in a hot tub. Rubbing my back--or his--when it's sore. Sharing the last brownie. Taking time to explore the many avenues to sensual fulfillment. Paying the rent, the electric bill, the phone bill...

Hmmmm. Maybe everyday romance isn't so different from era to era. It could be that only our expections have changed. The thing is..."I love you," is still powerful. "I need you."

"I want you."

"You're my heart and soul."

"I caught a fish for dinner."

Yeah. That could do it.


1 comment:

  1. This interest me -

    "Romantic conflict was solved kinda early."

    In whose eyes? If it was said by another writer then I wouldn't pay a lot of attention to that. Why? Because some writers drag everything out until we're bored shitless and we just want the characters to kiss for god sake. Listen to another writer's opinions than throw 3/4 of that advice away I say. They're always going to be biased.

    As for sex? You wrote sex, Anny? I'm shocked.