Play Book Tag discussion

Lets talk relationships in books.

Do you feel a love interest for the main character is a necessary element for a story.

What are your favorite "couples" in books? Can you think of a book where the main character does not have a love interest? Is it realistic that intense adventures or stressful moments in life creates a romantic relationship with person you go through it with as many stories depict?

How a writer illustrates relationships is one of the things I love most about the books I read. But they don’t have to be romantic relationships - they can be friendships, families, strangers. And they don’t have to be loving either - sometimes hate or dysfunctional relationships make for brilliant stories! (Ladder to the Sky, anyone?)

Even with romance books I’m always looking for something apart from the romance itself to interest me. For instance I adore Georgette Heyer’s Regency romances, but it’s the comedy, the sense of period, relationships with a wider cast of characters, and a romp of a story that matters far more than the two main characters finally heading for the altar. It’s Eve’s friendships and exploration of how characters develop and change, plus the police procedural elements, that keep me coming back to the ‘In Death’ series, not just the core love story with Roarke (though that’s delightful, it isn’t enough on its own).

I am not one for "love stories" but I agree with Kate that the author has to be able to build relationships to a towering height for me to love a book, and it does not have to be a lovers relationship-Cutting for Stone, which I just recently read is one I can think of. 2 characters, Gosh and Hema, from that story will go down as two of my favorite lovers.

I do not consider love interests to be a necessary component. I read many books in which it is not a component.

While, I am interested in relationships, the romantic ones may not be central to the story. I am also interested in overcoming obstacles and growth and change, so survival, coming of age and survival are often key elements to books I read.

There was a time when romance was an element, I looked for in a novel, but if a description says the book is romantic, I am most likely not going to read the book.

The last romance book, I read, I thought was pretty terrible.

I too agree that a love interest relationship is not necessary but am frustrated with many books where the two main characters are forced together by some conspiracy and fall in love while running for their life and their lives are flipped upside down. I find this a major turn off but many books have. Why can't the main character not fall in love? I love the relationship of Ove and Parvaneh in A Man Called Ove over the relationship of Jason Bourne and Marie St. Jacques in The Bourne Identity.

Relationships are the most important part of a story to me many times and not just the romantic kind. My favorite authors are ones that, at the core, write about relationships. Backman and Moriarty are examples. Their relationships are real, complex, and deep.

A romantic relationship for the sake of a subplot frustrates me.

Even though I love romance novels, I do not need—or even want—a romantic relationship at the core of every book I read.

I agree with Kate that I do gravitate to fiction books with some kind of relationship: spouse, parent, child, sibling, friends, coworkers, or one’s own self. They can be healthy relationship or dysfunctional relationships. But, honestly, I think most fiction books have some kind of relationship or else what would the author be writing about?!

And, Jason, I totally agree that the romance subplot of suspense novels (unless they are specifically romantic suspense books) can feel awkward and like it is shoehorned in. The Bourne series is a great example. Really, any book that just throws in a random romance subplot annoys me.

I don't think a love interest is necessary for a story, but when I think about it I guess most books have that for the main character.

The last thriller I read, The Death of Mrs. Westaway (highly recommend), did not have any romance at all. The main character was strong, independent, and I hadn't thought about it, but it was nice there was no mention of a love interest past or present... not the case for another important character.

I do like a good romance subplot though...
Favorite couple!? That is tough. Nothing comes immediately to mind, so I'll have to think about that.

I don't like romance novels or gushy love interests. However I believe whether it is a current or past love interest it can sometimes set the tone of the book, as long as it does not consume the story. As it can be what makes the character's personality or help/make them choose a certain path.

No. On the contrary I feel like romance sub-plots can often distract from the core plot and take away from pages needed for world building or exploring character motivations.

When a book has its romance at its centre I prefer for the romance to be interesting rather than perfect Wuthering Heights and Love in the Time of Cholera are two good examples of this

I'm late to the conversation, but I blame my determination to finish my Horizon's Portugal read over the holiday weekend!

I am an unabashed fan of romance novels. That said, I do not need some meaningful love story to be a subplot in every book I read. I also like my romance novels to have more to them than just boy meets girl, boy and girl hop into bed and it is love ever after. I like humor, character, suspense sometimes, a sense of place.

I also love mysteries, and I in fact get a little ticked off if a romance subplot gets thrown in between the main characters that does nothing to further the plot. Well, except as a set up for a long slow development of a relationship during a series. Then it is fine because in truth, the relationships of the main character offer you an important perspective on a recurring character.

One of the Christmas romances I read in December ended up having the romance be a pretty minor part of the plot; Holly Chamberlin in Home for Christmas is really about the time of transition in a family's life -- divorced mom facing an 'empty nest', considering seriously dating for the first time, and reconnecting with someone from her past who is in town on a promotional tour for his latest book, eldest daughter suddenly questioning whether marriage is what she wants now that she is graduating college. The romance(s) were critical to the plot but not the center of it, nor could they easily have been left out. Those types of romantic concerns are part of life which I guess is what I really want to read.

But then there was A Christmas Party - Heyer did not need to throw that romance into it at the end. Not at all. And it frankly ticked me off.

I am glad I am not the only one that get ticks off over unnecessary romances.

I remember many on PBT deeming the romance in Before We Were Yours to be necessary. In this book and a few others, I found the historical part very good and interesting and the fiction to be cheap and poorly done.

I too am late to the conversation. I always love a good comments. But I think sometimes it’s not worth the book is about and I agree it could be a distraction. I think there are some wonderful folks out there where the love story isn’t the point. Even if it’s there. Sometimes it does support the story, sometimes it’s about the story. Even if it’s love versus power versus alliance versus family. But there are other times, where it’s really just about something else important to a character. Their history and identity, their passion, their role in something higher or greater. Love is powerful, but it isn’t the only thing that’s powerful.

Oh! One of the most egregious (IMHO) romance disruptions to a fun story/series -- the endless Joe/Ranger, Joe/Ranger, Joe/Ranger back and forth from page one of the Stephanie Plum series by Janet Evanovich. It. Never. Went. Anywhere. It so irritated me that I abandoned the series by about #8. I think it is up to # 25 and I would be willing to bet that the 'romance' is at the same spot as when I stopped reading them.

Theresa wrote: "Oh! One of the most egregious (IMHO) romance disruptions to a fun story/series -- the endless Joe/Ranger, Joe/Ranger, Joe/Ranger back and forth from page one of the Stephanie Plum series by [author..."

LOL-and I love the yo-yoing with Ranger and Joe.....probably because I hate romance novels, and I do not want to see Stephanie give in..😊 Oh yeah and things are still the same...just finished the latest last month

Joanne wrote: "Theresa wrote: " Oh yeah and things are still the same...just finished the latest last month

*snort!* I knew it!

In truth, I did not want her ending up with either, even temporarily. Give Grandma the yo-yo romance between 2 men and just have Stephanie bungling here way through her career as a bounty hunter for her scurrilous cousin.