What do you think?  It’s the title of my anthology of three novellas that can not seem to find a home on any literary bookshelf.  Crippled is about the relationship between Sherry, whose boyfriend has betrayed her and wrecked the business they built together, and Bobby, badly burned in a motorcycle accident which has left him a big settlement and pain he can barely endure. There’s Virgin Sacrifices, where teenage Trudy wants to get rid of her virginity to the only man she believes won’t use her: Burton, a recluse Vietnam vet working on the family farm, who is partially deaf and maybe not right in the head. In Merman, loyal, scholarly Lydia is dumped unceremoniously by her hotshot academic boyfriend and agrees impulsively to go sailing with a man she’s met only once in the dark at a spa, the mysterious Mel - after Herman Melville, a family relation.

 The novellas are triplets of a sort that might best be described as “anti-romances” except what label could be more off-putting? Like their good sisters, they are about relationships, in each case a man and a woman; there is character development of the protagonists who face daunting odds to be together; there is sex, and also, by the way, birth control. There are lots of familiar obstacles, like money, illness, social differences, family disapproval etc.  Like many popular romances, Merman has elements of the paranormal – Lydia never encounters Mel except when he’s dripping wet. The California coastline and village life provide beautiful settings for Crippled and Merman.  Our protagonists are not bad looking, although Bobby has skin grafts on his legs from the burns. Lots of high school boys would ask Trudy out if she weren’t so shy. Did I mention that Mel is modeled on the exotic, multiracial features of Keanu Reeves?  Still have the picture somewhere…Or that Sherry with an “S”, is for Sheryl Crow: tough and tender, earthy and elegant? What could be better?

  Problem is, there’s no happy ever after in sight.  The relationships crash and burn, the characters move on, separately, changed. My question is whether there is room under the wide umbrella of romance writing to include those relationships that do not endure, sustain, or last beyond a certain time of trial. Is romance about the quality of the interaction, or about the conclusion, the payoff, the ending?  What, really, does romance have to do with love?

 
I understand the appeal of romance writing: high emotion and escape from ordinary life – and I wouldn’t deny that to any one. (See my entry on the joys of murder mysteries).  Romantic love – attraction – brings people together, but in real life seems to have small correlation to relationships that last.  For those couples who are brought together and stay together, I’m happy for them, and many other authors have written their stories. But there seems to me another side, a dark side to romance – an addiction to the “magic dust” that makes all beautiful and promises everything before it fades away. There is a danger to the fairy tale that says love will rescue, complete and fulfill, especially for women.  I’d rather write stories about people who are able to help others find out the hard truths about themselves, and find a way to self-love. The illusions make for good marketing, but love is about transformation, not about winning the prize.