I tend to mentally separate out romances from love stories.

Good point.

There are a handful of romances that go a lot deeper than what I usually see, in terms of that kind of love. Mostly historical, oddly enough, but I do think you're right -- the beginning of a relationship is a lot different than the entire course of one, and a lot of what you're talking about -- holding his head in your lap while he vomits, for example -- doesn't always fit into the arc of a romance for plot purposes alone, although I edited one about an alcoholic and the woman who fell in love with him that absolutely broke my heart.

A lot of what I'm trying to do (and plan to do) in that Epic project that you read deals with that aspect of love. The not so pretty pieces, the raw, the irrational.

The not so pretty pieces, the raw, the irrational

Which, to me, is part of the love, not part of the romance.

And where it gets critical is the fact that publishers will nix one in favour of the other - because, like it or not, THEY don't see the two as the same.

The one is the fantasy, the hearts and flowers, the meeting under the stars (or the stage at Woodstock), the click of the soul at the pit of the stomach. That's what readers apparently want to read, and what they want to go on forever.

Me, I can't go there, not as a writer or a reader. I like happy endings - but love is just as much about a cold moment resenting that your entire salary is going for anti-rejection transplant drugs for him as it is about the multiple orgasm.

And publishers don't seem to want to go there.

Which, to me, is part of the love, not part of the romance.

Yup. That's why the Epic line is so appealing to me -- it's fun to write romance, but even there I'm always tempted to write characters who maybe didn't get it right the first time, or who knew each other previously, because the meet/sparks fly/it's love romances are harder for me to fully buy into, unless they're really well done.

Even so, the Epic proposal is part of a book I started a long, long time ago, and some of it will be taken out if it actually sells, because there were sexual aspects and other more painful issues between them that I still think might be too raw for Harlequin.

That's what readers apparently want to read, and what they want to go on forever.

It's part of the fantasy, definitely. That once the book ends, the characters live happily ever after, having scads of kids and grandchildren, and no one dies and no one gets sick, etc. Of course, in some respects I think it's true that reading about a happy couple, one that is not facing a lot of conflict or problems, is boring. That's why so many shows bite the dust when the sexual tension is resolved, because...no conflict or suspense there.

But the truth is, every marriage/relationship faces challenges. People *do* get ill, or have car accidents, or lose children, or whatever. Reading about couples who go through kind of thing, and manage to keep loving each other, and supporting each other is fascinating to *me* but not so much to other readers, I guess. A long time ago (like twelve years ago) Kensington tried a line called "Couples," and in it the couple was married (or otherwise committed, I guess) but was facing some kind of challenge that threatened their relationship. The few I read and worked on were great, but the line died an early and painful death.

Love is not only facing obstacles but facing dailiness. Morning breath and trips to the grocery and hearing them tell the same story you've heard a bunch of times at a party and negotiating who takes the car in for the oil change. Romance is easier than love by a mile. I think almost anyone can be fun to go to a fancy restaurant and have a great meal with, but it takes a special bond to have fun in the aisles of Costco or while sorting receipts for doing taxes.

it takes a special bond to have fun in the aisles of Costco or while sorting receipts for doing taxes

Yes, this too! (Some of the best fun Stephen and I have is when we can escape the kids and go to the mall by ourselves, or have a few minutes in the car alone to talk.)

It just doesn't make particularly compelling reading, though.

Yeah, it's not dramatic. I think traditional romance can be dangerous stuff. Three of my friends (male and female) who are gorgeous, smart and still single at 50 are the ones who associate love with intensity and drama and romance. They all have a history of breaking up with people when it gets "boring," which is of course when the real deep stuff starts happening between two people.

Dailiness is right. I have no objection to happily ever after, but I won't pretend to be a fan of Peter Pan and I certainly don't write for people who are looking for that.

How do you know if you're getting daily, or if the spark really has faded? Not that I have a spark to protect at the moment.

The spark *always* fades, or at least diminishes. The question, is do you still like Fred even when he doesn't have a radiant nimbus of joy surrounding him?

It's expecting to be permanently infatuated that causes all the trouble.

It's expecting to be permanently infatuated that causes all the trouble

And, Betsy nails it. That's my problem with the whole Peter Pan reader out there: I keep wanting to tell them to grow the hell up, because the sex is better when you grow up, anyway.

And you don't want a spark burning that bright forever. The only thing that genuinely winds up burned when that happens is you.