Star Wars Lessons: Writing Romance in Your Story

 

How do the relationships in your story develop? 

Assuming romance isn’t the main conflict/goal for your protagonist, their ove life  may seem like an afterthought. Which is why, too often, a romantic subplot reads like a check-box transaction at best. Or, worse, a tacked on device.

So, yeah, let’s avoid that.  

The romance should be cut to fit the larger story. Just as there is no place for a broken-tooth brawl in Star Wars, there was also no place for a bitter-sweet-first-love crush. What Lucas (I’m thinking Marcia Lucas more than George, her husband) got right is that there is exactly enough room for a meet-cute as well as an immediate, fiery attraction couched in dripping acrimony. 

Balance is key for these interludes to work. A beat too far one way or the other would’ve crabbed the set up. But Lucas knew he had time to fully explore both the meet-cute and the love-hate. That’s no small thing. Star Wars (Episode IV to purists) had studio financing. George and Marcia were getting “notes” from everyone but the caterer—still he trusted in his story and knew he’d get back to the budding romance.

You MUST have that same follow-your-story’s-dictates-for-what-works-in-the-space-allotted confidence.

“What does that even look like?” You ask…

My characters are emotionally deficient. They have strong survival and highly-specific social skills necessary for that street life. But those same skills impair their attempts at healthy relationships. They tend to be either impenetrable stone or total door mats, using or getting used. The challenge is to write satisfying (and hopefully believable) relationships that grow and/or end as the characters evolve. 

Love is a healing emotion if the people are healthy enough to nurture and grow their relationship. However, the relationship will not save them. My characters grow over the course of the book.

If the relationship isn’t healthy and/or doesn’t grow with the characters, they often have hard decisions to make. Another theme is recognizing their own worth. Abuse—physical, emotional, (preying on insecurities) or mental, (manipulation)—is not love and nothing can grow from it. 

Draw on your own experiences

I was REAL late to the relationship party. As the high-performing child in a family of business people I covered a lot of grown-up bases at the expense of my own emotional development. As a result I was awkward AF. It took me well into adulthood to kinda sort it all out and insist on relationships that were worth what I put into them. 

Which brings us to the age-old question: romance or sex?

“You have to be honest with yourself and about whatever it is that does it for you. Otherwise you end up at the end of your life wishing you had been honest with yourself and gotten more of whatever it is.” Jim Brown

When one of the greatest to ever play the game imparts that kind of wisdom, you listen. That stated, I don’t want to know which, (romance or sex) Big-Bad Jim Brown was referring to.

Explore…respectfully

There are worlds of romance out there that have not been taped. My wife and I are from different ethnic backgrounds. My brother grew up “out and proud” IN TEXAS while his husband was closetted for much of his life. A friend married a woman ten-years his senior when the norm is the other way around. Popular media is only now catching up to romances like ours. I really like to see mature depictions—not caricatures or two-dimensional props, real-living-breathing people.

“I like when the woman saves herself.” Neil Gaiman  

If George made a mistake anywhere (in the original trilogy) it is in the happily-ever-after for Han and Leia. Those two would have hot sex, (probably) and then make each other’s lives hell until Han got tired of having a schedule and/or Leia got tired of schlepping around with a man-child and best friend. That's not random speculation. 

From years of studying the movies and books, I know Carrie Fisher’s Princess Leia like a best friend. She is a woman who would NEVER mistake cruelty as flirting or abuse as something to change. You cannot change an abusive relationship and it is artistic dishonesty to suggest otherwise. The split is inevitable.  

“But that doesn’t sell action figures.” [probably not] George Lucas 

Net takeaway? I’m a big fan of “goodbye” in the face of negative relationships. I’m also a fan of parting ways in “we’re great but we’re not great together” relationships. For reference, skip When Harry Met Sally and instead, study The Bodyguard, or The Breakup. 

Characters (in any type of relationship) should grow either in love or in separation. Too often we see the character’s growth only in terms of their relationship. The relationship should be the icing, not the cake.

The photo a the top, Han and Leia, is from a promotional poster and is the property of Lucas Film and/or Disney. Its use here for illustrative/educational purposes is covered under the Fair Use Doctrine.

Who Wants to Eat a Book With a Title Like That?

 

In fine-dining game, they say that you eat first with your eyes. Because even the best quality food prepared by a culinary artist—but slopped onto a chipped, plate ringed with rust stains is simply not appetizing. This same logic applies to books.

Oh, but we do judge books by their covers…

How important is a title for your book? It’s so important that publishers often, (like 90% of the time) have contractual right to determine book titles without author-approval.

As I have written before, traditional publishing is in trouble and the publishing employee who makes bad choices not only loses the money that the publishing house put into the book, they lose the money the publishing house would’ve potentially made, had they backed another horse/book/metaphor thingy. 

A lot of freelancers “used to be in publishing” for a reason

Seems extreme? We’re talking anywhere from $50,000 to $300,000 in revenue—or loss for a first book, even more for a book from an established author. 

So, while that edgy or poetic or evocative title that came to you in a dream sings to your heart, if it doesn’t drive sales by stirring interest in your book, it's useless. So, you best believe that the publisher has some wiz-bang marketing types ready to roll out a title that will, (hopefully) get some cha-chings-a-ringing. Those marketing mavens understand how titles speak to readers—how bad titles can confuse a reader or worse, completely fly under the readers’ attention. 

How did we get here? 

There are writers who, through relationships with publishers or success in sales, get some leeway on their titles. Thomas Harris’ first book, Black Sunday was a smash. About a terrorist attack on the Super Bowl, the title really sold the drama as well as the tone of the times. But if Black Sunday was published today, readers would be more inclined to think it’s about our (U.S.) tradition of full-contact consumerism. 

Harris’ follow up, The Red Dragon also captured the imagination of thriller readers, whether they “got” the reference to the William Blake painting or not. Harris was going great guns, right? Then came his third book: Silence of the Lambs. 

Needle scratch

Yeah, nobody got that one. Contrary to popular mystique, the book was not a hit… at first. You had to read the book to understand the title. The cover art, (butterflies with Punisher-skull tattoos or something) did the book no favors and readers had no idea what was going on. It would take multiple glowing reviews, awards, and book club inclusions for Harris’ book to find a second life in paperback. 

The publishers took no chance with the follow up and Hannibal KILLED it in sales. Likewise Hannibal Rising. 

No author is immune, even the late-great Ellmore Leonard. For every Bandits or Killshot—on-message, direct, the reader knows what the book is about—there is a Get Shorty. Donald Westlake (as Richard Stark) wrote The Score and Somebody Owes Me Money, but he also wrote Lemons Never Lie. 

Seriously, what does that even mean?

Love them or not, there is no disputing the magic of John Sandford’s book names: Rules of Prey, Shadow Prey, Eyes of Prey, et al. Those titles are short and to-the-very-sharp point, just like the taut, suspenseful stories they introduce. 

Thrillers not your bag? How about the master class in romance that is Jane Eyre? We know what the book is about from the title. Still, we are COMPELLED by the mysterious name to find out who Jane is and what she’s about. We MUST read Brontë’s book and plumb the depths of Jane’s character.

Mystery? Sure you can go in for Robert B. Parker’s “smartened up” references to his literary bonafides: Pale Kings and Princes, etc. Or, as Parter found, you can cut straight to the chase a la Looking for Rachel Wallace. But if you really got the touch, you’ll nail the sale, as Wilkie Collins did with “The Woman in White” because it gets no shorter or sweeter or delicious. 

Often we’re taught that the title is your thesis. It is the point you intend to prove or at least expound upon. That's nice for a scolarly piece on meal worms.

But if you’re writing fiction and you’re NOT Stephen Hawking, nobody cares how clever you are. Readers want to be delighted. Your title should be one part “sell” but must also be two-parts treat.

The image at the top—the cover of Malcolm Bradbury's Eating People is Wrong—is the property of Penguin Press. The photo above, (seriously, I don't know how to call it) is from the internet. Both are used here for instructional/educational purposes as defined by the Fair Use Doctrine.

Writing the Adult in the Room

 

The late film director Garry Marshall said he tried to cast at least one adult in every movie he made. Most commonly, that adult was Héctor Elizondo. Truly, Mr. Elizondo was in every feature film that Garry Marshall directed. 

Good looking, engaging, with presence far exceeding his stature, Mr. Elizondo has something else that few actors have, self-possessed maturity. No matter the role—hotel manager, garbage man, cop—his characters know their place in the world and in relation to the other characters. His voice of reason is never whiny or stilted. He does not suffer from stick-up-anatomy syndrom.

He’s never the bellowing police lieutenant in the buddy picture. Purportedly he won’t take roles that are punched out of stereotypes or demeaning to latinos. That self-respect, along with a healthy dose of “no small roles, only small actors” lends great gravity to his work. 

Lending a hand or doing the heavy lifting?

Often depicted as the bumbling sidekick, Watson is the rent-come-due-practical adult in the room who keeps Sherlock Holmes from flying off the rails. In Caleb Carr’s The Alienist, Dr. Kreizler, is the adult and the chief detective in a disparate squad of sleuths. More than simple hierarchy or narrative choice, Kreizler is just as traumatized and scarred as his fellows but he has mastered his emotions, his desires, and his psyche. 

Thankless and seamless 

Richard Gere and Julia Roberts shine in Pretty Woman but it is the afore-mentioned Mr. Elizondo who is the bedrock of Mr. Marshall’s best-known film. More professional than paternal, Barney Thompson, (Elizondo) the hotel manager is primarily interested in providing his customer (Gere) with a pleasant hotel-stay, while establishing that he will not tolerate a woman of Vivian's (Roberts) frequenting his establishment. In the course of his duties, Barney instructs Vivian in decorum as an authority figure, working within the bounds of his responsibility, not from the deep well of ego. 

You know it ain’t easy

In Michael Mann’s Thief  Frank moves through a life where you are either a predator or you are prey. Frank is a highly specialized predator and he works deep to avoid much larger monsters, (the Chicago mob) as well as the carrion eaters, (the police). He knows his niche and sticks to it—until he sees a chance to catch up on decades of life lost to prison. Unwilling to be a piece in someone else’ game, Frank pays a heavy price to live as a grown up.

Somebody has to be the bad guy

Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohaim does not cast herself as Jessica’s tormentor no more than she considers herself Paul Atriades’ nemesis. Much like Barney Thompson, she’s simply the sheriff who keeps the peace and enforces the law. The Bene Gesserit Sisterhood, (more intellectual geneticists than religious order) has determined that the survival of mankind depends on a strict breeding program. Her role is to prevent deviations from the program and, failing that, preventing deviations from compounding into disasters. It’s thankless work. 

Too much of a good thing is DRAMA

In Ridley Scott’s genre-crossing masterpiece Alien we have three grown ups—surprisingly enough they don’t get along. Captain Dallas, (Tom Skerrit) is a journeyman. He neither owns the ship he skippers, nor did he pick his crew. So, when he is ordered to investigate a distress call, he certainly doesn’t have the authority to decline. What he has is the power of personality to compel his band of skeptical, irreverent civilians to follow orders. 

Chief Engineer Parker, (late-great Yaphet Kotto) is the career technician. He knows his job, like the ship, inside-out and won’t budge on his principles—until countered by an overwhelming, or-you’re-fired force. Warrant Officer Ripley is the new blood. A young, skilled-professional woman, she is by-the-book even (especially?) when it draws her into conflict with everyone. 

An obvious allegory for professional women everywhere, Ripley is the voice of reason. That voice is ignored to everyone’s detriment. It’s no coincidence that she is the only surviving Nostromo crew member.

Ultimately, your story needs an adult to address the elephant in the room. Warning: the following examples are wildly paraphrased and any likeness to actual dialogue (living or dead) is purely coincidental. 

We must make our stand here, on this little moon, against the ultimate power in the galaxy, or more planets will suffer the fate of Alderaan. —General Leia Organa, Princess of Alderaan

No, we’re not trained investigators, we’re not the killer’s target, and we certainly have no actual authority but if we don’t stop this Jack-the-Ripper in New York, more children will be viciously slaughtered. —Dr. Laszlo Kreizler

This hotel caters to specific clientele. Our guests expect the best service possible and we make allowances to ensure that they enjoy their stay. Mr. Lewis is just such a guest. I am willing to accept you here to make Mr. Lewis happy just as long as you and I understand that once Mr. Lewis is gone, you will be too. —Barney Thompson

Ultimately, the adult in the room is not for the good girl/guy, the bad guy/girl, or even in service to them. The adult in the room is there in service to the reader.

The photo above, "Dune" movie poster, is the property of Waner Bros. Pictures. It is used here for illustrative/educational purposes covered under the Fair Use Act.

Critique Groups, Beta Readers, and Writing

 

Is it a case of too many cooks? Or a case of the wrong cooks? Why are we even talking about cooks?

I recently read an article by a writer who joined an MFA, (master of fine arts grad degree) peer-group for short fiction to get critiques on her novel. The group critiqued her work, (a chapter at a time) infrequently. Of course the resulting critiques were conflicting and confusing. 

As should come as no surprise, the writer abandoned the novel.

There are multiple takeaways from this person’s experience. My take is you have to know what level you are as a writer and match up with the support that best suits your needs. Square pegs will not fit in a round hole.

Through the magic of social media, I friended up with  multi-genre writer Joe Lansdale. At one point I asked what he thought about critique (or crit) groups. He was less than enthusiastic, uttering the old “too many cooks…” axiom.

I can tell you that the crit groups have been imperative to my journey. The critique group is typically made up of aspiring writers who exchange work and provide feedback. When the feedback is honest and constructive, the group can help one another learn genre norms, (from tropes down to paragraph/chapter/book length) the query processes, and, yes, even feedback on tone, plot, and character development. 

You know, assholes, mean girls.

However from pained experience, I can also tell you that crit groups can be petty, cliquish, and discouraging. Worse, a poorly led group can devolve into a mutual-admiration society, aka a circlejerk. As I’ve written previously, many new writers have a bad experience in a crit group and never put creative thought to medium again. Others drift away in, "I could've published, everyone in the crit-group said so..." sedation. 

Even when everything “clicks” for the writer, first-chair of the crit group is not your destination. Under the best circumstances, groups have a short shelf life. Your skills should grow, your writing should improve, and you should level up—and out of the crit group.

“The best way to get something is to ask for it.” Morgan Hazelwood 

In my journey, I went from the crit group straight to querying, with mixed results. After a number of rejection emails, I landed an agent for 15 minutes, (different rant different time). The agent pointed out that there was something wrong with the pacing in my story and that we needed to work on it. 

And then I never heard from the agent again.

Since then I’ve run my story through a different kind of group: beta readers. Beta readers read your entire work as they would any other book. They give you broad feedback on tone, character development, plot, and pacing. 

Your friends, family, that coworker who once thought about writing a book will tell you “oh, it’s good, I liked it…” Some may even read your book first, (jokes, kinda). But a pat on the back and an “atta boy” or “get it girl,” doesn’t improve your writing. For that you need an objective, critical eye.

The beta reader will tell you when your ending fails, when your beginning underwhelms, and/or when your middle sags, (common in writers my age). Often the beta reader is also a writer but this is not as important as that they are SERIOUS READERS. These are the folks who actively read, multiple books a year, (if not a month). No matter how smart that woman from work or class is, if she doesn’t read, often, she will be of no help to you whatsoever.

Your ideal beta reader may not be a writer but they understand the genre you write in. They may not understand story structure, pace, and story/plot arc—but they know when "it" isn't working. Literally, they are worth their weight in gold. Morgan Hazelwood has an EXCELLENT primer for you to consider when approaching a beta reader to get the feedback you need, here.

Beta readers are simply the best help you can get short of a development editor and much more economical. 

Please note: if not implicit, the beta reader is the person you go to when you have a completed manuscript and have done all the diligence you possibly can—and not before. You only get to waste a person’s time once.

Your results may vary—and that's okay.

Also note: not every syllable of feedback will be helpful or useful. You are not required by law to implement the suggestions. Thank the reader/s for their time and consideration. DO NOT argue your case. The most important lesson a crit group taught me will serve you well here: NO DEFENSE OF WORK. Mostly, I’ve found that if you have to defend it—it doesn’t work.

The ultimate feedback option: write a check.

The MFA peer review thingy is great...if you’re an MFA candidate or graduate. But if you’re at the point where you’ve done crit groups and beta readers but still need help, this would be when you call in the professionals. A development editor is a person who has been in the publishing game. They know your genre, the industry, and will fine-tune your writing skills. What a development editor is not is a writing instructor. Like the beta reader, you need to have a completed story, written to the very limit of your ability and thoughtfully revised. Otherwise you’re wasting their time and your money. 

Do or do not

Finally, all the hand-holding, guidance, and instruction does not change the fact that, eventually, you have to step out on your skills and trust your story. The crit group is to help you build your self-editing skills. The beta reader is the mirror that shows you the blindspots in your writing. The development editor is a diamond polisher who works your story into a shining gem. 

Nothing will improve your writing more than writing and ruthlessly self-editing. All the help in the world will not overcome self-doubt. Just know that if you found the story compelling enough to re-read it (to rewrite it) dozens of times, there’s a good chance someone else will find your story just as compelling. But none of us will ever know unless you push on and get that story out there.

The photo above "The Menu" promotional poster is the property of Searchlight Entertainment, et al. Its use here, for instructional and educational purposes is covered by the Fair Use Act.