“I know she’s in the building / I can feel it in my guts / Somewhere within these four walls / is the woman that I love”
The Waterboys
In response to recent news that the Romance genre is losing a significant number of readers, a fellow reader stated, “It’s those graphic sex scenes that did it. It’s all sex, sex, sex these days!â€
Maybe. Maybe not.
Years ago, one poster said that there is a new but growing trend that will one day cripple the Romance genre. I didn’t take her observation seriously, but I think I’m starting to.
Last year I stumbled across Lisa Gregory’s The Rainbow Season and I remembered how steamy that scene was where Luke and Sarah get together, so I flipped through pages to re-read the scene to, I suppose, relive that sense of … boom! in Technicolor®.
I was startled to discover the scene lasts one paragraph. Just one bloody paragraph! 
How had this one paragraph managed to leave such a huge deposit on my memory bank that lasted all these years? What is there to do but re-read the book? The “one paragraph†scene still managed to blow me away. It got me thinking about others books.
Like all readers, I enjoy well-developed characterisations, solid plots, fantastical storytelling, vivid descriptions and – my favourite – dialogue. But all genres have those. So, what is that thing that separates the Romance genre from other genres?
I think it’s sexual tension. The kind when – from the moment you realise that there’s something about this man that gets you – he walks into a room and all your senses come alive. Imagine that in a romance novel. More aware the h/h are of each other, tighter this spiral of tension. When it gets really wound up, how will it end? Boom! in Technicolor®.
That’s what happened with The Rainbow Season. It has only 2 brief sex scenes, yet from Luke and Sarah’s first meeting to that ‘moment’, Lisa Gregory took time to build and maintain sexual tension between them to ensure that my emotional investment will be paid off when the moment arrives. That’s what makes romance reading such an enjoyable pastime all these years. *serene smile*
Lately, it’s not the case. I blamed it on being a romance reader for too long, but having read The Rainbow Season and a couple of books I read recently, I don’t think that any more. Especially after I had that realisation, I took a closer look at new releases I read.
Many romance and erotic romance authors – established and new – of those books don’t seem to regard sexual tension important enough to nurture, let alone making it the spine of their stories. It seems that everything but sexual tension comes first. I think this is a mistake because, IMO, sexual tension is the heart of a romance novel.
There’s been some discussions about why is there an increasing number of readers demanding something different, such as more complicated plots, complex or unusual heroes/heroines, fewer genre restrictions, and more risks? It’s been said that there’s a move away from historical romance novels for other sub-genres, e.g. paranormal, futuristic, romantic suspense and such. Some go far enough to go out with the Romance genre.
Some readers reckon it’s because there is too much psychoanalysing going on between the h/h, and some think it’s a case of ‘Too much sex kills’. And those who blame it on lack of variety in types of hero and heroine, settings and time periods. I think it’s lack of sexual tension.
Granted, sexual tension is in the eye of the beholder, but — have you wondered why these days readers go wild for a small selection of romance novels but not other romance novels? My theory is, aside from the obvious, it has something to do with sexual tension.
No related posts.
Good one, M! And I agree: sexual tension, the DANCE and then the payoff is one of the biggest draws of the genre. And I’m off to go check out a copy of that Lisa Gregory book…
I’m convinced by your argument when you say the thrill is when “he walks into a room and all your senses come alive” but when you label that feeling ’sexual tension’ I’m less sure. It seems to me there’s more to it than that, and it’s the ‘moretoit’ that I need for a romance story to work. I’ve read books where the authors have convinced me that the characters lust madly after each other, and where they eventually have fantastic sex, but those stories don’t satisfy whatever I read romance for. [Though, to state the obvious, readers won't all read romance for the same reasons.]
Just as an aside, I sat and watched ‘Bride and Prejudice’ with my daughters last night. It pushed all my romance-reader buttons, and my eleven year old was jumping up and down with excitment at all the relevant places, yet there was no overt sexuality in the film at all – I think there was one chaste forehead kiss. You could argue that the sexual tension is implicit in the acting, and the marriage at the end is a codified assurance of the h/h off-screen fulfillment – but I don’t know – it doesn’t seem like that’s what was happening in my head when I enjoyed the film.
I guess for me to elaborate on this would be: it’s watching the growing relationship, and sexual tension is a big part of that. Building trust, building attraction, getting to know each other: seeing if the two are a good fit (before bed, in bed, out of bed), as it would be in real life. For the HEA, if I can believe that the h/h would get along and be happy together down the road.
At least, that’s what I look for.
I don’t know if the tension has to be sexual, but there HAS to be tension and it has to build and build. Otherewise, the happily ever after happens too early and the story is over long before the book ends. Pulling this off, now THAT’S the hard part!
It’s very true that maintaining and building the tension after the relationship becomes physical is really hard to do, but the payoff is huge when it works. I also have a little theory that this is more about the level of emotional involvement between the characters than sex. I’ve read I don’t know how many romances in recent years that didn’t leave me believing that these two truly fell in love. I’ve read romances that ended with the characters continuing to live on opposite ends of the country with a telecommuter marriage, and THAT was “happily ever after”. Um, not in my book. (Literally!)
I wish the term “sexual tension” could be barred from descriptions of romance novels. CHEMISTRY is what makes or breaks a book. And not just chemistry between the hero and heroine. It’s the chemistry between all the characters. If it’s flat, the book falls flat as well. If it sizzles, it makes it hard to put the book down.
Too many writers are banged over the head with the need for “sexual tension” and it’s wrong wrong wrong in my opinion. (Sorry, this is one of my buttons)
I did wonder whether it’s chemistry that I was thinking of, but I realised that ’sexual tension’ isn’t always about sex. It’s … let me think of a word … the glue of all elements of a romance novel. Chemistry can appear in any genre novel. There must be something that separates the Romance genre from other genres. One could argue that it’s the HEA, but it has to be more than that.
I didn’t realise that too many writers are banged over the head with the need for ’sexual tension’ because I am not seeing it in new releases. It’s mostly mental lusting, a lot of bed bouncing moments, and so on.
Thank youfor responding.
Correction: “It’s mostly mental lusting, a lot of bed bouncing moments, and so on, but no sexual tension.”
No, Maili, you have it right on. I’m sure it’s purely semantics. I say tomatoeee you say tomAHto
I call it chemistry, but most everyone calls it sexual tension, and in the end, your term “sexual lusting” is the result. Argh!
But if done badly, it still results in a train wreck.
Quite simply, to have good (ok we’ll just call it tension so I don’t start to twitch) it does NOT mean you must have the hero and heroine dissolve into pulsing, aching, insta-lust as soon as they see each other. When this happens, it usually comes across as not too believable and the emotion is sacrificed for lust, and I’m left wondering if once the characters crawl out of bed they even remember each other’s names.
Oops I meant your term “mental lusting” It’s too early!
I agree, Sharon. Which is why romance novels like THE RAINBOW SEASON blew me away. Too mental lusting can and does bore me. Could it be that the word ’sexual’ that causes confusion? I mean, if you think about it, the biggest sex organ in a human body is the brain; so, the first stage of a relationship is this deep attraction that may spark tension . Carrying it through may evolve into a deep bonding that becomes the foundation of a relationship. Hm, I am now wondering if I got it wrong, that it’s ‘bonding’ that I’m thinking of? Hm, well, you can tell that I’m not a writer. Just a reader.
So, I’m open to any theories. 
Thanks.
I don’t think it’s sexual tension that’s lacking. I think it’s EMOTIONAL tension. This is just my take, anyway, from someone who writes books where the characters hop into bed before they’re in love. The lusting can be there from beginning to end. But it will take on a new charge as the emotional connection grows. When characters have already done the deed, maintaining the sexual tension is difficult AND isn’t as much a part of the relationship as is the emotional tension – so that when they do fall in love, the sex that follows (if it does) is more about the bonding of hearts and souls than it is about bodies. IMO.
I agree, Maili, that what makes a book (or movie or television program) really work for me is when the sexual tension (and that *is* the phrase I mean) is introduced and built in a such a way that by the final payoff, I’m on the edge of my seating wanting the H/h to be together. And it doesn’t even have to be a big sex scene to make me happy – Elizabeth Bennett and Mr. Darcy riding off in their carriage worked pretty dang well, IMO.
Perhaps there is something important lost when the characters quickly give in to the chemistry between them, the question of “Will they ever…” answered so fast that there is no sweet satisfaction when they “finally” because it had already been done. But I think a different type of tension can still be created if the writer works at it, perhaps the sexual tension becoming one of “love” tension. Will the physical turn into something deeper? Something emotional?
Me personally, I prefer a little mental foreplay between the characters as long as it isn’t massive amounts of mental lusting (ugh!) but rather a subtle build-up of interest and longing that becomes so powerful when the inevitable Big Bang happens, there actually is a Bang.
Great column, Maili. Very thought provoking.
Oooh, Alison’s emotional tension is a good point. I think the best romances have to balance a bunch of tensions: emotional AND sexual, and whatever additional elements the story requires (suspense/mystery/paranormal, etc). Not to get too sexist, but men tend to think they can view sex and emotional commitment differently, while women put more emotional weight in sex. They’ve trusted the guy with their body, and then it’s about whether they trust them with their hearts. For some, it works out hearts first, then body, mind, etc. If that makes sense!
I tend to think it’s The Relationship that makes the difference between romance and something that isn’t romance. The capitals signify that there’s something there that has its own personality and changes/grows over the course of the story – as opposed to those “love stories” where the couple don’t even spend any time together. (Think Sleepless In Seattle. Great love story, but I cringe every single time it’s mentioned because it’s NOT romance to me.)
Now, a very good argument could be made that a good Relationship includes a healthy dose of both sexual AND emotional tension, so I’m not saying they don’t play a part in the formula. Just that alone, they’re not enough. Put it this way, I almost stopped reading romances a couple of decades ago because most of the books I was reading that were labeled romances had very little real Relationships in them. Very difficult for heroes and heroines to actually spend time together when most of the plots centered on lots and lots of Big Misunderstandings and even Bigger Separations. Know what I mean?
Beverly
Wonderful post, Maili. As ever.
I’m reading a book at the moment [lent to me by a friend, for my opinion] that sounds as if it’s exactly the sort of thing you’re talking about. It’s wall to wall ‘lustful thoughts’ but I’ve read more sexual tension in a McDonald’s menu!
I need (both as a reader and writer) to be invested in the characters, to believe they are ‘for’ each other, and that they’ll be HEA. In other words, the whole package (no pun intended). It’s a subtle art to get that buy-in and build-up. One of the best I’ve read is Shelby Reed, who’s pubbed with EC, yet she’s somehow not considered ‘hot’ enough for them for some reason.
I don’t think it’s the difference between erotica and romance so much, either, but the way the relationship is portrayed. Most women I know understand that sex does not equal love, and wouldn’t respond to it in a story, movie, etc.
Great column, Maili.
I agree with you and Sharon (it’s really just semantics). One of the things that does it for me in romance is not the physical attraction, but the intellectual attraction which I suppose can be considered emotional attraction (though I think ‘intellectual’ involves a thought process and ‘emotional’ goes beyond intellectual explanation.) The reasons OTHER than physical looks that draw two people together drives my own stories, and it’s what really draws me to characters in other books as well.
But I think Sharon is right on the money when she talks about the chemistry between all characters that really make a good book great (or lack of chemistry that makes a book a wallbanger).
Maili, great post.
Alison, yes, emotional tension! That’s what I look for in romance. And I want the characters’ personality, collide, struggle, cooperate, and make them stronger and better in the process. And sure I want to see the sparks fly, but I also want to root for the characters (as Marty said, the whole package). In other words, I want a romance with a great emotional tension and the characters I cheer for.
Ooh, I love this subject! As a reader, I’d rather read lots of sexual tension and have one really great love scene than lots of love scenes but very little sexual tension in a story. It’s the build up that makes the payoff even better in my mind. I do agree with Alison though, if the h/h have already slept together early on in the book, what can make a story just as satifying to me is the emotional tension that builds up between the h/h as they continue to learn more about each other beyond their physical urges. Are they really right for each other now that the blush of desire is out of the way? How the characters grow in each story, from outside forces as well his/her relationship with the hero/heroine, is what can really make me appreciate a story. Great subject, Maili!
I think this is a terrific post, Maili. I read through the comments and I think so many things are inherent to writing a good romance. Character development and character arc, the emotional tension, the sexual tension. I personally love sexual tension when it comes to romance, as long as it’s with a well-developed story line. There’s nothing like that big payoff when the h/h get together and it’s done well! But for me the story needs meat, needs to have more than just a dance between the h/h. I also agree that too many erotic romances lack that tension because they have the h/h hopping into bed right away with no development, no drawing out that moment until you can hardly stand it. But many erotic romances do reach that standard, as well as all of the above terrific comments by other posters. I think it’s a combination, and just darn good writing that makes all the difference.
Great post! Amazingly it’s close to what I’ve been blogging about lately. I’ve been so disappointed lately with what I’ve been reading and I don’t know why. Maybe it’s the flatness of feeling like I’ve read this story a million times before. Or maybe it’s the kick ass heroine, which I USED to love, but now I’ve grown tired of. Maybe it’s the great sex scenes thrown together between plot lines but no real story.
I don’t know.
I do know I love a good romance. I love reliving the feeling of falling in love.The fairy tale. The happily ever after. And when I find a book that does that, I’m one happy camper! So that negates the whole “I’ve read this a million times before”argument.
Maybe the tension,emotional, sexual, whatever, IS the answer.
Maili, I think you nailed it… I’ve always thought romance IS sexual tension – experienced largely on an emotional level. Long descriptions of couples having sex are, obviously, sexy, but not necessarily romantic because romance (to me) is largely about longing and mystery and glamor and uncertainty and, well, ROMANCE.
Till recently, romance novels were about the couples who weren’t together yet. There was tension and suspense about whether they would get together — not about how they would work out their personal conflicts and live together as a married couple. Today there’s not much mystery or uncertainty. We see every thought on both sides of the relationship, watch the couples having sex and working on their relationship, and it reminds me of marriage therapy. Marriage is great and therapy is great, but it’s not the stuff romance is made of. Romance isn’t about reality, it’s about idealization and dreaming and hoping. That’s what I miss in romance novels.
As a reader, Maili did nail it! It’s the sexual tension for sure. It’s the longing to be with someone but having too many barriers to ever try even a kiss. One of my fav. authors Brockmann wrote a book that is everyone’s fav. but for me the minute the H/H hit the sheets in the opening few chapters it was over for me. I continued to read for Molly and Jones’ story (which had plenty of tension, sexual and otherwise). I know this about myself now that if I read a back blurb that mentions a ‘passionate night of sex a few months before and they thought they would never see each other again’. Nope, not for me. I’m also not good with romances that deal with people who have had a prior romantic relationship. This only works if the prior relationship is only referred to in bits. So yeah, I think there is something to be said for sexual tension…and angst. I do love angst!
You know, Cindy, you’ve accidentally revealed the reason why I am not keen on romance novels that feature the reunion theme. I didn’t know why, until I read your comments. Yay! Thank you for that.
To everyone else, thank you so much for throwing your views in. All your commments got me thinking that, basically, the main element of a good romance novel is anticipation. It didn’t occur to me until I read all your comments that there are different types of [romantic] anticipation. So it’s a case of having an affection for a certain type of anticipation. Obviously in my case, it’s sexual tension. Thank you all so much for making contributions towards an effort in turning on the lightbulb in my house.
Great post!!
I think you, Sharon and Alison Kent are all correct. It very well may be semantics but so many romances are missing the chemistry and sexual tension that keeps the plot and story line moving smoothly. And, I think emotional tension is tied up with this also. This lack of tension at times leaves the hero and heroines relationship on a superficial level and you’re often left wonder what’s drawing these two people together, and why should you care about them. And, that is killer for any romance.