• Skip to content
  • Skip to footer

Elizabeth Drakes's Site

Fantasy Romance

Main navigation

  • Blog
  • Books
  • Sign Up
  • About

Romance Writer

Happily-Ever-After According to Science

July 10, 2017 by Elizabeth Drake

Why do some marriages work and others don’t? Why do some people stay in a bad marriage, while others will leave a relatively good marriage?

mar1
I hated Romeo and Juliet anyway.

Some will say love. Romance. Soul mates. On the more mundane and practical side, people will say shared interests, beliefs and goals.

As a romance writer and reader, you often see the story end at the point where the characters are married and are now expected to live happily-ever-after. Or, maybe this particular trope is one where they’re forced to marry because of plot reasons, but by the end of the story, they confess their love for each other and then live happily-ever-after.

Either way, we end with the characters in love and ready for their happily-ever-after ending.

In the real world, more marriage will end in divorce than be successful. At least in America they will.

Yeah, not very romance-writer of me to mention that, I know. But, if I want to give my characters a believable happily-ever-after, I need to understand what leads to that happily-ever-after. What makes some marriages work?

mar2
No, no, no, no, no!

 

Well, science has an explanation on why some marriages work and some don’t. It’s called Interdependence Theory.

Interdependence Theory states the following.

Rewards – there are rewards from marriage (or any social interaction). These can range from companionship to physical intimacy. Interdependence theory has defined them as the following:

  • Emotional – Positive and negative feelings in a relationship. These are especially important in a close relationship. Ah, here we’re getting to where love comes into play. See, you knew I was a romance writer!
  • Social – Or how you appear to others. Does being seen with a super model make you feel better about yourself? What about with a stripper? What other social repercussions are there from the relationship? Perhaps you have to attend a lot of operas, and you love opera. But what if you hate opera?
  • Instrumental – These rewards are achieved when a partner is proficient at handling tasks. Like mowing the lawn, building the kids a tree fort, or doing the laundry without anyone getting stuck with pink socks (true story).

Costs – there are costs to a relationship as well. Basically, for all of the different types of rewards (emotional, social or instrumental), there is a corresponding cost. So, just like there are emotional, social and instrumental rewards, there are emotional, social, and instrumental costs. Makes sense.

So, DH putting up with my annoying habit of leaving my shoes by the sofa where I kick them off every night would be an example of an instrumental cost my husband has to pay regardless of how many times I’ve promised I’d be better about it. Or going to the annual corporate party for my employer would be a social cost. Sorry honey!

Rewards Minus Costs  Should Be Positive – Yeah, not very romantic, is it? Sounds more like I’m building a profit and loss statement than writing a romance novel.

Yes, I’m sure I’m a romance writer. But science is seldom romantic.

However unpleasant it may sound, research has shown that humans keep a record, whether consciously or not, of the net value of a relationship to us. So, you’re in a “profitable” relationship if the rewards outweigh the costs. But, this still isn’t enough to keep people in a relationship. They have to be making “enough” profit. Kind of like when you invest in your 401(k) account. You only have so much money, so you want to select the investments that will net you the most profit for the time you have them invested.

Comparison / Opportunity Cost – Once someone has tallied up their total relationship rewards and costs, they will either consciously or subconsciously review their other options. Even if they are net positive, in their account isn’t earning as much as they think it should, they are more likely to end the relationship and look for another. This may explain all of the Hollywood break-ups.

 

Okay, so now that we know this, how can we apply the science to making a romance novel earn its happily-ever-after?

mar3
Not the response I’m looking for, though I may have said it about a romance novel or three.

 

I want my happily-ever-afters to be believable. So, here are a couple of ways I can use the Interdependence Theory to make it believable:

1.No Alpha-Holes – A strong male lead could provide a lot of rewards on the instrumental level. He gets stuff done. But even if a heroine loves him, the emotional and social costs of dealing with him are going to be extremely high. Toning him back so he’s still an alpha without being a jerk would help a lot.

2. No Porcelain Dolls – Both characters in the romance have to be active. If either can basically be put on the shelf while the other does all the heavy lifting, you’re going to have a relationship with very high instrumental costs. No matter how much you love someone, if they can’t figure out how to open the refrigerator and get themselves a soda, you’re going to get pretty ticked at them after a while.

3. Opposites Might Not Attract – The whole wallflower with a super outgoing character trope might not end well. If the wallflower really doesn’t like much social interaction, but the extrovert loves it, there is going to be a high social cost to the relationship. Unless, of course, one or the other is the way they are to mask their true personality. The extrovert who actually hates all the parties etc.

 

What do you think? Does interdependence theory hold water in your book? Think it’s bunk? If so why or why not? Any other way that it could be used in writing to give believable happily-ever-afters?

Filed Under: Analysis, Uncategorized Tagged With: costs, divorce, Happily-ever-after, Interdependence Theory, love, marriage, No Alpha-Holes, No Porcelain Dolls, opportunity cost, Opposites attract, rewards, Romance, Romance Novels, Romance Writer, science

No Suitcases, Please

February 3, 2017 by Elizabeth Drake

After reading Mariah Avix’s post on Strong Women, I did some thinking.

I am a romance writer, and that’s what a read. Though some men enjoy reading it as well, Romance is geared towards a mainly female market. First time my husband read one of my books, he dubbed it “porn for women”.

Not entirely inaccurate. It’s the portrayal of a fantasy, a female fantasy, and there’s usually sex in it.

Beyond that, though, Romance does something else. It often depicts the issues women have faced and continue to face. Things such as: rape, feeling powerless, being stalked, not being good enough, smart enough, beautiful enough. The heroine then overcomes these things and finds her happily-ever-after.

I’ve heard many complain that finding strong female characters in romance is hard. First thing I ask them is when the book they’re reading was written. While Romance has been around since before Jane Austin penned her first novel, what it has meant to be a strong woman has changed significantly.

Think about it. Back in the 1800s, a strong woman is not the same as one from the 1950s or from 2017. Society changes, culture changes, and to some extent, we’re all subject to the culture we live in.

So what does it mean to be a strong woman today?

unnamed

Whenever I ask this question, I ask: does the heroine have agency?

What does this mean?  She cannot be a suitcase the hero brings along for the ride. She has to be actively engaged in her own story.

For me, it means meeting the Princess Leia criteria. It means she’s doing stuff. She’s making things happen rather than things just happening to her. Yes, bad stuff still happens, but she’s Princess Leia doing something about it rather than Princess Peach waiting for Mario.

For example, Leia takes the stolen plans and is trying to get them to the right people. When bad things happen (Darth Vadar catching her and boarding her ship), she still gets the plans to Obi Wan.

Sure, Luke and Han go to rescue her, but she doesn’t hide behind them and wait for them to get her back to the ship. I love it when she snatches up the blaster and shows them how to use it.

She saves Han Solo.

She blows up an Imperial moon base.

She leads a rebellion.

She does stuff.

Does she get captured? Yes. But she resists their interrogation procedures.

Does she lose Han to carbonite? Yes, and she rescues him.

unnamed-1

I think of her a lot when I think of a strong female character. She’s mostly smart, actively engaged, but she’s not invincible. Not perfect. She can’t be, or she won’t be likable.

For the longest time, all we had was her and Buffy, but that’s changing. Our culture is changing. There have been more strong female characters lately, and even Disney has gotten on board with Merida and Elsa.

But we still have a ways to go.

unnamed-3

 

How about you?  What do you think of when you think of a strong female character? Any examples in modern literature that you use to guide you?

Filed Under: characters, Uncategorized Tagged With: Female Fantasy, Issues Women Face, Princess Leia, Romance, Romance Writer, Strong Female

  • « Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • …
  • Page 3
  • Page 4
  • Page 5

Footer

Connect with me on social medial

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Google+
  • Pinterest
  • Twitter

Looking for something specific?

Sign Up for Notification of New Books and Exclusive Giveaways

Copyright © 2018 · Author Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in