I recently started compiling a list of the [[rules of romance novels|unwritten rules of the romance genre]], as I see them from a reader's point of view. This all started from a lunchtime chat with two non-romance readers when I asked "is it perverse that I enjoy novels which break genre conventions?"

I should clearly state for the record that I have truely loved many novels which have fully adhered to "the rules" and many which have not. Equally, neither obeying nor flouting the rules will be the sole factor which decides if a book is worth reading or not.

Here though I pay homage to the novels which test the boundries of the genre, and test what the reading audience will expect and will accept. Inevitably, spoilers follow.

1. There must be a Happy Ever After ending.

You cannot vastly depart from this rule without turning a romance into a romantic novel (which are two very different beasts) or a tragedy.

However, a romance may end with a sense of love between the hero and heroine, whilst acknowledging that the conflicts tackled in the novel are likely to reoccur. For examples, see Georgette Heyer's A Civil Contract (info), which eschews "love conquers all" throughout; or Mary Balogh's Dancing with Clara (amazon), where the fortune hunting, womanising hero is not forced into an improbable overnight transformation.

2. The reader should know who the hero and heroine are after the first chapter or two.
2b. Exception to (2) allowed where a clear pool of potential heroes is quickly outlined and the heroine spends the novel choosing between them.

The first Carla Kelly I read broke this rule: Libby's London Merchant (amazon). I was confused, and put off. I'd been rooting for the wrong man! It's going to take a few more readings to let this one settle properly with me, but knowing how much I have enjoyed her other novels (once I was brave enough to give her a second chance), I imagine it will be worth it.