A brief aside: I don’t normally like book covers that have anything to do with the film adaptation, but the normal cover of this book is so bland and forgettable, I’m using the movie tie-in cover here. It has a more classic look to it.
Anyway.
Dexter Mayhew is a charming playboy, absolutely gorgeous to behold. And he knows it. Emma Morley is a beautiful and intelligent woman; a little snide and politically conscious. They spend the night of their graduation from university together before beginning a years long friendship that sees them never quite fulfilling the promise of romance that was their one night together. Dexter spirals out of control on drugs, alcohol, and beautiful women too numerous to count. Emma drifts through a life having not really attained professional or intimate satisfaction. Dexter is all fun and impetuousness, while Emma is socially conscious, sheltered, and consigned to a life of spinsterhood.
Or so it seems, at any rate.
The book itself is told over a twenty (roughly) year period, with each chapter being the same day (July 15th) of a different year. So you see these characters grow up, and you follow them over the highs and lows of life. It’s a mostly successful formula that’s handled far better than the last book I read built on a similar format.
The bones of this story are solid, and familiar. Nothing particularly amazing or noteworthy, really. The man is an irredeemable cad who’s really only loved by the female, who herself seems pretty awesome even though the rest of the world hasn’t seemed to figure that out. Most of the book ends up being about the man earning her love, while she devotedly pines for him.
Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed the book – for the most part. I just don’t understand why I have to keep reading this story. I mean, I’m a sucker for unrequited love – but why does the man always have to earn the woman’s love? Hell, why does either character have to learn to be a halfway decent person? Why can’t two characters fall for one another, and deserve one another, but just be kept from one another’s arms by circumstance? Maybe their timing is off, and one of them is always dating someone else. Maybe neither is brave enough to make that initial leap, with both of them always hoping the other will make the first move. I find those situations far more believable than some meet cute between a rogue and a future spinster.
I mean, this is a perfectly workable book. It was enjoyable, for what it was, and hit all the points it is supposed to. It generally left me with a feeling of contentedness.
Only….it had a little How I Met Your Mother feel to it. There was a build up with a lukewarm payoff.
Which is….just fine, I guess. But, ask me in a week and I won’t be able to tell you what these character’s names are.
Reviewed 12 times with an average rating of 3.42.
Oh, I would never classify One Day as a romance, and I was absolutely livid by the end of the book. I really liked Emma, but more or less loathed Dexter all the way through, so I’m sure you can see why I found the book’s conclusion rather upsetting.
Some of the comfort of the romance genre is a certain degree of predictability – of course they’re going to fall in love, of course there’s going to be complications, they’re going to end up happily at the end, if not forever, then at least for now. Good authors play with the tropes, but if the couple don’t end up together at the end, it’s not really a romance, it’s a book with romantic elements.
Whaaaaaaat?
To me, any story where the main focus is the relationship between two people who haven’t yet found each other is a romance.
I agree with your assessment of the book, however. I barely finished it, and only did so for completionists reasons.
I would agree with Malin. To fit into the Romance genre, there needs to be a happily ever after. Most fiction is about human relationships, some fiction focuses on romantic relationships, Romance is a subset that focuses on what will eventually be a successful couple.
What about Romeo and Juliet? Titanic? Ghost?
And I think its more than simply being about human relationships. The love between the two characters is the main thrust of the story is his I’ve always identified the genre.
Romeo and Juliet is first and foremost a tragedy. The main thrust of the story isn’t even the (brief and extremely impetuous) romance between the title characters, but the feud between their families (hence all the other deaths – Tybalt, Mercutio etc). Recall that Romeo was madly in love with Rosaline up until the moment he set eyes on Juliet. They were only together for three days – I severely doubt their romance would have survived for long if they hadn’t both died at the end.
Titanic is the story of the folly of the creators of the ship, the tragedy of all those people dying, with Jack and Rose and their different-class romance thrown in to make it more interesting. Again – they knew each other for less than a week, not really certain their romance would have sustained itself once Rose got over her first burst of rebellion and independence. Besides, if she loved him so much, she would have scooted over, there was totally space on that door for him. ;)
It’s been way too long since I’ve seen Ghost for me to counter why that may not fit into the romance genre.
I also think the literary romance genre may be somewhat different that that of cinematic romances. In book terms, it’s pretty firmly established that books that don’t end with the couple happily together (no matter how miserable they may have been along the way – trust me, there are some ANGSTY examples out there) can’t really be classified as a romance.
This seems like a weird disagreement to dig one’s heels in over, but I just fail to understand why romance has to have a happy ending.
I can see what you’re saying about Romeo and Juliet, but at the same time, the only reason people talk about the play is the romance. The tragic fate of the characters is an unmistakable part of that, but I don’t think the tragedy is the central characteristic of the story, I think the romance is.
Same thing with Titanic. The doom that games over their affair is what gives the story is heart, but it’s the love they find in one another that makes the story worth telling. Remove the iceberg and give them a happily ever after changes the story from a tragic romance to happy one, but the common thread is that it’s still a romance.
One Day is a romance. That the characters don’t end up together doesn’t change the centrality of this theme any more Rose scooting over and letting Jack get out of the water does for Titanic.
One Day is essentially When Harry Met Sally, only without the happy ending. I don’t know why that minor difference changes the entirety of the story.
So I’m not even saying you’re wrong, just that I don’t understand why so much importance is placed on whether the ending is happy or not.
I think the more important point is whether the story would remain basically intact if the love was taken out of it. For this book, Titanic, and Romeo and Juliet, I don’t think they would. I think those stories would fall apart completely. If you remove the tragedy? Eh. They would feel different, but they would be essentially the same.
A book can be about a romance without being a work within the romance genre. The Romance Writers of America defines the Romance genre as “All romances have a central love story and an emotionally satisfying and optimistic ending.” Romance is a spicific subset of fiction with generally agreed upon parameters. One Day is about a romance, but it doesn’t fit within the parameters of the Romance genre.
Mind. Blown.
Some committee got together and determined the official definition of the genre?
I….. Don’t know what to do with this information.
Do other genre also have stringent rules determining their use?
Clearly, I’ve lost this debate. But, ever recalcitrant, I’m going to pretend like I never read that.
Jumping in belatedly to mention that you’re comparing Romance novels to Romance films, which are different. There are OFTEN romantic subplots to films of all genres.
True.
Just as there’s a romantic plot to this book. In fact, it is the plot to this book. Which is why I call it a romance.
Well, you have two options here. You can ignore information you don’t like and doesn’t align with your existing worldview, or you can accept some new knowledge from a very knowledgeable source. The choice is on you. Also, try to think of this as any other minority group – we (society) lets minority groups choose how they define themselves and who gets to identify with that group. If this book lacking a happy ending tried to sell itself as a Romance (capital R intentional), you can think of it as the Rachel Dolezal of romances.
Alright…. I was actually being flippant with the whole me being recalcitrant thing, and was going to let emmalita’s point be the last word on the subject (which is why I made no effort to contradict her). But if you want this to be an issue of minority oppression, I’ll bite.
The Romance Writers of America decided on the “happy ending” qualification for a (as you say) capital-R Romance designation only after debating the issue. Not everyone agreed. Some also wanted capital-R Romance to apply only to hetero-normative relationships, but they didn’t ultimately win.
As it happens, I think this is all largely irrelevant to my review or the point I was making. Emmalita is making a valid point (which you are backing up) that a novel has to meet certain parameters in America to fall within the capital-R Romance genre as determined by the writers guild previously mentioned. Fine. The point is noted.
But, for one thing, I don’t know that this book was ever submitted to the guild. The author, after all, is British, not American. Surely other countries might define genre differently? Or not at all?
Further, fantasy isn’t defined by whether there are dragons. Mystery isn’t defined by whether the detective is an alcoholic. Why does romance (lower case ‘r’) have to be defined by whether the ending is happy?
If you prefer it that way, fine. But making this a battleground for minority rights seems fairly out of bounds from my perspective.
I’m not arguing that this book should meet RWA guidelines, or even that those guidelines should be altered. I’m simply expressing my belief that it is perfectly within the realm of reason for me to call a story built on the central idea of two characters falling in love a “romance” (lower case ‘r’), irrespective of whether the ending is happy or not. And I don’t think that makes me closed minded.
The RWA formed because romance writers were getting ripped off by publishers. Despite the fact that Romance is wildly popular and one of the biggest sellers in the genre fiction area of publishing, it is generally looked down on. Writers and readers of Romance are often disparaged. Romance writers and readers are also predominantly female and yes, there is a relationship between gender and the way Romance is viewed. Romance Writers of America was formed by romance writers to help writers in the genre work together to get better treatment from the publishing industry. In order to do that, they came up with a consensus definition of Romance. That definition was created by writers in the industry, not some committee that decided to create some rules for giggles. That definition was also largely driven by how the publishing industry defines romance. There is a thing called category romance, books published monthly by Harlequin for example. Publishers of category romances have been among the worst in terms of not paying authors what they are worth and making it difficult for authors to expand beyond writing category romances. RWA has been influential in it’s 35+ years in improving the treatment of romance authors and in gaining greater mainstream acceptance of the genre.
Science fiction, fantasy, and mystery have not had the same issues that the romance genre has had because those genres have been well populated by male writers and readers. Yes, a book can be a fantasy if it doesn’t have dragons – it may have other magical creatures, or magic users, or be set on another world and not be more identifiable as science fiction. There is no requirement that mystery novels have an alcoholic detective, but they really ought to have a mystery that someone solves. What would not be a fantasy is a book set in our contemporary world that was about a group of cosplayers who went to a convention in cosplay and didn’t get magical powers or encounter magical creatures. How a story ends is not comparable to one interchangeable element. A fantasy may have griphons instead of dragons, or elves instead of wizards. One Day is a book about a two people in a kind of romantic relationship that does not end happily, but it isn’t a Romance. When Harry Met Sally is a Romance. It is about two people who know each other over many years and move from antagonists, to acquaintances, to friends, to lovers, to a happy couple. The way the story ends is important. It can’t be replaced by a Mermaid.
Those of us who do read Romance have had to defend ourselves and the genre frequently. Make no mistake, the disregard for Romance is gendered. I don’t have to like the 50 Shades series to be offended by their designation as “Mommy Porn.”
Okay…..
Look, this has gone pretty far off the rails. So let me try to get this back on track.
You just told me a whole bunch of stuff that I was completely unaware of prior to today. I find that information interesting, and I find it valuable. And given this context, I can see why you three have responded in the way that you have. It makes more sense.
But, again, I don’t think any of this has to do with anything I’ve said. Lower case “r” romance is a legitimate English word that can be used for a multitude of purposes to describe some level of interplay between multiple people in an intimate way.
Lower case “r” romance has many uses. My argument is that my use of the word “romance” is perfectly valid. There is romance in this book. The love between the two characters, and their eventual coming together (how it happens and the impact it has on them) is the central thing in this book. It is the key upon which the entire novel exists. Without the love between these two characters, there is no story.
To me, this is a book about romance. It is a romance novel.
That was my perspective when I read the book. It was still my perspective when I wrote the review. And it’s still my perspective now.
Everything you just said, and everything Malin and Ellepkay said, makes perfect sense. It’s entirely logical and informed, and I don’t disagree with the facts.
And I don’t think we’re really talking about the same thing.
You guys are talking about capital-R Romance. I’m talking about lower case “r” romance. That’s not a trivial distinction.
Apparently, capital-R Romance has a specific meaning based on agreed upon qualifications enshrined by a writers guild. At least, in America. Alright. I did not know that. Now I do. Going forward, I will remember the distinction.
But that doesn’t mean no one can describe a love story as a “romance” if it doesn’t meet arbitrary guidelines set up by an association of writers in one country (I’m assuming, here, based on the name).
I’m pretty sure this association doesn’t own the word, and it can still be used to describe traditionally “romantic” things.
We’ve all written a lot of words for something that essentially comes down to me saying this falls into the “romance genre”, Malin saying it doesn’t, and then you and Ellepkay schooling me on what, precisely, the capital-R Romance genre is. I think we can all agree on those facts.
But, again, the RWA doesn’t own that word. That word is used all the time to describe non-RWA approved things. And that’s okay.
The problem seems to be that you guys are using it as an official designation of a genre, I am not.
I didn’t even capitalize the word.
Except the title of your post literally refers to the “romance genre”
Correct.
I wrote that before I understood that to be a trademarked term that could only be used with the approval of the RWA. /s
“…any story where the main focus is the relationship between two people who haven’t yet found each other is a romance.”
So, by that logic, Wizard’s First Rule is a romance novel because Kahlan and Richard meet in the first couple chapters and then fall in love. Regardless of wizards, witches, magic, dragons, and whatever else, the entire story (including most of the sequels) revolves around a man and a woman in love, and all the obstacles keeping them apart.
I think this whole Romance vs. romance thing is kind of a moot point, as the RWA has actually defined what is expected in a book that conforms to the genre. There are a bazillion books with romance as a main plot point that are categorized as “Fiction” in a bookshop, as opposed to “Romance”. Even books like Memoirs of a Geisha or Attachments, books that inarguably focus on two people meeting and falling in love, are not classified as “Romance” novels.
I recognize that it’s been awhile since I’ve read that book, but I wouldn’t call the romance between those two characters the central focus of the book.
Regardless, I don’t know why the presence of magic should preclude the romantic elements in a novel, anymore than the comedy elements in, say, a Terry Pratchett novel should preclude the fantastic.
As to your second point… So the only books, in the entire English speaking world, that can be said to fall into a romantic genre of fiction must, by necessity, fall within the narrow confines laid out by the RWA?
Is that what you are arguing?