Contemporary Romance

How to Write Contemporary Romance That Readers Believe

Kia Orion | | 5 min read

Emily Henry's first published novel was called A Million Junes. It came out in 2017. It was literary YA, sort of magical realism, sort of a family saga. It got good reviews. It did not make her famous. She was working full time while writing it, had quit her day job to go all-in on fiction, and the book that was supposed to justify that bet landed quietly. The way most books do.

Then in 2020 she published Beach Read, a contemporary romance about two writers with opposite styles who swap genres for a summer. And that book did something A Million Junes hadn't. It connected with readers almost immediately. The thing people kept saying, in reviews and on social media and in the breathless way readers talk about books they didn't expect to love, was that it felt real. The characters felt like people they knew.

I think about that transition a lot. Henry came to romance from literary fiction. She'd spent years learning to write with a certain kind of emotional seriousness, the kind where you're always slightly worried that if you let the prose get too warm or too funny or too direct, it won't count as real writing. And when she finally dropped that protective layer, when she let herself write a love story without apology, all of that training in emotional precision came with her. She didn't get less serious. She got more honest.

That's the thing about writing contemporary romance that most craft advice gets wrong. The genre doesn't ask you to be less rigorous. It asks you to be rigorous about different things.

The internal obstacle does all the heavy lifting

In a fantasy romance, you can separate your characters with a war. In historical romance, with social class. In contemporary romance, the two people live in the same world you do. They have cell phones. They could just text each other. So the thing keeping them apart can't be a wall or an ocean or a misdelivered letter. It has to be something inside them.

Beach Read does this well, and it's worth looking at the mechanics. January and Gus aren't kept apart by circumstance. They're kept apart by grief. January has just lost her father and discovered he'd been living a double life. Gus is processing something dark from his past that's made him cynical about happy endings. They like each other almost right away. The reader can see it. They can see it. The obstacle isn't "will they or won't they get together" in any logistical sense. It's "can they let someone in while they're still this broken."

That's what does the heavy lifting in contemporary romance writing. The internal obstacle. And it has to be specific enough that the reader can feel its weight but universal enough that the reader has their own version of it. Henry picks grief and trust, which almost everyone has a relationship with. But she makes it particular to these two people, in this specific summer. "She's afraid of love" isn't an obstacle. It's a category. You need the specific fear, the specific wrong conclusion the character drew from something that happened years ago. That's where the tension lives.

Voice is the first thing a reader trusts or doesn't

Lynn Painter writes in first person, and her narrators have a quality that's hard to teach. They sound like they're talking to you at a bar. Not performing, not narrating in the way that fiction usually narrates, but actually thinking out loud with a slightly wry edge, the way a sharp, self-aware person processes their own life in real time.

In Better Than the Movies and The Do-Over, the voice is doing at least half the work. The plots are fun. But the reason you keep reading is because the narrator's internal monologue is so specifically her that you start to feel like you know this person. You catch the rhythm of how she thinks, what she notices first in a room, what she finds funny about herself.

I'm not sure why this works as well as it does, but I have a theory. In contemporary romance, you don't have worldbuilding to carry the reader's attention. You don't have a murder to solve or a kingdom to save. The narrator's perspective is the world. If the voice doesn't feel authentic in the first few pages, there's nothing else to hold onto. The reader puts the book down and picks up one where the voice does land.

Painter's dialogue has the same quality. Her characters interrupt each other. They say things that are a little too honest and then try to walk them back. The conversations feel overheard, not choreographed. That's the bar for contemporary romance dialogue.

This is the kind of thing we think about every morning. One reflection, one question, before you open the draft.

Free. Every morning. Unsubscribe anytime.

Specificity replaces spectacle

Mazey Eddings writes characters with ADHD. In A Brush with Love, the protagonist is a dental student whose anxiety and neurodivergence shape how she moves through every scene. In Lizzie Blake's Best Mistake, the ADHD isn't a subplot or a quirky character trait that shows up when it's convenient. It's the lens. It changes how Lizzie experiences attraction, how she handles conflict, how she interprets the things people say to her. The romance runs through that lens, not around it.

This matters because contemporary romance has a spectacle problem, or rather, the absence of one. You don't have dragons. You don't have a duke's country estate. You have an apartment and a coffee shop and a commute. The details that make a contemporary romance feel inhabited have to come from character specificity, from the particular way this person sees the world. Eddings commits to that so fully that the specificity becomes the texture of the book.

When your setting is the real world, your characters have to be more real than characters in any other genre. Their contradictions, the gap between what they say and what they mean, the small private rituals that nobody else sees. Those are your set pieces.

The ending everyone expects still has to feel earned

Contemporary romance guarantees a happily ever after. Every reader who picks up the book knows this. So the ending can't work by surprising them. It has to work by making them feel like these two specific people earned this specific resolution, that the internal obstacles were real enough and the growth was gradual enough that when they finally get there, it feels like something that happened rather than something that was always going to happen.

This is, I think, the hardest technical problem in contemporary romance. You're writing toward a destination the reader already knows, which means the emotional payoff has to come entirely from the path. How did they change. What did they let go of. What did the quiet moments cost them. If you've done that work through the middle of the book, the ending writes itself. If you haven't, no amount of grand gesture will save it.


Every morning, we send writers a short reflection on craft questions like these. The kind of thing you sit with for a few minutes before you open the draft. If you're writing contemporary romance and thinking about what makes it feel true, you can join here.

The best contemporary romance writers treat every scene like it's the one that will make the reader believe. That kind of attention starts before you open the draft.

Free. Every morning. Unsubscribe anytime.

K

Kia Orion

Author of The Writer's Daily Practice, the #1 Bestselling book in Journal Writing and Writing Skills. He writes a free daily reflection for writers.

Keep reading

Stop staring at the blank page. Start writing with purpose.

A free daily reflection delivered to writers every morning. Quotes from literary masters, an original reflection, and a prompt to get you writing.

Join 1,000+ writers. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.