I'm reading "Writing a Romance Novel for Dummies" (WRND) by Victorine Lieske, and wanted to bring you my thoughts as I go through it.

Victorine Lieske is a self-pub writer of romance who capitalized on the indie boom of 2010, so she represents roughly the same generation of success as Theodora Taylor whose book "Seven Figure Fiction" gives you the skinny on the world of online romance writing without hiding anything.

This is my last blog for this series, and I will go through the points that Lieske makes and I didn't see elsewhere. It's a hodge-podge, but intriguing.

Lieske suggests writing contemporary romance in the Undefined Present without dating them by events or popular slang or shows--so the book wouldn't feel dated a few years down the road. While this was hardly a concern back when Wattpad was young, the oldest stories are now over 10 years old...but, to tell you the truth, I actually prefer the atmosphere of a certain year or decade in my contemporary or historical fiction.

The next point concerns cherry-picking history for romantic purposes.

This is a sore point for me, because I range far and wide in my readings on history. But let's face it, the periods we can imagine well are usually the ones copiously reflected on TV.

While it was the writers that brought Regency or Ancient Greece in our lives as the cultural mainstream, and the Asian producers use the Undetermined Historic Storied Past more often than not...well, when writing romance, you have to choose a period that lets you occupy yourself with romance and let the reader fill the gaps.

Who even remembers Marco Polo on Netflix next to Bridgerton? Borgias didn't take all that well next to the Vikings.

So, some periods are more familiar and therefore desirable to the masses than the others.

In Wattpad's Verticals (and elsewhere) Regency basically equates historical.

Asian Undetermined Historical Storied Past, Undetermined Middle Ages (1000 years) and Joseon dynasty (500 years), Romans and Greeks, Scottish Highlands and Undetermined Vikings are more or less all we see as popular backdrops.

Lieske doesn't have Vikings and Asian Undetermined in her list, but offers American Revolution, thanks to her facing the US market.

Personally, I would advocate for French Revolution of your choice (people normally lump them together anyway), 17th Century France with a nod to D'Artagnian and Italian Renaissance as the settings that have some popular recognition, but you will probably have to market the era as well as the story and you will likely move to historical fiction realm instead of romance, because you can't simply assume people will fill in all the details.

Okay, next. Lieske spent a lot of ink on defining which names and professions for the male Love Interest would draw bigger crowds to your romance. With my still heart I found out that German, Scandinavian and Russian names for the Male Lover is a buzzkill. Mgh, maybe not call your man Hans or Arseniy, but I don't think Wattpad gives a hoot if you spell your ruthless Mafia Boss' name Alejandro or Alexandr.

Men-to-love, says Lieske shouldn't be employed as sculptors, librarians, scientists and similar nerdy/artsy fields.

I think this observation of hers is market-specific, because Wattpad, for example, has very few of Lieske's beloved firefighters and cowboys. Undetermined nerds, though, are up there with CEOs, doctors, lawyers, Mafia bosses and car racers that everyone agrees on.

Okay, next.

I was pleasantly surprised that Lieske actually deviated from every other book on romance in regards to Meet-cute.

While Wattpad prefers meet-cute as a start of romance stories, I feel that I am siding with Lieske. I understand that the HEA and HFN have a purpose, and we just never tire of them.

Yet, meet-cutes multiplied millions of romances released each year are becoming repetitive. There are only so many ways the couple can run into each other and spill their coffees.

If your story's first chapter has immediacy and makes us love one of the lovers and want them to find their romantic happiness...Lieske thinks--and I agree--you are successful. We'll stick around to find out who that might be.

In terms of romance structure, Lieske doesn't lay out a pattern in the slightly bossy way that the Romancing the Beat does, but she does rehash some common plot beats you will find everywhere.

What she emphasizes structurally and apart from everything I had seen so far are:

Holding back 'I love you' scenes where both characters profess their love to the end, to roast the reader and make it the main pay off. Try it, I say. See if it works. She doesn't mind each character monologuing or confessing to a third party, so long as the lover two is not privy to it.

Using sex or alternative forms of physical intimacy versus emotional build up as a tension generator in a romance. Romance reads flat if it develops in an unperturbed, linear fashion, says Lieske. Basically, yes, yes, it does. So, Lieske suggests building romantic conflict on physical desire versus emotional openness about love. To be honest, I feel that like with all things, when done well, it's huge fun. When not, your characters risk to appear coy and make the readers roll their eyes (of course, she doesn't want love in her life, right...wink, wink, nudge, nudge). Sincerity of delivery and concept is everything.

In conclusion, guys, sex sells and peeps love reading and writing about love. So...write romance one of these days, and who knows? Your book might hit a cord, whether to go by the rules or throw them out of the window. Because one thing never changes: people love reading about love.