Agreed! I don't believe in love at first sight and whenever a book throws that in I just feel like sighing and throwing the book down...because how can I go on reading if their whole relationship isn't based on any sort of foundation but physical looks? It's truly annoying.

I like the characters to get to know each other before they decide they "love" each other, otherwise it feels superficial and shallow.

I am okay with LAFS in a book, PROVIDED that there is further development of the love. You can instantly like a person, but you need to go on and develop the relationship -- get to know each other, maybe have some disagreements, add substance. Otherwise I have a hard time buying it. Also, it helps if there's more mentioned than just looks at that first meeting.

It's interesting that I'm a tough sell, because the day my husband and I met, we talked for seven hours. He went home and told his mom he met the girl he was marrying and never looked back (we married two years later, and our seventh anniversary is next week). So, I can accept that it exists. But you have to write it very, very well.

I don't like LAFS in books because when you first see someone that's all your doing: seeing them. It seems like LAFS is usually based on the physical appearance of another person. Unless maybe the first time you saw the person they were saving a child from a burning building. But that would be more like admiration than love...

One of my favorite romantic plot devices in books is when the two characters dislike each other at first (we could call it hate at first sight) but after a while (and some entertaining arguments) they realize that they actually like each other. This doesn't always feel natural in a book, and it takes a good author to pull it off, but when they do, I love it.

Hmmm... that's a good question! I think it just depends. Physical attraction is an important part of any relationship, And generally speaking (especially for men) that's how a relationship will start out. I also agree, though, that "love at first sight" is generally more sexual than emotional.

However, I do think that two people who have that strong bond at "first sight" can develop an even stronger bond over time. My experience with love (because my 1.5 years of marriage obviously make me an EXPERT (yeah right)) is that as you go along, love because deeper. It becomes less about that "fizzle" that gets you dating at first, and turns into a deep love that's much stronger than any physical bond.

Uh, yeah. How's that for philosophical? And I'm not really sure what that has to do with books. Basically, I'll bite on the "love at first sight" thing if it's developed into a deeper relationship that's not just all about surface sexual attraction.

I usually find LAFS to be contrived, and it's not something I would use. I think, like Amity, that people can instantly like each other, but to get to love it takes a little more time.

While love at first sight is a stretch, strong interest at first sight is not. I agree that the relationship should develop over time though.

That said, my grandparents married two weeks after they met, and they had one of the strongest marriages I've ever seen. It can happen. I know the first time Ben smiled at me I was a goner, but it took me over a year to trust that feeling enough to marry him.

I agree with anonomous, I too like a good read where the characters begin as protagonists. It makes more sence then LAFS, as in order to begin to love from dislike there had to be a discovery of traits that are admired in each other. The characters too, are usually more like real people with hangups and issues.

If there is a LAFS in a book, it has to be done right....if it just seems like each falls for the other because of looks, well then that's just kind of shallow and it makes me not like either of them much.

But sometimes we are drawn to people in a way we can't quite explain......

Great topic!

Shelley