Billy Mernit IS the expert in the genre, J should definately pay his blogspot a visit, and be prepared to spend some time there...

BUT since Scott threw a couple of questions out there, in the absense of the forementioned Mr. Mernit, here's what this fan and occasional writer in the genre has to say:

1) The best place for sependpity in a rom-com is the events that lead to the main couple's "cute meet." People gotta meet somehow. Chance meetings that lead to romantic magic -- who's against that?! The later in a rom-com's story progression that sependipous events are used to resolve questions that arise, the more the audiece detaches or sours in the emotional investment in the story.

2) The outling state is the best place to come up with solutions to avoid sependipity to resolve key plot points.

I think sependepidous descions by rom-com writers are a result of not digging deep enough into their draft, or writing on the fly. Billy Mernit has a GREAT way of avoiding excess serpendipty in a romantic comdy. It comes via "structuring conflict;" untiliziing and effectivly plotting one's story based on the 7basic romantic comedy beats (pages 107 - 124 of his "Writing the Romantic Comedy book).

Hope this helps J.

- E.C. Henry from Bonney Lake, WA

I would think that there IS more room for serendipity in rom-coms, but there's no hard and fast rule. I find that I am more accepting of serendipity if I'm emotionally connected with the characters.

But I love what you said Scott about the 'one coincidence' rule. It reminds me of a brilliant line in "George of the Jungle" (the movie with Brendan Fraser) where at some point the omniscient narrator says "Every story is allowed one big coincidence and here's ours:..." Then we see Ursula's mother 'accidentally' run into George as he's scampering through the city. I love how the writer was just so blatant about it. Of course you can get away with that in a 'meta-aware' comedy like "George of the Jungle".

J, I am German, so please excuse any incorrect English -- there's an easy way out of most serendipity moments by simply planting them earlier in the script. Let's say you want your characters to meet "by coincidence", let one of them have something to do at that certain location at that certain time, and write that in (preferably not only as dialogue, but as a visual reference) 10 pages earlier. Second, my experience is, that after the first draft I allow myself - most of the time - just to follow my characters instead of leading them into situations, because by draft 2 I understand them far better. Somehow, I can't explain why, this creates a lot of possibility for serendipity, and perhaps this is what you've already found -- so you're probably safe, all best, Armin from Berlin

Serendipity occurs when enough clues came before this moment to allow the "possibility" (though not the probability) of the audience foreseeing this event. They see it and say, "Oh, yeah, I should have seen that coming." (e.g., two people are seen walking down city streets in opposite directions; that they run into each other at a corner is foreseeable (odds be damned...).)
Coincidence occurs when the event could not have been predicted. You get a "coincidence freebie" because we all love a good story and because ordinary life is so dull, we know subconsciously that a wacky coincidence is needed to set off an interesting moment. But a second coincidence tells the viewer that this is a story about wackiness, not a story about the real world. (Remember, once is an occurrence, twice a coincidence, three times a pattern.)