I also just wanted to add, re: romance novel plots in general. They do tend to be predictable (because the genre dictates that there be a happy-ever-after kind of ending, and that the books be focused on relationship issues at least in part). I, in fact, read so many of them in part because I like that predictability. But I do find that there is an enormous difference between books focused primarily on relationship issues that get resolved in a sort of consistent way, and books focused primarily on relationship issues that only exist because of a contrived set of circumstances or get resolved in a way that is extremely contrived.
Using Nora Roberts as an example, I find that most of her characters' reluctance to trust each other (which is generally the source of the relationship conflict) is realistic enough to not jar me out of the plot. Basically, it ends up being people dealing with realistic, relatable issues because of past experiences or because of their personalities. They spend most of the book actively doing things that will allow them to resolve those issues, and when they fight about them, it's generally in a way that allows you to see both sides of the argument and maintain sympathy with both characters. When they resolve them, it's usually because of realistic, relatable series of events that genuinely address the struggles they were having. And sometimes, they don't resolve them in the sense that the issues go away completely, so much as resolve them to the point where both characters can live with them long-term.
I've read a lot of other romance novels that really, really do not do that. One author that comes to mind is Stephanie Laurens, since I've read a lot of her books. On some levels, I find them entertaining, but her characters aren't awesome, her plots are highly predictable, and a lot of the books have somewhat contrived conflicts. I can't read more than one or two at a time before I have to read other things, because they are just too much like each other. In her attempt to make Regency-era heroines relatable to modern readers, she also makes them highly unrealistic (as characters in general, and as people living in that time period). In trying to introduce conflict into the basic Regency-era plot, she puts up very unrealistic barriers to resolving the romantic relationships. For example, more than one book has featured characters who don't have any particular reason to object to marriage, but strenuously object to it anyway. Resolving that particular conflict requires that they be convinced, often with very intimate liaisons that are outright encouraged by people whose behavior would more realistically consist of doing everything in their power to prevent such liaisons. And, of course, once the conflict is resolved, it never shows up in any fashion ever again (you know this because she writes a lot of series where past main characters become secondary characters).