[ SECRET POST #4059 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4059 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 22 secrets from Secret Submission Post #581.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

05. https://i.imgur.com/jNzDT9r.png

[(Anonymous)]

The frustrating thing about talking about romance novels is that, for anyone criticism you can make about romance novels, 2 things will happen:

1) romance fans will tell you that you're totally wrong and there's tons of romance novels that are great and aren't like whatever you said

2) any romance novels they recommend will be completely like whatever you said

Anyway, fwiw, I agree with you, OP. I'd love to be into romance novels but they're just totally unappealing as actually written.

[(Anonymous)]

This is so true.

[(Anonymous)]

This applies to every genre.

[(Anonymous)]

I LOLed, and I have friends who are romance writers. It's sort of a hazard of the genre, really. A way to sort of get round it is to NOT go overboard on emphasizing what a special snowflake the heroine is. In other words, don't try so hard to sell her as an amazing paragon of femininity or something.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't like romance, either. The phoniness is really off-putting to me.

And that includes slash romance.

[(Anonymous)]

What a bizarre reason not to like romance.

The thing is, in real life there's no good explanation for why X falls for Y instead of Z when Y and Z are similar people. So what you generally set up as the premise of a romance is that Y is a different kind of person than X usually meets.

For example, if X is a lawyer and generally only meets lawyers, Y will be an artist. It doesn't mean that Y is the only artist in the entire world, it just means they're the only artist in X's world.

But anyway, you're not supposed to take them seriously.

The reason not to like romance is because the writing in most cases is absolutely SHIT.

[(Anonymous)]

What the OP describes sounds like it falls under the category of shit writing, though.

SA

[(Anonymous)]

OP is talking about the content. I'm talking about the craft of writing.

My favorite example of this divide is Divergent. I thought the writing was so smooth that I felt like I was inside the book.

At the same time, the content was terrible. It was one of the dumbest books I've ever read.

[(Anonymous)]

I don’t usually mind romance as part of a fantasy or historical novel or whatever, because often the suspense and tension of the plot doesn’t rely on “oh no I an have unfashionably enormous bosom and fiery red hair to go with my fiery temper, yet all the eligible bachelors want simpering blondes, whatever shall I do?” Or the other mainstay, “I overheard you saying something insulting/threatening/cruel about myself/my friend/my family, therefore I shall hate you until it’s revealed to be a ridiculous misunderstanding/you crawl through mud on your hands and knees to apologize/you rescue me/my sister from a notorious rake.” Stupid misunderstanding-based conflict drives me nuts in general.

[meredith44]

Stupid misunderstanding-based conflict drives me nuts in general
That is so me. I hate that crappie in books or on television shows. There are so many ways to make conflict. There is no reason to constantly use that.

[(Anonymous)]

I don’t usually mind romance as part of a fantasy or historical novel or whatever

I think this secret was about romance novels as a genre, not about romantic storylines in other genres.

[nightscale]

I actually really enjoy romance in a story, but I can't read or watch anything that has it be the main focal point, for whatever reason that just bores me completely(slash, femslash, het, doesn't matter).

But give me a romance as a side plot with a main plot that's about fighting monsters/superheroes/magic and I am fucking there.

I just take it as one of those personal preference things though and I don't resent or disparage romance novels/media, it's not my thing but if other people like them then all the more power to them. There's clearly something about the formula that appeals after all, it just doesn't happen to grab me.

I always thought that was part of the appeal.

[(Anonymous)]

That there was a girl that really wasn't that special, but saw herself as unique (because, really everybody is) and someone else thought that she really was something special.

Re: I always thought that was part of the appeal.

[(Anonymous)]

The problem is that you also have to believe and like the character in question as a reader. And when it feels like it's just paint-by-numbers, that's hard to do.

Re: I always thought that was part of the appeal.

[(Anonymous)]

Mmm, I don't know. Because I don't think the issue at hand is that "the heroine sees herself as unique"... like technically that might be true because as you said, everyone is. But that's not generally how it's approached in a romance novel. The problem OP is addressing is when the heroine purports to see herself as uniquely flawed to the point of being unloveable/unmarriageable and the reasoning is [insert a bunch of silly traits that aren't really flaws]. So yeah, you have an insanely beautiful heroine going, "Oh noes, nobody will ever want me because I have enormous breasts and a tiny waist and I'm so petite!" or "Sure I have the body of a goddess and a huge dowry but I also have red hair and read a lot of books!"

That's what strikes readers as being ridiculously fake. #romanceheroineproblems

[(Anonymous)]

What I find interesting about romance novels is that, inside the skeleton of the people getting together, you can find anything from idtastic smut with a faint whiff of plot between sex scenes, to, well, you *know* the author has read a lot about the practicalities and ethics of land enclosure in the 18th century, because she's going to tell you aaaaaaaall about it. For one example.

There's a flexibility that comes with pushing a known quantity. Kinda like fanfic, come to think of it.

[tabaqui]

First - that image is *gorgeous*. The model reminds me of January Jones. I love that vibrant red!

Okay - i despise 99.9 percent of romances, and totally agree with you - there's just no way what you're describing is remotely believable or interesting.

The only ones I've ever liked are 'Princess Daisy', by Judith Krantz, and 'Ghost Fox'. In PD, she makes no bones about the main character being absolutely beautiful and with a rather unique past, but you don't want to strangle her with her shiny, golden tresses five pages in, either.
T
he main similarity between both books is that there's a lot of history and the 'romance' aspect is second or third as far as plots/arcs go.

[(Anonymous)]

I usually don't read romances, but I read Princess Daisy. I'll never forget how Judith Krantz actually had her heroine fart in bed after sex and her boyfriend teasing her about it.

[(Anonymous)]

Romances can be so frustrating. On the one hand there have been amazing romances, and I actually do buy the argument that romance novels have been, in some ways, positive for women because they talked about all sorts of things, were aimed for women, often written by women, and were a mostly-acceptable way of a woman to feel in touch with her own desires (or just figure out what they might be).

OTOH, there's some godawful romances out there. In the days of a mostly Harlequin ruled landscape, romances were a packaged product, and whether it was unique or had amazing depth didn't matter very much. The publisher controlled the content, and if they said they wanted a cowboy baby romance within six weeks, the author had damned well better get it written. They were known quantity, often a bit drecky, and very corporately driven.

And of course there were different romance authors who managed to do things a bit different, creating more depth and compelling characters, and finding an audience despite all the perils of working in the industry and a one-flop-and-you're-done mindset from publishers.

Nowadays there is indie romance and a lot more variety. But damn, there's some awful shit out there now too. And some of it involves literal scamming (so-called authors manipulating things behind the scenes so they can "get their letters" aka hit a bestselling list, without actually selling things people want to read). But there's also genuine things that some people read that are, to my mind, really stupid and awful. The billionaire trend can just die already. Those shitty billionaires with their BDSM dungeons can burn in hell already. Not to mention the fucking stepbrothers, the biker gangs, the piles and piles of shit that people continue to read.

It disgusts me. I can't stand het romance unless it's awesome, and I don't look anymore; it bores the fuck out of me. At the same time, I've gotten picker and picker about lgbt romance as well. So yeah.

But here's the thing about romance: romance readers love the genre, even when there are flaws. They manage to find authors they like (and there are good ones out there for a variety of tastes--things that don't fit the stereotypes at all, even if those authors are less well known).

Readers of romance love emotions, happy endings, and they are loyal to the genre because it's their escape, sometimes their "guilty pleasure." They're tired of being told that it's stupid to like things that girls like. They just go on reading, the bulk of readers, the book-a-day readers, who have learned that pretentious pieces of shit are always going to look down on them, and they don't have to let that control their lives. They're protective of "their" authors and share with one another when they find new, awesome books. And many of them have been burned by really shitty stuff in the past, but they keep on looking for books and authors to read and love, because they love it.

If you love watching TV shows, you don't give them up just because you've run across some shit. You keep looking for new ones (or go back to old faves) because you just like that stuff. Well, romance readers are the same.

It's interesting to think about, and I have many of the same feelings about romance that you do. The history and psychology of romance is fascinating. At the end of the day, romance readers are prolific. And many of them will forgive a lot if the author can make them care about their characters and give them a happy ending (and, sometimes, some satisfying sex scenes--depending on the type of romance). Prolific, not terribly respected genre, loyal and hungry readers...the have been abuses through the years, and still are. But readers keep on going, and writers keep on going, too.

I would say it's a place to cut your teeth as a writer, but I don't actually believe that. I no longer believe romance is particularly easier to write than other genres, because there are rules and audience expectations that need to be met, just like anywhere else. And to do it well takes work (and often being prolific as well as hitting the right notes). Anyway, I no longer think well-written het romance is easy to do, that's for sure! But a lot of people seem to think it's an easy way to make big bucks writing cliched dreck.

BTW, Love Between the Covers is a great documentary on romance authors and readers, on Netflix, I believe. Definitely recommended; I learned a lot and I thought I already had a handle on things in that world!

[feotakahari]

I used to say I could barely tell the difference between bad porn and bad slasher movies. Now I think there might be a valid comparison between slasher films and romance in general. Both genres realized they were ritually repeating the same id-tastic tropes, and both decided to double down instead of making smarter tropes. Also, they both have a lot of scenes that are supposed to be entertaining, but are really just gross and uncomfortable.

[thewakokid]

I don't love romance either, but fuck it, it's a fantasy. I'm not going to shit on the unrealistic nature of someone else's fantasy.

[(Anonymous)]

Honestly, the issue for me - and I think for OP as well - is that I would really like to get into romance as a genre, and this stuff makes it hard for me to do so. I don't have a problem with other people enjoying the unrealisticness, it just doesn't work at all for me.

[(Anonymous)]

Ah you mean you hate STRAIGHT romance. And apparently bad straight romance at that.

[(Anonymous)]

Is there another kind?