[ SECRET POST #5397 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5397 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[MCU]


__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________











05. [SPOILERS for Midnight Mass]




__________________________________________________



06. [SPOILERS for Far Cry (series)]



__________________________________________________



07. [SPOILERS for Midnight Mass]













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #772.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Since when is the #1 criticism of romance novels that they're "limiting", "juvenile", and have "happy endings for women"? Isn't most people's first response more likely to be "aren't those pretty sexist?"

[(Anonymous)]

Old-school romance novels were very often and problematic. Newer romance novels are more likely to have healthy relationship dynamics and multifaceted characters as the leads.

[(Anonymous)]

A lot of em still suffer from low-quality writing tho simply because it's a genre that tends to demand fast production rather than careful production

+1

[(Anonymous)]

right?? I always thought they were bad because they were sexist, relied on outdated sexist (and heteronormative but eh whatever) tropes, and were fullfullment fantasies about people who want to be a trophy wife/sexbot for Manly McChesthair. which, sure, if you want that, that's on you, but when an entire subgenre industry is skewed around your fetish, that's a problem for everyone who wants something outside that fetish.

Re: +1

[(Anonymous)]

this comment is so funny because you just ran into the opposite direction of the exact same point op was making.

like, if you're dismissing romance novels as not providing anything that is not sexist and wish-fulfillment for people with 1 specific fetish, that sounds to me like you've barely ever tried reading any... perhaps either you read 1 bad book and swore off romance forever, or you're trying to reach for an excuse...

Re: +1

[(Anonymous)]

...What you're describing hasn't been popular since 1980. Some of the biggest names in Contemporary Romance right now are WOC writing diverse stories which happen to be romance. I read a lot of contemporary romance and almost every single one has been either woc/moc or woc/

Flat, virginal, weepy heroines and chesty mcchesthair also hasn't been in vogue since the eighties. I mean since the early 2000s the in was relatable, slightly neurotic, chubby heroines who end up being capable once they get over their anxiety. The current trend is far more towards Strong, Capale, often woman of color who finds love, but that might not be her main goal. Maybe it was a side route.

OP

[(Anonymous)]

Even though I don't like romance novels, I follow lots of people who do (that's how I found the tumblr post in the secret!) and the genre still being overwhelmingly white in modern times is actually one of the biggest issues even the fans talk about. So you're a right that much of what AYRT is talking about is outdated, but don't defend romance novels by pretending one of their biggest problems is one of their biggest assets.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

But you’re talking to someone who’s admitted they read a lot of Contemporary romance novels, and you’re still trying to tell them you know as much or more than they do just because you follow people who read them? Even though you admit you don’t like them? I know that’s not literally what you’re saying, but I could have easily said you were definitively implying it with how much anons upthread are playing fast and loose with the word “implied”.

But you are at least asserting that you know enough by osmosis of the people you follow to know what the problems with the genre still are. Even though AYRT didn’t say there wasn’t still problems. They just countered someone using outdated stereotypes of romance novels to make broad generalizations.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm just puzzled at where it's coming from in the first place. Like someone mentioning they like romance novels wouldn't draw this kind of criticism, unless they were saying that's all or most of what they read. No one blinks an eye if someone mentions they like crappy reality tv, but if they tell people it's all they ever watch then yeah some people will be like "seriously?" lol

I feel like we're missing some context here unless there are roving bands of people bashing on anyone that's ever enjoyed a romance novel

[(Anonymous)]

Eh, writers like Nicholas Sparks can be... exceedingly disdainful of genre romances.

The quoted comment is probably responding to someone like that.

[(Anonymous)]

Bold words from Nicholas Sparks.

[(Anonymous)]

I know.

[(Anonymous)]

Nah, someone mentioning they like romance novels would definitely draw the pretentious snots out of the woodwork. Hell, just sitting quietly reading a romance novel on your lunch break can draw the pretentious snots out of the woodwork, because romance novels are considered an acceptable genre to shit on, even though every genre in existence has its own vein of underbaked cookie-cutter pulp fiction.