New trend in romances

[MillieDynamite]

Having lived on the streets when I was young, I know there are, will always be, and have always been, starving children in the world and America. Even if there is a certainty to that reality, it doesn't mean we can't fight against and rail against the system that has produced it. However, back on the subject, I don't think one should want to trap a rich man or woman for a spouse or SO. There is just too great a possibility they'll be way too self-centered to be happy with them.

If that reality is shown in Romance, and the woman or man might find happiness in the arms of a more normal person, forsaking money for happiness, I'd read that one.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

My guess is that the people who write those romance novels often make a career of it and want/need to pay the bills.

Exactly.

Honestly, you do see the same problem if a fantasy series gets serially successful… at some point, they’ll start to feel churned out as well.

I disagree. Certainly there will always be copycats with any major success, regardless of genre, but fantasy is hardly handcuffed into such a narrow niche as paperback romance. The difference is that while there may be many GoT copycats (for instance) many and any fantasy manuscripts entirely unlike GoT will still get a fair shake from publishers, whereas if one tries to pitch a romance containing infidelity of the main characters or a bad end, the industry gives a hard no. No in house editor will even waste his time to read it.

 

[Areala-chan]

I disagree. Certainly there will always be copycats with any major success, regardless of genre, but fantasy is hardly handcuffed into such a narrow niche as paperback romance. The difference is that while there may be many GoT copycats (for instance) many and any fantasy manuscripts entirely unlike GoT will still get a fair shake from publishers, whereas if one tries to pitch a romance containing infidelity of the main characters or a bad end, the industry gives a hard no. No in house editor will even waste his time to read it.

No in-house editor was wasting time reading Teen fantasy novels with vampiric protagonists until Twilight came along and blew the doors open.

No in-house editor was wasting time reading romance stories with BDSM elements until Fifty Shades of Grey came along and blew the doors open.

No in-house editor was wasting time reading true crime accounts until In Cold Blood came along and blew the doors open.

No in-house editor was wasting time reading time travel romantic fantasy stories until Outlander came along and blew the doors open.

All it takes is one right-place, right-time writer and plot combination and what everyone was positive would never happen is now suddenly its own sub-genre and readers can't remember a time when you couldn't go into your local bookstore or your eReader of choice and pick from dozens and dozens of options all tailored towards that particular interest.

I've spent the last twenty-five years of my life working in bookstores, and it never fails to surprise me when some trend catches fire and suddenly we have people reading again who hadn't picked up a book since they finished high school, because somebody out there wrote the kidnapped-by-a-rival-Latino-gang-boss erotica they never knew they wanted until they found it. Never say never, is all I'm saying.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

No in-house editor was wasting time reading Teen fantasy novels with vampiric protagonists until Twilight came along and blew the doors open.

No in-house editor was wasting time reading romance stories with BDSM elements until Fifty Shades of Grey came along and blew the doors open.

No in-house editor was wasting time reading true crime accounts until In Cold Blood came along and blew the doors open.

No in-house editor was wasting time reading time travel romantic fantasy stories until Outlander came along and blew the doors open.

Exactly my point. None of those were romances with the slight exception of 50 shades which was barely a romance and was marketed as a BDSM story, not a romance. None of those titles had to fit into a narrow definition of their genres like pulp romance does. None of those titles were Harlequin or Mills & Boon, nor any of the myriad of romance e-bubs, the vast majority of which will not touch your story if it does not adhere strictly to the template, therefore, their in-house editors had plenty of time for them.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Exactly my point. None of those were romances with the slight exception of 50 shades which was barely a romance and was marketed as a BDSM story, not a romance. None of those titles had to fit into a narrow definition of their genres like pulp romance does. None of those titles were Harlequin or Mills & Boon, nor any of the myriad of romance e-bubs, the vast majority of which will not touch your story if it does not adhere strictly to the template, therefore, their in-house editors had plenty of time for them.

No True Scotsman...

 

[Areala-chan]

None of those were romances with the slight exception of 50 shades which was barely a romance and was marketed as a BDSM story, not a romance.

I'm sorry, but Twilight, Fifty Shades, and Outlander were absolutely marketed as mainstream romance novels. Like, explicitly so: Twilight as paranormal romance aimed at a teenage audience, Fifty Shades as more sexually explicit and daring romance for an audience who "didn't usually read that sort of thing" (or 'mommy porn' as it came to be known for a brief period of time), and Outlander as time travel romance aimed at an adult audience. They didn't fit narrow definitions of their genres because they were responsible for creating new ones. I'd be happy to give you examples of "pulp" romance publishers like Harlequin putting out time travel romances, gothics, paranormal, and even horror-adjacent books under their line. They may be the exception as opposed to the rule, but I assure you, they exist. I've read a fuck-ton of them and shelved more beyond.

To claim these books aren't romances simply because they weren't published by a pulp house is like claiming Carrie isn't actually a horror novel because it was published by Doubleday as opposed to Zebra or Leisure. But all this is missing the point: trends in any publishing genre tend not to exist until they do, and once they arrive, they may wax and wane over time, but the genie never winds up fully back in the bottle.

 

[Bramblethorn]

You see this is the issue. Both characters must be saints to satisfy the template which is determined by the reader demographic. The romance reader in general does not want an original story. They just want fantasy world where everything is right, justice prevails exactly as they feel that it should. They want the template. Romance is about justice. In the romance template, in order to receive full justice, a (good) character must be fully good. Our heroes must not have flaws and any strife in their lives absolutely must be of external sources, never of their own doing. That way the characters are fully deserving of the perfect absolute justice of the HEA that they are obviously heading for. The characters must be fully respectable in every way.

I can't say my romance reading is huge, but it's not none, and of recently-published romances that I've read, not many fit this stereotype.

Yes, the lovers have to be sympathetic enough that readers can cheer for them; no, that doesn't mean they have to be flawless. Very often the major struggle in the book is not against external forces but the protagonists working through their own bullshit (and maybe helping one another with that) so they're ready to have a healthy relationship.

 

[Bramblethorn]

To claim these books aren't romances simply because they weren't published by a pulp house is like claiming Carrie isn't actually a horror novel because it was published by Doubleday as opposed to Zebra or Leisure.

Also, self-pub is huge in romance these days, and a big reason for that is writers wanting more creative freedom than they might get with publishers like Harlequin.

I think we're getting into "no true Scotsman" territory here: if the only books we accept as "romance" are the ones that fit the stereotype, then sure, all "romance" fits the stereotype, but that's not a very informative line of discussion.

 

[summer_reine]

I haven't read the books aside from brief synopsis but how would a court of thrones and roses fit into the discussion? I'm on booktok and damn there are some seriously dark erotic novels being written. They are however romantic novels and I would say they break the stereotypes and are very popular at the moment.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Well, if you go by the groups who are taking donations to feed the underprivileged in the USA, 1 in 5 children do not receive enough food on a daily basis. If you take the government figures, that number shrinks considerably. And the government doesn't say who does or doesn't go to bed hungry each night. They use the term food secure, which is an odd term.

View attachment 2380321

The "government figures" you're showing in that pie chart are referring to percentages of households, not of children. There's no inherent contradiction between "20% of children" and "13% of households".