New trend in romances

[Yarglenurp]

It's shallow. Look at fantasy stories with wizards and elves and such. These stories have no such rigid template. The starting canvas is wide and largely blank. These stories are also largely escapism, proving that escapism can indeed be deep and imaginative.

I can't think of any genre nearly so rigid, narrow and predictable as paperback romance.

My guess is that the people who write those romance novels often make a career of it and want/need to pay the bills. Even if they start out with higher goals, the nature of the industry will force them to churn, unless score mega-hit. This means that, like it or not, they need to measure their work in dollars per hours worked, on some level… can’t be spending 40 hours to write a book that will only make $400. Their audience is a dedicated “consumer” of stories.

The (non-high-school-level) people writing fantasy or sci-fi, at least when starting out, probably aren’t in a “this must pay my bills” state of mind, since they already know how unlikely their success rate it. Thus, they can focus on whatever unique spin they want to put on things. Their audience will be those who get truly engrossed in the world that they build, which will generally be a far smaller audience, unless your last name is Sanderson or R. R. Martin.

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.

 

[MillieDynamite]

In the old days, like between 1930 and 1990, publishers didn't publish more than one book by an author a year. The more prolific writers were forced to use multiple pennames (pen names), in order to get those extra books published. These days, some writers churn out eight to ten works a year. That's not saying any specific books are good or bad or that they read as if they churned them out. I'm sure some do, and some don't read like they have hacked out the words rather than thought them through.

If readers like what you write, they want more.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

There is no greater irony than passive-aggression.

You have a long history on this forum of friction and fronts for the sake of it. I suppose that I could just not answer you (as I usually do) but this time I want everyone to see your bullshit called out as it is happening.

Here's some aggressive-aggression. In your face. Fuck off pick a fight with someone else.

If you don't want people to point out the silliness of your posts, perhaps don't post silly things.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

It's shallow. Look at fantasy stories with wizards and elves and such. These stories have no such rigid template. The starting canvas is wide and largely blank. These stories are also largely escapism, proving that escapism can indeed be deep and imaginative.

I can't think of any genre nearly so rigid, narrow and predictable as paperback romance.

Because there are no tired cliches in fantasy stories... no tropes... none of that... nobody is writing parodies of the genre because it's all so wide open.

News flash, wizards and elves in a fantasy story are every bit the cliche that billionaires are in romance novels, probably more so.

 

[HordHolm]

In the old days, like between 1930 and 1990, publishers didn't publish more than one book by an author a year. The more prolific writers were forced to use multiple pennames (pen names), in order to get those extra books published. These days, some writers churn out eight to ten works a year. That's not saying any specific books are good or bad or that they read as if they churned them out. I'm sure some do, and some don't read like they have hacked out the words rather than thought them through.

If readers like what you write, they want more.

Back in the 70s/80s I had an aunt who was an editor for a UK publisher called Mills & Boon, who were the leading publishers of romance - the kind of books with the cliche covers of a guy in a pirate shirt looking roguish with a distressed damsel curled around his lower legs. Whenever I visited her flat as a child there would be piles of manuscripts collecting dust on every flat surface, and she always used to say two things about those manuscripts - the grammar was shockingly bad, and the stories never, ever varied from the same structure: girl meets man 1, rejects him due to misunderstanding, meets man 2 who appears perfect on a superficial level, is dramatically betrayed by man 2, is then rescued by man 1, the scales fall from her eyes, happy ever after. Rinse and repeat. And yes, the author's names didn't matter because they were all nom de plumes, so not even my aunt could really tell who was who, and she was up to her armpits in their prose.

 

[Yarglenurp]

Back to the main topic, I think the allure of billionaires have gotten less shiny because it’s becoming more clear that billionaires are just extremely lucky people, and many of them have some serious personality flaws that border on pathological. Admittedly, some of them have worked hard, but no harder than a ton of other people who have worked just as hard but not gotten billions. Others are just ludicrously lucky, and this luck does not insulate them from aforementioned personality flaws.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Often, extremely wealthy/successful people are sociopaths or psychopaths. They were able to be successful or get rich because it didn't matter who they hurt to do so. I don't think that would make them a good prospect for a long-term relationship. It's the same for the narcissist; they aren't filled with the stuff that makes for a good husband or wife.

 

[SimonDoom]

Is it shallow or just escapism?

I think it can be one or the other, or both, or neither. Romance is a broad and flexible genre. It's true that within standard genre-fiction romance certain themes are pounded away at over and over again, but it doesn't have to be that way. I wouldn't call either Pride and Prejudice or Jane Eyre shallow or escapist. Both deal in interesting ways with the social conflicts of their times.

In Gone with the Wind the romance is between characters who are meant for each other not because of their goodness but because they're selfish rascals. It inverts the normal expectations.

 

[SimonDoom]

Back to the main topic, I think the allure of billionaires have gotten less shiny because it’s becoming more clear that billionaires are just extremely lucky people, and many of them have some serious personality flaws that border on pathological. Admittedly, some of them have worked hard, but no harder than a ton of other people who have worked just as hard but not gotten billions. Others are just ludicrously lucky, and this luck does not insulate them from aforementioned personality flaws.

I've known a few people who have become billionaires or become extremely wealthy though not quite billionaires, and I wouldn't describe them this way. There is an element of luck, but none of the people I know who got there did so without intelligence, very hard work, personal discipline, vision and creativity, and the willingness to take on a lot of risk. The pool of people who meet these criteria is very small. The people I'm thinking of would all qualify in the top 2 % of the population in intelligence, in addition to having those other qualities.

They tend to be egotistical, but not pathologically so. They are by and large well functioning people.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I know you weren't talking to me, but I'm still defending what I said, "Often, extremely wealthy/successful people are sociopaths or psychopaths." But on what @Yarglenurp said, I seriously doubt luck plays a role in success or wealth as a general principle. The few people I know who are what I consider wealthy worked hard for their money. They invested wisely. And all of them were very smart people.

I've known a few people who have become billionaires or become extremely wealthy though not quite billionaires, and I wouldn't describe them this way. There is an element of luck, but none of the people I know who got there did so without intelligence, very hard work, personal discipline, vision and creativity, and the willingness to take on a lot of risk. The pool of people who meet these criteria is very small. The people I'm thinking of would all qualify in the top 2 % of the population in intelligence, in addition to having those other qualities.

They tend to be egotistical, but not pathologically so. They are by and large well functioning people.

 

[Yarglenurp]

I've known a few people who have become billionaires or become extremely wealthy though not quite billionaires, and I wouldn't describe them this way. There is an element of luck, but none of the people I know who got there did so without intelligence, very hard work, personal discipline, vision and creativity, and the willingness to take on a lot of risk. The pool of people who meet these criteria is very small. The people I'm thinking of would all qualify in the top 2 % of the population in intelligence, in addition to having those other qualities.

They tend to be egotistical, but not pathologically so. They are by and large well functioning people.

I mean… ok. I know a lot of smart people. A few are very rich. Most aren’t super-rich. They each threw their dice in the game of life, and some have come out far ahead, others are comfortable, and a few just got shafted when their much-valued startup went belly-up.

It’s bizarre to me that people think that being a billionaire is some great earned reward. It stinks of the “just world” hypothesis. The nature of capitalism means that a few must win big and most don’t. Almost everyone who play the game worked hard at some point, and few of them got the big prize. But the guy who didn’t join the right company or meet the right investor wasn’t less deserving, he was just less lucky.

Seems like you want to compare a billionaire to an insane hobo shooting up heroin in an alley… but that’s never been the real comparison. That’s the comparison the billionaires want you to make, because then you’re not paying attention to the fact that there’s a whole army of guys who are just as smart, work just as hard, but can’t seem to afford the best medical care for their families or take extended sabbaticals to Bahrain.

End of the day, it’s just systems engineering. You can say they “deserve” to be rich, but that’s just a natural effect of an economic system. If I threw a coin-flipping competition, would you say that the winner deserved to win? Sure. But the nature of the free market means that there must be a winner, and the guy who was luckiest was the guy who deserved to be there.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I wouldn't call either Pride and Prejudice or Jane Eyre shallow or escapist. Both deal in interesting ways with the social conflicts of their times.

But is P & P truly a romance or is it just a novel with romantic elements? Also, it was written long before the standard template that we see today was formed. If one were to write such a plot today, one would have to write it as a story that transcends romance, is bigger than romance alone, in order to get published as a dramatic novel in itself which is far far far harder to do than submitting to Mills and Boon for a quick paycheck.

Both of the stories that you quote as examples have far more going on within their pages than boy meets girl, overcome external conflict, find their HEA, and as such would not be marketed (if new today) in the romance section, but rather in the novels section. Why? Because they would not sell in the romance section.

A few months back there was a member of this forum who adamantly and angrily argued how horribly wrong I was to suggest that a non-HEA stroy could even be submitted to lit's romance category, since despite the fact that it's focus was heavily on a romantic relationship, apparently it was absolutely not a romance. That's how rigid the readership can be, and that is what defines romance for the industry. Now we can argue over the definition and personally mine or your definition may be quite loose, but the industries definition isn't going to fuck with the expectations of the romance reader who keeps handing them the same money over and over and over for the same story with the names, places, dates and hair colors changed. They will keep it down the straight and narrow and they have more than enough submissions at their disposal to instantly toss any manuscript that strays from the rigid points of the template into the trash bin and lighten their load.

 

[alohadave]

But on what @Yarglenurp said, I seriously doubt luck plays a role in success or wealth as a general principle.

If you ask them, they'd say so. What they either ignore or are blind to is that they likely had advantages that others don't, like connections from rich family.

 

[MillieDynamite]

My point is precisely, luck isn't something that happens in a vacuum. It's created in some way. Knowing what to invest in, what to avoid wasting time on, and when to act are all elements of the big picture. What someone calls luck might be more the accident of birth. Who knows whom, what one person is willing to do, and who they screw (figuratively or literally) has more to do with it than random uncontrolled events.

Winning the lottery is luck.

If you ask them, they'd say so. What they either ignore or are blind to is that they likely had advantages that others don't, like connections from rich family.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

My point is precisely, luck isn't something that happens in a vacuum. It's created in some way. Knowing what to invest in, what to avoid wasting time on, and when to act are all elements of the big picture. What someone calls luck might be more the accident of birth. Who knows whom, what one person is willing to do, and who they screw (figuratively or literally) has more to do with it than random uncontrolled events.

Winning the lottery is luck.

I've heard it best defined as 'that moment when preparation meets opportunity.' Sometimes preparation is environmental. Most of the time it's hidden right behind hard work.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

One can argue all he wants about old money vs new money but there is more than enough new money billionaires in this world to prove that those who dedicate their lives to making money get better at making money, and while luck is certainly a factor, it will not stop someone dedicated on making money from making money.

It's like poker. There is a lot of luck involved, but the more hands that are played, better players win more ... often a lot more. In the financial world, people who are good at making money get richer, period. And in business and finance, luck is a lot less of a factor than in poker.

Now that that is to rest, how does it figure into romance novels? Continue.

 

[Yarglenurp]

My point is precisely, luck isn't something that happens in a vacuum. It's created in some way. Knowing what to invest in, what to avoid wasting time on, and when to act are all elements of the big picture. What someone calls luck might be more the accident of birth. Who knows whom, what one person is willing to do, and who they screw (figuratively or literally) has more to do with it than random uncontrolled events.

Winning the lottery is luck.

Those factors are what most people would call “luck.” You’re basically grouping everything other than what is objectively an attempt at distributed fairness (a lottery system) as something other than luck.

By your definition, luck has almost no real applicability to anyone, since artificially-created systems of chance are not applicable outside of lotteries or casinos.

 

[alohadave]

My point is precisely, luck isn't something that happens in a vacuum. It's created in some way. Knowing what to invest in, what to avoid wasting time on, and when to act are all elements of the big picture. What someone calls luck might be more the accident of birth. Who knows whom, what one person is willing to do, and who they screw (figuratively or literally) has more to do with it than random uncontrolled events.

Winning the lottery is luck.

We are in agreement.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I am using the defination of luck.
Luck 2 of 2, verb lucked; lucking; lucks intransitive verb 1: to prosper or succeed, especially through chance or good fortune —usually used without planning. For example, the hero lucks out and escaped.
2: to come upon something desirable by chance —usually used without, on, onto, or into. For example, lucked into a wonderful opportunity.

Their wealth is totally unmerited or unearned, and they did not put effort into obtaining it.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

One can argue all he wants about old money vs new money but there is more than enough new money billionaires in this world to prove that those who dedicate their lives to making money get better at making money, and while luck is certainly a factor, it will not stop someone dedicated on making money from making money.

It's like poker. There is a lot of luck involved, but the more hands that are played, better players win more ... often a lot more. In the financial world, people who are good at making money get richer, period. And in business and finance, luck is a lot less of a factor than in poker.

Now that that is to rest, how does it figure into romance novels? Continue.

There's this thing called the Pareto Principle that says, over time, 80 percent of the resources will be accumulated by 20% of the people.

The Pareto Principle suggests that in many systems, a small fraction of participants tend to accumulate the majority of resources, wealth, or outcomes. This phenomenon arises due to several factors:

1. Feedback Loops: Those who gain more resources can often use those resources to acquire even more. For example, if a person or organization has capital, they can invest it to generate further wealth.
2. Skills and Efficiency Variations: Individuals or groups may have different levels of skill, knowledge, or efficiency, leading some to outperform others over time, accumulating more resources.
3. Randomness and Opportunity: Even in systems that are initially equal, randomness and chance can lead to uneven distributions, which, once established, tend to become more extreme over time as early advantages compound.

These dynamics often lead to a disproportionate accumulation of resources by a small portion of the population, even in cases where resources are initially distributed equally.

 

[MillieDynamite]

As much as we say all people are created equal, that isn't true. By virtue of birth, some are more equal than others. Some have more ability than others. Some people are smarter than others. And some people have an easier time identifying what is or isn't useful. You might say they had good fortune, but that isn't the same thing as luck.

Being fortunate is similar to luck but with a key difference. Good fortune adds a level of control to random chance. What is this? Being fortunate means you created your own luck.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

If you ask them, they'd say so. What they either ignore or are blind to is that they likely had advantages that others don't, like connections from rich family.

You can argue "connections from a rich family" but that ignores all the kids from rich families that fail.

One of the big differentiators is a willingness to take risks.
People don't become billionaires working for someone else. They have to take risks, start their own business knowing that a very high percentage of those businesses fail.
One of the reasons that America produces so many of the ultra wealthy is because we have both a culture that is very forgiving of bankruptcy and laws that don't make it punitive. But you still have to be willing to risk being bankrupt if you ever want to be truly wealthy.
There are millions of smart hardworking people out there that aren't willing to go all in and risk that.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

As much as we say all people are created equal, that isn't true. By virtue of birth, some are more equal than others. Some have more ability than others. Some people are smarter than others. And some people have an easier time identifying what is or isn't useful. You might say they had good fortune, but that isn't the same thing as luck.

Being fortunate is similar to luck but with a key difference. Good fortune adds a level of control to random chance. What is this? Being fortunate means you created your own luck.

Read Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell.

 

[Yarglenurp]

There's this thing called the Pareto Principle that says, over time, 80 percent of the resources will be accumulated by 20% of the people.

The Pareto Principle suggests that in many systems, a small fraction of participants tend to accumulate the majority of resources, wealth, or outcomes. This phenomenon arises due to several factors:

1. Feedback Loops: Those who gain more resources can often use those resources to acquire even more. For example, if a person or organization has capital, they can invest it to generate further wealth.
2. Skills and Efficiency Variations: Individuals or groups may have different levels of skill, knowledge, or efficiency, leading some to outperform others over time, accumulating more resources.
3. Randomness and Opportunity: Even in systems that are initially equal, randomness and chance can lead to uneven distributions, which, once established, tend to become more extreme over time as early advantages compound.

These dynamics often lead to a disproportionate accumulation of resources by a small portion of the population, even in cases where resources are initially distributed equally.

Finally, someone who has at least studied basic economics instead of constantly trying to find moral justifications for hyperwealth.

This effect gets magnified in real, modern systems because of economies of scale. The guy who happens to winning now is just going to keep winning, even if he performs sub-optimally on an individual basis, since he’s basically operating with a massive efficiency gain from the get-go.

People seem to act like it’s normal for the top 1% of society to get wealthier while everyone else has gotten stagnant. It’s bizarre as hell to me that anyone would pretend like they “deserve” it, because the equally valid conclusion is that everyone else doesn’t deserve it.

It’s like, they want to believe in a just world, but only for rich people. When I point out that the opposite must hold true, that the impoverished must thus deserve their poverty, there’s a tide of hemming and hawing. Because it’s suddenly harder to accept that the retired teacher struggling to get by as a Walmart greeter and the starving boy whose only healthy meal is a school lunch are deserving of their misery.

That’s silly. There is no just world, it’s just an amoral, indifferent universe and the equally amoral, indifferent systems our species has chosen for itself. Genocide was once acceptable, until it wasn’t. Slavery was once acceptable, until it wasn’t. Treating women as chattel was once acceptable, until it wasn’t. Why would we think our current system will remain forever acceptable?

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Finally, someone who has at least studied basic economics instead of constantly trying to find moral justifications for hyperwealth.

This effect gets magnified in real, modern systems because of economies of scale. The guy who happens to winning now is just going to keep winning, even if he performs sub-optimally on an individual basis, since he’s basically operating with a massive efficiency gain from the get-go.

People seem to act like it’s normal for the top 1% of society to get wealthier while everyone else has gotten stagnant. It’s bizarre as hell to me that anyone would pretend like they “deserve” it, because the equally valid conclusion is that everyone else doesn’t deserve it.

It’s like, they want to believe in a just world, but only for rich people. When I point out that the opposite must hold true, that the impoverished must thus deserve their poverty, there’s a tide of hemming and hawing. Because it’s suddenly harder to accept that the retired teacher struggling to get by as a Walmart greeter and the starving boy whose only healthy meal is a school lunch are deserving of their misery.

That’s silly. There is no just world, it’s just an amoral, indifferent universe and the equally amoral, indifferent systems our species has chosen for itself. Genocide was once acceptable, until it wasn’t. Slavery was once acceptable, until it wasn’t. Treating women as chattel was once acceptable, until it wasn’t. Why would we think our current system will remain forever acceptable?

The saddest part of the system is the number of people that believe the system is a zero sum game and that taking things from the more successful and giving it to those less so, is somehow going to change the condition the Pareto Principal describes. There are too many examples(Oprah Winfrey comes to mind) of people working up from nothing to amazing success to believe this, yet so many people continue to do so.

How does this relate to trends in romance?