I think readers want predictability. When I reach for a romance, I'm in the mood for a happy ending.
I have read erotica that didn't have a HEA though. It didn't bother me because I didn't consider it a "romance".
What has frustrated me with my own writing is the idea that my male character has to be an Alpha who is perfect. I want to write about the growth of both characters and the male character can't grow without faults. In fact, almost all of my ideas for stories are about how the male grows in the story as much as how the woman grows.
I'm not sure that predictability is quite the right word, since that can be taken to mean that there is a problem with the way that romance readers want their fiction. Stability seems a better fit. Mind you, this could likely be viewed purely as semantics and the intent of your word choice could be entirely different than how I have interpreted it.
That said... With the variety that writers in the romance genre are given via locale, genres, etc. what would actually truly be left to define it without the presence of an HEA / HFN? I understand that the other core requirement of romance is that the growing relationship of a couple must play center stage. But is that relationship truly satisfying without the HEA? And far more important (since I'm sure an individual could attempt to make the argument that it can be--i.e. Nicholas Sparks love stories) is it satisfying to today's romance reader?
Within the current construct of the genre, I'd have to say no. And as predominantly a reader (as I have not yet published or been published) and book blogger, perhaps I can make an attempt to view this from the other side of the glass?
I can't speak for any other reader out there, but I can tell you that when I pick up a novel that I expect to be a romance (which I view as two people falling in love, complete with a happy ending) my expectations and my emotional investment in the book is extremely different than what I put forward when I am reading within any other genre. Romance is, overall, my favorite genre. There is a great sense of satisfaction in seeing two people meant to be together find each other, learn of each other, and ultimately find happiness together.
When one of these things does not happen in a novel, it faces consequences the author will likely never realize happened.
Problem #1: The premise to bring the characters doesn't interest me.
Result: I generally skip the book, since this is usually my draw.
Problem #2: The characters growth together moves beyond good story conflict / challenge and does something I deem "stupid".
I have a harder time believing what I'm reading / that these people need / want / deserve each other within this narrative. This can be redeemed at some point during a novel, but going too far in this direction can actually take me out of a story as I question the hero / heroine's sanity.
Problem #3: The book ultimately fails me because I *thought* I was reading a romance and it turns out I picked something else.
I have DNF'd (did not finish) books for this. I have given bad reviews o otherwise good books because of this. I have sworn off certain authors entirely for this. It's usually not something that I see in standard adult romance. YA is where watching one's step seems necessary. Do I want to start having to go to Chapters to check the ending of each book I buy even though I purchase on Kindle now? No! But between that and reviews, believe me I *will* do that. Because I do not enjoy a surprise ending for a couple that I have invested in emotionally. I don't view it as a clever ploy of great writing.
I only view it as something that really ticks me off. And again: in some cases it results in me deciding to never buy someone's work again.
If I go to expedia and book a flight to Orlando and a week at Disney, I'm not gonna be too thrilled if I end up in Las Vegas because that's 'a more suitable form of adult entertainment'. The reason that organizational systems in a retail structure like a book store exist is so that customers can find what they actually want to buy. No matter how badly you wanna be the next Shakespeare, your romantic tragedy is not gonna fly up the charts by having the "Romance" label slapped on it. Instead, you are likely going to get #DoNotBuy(AuthorName) or #DoNotBuy(BookTitle) tweets, linking to very angry Amazon and GoodReads reviews.
Now, this romance company who decided to start a line specifically for these type of books? I think that's genius! Because the whole point isn't ultimately the sanctity of the Romance genre as some holy grail, but rather the continuation of readers knowing what they are getting and in turn continuing to feel safe bonding with their books that concerns me.
I grew up enjoying Shakespeare (and predominantly his tragedies, at that!) and Greek Tragedies. I have absolutely no problem reading something where everything is gonna go to tell; essentially the literary equivalent of a car wreck someone just can't look away from. I understand and appreciate the importance and value of catharsis. But I want to have a choice about when and whether I indulge in that type of story.
The last thing on Earth we need is anything that results in choice being revoked from women. That shit is so last century. (And all others before it.) I commend men who have the courage to expand their horizons and read or write within this genre, but the stats I looked at claimed 91% of romance readers are ladies.
Moving along, I wanted to touch on another point in what I quoted (even though I know this is getting lengthy!) Male heroes, even (and often especially!!!) Alpha Male Heroes are not and should not be perfect. Do they tend to be handsome, successful and capable? Sure. But any of those things can be called into jeopardy (scarring, a personal or business crisis, health issues and / or recovery, etc.) and there are still a plethora of problems that these characters can have even if the three areas I listed above are not touched.
I'd actually go so far as to say that in today's society, being an absolutely pure Alpha Male could be considered a problem in and of itself within the romantic sphere. What woman is seriously going to put up with that?!
I'm not going to delve further into this here, as I do not want to derail the thread, but the idea that a male character is or must be perfect is problematic for two reasons:
(1) It's boring and strips the plot of interesting areas of potential growth and conflict.
(2) It makes the implication that the female character (and through her, the essence of femininity) is or must always be what is flawed within the context of a romance novel. That cannot possibly be true: if I felt that it was, I certainly would not be as invested in it, nor champion it as highly as I have here and elsewhere.