So...I want to start out by saying I am very pro alpha-male, spunky heroine, hot sex, and HEA. I have literally zero issues with the formulaic plot romance novels almost have to have in order to be romance novels. But, that said....
Well, have you noticed romance is really conservative, even while the rest of the world changes?
I mean...
I could go on, but you get the gist. And I know there are some exceptions to these rules, but the point still stands that they are exceptions.
The world is changing, and many of these attitudes have changed, but sometimes it feels like most romance novels are stuck in the 1950s. I know, as a reader and lover of these books, I am dying for a change, for more updated heroes and heroines with lives and struggles in love that reflect what real people have to deal with.
And really, if I see one more "billionaire with a secret heart of gold," I might puke.
Romance has enough issues trying to create something new using a formulaic storyline, why does it also lock itself in so many other staid rules? I mean, I can pick up a romance from the 1970s and one from now and find little to no difference in any of these rules, except that the farther back you go kisses get forced, "gay" is not alluded to, and there were actually more forays into disabled (mostly blind) heroes than I see now.
And since half the modern heroes are ex-military and many have pasts where they actually saw fighting, you'd think at least one or two would be dealing with battle damage and/or PTSD. I mean, I'm just saying....
This is on my mind a lot since the romances (subplot or main) in my last few projects have broken one or most of these rules. And I do see comments and reviews from readers who are obviously as conservative as the rules above, hating books in which the main characters break those rules. But are they the main audience or the very vocal minority? What are audiences after, and are romances this way out of habit and ennui, or is this really the only thing the majority of readers will accept?
And maybe, should we be changing them anyway? I mean, there's a lot of conversation about the abusive relationship in romances, but none around some of the other old fashioned or even toxic rules they still seem to have.
What do others think about all this, especially those who run in more professional circles?
Well, have you noticed romance is really conservative, even while the rest of the world changes?
I mean...
- It's almost exclusively the white male guy and girl, no interracial hooking up, though someone can have a splash of it to add "exoticism" to their looks
- They and all their friends are completely heteronormative--and it's the "all their friends" part that really gets me--aside from maybe the occasional gay "flavor" background character, but those characters can't openly show affection even if hooked up
- All relationships are monogamous and hetero often including any past ones, no experimentation allowed--this goes double for males, who don't have to be monogamous but should never have been questioning or bisexual
- Men can have a lot of experience but women must have little or none, and if they did have any, those relationships were most often bad...and don't be friends with exes
- Both mains are generally one brand of hot, and everyone shares similar hotess levels even when the heroine protests she isn't pretty--no hooking up people whose looks are too disparate
- Gender roles are strictly enforced; even while women can get away with breaking the mold somewhat it's still in socially acceptable ways, while men can never do so
- Jealousy is a positive emotion and it means you care, and not that you're an insecure git
- The man must be rich in order to provide for the female, the female cannot be more well off than the male or the breadwinner
- Disabilities are rare, but when they do appear it is the hero who has them, never the heroine
I could go on, but you get the gist. And I know there are some exceptions to these rules, but the point still stands that they are exceptions.
The world is changing, and many of these attitudes have changed, but sometimes it feels like most romance novels are stuck in the 1950s. I know, as a reader and lover of these books, I am dying for a change, for more updated heroes and heroines with lives and struggles in love that reflect what real people have to deal with.
And really, if I see one more "billionaire with a secret heart of gold," I might puke.
Romance has enough issues trying to create something new using a formulaic storyline, why does it also lock itself in so many other staid rules? I mean, I can pick up a romance from the 1970s and one from now and find little to no difference in any of these rules, except that the farther back you go kisses get forced, "gay" is not alluded to, and there were actually more forays into disabled (mostly blind) heroes than I see now.
And since half the modern heroes are ex-military and many have pasts where they actually saw fighting, you'd think at least one or two would be dealing with battle damage and/or PTSD. I mean, I'm just saying....
This is on my mind a lot since the romances (subplot or main) in my last few projects have broken one or most of these rules. And I do see comments and reviews from readers who are obviously as conservative as the rules above, hating books in which the main characters break those rules. But are they the main audience or the very vocal minority? What are audiences after, and are romances this way out of habit and ennui, or is this really the only thing the majority of readers will accept?
And maybe, should we be changing them anyway? I mean, there's a lot of conversation about the abusive relationship in romances, but none around some of the other old fashioned or even toxic rules they still seem to have.
What do others think about all this, especially those who run in more professional circles?
Last edited: