Last year, romance sold nearly 39 million print books in the U.S.—a 52% jump from the year before. The genre brought in $1.44 billion and made up almost a quarter of all fiction sales. These are astonishing numbers, the kind that suggest a field that’s thriving.
And yet, as someone who reads widely and obsessively in romance, I find myself asking a different question: why do so many of the books feel the same?
I’ve been reading romance long enough to remember when historicals dominated bookstore shelves—when every month brought new releases filled with dukes and debutantes, yes, but also with class tension, social constraint, and real historical weight. Those books haven’t vanished entirely, but they’ve become rare in traditional publishing. The few that are acquired often feel sanded down, written to today’s tone rather than their own era’s terms.
It’s not just historicals. I’ve noticed how hard it has become to find traditional romances—books published by major houses—that ask their readers to wrestle with uncomfortable ideas or characters who don’t match the prevailing sensibility. Publishing has always had limits, but those limits feel narrower now, and more tied to cultural alignment than to craft or risk.
I don’t think this is a moral failing. It looks to me like the result of structural sameness. The last time a comprehensive industry study was done, 78% of publishing staff were women, 79% were white, and 88% were straight. That was in 2016, and NPR reported in 2023 that little has changed. Most of the editors and agents I hear from are young, progressive, and based in cities. They are smart and passionate, and they love books. But they also bring their own preferences and politics to what they choose to champion (and I don’t think it’s a stretch to argue those preferences and politics tilt decidedly leftward)—and the books that pass through those filters tend to reflect those preferences back.
At the same time, publishers are leaning harder on the handful of authors who sell in massive numbers. Analyst John M. Jennings reported that 4% of books now generate 60% of publishing profits. Most books sell under 1,000 copies. Faced with those odds, publishers concentrate their energy on writers who are already proven, building whole release calendars around them. That kind of focus makes financial sense, but creatively, it has consequences. When the same voices shape what’s popular and what’s possible, even variety starts to feel predictable.
I’ve read some spectacular romances this year. But I’ve also read far too many that seem interchangeable—same tone, same worldview, same low-stakes conflicts in slightly different packaging. When I look at what’s missing, it’s not just historical romance or difficult characters–it’s complexity and the sense that being flawed–really flawed–isn’t the stuff of heroes and heroines.
Romance fiction still has enormous range, but I find more of it now in self-publishing and small presses than in the catalogs of the big houses. That shift raises questions I haven’t answered yet. Are readers really asking for safer stories, or are they just buying what’s being offered? Have we conflated comfort with clarity? And most of all: who decides what a love story should look like now?
I don’t think the genre is in trouble. But I do think something vital is being lost in the rush to serve a consensus. If you’ve noticed this shift—or if you think I’ve misread it—I’d like to hear from you. Are there stories you’ve stopped seeing in traditional romance? Are there kinds of characters, settings, or stakes that seem to have disappeared? Or is this just a moment, one phase in the genre’s long, cyclical life?
You tell me.
Yes I’ve think authors in the last five years are less willing to take the risk characters feel the same.Settings and time periods don’t feel well researched in historical romance. And at times romantic pairings have no chemistry ,and have modern speech,sensibilities and ideas.
Agreed. We touched on this in another recent discussion and it certainly seems as though the trad pubs are just playing it safe while they chase whatever the Next Big Thing is that week. Also, quite a few of them are picking up authors who have been successfully self-publishing for years – KJ Charles and Mariana Zapata are two that come instantly to mind – who have already done all the work of growing their audience and are thus a safe investment. I get that publishing is a business – I used to work in the music industry and it was pretty much the same there, chasing whatever the zeitgeist was and not putting so much money and effort into development of new artists – but they all have to look at the bottom line while creativity? Not so much.
KJ Charles didn’t get her start self-publishing, though she did eventually go that route and reacquired some of her earlier books (most notably, the Charm of Magpies series). I think she’s always gone back and forth between self-pubbing and working with publishers.
That is true, although from the sound of it, they weren’t all that great when it came to marketing. She’s been mostly self-pubbing since 2017, until Sourcebooks and Orion picked up some of her more recent titles.
And 21st century American slang in 18 th or 19 th century England I forgot to add.
I have a painful memory of a Victorian gentleman saying, “Well, that was a fun afternoon!”
I think your assessment of what the traditional publishers are doing is pretty much accurate, and agree that self-publishing is producing many of the really good books – in terms of depth and complexity, even if they’re not the bestsellers.
Probably 95+% of my reading for the last decade or so has been indie or self-published books – the vast majority of m/m is self-published – and while there are, of course, lots of books that feel same-y, been-there-done-that, and use the same, worn out old tropes, there are also plenty of authors out there doing interesting work, building complex characters and stories and keeping things fresh. I don’t read m/f contemporaries – I never did, even when I was reading more m/f – but I would imagine the same is true there.
As to your final question… I don’t know. It’s hard to know who is setting the agenda in a situation like this, although I think that as trends like this (same-y, playing-it-safe books) grow, it’s easier to say that readers are buying what’s offered, because what’s offered has become so narrowly focused. I do think, though, that a trend towards comfort/safe began when the pandemic hit; a lot of authors I follow were saying openly that they were stepping back from writing angst/conflict in their books because real life was crappy enough and they wanted to be in a cosy, comfortable place – and a lot of their readers probably felt the same. The problem – for me, personally – is that some of those authors, whose work I used to love, have stayed in that safe-zone and their books have become less interesting (again, to me) as a result. And given what’s happening in the world today – in the US especially – I imagine many writers and readers are happy to remain in that happy place. But stories need conflict and a bit of sturm und drang now and again or they risk becoming dull.
Maybe for you. For me, a romance does not have to have angst or sturm und drang to be worthwhile.
There are cozy books that are DIKs and that, for many, is a gift.
I didn’t say books without those things were not worthwhile – I get that there are readers who don’t want the same things I do. But there has to be something actually happening in a story that drives it – and that can and does happen in cosies. Gregory Ashe is managing to do it in his current cosy mystery series, and while Kaje Harper’s Cowboy Dreams isn’t a cosy, it’s a low-angst, slice-of-life story without lots of drama, yet it was a great read. In both cases, the authors know how to write complex characrers and emotions, which so many authors are not doing now. I just listened to an audiobook in which there was basically nothing keeping the leads apart; they communicated well and were often on the same page about everything to do with their relationship – and I was bored. (Thankfully the narration was terrific and the book was short!)
I’ve DNF’d far too many books in the past year or so precisely because of that sameness, thinking, “I’ve read this before, far too many times.” Changing hair color or giving someone an odd job (at which they never seem to work) is not enough to make a book distinctive and memorable.
I can’t help thinking that this formulaic sameness makes it a lot easier to replace writers with AI. Publishers might not mind, but readers might.
I wish. KU suggests otherwise!
I’d mind a lot and would definitely notice. I use KU regularly because a lot of the authors I read – established m/m authors who are producing well-written, well-thought out stories featuring complex, flawed characters (Nicky James, L.A. Witt, Greg Ashe, and many, many others) put their books into KU, even though some (like Greg) rotate them in and out and some only put books in KU for a limited time. So while I’m sure there is a lot of dross in KU, that isn’t all there is.
I don’t know what the KU landscape looks like for m/f romance – perhaps there’s someone around here who uses it who can tell me how it compares – but without KU I’d have missed out on a lot of excellent romance novels.
I hear you.
I can think of a few big-name m/f CR authors who self-pub – Lauren Blakely, Sarina Bowen, Vi Keeland, Penny Reid – but I don’t think they’re in KU (?) and I don’t think they’re pushing any boundaries as regards storytelling and are probably producing the kind of books you’re talking about.
Blakely, Bowen, Keeland, and Reid are all on KU!
They are probably getting a fair chunk of the KU money pot, then. I’ve read (listened to) Blakely and Bowen; I don’t think Blakely has written anything original for a decade. Bowen’s m/m books are decent, but Blakely’s are mostly terrible.
Are there any m/f authors in KU who are producing books with compelling plots and complex characters in the same way m/m authors are?
I’m sure there are. I do not believe m/m romance has a lock on quality romance.
I didn’t say it has – I was asking because I don’t read m/f and wondered if there’s anything comparable. The handful of authors I mentioned before aren’t producing it, so who is?
I don’t know of too many authors writing exclusively for KU, but I read two Axie Oh books I gave four stars to recently on AU and have several others that are unique by Stephanie Landish, Loreth Ann White, and Ashley Clark in my KU TBR. Lisa Clark O’Neill, one of the last people writing traditional RS, was on KU, but she hasn’t published in the last three years. I still find plenty of good books in m/f, but the sheer plethora of what is published in that market means I have to put in real effort to find the roses among the thorns. Honestly, that practically turns a hobby into a task. Self-pub, e-pub, and KU make this worse because they don’t have the financial restrictions constricting what is released that paper publishing had back in the day, so they just pile on the new releases. There’s been a lot of research lately on how having too much choice causes mental fatigue as well as societal fragmentation, and I’m definitely feeling both. People are retreating into their preferred niches, afraid to drown in whatever else is out there when they leave it.
Karla Sorensen writes M/F romance that’s on KU and has strong characterization and believable conflict, despite all sorts of ridiculously tropey setups. The blurbs don’t really do them justice.
Julie Kriss is fantastic and can really pack a lot into modest word counts (thank god for KU authors who don’t drag their plots out over 450 pages!)
Kate Canterbary is very hit or miss for me, but I love The Cornerstone and like some of her other work (The Spire, The Worst Guy and Change of Heart are all good).
I’ve listened to a couple of Kate Canterbary books actually – she’s written some m/m ones, and they weren’t bad. Our reviewer Dolly is a big fan of Julie Kriss.
When I read an historical, I think, “What would a young woman in whatever period it is the setting think of this?” and I figure that at best, she’d faint.
Yes, I am looking at your latest, Eloisa James, which is (so far, about 100 pages) pretty terrible. You know that the writer is not enthusiastic about a book when it takes 80-odd pages to have the h/h even meet, and then only because the heroine, a lady who asserts herself, is a dope, running off, to have “a romantic adventure,” after slapping the Prince Regent who was too handy. I keep getting irritated with her, and to a lesser extent, to the hero who keeps fishing, nude. If you must read this, get it at the library.
I agree that readers don’t want an accurate depiction of life in the past, full of beliefs that are offensive today. But some of my knowledge of history, especially social history, came from historicals, and I miss that.
Must every heroine today just be a replica of today’s young women? Must they always be rebels–teaching other people by their example, and saying what they believe all the time? (Who in real life does that, anyway?)
Given the enormous stigma (which I can remember, vividly from the 50’s and 60’s) of having a baby out of wedlock, it is no exaggeration to say that it generally ruined your life, and saddled the kid with the name of bastard, but in historicals, the heroine is so smitten by sex (and sometimes by the hero at this point) that she enthusiastically partakes, often in public or semi-public places. Are authors aware or too cowardly to have heroines say that nearly all women until the pill would have said about premarital sex: “It’s wrong.” (Hypocrisy was the price women paid, if they were sexually active outside of marriage.) Religion reinforced this rejection of premarital sex, but our society united to hammer this message to both males and females. (If you think I am exaggerating, just watch any romance from 1940 thru 1968, when the pill burst on the scene.)
But this is just one detail that historicals get wrong, for fear of offending readers.
Yes, there is a sameness to romances, today. The sad and wonderful fact, tho, is that they sell.
*nods to all of this.*
A bigger problem is the newer generation of HR authors who think the stuff out there now is what HR is and haven’t been around long enough to know it isn’t. The uber-wallpapery HRs we’re getting now are unlikely to go away, unfortunately.
I really don’t buy that it’s just m/f HR that has the sameness problem.
Oh, it doesn’t. But Lynda is talking about HR specifically, and there definitely has been a trend towards very anachronistic heroines the last few years.
I don’t anyone said that it’s a m/f problem only. In fact Caz said below that there is a LOT of sameness and fluff in m/m these days.
“Probably 95+% of my reading for the last decade or so has been indie or self-published books – the vast majority of m/m is self-published – and while there are, of course, lots of books that feel same-y, been-there-done-that, and use the same, worn out old tropes, there are also plenty of authors out there doing interesting work, building complex characters and stories and keeping things fresh. I don’t read m/f contemporaries – I never did, even when I was reading more m/f – but I would imagine the same is true there.” Caz
It can be tough sometimes to get something original and is a treat when you do. There are m/m author’s still putting ourt quality work, like Nicky James, KJ Charles, Jay Hogan and more. I can’t really name the m/f authors who are successful at writing original stories and characters because I rarely read them, not because I don’t think they exist. I’d be curious to know who is writing good m/f contemporary and historical novels.
I’ve heard so many people express lukewarm feelings about the latest James, it’s really disappointing.
I think there’s a space for heroines who are strong and smart, but there’s a way to do it to make it era apropos.
Yes, that’s it absolutely. So many current HR authors are so preoccupied with making their heroines “different” and “original” they forget the need to make them likeable and believable for the time period. People like Caroline Linden, Lorraine Heath (not lately, sadly), Miranda Neville, Courtney Milan, Sherry Thomas, Meredith Duran etc, knew how to write interesting but period appropriate heroines. I just read a Harlequin Historical with a period-appropriate heroine who is spirited and engaging without wanting to smash the patriarchy, so it’s do-able. It just takes a lot of skill AND doing your homework.
And also, I’m sure that there is an element of the small number of HR authors who still have contracts with major publishers being… steered towards writing what the publishers think the market wants.
Which is sad but man, they’re gutting that area of the market.
Didn’t Miranda Neville pass away about ten years ago?
Sadly, yes.
I just re-read a dedication by a best selling mystery author–female, with a female lead–in which the author thanked her editor for:
Somehow romance authors appear to not have that luxury.
I don’t have any love for the publishing houses, but in fairness, I think publishing historical romance today is tricky. Romance Twitter seems to come down especially hard on books in this genre that aren’t PC enough to suit those active on that forum, which means they want the ml and fl to call society out on all its ills. It takes a lot of skill to write a novel that both provides a critique of institutionalized injustice alongside a historically accurate portrayal of the times AND is entertaining. It makes sense to essentially cut and paste if you find a formula to make it past those self-appointed censors.
I’m not saying I have a solution. The past was horrible, and bland acceptance that that’s just how it was would not be something I’m willing to read. I just don’t feel the fix is to have books be either inaccurate or so inoffensive that they don’t show what people went through to get to where we are.
It takes a lot of skill to write a novel that both provides a critique of institutionalized injustice alongside a historically accurate portrayal of the times AND is entertaining.
It does. And as Ayesha points out above, shortening attention spans and other issues are sending writers to the easiest options – and in HR research takes time and, as you say, creating period appropriate, entertaining stories takes skill. And of the current crop of HR authors, KJ Charles is the absolute best at doing that.
I dunno. I think Erin Langston is doing a damn good job.
She’s fairly new, but okay, so that makes two authors out of a total of? A few years ago you could reel off a number of names of HR authors who were doing a good job. Now they’ve either stopped writing or have been dropped by their publisher, or are being… let’s say “directed” towards what the publishers think HR readers want.
I never “got” the attraction of Eloisa James’s books. I tried one or two early on and dropped her from my list.
I liked some of her earlier books, but I gave up reading her stuff several years ago now.
I have loved many of her books. Sure, if you’re looking for angst or romance that is determined to right the past’s wrongs, she’s not that. But she’s a superb writer who entertains.
Adding a third voice to say I’ve definitely been enjoying her work,
To me it feels like a lot of recently published romance feels like it’s written for the “in-club” of romance readers. Like of course the hero is tall, handsome, courteous to everyone, understands feminism completely, and only makes minor mistakes that he immediately understands and profusely apologizes for it. The writer will throw in *insert trope here* and not flesh it out, or not write it in a new way, because we’re all just romance lovers here, and we know what’s going on! We get it! Isn’t that just the best?? /s
It feels like the love of romance is the point, not the actual romance. Characters end up being flat with poorly defined motives and no interiority. Plot is mundane and undefined, way past the forgivable romance-reasons acceptability. A lot of plot feels like wacky in the pursuit of being ~original~. There is no real world outside of their romance, and unfortunately their romance does not have enough gas to drive the story.
I’ve found myself going in to the backlog of good historicals because heroes had to get over themselves and internally reconcile with major flaws, and externally prove himself to the heroine. The heroines had to really weigh what it would mean for them to choose the hero; it always included deep character work that far surpasses “because patriarchy”.
Also, I just miss deeply romantic writing. The only current contemporary writer I can think of is Kate Clayborn, when her hero obsesses with the heroine’s hair. I’ve been DNFing books a lot lately because it lacks small moments that cement the romance for me.
I call it the fanfictionizing of romance. They forget that in original work — even if you’re filing off the serial numbers — you need to do more than throw more tropes into he pile, the tropes have too make you feel something about the characters.
And with fanfic, you are usually creating something around characters the people in that fandom are already famiilar with – so you don’t have to do the same degree of character work. The authors crossing from fandom into original work seem to think they can take the same approach to characterisation (i.e not do any).
Exactly! This is a huge problem.
Oh, that’s great–“filing off of serial numbers”!
Yes, this, exactly! I read an interesting post (on Substack, I think?) not long ago which strongly suggested that some of these groups were more about being seen to read than actually reading and discussing what they read.
So, so, so on point. For the social media crowd, reading has become about the community over the sheer pleasure of actually reading. I’ve even noticed this in how reading is being reflected in books. The heroine who was a reader used to be seen as a bit of a social oddity, a solitary figure like Belle in Beauty and the Beast. Now it’s all about the book clubs and who they are discussing that one book they did read with.
I used to adore seeing novels namedropped in romances, but now it feels like every single heroine reads romance and it’s very performative, even in the novel! I’m a librarian, so of course I like people reading. My job depends on it! But at the same time, I wish that the connection to the material was more important than the seemingly common situation Caz described.
Or they all know about exactly one novel (EVERYONE being obsessed with Pride and Prejudice!) and pattern their idea of romance after it.
Lisa you just unlocked the memory of Ana in 50 Shades reading I think Tess of the d’Ubervilles and constantly referring to it.
Oh my God, I’d forgotten about that!
I mean, to be fair this is the least romantic book in the world. And perhaps my first ever DNF lo these many years ago, LOL.
There’s a new nonfiction book out about pop culture, women, and porn. I haven’t read it yet–on the endless TBR–but I’ve read several articles by Gilbert. In a fabulous article in the Atlantic, she wrote:
I feel as if 50 Shades is part of this–it seemed so regressive to me and yet somehow it was a mainstream book marketed to women.
My recall may not be perfect (these were very forgettable books for me), but 50 Shades was actually a middle-of-the-road book in terms of heat. I grew up in a more sexually explicit era, though. I can remember the shelves of Walmart and grocery stores being full of best sellers by Jackie Collins, Sidney Sheldon, and Harold Robbins which were all far steamier than 50 back in the late 70s/early 80s. I was just a kid, but I was a voracious reader, and my mom was firm on keeping me away from them. When I could finally get them for myself much later as a teen they were real eye openers. I can remember a lesbian love scene in Princess Daisy by Judith Krantz, written in quite graphic detail. The book was popular enough that it became a mini-series (I’ve never seen it and, due to age, was barely allowed to watch the commercials. All the cooler kids were whispering about it, though 🙂 Rosemary Rogers was another who wrote hot books that always made bestseller lists. And of course, there was Robin Schone in the 90s, also far edgier than 50. You are probably right that it was regressive, but I think it is interesting how much tamer it was than the books that came before it. And if you are looking for sexually liberated women who own their sensuality, those gals in the 70s books certainly defined that if I remember it right. That was different about 50 – he seemed to own her awakening more than she did.
I don’t think 50 Shades was very explicit–it was more the way Ana was portrayed.
She was a weak character for sure. I get that fantasy of being taken care of by someone powerful enough to make all our problems go away, though. It’s not necessarily a bad dream. Unrealistic and untenable but not bad.
I guess I think it’s that Ana is wanted for sex and the power dynamics in that relationship are shitty for women.
Ana was more wanted for her purity and innocence than just for sex, if I recall correctly. The sex kinda served as an introduction to his emotional world and the processing he was doing of his own history and inner demons. That’s where she was meant to have the power in the relationship – she was whole, and he was broken. The series overall is about her taking him from a place where sex was pain to one where it is love.
I dunno. I felt then and I feel now that the kind of woman Ana is connects to how porn sees women.
I don’t have a lot of experience with porn but I do have a lot of experience with romance getting the porn label over and over and over again. It’s a complicated subject, but I remain pretty firm that these novels don’t create weak women and that art doesn’t drive culture, but that culture drives art. It could be where my own reading has taken me, but from my understanding, Facebook is much more powerful than 50 Shades. IMO, if you want to look for a source of the political movement against feminism, look at the rise of the Moral Majority, Reaganism, Focus on the Family, and the mental exhaustion of women told to be more and more in a world where less and less was required of men.
I’m explaining it poorly. If you read the Atlantic article, she explains the idea much better than me!
You did a fine job of explaining it. I just disagree with Ms. Gilbert’s premise that society works on a “you are what you eat” basis. IMO, pop culture is driven not by art but by money, with the end goal of her three examples – American Beauty, Britney Spears, and the Abercrombie and Fitch catalog – serving as snapshots of an era and what corporate executives thought people of that time wanted. They did not form our culture but were born from it.
I think this is where liberals get things so desperately wrong and find themselves losing elections. They have a firm belief that Republicans have discovered some magic way to convince voters into accepting racism, homophobia, and a lack of compassion. They refuse to acknowledge that politicians aren’t creating those things; they are capitalizing on what already exists within the population.
I don’t think that’s her point. I’m sending you the article!
Thanks. I reread it after you sent it and have come to the same conclusions. I apologize if I seem oversensitive or argumentative, but she is touching on a nerve for me. Too often have I heard that romance is porn, or that Dan Quayle was right and Murphy Brown is responsible for women chosing to have kids as singles, or that this movie or that movie has taught us this or that bad thing. I feel like we chase the phantom of entertainment leading us to hell at our own peril.
Regarding the article, here is what I get from it: Gilbert laments a mainstreaming of porn into culture of the aughts. She seems confident that this gave rise to women both objectifying themselves and being objectified. For her, “Trump’s election confirmed how widespread and even tacitly accepted the degradation of women had become,” and she was angered that “the specter of a Hillary Clinton presidency was immediately presented by some pundits in objectified terms. How else were women in this era to be understood?” and that
“By 2024, the debasement of women in public life had become so instinctive that Kamala Harris was subjected to sexual slurs in the lead-up to her presidential campaign.”
Here’s the thing. If porn led to Harris and Clinton’s failure at the polls, then they have no one but their own party to blame. Republicans have wanted to limit it for years, or ban it altogether. (I’m against censorship, so no but I digress.) I don’t think Trump was elected because of the degradation of women. How many female prime ministers has England had? Are they overun by porn too? In Europe, how many leaders overall are women? Are there places in the world where the numbers change in our favor?
Beyond that, why have we always called prostitution the oldest profession? Why did ancient temples buy girls and prostitute them in the name of worship? I think we all know the ugly history of sexual exploitation the world over.
I will read her book and see what the expanded argument leads to, but I am always leery of people going after pop culture as the villainous cause of what is wrong with pretty much everything because I see it as reflective rather than causal. If we don’t like the image reflected there, perhaps we should change it.
People love to blame pop culture for their inability to process fiction.
Pornification has nothing to do with it – this is just sadly how any woman who tries to grasp power is treated. They treated Hilary Clinton this in the 1990s years before OnlyFans was a thing. Conversely: we were literally showing Deep Throat in movie theatres back in the 1970s around the same time women’s lib was happening. It’s all about attitude and perspective.
I guess I see it differently.
I have millennial sons and the porn they have grown up with has both been far more horrifying and endemic than anything in the pre-internet era.
I also talk to young women–the under 30 set–and they feel it has shaped their world as well.
The average age kids see porn, much of it violent, is 12. It’s everywhere for them. In middle school, kids had it on their phones and passed them around. It’s hard to avoid in our screen based culture.
This is not blaming pop culture. It’s acknowledging that we have created something that is extraordinarily toxic for young people. I find it heartbreaking.
I’m just a generation or so behind them – while a portion of recent porn trends (I’m specifically thinking of a certain type of gangbang porn that’s degrading) points to a level of violence in the genre, it’s sadly always existed, and there’s still plenty of mainstream stuff being released. And it existed back in the ’70’s. “Behind the Green Door” has a rape scene in it. There were roughies going back to the ’60s. I think it’s been more world-shaping for the last few generations – but I also think that this is a result of sex ed being taken out of schools and actual sexual health resources being poo-pooed.
I’d argue that porn has always been endemic, and it’s as prevalent as it’s ever been going back to it being rentable at your average Blockbuster in the ’90’s. But I will agree that it’s more accessible due to redtube/onlyfans, and should not be in he hands of minors. Regulating things is going to be harder without banning it entirely, which is the last thing I want to see happen (you start banning porn, you get into a slippery slope situation where you end up burning Lolita).
I agree that our over sexualized culture is sad but I don’t blame the porn, I blame the people consuming it. No one in this country (right now) is forced to watch/read a specific type of entertainment; they choose it. Yes, young boys in elementary school have easier access to hardcore stuff through the internet than kids of the past did. Then again, they were stealing dirty magazines from gas stations back in my day – or from their father’s stash. Back then, we also had cable that was a free-for-all – few parents bothered with parental control, and a sixth grader with a remote could watch and record whatever he wanted in the family room while mom and dad sat oblivious in the living room. I blame their lack of monitoring, not HBO
In the 80s or 90s, there was a court case where two boys killed another boy, and the defense claimed it was caused by the violence idolized in hard rock music/rap and tried to blame the bands. The lawyer for the label stated that parents, not bands, were responsible for raising children. I agree.
My problem is that Ms. Gilbert and I are seeing the same things differently. For example, she views the Anytime, Anyplace video by Janet Jackson as sexually liberating because Janet was on top, pushing her lover’s head down. Janet was about to get the pleasure. But that’s a porn staple – the few porno’s I’ve seen clips of all contain it because the idea of the woman who wantonly wants it is a part of the fantasy. That’s where the whole premise of a “happy hooker” comes from. The same with her example of the Madonna video for Justify My Love. A male partner watching women receive pleasure from multiple protagonists is another often-used fantasy in erotic pictures/stories/movies for men. These are not uniquely feminist images of female pleasure but regurgitated male fantasies played out by popular women who are “claiming” it for themselves. In many ways, they are embodying the very thing the men want.
All cultures contain elements that are toxic. Under Shaia law, there is a ban against porn, against alcohol and against many things used to create the toxicity of ours. And yet there is a lot of violence within that world, and I imagine most women would choose whatever degradation they find here to what they would experience there.
Y E P, these are all great points, Maggie. Everyone knows about a kid who was stowing Penthouses under their beds or in the woods. And all of this.
People love to blame pop culture for their inability to process fiction.
I love this, and it is so true. Many years ago, I read a book that discussed how the US Coast Guard got thousands -THOUSANDS – of letters telling them to rescue the castaways of Gilligan’s Island. A few years ago, there were articles about people complaining how on CSI it took only a couple of hours to get DNA results, and in real life it took months to get it processed. There was also the CSI effect of people expecting definitive forensic evidence for every darn crime. We have only ourselves to blame if we don’t understand the difference between fiction and reality.
And all of the kids who blamed Superman when they jumped off the roof. At some point parents have to parent, and the difference between what’s real and not has to be taught.
Jackie Collins and Judith Krantz in particular were eye-openers!
Immediately put that on hold, thanks Dabney! I’m always looking for current-day people able to articulate how I feel about this issue.
Me, too. But I’m in position 66 (sob)
It’s more fascinating to me that we’ve gone from the growing-if-awkward understanding that Women Have Sexual Feelings 50 Shades brought about to a total sexual and social regression.
My biggest problem with porn is that it’s turned into the be-all sexual educator in light of this regression. There are boys out there who are just shocked anal sex requires lubrication and every vagina-bearing person doesn’t squirt! The porn trends that have accompanied these notions — free use and rough gangbangs — have led to people having complete counter-corner expectations for sex.
Gilbert also sees this as problematic but not just for men.
She writes:
“Porn does not inform, or persuade, or debate,” Amia Srinivasan wrote in her 2021 book, The Right to Sex. “Porn trains.” For the past few decades, it has trained men to see women as objects—as things to silence, restrain, fetishize, or brutalize. But it has trained women, too. In 2013, the social psychologist Rachel M. Calogero found that the more women were prone to self‐objectification—the defining message of porn and aughts mass media—the less inclined they were toward gender-based activism and the pursuit of social justice. This, to me, goes a long way toward explaining what happened to women and power in the early 21st century. For decades, male supremacy was being coded into our culture, in ways that were both outlandish and so subtle, they were hard to question.
I’d definitely have to disagree with that takeaway for numerous reasons.
So true what you have said, Brooke, and, like you, I find myself DNFing many books. And it’s probably now at the point where the DNF reject stack outweighs the TBR/Must Order list. Very sad. I also find myself going back to the “tried & tested” from the past (mainly HR) and scrutinising through multiple levels things I spot on Amazon, many I do like turning out to be self-published books or those published by tiny firms. I guess I don’t qualify for the “in-club”!! I only very, very rarely discuss my romance reading with anyone so I guess I am a reader who ploughs her own furrow and likes it that way.
It’s so refreshing to hear you say you aren’t part of the in-club! 🙂
Reading is such a personal activity since it’s usually solitary and you have to process it in your own brain. It what gives you individual reading tastes that is then fun to share with others!
The thing is, Brooke, that if you do share your reading tastes, so many people (even your friends) will look down their nose at you and tell you about the latest literary fiction sensation they have just read to justify their air of literary superiority. You can have several degrees, a high-paying job, a wonderful partner, happy life, etc., etc., but confess you read the latest M&B or whatever, and you will be relegated to the realm of The Great Unwashed Readers. (“We don’t read that sort of rubbish in our reading group….”) So sad, so infuriating. I have said here over the years that though I carefully scrutinise reviews of so-called literary fiction, I can’t bear the thought of reading much “high brow” crap about unhappy, suicidal, depressed, sad, lonely or mentally troubled people that often populate that genre. I want to be entertained, I want to be able to read a book straight through because it hits my buttons or put it down for a while because I am unsure about it or just do a DNF without anyone’s approbation or denigration. See! A reader of romantic fiction knows some Big Words!!!
It often feels to me that those standards for lit fic have migrated onto romance. The number of romances from all sub-genres that have unhappy, suicidal, depressed, sad, lonely or mentally troubled people in them has soared in recent years. Many many romances now have strong social/political messages. I’m not saying these are inherently bad things in any way–although they aren’t typically what I look for these days in a romance–but just that that approach has made it to our genre as well.
Sad, isn’t it?
The number of unhappy, suicidal, sad, lonely, or otherwise mentally troubled people has soared in recent years. The mental health crisis in the US is real, and it’s only getting worse.
Yes, a lot of people want to see themselves reflected in what they are reading, and themself isn’t an untroubled person. Mental health struggles are the norm, not the aberration, and I appreciate novels that reflect that if they are done well. Overall, I like when an H/h find love in spite of having imperfections so long as they don’t see love as the solution to the problem. I don’t recommend the film, but Silver Linings Playbook is a lovely love story about two people dealing with serious issues and still finding joy.
I like imperfections in my leads too. I’m not saying I want perfect leads.
I do, however, think that romance, an aspirational genre if ever there was one, has many many readers who, if they’re depressed, want to read about someone who is happy. It’s not that they don’t want to see themselves in fiction but rather that they are reading to get away from their struggles.
I know–and I tend to believe that part of the problem is our addiction to sad and/or violent stories.
I hate to disagree (again) (no, seriously, I do) but that’s not how I see it. My friend and I both had turbulent childhoods. She loved to read stories about other kids going through that or worse, whereas I preferred fairy tales where things all worked out for the best. She turned out just fine because that worked for how she processed what was going on around her/happening to her. Some people want books that take them away from it all, others want books that help them to realize they aren’t alone. There is space for both on my shelf.
Todays youth have a lot to process: going to school in an environment where you might be shot at any moment, where the educational landscape is fraught with an ever changing set of rules about what can and can’t be taught, where graduating after twelve years isn’t enough and you will have to continue your education only so you can be deeply in debt and still not have a good job, living in a country where the news media and social media are gleeful about how horrible everything is, realizing that your parens social security isn’t so secure, that you may never own your own home, dating is obsolete and whatever the hell has replaced it isn’t working — the list is long and everyday we seem to wake up to something to add to it. Some of them are going to want an escape and maybe the bland books we’ve been complaining about are just that cuppa. For others, they will want to see themselves between the pages. The sad books that for some seem to bring us down are actually reassuring for them.
+1 on this, like all of this.
Yep, this is something no one’s getting.
I don’t blame publishers for playing it safe. They had front-row seats to the takedown (rightly or wrongly) of RWA and have seen numerous books become battlegrounds (For Such a Time as This by Kate Breslin, At Love’s Command by Karen Witemeyer) and watched authors chastised for minor infractions (Someone to Love by Mary Balogh). Brooke speaks below of an in-crowd, and romance Twitter and bookstagram have been prime contributors to that crowd, creating mega-authors like Colleen Hoover.
All, and I mean literally everything, I have read says that social media breeds conformity and tribalism. Bookstagrammers gather around shared stories, not threads discussing varied ones. They gather around shared themes (#fatedlove, #dramione). They tend to do a pile-on of likes and dislikes regarding the characters’ behaviors. The feedback loop thus created locks them into moving as a group, not as individuals, which in turn magnifies their voices to publishers. We can argue about how right or wrong this is, but I can’t imagine a valid argument against the fact that social media has been a strong, formative factor in how books are being written.
What was the issue with Someone to Love by Mary Balogh?
The hero was a duke who had studied martial arts and I believe there were complaints about the fact that when we meet his teacher, he wasn’t given a name. I think that was the main issue,
Yes, the issue revolved around the martial arts teachers. Some called it cultural appropriation, and there was also the name issue, and apparently, how the whole thing was used in the plot.
God, I remember that phase of the ‘what is appropriation’ puzzle. I get it in some cases why people might get upset, but cultural sharing like that is completely normal.
This is why we can’t have nice things….
Gee, the whole idea of cultural appropriation is why I’ve decided that I should copyright the wheel. I’m pretty sure one of my ancestors invented it, as as his/her descendant, I am entitled to money. Another ancestor of mine figured out how to make sugar. And roofs. As well as how to farm and oh, yeah, how could I forget when we (my family) invented the alphabet?
Cultural appropriation is the highest form of flattery.
Some people in the world are just dying to be offended, even if the offense is not to them.
What happened to RWA? (And what is RWA?)
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/30/books/courtney-milan-romance-writers-america.html
Romance Writers of America is RWA. They used to host the most prestigious award in romance, the RITA. This article says what happened to them. https://www.vox.com/2020/1/10/21055125/rwa-what-happened-resignations-courtney-milan-damon-suede-backstory-2020-ritas-conference
I think that era is over though. Twitter is dead. I see barely anything on Instagram anymore except from authors promoting their books. Like the algorithm has changed. There’s some stuff popping up on Threads occasionally but that is not a well read network. I don’t use Tik Tok. Book Tok seems to be important still (?) but I don’t tend to gravitate to those kinds of books. But social media (certainly text based) is in permanent decline. I personally think diversity in romance is important so a lot of those fights were worth having.
I think most agree that diversity in romance is important. Those discussions predated Milan’s takedown of RWA in 2019, though. On this site alone, I did The Melting Pot/Multicultural Challenge way back in 2012 because the conversation about the lack of diversity in romance was a hot topic even then. Most agree since the whole RWA thing, the increase in multicultural romance has been .4%. The decimal is important – it’s under one percent. Given the explosion of mainstream shows with diverse characters (Blackish, 2014: Fresh Off the Boat, 2015; Black Panther, 2018) that predated the event, I’d say the conversations regarding RWA followed an already existing trend and even then, they didn’t exactly rock the actual publishing industry, they just tackled the organization itself. Its internal structural problems are what allowed it to fall with such ease.
To be clear, I’m not defending the organization. I have no horse in that particular race, as the RITAs never reflected my reading (I read maybe one or two books that made the list a year), and I wasn’t a member. My point isn’t that they were good (or bad), just that while the whole incident generated a lot of noise, it didn’t generate a significant off-line change.
I would love it if social media were dying, but I don’t think that is actually the case. The Elon Musk-owned branch imploded, but while the rest is in flux, it is still in use. It influences what is read and published. It’s popular. My reading isn’t influenced but for authors like Ruby Dixon and Colleen Hoover, it has been a game changer.
I was going to say, most people have moved to bluesky.
Also I vv much agree vis diversity.
Sorry for the late reply. My initial comment was probably not very clear. The social media which I think is in decline is text based social media. The biggest one was Twitter. It’s simply no longer a place where people from the progressive perspective critique books, and then it goes viral. The influence is no longer there. Musk acquired the site in 2022. It’s now been tweaked so liberals don’t really get seen (unless it’s being trolled by Musk’s minions). Since you mentioned Courtney Milan, I assume that is the “Romance Twitter” you were speaking of. Instead Tik Tok is what is influential. It tends to prop up the vanilla and banal. It’s not just books. It’s had a similar effect on music. So given it’s 3 years later, whatever is going on with romance novels it’s probably a Book Tok (and other video platforms) issue.
Anyway I saw this comment on BlueSky today. As someone who enjoys reading and writing, it’s painful to admit but it’s true:
https://bsky.app/profile/ositanwanevu.com/post/3lr66qwb6k226
“The larger reality to contend with is that microblogging — here, there, and everywhere — is now a marginal form of online engagement. Everyone serious about reaching wide audiences is doing video or podcasts. Arguing about Bluesky and Twitter — it’s proud nobodies fighting proud nobodies.”
And yet video and podcasts are so oversaturated. Most of those efforts have tiny audiences.
So given it’s 3 years later, whatever is going on with romance novels it’s probably a Book Tok (and other video platforms) issue.
I’m sorry if my post was unclear, but what I was speaking of at the start of this particular thread is that I understand publishers’ reluctance to take risks because of what had happened in the past. Even though all that is several years behind us, I think it is unlikely that publishers, readers, or authors are ready to pretend it didn’t occur. And to reiterate, the events didn’t impact so much what is sold (they changed the market by less than a percentage point according to statistics) so much as what people are aware of. Publishers, aware that having a book fall on the wrong (or right) side of whatever social media is popular, pay attention to that activity. That leans them towards vanilla (risk-free) novels. Readers, aware that recommending the wrong book can land you in a flame war, are more cautious of what they promote on whatever platform they use. That also has the leaning towards less edgy, more generic reads. So while Twitter is gone, the lesson it taught in terms of being careful of getting on the wrong side of the mob remains.
I am aware that Twitter is dead. I just don’t agree that the damage it did has died with it.
It does seem to me that there are simply fewer places everyone can pile on any more. Twitter is for right wingers, BlueSky for the other side, FB for boomers, TikTok for non-boomers, etc… The hegemony that Twitter had back in the day doesn’t exist anywhere anymore.
I take it you don’t use Reddit? They have a subreddit for every fiction niche and every popular author as well. I’ve managed to find tons of good recs there. It’s not without its share of problems (up/down voting can get out of hand), but it’s the closest thing to the old-school message boards and forums out there. And I don’t even post there, just lurk on the favorite subreddit or simply use the search.
I do use Reddit and it’s great. I just don’t think that it functions in the way that Twitter did in terms of reach of takedowns.
I should clarify that when I said it didn’t impact what was sold, I mean that it didn’t significantly increase the amount of books by AoC or books about PoC. It has changed the contents of whatever is sold in terms of making it more vanilla.
I’ve read this article and comments with interest. I have to agree with much that has been said regarding the bland standardization of current romance. You all have commented on the influence of the pandemic on authors, and the same could be said of readers, especially new readers to the genre. Many new romance readers saw the genre as fluffy, light fun with sex. When they pick up a romance that has a heavier tone or serious issues that everyday people face, they either don’t like it or like it in spite of that content. I’ve seen a number of readers who normally read other genres who view romance novels as “palate cleansers,” not to be taken seriously. They actually say, “I thought I was reading a romance. This was too heavy; it wasn’t the rom-com I was expecting”. Anything that explores more than the romantic life of the heroine or hero in an escapist way is immediately labeled “women’s fiction” or chick-lit and dismissed.
I mostly read contemporary romance. Despite that, I don’t know that I can single out authors who are necessarily, consistently doing things differently. Someone mentioned Kate Clayborn and I have enjoyed her stories, especially Love Lettering which was a love letter to NYC. I also appreciate how Abby Jimenez tackles serious problems in many of her books, mostly dealing with health. I liked how SEP’s When Stars Collide immersed us in the world of an opera singer. I just read Cathy Yardley’s Role Playing and appreciated the older hero and heroine as well as the real life, real family issues they faced from demanding relatives/friends. They were not nice people and they were not redeemed. I also liked how Emily Henry’s Book Lovers took the usual romance trope of the big city girl/guy returning to the small town and finding love with a hometown boy/girl and did a whole send-up on it. What these books have in common is that they are ether interjecting more plot, more issues, more research — it’s not just historical authors who need to do research! — and/or turning tropes on their head.
I don’t read as much historical romance as I once did but a few that I’ve read in the past couple of years that I’ve enjoyed were Mimi Matthews’ earlier books. (I’m saying earlier because I haven’t read anything recent.) For instance, Fair as a Star (2020), A Holiday By Gaslight (2018), and The Viscount and the Vicar’s Daughter (2018). I’ve also read a couple of Elizabeth Camden’s historicals that included a great deal of historical research and very interesting plots involving real events. She’s labeled a Christian author, but I’m not religious and didn’t find anything that seemed preachy. Her book A Dangerous Legacy (2017) dealt with the early years of the wire services in NYC and the competition between the AP and Reuters. Her Beyond All Dreams (2015) was set in Washington DC and the building of the Library of Congress as well as political scandal. I would also recommend What the Wind Knows by Amy Harmon which follows a modern woman going back in time to the Irish Rebellion of the early 1900s. Laura Wood’s A Sky Painted Gold is different. It’s set in Cornwall in the 1920s and is sort of a send up of the Great Gatsby.
Leaving aside recommendations, the one thing that puzzles me is that, although newer, younger readers dislike the old-school older, wealthier heroes who dominated the heroines and treated them badly in the romances of past decades, they seem to love “bully romances” or mafia romances. There’s certainly a disconnect there.
i read quite a lot of fanfic, and it seems like the best writers, the ones who engage with the media, and take it in a new direction, who actually use discomforting scenarios to explore various ideas, these authors never seem to cross through into original fiction. every few years, the largest fanfic site, AO3, has to fend off demands to censor works, because for many readers, simply reading something outside of their comfort zone is seen as an endorsement of the idea. that, combined with shortening attention spans means writers will opt for the simplest possible language, the smoothing over of any ambiguity, tension, unease for a work that is easily palatable.
Yep. I have seen this happen in real time.
I wonder how much the many changes in the book industry are impacting the quality of all books written today? I have a sense that this isn’t just a romance problem, but a problem that crosses all genres. Publishing houses find their profit margins are shrinking, so cuts need to come from somewhere, and I think that editing is definitely being cut, leading to lower quality books, and a poorer reading experience. That leads to frustrated buyers. Why should I pay full price for a new book when there is no guarantee of quality? So we look to sales or KU or the library. And thus profit margins decrease more, and less and less editorial effort is put into most published books. It also makes publishers more risk averse. They are looking for the sure thing, the next Colleen Hoover or Emily Henry. They will promote the heck out of those authors, as will bookstores, which are under similar stress, and skip unknown authors. Thus there becomes a sameness as new authors resort to using tried and true formulas rather than break new ground. Tropes become much more important as they are looking for a shorthand to hook readers. They want to recommended by the algorithm as a good book for fans of Colleen Hoover, for example.
Self-publishing can provide authors the opportunity to be really creative and outside the mainstream, but in my experience many authors are choosing the blurbable trope avenue. They want those clicks. I have found that the writing is often worse and even more in need of editing. I’ve been really frustrated with most of the romance novels I’ve read lately, and I have been reading other genres.
I tried to find some statistics to illustrate my points, and I discovered this short article: https://ideas.bkconnection.com/10-awful-truths-about-publishing
Like you, I’ve found myself reading in other genres quite a bit, though I still really love romance. Publishers do seem to be pushing quantity over quality, which is why I find myself using AAR more – I need something that helps me winnow the good from the bad.
I agree that AAR reviews can be helpful, but I find I am much more critical than many of the reviewers here, and too often I read something which is considered an A by a reviewer, and I DNF it. I think maybe I just need a long hiatus from romance as it all seems to be poor variations on a short list of themes, at least to me. I keep checking and trying, but it’s been a while since I’ve really loved a new romance.
I’ve had to take some breaks, too. When contemporary all turned small town after the Virgin River juggernaut, I felt like I couldn’t find anything I wanted to read. And the irony was, I’d loved Carr since the 80s and had enjoyed the first trilogy in that saga. But it’s hard when knockoffs of a popular book are all that is available. Thankfully, it’s come back around and I can discover some new reads I’m liking . Hopefully, after a breather, you will too.
I have always found your posts as very insightful, but this one in particular it’s one of the best I’ve ever read about romance novels today.
So much that I haven’t got any opinion to give. Just thank you for your time and understanding of the genre.
I would love to translate articles like this as many Spanish readers think more or less the same, if I have to judge by the comments they leave on my blog, specially those with some years as romance readers.
Thank you. It’s so nice when readers tell us we’re doing a good job! I’m very grateful.