#lewis ranting

It might be totally unrelated to the fact that the original story is not from the UK, or the North Americas that none is eager to dig into the 1922 material, hmm.... Almost as if anglospheric lit suddenly turns out to be limited, and not so vast and the only trend maker...

The book market prints and publishes what sells. At the moment it's booktook 500 romantasy smut. Next year it could be novels about the interiority of aquatic lifes. What does irk me is that the market defines "female readership", better what "women like to read" as gendered target demographic content with predictable, and repetitive formulas.

The reason why do feel often so bitter, and swing the bat within the confines of a area designated to women is not because I think that Tom Clancy novels, or the onslaught of dudebro self help books were any better. I do think these are pretty bad too but I'm not always pushed on and get these aggressively market to on the basis of my gender. On my 12th birthday a friend who knew me since 6 years gifted me "Twilight" because the local bookshop keeper who helped with the selection thought that "girls who like fantasy" (as my friend described me, accurately) would of course love nothing more than [genre] with a front and center prominent romance. More than a decade later, bestsellers and most prominently placed books are about nothing else but getting and bothered by impossibly chizzled men. Why is that the perception that women must read primarily romance?

A bit of mellowing nuance here: A lot genre fiction titles are formulaic. A lot of titles are mediocre to passable. But in how we perceive the mediocre to be entertaining depends on what formulas speak to our personal preference. It's only the truly great writers who can excavate gems out of repetitive conventions. In that sense, I too can not resist an emotionally, psychologically cleverly observant Jane Austen novel. Still, the formula of romantic genre fiction doesn't speak to me.

On a harsher note: I do think a lot of genre conventions are emotionally immature. Like a lot of genre fiction with male target demographics put "romance" as showcase how manly dudely the protagonist is to get the love interest who also could moonlight as a model, the same happens in the romance fictions. To each their own wishfulfillment fantasy, I will get to that, but: A lot of formulas aren't capable of writing convincing, heartfelt romance. A lot of titles are about physical arousal, going through literal motions which are physically intimate yet unearned; such as tipping up chins, intense eye contact, convenient shenanigans forcing characters to collide physically in ways they aren't ready for mentally. The moment I imagine any of the love interests looking like Danny Devito or Kathy Bates, I know readers wouldn't be tolerant of stuff the charaters say or put their hands on (literally). Once physical attraction, and aesthetic constellation is removed from the equation, there's nothing the characters have to communicate with each other.

On that note, I don't know if other people and I dislike "romance" so much as they dislike unmotivated writing. Once the mold of de facto attraction is broken by example with a character aware they aren't and aren't often conceived as attractive, visibly disabled, ethnic tensions beyond ambiguous "olive tan" comes up, the staple heterosexual relationship can become interesting. Because once the veil of beauty privilege is off, the writers have to think a bit harder what feelings are at play to desire another person so dearly.

Pointing out the evergreen "it's all about hormones" part is easy. The psychological aspect of romance turns me off even more. A lot of romance tropes are about wishfulfillment. "Oh, I might think I was plain and undesirable but in truth I'm too humbld to realize that I could outshine Giselle Bündchen and Naomi Campbell combined. My sheer existence is meaningful. So much so that One Direction would commit human trafficking for me, hot men would turn mad to the point of stalking over me, that they would have one goal only: To make me orgasm properly, and shower me in material excess. In exchange for simply existing." Look, just because this kind of fantasy doesn't give me anything doesn't mean it means nothing to someone else. However, in terms of romance, I don't see the romantic aspect because the love interest presents is the confirmation of social and material worth of the protagonist as wishfulfillment vehicle. The loveinterests material affluence, and their conventional attractiveness, the stereotypical masculinity complimenting the aestheticised femininity are a status symbol. The love interest exists for the protagonist. There is no mutuality, or growth of either personality because it's not entering a deep dynamic of vulnerability and the self being laid bare by another person into which intimacy renders someone in an intimate, intruded-on state. It's all about comfort fantasy to finally receive without ever having to give. (Yes, I so see a consolation in an often fatalistic work of unfulfilled love and family life in heteronormativity. In that sense, so much fantasy is limited in the far dream, that there could be an unreal, only deeply fantastical consolation in the tight confines of heterosexual dating sphere only.)

Therefore it's almost comical when copycats in the publishing work, or fan shipping tries to imitate a popular love dynamic. Just because Erik and Christine make for an excellent excellent of beauty and the beast and death and the maiden, the original dynamic (general trashiness building up the book's story aside) only works because of Erik's self-loathing and trauma by others mistreating him for his ugliness tuned him spiteful and cruel. A plot without seriously considering lookism as shaping character will fall flat. Or, Pride and Predjudice!AUs. Adoring South English late Georgian attire and emotional constipation is fine, really. But I can't believe that character would function anywhere near the lowest British gentry; let alone be emancipated enough to refute Mr.Collins upon social pressure. Iconic romances are iconic because the stories are about characters with unique personalities entering a specific dynamic that can only work for these personalities.

In that sense, ironically in a genre written so often written by women for women, the male characters are often more popular and imitated than any female protagonist. Partly because of the perhaps overseen depth of the female protagonist but also because the male protagonists are much more loaded with aspirations than the female protagonist.

Whereas I do think it's worth investigating what even dark tropes mean actually, a even when regarding what the dubcon mafia boss CEOs present in fantasies of desirability and material affluence, I think the total sum of fantasy has drastically lowered over the years.

> The 2000s written and filmed and written romcom era was riddled with it's own issues. Yet one angle in terms of fantasy presented in the romance genre, a lot of titles descending from "Sex and the City", and "Bridget Jones", was women realizing themselves in their career, their wealth, and their love life. It was a whole package of life happiness to which a hot boyfriend was a necessary part - still the protagonists maintained a good part of emancipation in material and life style terms.

> In that sense, many booktook romances feature hyper masculine guys, and protagonists often finding pleasure in the motions of highly feminine beauty routines (in spite of disclaimers that they are so far above superficialities). A lot of these books ultimately end with the female protagonist languishing in a heavily heteronormative dynamic, which turns out magically good in this kind of fiction. On it's own it's not noteworthy. What does bug me is that we live in a time in which women can have their own money and career. Yet with a high rise of conservatism globally, it strikes me as odd how the genre the market created for and aggressively markets to women presents titles in which the fantasy isn't defiant to the increasing oppressive, women's rights limiting reality. Instead the fantasy is extremely narrow in which in the confines an extremely heteronormative, almost conservative dynamic of gendered behavior and conventional looks, the woman finds her fulfillment. In no area else though.

And yes, I as a woman have the right to point out the bad quality, and that some tropes can't be explained as "this is a secret mental liberation" without being undermined with "internalized misogyny" replies. It's weird how market forces actually can define gender roles, and people buy into it - i multiple senses

Where I get petty where I can see the vision, sometimes in the most obvious way possible, but... the execution, the actual skill of the author is so far off to where they wanted to lead the reader about what they wanted to say and depict. Nice idea but the actual execution can neither convince nor deliver. Because the craft can't create a style which neither strong nor suitable enough to carry the grand vision.

And sometimes the vision is just too shallow, more affect than actual effect of depth.

re-itoration of tidbits of 19th Irish-British writers who appropriated Central and Eastern Europeanfolklore whereas considering these groups as "backwards", and hated immigrants.

Racist stereotypes of Romanians, Sinti, and Romani people.

You 👆 have a talent to ask the tricky questions. But now with enough time to think what is more relaxing than to rant a bit on a Friday? :D

So I've laundry list of takes: