New trend in romances

[Trionyx]

I have noted a frequent theme in romance stories which consists of a rich male rescuing a down-on-her-luck female. (He also, besides being handsome, is skilled in martial arts which he uses to destroy the female’s ne’er do well former partner, but I digress.)

There is an interesting article in Slate about how this rich guy theme is becoming less popular and some of the reasons behind it. You might want to check it out.

They’re Not Looking For a Man in Finance​

For writers of a new type of romance novel, a billionaire hero is not the answer.​

BY Jackie Snow
AUG 16, 2024

 

[Kasumi_Lee]

Interesting. I've written stories with rich male love interests (mainly to ensure financial security for the female MC and their future children) but I've never fully understood why he needed to be worth the GDP of a small country. Millionaires are manly enough for most people's material tastes.

 

[NotWise]

I liked the idea at the end of the article, which I'll rephrase. Romance readers know they're getting happy-ever-after at the end of the story, so Romance authors can explore potentially controversial ways of getting there without losing their audience.

 

[XerXesXu]

Romance for SJWs.

They’re Not Looking For a Man in Finance

Male billionaire meets SJW. How much of his ill-gotten gains would he need to sacrifice, and how many of her lofty principles would she have to abandon to make a love match?

Would you read it?

 

[Comshaw]

I have noted a frequent theme in romance stories which consists of a rich male rescuing a down-on-her-luck female. (He also, besides being handsome, is skilled in martial arts which he uses to destroy the female’s ne’er do well former partner, but I digress.)

There is an interesting article in Slate about how this rich guy theme is becoming less popular and some of the reasons behind it. You might want to check it out.

They’re Not Looking For a Man in Finance​

For writers of a new type of romance novel, a billionaire hero is not the answer.​

BY Jackie Snow
AUG 16, 2024

How many times and in how many different ways can one tell the "Pretty Woman" story? Hmmmmm...



Comshaw

 

[AchtungNight]

I prefer the women be incredibly skilled in martial arts personally, enough to back up the guy if not surpass him. But still be attracted to him, of course.

Sarah Walker, Buffy Summers, Sydney Bristow, Diana Prince, Scarlett of GI Joe and similar hot ass-kicker chicks come to mind.

 

[Bamagan]

I expect that media saturation is responsible. It's very hard to consume the news and not come face to face with the fact that many (most?) ultra-rich people are borderline sociopaths (or sometimes well over the border).

 

[THBGato]

I started reading the Slate piece, but immediately stopped as the premise is based on a deliberate misreading on It ends with us as the chef she ends up with is himself highly successful and doing well finacially. Plus, avoiding spoilers here, but there are loads of other reasons why she ends up with him and not the neurosurgeon.

My take on it is the that rich man trope (or rich older lesbian - plenty of those stories around these parts) will persist for as long as parental leave in the US is so shockingly bad. This means women in the US often have to leave the workforce to care for their children (while this is increasingly less common in Europe) so having a husband rich enough to compensate for your own loss of earnings is incredibly desireable.

 

[StillStunned]

My take on it is the that rich man trope (or rich older lesbian - plenty of those stories around these parts) will persist for as long as parental leave in the US is so shockingly bad. This means women in the US often have to leave the workforce to care for their children (while this is increasingly less common in Europe) so having a husband rich enough to compensate for your own loss of earnings is incredibly desireable.

Isn't it also partly the idea of "this man/woman is so incredibly rich and powerful that they could have anyone in the world, and they've seen and done it all, but they want little old me, so that must make me special"?

 

[HordHolm]

Romance for SJWs.

They’re Not Looking For a Man in Finance

Male billionaire meets SJW. How much of his ill-gotten gains would he need to sacrifice, and how many of her lofty principles would she have to abandon to make a love match?

Would you read it?

Why not? It would make a change from the usual tropes. Mind you, I'm not really in the target audience - I might read a romance once every couple of years.

But the premise isn't terrible, and most romances have some element of sacrifice/change at their core.

 

[MiaBabe23]

Romance for SJWs.

They’re Not Looking For a Man in Finance

Male billionaire meets SJW. How much of his ill-gotten gains would he need to sacrifice, and how many of her lofty principles would she have to abandon to make a love match?

Would you read it?

For me personally, this needs a convincing ‘why’ to grab my attention, and avoid risking sounding clichéd
Personally, I also think it’s starting from a premise involving characters who aren’t authentic. For example, an SJW wants to change the world for the better, so why would we be uplifted by the idea of her sacrificing her principles? Similarly for the billionaire’s commitment to his career etc
If it’s about sacrifice, I think it needs a catalyst of interest

 

[SimonDoom]

If that's what turns people on, power to them. "Billionaire romance" is almost universally escapist fantasy. It resolves, in a fantasy way, the dilemma woman traditionally have had in the world, which is that they have had less wealth and power than men.

I haven't read any of this "alternative" romance fiction, but it sounds like it's driven by a preachy political creed that I personally wouldn't find romantic. But if this fiction is satisfying the romantic tastes of others, it has its place.

There's nothing wrong with exploring new types of romance, but I don't think there's anything wrong with continuing to enjoy more traditional types of romantic fantasy, either. I think it's too bad that Disney, for example, seems to find it necessary to reboot every princess story by dispensing with or lessening the role of the prince and making the princess a badass. Many little girls actually DON'T fantasize about being badasses, and that's OK.

 

[THBGato]

Isn't it also partly the idea of "this man/woman is so incredibly rich and powerful that they could have anyone in the world, and they've seen and done it all, but they want little old me, so that must make me special"?

Yes... but think about WHY they could have anyone they wanted. It's a massive oversimplification, but it is partly to do with the lack of job security and support for parents (especially mothers) in the workforce. Add in the gender double standard where men are expected to sacrifice family time for their career, while it's the opposite for women, and you can see why wealth is a powerful aphrodisiac, even for women who have successful careers. At the very least it means they could afford childcare.

I live and work in Europe, where there is often superb parental leave arrangements and subsidised childcare. (The company I work for offers it's employees free childcare from age 1 upwards, and statutory parental leave covers the first year. We have a lot of ambitious female leaders as a result, who definitely aren't looking for a guy in finance. They want a guy that will take the kids to volleyball practise after school or cook dinner.)

Sure, there's lots of other cultural factors, not least consumer culture, but I think this fantasy won't ever fade until the world gets parental leave/support right.

 

[AchtungNight]

For the record, I don’t like it when the prince’s role is lessened in favor of a badass princess either. I want both leads to be awesome, thx.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Yes... but think about WHY they could have anyone they wanted. It's a massive oversimplification, but it is partly to do with the lack of job security and support for parents (especially mothers) in the workforce. Add in the gender double standard where men are expected to sacrifice family time for their career, while it's the opposite for women, and you can see why wealth is a powerful aphrodisiac, even for women who have successful careers. At the very least it means they could afford childcare.

I live and work in Europe, where there is often superb parental leave arrangements and subsidised childcare. (The company I work for offers it's employees free childcare from age 1 upwards, and statutory parental leave covers the first year. We have a lot of ambitious female leaders as a result, who definitely aren't looking for a guy in finance. They want a guy that will take the kids to volleyball practise after school or cook dinner.)

Sure, there's lots of other cultural factors, not least consumer culture, but I think this fantasy won't ever fade until the world gets parental leave/support right.

And in spite of all of that Europeans have a lower fertility rate than Americans.
So maybe many women's ideas of romance don't actually revolve around parental leave?
Maybe lots of women would *gasp* prefer to stay home and raise their own children. I've known more women to stay home with their kids because they wanted to, than because they didn't think family leave laws were adequate.

 

[AG31]

Did the rich man trope pretty much start with 50 Shades of Gray? That was my impression, but it could be that I just hadn't noticed romances before then.

 

[SimonDoom]

Did the rich man trope pretty much start with 50 Shades of Gray? That was my impression, but it could be that I just hadn't noticed romances before then.

Not at all. Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice is based on the same basic idea. Mr. Darcy is fabulously wealthy and that's part of his appeal. Elizabeth Bennett, on the other hand, is at the bottom rung of the aristocracy, financially insecure, with her family on the verge of ruin.

Or fast forward to Jane Eyre, with the powerful and mysterious wealthy Mr. Rochester and the impoverished governess Jane Eyre.

The gothic romance formula has used the theme of the rich, powerful, mysterious man and the poor, innocent, but plucky heroine forever.

In the old days, the wealthy were landed aristocracy. Now they're the founders of tech startups. In 50 Shades, Christian Grey was, improbably, only 27 years old, but a self-made billionaire, although it wasn't exactly clear how he made so much so fast. It never made any sense to me. On the one hand, he said he was successful because he understood people and how to motivate them, but throughout most of the book he acted like a clod in dealing with people.

 

[AG31]

Not at all. Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice is based on the same basic idea. Mr. Darcy is fabulously wealthy and that's part of his appeal..

Of course!! And me an English major...

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Did the rich man trope pretty much start with 50 Shades of Gray? That was my impression, but it could be that I just hadn't noticed romances before then.

The whole "Prince Charming" trope goes back even further than Jane Austen et al.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

For the record, I don’t like it when the prince’s role is lessened in favor of a badass princess either. I want both leads to be awesome, thx.

You see this is the issue. Both characters must be saints to satisfy the template which is determined by the reader demographic. The romance reader in general does not want an original story. They just want fantasy world where everything is right, justice prevails exactly as they feel that it should. They want the template. Romance is about justice. In the romance template, in order to receive full justice, a (good) character must be fully good. Our heroes must not have flaws and any strife in their lives absolutely must be of external sources, never of their own doing. That way the characters are fully deserving of the perfect absolute justice of the HEA that they are obviously heading for. The characters must be fully respectable in every way.

And this brings us to ... profession. Someone of means is always respected. If the character is educated and professional, it ticks the box with the wave of the magic wand. Billionaires do fit into that. Countless romances on lit involve two people whose means are never questioned - oncology nurse, code specialist (with degrees up the yin yang), accountant, architect, five-star chef, and of course the classic doctor or lawyer. This ticks all of the boxes for competency, relevancy, honor, - and of course means - all in one sweep.

The doctor is distressed. Why? because he did everything that he could to help his patient but in the end the nine-year old with cancer died anyway. He does everything right, nothing wrong, and his conflict is 100% external. This is required. Why is he single? Because his 100% rotten bitch ex left him for a pro football stud and took his house and savings. He has done nothing wrong here neither, all conflict 100% external. This is required. He's competent, reliable, and compassionate, all perfect traits that never waver, and so he is deserving of the reader's respect and the happily ever after coming his way. He is complete fucking vomit-inducing cardboard and he is 100% REQUIRED. If you do not deliver this, you will have a terribly time getting a score on lit, and you will not get published by any mainstream hard copy romance publisher.

Why? Because romance readers are shallow.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

You see this is the issue. Both characters must be saints to satisfy the template which is determined by the reader demographic. The romance reader in general does not want an original story. They just want fantasy world where everything is right, justice prevails exactly as they feel that it should. They want the template. Romance is about justice. In the romance template, in order to receive full justice, a (good) character must be fully good. Our heroes must not have flaws and any strife in their lives absolutely must be of external sources, never of their own doing. That way the characters are fully deserving of the perfect absolute justice of the HEA that they are obviously heading for. The characters must be fully respectable in every way.

And this brings us to ... profession. Someone of means is always respected. If the character is educated and professional, it ticks the box with the wave of the magic wand. Billionaires do fit into that. Countless romances on lit involve two people whose means are never questioned - oncology nurse, code specialist (with degrees up the yin yang), accountant, architect, five-star chef, and of course the classic doctor or lawyer. This ticks all of the boxes for competency, relevancy, honor, - and of course means - all in one sweep.

The doctor is distressed. Why? because he did everything that he could to help his patient but in the end the nine-year old with cancer died anyway. He does everything right, nothing wrong, and his conflict is 100% external. This is required. Why is he single? Because his 100% rotten bitch ex left him for a pro football stud and took his house and savings. He has done nothing wrong here neither, all conflict 100% external. This is required. He's competent, reliable, and compassionate, all perfect traits that never waver, and so he is deserving of the reader's respect and the happily ever after coming his way. He is complete fucking vomit-inducing cardboard and he is 100% REQUIRED. If you do not deliver this, you will have a terribly time getting a score on lit, and you will not get published by any mainstream hard copy romance publisher.

Why? Because romance readers are shallow.

Define Irony: a person who rails against stereotypes while stereotyping everyone else.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Define Irony: a person who rails against stereotypes while stereotyping everyone else.

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.

 

[summer_reine]

You see this is the issue. Both characters must be saints to satisfy the template which is determined by the reader demographic. The romance reader in general does not want an original story. They just want fantasy world where everything is right, justice prevails exactly as they feel that it should. They want the template. Romance is about justice. In the romance template, in order to receive full justice, a (good) character must be fully good. Our heroes must not have flaws and any strife in their lives absolutely must be of external sources, never of their own doing. That way the characters are fully deserving of the perfect absolute justice of the HEA that they are obviously heading for. The characters must be fully respectable in every way.

And this brings us to ... profession. Someone of means is always respected. If the character is educated and professional, it ticks the box with the wave of the magic wand. Billionaires do fit into that. Countless romances on lit involve two people whose means are never questioned - oncology nurse, code specialist (with degrees up the yin yang), accountant, architect, five-star chef, and of course the classic doctor or lawyer. This ticks all of the boxes for competency, relevancy, honor, - and of course means - all in one sweep.

The doctor is distressed. Why? because he did everything that he could to help his patient but in the end the nine-year old with cancer died anyway. He does everything right, nothing wrong, and his conflict is 100% external. This is required. Why is he single? Because his 100% rotten bitch ex left him for a pro football stud and took his house and savings. He has done nothing wrong here neither, all conflict 100% external. This is required. He's competent, reliable, and compassionate, all perfect traits that never waver, and so he is deserving of the reader's respect and the happily ever after coming his way. He is complete fucking vomit-inducing cardboard and he is 100% REQUIRED. If you do not deliver this, you will have a terribly time getting a score on lit, and you will not get published by any mainstream hard copy romance publisher.

Why? Because romance readers are shallow.

Is it shallow or just escapism? I read the fluffy hea stories because my life is anything but. I'm not perfect, I don't have a career or education that automatically make me respected. Not was I ever in a relationship with someone like that. I'm not rich nor was my partner. I live in the messy world and want to hide in one with no dark surprises.

I am bored of the tropes though and am trying to think up new storylines to amuse myself.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Is it shallow or just escapism? I read the fluffy hea stories because my life is anything but. I'm not perfect, I don't have a career or education that automatically make me respected. Not was I ever in a relationship with someone like that. I'm not rich nor was my partner. I live in the messy world and want to hide in one with no dark surprises.

I am bored of the tropes though and am trying to think up new storylines to amuse myself.

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.

 

[summer_reine]

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

Science nonfiction also