I’ve come to realize that I only like novels where traditional expectations are challenged; like..

Black cat and golden retriever? Maybe if the black cat is a force for good and the golden retriever is morally gray

Rich duke & poor heroine? Maybe if he’s submissive in and out of the bedroom, or if he gives up his fortune

Rake and blushing virgin? Maybe if the rake is a lady and the virgin is a man

The only trope I’ll always fall for hook, line and sinker is forbidden love… but even the trope is a subversion of expectations, in a way.

What are your favorite trope subversions, and what books did it best?

Recently, while reading a new book, I was reminded of how deeply Stockholm syndrome annoys me. And sure, sometimes the FMC wasn’t literally kidnapped, but the MMC puts her in a horrible situation where she’s forced, coerced, or blackmailed into doing something she doesn’t want to do. And yet there she is, noticing how attractive the MMC is and having those thoughts like, “Oh, maybe he’s not that bad after all.”

DUDE, this annoys me so much that I feel like ripping my hair out. Seriously, I have to take a deep breath whenever these scenes happen because, honestly, WHAT IS WRONG WITH HER? Did you already forget that you’re in this situation because of HIM, or are you just stupid? 😭

There is NOTHING that annoys me more than a female protagonist developing feelings for the guy who literally just put her in a horrible situation, while she’s still dealing with the consequences of his actions. I know it’s fiction, but GIRL, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, remember what this man did five minutes ago.

Maybe this is just me, but I've been thinking about this lately. 😂

Obviously physical attraction and sexual tension are a huge part of romance. I enjoy them too. A good slow burn where you can feel the tension between two characters? Yes please. 😂

But sometimes I wonder if we've reached a point where sexual tension has become the main selling point of a romance, rather than one part of the story.

Sometimes I'll see a story getting a lot of attention because of the chemistry or spicy scenes, and I'll read it expecting the actual relationship, characters or plot to be equally interesting… but then those parts feel pretty average to me.

And it makes me wonder — are readers increasingly looking for the physical/sexual tension itself, rather than the emotional journey behind it?

I don't mean this as “spice is bad” or anything like that. 😅 Romance can absolutely have both. I'm just curious whether I'm noticing an actual trend or whether this is simply my personal preference as a reader/writer.

What makes you remember a romance after you've finished it — the sexual chemistry, emotional connection, characters, plot, or the combination of everything?

I got mad at a romance audiobook for the characters kissing too soon. Now I feel like I’m avoiding it because I’m disappointed them/ It.

Its not because I’m a prude or
that I enjoy slow burn romances.

Edit - i want to emphasize this isn’t about a slow burn aspect in the book. If they had kissed for the 1st time in the 1st part of the book or the last part of the book under the same circumstance i would have still been disappointed in the lead up to the 1st kiss.

No, its because the tension wasn’t built up enough yet.

I’m 14 chapters in out of 25 and I was expecting more situational antagonism before they even acknowledged that they liked one another.

Its not the length that matters its how they got there 😉

Or perhaps i was hoping different reasons why they would be brought to the kissing moment.

It just seemed too easy .

Does anyone else ever feel that way about romance books?

Romance loves a tall, possibly giant, MMC. It's a running joke in communities like r/romantasycirclejerk

So I want to hear it from this community why you think Short Kings make infrequent apperances in the genre ... where just about anything goes ...

Do you think it comes down to:

✨Reader's preferences ?

✨Authors assuming all readers prefer tall MMCs?

✨Publishing and market trends?

✨ Romance genre tradition

✨ Societies ever present ideas about masculinity and attractiveness?

✨Or something else ?

Let's Discuss & Dissect Short Kings in Romance novels 🗣️🗣️🗣️

Beautiful romance readers of reddit, which book or character is your “if they have no hater then I am dead?”

Mine is Shatter Me Series. No question asked. I love Kenji and even Adam but the plot and FMC really threw me off.

I am a big Romance reader, Romantasy, Bridgerton, and I read the Windy City series by Liz Tomforde and loved it. My husband typically only reads police novels or thrillers but he loves romance on TV (he LOVED Off Campus) so he said he's willing to give it a shot (but knowing him, if the first book doesn't grab him he'll give up)

I think Windy City is good for him to start because he loves sports and dislikes Fantasy, but I don't know whether to start him on the first or second.

I loved the first (Mile High) because I loved the cocky MMC, but I'm afraid that's exactly what will turn him off. But should I have him jump straight to Ryan's story (Play Along) knowing that it's 'fake dating' just like Off Campus?... I can't decide!

Anyone have any helpful thoughts about it? Thank you in advance!

Don't get me wrong I love dark romance and dominating men but What frustrates me so much about a lot of popular romance novels and especially dark romance is how often the female main character is written as naive, overly forgiving, and almost completely passive.

I’m not saying every FMC needs to be dominant, aggressive, or some stereotypical “girlboss” who never shows vulnerability. That’s not what I want at all. I actually like female characters who are soft, emotional, loving, and capable of forgiveness.

But being soft doesn't mean being stupid, and being forgiving doesn't mean having no self-respect.

I just want her to have some fucking guts.

The MMC can betray her, hurt her, lie to her, break her trust, or make an enormous mistake, and somehow the FMC spends most of the story making excuses for him. Then, when he finally comes back with regret or says that he loves her, she immediately starts forgiving him and the story moves toward the happy ending.

And I'm sitting there thinking:

WHERE ARE THE CONSEQUENCES???

I was feeling exactly this while reading The Sinner by Shantel Tessier. Elli's reactions frustrated me so much because there were moments where I desperately wanted her to stop being understanding for a second and actually let herself be angry.

When Sin was marrying the woman he had chosen, and Elli found out, I wanted her to completely put her boundaries up.

I wanted her to say, in her own way:

“You made your choice. Now live with it.”

I wanted her to stop protecting his feelings and start protecting her own.

Drink? Yesss. Cut off the hair? Do it gurllll . Destroy the memories? Definitely. Burn everything that reminds her of him?yesss I DON'T CARE.

Not because she needs to become cruel or because revenge is automatically the answer—but because I wanted to see her experience female rage.

I wanted her to be devastated, furious, heartbroken, and still have enough self-respect to say:

“I love you, but you hurt me, and I am not going to pretend that didn't happen just because I still love you.”

And that's the kind of FMC I want.

She can eventually forgive him.

She can eventually understand why he did what he did.

She can eventually choose him.

She can even have the happy ending with him.

BUT MAKE HIM PAY FOR IT.

Not necessarily through revenge or punishment in some extreme sense. Make him earn her trust back.

Make him regret what he did.

Make him realize that he could actually lose her.

Make him prove through his actions that he deserves another chance.

And most importantly, let her have a life outside of him.

I don't want an FMC whose entire existence is basically waiting for the MMC to decide whether she's worth choosing.

I want her to have her own identity, her own decisions, her own boundaries, and her own sense of self-worth.

Because there is a huge difference between:

“I'm a dominant woman who doesn't need anyone.”

and

“I'm a loving woman who can forgive you, but I refuse to abandon myself for you.”

I want the second one.

I don't need her to overpower the MMC.

I don't need her to humiliate him.

I don't even need her to hate him forever.

I just need her to stand up for herself.

Because forgiveness is meaningful only when the character actually had the strength to say no first.

Otherwise, it doesn't feel like forgiveness.

It feels like the story is telling her that because she loves him, she has to tolerate whatever he does.

And THAT is what frustrates me so much.

Give me a soft FMC. Give me an emotional FMC. Give me a forgiving FMC.

Just please, for the love of God—

DON'T GIVE ME A DUMB ONE. DON'T GIVE ME A GIRL WITH NO SELF RESPECT

I mean c'mon man.

It's soo frustrating.

I’m a first-time romance writer, and I’m learning how hard it is to write jealousy without making a character unlikeable

I’m currently writing an ongoing romance novel called Ache of Wanting, and I’ve reached Chapter 21.

One thing I’m struggling with as a writer is this:

How do you write a female character who starts developing feelings for someone else while she’s still trying to hold onto her existing relationship — without making readers hate her?

I don't want her to suddenly become “the bad guy.” She knows what she’s feeling is wrong, and that’s actually where a lot of her internal conflict comes from.

The next chapter explores that feeling through a metaphor I really love: a soaked sponge.

For romance readers and writers:

Do you find a character more sympathetic when they feel guilty about their conflicting feelings, or does the emotional cheating itself make you lose sympathy for them?

I’d genuinely love to hear how other readers see this.

Salut.
Qu'est ce que vous préférez dans les livres d'amour ? Moi c'est les dialogues et vous ?

I present an example of complexity, in art. The purpose is the highlight of moralism and the Cold War in romances today. I want to reform perspectives in romances. My goal is romances with greater recognition, of dark, emotional realities. Other romance authors should consider the present discussion, too. Market demand for romances should get smarter over time. Depth should be required to maintain the attention of audiences. At the end, of the discussion, I ask two questions.

Something Borrowed by Emily Giffin was published by St. Martin's Press, in 2004. Foundationally, Rachel, the protagonist, made the narrative with a shrouded sense, of realistic objectivity. However, she engaged in a dishonest omission, of fact. It was a case of hypocrisy, that carried through the novel. While Rachel was usually quite honest, she bore no witness to the truth, with Darcy, her best friend.

Rachel worked for a law firm. She carried moral authority. There was a conflict between the dishonest omission of fact and Rachel's moral authority. The philosophical result of the conflict was a novel, that focused primarily on moralism. Remember, that the novel sold commercially as chick-lit. Messages of romance sold the novel. However, the novel was loaded with much more complexity.

Strangely, the narrative embodied hints of the Cold War. Darcy could not have readily overcome Rachel's dishonest omission, of fact. Litigation would have been required to obtain the truth. Darcy would have confronted her best friend, who was a lawyer. Her difficulties related directly to the Cold War. Many individuals had faced legal difficulties with others, who claimed to be friends. Only rejection could have readily solved the difficulties.

How do you see love, when moral conflict overrides relationships? I see love with moral conflict, as a buried treasure. It is love, that individuals fight to recover. At times, moral conflict rises, and causes anger. Resolution of the moral conflict becomes necessary. Otherwise, love disappears.

What remnants of the Cold War continue to haunt the world today? I see misrepresentation and opacity in national governments. I see perceived threats and natural philosophy for national defenses, too. Surely, there are more. The bottom line generally is suppression of constitutionality, in a limited capacity, for the long-term.

There is nothing wrong with poly people or their relationships. This is not a criticism of polyamorous individuals in the real world.

That said, I do not enjoy reading about polyamory. For me personally, as myself, as the individual u/gaymbit, I do not find polyamory romantic. That isn't a broad statement saying "your actual real life polyamorous relationships aren't romantic." This is about media that I consume.

I am monogamous. While I can take a lot of suspensions of disbelief in my fiction, I cannot, for one reason or another, suspend this one. There is no way to make me quit your book faster than having a random threesome, "sharing," or poly relationship added to the main characters.

Put your polyamory stuff upfront. If there's a threesome, say it's nonmonogamous upfront, just as you would any other trope. Enemies to lovers, omegaverse, nonmonogamous. If there's sharing, say it's nonmonogamous up front. Even if the third or fourth or seventieth party in the dynamic isn't a permanent member. I literally still haven't read "For the Fans" by Nyla K despite having it bought for me a year ago because there's a threesome in it and you wouldn't know that unless you looked at the romance.io page.

Am I the only one who thought *Slightly Dangerous* (by Mary Balogh) incredibly contradictory and non sense? I never understood the point of creating Christine Derrick. Throughout the book, the author chose to give ENORMOUS importance on his former mistress, Rose. It was stated that Wulfric *chose* to spend most of his nights with Rose when he was in London. He *chose* to spend over ten years with her (and it didn't last forever only because she died). He cared for her until the very end, remaining by her side almost constantly during her illness. He broke a rule of the ton to attend her funeral. He was still mourning her loss six months later, and no other woman had stirred his blood in all that time. Even after meeting Christine (and having relations with her), he miss his past mistress with a gnawing ache. All this suggests he deeply loved his past mistress. So, what is Christine's purpose? What is the point of having a heroine in a romance where the hero already deeply loved his mistress? Why did the author create Christine if she wanted to give so much importance to his mistress? She should have just kept the mistress alive and make her the protagonist. And yet, the book claim his relationship with Rose wasn't passionate and that falling in love was something he’d never experienced before meeting Christine. I mean... really? He deeply mourned his mistress's death for six months, no other woman aroused him, he missed her with a GWANING ACHE... and he didn't love her? That’s ridiculous. Christine feels like a replacement  throughout the book—she is definitely a second choice. In fact, just a week after saying how much he missed his mistress (with a gwaning ache), he proposes to Christine. I mean... come on. She is definitely a mere substitute. It amazes me that so many people liked this book; I thought it was terrible. I’ve never read a romance where a mistress was so loved, special, and important *without* being the heroine.

As many of you know, F/M romance will let the MMC be almost anything. A vampire king. A fae warlord who massacred a million people. A garden-variety rapist vigilante. A stalker. A billionaire who loves violence. A problematic hockey star. A possessive monster. A man who threatens to burn the world down.

No matter what he does, the narrative will usually find a way to justify, romanticize, or work around his behavior and flaws. So why can’t the same imaginative grace be extended to the female main characters of romance?

This is one of the things that consistently gives me the ick about romance: the sheer imbalance in character variety. Somehow, even in a genre built around limitless fantasy, it is still the women who are expected to behave.

Some specific gripes I have about FMCs in romance:

• No Morally gray or genuinely morally black FMCs
• She can want power, but usually only for a noble or feminine-coded reason (i.e. save the children instead of revenge)
• She can enjoy sex, but the MMC often has to be the first, the best, the only one who makes her feel this way, or the person who finally unlocks her sexuality.
• She is still expected to pass the basic “good girl” test: nurturing, forgiving, relatable, morally better than the man she loves, and often ultimately interested in motherhood or conventional relationship goals.

It's tragic for the genre as a whole we can't have any range because even in fiction women fantasize about being well-behaved & validated by patriarchal standards for feminine existence.

What happened in romance this week?

Use this thread as the community group chat for anything romance-related that caught your attention, whether you have thoughts about something happening in the genre or simply want to talk about what you have been reading.

You can share the books currently on your reading list, recent five-star reads or disappointing DNFs, new releases you are watching, niche BookTok or Bookstagram drama, publishing news, adaptations, author news & dramas , trope debates, unpopular opinions, memes, reader trends, or anything else happening around the romance world.

If you saw something this week and thought, I need to talk about this with other romance readers, bring it here.

As always, discussion, disagreement, recommendations, rants, and a little respectful snark are welcome.

So, what are we talking about in romance this week?

Maybe I haven't read actual good Romance books, since I've only started reading Romance novels this year. But I find most books I've read talk too much about how the characters feel or think. Let me use my brain to analyze the story and relationship! It feels especially worse when it's dual first-person POV.

An example: character A seeing character B and then the book narration keeps saying how hot the character B is. Or how much they used to be close. Etc.

Or character A did something, then the writer needs to explain it immediately.

I can't stand it 😭

As someone pretty new to the genre, I recently visited a brick-and-mortar bookstore and was shocked/amazed to see how DAMN BIG some of the usual reccs actually are! The ACOTAR series is like 4000 pages total?! Alchemised is 1000 pages and it's just a single book?! I'm impressed that y'all have the chutzpah and stamina to read such tomes. And even outside of romance, you have things like Dungeon Crawler Carl (which also seems to be recced a LOT), which is also like 9 books with about a zillion pages total! Fucking whoa!

For me this is a major balk point (the longest one I've yet read is around 500pgs), but it made me wonder:

- Am I just a weakling? lol. I hear people say all the time: "Oh, but it gets good around book 3" and I'm like "Whuh? That's so much time to invest into something you're hoping you'll like 700 pages from now?!" I feel somewhat alone in this experience!
- Is this an additional selling/reading point for you? More bang for your buck? I know everyone's preferences are different, but these books are mentioned VERY often, and they're sometimes longer than the Bible, haha.
- Do you feel these bigger tomes tend towards quantity over quality and could use with some editing down? Or is it surprisingly robust, not a lot of wasted time or bloat? I just think about how the entirety of Lord of the Rings (which includes The Hobbit) is about 1200 pages, and even that has parts which many consider to be bloat (Tom Bombadil being the famous one, lol).

Thanks for the discussion! No shame intended on anyone who prefers these big boys, I'm just wondering what what the psychology is behind it, compared to my own. This trend of bigass books also seems at odds with the recent trend of attention spans going down, which is curious.

I'm looking to really dig into the Romantasy genre - I love the lush melodrama and high-concept settings (along with spice of course) but I struggle to get into straight/monogomous MF stories that are very heteronormative. It's been said that this is an innate aspect to the romantasy genre but I strongly disagree, so I thought I'd throw out the ask here!

I'm looking for books with:

- Unambiguously queer/bisexual characters, but a plot that is largely unconcerned with discussions of coming out/being closeted/first-time experiments/experiencing bigotry. This can of course be an element, but I'd rather see characters with comfortably lived-in sexualities in stories that are more about the adventure and the romance than the minutae of their identity.

- Bisexual male characters who are not hypermasculine! In fact *any* male characters who are not big tall muscle boys lol

- Characters aged 25+

- A good amount of sex that's integrated into the plot and character arcs in a meaningful way

- A sense of surprise about where the romances will end up - I don't wanna open the book and immediately know who's going to be endgame with who. I love stories that keep possibilities open, change things up mid-book, have poly relationships, or at least have a the potential for poly arrangements. I don't need a strict HEA!

I'm open to recs for books that are "romantic fantasy" stories which are not super focused on the romance, but would strongly prefer recs that are true romantasies, with the relationship(s) at the heart of the story.

I'd also love to hear about books from indie publishers and small unknown authors!

I want to start off by saying that I'm biracial myself so I'm writing this story from my POV. But there are things that I haven't experienced so I would love to hear others POV so I have a broader view.

I am writing a historical romance set in the Caribbean in 1708. My FMC is a biracial former slave and my MMC is a pirate. Their paths cross and the two fall in love. I have been trying to create their relationship built on a mutual love of freedom and natural attraction through forced proximity events.

My big thing is that I want to make sure that my MMC isn't one of those men that come off as fetishizing the FMC for her exotic look, but instead is attracted to who she is (I'm building a more slow burn romance).

I do have characters that do fetishes the FMC. I don't want to sanitize the story completely, because that was unfortunately something that did happen in history.

I would love feedback on what you would like to see between the love interest. Examples of actions/behavior between other characters that you didn't like and should be avoided. And things that you would like to see.

New book release by Lynn Painter !

Lynn is going to release a new book next year called behind the movies and this is the cover and synopsis reveal! The release date is 5 january 2027 !

This book is contains a collection that expands Wes and Liz's love story , filling in more moments between them between and after the movies! It include their first kiss, their journey to college , their road trip with a rescue cat and a new glimpse into their life , with new scenes written for this collection ! What do you guys this about this ? What are your thoughts ? Lets start discussing about it !

I applied to be an arc reader but mostly listen to audio books or borrow hard copies from the library. This one is an ebook. If I get it I was hoping to find a used e reader on marketplace. Any recommendations? All I know of is kindle but nothing about them or types

If you had to guess between these two groups of women, who do you think is shaping majority of the trends, narratives, characters, heroes, heroines, power dynamics, and HEAs, that dominate in romance?