Read on Twitter
Anyone outside of Romancelandia trying to do a hot take about our genre _really_ needs to understand that, broadly speaking, we have both a liberation wing (protagonists bend the world to find their joy) and a compliance wing (protagonists bend themselves to find their joy).
Yes, there& #39;s all sorts of toxic slut shamey stuff that can show up in romance - just like any other genre. The argument that HEAs fundamentally slut shame, are fundamentally monogamous, and are somehow bad for people with mental health concerns is, at best, confusing.
Lot& #39;s of writers in this genre - at every sales level and publishing strategy - are writing books with different relationship styles, different types of HEA, and about characters with mental health diagnoses who don& #39;t have to be cured to be happy.
We are not a blameless, perfect genre - how could we be when we& #39;re the biggest selling genre out there and, well, look at the world? And every book isn& #39;t the right book for the right reader at the right time. But these hot takes that aren& #39;t reality-based are exhausting.
I& #39;ve personally got a hero with PTSD, a heroine with anxiety, multiple polyamorous HEAs, friendly ex& #39;s, nightmare ex& #39;s, and an entire book that revolves around the Prince of Wales& #39;s fiancé dealing with a creepy prophecy while shutting down slut shaming in the British media!
And pretty much every romance author I know (because I hang in the liberation wing) can say similar.
There& #39;s plenty of valid stuff to examine and critique the romance genre for (there& #39;s huge issues with white supremacy, for example).
There& #39;s plenty of valid stuff to examine and critique the romance genre for (there& #39;s huge issues with white supremacy, for example).
But characters finding happiness? And readers knowing that romances contain relationships that succeed (much like a murder mystery includes a murder that is mysterious and is solved) is not the problem here.
