why do some just make the things their bad at a major point in their stories?
As a mercenary, I am uniquely qualified to answer this question.
I am primarily a science fantasy writer. I quit uni because I felt like I'd make a miserable pharmacist, and noticed that I'd be drowning in student debt if I decided to complete the path to becoming a psychologist, so I decided to make money off of my words as a ghost writer (a big mistake, but one that I was too stubborn to give up on I mooched and skated by for two years, but I figured out how to sustain my self within that time). Last year, I serviced exactly one science fantasy client. Almost all the rest was porn and romance and SEO articles (mostly SEO articles, it isn't sex that sells, it's sales that sells).
I had to shift my talents towards the most wanted fields or starve, so I did. Eventually I got good at it because I had to. Some authors are desperate enough for feedback or even just attention that they'll grasp the low hanging fruit of romance because they know that at least
someone will read them.
For a certain class of author, views are air. What lengths are you willing to go to for a few extra breaths?
You mean how marriage is nothing but a ceremony for the woman to gain ownership of your future financial assets if she one day decides she's "not happy" anymore? Oh, and how divorce courts will back the woman's rape and molestation of the man's net worth, future social and professional prospects as long as she puts on a little water works show in trial? And probably even without the crying. Courts just won't defend a man against a woman.
That's a reductionist take on the topic, though it does have
some truth to it in
some situations due to gender norms clashing with social progress. There have been women that exploit their partners through our antiquated marriage system just like there's women who kill their husbands for insurance money. Such incidents are horrible, and they should be curbed, but they don't happen as often as the most vocal people would say they do, and it's far from the only negative scenario. Marriage has and still is more commonly a tool of oppression against women than men, especially in non-Western countries.
Love exists regardless with or without marriage, but marriage functions absolutely functions as a financial contract.
True to an extent. Marriage is also a step many mushy gushy naiive couples take because they hold ultra-traditionalist views or are just really sentimental. Incentives exist beyond the financial even if financial (and therefore, survival) influences represent a strong undercurrent behind a couple's decision to jump the broom.
At least by the mainstream authors, who submit to that improper narrative for the sakes of sales, and sticking with the group. Degeneracy has been weaponized through the prospect of profits, and authors want a share of that wealth even if that wealth will come to being a vital risk to another.
Yes. Yes. And more yes, I am very guilty of this, see my response to Root.
That said, good romance either requires a good imagination coupled with high emotional intelligence and/or an extensive IRL experience to draw from, so to be an effective writer you'll kinda have to do like an artist does when drawing a tree and spend 70% of your time observing that tree (socialising) and 30% of the time actually drawing (writing).
Agreed. The same elements of tension, growth, mystery, and climax/catharsis found in other plots needs to be present in romance plots for them to be interesting, too many authors confuse shipping with romance, and that is where they fail. As someone who got good at romance before getting okay-ish at handling real relationships, however, I can state with absolute confidence that you don't need to socialize to grind romance exp. You just have to read other books in the genre and dissect them, you can do the same for the millitary, western, and other niche "hard" to write genres.
As an aside: a lot of the discussion regarding what romance and marriage means has users trying to force a solid interpretation through that should be accepted as the standard from which all other viewpoints spring.
This is incredibly silly.
Say hi to Elphelt.
Because Elphelt is an artificial being designed to feel human emotions
too well, she fell madly in love with the idea of love, despite love being forbidden for her. Because she doesn't get out much, she sees marriage as the ultimate expression of love, so she wants to get married. She doesn't seem to care much about the "who" part of the equation.
You can not, and will not convince Elphelt of a different interpretation of marriage. If you tried, she'd brush you off, use logical fallacies, explain things from a completely alien point of reference than yours, and she might even cry until you give up. Then you'd probably end up married to her.
If she had the mind to do it, she could force you.
The "meaning" behind marriage is subjective, and you cannot nail down a subjective standard, you can only state the number of variations and make assumptions about how much influence they held/hold for a certain time period, culture, or situation. Even if you logos and pathos hard enough to get most people to agree to one, it'll drift in a matter of days or years or generations.
