a huge issue with romance right now (and I mean, tbh? commercial lit in general, it's arguably worse for YA atm) is that people are currently considering books about people who do not act the way the reader morally thinks they should... flawed
like, y'all think a character being intentionally written as a problematic individual is a FLAW, when in fact it was a CHOICE the author made, usually to incite conflict and/or trigger character development
I mean, I'll use Laura Kinsale's Flowers from the Storm (a book a Goodreads user I was mutuals with told me not to read when I simply added it to my TBR) as an example
Jervaulx is a SHITTY PERSON. We are introduced to him while he's in bed with his mistress, a married woman; he realizes she's pregnant and casually tells her to go fuck her husband to trick him into thinking the baby is his, because Jervaulx ain't got time for that baby or that woman. He then meets a fellow math nerd who is blind (which by the way, love that he is also into math, man contains multitudes) and notices that the blind man's daughter is a) hot and b) a Quaker.
Jervaulx asks this man "do you know what your daughter looks like" the man tells him it's been a long time since he saw her, and Jervaulx basically takes this as an opportunity to very seductively describe this woman, even though SHE IS A QUAKER AND IS CLEARLY MADE UNCOMFORTABLE (and turned on, let's be real) BY BEING DESCRIBED IN A SEXY WAY IN FRONT OF HER DAD (who absolutely does not pick up on what Jervaulx is putting down but whatever).
This man... is an asshole. And he's an asshole on purpose, because the entire story is about taking a man who has a lot of power and a lot of casual ability and privilege and bringing him down to an EXTREMELY low point, which results in heavy character development (and which does NOT, I should add, turn him into a perfect person! Because people aren't supposed to be perfect! Because perfection is boring, and while boring may work in real life... maybe... it does not work in a story in which we are supposed to have plot and character and forward motion).
BUT NEVER FEAR. Maddy, the aforementioned Quaker and his heroine, is also KINDA UNLIKABLE. Because she is so devoted to her faith (to the degree that it would be hard for readers to relate to her, even when the book was published decades ago) and she is frankly snobby, and closed off, and judgmental. She has GOOD INTENTIONS much of the time, but she is not initially a very emotionally accommodating woman, and even when Jervaulx is brought low, she does not WANT to like him. Because he is not a Quaker, he is not a Friend, and Maddy is not, in the beginning, open to the idea that you can be a good person or become a good person without conforming to the worldview that she has been convinced is morally correct. And in fact, her worldview may not actually BE wholly correct, even if it does have solid points that disrupt a corrupt class system.
It's almost like many readers could also benefit from learning that their worldviews about what makes a good person and character could in fact be flawed and unrealistic and
Fiction is not meant to be didactic and the fact that the current market is increasingly punishing authors for writing books that are not is incredibly disturbing. It's why we have so many books that are either incredibly boring, or swing towards cheaply written dark romance which is not actually good (to be clear: I think dark romance CAN absolutely be good). There's a desperate market for it, I think, because at least that's something readers who want something not Good and Dull can latch onto
Basically: please God read more books about people who are kinda shitty and plots that are kind gray, I promise they won't bite
