Some of the discourse around the Game Changers books comes across as so pseudo intellectual to me, and all my issues with the various, aggressive discourse online has everything to do with this. These books are not hobbit or god of small things; these books are romance. That doesn't mean they get away with bad writing or that the standards for critique are, for some blasted reason, lower—it means the standards for critique are different. The readers of this genre are not looking for intellectual insight or a dissection of social tragedies; they're looking for compelling main characters with good romantic, and in some cases, sexual chemistry. They're looking for tension, resolution, and a happy ending. The romance between characters is the story. Everything else that exists in this world—the universe of the story, discrimination, grief, other characters, mental health issues—are props to affect the relationship between the characters. As long as a romance novel reads like a compelling romance, the writing style can be anything. Because all the skill, all the muscle work, lies in the construction of the characters and the romance between them. That's all it takes to make a romance novel people want to read.
This is not easy to do at all. It's very difficult to create characters that stand out as new. Fanfic writers borrow aspects of original characters and often create less complex versions of them in their own romance fics, but creating interesting original characters, suited especially for romance, takes incredible skill. You see a lot of this in shows like bridgerton, for example, where most of the characters in the show are derived from their originals and have the hallmarks of complexity but not the depth. Or After, where the characters are based on Harry Styles and come across as caricature-ish.
One of the reasons Heated Rivalry was famous even within the MM romance genre (and I've read a ton of books within this genre), is because of the characters. They're incredibly well constructed and their romance is very believable. This is a good romance novel; it fulfills it's intention. Everything else in this book is a prop for the romance, and, again, it's a romance book! It's not an academic textbook on gay sex and mental health disorders!
However people seem to treat it as such. Calling the books too trashy for their taste or that Jacob 'elevates' the books—Jacob's adaptation is successful because he stayed as true as he could to the source material, because, guess what, he is a romance reader and understands what makes a romance story work. The reason you like his show, additionally, is because it's beautiful to look at. The cinematographer and the editor did a wonderful job as well. And of course, the actors get all their flowers. But it's still romance! So you are consuming romance, and sneering at the creators for creating romance as a lesser artform?
It frustrates me additionally that the readers of these books are put down as stupid or as seeking cheap art. Firstly, people who read romance also read other genres. Secondly, people who read romance understand that they're reading romance and have defined expectations for them in most cases. If they consumed romance as a form of 'cheap art' due to lacking standards, ALL romance books to ever exist would be popular. Not saying bad romance novels don't get popular, they do, as in any genre. My point being, people judge a good romance differently than how they'd judge a good murder mystery, because the expectations are different. And Heated Rivalry, and the Long Game are good romance books. Otherwise, so many talented people wouldn't have rallied around it to bring it to screen while repeatedly emphasizing that the key to success was staying true to the source material.
andulkaphoto
stormborns
theartofmadeline
kianamaiart
baratheonpilled
kaledo-art
discoholicmusic
origamiaround
