I recently read a book in which the hero of the book had been through and thus was obsessed with school shootings. I could barely get through it. That’s a topic that I just don’t want to encounter in a romance novel. Other people don’t want to encounter politics other than their own in romance or they avoid books featuring billionaires who are obsessed with making more money. Still others gravitate away from overtly religious books or books whose leads are bonkers about their pets. (OK, maybe the latter is just me.)
How about you? Are there topics that you prefer to give a hard pass to when reading romance? And, if so, are there books that you love that are the exception to your rule?
Impenitent social media enthusiast. Relational trend spotter. Enjoys both carpe diem and the fish of the day.
I dislike stories where the hero or heroine has a criminal background – particularly if that background is glamorised. I can’t forget the victim. I think the fashion for assassin protagonists who kill evil-doers is pernicious, because it supports vigilantism and suggests that one person can rightfully act as judge, jury and executioner.
I have a visceral dislike of stories about serial killers and shudder at fantasies with a high body count; I too often sense a sort of glee in the descriptions of the killings.
As for vampires…. just ick!
I’m with you on the vampires… ick! I don’t really go for paranormal stories in general, so were-whatevers don’t make my reading list.
As for characters with murderous criminal backgrounds, I tend to be more lenient with them in genres outside of romance (erotica, thriller, over-the-top comedy, etc.). Romance, to me, should feel romantic by definition. Although I enjoy seeing a villain get his comeuppance at the hands of the hero and/or heroine, I think I would have trouble enjoying something like a mafia romance for a lot of the reasons you mentioned.
Contemporaries and I are on break for a while.
I know a bit of info about politics, but seeing it is like a trigger for me to get anxious. Because I tried to say, “Oh, Ivanka must have a hard time getting from her dad’s shadow.” In regards to her clothing being on sale. And my mom went on a tirade about Donald trump would hurt me because I have a disability.
I am too anxious to protest, but sharing fundraisers that BLM website linked is what I’ve been doing on twitter.
At the risk of getting in trouble again on this forum, I just want to say that I totally sympathize. It seems more and more that a person can barely say “boo” about anything without getting jumped all over for it. At a gathering a few months ago, I politely offered one of my guests a straw for her soda, only to be sharply lectured about the harm I was doing to the environment. (A simple “no thank you” would have sufficed for the occasion.) It’s enough to make anybody anxious. Hang in there.
I grew up in a very politically and socially conservative part off the country and you just learn to keep your mouth shut most of the time. That isn’t nearly as easy as it sounds when your head is ready to explode, however…
“you just learn to keep your mouth shut most of the time.” Good life lesson, one I haven’t quite learned yet. :)
I’m not as good about that as I used to be, but I’m also not a kid anymore. I have a big vocabulary and know how to use it, so if someone is sitting there sounding stupid trying to tell me how the world should be run, I bring out the $5 words and show them how stupid they really are. As I gently smile…lol!! Leading them down the garden path to the alligator pond has proven an excellent strategy for me.
But it’s still not easy when your head increase to explode
“Leading them down the garden path to the alligator pond has proven an excellent strategy for me.” LOL! I hope you mean figuratively! :)
For the sake of not starting another round of firestorm arguments, I won’t tell you what I said to the person who made a thing about my offering her a straw for her drink at a party. But I certainly didn’t keep my mouth shut, and my rebuttal nicely shut up hers. :)
I am appreciative of your desire to not start any more arguments! :)
Oh, thank you. I think I’ve started and/or escalated quite enough arguments this week at AAR. :) It’ll be fun to get back to talking about the world of romance literature again.
Anything that deals with child abuse in any kind of graphic way and evangelical themed romances. Just Ugh to both.
Inspirational romances have to have a reaaaaaaaallly compelling hook to make me consider it. That’s not to say I object to any religion mixed in my romance but it needs to be vital to character development and not just a thin veil for proselytizing.
Exactly, Piper! If a character has a deep faith, or is looking for a spiritual component to fulfill their life, that can be interesting. If it spills over into evangelical behavior, then I’m done. One of my all time favorite series, by Julia Spencer-Fleming, is about a woman who is an Episcopalian priest, who is also a retired military officer who is still in the National Guard, who finds herself very attracted to the married, older, town sherriff. These books are mysteries, but her spiritual life and her friendship and attraction to the cop are huge components of her life. Religion and faith can be written very interestingly without preaching. It just rarely is.
Please remember the rules for commenting at AAR:
#1: No bullying or personal attacks. If we deem your comment racist, sexist, homophobic, or in any way offensive, we will delete it. If you insult or threaten a fellow commenter or an AAR staff member, your comment will be deleted. If you continue to post offensive comments, we reserve the right to ban you from commenting on the site.
#2: AAR has the final say over what is or isn’t allowed on the site and generally we won’t publish comments about our moderation.
#3: Stay on topic. Be concise. Comments we believe derail a thread may be deleted.
#4: Disagreement is cool. Dismissiveness is not.
#5: Be kind.
Thanks Dabney for keeping us on track! I hate sites where people attack and tear at one another. You’ve kept this a place where we can express our opinions and be respectful at the same time.
All good rules. I’ll try to do better to behave myself. :)
I would appreciate if everyone took the rules to heart.
I work in the Justice system (Canada) and I just can’t where the story focuses on crime/police in some way. It is usually so incredibly wrong I want to throw the book at the wall, it is clear the author simply watched CSI for guidance. Most of the actions taken is stuff that could never be used in court and at the end of the day “they are going away for a long time” when in actual fact they wouldn’t be also. Maybe it’s just too close to home but I avoid those at all costs.
I like mysteries and detective novels, preferably historical ones. But I can though see your pov on contemporary justice system issues, and with all that is going on today in America with militarized police forces and systemic racism in our justice and police system, I avoid these types of books as well. Deeply skeptical of the fairness they try to put forth.
I feel this way about most books set in hospitals or featuring doctors. I don’t understand why authors don’t ask people who actually do a job for guidance!
I am going to state this again:
AAR is a place where all should feel welcome. Please consider that when commenting.
To quote an editorial by Roger Cohen in today’s NYT.
“I still believe in both-sides journalism. “A place of moral clarity” can easily mean there is only one truth, and if you deviate from it, you are done for. The liberal idea that freedom is served by open debate, even with people holding repugnant views, is worth defending. If conformity wins, democracy dies.”
Excellent, Dabney. Thank you.
The fact that a number of people voted this quote down is deeply disturbing to me.
It doesn’t surprise me.
I think one reason could be that both-sides journalism hasn’t actually been that, at least not during the Trump era. Media are doing a terrible job overall calling things as they are are – because the media is suspected of “liberal bias “ they tend to wrap themselves into knots when it comes to calling out what the administration (or police) is doing. That is why I find that quote unconvincing, especially coming from the New York Times who is apparently so eager to avoid criticism from the right that they published that op-ed by Tom Cotton without any context or even reading it before they published it.
I think there is value in a room for people who have different opinions can come together. I do think there is a danger in treating all opinions equally- as I said before, I don’t have a perfect solution for that but I don’t think it would be right to give equal space to climate change activists and deniers of the same, because one is based on lies and misrepresentations. You could solve something like that with marking such opinions, maybe, but in any case, what I am getting at is that I find that quote and stance lacking in nuance for what is going on these days where people can spread lies without much trouble.
I dunno. I have been a NYT reader for over 35 years and it has never had as far a left slant as it does now. I read four papers a day across the political spectrum in order to get a rounded sense of an issue. Currently, the NYT is the least helpful. It makes me sad because they’ve been my intellectual touchstone for years.
What is frustrating to me is that calling facts facts and lies lies shouldn’t be a left or right issue. And yet because they think they have to create this weird sense of balance they hesitate to call what Trump is doing lies when they are provable lies. That’s what I mean. When reality has shifted to a state like the one we are in now, this approach doesn’t work and can even be harmful.
I think we are at a point where the right has their propaganda networks who make things up all the time, and the left has mostly media who thinks they have to keep balance where one side is not playing fair.
The NYT and the WaPo call out Trump every day and have for months. I don’t see the liberal media being afraid to push back on Trump. I do think they are allowing opinion pieces to be published that are more centrist. I don’t watch any TV news so I can’t speak to what happens there.
I should have read your response first, Sophie, as climate change is the most obvious example for me of why both-sideisms is a failure and a dangerous one. And yes, there is absolutely room for lots of critical and well-developed opinions on any issue that can lead to healthy and critical examination and possibly even compromise. Both-sideisms is reductive and it’s quite dangerous in many instances – i.e. climate change beliefs. I say that anxiously as hurricane season is about to begin and living out on the west coast, we are all eyeing prognosis of our upcoming fire season. It’s terrifying.
Our journalist practices today are just dismal so much of the time that I feel I’ve eaten a box of chocolate for dinner after reading the mainstream newspapers or watching cable news.
I am pretty stunned by this comment. You are the only person I know of (and my group of friends and acquaintances literally runs the gamut from most liberal to most conservative) who thinks the media gives Trump a pass. I read the top stories from most newspapers and media outlets pretty much every day on my news app. CNN, Wall Street Journal, Huff Post, Fox, LA Times, you name it. Sometime Al Jazeera and the South China Post as well as other international sources pop up as well. I think I get a pretty good sampling of what is being reported- and I have never seen the level of criticism leveled at anyone that is leveled at the President daily. In fact most news now, both conservative and liberal, read like someone’s debate speech rather than a news piece. They are just peppered with opinions and arguments and flat out name calling. I cannot wrap my head around this.
I didn’t say anything to this effect because I was beginning to think this was only my perception plus that of my close social group. So thanks for bringing this up, Chrisreader. Like you, I have never seen quite so much media hostility toward an American president across the board. Even Bush was treated as more of an endearing, frustrating stumblebum compared to the treatment Trump gets today. And not too long ago, Bush has been getting on TV shows and everyone treats him like an old pal they just had a beer with- even though a lot of those same people were probably staunchly opposed to him during his presidency. In contrast, I still remember Trump’s election night with people wailing in the streets and news commentators squirming in their chairs.
I’m not saying any of this to defend Trump’s policies, or any previous presidential administration, or anything like that. It’s just astonishing to me the level of vitriol Trump receives from every angle from reporters no longer even pretending to be impartial. Very strange times we live in…
Maybe the fact that there has never been such hostility coming *from* a president in recent times has something to do with that. Reading your comment makes is sound Trump is a normal president when he obviously is not. In case you need proof, look at his Twitter and listen to him when he speaks. Listen to the way he lies, lies, lies without caring when he is called out for it. He was trying to call the army on peaceful protesters for heaven‘s sake. He called for a foreign country to interfere in US elections repeatedly. Why is it weird that that is creating more of a reaction in people?
I also didn’t mean that the media gave Trump a pass. Maybe I didn’t put it clearly enough, but my point was that they too often treat him too much like he is a normal politician when he is not. And I maintain that at a point where there is a real danger of the country sliding into fascism, there is no time for balance.
I’m not debating Trump’s policies and I apologize if my comment in any way seemed critical of you. That was not my intention. I was just very, very surprised that people view the NYT that way.
Like, seriously, if you genuinely find it astonishing that people are mad about Trump, where have you been living these past years?
(Also, for the record, f*** Bush. He was a horrible president and should not be in any way be rehabilitated.)
Sophie,
I would ask you to stop here. I’ve asked for NO personal attacks. Please desist.
I‘m sorry, I honestly didn’t think this was a personal attack (unless you mean the one about Bush). I regret replying to that comment which in hindsight was probably bait.
This sounds more personal than I would like. Thank you for understanding.
I am always concerned with precedent. I know there are politicians that are absolutely hated, I’ve certainly disliked many in my time. It’s the constant escalation that concerns me. One side ups things, another side follows and raises the bar higher.
It feels like it’s anything goes now on both sides. To say we need to listen to everyone has now somehow become a “partisan” argument.
Please try and respond to the ideas in someone’s post rather than comment about them personally.
Thanks!
I truly apologize if I crossed a line. I was genuinely astonished that people think these publications are favorably reporting on the president. I think both sides of the media have become opinion pieces but I have never seen the NYT called biased in Trump’s favor. This comment section has been really revelatory for me.
Both-sideism is a failure of a journalistic practice for key reasons. It pretends to give two points of view (apparently there are always only two) equal weight. For instance, if 96-98% of scientists assert that climate change is a man-made crisis, both-sideism will find someone representing the 1-2% to argue the “other side” and a debate will ensue (usually for entertainment and spectacle on cable news) presenting both sides as just two balanced sides of one issue. How terribly misleading and dangerous to low information consumers.
Of course, most Americans probably felt their jaw drop to the ground when they listened to President Trump after Charlottesvile assert that there are very fine people on both sides: anti-racism as well as Neo-Nazis.
As an academic I wholeheartedly embrace critical thinking and the consideration of multiple strands of thinking that construct any issue. Nuance is a key factor in understanding any issue. Both-sideisms is not the way to achieve that. It’s a charged term in our culture today.
There are so many great general audience sources on this right on the Internet. A quick look and this one is pretty good.
“Bothsideisms is Poisoning America: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/trump-impeachment-journalism/
Thank you to all for managing to discuss politics–the most divisive topic possible it seems–without resorting to individual attacks.
I am deeply proud of you all.
There are certain types of romances that I just don’t have interest in – a lot of the “dark” romances such as mafia or motorcycle club, ones where religion plays a large role, ones where the main characters are all about their pets. However, I really think what the author does with a story can influence me. I haven’t particularly cared for romances with teacher-student relationships but I did love The Hookup Equation by Roxie Noir (terrible title that doesn’t express what the book is about at all). On the topic of school shootings, I never thought I would enjoy a romance related to that but I also loved Roni Loren’s The Ones Who Got Away quartet, which is about 4 women who were survivors of a high school shooting. Reviews on this site really help me figure out whether to take a chance on a book with a theme I wouldn’t normally like!
I feel as if I should try the Loren books. Reviews here of them have made me suspect that they’d work for me. Which brings me back to it’s probably ultimately how well a story is told rather than what the topic is about.
And thanks for the shoutout.
Also something that emerges once I’ve picked up a book, but slut shaming will make me DNF, or other women portrayed as negative stereotypes (usually an ex, or someone trying to get the hero’s attention.)
Not a fan of that either.
A “hard pass” is not something I generally do once I’m in the process of reading a book. I put a lot of effort though into carefully selecting books and would weed out criteria before I committed money and time. A hard pass when determining to read a book is tricky too though because it all really comes down to how an author frames an issue. Authors can tackle all kinds of hot button issues but do so in a sensitive and complex way. An author can endorse a stance on an issue that I find repugnant or an author can condemn the issue, and so hard passes can offer a narrow-minded approach to reading.
I’m an atheist and avoid books that promote religion, but I wouldn’t automatically reject a book featuring religious characters. Kinsale’s Flowers from the Storm handles religion in a complex way. The issue of consensual love and sex is important to me in romances and I tend to avoid books that romanticize sexual violence — too many to name here, but romances are getting smarter on this topic. So many romances in the last few years after the Hollywood Access tape and the MeToo Movement are directly tackling the topic and producing some amazing novels. Glorification of military and police is an issue I’m not eager to read and one that **white** romance authors favor much more that authors of color – big surprise! White police and military on covers of books and blurbs demands a closer look before I’ll commit to reading. Again, some authors might examine the police state and its collaboration with white power but most are glorifying it. Intersectional feminist authors are engaging so clearly today on these topics. I’m careful along these lines about the promotion of “alpha” men who save women, protect women, sexually educate women, dominate women, etc. Again, the MeToo Movement and feminist romance authors have interjected themselves into these older tropes in brilliant ways. I’ve said this before here but I like many of the trends I’m seeing and hope they continue to move in a progressive direction. The “ask” question here is framed in the negative and there are many things I find to condemn in the romance genre, but pop culture is complex and there are many progressive voices intervening and disrupting and in the process producing some really great books.
I think one of the things Kinsale does so skillfully, especially in FftS, is showing you who a character is while keeping it separate from the overall narrative tone. Maddie’s faith is a deeply important part of her development but it never really matters if her faith is important to YOU, the reader. You just have to believe that she believes it.
Absolutely and great point!
I agree with many of these especially the covert agenda or message beyond love and romance. I’m read these books for that reason not the author’s politics, religion or whatever. Also recently read a couple of books set in the corona virus and they went too far into details on death and destruction. It was too much for me completely overshadowed the story.
Other things off limits for me are suspense, mystery, motorcycle clubs, thrillers, mafia, anything involving any aspect of a person being sold (saw some magis stories about women being sold to pay a debt or someone’s virginity bring auctioned off, just no), duets, and cliffhangers. I so far haven’t made any exceptions on purpose. I have been misled by the blurb and realized a few chapters in the real story and abandoned ship.
So, there are a couple of comments here about writers’ “pushing” a message (political, religious, or otherwise) and my first reaction was, yes! Me too!
But maybe it is a question of the approach the author takes and/or quality of the writing? Or maybe this is my exception? I wonder how long it might have taken me to give m/m romances some consideration (if ever?) if it hadn’t been for Jules Cassidy as a character in Suzanne Brockmann’s Troubleshooter series. I wasn’t reading romances when the books were initially published (~2000). I picked them up about 5 or 6 years later than that, but there was some pushback from commenters in online forums even then that Brockmann was “pushing a social agenda” in the books – particularly when Jules became a main character. But I didn’t feel Jules stood out in a bad way in the early books, any more than any of the other secondary characters. And, at least for me, I couldn’t wait for Jules to get his HEA when it finally came. What was “pushing a message” for some writers opened up a whole new romance genre for me.
Maybe it’s a show don’t tell thing.
I hate to be hectored but I love stories where positive social change is an innate part of the storytelling.
“Maybe it’s a show don’t tell thing.”
Nailed it, and a lot of it is so subjective. For instance, someone who’s never read an m/m romance before might find the showing to be telling whereas someone who is used to them might find the telling to be showing.
I enjoy reading about different lives and viewpoints I just dislike it when the character is giving a speech instead of speaking like a normal person would to their friends or colleagues. Penny Reid’s characters do this at times and it puts me off.
I read some of Brockmann years ago though I came in late because I too wasn’t reading much romance at the time, and I liked Jules’s characterization and storyline as it progressed. I interpreted the backlash as homophobia, pretty clear and simple. Brockmann did have a social agenda in her willingness to create a gay romance, but so did the readers who attacked her for doing so.
Wow! Great topic with lots of interesting responses. Here are some of my no-go’s for romance:
I guess you could say I’m pretty picky. :)
You don’t have to apologize for not liking the Amish. That said, I’m not sure any of us need to express condemnation of a religious group at AAR. I’d like this to be a place everyone feels welcome… including those who identify as Amish or as Republicans!
Maybe I’m just digging myself deeper, but it’s not individual Amish I dislike but that particular aspect of the culture. I realize there are a number of religions and other groups that shun family members for holding different beliefs, and this saddens me.
“I’d like this to be a place everyone feels welcome… including those who identify as Amish or as Republicans!” You’re a good, kind moderator, you know that? Although I seriously doubt your average Amish adherent uses online forums. :)
That’s true… but if they did, I want them to feel welcome!
True that. An oddball loudmouth like me finds little welcome most places, but I have found it here. It’s your website’s openness and your gentle handed diplomacy when things get rough that keep me coming back. :)
“blushes”
Why, Dabney. I didn’t think anything could make you blush. :)
Busted.
Like most religions, there are degrees of strictness within the Amish community. I live near a very large and tourist-oriented Amish community in Lancaster County, PA. They will converse with you and answer questions if you approach them, and most of the groups there don’t practice shunning until after a person has committed to live the Amish way of life. Even then, the immediate family often will still maintain ties. They are anabaptist, so do not baptize children; they wait until the individual is a young adult and can choose. If they choose not to be baptized, they must leave the group, but they are not shunned. If they are baptized and later leave the group, they usually are shunned at least by the overall group.
In other Amish groups, this is not the case. Shunning is practiced for anyone who leaves the group for any reason, baptized or not. These are generally referred to as ‘old-order Amish’. These groups tend to be more isolated from ‘the English’ (anyone not Amish) and are also much more strict about things like telephones and modern plumbing.
If you ever have the opportunity to visit that part of PA, I recommend driving around the back roads of the county. It’s beautiful!
Thanks for the clarification. I’ve heard Mennonites are an offshoot of the Amish who embrace technology, but wasn’t aware there were so many different factions of those who identify as “Amish.”
The whole concept of shunning really bothers me though. I knew an elderly acquaintance (deceased many years now) who called himself a “Jack Mormon” because he left the religion and got disowned by his family (I assume he was part of a stricter sect). So I realize it happens in other religions and am always sad to hear about it- especially when it happens to such a nice person like him!
Mennonites are another, separate, anabaptist religion. When you go to many businesses in Lancaster County, Mennonites are behind the counter. They ride bicycles, but they don’t drive cars, they will use electricity for business purposes but not in daily life, Some farm, some live in town, it just depends. But I honestly don’t know much about their religious structure or shunning policies.
There are three or four anabaptist sects that originally settled in Pennsylvania, and most of them are quite small and keep to themselves. The Amish was for decades the fastest growing minority in the US, I don’t know if that is still true. But they frequently have 16-20 kids in a family, and have had to look outside of farming for income. Men do carpentry work, at which they excel, and women quilt and sell home-canned foods. Those Amish that work closely with the English tend to be less strict, and those that have maintained a more separate existence tend to be more strict.
I don’t like the idea of shunning either, it seems unnecessarily cruel. But these groups came to America to flee religious oppression, and probably accusations of heresy and even witchcraft. Group unity was essential to survival. So I understand the purpose of it. That does not mean that I want to read a romance about it!
As for Mormonism, well it seems like such a manufactured idea to me (no offense intended to Mormons, this is just my opinion) that I really have no notion what principles they base their policies on. Or even what a lot of their policies are since they seem so secretive. The few Mormons I’ve met have been very polite, but not at all welcoming of people who are not Mormon.
My objection to reading Amish romances is that I am suspicious that outsiders are not getting the details right. I live in a county in central Pennsylvania with a wide range of Amish and Mennonites, including some Mennonites who are more conservative than some of their Amish or other Anabaptist neighbors. A lot depends on the individual bishop.
I have no interest in reading Amish romances, but I have read a few mainstream books with characters that have ties to Amish culture, and the details are always questionable. So little is truly known about day-to-day Amish life that it would be nearly impossible for someone not in the life to get it right. And different enclaves have different points of view about how much they assimilate with the English.
Amish do cooperate with medical research because they have so many genetic disorders related to inbreeding over many generations, but they rarely cooperate with social research. So I have many of your concerns about that.
But when I go to stores in Lancaster there are racks and racks of books about Amish romance, so they are clearly very popular. They seem to all have a young woman in a white cap on the cover, which is the color married women wear (single women wear black, these color differences act as sort of de facto wedding rings, since they do not wear ornaments of any kind), so I have to wonder if the publishers have any clue about Amish traditions either!
Anytime you have an isolated group like the Amish, the Hutterites, certain Native American groups, etc., it’s very difficult to write a convincing novel about it’s members in my opinion, And while novels do have room for artistic license, If I wanted to read a book where they just make shit up I’d read fantasy. Which I almost never do.
I’m not a big fan of books that feature protagonists with a young child/children. I simply cannot divorce myself from the reality of how much work kids are and how much they absolutely dominate your life, leaving little time for major romances. I’m always thinking “who’s watching the kid?” whenever the couple is off on some romantic escapade.
I will also shut a book immediately if one of the characters is in any way overtly religious. I don’t want to be preached to in real life, much less as a form of entertainment! Same thing with any social or political issue that the author feels so strongly about that her/his message seeps into the story in an obvious way. It’s okay for characters to have opinions about things, but when I’m constantly hit over the head about something, I just can’t lose myself in the story. These even applies to messages that I agree with – in which case, the author is preaching to the choir and I’m just annoyed by it.
I’ve only recently returned to reading contemporary romance after reading historicals for a number of years and have found that sex in the workplace freaks me out – particularly if it is some kind of educational setting.
I just can’t believe, for example, that a university lecturer who is anxious about getting tenure would have enthusiastic sex in her office during the working day. Just no!
Yes! That was a problem I had with Hearts on Hold by Charish Reid (which was otherwise a great story). The heroine was a very anxious, work-driven professor at a conservative college very concerned with tenure and her not minority friendly department head. She didn’t even want him to see her arm in arm with the librarian she was dating but she was having sex in her office on campus and out in the greenhouse! That just didn’t seem likely to me given how it was stressed over and over how “uptight” the heroine was and fearful of taking one wrong step at work.
Well, it’s ridiculous and wouldn’t happen. I’ve been a university teacher for years and there is no way we’re running into our offices to have sex on our desks on lunch breaks. I liked Charish Reid’s Hearts on Hold and I like her voice as a writer but some of the sexual encounters in that novel were laughable.
I can’t stand books where the author is just using it as an excuse to preach about something, anything even if it is something I would support. I don’t make my decisions about policies based on romance novels, I am there to be entertained not get a Ted Talk. If it works into the story in an organic way, that’s great but I cannot stand it when a character sounds like they are giving a speech on the page.
I also don’t handle cruelty to children or animals well. If it’s integral to the story and in reasonable amounts I can handle it but I don’t want to wallow in it gratuitously.
Teacher-student is a trope that would be a hard pass for me, but I have read and enjoyed books with huge age differences, so it is just the ethics of breaking the teaching trust that bothers me.I think I stick with historicals because I don’t want to run into things that upset me IRL, like politics.
I was thinking about historicals vs. contemps vis-a-vis politics too.
I think there are many readers who read happily about wealthy Dukes invested in the patriarchy that would be utterly disinterested in that same man were he placed in our time.
I think people will give a big pass to things in historical or paranormal romances that they would never accept in contemporary romances.
Think of all the historical books that have heroes doing illegal or criminal things like smuggling, working against the government, being a highwayman, thief etc. Then extrapolate that to a present day scenario and a lot of people would be boycotting the book.
I love Derek Craven as a hero but he mentions not only that he made his money as a male escort but that he blackmailed the husbands of the upper class married women he used to sleep with to get money to start his gambling palace and regularly pays off the police not to raid his business.
yes! absolutely
I’m right there with you. I’m a teacher and there is no way today that teachers can get away with dating students without a whole load of trouble beating down on them. And, the morality issue is so clear to me for so many reasons that it’s just not a topic I can read without side-eyeing it. In historical romances, the governess stories have long been popular but they fall more into the employer-employee type of relationship that is similarly problematic but less so than teacher-student ones.
I don’t like the teacher-student romance dynamic either. Now, the irony is that I work in Academia and, out of my head, in my department I have at least five colleagues (all men) that married/partnered with previous students…
damn…
I avoid books with leads who are strongly evangelical about their faith. I have read many wonderful books featuring leads who are deeply religious, who are even priests or pastors. The exploration of faith is interesting to me, even though I am completely non-religious. But to have a ‘preachy’ character in a book…no thanks!
I also have strong objections to dom/sub relationships. They often seem to replace the therapy that one or more parties clearly needs, and as such is a dangerous thing. If you are not mentally healthy you have no business engaging in this kind of behavior, imo. Most often the woman (or the physically smaller man in an mm story) is the sub, and I am bothered by that too. It smacks of the ‘me Tarzan, you Jane’ mentality; the big strong man must be in charge!! Ick.
I have a hard time with motorcycle club romance. My brother was killed in a very freak motorcycle accident, and literally dozens of guys came to his wake bragging about their own nearly fatal bike accidents. Some were in the hospital for months, then more months of rehab care. It was a wake-up call as to just how dangerous those things are (my brother was an extremely safe rider, but it only takes a split second of inattention…). So those stories hold zero appeal for me, and I wish authors would put warnings on them because I’ve been caught by surprise more than once.
On the other hand, I love pet stories, especially when Fido brings together the h&H. I can live without images of slobber, but yeah. Bring on the cats, dogs, ferrets, whatever adorable animal the author can dream up…I’m all in!
I am with you about motorcycles. My rules for my children were no cigarettes, no playing football, and no motorcycles if you live under our roof.
I think a lot of people have been traumatized by motorcycle accidents, they are extremely dangerous imo. If people want to ride them or read romances about the riders, fine. But I do wish books with unadvertised motorcycle use would post warnings. Especially if there is an accident in the story.
Plus they’re so freaking unnecessarily loud. I live in a pretty quiet city and one of the biggest sources of noise pollutions is motorcycles. When I hear one at two in the morning it just ticks me off!
Speaking of loud motorcycles, did you ever see that episode of South Park entitled “The F Word?” It was about this obnoxious, attention-seeking motorcycle club that tears through South Park, driving all the residents nuts. And when the townsfolk refuse to think of them as “cool,” they start acting even more obnoxious by making motorcycle sounds with their mouths in diners, public bathrooms, and the library.
I have never been able to make it through an episode of South Park–it’s just too nihilistic for me. My children, of course, loved it.
I think South Park is one of those shows you either like or you don’t without much middle ground. This is anecdotal of course, but I’ve never heard anyone say, “South Park? Eh, it’s okay.”
As for me, I don’t watch it regularly, but every time I run across an episode, I end up watching the whole thing. I think Matt Stone and Trey Parker are veritable geniuses who hide extraordinary societal satire under piles of poop jokes. Like I said, you’ll probably either like that or you won’t. For some reason, I don’t imagine there would be a ton of fans of that sort of humor on a romance site (although I’ve been proven wrong before!) :)
I tend to read different genres in different ways—or at least have different expectations from them. There are definitely themes/topics I will accept in psychological suspense, murder mysteries, police procedurals, even “women’s fiction” that I do not want in my romance reading. Number one on that list is the death of or danger to a child—although I don’t particularly care for that in any genre, if what I’m reading is not a romance, I can accept it, but it’s almost always gonna be a hard pass for me in a romance.
And I totally agree about the animals/pets thing. Although we always had dogs and our kids grew up with them as part of the family, I do not care for romances built around pets (and I totally agree about the drool/slobber thing—or when a couple wakes up in the morning surrounded by cats and/or dogs in bed with them—no thanks). Also, writers need to keep up with their animals if they do use them in their stories. I recently read a dark romance where a woman was being kept alone in a house with a dog—a sort of watchdog/guard dog. Some food had been left in the house for the woman, so every time she ate a meal, I kept thinking, “But who’s feeding the dog?” and my mind would get distracted.
Regarding realism about animals, I once read a fantasy duology where the heroine had a pet wolf she’d raised from a pup. The wolf :
The only way I could have bought this would be if the wolf was part of the fantasy aspect of the story, but it wasn’t. It was just a wild animal that behaved with robotic compliance and convenience.
You’re not alone on the pets thing! I can take ’em or leave ’em; I reviewed an m/m romance recently where one of the characters had one of those huge, slobbery dogs *shudder* – and it actually detracted a lot from the story for me. I’d probably have been able to give a higher grade had it not been for that, because all the slobber and drool kept taking me out of the story! Working dogs – another book in the same series featured a dog-handler – fine, I just don’t want pages and pages devoted to the pet in question and little else. I’m a cat person anyway, but I’d say the same about felines!
As to the rest of it, I’m not sure there’s much that’s a really hard pass, although I have to agree with Sophie’s comment about Republicans – I’m British and even I would have a hard time with that these days!
I wonder if the antipathy towards those of a different political party in romance is because the reader needs to be able to believe she too could fall in love with the lead. Dating someone is a much bigger deal than accepting or befriending them.
This is from a Pew study done this spring:
I think what you say is spot on.
I confess that remark troubled me too.
But I think that, right now, people just feel so raw about the state of the world and are quick to condemnation.
I have friends and family that are on the other side of the aisle from me and many of them are lovely human beings involved in lifting up their communities. The idea that all in any group are evil seems inherently wrong to me.
Sadly I see more and more of this attitude along with people stating they simply “cut off” anyone who disagrees with them which I find incredibly unhealthy. Years ago it was the ACLU and people on the left who were fighting for free speech. Now it seems like things have taken a crazy turn. It used to be the right preaching “moral superiority” and “if you don’t agree with me then you are immoral”. Now it’s the left. I see people condemning religions for “shunning” people then other people advocating the same type of shunning for people who don’t vote the way they do.
You have Hollywood stars demanding people “name names” and publish lists of names of people who have attended conservative fundraisers so they can be publicly blacklisted. Hello McCarthyism?!
I am on the side of free speech. Period. Doesn’t matter if I like what you say, I will defend your right to say it. That is the real test of free speech. Because once you let some people decide what can and cannot be said, you set a precedent that someone has the right to limit what people say.
Too many lives have been lost by people fighting for our rights over the years to ever regress
Free speech means that the government cannot prevent you from stating your opinion. (For example by ordering the National Guard to teargas peaceful protesters.) It does not mean that you can say what you want without consequences *from non-government entities*.
And I am not saying all Republicans are inherently evil, I am saying if they support a party that is doing evil things they are supporting evil. At some point if you turn a blind eye to what they are doing you become complicit.
Like, could I date someone who believes in fewer regulations and has different opinions on how people should get healthcare? Possibly. Could I date someone supporting white supremacy and voter suppression? No. The problem is that the Republican party as it is has made it impossible to support the former without the latter.
I think that many simply have stopped voting because they don’t like either party. The US two party system does us no favors in that regard.
True, but let’s not pretend these two parties are the same, or that Democrats are “just as bad”, that’s disingenuous. The Democratic Party has its faults, for sure, but they are not trying to destroy democracy and they are at least open to accept the demographic change (too slowly and imperfectly, yes, and in a future where we’re not facing serious dangers the American party system would absolutely benefit from a change to a multi-party system that more adequately captures the nuances of people’s opinions and demands, but sadly now is not the time for that).
Have a look, Sophie, at those European countries with multi-party systems where election results rarely give ANY party a decently sized mandate to govern efficiently and effectively. I think you are being a little naive about the efficacy or desirability of multi-party systems. They may capture opinions or “demands” (that’s a bit strong!!) but results split into multiple sections = factionalism and sclerotic government.
I think multiparty systems are just one thing to consider. Another is more representative voting–ranking, multiple choice, etc…
Whatever the answer is I believe there has to be a better solution than what the US has now.
I think it works reasonably well in Germany, where, after the experiences during the 1920s and 1930s, they made sure parties have to get a particular slice of the vote to get into parliament. I don’t think there is a perfect system for everything and everyone- but the lack of nuance that seems to be the result of what is a two-party-system may be part of voters’ (and non-voters’) disenchantment with politics. In any case, now is not the time to worry about that – there are bigger things at stake in this election.
I live in Scotland. We have a devolved government with multi-party representation. We do not have a sclerotic government; indeed, we have a progressive government under an excellent First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon. That is, the Scottish government is progressive in the areas in which there is devolved responsibility from the UK Westminster government (education, environment, law, the NHS and health). Perhaps you might want to consider that your approach to the politics and governments of other countries is as seen through the lens of US politics and media. The US is not always best.
Jean S – My remarks about multi-party states were really about independent countries which, of course at least now, Scotland is not (nor is Wales) and devolved governments in the UK are, if you really stretch the imagination a bit, more like the 50 states in the US where there are things that the individual states control, the federal government deal with others with an over-arching federal constitution that applies to all. It’s a bit of an apple and oranges comparison admittedly. And I most definitely don’t look at this through a US lens at all – I am British and live in England. And I most certainly agree with you that the US system is not always best – 110% with you on that. I was thinking more of the difficulties within the EU and the various member states with too many voices speaking all at once.
Whoa.
“… let’s not pretend these two parties are the same, or that Democrats are “just as bad”, that’s disingenuous.”
I would opine that many of the Dems’ aims are indeed “just as bad” and dangerous to the health of the U.S. economy. (This is why I am neither Dem or Rep.)
Stop stating your opinions in a way that implies they are facts.
Even better, let’s not talk about politics unless it is romance-novel related.
I don’t mind a discussion of politics. I do mind when commenters attack each other and I wish to discourage commenters from attacking large groups of people en masse.
Romance novels are most definitely politicized in all sorts of ways and so it would be inaccurate and misleading to leave politics out. The original thread above is about dating a conservative/Republican in a romance and that seems to be something some books are engaging with today. Caz mentioned a specific title upthread. My own personal preference is to assess a party’s **platform** and avoid discussing individuals because these are systemic issues. The current Republican platform is fair game in a discussion if authors are incorporating it into romance novels, which apparently a current popular novel does. I’m not a Democrat either – I’m a socialist democrat, ala Sanders — but yes, I would have no difficulty putting the Democratic platform up against the Republican platform for comparison and say quite comfortably that there are humane differences along gender, sexuality, racial, disability etc. And I can easily do so without ad hominem attacks.
As I’ve said:
I don’t mind a discussion of politics. I do mind when commenters attack each other and write dismissively about each other’s posts.
?
This comment was not specifically directed at you but rather a post for all on this thread.
Calling what I wrote “opinion” when it is in fact provable by looking at the policies the Republicans and Trump endorse and enact is a neat trick. Suddenly it sounds like I’m being unfair and unreasonable, because it’s me interpreting what is happening rather than me talking about what is happening.
Looking at this thread you have again and again people slightly shifting the topic so it agrees with their worldview. No one in support of Republicans has said, hey, they are not stacking the courts (because they are), they are not suppressing votes (because they are), they are not supporting a criminal (because they are), they are not dismantling a system of oversight (because they are). These are not my opinions, this is what is actually happening. But rather than acknowledging that and, idk, trying to defend it (which I personally think would be difficult), they rather try shifting to people they know or Democrats bleeding dry small business owners and ruining the US economy. I wonder why that is.
Right! The issues are what’s at stake and what should be argued or defended and it’s hard work to do that. I do btw know plenty of conservatives who defend many of the ideas that constitute the platform though I would of course find the logic unsustainable and indefensible.
Free speech also means you or anyone else can not prevent someone from stating their opinion. It’s not just the government. When some people decide someone doesn’t have the right to speak on a street corner, a campus (even if invited and others do want them to speak) that is violating free speech also.
The ACLU has spent a great many decades fighting so all people have the right to express themselves within the limits of the law (no incitement to violence) etc. However many movements lately are about attempting to restrict those rights in many places, including campuses, because some people don’t like what other people are saying.
Just because it isn’t the police keeping you from exercising your rights doesn’t mean it’s not infringing on your free speech.
Just because a private citizen or group of citizens do it doesn’t mean it’s not infringing on free speech.
That simply not true, though – at least if we are talking about what the first amendment protects.
You have no right to come up to me in a park and tell me whatever you want. And I would argue – although I want to state that I am aware it is difficult to judge and define, and smarter people than me should do that – that there shouldn’t be room in a democracy for people who want to destroy that democracy.
There is also something to be said that letting someone speak on campus x or y lends them a certain prestige or legitimacy, and I would argue not everyone deserves that. But there is no inherent right for people to speak at this university or other.
Are different opinions good for a society? Absolutely. But there is a difference between different opinions and harmful ones. I think in some cases it would be an option to present an opinion or a speaker with some context, but I do think the prestige component shouldn’t be forgotten. Just think of what the NYT has been doing lately.
“But there is a difference between different opinions and harmful ones.” Beyond not inciting violence and/or committing libel and/or slander, who gets to decide what constitutes a “harmful opinion?” This slides dangerously toward censorship.
“…there shouldn’t be room in a democracy for people who want to destroy that democracy.” What about people arguing for the return to a constitutional republic? Should such speech be banned? Seems to me that free speech also means protecting the right for someone to say, “Here’s why we should have a constitutional republic” or “Here’s why a monarchy is the way to go.” Doesn’t mean you or I have to agree with those statements.
“But there is no inherent right for people to speak at this university or other.” I don’t want to get into the legal arguments of the obligations of universities that accept public monies as that is beyond my scope. But when controversial people are invited to speak at universities, I think it’s just common decency to not act like a two year old throwing a tantrum because you don’t like the message. These students who disrupt invited guests have the option to not attend.
Well summarised, Nan. The loss of freedom of speech, a free press, the ability to hear all sides of an argument and a private voting booth are about the most damaging things to democracy that I can imagine.
Aw, thanks, Elaine S. :)
But who makes the decision that someone should be de-platformed before they have even opened their mouth, that someone’s opinion is harmful if it’s not acted upon or that I have no right to approach you and tell you that you are about to step in front of an oncoming bus?? And who judges those who unilaterally take it upon themselves to judge others? It’s all going down a proverbial rabbit hole.
Free speech also means you or anyone else can not prevent someone from stating their opinion. It’s not just the government. When some people decide someone doesn’t have the right to speak on a street corner, a campus (even if invited and others do want them to speak) that is violating free speech also.
The ACLU has spent a great many decades fighting so all people have the right to express themselves within the limits of the law (no incitement to violence) etc. However many movements lately are about attempting to restrict those rights in many places, including campuses, because some people don’t like what other people are saying.
Just because it isn’t the police keeping you from exercising your rights doesn’t mean it’s not infringing on your free speech.
Just because a private citizen or group of citizens do it doesn’t mean it’s not infringing on free speech.
My previous comment got lost so I will summarize it:
it’s not just the government that can limit free speech. Individuals or groups that try to keep others from exercising their right to free speech are just as harmful.
Whether it’s a campus or a street corner everyone has the same right to free speech (as long as it’s lawful and not a call to violence). Trying to force speakers out you don’t like is just as bad.
I completely agree with you, Chrisreader. I hold some conservative positions and some liberal positions, and definitely see how cries for censorship that used to come mostly from the right now come mostly from the left. Your example of Hollywood stars calling for actors to be blacklisted is a good example of this phenomenon.
As for “cutting off” people who disagree, it’s really a losing strategy. I always liked Ron Paul’s position of forming coalitions around issues to encourage dialogue and enact change. That way, a person who agrees with liberals on X position can work with them to encourage public support. And that same person can then work with conservatives on Y issue for the same reason. Some might call this strategy being wishy-washy or an enabler, but why does a person have to agree with Democrats on every issue OR Republicans on every issue? This isn’t healthy political discourse. This is cultish behavior rather than examining individual stances.
It’s not “wishy-washy”, Nan. It’s called being a responsible grown-up. Cults are notorious for being hopelessly blinkered, destructive, mind-controlling, anti-democratic and they ultimately implode, sometimes in violence. I agree with what you say here.
Exactly, it’s called being an adult. Years ago people respected leaders who could cross the aisle and put together legislation for the good of the nation.
When people like Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill disagreed on policies, they didn’t hate each other. They came together to serve the voters. Now such a thing is unimaginable because if someone doesn’t agree with your opinion they are a “monster. They aren’t mistaken in their opinion they are just “evil” -therefore you are justified in any way you want to treat them.
After all you are the “good” person. Just ask all your friends on Facebook. I’m sure the only people you are friends with are the ones that all agree with all of your opinions.
Years ago, one party wasn’t trying to game the system because they cannot win elections other wise (again, look at what has been happening in Georgia). Years ago, one party wasn’t letting its leader getting away with crimes. Years ago, one party in congress didn’t forget what oversight means.
This is the present, and Trump and the Republicans in power are doing active harm to the way US democracy is supposed to function. The judicial branch, for example, is supposed to be independent from the executive branch, but Barr has been blurring those lines lately.
I do hope, Sophie, that you consider running for office yourself. You seem to have very strong, heartfelt views, you express them well, and have obviously given it a lot of thought. I personally admire politicians who have a strong agenda that is clearly expressed. The best place to test them is at the ballot box where voters can make their decision in the privacy of the voting booth.
I really cannot understand people who are slavish to one party and think that everything it does is good and everything the other party does is bad.
I live in probably the bluest state (the first to have universal healthcare and the first to legalize same sex marriage) and that healthcare was put through by a Republican Governor. Our two Senators are about as blue as you can get and in every Presidential election (except for Reagan way back when) it goes Democrat.
We have a different Republican Governor now and he’s had a job approval rating of 80%. The Mayor is a Democrat and he and the Governor get along famously well even amid the current crises, when other states with leaders in the same parties are duking it out.
The truth is you need people on both sides to get major legislation through. That’s likely why it took a Republican here in a blue state to get the healthcare law passed and why Trump was able to get major crime reform passed.
Serious mental illness is not a topic I am up for. PTSD in a military-based story is one thing I will go for but deep depression, bi-polar, autism, etc., no thanks. These tropes appear in so much literary fiction so it’s one reason I don’t often read it.
A reply to myself to those who have posted frowns: I had to deal with these issues in my immediate family – all of it. So why on earth would I like to read about it in romantic fiction? Please, someone here tell me, as I’d be very interested in your reply. Thanks, Elaine S.
I would not be interested in personalizing the topic and discussing what you like and want to read.
I would say instead on the broader topic that hetero-normative narratives have dominated genre fiction, such as the romance genre, and by doing so have excluded neurodiversity, much to the detriment of authors and readers who do not have fictional representations available that reflect their realities. For the general populace, I believe that “difference” is a trait we should embrace in order to become a more equal and tolerant culture, and that includes learning and reading about mental health differences. I’m grateful for authors like Helen Hoang and Talia Hibbert and others who are centering neurodiversity in their romances today. They offer positive roles models for readers and other writers in need one them and they can help break down stereotypes so long entrenched in our culture.
Personally, I have an autistic nephew and he’s wonderful and sensitive and caring and I want him to have access to positive depictions of autistic people in art and more of them.
Hi, Elaine S. I completely understand what you mean about not wanting to explore topics that are too close to home. And I’m sorry if you felt the need to out yourself in order to justify that position.
I see way too much of that lately, where a person has to justify not liking a topic or trope by saying something like, “Well, it’s okay for me to not want to read about XYZ because I’m dealing with this in my family.” While it’s certainly okay to give a reason if you choose, I see too often that people feel pressured to defend their choices. I want to assure you that I think it’s totally fine to say “I don’t want to read about XYZ” or “I don’t like reading about XYZ” without having to provide a reason. I think we’ve lost the fine art of saying, “Just because” or “Because I said so.”
That’s why it’s nice that writing and publishing are easier than ever. The more books, the better! Then we can hopefully all find something we like to read.
Thanks, Nan. Yes, these days, we seem to have to justify many things that are not on the current list of “OK” topics, tropes, whatever. The question asked by Dabney was what “you” (e.g. me) would give a pass to. So I answered truthfully and honestly but, apparently, this was not acceptable here to some others. I find that really surprising, actually, and not a little offensive but, hey, I come here because I am always up for diverse views.
I hope you will continue to do so!
Children in peril, i.e. thrillers with children as the victims, or crime stories where the main plot revolves around hurting children. Where the main issue is some psychopathic or similar joy in hurting children.
I stopped reading Tami Hoag.
I can read a flashback, or have children threatened as a part of an overall event (kidnapping a whole bus of people), or a child who knows something being interrogated, but not joy from violence to them, or from taunting people with that threat.
Hard pass, no author, no series I love(d) gets a chance.
Thrillers about hurting women, the psycho who targets women, just for their femaleness, are right next, and generally mass murdering psychopaths I avoid. I am not interested in spending time with a killer just for the sake of killing, or winning against the police.
I will read books about people rebuilding their lives and dealing with the trauma of the violence they experienced, as long as the main plot is not the above, but the new life and how they cope to become happy.
I mostly read romance for comfort and joy, but will engage with nearly any other topic if done well, and take the risk that the HEA will be convincing. I may not finish, but I will try. To decide whether I wish to try, authors I have read before, and reviews like here help.
Example:
Mary Balogh’s Survivor’s Club I would not have read from another author, probably. Insta-healing and miracles make me feel that the author is not taking the original pain seriously, and many historical romances seem to do that – all those maimed war heroes….
There’s a lot of exploitation in the suspense genre where victimization exists to titillate rather than to examine. I’ve given up on some authors who deliberately put women and children in harm’s way in a one-dimensional way just to make us feel badly. These books though also tend to have one-dimensional villains. For me, it’s all about how an author handles an issue.
Romances written in the last three years that feature good/ well-meaning Republicans. First, I cannot suspend my disbelief enough and second it’s nothing but propaganda trying to convince people they’re not that bad.
Oh, I’m so glad you mentioned this! A deal-breaker for me is when an author inserts her/his political opinion about American issues into the story when it’s completely unnecessary.
In the novella Love Around the Corner , by British author Sally Malcolm, one of the main characters makes a derisive comment about Republicans. A comment that was totally unnecessary in this “feel-good, charming small town America” romance.
Guess the author just felt she couldn’t bypass the opportunity to let readers know she was woke to American politics and to which political party is the “wrong” one. But her ill-considered pot-shot totally ruined the story for me. And full disclosure, I’m not a Republican. (Nor am I a Democrat.)
I think that romance novels are, for many but not all, like workplace conversations, places where political discussions aren’t welcome.
I personally long for romances where Democrats and Republicans fall in love and learn how to work together to better their world.
I’m seeing a LOT of negativity about the upcoming Meet You in the Middle – which makes me think it probably isn’t that book.
But I wonder how much of it just that the hero is a conservative. A lot of the criticism I’ve read about the book condemns him for being evil because his policies are… conservative. I think he’d be a hard sell for anyone who thinks conservatism is inherently morally wrong.
The thing is, that is at this point impossible for me to imagine. When Republicans support white supremacy, and that is what they are doing while supporting Trump, no one should fall in love with them. Maybe I could read something about a Republican who tried to do the right thing in, like, early 2017, but at some point these people have become irredeemable (apart from maybe some neverTrumpers who actively work against him, but that seems pretty niche).
The thing is, that is at this point impossible for me to imagine. When Republicans support white supremacy, and that is what they are doing while supporting Trump, no one should fall in love with them. Maybe I could read something about a Republican who tried to do the right thing in, like, early 2017, but at some point these people have become irredeemable (apart from maybe some neverTrumpers who actively work against him, but that seems pretty niche).
How do you write a romance about people who are actively working to destroy US democracy, taking away people’s health care and women’s right to choose and putting children in cages?
I meant this to be a reply to Dabney but something went wrong, sorry.
I suppose it depends on how you define a Republican. For example, there are a number of libertarians who register as Republicans because they would never have any significant political say otherwise. A man who immediately comes to mind in this category is former House of Representatives member Ron Paul, whom I regard as both a scholar and a gentleman. Likewise, I have met “Democrats” who are registered as such only because everyone else in their family was, not because they believe in the party line.
And just about anyone who owns a small business will tell you on the quiet that licensure and regulation policies under Democrats are far more draconian and destructive overall than when Republicans are in power. I assure you almost none of these people are white supremacists, working to destroy US democracy, take away people’s healthcare, or put children in cages. As a freelancer myself who knows many small business owners/contractors in passing, I can tell you with assurance that it is Democrat policies that bleed us dry, although Republicans are not much better.
The Republicans have been busy for years stacking the courts in their favor to counteract the effects of a changing demographic. (Making sure the courts support gerrymandering etc.) They’re busy suppressing votes in places that are inconvenient for them (look at what happened in Georgia this Tuesday), were unwilling to hear witness during the impeachment trial. If you vote for Republicans for ~other reasons, whatever they may be, you are also supporting them doing that. For me, the utter disregard if what the Republicans are doing to the democratic system of the US is what is utterly shocking to me.
I tend to distinguish between the Republican Party leaders and the people who are registered as Republicans.
I have a close friend who is a fiscal conservative and who usually, in national elections, votes Democratic. But she lives in California and feels the state legislature there is too liberal financially for her. She’s a feminist, pro-choice, tolerant person. I have another friend whose Catholicism makes him profoundly pro-life. For him, it’s a moral imperative to vote against those who are pro-choice. I have another friend who runs a foundation for inner city kids and who has given away thousands and thousands of dollars to charity and, while hating Trump, feels strongly that the Democratic party is ruinous to small business owners and, in the state, votes for Republicans.
I, like many in my age group, am more centrist than many younger Democrats however.
No group is monolithic. I’d prefer it if we tried to talk about specific people and ideas rather than condemning large swaths of society.
“No group is monolithic. I’d prefer it if we tried to talk about specific people and ideas rather than condemning large swaths of society.”
But how can you separate Trump and the other Republicans from ~being a Republican? I honestly don’t see how you can vote for people like that. And if you support someone with politics like Trump -EVEN IF YOU ARE NO WHITE SUPREMACIST – you cannot support a white supremacist without endorsing that view. The thing is, there may habe been a time when you could argue that the difference between Democrats and Republicans were just some different approaches to problems, but we have moved way passed that, sadly enough. And writing romances about Republicans that don’t acknowledge these issues – and I want to stress how worried I am about the fate of US democracy because I am really worried about it – is dishonest and nothing but propaganda.
I understand how you feel. I’m just saying I don’t agree which is OK.
I would agree with all of what you’ve said, Sophie. I don’t encounter many books that directly feature characters who declare themselves as an affiliate of one political party or another, but if I read a protagonist who is a self-proclaimed Republican set in our contemporary moment, it would be impossible not to attach all sorts of egregious ideologies on race, gender, disability, class to that person as that is what we confront in our daily lives right now. That certainly fits the requirements of a “deal breaker.” Have you found that this issue is appearing in many current romances? I fear I read too much in a bubble in some ways.
Thankfully it’s not a huge thing, at least not where the politics are *explicit* but there are a few coming up/ out now and it’s something that has been on my mind lately. Also, one of my favorite characters in an older book that came out during the Obama era is a Republican and tbh that has made it difficult for me to re-read it.
(A great example of love across a political divide is KJ Charles’ A Seditious Affair, because there is no brushing away of the horrible aspects of the party the Tory supports.)
I am having a hard time in general not thinking about the underlying politics when reading romance these days (or anything really). Like you, I find it difficult to read books that glorify the military or the police that don’t address issues like police brutality in an honest way, for example. And if it’s too much of an escapist world it feels wrong, too – I don’t need all characters to be activists, but if it’s a contemporary novel completely removed from all political context that feels wrong to me to. (I don’t really know how to put the latter into better words.)
I haven’t read A Seditious Affair but I know many people love it. It’s on my list to read! I tend always to read politics in art, whether I agree or disagree with the ideas being conveyed, but I also am drawn to authors and books that share my view of the world when I read just for leisure.
“I tend to distinguish between the Republican Party leaders and the people who are registered as Republicans.”
Very well stated, Dabney. There’s a lot more subtlety and nuance when it comes to a person’s political affiliation than a lot of people want to admit. It bothers me when conservatives get slapped with an ad hominem label of “white supremacist,” because this does not at all reflect any of the ones I have met nor the ones you have described. (Incidentally, conservatives of other races are subject to name-calling as well.) Yes, even those who voted for Trump out of desperation and frustration at the status quo are often decent people- shocking, I know. It’s way too easy to sneer and revile them without listening to why they did it- and taking note in future elections. Approximately half the country is not reprehensible. So many were just damn sick and tired for very good reasons.
Would these people make good romance novel characters? Hard to say. For some, it would be a hard no. Others may find it interesting provided a character’s views existed organically rather than as the author’s political bullhorn. Personally, I wouldn’t like to read a romance that got too political either way unless it was framed as some sort of comedy or farce. Because isn’t there someplace where we can get away from it all?
I do like to get away from it all in a romance. And I think you can have characters make choices you wouldn’t and still enjoy the book. My bet is a lot of what people don’t like is heavy handedness.
“And I think you can have characters make choices you wouldn’t and still enjoy the book.” Absolutely! As a writer, I can assure you my characters are quite stubborn about some of the things they say and the choices they make. And I don’t always agree with the little buggers. :)
“My bet is a lot of what people don’t like is heavy handedness.” My thoughts exactly.
When the leader of said party IS INDEED ACTIVELY pursuing policies of white supremacy, “putting children in cages,” suppressing minority/urban voters, dismantling health care (during a pandemic!), taking away LGBTQI rights, overriding environmental protections, all the while stacking our courts with his boot licking toadies and taking money from foreign interests, then how can you separate the dancer from the dance? If you are in the party that supports this “leader” (soi-disant), then you are part of the problem. At the risk of being labeled divisive, if the choice is between saving a few dollars in taxes and living in a world that demonizes people of color, LGBTQI, non-evangelicals, pro-choice, feminists, and/or Democrats, I know what side I (an old, straight, long-married white woman who is a regular church-goer and lives in a very red state) am on!
/Dismounting soapbox now.
I should have said “If the choice is between PAYING a few extra dollars in taxes OR living in a world that demonizes….”
Hopefully, all the very smart people here at AAR knew what I meant, but I did want to clarify. Thanks.
Hi, DiscoDollyDeb. Just to set the record straight, I am neither Democrat nor Republican for I consider both parties’ platforms to be antithetical to the principles of freedom, though each in their own ways. I am a free market anarcho-capitalist who firmly believes in the non-aggression principle. That is to say, I cannot in good conscience support any measure or action that initiates aggression against the life, liberty, or justly acquired property of an individual. And furthermore, I believe that all private acts between and among consenting adults should be legal. As the old libertarian slogan goes, I am fiscally conservative and socially tolerant. My opinions on voting align closely with trends forecaster Gerald Celente, who does not vote on the grounds of being a “political atheist,” and George Carlin who has a wonderfully raunchy routine about the futility of voting that very nicely sums up my position on the matter.
I’m afraid I must disagree with your comment about “saving a few dollars in taxes.” For many small business owners and freelancers such as myself, those “few dollars” are not a minor inconvenience but measure upon measure of passed taxes and crippling regulations which become the equivalent of a death by a thousand cuts. Most people I have met who run the mom and pop stores politicians claim to care about are being utterly destroyed by a levy here, a new regulation there, and another tax over there. These money-chipping measures add up to way more than “a few dollars,” and are almost invariably introduced by local Democrat politicians who have never faced the challenges of running a business, and passed by Democratic voters who have also never faced the challenges of running a business. Pointing out this continual hostility to the small business owner, which I assure you is no joke, does not mean I excuse Republicans for their damaging behaviors. But you would be hard pressed to find a sizable number of struggling entrepreneurs who would ever root for a Democrat in local office after all the damage they and their constituents have done to their livelihoods as a group.
As for all these accusations I see of conservatives supporting white supremacists, anti-LGBT measures, and so forth- excuse me for just not seeing it. Sure, you have your hardline conservatives you see on television that rant and rave about how this country went down the toilet when public school prayer was abolished. But most conservatives I have encountered just want to be left the heck alone and be good neighbors. Sure, some of them aren’t fans of the idea of gay marriage and can’t speak a paragraph without throwing the name “Jesus” into it, but most of the people I have met even in that category bear no ill will toward queers or non-Christians. The worst you’ll hear from them are grumbles and shrugs of the “Well, life moves on” variety.
This is in sharp contrast to the many liberals I have encountered who want to make every minor issue a crusade, pounce upon you for the most innocuous comments, call for their critics to be blacklisted and silenced, and regard the slightest deviation from their party line evidence of the other person being a Nazi.
Like Chrisreader said, it used to the be right crying for censorship and the enforcement of morality. Now, I am sad to say it is largely from the left. It’s not right wing Christians who are trying to silence controversial speakers and comedians at college campuses. It is left wing crusaders who cause rude disruptions, fall to pieces, and need safe rooms to support their echo chambers.
These are generalizations, of course. But, as far as I’m concerned, they capture a troubling trend.
We are not talking about your conservative neighbors. We are talking about the actual policies Republicans in office are enacting. You are trying to move the argument to this vague place where everyone is equally bad, but that is completely ignoring reality.
Sophie,
It reads to me as if, in your descriptions of Republicans as all evil, you are indeed including Nan’s neighbors and anyone who identifies as a Republican.
As I’ve read your comments, I’ve felt as though you passionately believe that in today’s world ALL who are red or even red leaning in the US deserve condemnation.
I admire your passion and hope this conversation will continue in a kind and respectful way.
Thank you!
I really appreciate the way you are letting this conversation happen, so I will try one last time to make clear what I am saying.
When a party is doing what the Republican Party has been doing for the last four years (at least), it is no longer a question of conservative vs progressive. And yes, I believe there is such a thing as communal accountability (there probably is a better word for that). I do not believe that every person who is “pro-life” or has voted Republican in his life is evil. But. If you support white supracissts, you cannot say you are not a white supremacist. That is what being a Republican in this moment of time entails. Unless you are a Republican actually standing up to Trump and that part of the party, that’s different. But if you do that, you do not actually support the party.
I know that that is uncomfortable. But I do think we need to be honest about and aware of this if we do not want the US to become a fascist state. I know that sounds like hyperbole but sadly these days it is very much not.
I think you have made yourself clear and I appreciate that you are trying so hard to improve the world in which we live.
It’s my hope that we can all learn from each other at AAR and continue to comment in a way that facilitates rather than shuts down conversation.
“We are not talking about your conservative neighbors.” I agree with Dabney’s comment below that a number of your descriptions point in the direction of decrying the majority of Republicans as complicit in evil, which is why I mentioned my experiences to the contrary.
“We are talking about actual policies Republicans in office are enacting.” I think it’s important to distinguish local politicians in towns and cities versus Washington D.C. for this discussion. I am not denying Republican politicians at the higher levels cause plenty of damage, as do Democrats (which I will return to in a moment).
But I’ve found in local elections that Republican candidates tend to have a better understanding of economics as many of them are small business owners who clearly comprehend the challenges their fellow entrepreneurs face. And contrary to the “white supremacist” accusations I have been reading about, these small businessmen who run for office often represent a wide array of ethnic backgrounds.
Local Democratic candidates, in contrast, tend to have a more theoretical background. Despite their claims to be “for the people,” a hefty number of them more easily fit the description of what liberal voters decry as “white privilege” in that many of them have never had to do a real day’s work in their lives. We can certainly argue about what it means to do “a real day’s work,” but a lot of these candidates and incumbents are the dreaded career politicians. Whereas a lot of the Republicans I see running for office are far more hard-scrabble and finally ran for office because they said, “You know what? I’m SICK of this.”
Getting back to high level politicians like those on Capitol Hill, I maintain there is little difference between Republicans and Democrats. Namely this: high level Republicans get a well-deserved bad rap for being warmongers, but Democratic politicians in high places tend to be just as interventionist. Yet, somehow, this behavior gets a pass when Democrats do it. It was Madeline Albright, a Democrat, who said the death of 500,000 Iraqi children “was worth the price” (kind of hard to take that one out of context), Hillary Clinton who laughed as she said “He came, we saw, he died” in reference to Qaddafi. Obama, a Democrat president, seemed to have no problem launching a military intervention in Libya. And you’ll notice Tulsi Gabbard, probably the biggest anti-war advocate among the Democratic candidates, wasn’t allowed within hollering distance of the White House. I could go on and on.
There’s also a double standard when it comes to sex scandals. Trump, a Republican, makes a dirty comment on a bus and he’s the worst thing to happen to women in modern history. Biden, his Democratic opponent, has disgustingly manhandled women and little girls on camera. (I’ve seen it. It’s gross.) Bill Clinton is best unmentioned. Yet, nary a peep. Or if there is a peep, it is to excuse this chauvinistic behavior that a Republican would be hounded out of office for.
So, yes. I have no love for either political party when I see resumes like this. The higher up you go in office, the less reason and decency seem to exist regardless of which side of the aisle a politician sits on.
Your long comments do not distract from the fact that you are not actually addressing the issues I mention. Also, the way you summarize the Access Hollywood tape and don’t mention the multiple allegations of sexual assaults against Trump is telling.
You are very good at derailing conversations, I’ll give you that.
“Your long comments do not distract from the fact that you are not actually addressing the issues I mention.”
Sorry, but I am not seeing a lot of issues mentioned. I keep seeing you write “white supremacist” without backing up that accusation with facts. What specific policies are you referring to?
“Also, the way you summarize the Access Hollywood tape and don’t mention the multiple allegations of sexual assaults against Trump is telling.”
Hey, I’m no fan of Trump, and I don’t deny there have been allegations. My point was that Democrat politicians, who have done just as awful things if not worse, seem to get a free pass from their supporters for similar behavior. Do you deny that Biden has been filmed manhandling women and little girls? I have seen the tapes. They are disgusting. Do you deny Bill Clinton’s sexual misconduct? The term “sex” sure got twisted around in that case. It’s not just Republican politicians who have demonstrated a low regard for women.
Trump and his allies are open fans of Confederate generals. Not wanting to rename military bases. Trump has expressed support of white supremacist rallies. The muslim ban. Trump calling African countries shithole countries. Just a few choice examples.
I also mentioned voter suppression and stacking the courts which is something that is happening. Republicans will not let laws pass that ensure that people will be able to vote by mail in November.
Either you did not read my comments or you are willingly ignoring what I said while at the same time trying to shift the topic to something you are more comfortable with.
I would be willing to bet the majority of Democrats today – at least the ones my age (38) or younger will not deny Bill Clinton’s sexual misconduct. However, I do see more willingness in the Democratic Party and movement to question things like this.
That being said, I was never afraid Obama would order protesters being teargassed or contemplating bringing in the US military against US citizens. Democrats aren’t perfect, and there are men in the party whose actions I don’t condone. However, I seriously worry Trump will end up making himself dictator and if I have the choice between an imperfect party (where issues of sexual misconduct should be dealt with) and a party supporting racists who believe they are above the law, I know what choice to take.
This year was the year I discovered podcasts. I have been catching up on some political ones, and so I have been listening to shows taped from 2017 until now. I had honestly forgotten how many bad things have happened during that time, because there is a new crisis every day. But it truly does feel like we’re all the frog slowly being boiled alive. And there is one party trying to switch of the heat, while Republicans are busy stoking the fire.
Sophie and Nan–
I think this conversation has become personal and I’d like to ask both of you to stop.
Thank you.
Okay
Sophie, I listen to Podcasts a lot too and there is also a really good Internet show called _The Rising_ with Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti that is so helpful for me to watch when I feel overdosed in mainstream cable news. Both hosts are well known in mainstream media but their show sits comfortably outside of corporate culture to offer a critique of American politics and culture. I think you might like it!
Thank you, I’ll check it out! Also, I have to say that I always appreciate your comments, you are so good at getting your points across in this calm and smart way.
Thank you, Sophie! I’ve enjoyed reading your posts over the weekend too and hope to hear more from you.
“Local Democratic candidates, in contrast, tend to have a more theoretical background. Despite their claims to be “for the people,” a hefty number of them more easily fit the description of what liberal voters decry as “white privilege” in that many of them have never had to do a real day’s work in their lives. We can certainly argue about what it means to do “a real day’s work,” but a lot of these candidates and incumbents are the dreaded career politicians. Whereas a lot of the Republicans I see running for office are far more hard-scrabble and finally ran for office because they said, “You know what? I’m SICK of this.”
OK. Going to have to step in here. My grandparents were Democrats/liberals in the south. They ran a gas station during the Depression and on up into the 60s.. My father taught school, but also owned two small grocery stores with my uncle. He left school in the afternoon and went to work again in our stores until 11 at night. My mother ran the other store. They were a die-hard liberal democrats in the south. My husband and I have had our own businesses for almost 40 years (he in commercial and industrial construction and me as an independent contractor (attorney and then grant writer). Until Obamacare (the ACA), we could not deduct our health insurance premiums as a business expense because our businesses were just our family and there was a minimum number of employees that you had to have to qualify for the deduction. When you are paying $15,000 per year in premiums, that deduction means something. Democrats got us that deduction. This is your second post that casts democrats in the role of know-nothings in terms of small businesses. I also have a part-time job as the director of a Chamber of Commerce where I come into contact on a regular basis with small business owners and I can assure you that the political split is close to 50/50.
Mary, thanks for that input! I’m a liberal, I’ve had plenty of ‘real jobs’, I’ve worked 2 jobs many times in my life, and I’ve worked for small businesses frequently. What I know for sure is that under a Democrat administration my life is easier than under a Republican one. It’s easier to find well-paying second jobs, the economy in my area is more stable, health care is less restrictive in what it will cover, etc., etc.
Hubs and I worked quite hard in the early years so we could pay off the house quickly (8 years!) and save so we could retire early. If it hadn’t been for the economic boom during the Clinton years, we could not have accomplished that.
Not all liberals are upper class snobs, not all conservatives are bible-thumping reactionaries. We need to see party members as the individuals that they are. And in my experience, most Americans work very, very hard regardless of political affiliation.
Hi, Mary and KesterGayle. Thanks for your comments. You both make very good points.
“Not all liberals are upper class snobs, not all conservatives are bible-thumping reactionaries.” Of course not. And I’m sorry if I gave that impression.
“We need to see party members as the individuals that they are.” Naturally. I have a high regard for individual life, liberty, and property. Moreover, I don’t belong to either party for several reasons I have mentioned earlier. I think you’ll find a lot of my comments to be critical of both sides of the aisle. And if they weren’t, let me reassure you I find grievous faults with both as well as good ideas in both.
@Mary- “This is your second post that casts democrats in the role of know-nothings in terms of small businesses.” My sincerest apologies. I’m sure a lot of my exasperation comes down to local rather than national politics. My observations are based largely on my own, local experiences. Most of the business owners I have met have been quite fiscally conservative, and I’m sure it clouds my view.
I’m glad Obamacare was of help to your business. But I know many other business owners to whom its passage was downright devastating. As for insurance, that’s another ball of yarn I’d rather not untangle.
As a closing note, I honestly think things are too far gone to make much difference either way at this point. It’s just like Joe Rogan’s friend Joey Diaz said, and I’m paraphrasing here, “You’ve just got to live as best you can in the system you’re given.” Defeatist? Complicit? Call it what you want. Like so many, I’m just damn tired.
Until now, I’ve stayed out of this string of comments from Sophie but I feel I must say something as I find her POV strong but also maybe also devaluating to some folk. No, I no longer live in the USA – I left to marry an Englishman 40 years ago but I hold an MA in History and a BA “minor” in Political Science from the University of California. So, I am not ignorant of the situation in the US and follow it closely. I always voted Democrat but came from a family of Republicans. Yes, we all argued but our first and foremost consideration was always to vote for the BEST person for the job so though I usually voted Democrat, I did sometimes vote Republican. I think that Sophie conflates Republicans with Trump and that’s not particularly an example of considered thought and makes some pretty narrow assumptions. There are, no doubt, many Republicans, or those who identify as Republican, that actually abstain in elections, vote for other parties or just do not vote at all. I know a few back home in California just as I know Democrats like me who abhorred Hillary Clinton and had to hold our noses to vote for her. The saddest thing, to me, for all of it right now is that neither the Democrats NOR the Republicans have put forward candidates for the Presidency that pass my “honest, decent, best man for the job” test. I gave up my US citizenship 2 years ago and so can no longer vote in Presidential elections; the last time was in 2016. So, no, I don’t have a say this time but if I did, this year I would really love to see that check-box on the ballot paper for “None of the Above Assholes”.
Again, I am perfectly able to distinguish between Republicans and Trump and the people in power. What I am saying is that at this moment, unless the Republicans in question (and there are a precious few) take a stand against Trump, they are complicit. And we aren’t talking about tax policies and whatnot. You support Trump, no matter how “innocent “ a reason, you cannot support just parts of his agenda (and I honestly cannot think of one that isn’t harmful, but even if there are some, my point still stands) and disavow the rest while supporting him.
But you don’t know, Sophie, how many Republicans will just not vote at all thus taking a stand. Or they may vote Democrat. No one knows what a person does in the voting booth. My own view on the whole thing is that the Electoral College should be abolished ASAP.
Not voting is being complicit at this point in time. If they vote Democrat, that’s different. But again, my point was that if you support Republicans in office you are supporting all that is bad about them. And writing about Republicans and brushing over the racism and the anti-democratic and anti-choice views defining Republicans at this point is propaganda. It’s trying to make palatable a horrifying agenda by pretending it is possible to just support, say, tax policy and NOT support everything else. I repeat THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE.
There needs to be a reassessment of certain structures like the Electoral College and how that does or doesn’t represent or the majority of the country.
I will say that my view on not voting may be too harsh to some, and I understand that. Voting for me is an essential right many people have fought and died for, and I get frustrated when people don’t exercise that right. I understand people are frustrated with politics and politicians of all parties. But I worry that soon people in the US won’t be able to vote at all again, or at least not have free and fair elections, and that is why I am so adamant about that. If voting for a Democrat is truly not an option for someone, even knowing and aware of how high the stakes are, I respect the choice of not voting.
I agree with you about the Electoral College. Given the outsized power of the Senate in shaping the judiciary and that the Senate gives an outsized vote to rural and more conservative America, we not only no longer need the Electoral College to protect states with smaller populations. Having a democracy where the Presidency can lose the popular vote is terrible for democracy.
I have a slightly different take on this. When it comes to “outsized votes[s] to rural and more conservative America,” I think it helps to keep in mind they are frequently overwhelmed by liberal city votes in their respective states and the Electoral College gives them a little more recourse than they ordinarily experience.
Allow me to make a specific example. I have a friend who lives in a conservative, rural area. She lamented that the major cities in her state, which are miles away, have way too much say in how farmers conduct their businesses. Since cities are more populated, and tend to run liberal, voters who haven’t got a clue of country life overwhelmingly outnumber struggling farmers and ranchers and pass state laws which are detrimental to their businesses. Straight up democracy in this case is often tantamount to uninformed bullying by ballot box. For example, prohibitions on shooting wild predators, while certainly noble for environmental reasons, can wipe out a sizable portion of a farmer’s flock. But, as my friend said, city dwellers almost never see this side of it and just think, “Oh, beautiful creature. No one should ever shoot you.” Not, “If I don’t protect my flock, I could lose my ranch or go hungry.”
Quite frankly, the sparsely populated regions where people live a more hardscrabble life have little or no recourse at the state level in cases like this (in blue states anyway). This is a big reason why they tend to support the Electoral College system. As another acquaintance of mine said, “Just based on population alone, a popular vote would mean residents of New York City and Los Angeles, who tend to run very liberal, would get almost all the say.” (A bit of an exaggeration, but I get the point.)
Again, I don’t fiddle with things at the higher levels, but I thought it was important to bring out this side of it for the sake of discussion.
I’d say only that the electoral college gives rural states way outsized influence to elect the President which is a national concern. The vast majority of rural states are red and in those states urban voters are every bit as disenfranchised as in the example you gave. It’s hard for me, in 2020, to see rural voters, on the whole, as powerless.
“The vast majority of rural states are red and in those states urban voters are every bit as disenfranchised as in the example you gave.” I’m sure that’s also very true, and a good point. This is one of the reasons why I think we should have more states rather than fewer, but that’s a topic for another time.
Getting back to the Electoral College, I just watched a fascinating lecture/interview with George Mason’s economics professor Dr. Walter E. Williams about the US Constitution. Coincidentally, one of the questions was about the electoral college and his opinion of it. He is in favor of its retention on the grounds that a purely popular vote would discourage presidential candidates from visiting more sparsely populated states to address their respective citizens’ concerns. A popular vote based on numbers alone, he argued, would make it unlikely for a candidate of either party to campaign in a state such as Vermont and Rhode Island at all when they could strictly target major cities and heavily populated states like California, New York, Texas, etc. His argument was essentially that the electoral college forces candidates to at least make an effort to address issues that may be effecting less populous states.
Oh, and here’s the link in case anyone is wondering. Dr. Williams is far more articulate on this subject than I am: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRUHk2Z6jfA.
I think the conversation is best shifted from individuals and both side-isms (the most ridiculous rhetorical position available to us) to platforms and what ideas a party represents. The Republican platform is inhumane, in my opinion, and so there is absolutely no way that I would date anyone who endorsed that platform and voted for a Republican today. Sure there is a tiny percentage of people who have fled the party since Trump was elected, but the issue is whether one would date a person who voted for the current Republican party.
My list would be endless on why that would not be possible. I can start with the stripping just yesterday of health protections for the LGBTQ community. Is that a “hard no.” Yep.
Cancer is a hard pass for me. It’s one of the realities of life that I don’t want to be reminded of at all when I’m reading romance. Even if a character has recovered from cancer, I’d rather not think about it.
Any other health conditions are fine. I even wrote a fanfic about a character who has Leber Congenital Amaurosis. It’s just That One which I cannot handle if I want to feel happy.