Rest of my Zodiac Academy review series: ua-cam.com/video/XOw54P01lEI/v-deo.htmlsi=Ks_wSolVYIz0_JGD 0:00 Intro and Plot Recap 9:49 The Problems With This Genre 54:14 Book 3: The Battle Aftermath 1:13:36 Vampires and Consent 1:26:17 Creepy Teacher Gets Viol-ent... Again 1:44:09 Worst Blackm-ail Ever 1:51:50 Please Learn What Consent Is 1:59:51 Worst Teachers Ever 2:25:48 FINALLY, SOMETHING HAPPENS!! 2:44:09 If A Man Does This To You, RUN. 3:04:48 Why Is There So Little Plot In These Books?? 3:16:05 Girls Love Being Kidnap/ped, Right? 3:29:31 I Waited 3 Whole Books For THIS Nonsense, STOP IT. 3:38:40 Worst Rushed Ending Ever
Thank you Rachel for giving me the inspiration to come out with my first poetry book. I’ve learned a lot from your videos and I’m excited to say that my July release went smoothly 😁
I would like to see a vampire written as an analogy for disablity. They need blood to survive, need to rely on others to keep them alive. Give me a vampire sobbing as they feed from donor bags, thinking they're taking ressources from people who 'need it more than them' even though they need it to survive. Like...vampires can be more than just sEXy hOt maN PreDatOr
In France, we recently got a movie where vampirism is used as a metaphor for disabilities. I didn't saw it sadly. Hope it would be released on streaming soon.
I'm currently working on an indie project where vampires work like this. Their hearts don't pump enough blood to sustain them, so they need to feed on others to stay alive. This causes other species to view them as either predators or disgusting. There are also laws that forbid them to take blood from people without consent since it will be seen as assault. So, most vampires drink animal blood from bags or drink from loved ones who are okay with it. Your take reminded me of that and made me realize there's so much potential in how vampires view themselves as predators because of how society views them. Now I really wanna incorporate this into my story. Thank you!
There was a YA book that I read when I was a young teen called Sweetblood. It was set in real life, but the main character was a girl with diabetes who was obsessed with vampires who viewed them through a diabetic lens (she did a history report on it in-universe?? mayb???) I remember it being really good, but it's been over a decade now since I've read it.... but I thought it was a really cool idea at the time. Ironically considering this video's subject, I believe the main plot of Sweetblood is that the main character is groomed by a predator in an online vampire chatroom, but at least he's clearly portrayed as the villain of the piece (and I think she does get away from him before anything too awful happens, which was nice.)
i see your point and i like the idea, but given how vampires are a critique of the rich and powerful, it might give the wrong message in relation to disabled people
I get so frustrated when people defend the dark romance genre because it "doesn't actually romanticize abuse". Makes me wonder what these people would deem as "actually DOES romanticize abuse".
dark romance could be so good but...so often it just isn't edit: with that I mean that you could write a proper dark romance, with morally gray characters or whatever, which doesn't romantacise or condone violence towards your romantic partner (which like 90% is women)
I've read a "dark romance" series that was like that, where the protagonists were powerful and hurt people sometimes, but were devoted to their romantic partners and primarily gentle with those they loved. The point seemed to be the contrast between defending what they loved (scary) and showing that love (sweet.) I enjoyed them.
@@RoseThePhoenix I think my favourite dark romance is one where a guy falls in love with another guy who targets people who get away with bad things and then they become a murder couple. Probably bc the first scene is the murderer flirting with the protag and protag is suddenly like "I'm not gay" and the murderer is just like "aight have a nice day." Nothing happens until the protag is like "I might be working through some things..."
@@ToweringPsychic The Black Jewels trilogy. (Cw there is SA in it, by villains) There are also some spinoff books of varying quality. The same author also wrote a series called Ephemera that I enjoyed.
I think Savvy Writes Books put it best in her Ugly Love video. Stuff like this is incorrectly categorized as romance when it more closely resembles fetish material. If your book exists within the context of a universe where two characters are both excited by a taboo or even morally questionable sexual scenario, market it correctly and do what you can to make sure it stays out of the hands of children. Should be simple enough, in my opinion.
I’ve also been called misogynistic for saying young girls deserve better that Colleen Hoover. Like someone tried to argue that I only care because it’s targeted at girls, but I also think young boys deserve better representations of gender dynamics. Patriarchy impacts everyone regardless of gender, and young boys being taught that girls are disposable is one of the ways that patriarchy is perpetuated. Our brains aren’t as good at differentiating between fiction and reality as people want to believe, it’s why you see people joke about having a kink only to later develop that kink Young people are especially likely to be impacted by harmful messages because kids learn by mirroring behaviours, it’s the crux of social learning theory. Romanticised abuse, if it’s not written or consumed critically, can absolutely influence how you perceive dynamics. There are so many people who watched PLL as kids then started idealising the idea of being groomed by teachers. I’m in my 20s and I still have friends that tell me they love Ezria Criticising media targeted at women for romanticising abuse is absolutely not the same as mocking twilight for ‘haha sparkly vampire you dumb’
Ugh, yes. Wilbur Smith, all the James Bond authors, so very many movies, the very existence of "Page 3" and so on all established patriarchal crap as society's standard. Boys would probably turn out better if they were raised by _My Little Pony._
@@Sableagle literally, patriarchy is a systemic issue that depends on men and women alike (because patriarchy is an inherently binary system) having internalised the idea that women are inferior. SA and abuse aren’t just borne from individuals with bad morals, it’s from a system that perpetuates the idea that women are sex objects whose consent doesn’t matter and that men are these horny aggressive monsters with a ‘might makes right’ mentality People like Colleen Hoover and the zodiac academy authors peddle this bullshit to young girls in a similar way to how alpha male dudebros teach it to young boys, they just portray it as hot dark romance
The PLL books are a bit better. Like a tiny bit. The books still have bad themes that did NOT age well. But at least Ezra got arrested in the books and it wasn't a daydream.
The fact that the fae are so blatantly cruel and violent is such a missed opportunity imo. Fae in mythology have different standards for morals that make them seem confusing and cruel to humans, but they just have a different set of rules and standards. If the Zodiac Academy fae were a complicated society with their own concept of morality than humans that ultimately valued loyalty to one another, it could have made the tension with the heirs more interesting The fae at large could have their rules, but the boys are so entitled and angry that they’re willing to break them to hurt the Vega twins. They could hate the twins and want to kill them, but they couldn’t do anything in public because it would hurt their reputation and make it less likely for them to actually get their thrones. They have to act civil and super polite to them (by fae standards) both in public and on FaeBook, but the second they’re in private they flip and become cruel and violent. Nobody would believe that they break the rules because they’re so well known for being Good Princes, so the twins have to outsmart them to expose them to the rest of the fae world. Them all being total arseholes who love hurting women is really lazy, sexist, patriarchal worldbuilding that seems to be played for a humiliation kink And of course in the best timeline none of the boys would be romantic interests, they’d be villains.
I like this interpretation! I'm really tired of fae being "humans but hot and magical" to the point where I included them in my own original stuff as people who can't lie and use tricks and deals to get what they want.
The funny thing is in fey lore across cultures, even if their morality isn't the same as humans, they still have rules they have to follow--it is explicitly stated in all folklore how that works. These authors are just lazy
@@the_goddess_1859 exactly, the series’ idea of fae is literally so lazy. Like the mythos is loosely Hellenic, but the Hellenic being that is closest to our concept of fae are the nymphs, which are the villains of the series. Some of the orders can be considered fae depending on your definition, but the others are definitively not Fae are their own class of being with complicated societies, they aren’t just humans with (worse) avatar powers and shape shifting. There’s literally no reason to call them fae other than to cash in on the TikTok fae craze and it really bugs me
i really appreciate you talking about the difference between cnc and bdsm vs actual assault, as someone who is into intense kinks but has experienced a lot of SA these conversations are very important to me, much love ❤️
I work for a publisher of one of the top books youve reviewed and everytime we get an internal email about said book i hear you say "Stop it!" In my head and get a laugh. May or may not be a "hit movie" soon. 😂 Its delightful. Cant wait to watch the rest of this one, this series has been a delightful romp through absolute muscled nonsense.😂
When people try to redirect by saying: You're only hating on women's media... what they fail to miss is that abuse isn't often romanticized in horror books like Stephen King or etc... but in dark romance books we are meant to see the ABUSER as ROMANTIC... that isn't the case in any other media (generally). And if it WAS we'd be calling that out too! It's so weird to me that we are saying: This is dangerous for women AND men... and we're being told to shut up and sit down... Uh... who is being misogynistic here? Because I don't think it's us who are concerned! I really wish people could understand the profound impact media has on culture and society...
@@nikitatavernitilitvynovaAnd correct me if I'm wrong, but they're not even written by men. If a man wrote something like this, I'm pretty sure it would garner a drastically different response
@@anothercub6958men definitely have. A guy author wrote and dedicated a dark romance book to someone who criticized his book. He wrote, and dedicated a book about a woman who criticized him and then had her violently abused.
I can very much relate to what you said about being influenced by books like that. As a teenager, I thought the relationship I was in with an older, toxic man was normal. It was not, it was very abusive and looking back with what I know now, full of SA, drugging and rape. We need to be educated more at a young age for the warning signs, about consent, and see less of it romanticized/'just the way relationships are'. Edit: I'm a bit further in the video and the arguments people make about how rape is okay in certain circumstances sicken me as a survivor of multiple assaults.
@@floreya67 oh gosh rape is never ok!!! I’m from the older gen as well and definitely dated a few toxic older men. The sad and or funny thing is married a man ten years younger than myself he was 39 and I was 49, he coerced me into things I didn’t want to do due to his narcissism and abuse and I’m still recovering!! But before him? I loved my erotica books and dominant men! But they ALWAYS asked consent to the point it was contractual ha
I feel like so much of the "dark romance" that gets over hyped on tiktok, similarly to this book series, is just glorified abuse and its concerning considering the average age of tiktok users. Almost none of these books are acutally dark romance as it should be, they're mostly just horrible. Take haunting adeline, awful, awful book duo but so many love it and take it as the height of romance. Hot Take: 'Book Tok' is fucked and _most_ of the books recommended there are trash, even outside of dark romance. Remember Lightlark? Yeah.
YOU'RE SO RIGHT SOBSS Not just do the books and stories suck, they're not even real dark romances and are just gross fetish books marketed as romance :
What are you talking about? Literary fiction and genre are not just about defining the genre. Just because you find a genre "troubling" or out of place doesn't mean it's out of place. People like it, because it's exactly fiction, and people know the difference between fiction and reality. The reasoning in this video makes no sense. We shouldn't romanticize "sexual violence" because it's wrong? Okay, you know what else is wrong? War? Murder? Fighting? Violence? Why only judge sexual violence? Let's go a step further: most YA today features kids, children in war situations, child soldiers. Why doesn't anyone denounce this? Are child soldiers suddenly tolerable? Can you see that your logic doesn't make sense? You really need to criticize fiction, so criticize ALL illegal fiction, not just what you find you don't like. Let's go even further, in the Naruto manga, they literally teach children to become ninja and by extension soldiers. Are we going to denounce this? Is Naruto denouncing the fact that kids literally fight and die on purpose? As if it were the best thing in their lives?
I loved haunting Adeline and don’t condone the behavior at all. It’s freaking fiction. I don’t condone Edward in twilight marrying an 18 yr old Bella either. It’s stupid fiction that I enjoy, sue me. I can read dumb smut and literary genius in the same week and still be a respectable woman. I hate all the policing on women’s simple pleasures. I’m not a sicko because I see fiction as fiction and not a societal problem. Read your book, move on, and don’t give smut to minors
I feel like books like this should come with a disclaimer. Something like, "we call this 'romance.' You might call it, 'assault' or 'abuse.' We can't tell the difference." That way it'd be clear that this shit would likely get you arrested and thrown in prison in the real world.
I'm sorry, but as someone who has read a Song of Ice and Fire, and some of Stephen King's stuff (Rose Madder in particular), they don't glorify abuse against women (even if King has issues writing and describing women). Pretty much every r*pist and abuser in GoT gets iced, and Rose Madder is literally about a woman escaping an abusive husband and making a new life for herself with help from an SA support group, a genuinely nice guy and by becoming a badass who eventually kills her ex.
i think one of the things that a lot of dark romance misses (atleast these days) is that the genre IS filled with a lot of horrible tropes and abuse but all these tropes are SUPPOSED TO MAKE YOU FEEL A SENSE OF HORROR. like it's not sexy that the guy is abusive bc he's hot. it's terrifying that the partner in the relationship is so thoroughly manipulated that they cannot see past their dependence on the abusive character. i also think this is why dark romance where there's an enabling ensemble cast doesn't work bc whenever you pull back from the close dynamic between partners, it should become clear that this is a terrible situation. good dark romance is a fucking ride bc it takes a lot of skill to be able to evoke that sense of wrongness and horror while still being fully in the head of the character who thinks they're in a normal fluffy romance. like to me it's not fun unless it's a proper character study that explores a lot of complex emotions and scenarios! and unfortunately a lot of modern dark romance is. just. about shock value. and not actually thematically accomplishing what the genre is best set up to.
Bro, you good ? Dark Romance isn't a "horror book". It doesn't have to make you feel some sort of "horror." Definition: "Dark romance typically focuses on intense, often troubled romantic relationships, exploring themes of love, obsession, and sometimes danger or tragedy. It may include dark or disturbing elements, but its primary focus is on the romantic relationship." So yeah ur kinda wrong about what you think dark romance is. This is "dark romance" a romance about some dark and troubling "romanromance". Reason why you have "romance" in that "dark romance" Horror and dark romance aren't the same. If you have a dark romance, but without romance, that's not that romance lol.
@@dejavudeux When I say horror i don't mean like. horror genre-wise. and i did say!! that the story's focus is primarily through the lens of someone who is perceiving the romance as a romance. any "dark" genre is about exploring themes in a way that subverts genre expectations atleast a little bit imo. my taste in dark romance tends to lean towards horror, but generally what I refer to what I say horror is that discomfort that comes with reading these elements! Even if it's erotic, i think the genre has the ability to elicit both eroticism and a vague sense of disgust/horror/fear/etc etc., and I do think these stories can still exist without romanticizing abuse. personally atleast. and like i said. if there's a good character study going on, i think there would be a lot less criticism overall, because when the story & characters are compelling, most readers will forgive most things. like Rachel says in the video.
@@nycpizzarat all story can exist without romanticizing something. Naruto can exist without romanticizing child soldiers, GTA can exist without romanticizing violence, Hunger Game can exist without romanticizing child fighting and killing each other's. Just find what story and genre you look. You don't have to try to change what other's like just because you don't like it. I don't read dark romance, but I won't be coming here and telling what need to change. Then there's a problem of making a measured argument about what kind of content actually has an impact. Does the Saw movie franchise actually create serial killers, or do serial killers just enjoy the Saw movies? Or do Serial Killers think it's hokey? I don't know. You have to make a causal relationship, right? Do people already committing violence or embracing racism enjoy [x] content or does it "cause" that behavior, which are two separate things. Again with all due respect, ur points of view doesn't make any sense. Because ALL fiction is actually problematic. The only fiction that's isn't problematic, is children books.
@@dejavudeux i think there's some kind of misunderstanding here ??? i never said that fiction shouldn't be problematic????? also personally I don't see a causal relationship between enjoying a certain kind of fiction & being a certain kind of person. I'm almost entirely talking about what dark romance is capable of doing, thematically, and why it falls short when the romance exists on a very shallow premise of "he's hot" and nothing else. while attraction IS a good thing to play with, dark romance is not good when that's like. the only thing that matters. especially when the genre is about trying to explore the darker aspects of a romantic relationship. Why would you even understand the LI's motivations if they never seen to venture beyond how physically attractive the guy is and nothing else? anyway, romanticizing abuse is just bad dark romance writing, imo. if you're not a dark romance reader, then, like, respectfully, you don't get it? also where is hunger games romanticizing kids killing each other lmao??? not the point. anyway. what I'm asking for is better writing, better character work. most of everything else will take care of itself. also. a character romanticizing abuse ≠ story romanticizing abuse. that is also something i was talking about. there are so many things you can do while having a clueless unreliable character be the protagonist and THAT'S FUN TO READ BC IT'S INTENSE AND WEIRD. and it's just a good experience when you get to explore a character like that. but you don't have to make that piece of fiction say rape is fun and okay. like you if you do that, that's just bad writing period. it's not about moral policing bc no one is saying you can't have those things in books, it's about how to handle the topics
What I don't understand is the way dark romance tries to justify its character's actions-- not explain, justify. I understand having some sort of abuse fetish and looking for a safe space to explore that, and it makes sense that dark romance would be the perfect genre. I'm SO okay with that. You can put some truly awful stuff in there, with the express purpose of getting off to it, without ever narratively justifying it. It's like how you can watch the joker commit murder, enjoy the bombast and the fantasy of it all, and never for a second think he was in the right. That's because the genre is built to throw these behaviors into a character-study fantasy-space wherein actions aren't meant to be evaluated for their morality. The character is evil. Watch them do evil. It's interesting. But the dark romance genre seems to WANT to shove morality onto characters that are behaving immorally. You wrote an abuse romance. That's okay. In fact, it can be cathartic and beneficial to some readers. Just DONT JUSTIFY IT. You don't have to soften that blow. In fact, you should make it crystal clear that what you wrote can be dangerous to engage with if you're in the wrong headspace. Art can exist that depicts awful things without causing harm, but you have to be CAREFUL. You can't glorify these things, especially because the culture at large tries to justify them too. It worries me because a healthy mind would write a dark romance, know that it's dark, and accept that. But no, the abusive male love interest MUST be framed as in the right, not just in the POV of his victims, but by the author. And that belies a failure to separate fantasy from reality that is incredibly unhealthy. I find it frustrating because I enjoy engaging with toxic, vile relationships in media. I want a dark romance genre where these dynamics are allowed to breathe. Instead, authors try to sugarcoat the cruelty. I worry that it's an unhealthy coping mechanism. Whenever I see an author begin to narratively justify things, it ruins my own experience because I start worrying about them and other readers. It's complicated, but I really believe that dark romance can be a positive force for many people. Just not in its current state. Right now, dark romance is overrun by problematic, unedited pieces, that espouse misogyny and justify abuse. It's not safe to engage with if you haven't deconstructed your own internalized misogyny or abuse-apologia. Also, like, can the dark romance be dark in more ways than abusive man and victim woman? Are we not going to have mutual toxicity? Codependency? Or pull from any manner of more interesting power dynamic fetishes? Ever gonna flip the dynamic? Also there are so many more ways a romance can be dark than just assault. But oh well Sigh Anyways great video. I disagree slightly with your stance on depicting abuse in media, mostly because I have my own experiences that contradict it, but I agree completely with the core of your argument. People are too comfortable with justifying abuse, and as a society, media literacy is too rare for me to just shrug it off. I've seen people romanticize these books without any self awareness, and it's frightening. I know I'm safe to read these books-- I know because they concern me-- but the demographic that reads them is demonstrably unaware of their own internalized misogyny, and that's frightening. Sry about the essay. It's just a very complicated subject w a lot of nuance. I know people who engage with dark media beneficially, and I know people who are far too impressionable to so much as open the Zodiac Academy. Also, these authors should probably examine their own beliefs before writing dark romance bc damn the lack of self awareness is worrying. I just think: are you okay?
@@dejavudeux I feel like the principal holds: you can make your fun murder spree revenge movie, just dont start justifying murder narratively. That's a blurry line, yes, but it's achievable through a variety of tactics: clever use of tone and genre, narrative punishment, hurting a character's credibility before they attempt to justify it, and etc. for instance: in gone girl, many bad things are done, but no one thinks 'wow these bad things are okay'. Of course, nothing is foolproof, and you're always going to have some incel who's like : the joker is me fr. that is someone bringing their own baggage into a film who would have the same response if they watched any other deplorable person. Besides, I don't think midsommar is problematic because it made people come out of the movie feeling like the cult was good. It literally indoctrinated a portion of the audience into thinking murder was acceptable, but it's still a powerful piece of art that should continue to be shown. It was a learning experience, and it depicted the actual internal process of indoctrination. No murder happened as a result, even though the movie justified it with actual cult tactics. I lied we're not just focusing on romance. I can't help myself. My special interest has been Arcane for like 3yrs, so I'm doing an EXAMPLE. Jinx is a murderer who kills people for her dad's approval. These murders are often bombastic and exciting and colorful, but it's always underscored by a sadness and a horror. She's a very nuanced and sympathetic character, but the narrative never frames her actions as good. Her act of terrorism in ep9 is framed as a satisfying for her arc, beautiful and stunning and cathartic, even as something Piltover has coming, but not as GOOD. All her victims are highlighted as much as her moment of taking power is. Now, there's always going to be weirdos who justify this action because there are genuinely people who don't have the skills or the desire to understand nuance. Trust me, people have awful takes about Jinx. But no one comes out of Arcane thinking 'wow all that murder is 100% justified.' The narrative doesn't have to spell out thigns like 'murder is bad' or 'running drugs for your dad is bad' or even though the murder, kidnapping, stalking etc. is honestly sick as hell and we understand fully why the character did so. The narrative lets her actions breathe without insisting on explaining to the audience that murder is bad, because we're not pre-pubescent children. Simply not justifying this is enough. With abuse, because it's much more difficult to understand and more complicated, less risks can be taken. The author has to be very clear and provide a lot of warnings or else harm can be caused via normalization. Often nuanced depictions of toxicity can be poorly interpreted even despite the dynamic being crystal clear. But also, sometimes media illiteracy is a problem for the school system, not for writers. If you watch All Quiet on the Western Front and come out with the take 'war is cool as hell', no matter how impressionable you are, that is a problem with you. If there is a story about abuse where nothing is narratively justified, even if by the end no one gets their comeuppance, and the characters stay together, you should have the skills to understand that what you are reading is abuse. The author has the responsibility not to market to vulnerable demographics, and the reader should read something they are capable of understanding. Adults should be able to read about toxic relations that are sympathetic and never get resolved, in the same way they should be able to read about war and murder without feeling any need to justify any of those things. Childhood is when you should have learned what things are bad, and there's no shame in needing to catch up, but you should be trying to catch up. Tldr ig So uh, basically what causes harm is really complicated, and you just really shouldn't make Dahmer or Birth of a Nation. That's my take. Sorry that I ramble. I'm not good at being concise.
18:20 I edited a book that doesn’t have rape, but the man doesn’t get consent for other physical activities. I flagged this so hard. Her response was that he’s just trying to express his love for her and she’ll feel that when she comes to her senses and that every beta swooned at it. I told her I was an editor with PTSD and this wasn’t something to swoon over for everyone.
The characters constantly trying to embarrass that one heir by joking that he’s into Pegasi really is just a. very bad understanding of anti-bigotry. Like as a trans person, if a person was being transphobic and someone tried to make fun of him by spreading rumours about him being into trans people really wouldn’t make me feel defended. It just enforces the idea that those people are laughable and that it’s embarrassing for someone to be attracted to them You can just really tell the authors have a surface level white liberal cishet understanding of oppression and bigotry, and it’s embarrassing
I can sort of understand the perspective of 'its fiction i dont actually want to be abused' but i feel like the danger comes less from people romanticising individual acts of abuse and more from romanticising the types of people who are inclined towards abusive behaviours. The issue with abusive dark romance characters arent just that they commit acts of abuse but their general toxic personality traits become associated with being desirable, and perpetuates the whole 'i can fix them' thing. If you have to 'fix' your partner, they shouldnt be in a relationship. Its a lot harder to argue that people dont base their relationship standards on media they consume, that to me is a very common thing that people are actively conscious of.
As you're juxtaposing good dark romance with bad dark romance, all I can think about is how they fumbled Cole in Charmed. The entire plotline of 'redeemed demon who truly fell for the witch he was meant to kill... He hurts her, but he then learns to be a good person for her' worked. It really did. And then it didn't when they made him a deranged stalker who at every point of his life until final extinguish, violated Phoebe's boundaries. By the end of the show she fully well hated him for everything he put her through and found perfect love with a Cupid, which is a good way to wrap up a toxic relationship. Recognition, moving on, finding healthy & stable, right? Ask the young Charmed fandom and see how many ship Cole/Phoebe even despite all the areas those two are a blueprint for toxicity.
14:20 not to throw him under the bus, but my partner (millennial cis male) LOVES romance - it's his favorite genre, and he constantly complains about not being able to get into stuff because the romance is off-putting for one reason or another. I'm hoping it'll inspire me to actually write the things I have planned so he's got something actually wholesome/healthier to look at 😅 cuz it's hard to find at the moment
There can be an argument made for written fiction being a safe place to explore dangerous sexual desires. But in my experience most of these stories I've read have been on Ao3, and the authors usually explicitly come out and say "Yeah this is fucked up, don't ever try to emulate this in real life. I 100% wrote this for my own fetish". When mainstream novels come out with this kind of material without the disclaimer it normalizes this shit, it sends the message "These behaviors are romantic and very sexy, if your gut has an issue with them you're wrong" which is so dangerous.
Tbh and I say this as someone who both wrote and read fanfiction as a teenager: The worst thing people did was realised you could self-publish on Amazon, and proceed to do that with things that should be left as free-to-read fanfiction. This is absolutely in that zone of 'things that should've been left on Wattpad'
yeah, I grew up on ao3 and while I get the concern that it provides access to teens (like my former self) who may be less likely to have access to actual published books, I'm also not entirely upset that I was exposed to vaguely comparable content (essentially kink-based sexual content without explicit negotiation between characters, many times in high fantasy/scifi settings with different social norms and baseline for educational/communal resources, etc) in a context where it was tagged with the specific graphic content I would find in it, themes/specifics could be literally filtered out, and there wasn't (at least directly) a billion dollar industry pushing products into as many revenue lines as possible (including younger demographics). I think there needs to be some space for acknowledging that not only is "kinkshaming" not a legitimate description for every ethical/epistemic issue someone takes with a piece of erotic media (imo this take actually borders on gatekeeping which could harm people who are curious and looking for information), but that this phrase, the idea of kink as exclusive, and its actual connections to marginalization, are inevitably complicated by a subset of the publishing industry which seems to have identified that a lot of these "kinks" are actually extremely common and marketable. This doesn't eliminate its connections to marginality historically or now, nor make this content inherently "bad" or already mainstream, but I think some people seem to set up a "it's normal and common and therefore not harmful" and "its a kink and shouldn't be questioned" argument without really thinking abt the tension between those concepts. It isn't an oxymoron, but it isn't totally far off.
Without wading into defending any specific examples (because yikes). I do wonder if some of the more defensive reactions to criticism of portrayals of romance and abuse representations is due to the contrasting approaches to the texts that various readers can bring, combined with the general stigma that kink communities and discussion can already face (leading to a degree of defensive around their enjoyment). Leading with the latter point (because I am excellent at structuring). I think you're right that mainstream media is also criticised, but one of the core differences is volume. In the case of societally approved interests these spread pretty widely. If you're someone who likes the bickering dynamic from Stranger Things Season 3, or James Bond style fanservice, there's a lot of that about and it's very easily accessible. Thus, you can recognise the problems with both of those representations and move to better, less abusive or misogynistic examples. However, if you're a reader discovering an idea through, for example 50 Shades of Gray, that book may very well be the only publicly licenced example of those tropes you know about, which can make it difficult to move away from, as rejecting means going back to having nothing. I'm put in mind of the era in which Disney villains were the primary representation of LGBT identities for many people. I shouldn't like to push the equivalence too far, but these could also be criticised as negative images, but nonetheless were important for people, because they gave them a foot-in-the-door to discover themselves. On top of that the general stigmatisation of kinks can make it hard to distinguish 'it's disgusting and dangerous'(legitimate) from 'it's disgusting and dangerous'(stigmatisation of desires). Pulling all of this together I can see a lot of reasons fans might respond badly to criticism, especially if it comes from outside their community (and especially since these sort of stigmatisations tend to isolate readers to having limited space to talking about their enjoyment). This is true even when (especially when) the criticism is correct, and doesn't necessarily relate to lack a of media literacy, or even a belief in the counter-arguments used. The first point I find a bit more interesting, because I think it reflects the flexible way people read in ways they often aren't aware of. In popular discourse we have a tendency of adopting the textworld interpretation (in which we imagine reading a text as constructing a continuous storyworld which then develops and is navigated as we read) but I wonder if the people who interact with these sort of scenes as positives are stepping away from that. Basically, the textworld obviously doesn't really exist, nothing connects the events of a story other than the readers interpretation. So I wonder if they are running a 'Text as game' or 'text as fantasy resource' approach, abstracting out descriptions, elements and ideas from the text and using them to construct unrelated or contextless fantasies. Thus the abusive elements don't register, because the protagonist isn't being read as a person and the plot isn't being read as a set of connected events, individual scenes are rather being read as writing prompts to be used to aid in unrelated fantasy (this is quite similar to how reference texts or rereading a book to write from it works, but obviously for different ends). I'm not very sure about this analysis, since I'm obviously not in the heads of either fans of these works or critics. It just struck me that the level of disconnect between the critics (quite justifiably worried about the internalisation of toxic messaging from abuse in fiction) and the fans (responding as if defending their right to find individual moments or tropes hot) possibly suggests audiences talking at cross purposes. I don't know, hopefully it doesn't sound like I'm defending content I haven't read. I'd agree that romanticising abuse is a much more pernicious and easy to do thing than most people realise (I'd go so far as to pull up the 'there is no ethical gender organisation under patriarchy' honestly), but I'm also incredibly wary of talking over other people's relationships with texts. I don't think we necessarily need to prove the fans of these works wrong to highlight the abusive natures of these relationships. We just need to recognise that their engagement with it pulls on extremely risky desires and narratives. That's generally their prerogative if they're doing it safely, and not necessarily related to the wider social issue of the gendered inequities of patriarchy and violence. At the same time other readers are going to find these narratives triggering and undesireable. The lack of media literacy isn't so much the reading of it any one way (though obviously, the former does appear to come from a place of a lack of engagement with real world abuse) as the inability to realise that a text written for one purpose is always redeployable by an audience for different purposes. Anyway, I just wanted to work through those thoughts. I'd strongly agree with you on the dangers of romanticising abuse, but I guess I'm just wary of also writing over the difficulty of finding well-written content that serves audiences into more problematic fantasies, and the general stigma those audiences face. I think the Text-world equation has some problems in the way it limits our engagement with the flexible nature of reading, and the fluid-reality of characters (which are really conceptual tools drafted in by intertext to approach both other texts and reality) and I think we could all do with approaching books with less deterministic expectations and more of an awareness of our own agency and motivations as readers. This was just a topic that kept turning over in my head as you evaluated. Keep up the good work and hopefully this comes off as more 'elaborate attempt to investigate a miscommunication' than 'stumping for ignoring the parts of texts readers find distressing and the texts refusal to own that distress and mitigate it'.
Sorry to add even more text. Just coming back to this to highlight two places I think this interfaces with your arguments specifically. In the accessibility point drawing on the comparison between Outlander, and in the textworld point drawing on the argument about the described events being 'not a fantasy'. I think I should highlight before I do that I also find beating and mind control plots deeply upsetting (and in general find power dynamics quite gross and frightening in a lot of forms) so this isn't me defending something on the 'it's hot' position: 1) I think the comparison to Outlander fails because these are doing different things. While Outlander does include a dark scene, that scene is written the assumption (by the sound of things) that a relatively liberal, co-equal gender relation is morally superior and hitting a person is always wrong. This is correct, but if you're someone who picked up a romance because you like power dynamics or light hitting, this is going to fail totally as fantasy fuel. Because it's consistently informing you that this scene is a wrong thing to happen and is unpleasant. Thus, it doesn't leave space for the unconventional desires of the reader. The Zodiac Academy section is worse, but it does leave that space for the reader to enjoy the tropes without being directly stigmatised for them. 2) This is part of what I was saying about the text-world theory. This argument is acting as if the characters in the text are real people. They are not. By definition, a fictional story is already a fantasy. Assuming the scene is well telegraphed, and doesn't catch the reader by surprise, the reader is already in the process of engaging with the text, by the act of continuing to read and can stop at any time. Further, the parallel between reading the scene and watching a sexual assault is part of the above stigmatisation. This isn't to say it isn't problematic. Insofar as the reader carries ideas with them into the real world, of course this can affect their treatment of survivors and their own relationships. However, the scene itself is a choreographed textual event. It's mostly generating interest/pleasure through its aesthetic and imaginative elements. Further the reader can skim read, rewrite or reposition elements as they choose. It's likely that this enjoyment is what is seen as being attacked when one is accused of kink shaming (as an aside I do think this unfair. Saying that you can't imagine someone enjoying something, is not the same attacking the person's enjoyment in many contexts). I doubt the readers who enjoy reading scenes like this would enjoy watching a real world assault. Which just underlines again that fictional events are already fantasies. I think this argument is thus critically misaimed. Essentially, this it converts 'enjoying a book, with severe problematic elements' into 'being complicit in sexual assault'. In reality the actual debate is around how problematic those book-internal elements are and whether they contribute to spreading talking points that stigmatise abuse survivors, or trivialise real world trauma. Acting as if the audience is enjoying an assault muddies these matters. I could go on. I think there's some interesting comparisons to be mined in your alternative of characters engaging in roleplay within the story, for example. From my own experience deconstructing a conservative upbringing, it took a long time to be able to read about characters explicitly wanting to engage in romance/sex, because of how much that had been stigmatised. It had to be presented in accidental or deniable ways, because that let me dissociate my engagement with it from reality. I suspect something like that is happening here. The readers want to read about domineering, forceful romance, but they aren't comfortable with admitting the possibility that there exist normal people who want to do that (because of the stigma attached with non-conventional sexualities) and so the experience has to be exaggerated into a villain and a heroine who performs not really wanting it while not having a choice. That said, this is getting soooo long and I worry I'm coming off as downplayingthe upsetting nature of these scenes. So I guess I'll end this with. A fictional representation of assault is already a fantasy, rather than a real world assault. That doesn't mean that someone can't find a fantasy deeply disturbing. Just because no one was actually hurt doesn't mean that someone didn't spend ages writing and imagining all the specifics and that still communicates beliefs about romance, sexuality, women and desire that are pretty gross. Authors do need to be mindful of both the message they want readers to take, and alternative readings or else accept the criticism they get from those they haven't considered.
@@packman2321 You just put a lot of my thoughts into very well put words (and added some more). I agree with a lot of what you wrote, but I just want to add: Books like these would be so easily saved, if they just were explicitly marked as fe*ish material. Because that's ultimately what they are, and there's nothing wrong with that. The danger comes from people going into this unknowlingly and thinking it's supposed to depict safe, healthy and desirable relationships. It's not (at least it should not be! although with some of these books I'm really not sure), it's supposed to depict a fantasy as you say. And, without having read these books specifically, I think as such it has it's place, just not somewhere where it can be found by people just looking for a romance story.
People need to understand to calm TF down about their kinks. Cause let's not lie to ourselves. Characters being brutally abused and then seen as "sexy studs" is definitely kink stuff and, as such, should be treated with the necessary amount of nuance. Like. These stories are thrown around as if all of the things done in there are actually "correct", instead of admitting it is fucked up and should be carefully dealt with. Look. Making a big-ass disclaimer at the start of the book saying stuff like: "This novel includes kinks of abuse, toxic relationships and such. Treat is at what it is: a work of fiction and not a thing to be actually romanticized or emulated in real life" It ain't that hard.
The „animated version“ looks so cool! I love the details like the haircolour similar to yours and the little mouse in the pocket of your shirt. Also, i really love your series about these books, you‘ve changed my mind a lot about „dark romance“, especially because i used to like the genre when i was a teen and apparently i supressed a lot about how it really was.
Honestly,i was surprised by how right the AI sounded, the only difference i could hear with the real you was the lack of emotion in the voice. Great vid as usual. the publishers need to stop enabling "autors" like Hoover and the twins
As one book critic said 'An author can't write a character smarter than he is'. Yes, it sounds harsh and blunt, but, I think, we should not be afraid to say such things directly. Some authors write dumb characters and plots because they are not much smarter. Not all people have high intelligence and critical thinking skills, and that's okay.
To be fair, I don't think that ASOIAF books romanticize violence against women. On the contrary, the books do a great job at de-romanticizing many fantasy tropes, including "destined lovers..." The TV adaptation, on the other hand, is a whole another story ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
I agree! I see this comment a lot, about the ASOIAF books romanticizing sexual violence, and while I don't begrudge people who come to that conclusion and can see while they do, I've always found the same thing that you did! It happens in the books, but it isn't glorified, and I'm pretty sure almost everyone who commits it VERY much suffers their just desserts. Meanwhile, I had to quit the series at like season 5 because it was making me sick and they wouldn't STOP having SA scenes over and over again for literally no reason! I already know Ramsay Bolton is a piece of shit - don't need to see him do something like this again for you to extra confirm it to me!!
I wrote my master's thesis about women's agency and the female body in ASOIAF. These books do portray abuse of women but they frame it as what it is: A horrific, traumatizing experience. The female POV characters are expressing their struggles in a starkly patriarchal world and how they cope with it - it is a very sympathetic and nuanced portrayal. The show on the other hand... Since we don't have access to the thoughts of the characters like we do in the books, there's of course more focus on the visuals. The audience becomes more of a voyeur of the nudity and sexual violence but that comes with the territory of the medium (and the choices of adaptation of the show runners). I'd still argue that the ASOIAF franchise has a feminist viewpoint on misogyny/sexism (the books more so, the show less).
Writers conflating Latin and Romance languages can be so funny sometimes, I still remember when a fic I read unironically said that a quote in Latin was actually French. Like I get it if it’s in casual conversation since most people probably don’t know how Latin reads, but when you put it in a story you can at least google it
Always love your videos, rachel. You are always interesting. Romantizing abuse is never right. How could anyone glorify abuse? You are an intelligent, strong woman. Love your videos, rachel. You are always interesting
The boys constantly talking about how they’re these big bad alphas and stuff like that is so hilarious coz there’s literally nothing less ‘alpha’ than saying you’re alpha. An actually powerful character doesn’t have to say they’re powerful, their abilities speak for themselves. Someone who goes around telling people how awesome and strong they are doesn’t come off as powerful, they come off as insecure and desperate for approval. And I can only speak for myself, but that’s the least attractive or cool thing a character can do As Tywin said, ‘any man who must say “I am the king” is no true king’
Oh my gods we have never been this early to an upload. Hell yeah! As the only way we will ever experience these books, this is much better than having to read them lol
How are these women "controlling the narrative" by reading a book? I also experienced abuse as a child and molestation, and while I do engage in consensual non-con with my husband, I do have power when we do those things, but I've read so many books where these characters are horribly abused by their love interests and it bothers me cuz I CAN'T control these characters to get them away from their abusers. In my consensual non-con with my husband, I'm the one with the most control and power in those scenarios cuz I know the moment I use the safe word he'll stop immediately and begin after care to reassure me if it got too intense for me. The authors aren't providing any aftercare to their readers. No control over the story's events and no aftercare for when the plot becomes too much means that this is in no way shape or form cathartic or therapeutic. Edited to add: "'What if I don't want to stop?' Then you should go to prison." Made my husband and me laugh so hard. 🤣👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
There's TONS of romance novels, some quite dark, where there main characters treat each other with respect and care. Criticizing these books isn't hating women's fiction.
So, I like to play stuff like DnD and other TTRPGs. In these games, i am roleplaying a lot of violence and death. Granted, I'm on the side of good, but I'm still solving my problems through the kilking of my enemies. In real life, I would fond this horrific. I'm a pacifist by nature, and I abhore violence. But I know that the violence in my game isnt real. Now, if i wanted to read a piece of fiction about fantasy heroes, very likely we're going to see more violence and more death. I know that this is a REALLY poor analogy, but why shouldn't people who enjoy CNC have fiction to enjoy where nonconcent is actually happening? They'd be horrified by real rape, but fake rape happening to fake people in a fiction book is different. I feel like the argument should be a proper disclaimer for these kinds of books so that readers can properly concent to reading these types of things.
As a survivor with C-PTSD, my therapists have always referred to dark romance as a safe way to cope. Instead of going out and getting into a dangerous relationships to chase that high of the fear that feels like love (which I used to do), I get to explore it in fiction without putting my life in danger. I love these rant reviews and I think Zodiac Acadamy is comically bad, but I’m happy dark romance exists and I’m sure there’s a survivor out there who actually got something positive out of this series. I know there’s a lot of bad people out there who write and read dark romance for the wrong reasons-but sadly, the alternative is censorship that will harm survivors who need it to cope and/or heal. If you don’t need it, that’s great! I just want to inspire you to not advocate for taking away a tool from other people just because you don’t need it. This is not aimed at Rachel specifically, either, it’s just general discourse that I’ve seen go out of hand, where people ask for government censorship on media they don’t agree with. It’s very dangerous to do that and will impact marginalized communities first, rather than actual bad people you want to target. Stay safe! Note: Please do not respond to this comment with medical advice! I consult with actual medical professionals about my healthcare. You are not my healthcare provider (and you likely aren’t a healthcare provider at all). I’m just sharing my perspective and how dark romance has helped me personally.
what supposedly "heals" you is actually traumatizing me and hundreds of other women. so find normal doctors (lol) and stop whining and oversharing, it's pathetic.
Ig my own stance is & I believe Rachel ‘s also just pls consumes this stuff critically & hold these authors to a better standard it seems like a lot of ppl don’t. Like at d end of the day we still live in a patriarchal society & tbh dark romance just seems to most of d time just contribute 2 d ra*e culture dat rampant in it. I don’t see a merit to it most of d time but dat doesn’t change d fact dat some ppl do so don’t w/ d censorship crowd either.
@@cold_ukr_b Rachel overshares in this video, too. This might not be the right content for you to watch. Also, I was very clear that I don't need medical advice from random uneducated people online :)
Also, please mention Lana Del Rey. She has quite a few references to Lolita in her work. She has received criticism for romanticizing abuse in relationships. Her view on feminism has also been called into question.
44:18 I was just comparing lolita to dark romance, glad I'm not the only one who noticed. Also, I'm pretty sure most of the people who romanticize lolita never read it, they just saw the poster to the movie. Like, that book is extremely unsexy
I really hate how much dark romance books push against the entire idea of consent. I imagine a world where men read these and actually try and act like the men in it….. that sounds terrifying
The only things keeping that from being a reality are 1. Not all of these books are being turned into blockbuster movies 2.The overlap between the kinds of guys who would act this way and the kinds of guys who would read these books are thankfully low
I don't think writing scenes with non-consent or dubious consent is inherently bad or means anyone who writes or reads it and enjoys it needs therapy, but I think there are a couple of caveats. I think that if a book is going to have a character who is abusive, then the book needs to acknowledge that that is what's happening and not excuse the behavior. For example, you mentioned in your Harrow Faire reviews that you were hoping until the very end that Cora was going to finally see Simon for the abusive dick he was and hopefully kill him but at a bare minimum end things with him. If that had happened, and Cora had acknowledged that his behavior wasn't ok, I think it would just be a totally different case. I also think part of acknowledging abusive behavior is having appropriate trigger warnings, which indicates that the author understands what they're writing and isn't just romanticizing abuse. I just don't think it's fair to say that only portrayals that overtly have characters having discussions about how they are intentionally practicing bdsm and have safe words are ok and people need help if they want to read anything beyond that. Like in a bdsm scene that is simulating dubious consent, obviously the people involved are engaging in a fantasy where they're pretending that someone hasn't consented. So I don't think it's unreasonable to have a book that is basically a fantasy like that written down, as long as it has trigger warnings and it's clear in the text that what is happening would just be abuse/assault/r@pe if it actually happened as written. And to me the reason that reading a story about something like that is ok but reading a story like that about a child is revolting and not okay under any circumstances is because my sexual fantasies do not under any circumstances ever include children. Most of the protagonists in romance novels that I identify with while reading are women in their 30s. And I'm imagining that fantasy from my perspective, an adult woman who understands the difference between being into bdsm and actual abuse. I also want to be clear that I'm also not saying "I'd know better than to let that happen to me" or anything like that. I'm just saying that I understand that fantasizing about non-consent and being into bdsm doesn't mean I actually want anything like that to genuinely happen to me in real life. It just means I'm into bdsm lol
Thank you for going into the details about dark romance as a subgenre because there is something to be said to distinguish it from trash like this.... shame so few writers understand that. Monster "lovers" deserve better fiction, better romance and better ero in general.... and less toxic materials in general. Also, thing that just hit me that I didn't think of with the first two. 90% of these books can be summed up with the MST3K clips "wow, you held the tension for a whole 30 seconds" and "that was a great scene /s)
Being written 'carelessly' is not an excuse. People shouldn't get a pass just because they're lazy or untalented. They're just validating the media that panders to them without any critical analysis while simultaneously shutting down any actual criticism.
Idea: Get Google Drive so we can send stuff. Like with Hannah Alonzo, Isabella Lanter and CC Suarez.
Місяць тому+3
I agree that fiction is in this incredibly odd area of our culture where, especially with teens and young twenty-somethings, it can open up a gateway towards normalising all manner of abusiveness. Even when the reader or viewer can manage to keep the distinction between the fantasy of fiction and reality as perfectly compartmentalized as possible, it does say something when one is habitually enjoying entertainment media that remains "morally neutral," much less favourably portrays stories with abusive relationships. Honestly, this is one of the reasons that I like to include an "Author's Note" at the very beginning of my novels, because many of my stories take place during the 1970s & '80s, when certain things weren't exactly "acceptable," so much as they were "less unacceptable," and that readers should keep in mind that the words and actions of my characters, even the protagonists, even the protagonists who I identify with more than the others, don't perfectly represent my own opinions on what is and isn't acceptable, much less "correct" behaviours, but a reflection of the characters and a window into certain aspects of even _counter-culture_ of that period of the 20th Century.
I loved how you broke this down I’m a feminist a school librarian and I love strong dominant men in my erotica !! But they ask consent, there is after care there is ROLEplaying no to rape! Fantasies yes !! where consent is given! Love where you broke the difference down! I was worried you wouldn’t but phew 😅you did! Many feminists love things a bit different when they get home at the end of the day ! But I agree the books shouldn’t be hurting the woman then claiming she got use to it and fell for him…I have read erotic books like what you describe, in the past ( I’m gen x so there was a lot more in the 9os etc ) I would not want them banned or gone as I don’t believe in that…and sometimes my imagination does want a bit naughtier even if it’s because my head is messed up sadly…but you really broke this down well and why it was important!
23:32 Every single kid in middle school believed that! And I was in middle school 10 years ago. I and a few others who were victims themselves didn't believe that. Just to clarify, I myself wasn't a victim, but some of the people I knew were victims.
It sounds like folks who like this genre may have a non-consent kink. Which is fine... kinks are not wrong. But it needs to be understood and looked at from that perspective because then there are safeguards often put into place due to the kink aspect. I think what is missing from the discussion is the non-con fantasy is for the reader, not the characters. Framing it as "romance" is where it becomes harmful. I've seen this done well but it's more in the context of specific erotic fiction, with content warnings and whatnot. This does not sound like that.
This is the perfect video for my study day! Also, can I just say, your hair color in this looks so lovely on you, absolutely stunning contrast with your eyes✨
heard this quote somewhere that really encapsulates my feelings about how these analogues for rape are treated-"For some reason if you rape someone with science fiction/fantasy concepts it's just a metaphor for rape, in much the same way that killing them with a phaser is just a metaphor for them being shot."
In the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of $, proud, abusive… heartless… lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, (2 Timothy 3:1-5)… Books like this, Authors like this, Social media pushing these things is how we will inevitably get there. I’m scared for young girls (maybe men too) who will read this and believe this is love. I hope a person steeped in these books will come across your video that they won’t fall into the lies of what love looks like. I didn’t make it through the whole video only because I have no intention of reading these books, but I made it over an hour, because I love to learn and you do a great job explaining. I love your unapologetic opinions. I hope you will find healing and people who deserve your trust💛
I feel two ways about this. On the one hand, young people are impressionable, and they absolutely can be led into some very harmful and dangerous situations/mindsets because they either don't understand the difference between fantasy and reality, or even right from wrong. These are absolutely critical components necessary to enjoy any kind of fiction on a healthy level. But, at the same time, there have been many cases throughout the years where governments have taken the reigns and said "You know what? We don't think you have the knowledge, authority, autonomy, or intelligence to decide what's appropriate for you and your house. So, we're going to make those decisions for you. It's for your own good, after all." That's essentially what happened with the video nasties scandal in Britain in the early 1980s. Where owning certain horror/exploitation movies became a crime, a crime that some people paid for with years of their lives in prison! And it's all because of a few people who deemed themselves superior moral authorities. (It's a little more complicated than just that, but that's basically it) The short of it is this. We have an educational tight rope we need to walk as a society. One where we educate thoroughly, but do not restrict people's ability to consume. Sure sounds simple, doesn't it? But, alas, things are only simple in a perfect world. Great video, by the way! 😊
Rachel sweetie, thank you so much for your sacrifice cause I never read past the second book. I could never make myself kill that internal part of my brain that tries to understand logic so thank you. I have been very curious about how shitty this gets.😂
There needs to start being a distinction between 'dark romance' & romanticized abuse. If there's meaningful consent, it's dark romance. If there's never any meaningful consent, it's romanticized abuse and should be labeled as such. People can write what they want, but it should be labeled appropriately & i firmly beleive both author's & publishing companies have a responsibility to recognize this. Especially when we have actual science proving scenarios like the ones in these books are extremely harmful to people, & the terms to express them.
I think my actual thoughts on the it's just fiction arguments vs the content of the book is genuinely harmful is too long for a comment but I'll try to sum it up. Basically, yes, it is just fiction, and it may be a kink, but that doesn't put it above criticism. It's not a free pass to just write about whatever and have it be above any negative opinions. What you bring up is extremely important to the conversation because the abusive behavior is glamorized and seen as romantic in these books. It may bring some comfort to survivors, but that doesn't diminish the fact it can be harmful and triggering to others. Perhaps if there was any literary merit to this series, there would be more room for discussion, but the books are shallow and the love interests being abusive doesn't have some message or greater meaning. With Nabokov and Lolita, the book explicitly states in the beginning that Humbert is the villain, and Nabokov doesn't want the reader to see it as a love story. Zodiac Academy does nothing to point out that these love interests are displaying abusive behaviors. They're just supposed to be seen as hot.
For me, dark romance could be just as acceptable as other, healthier romance types if only the author made it clear that the book depicts an abusive relationship, that it's wrong, and advising people to only see the relationship as an 'if you see this irl, run and don't look back'. I sometimes like reading some dynamics with possessiveness, violent behaviors (though never aimed at the MC), etc. for various personal reasons. However, I also know that these behaviors are only acceptable in fantasy/fiction, and never in real life - especially as an abuse survivor myself. I dunno, I've been spoiled a little by fanfics on AO3 where there are warnings and tags that tell you exactly what's in a story and never justify it. So, for me, as long as an author of a published story makes it very, very clear that they are not condoning abuse, and that their story is completely unacceptable outside of fantasy, I see no real issues. Might be an unpopular opinion, but that's how I feel and you are more than free to disagree with me and feel differently. We're all entitled to our own opinions, and that's okay :] Edits for clarity.
Im gonna be honest. Don’t agree with the take that outlanders is less problematic because jamie is “a product of his time.” 1)even in time periods where it was normal to do absolutely terrible things, there were people who refused to do it, consequences be damned. Beating your wife because you’re afraid of the consequences isn’t somehow more okay than beating your wife because you cant control your anger. 2) this is fantasy. The author could have chose to write that maybe he had the expectation to, and maybe he considered it. But they come up with another plan or solution. To me this reads as if the author was like “uhhhhhh how can i make it justifiable or forgivable that he beat his wife. Uhhh he was afraid of being exiled from the clan.” You can write a character that is morally dubious without having them beat their fucking wife like come on. 3) I’m not saying the scene where he beats her shouldn’t have happened. What i’m saying is it still makes him a shit person and is still just as bad as the abuse that goes on in zodiac academy. because to me, theres the pain from the beating as well as the emotional anguish that comes with knowing that someone you loved and trusted would do something like that to you. Thats nuts! If i was his wife, i don’t care if he “redeems himself”. Nothing he does would ever be able to make up for that, historical context or accuracy be damned. Id be pissed too if that character eventually went on to be a hero. Tbh i feel like people writing fantasty that is “historically accurate” a lot of times use it to write out their fantasy’s about violence against women. You said that basically every women gets raped in the book. But no, the author also had to write that the one person who is supposed to be on the main characters side beats her. I also feel like outlanders is worse because its way more realistic than anything that happens in zodiac academy. It’s not magically better because she didn’t think getting beaten was sexy. You’ll never get peed on by a pack of werewolves but you sure as hell could marry someone who never lays a hand on you, and then one day they literally almost kill you because you need to be “punished”
Oh but its okay because he said “I’m sorry ill never do it again.” And he may never do it again but that doesn’t take away the fact that he did it! Its disgusting that got resolved basically immediately with a talk.
I think its also really dangerous to say “well he only beat me within an inch of my life once.” To me the message here is that “well it was justified because x y and z” or “look. He said sorry he’ll never do it again so i shouldn’t leave him.”
agreed on all points plus saying that he learned it was wrong to beat his wife has strange implications, as if he was a baby and he just didn't know better. men don't hit their wives because they don't know it's wrong, they don't care that it's wrong
The "romance" label should not be used with media where the whole point is s*x and kink. If it's marked as romance, I will not be expecting such graphic or violent s*x scenes. Publishers should actually use the "erotica" genre and help unsuspecting readers avoid an unpleasant surprise and stop trying to make extra cash by calling "romance" when there's not a romantic development in sight
Honestly I feel so conflicted about dark romance, which to be clear: IS a separate genre that is essentially about 'romances' where something is wrong. That is the whole 'appeal' of the genre. So like a Dark Fantasy Romance (A romance with darker fantasy elements like morally grey characters, murder and mayhem) is not the same as a Fantasy Dark Romance ( A dysfunctional/dark romance, within a fantasy setting). I agree this is complicating and confusing, but genre rules are genre rules. Personally I do have beef with calling it romance in the first place, because a lot of these stories are not actually romance to me. There's no real love there when someone gives in to their abuser or hooks up with their close relatives. Again though, I don't make genre rules. Having said all this, what I find so difficult is being caught somewhere between not wanting to yuck someone's yum and my own abhorrence for glorifying unhealthy, abusive or downright criminal relationships and peddle them as romantic. In the end I do agree that I see a danger in this as well, not just through books but all media, where particularly violence against women (mainly) is glorified, normalized and even praised as desirable. It's gross and we really just need more stories where this doesn't happen or is represented as every bit as horrible as it is. Simultaneously I also feel strongly that you can't mandate what mature adults choose to read. Emphasis on MATURE ADULT. This should 100% be kept away from people who are still developing and impressionable, especially teenagers. They've got enough shit to deal with, they really don't need a story about someone beating up or bullying their partner and think 'wow, that's romantic! I want a partner just like that! This is what love is!' Lastly, clearly for now I'm completely ignoring how utterly poorly written and constructed this particularly series is on itself, like that's just a whooole other mess.
There is so many charecter too keep up with , i had to search them up to understand who has “relationships “with who. Everyone sound the same and say same thing over and over. Love interests switch up their mood every page from wanting them to trying to kill them ,it’s very confusing ! Usually it’s something like enemies to friends with benefits and then lovers there is no linear progression that would make sense it’s so weird. And the abuse in these books is so vial I would prefer if this was horror book instead. Good video tho as always ❤️
A lot of people really struggle with understand consent it's kinda bizarre But for aspiring authors of... spicy romance, it should be pretty simple. The dom of the relationship just has to always leave an out available for their partner should they want to dip. It's that simple. Plus, isnt it more hot when a romantic interest is let go and yet cannot help coming right back?
People’s whataboutism with what men like is soooo disingenuous because yeah, there’s a lot of really gross stuff marketed to men, but people critique that too! I would understand if we were talking about, for example, mainstream attitudes, but a feminist UA-camr who absolutely does critique what men do and what men like when it’s a problem like this?? That’s not what the issue is here and the people who do this know it. What I think is really telling about the problems with books like this is that they frequently have Actually Bad Men who do the SAME THINGS the male love interests do but it’s bad when those men do it ONLY BECAUSE they aren’t “hot.” Like, talk about saying the quiet part loud. I don’t think fiction needs to be morally pure but I do think this feeds into reeeeally pernicious myths about women “secretly wanting it.” We’re not exploring deeper themes here, we’re just writing a story with a man who can do whatever he wants as long as he’s hot. All else aside, is that not incredibly shallow? (I’d recommend Weirdo Book Club’s videos on Haunting/Hunting Adeline for a really stark example of this.) Also, people will say “it’s only fiction” which yes, true, except then the same people who read this genre will turn around and literally romanticize real life murderers! Like this is literally a thing that happened, with people in the comments saying how sexy this guy was and comparing him by name to dark romance love interests. Murders aside, this man also had a swastika tattooed on his face, and how is THAT not a problem for these people? Dark romance has a serious problem with racism as well, but when people critique that, it’s the same wall of “it’s just fiction.” It’s giving “it’s just a joke” energy. I think this genre could be really cool and interesting and psychologically complex but time and time again it just gets reduced to “man does horrific things but it’s okay because he’s hot.”
I Love you reading these horrible books so I don't have to LMAO, but one thing I wanted to bring up to you is a sorta defense of transformative dark romance because contrary to a lot of what you've read, there are good ones out there, but this series is DEFINATELY NOT IT BEGGING THIS TO GO BACK TO WATTPAD IT'S SO EURGHFHGHG WRITING... SO INSENSITIVE AND ICKY AND OUT OF TOUCH..... I apologize for the upcoming blabber of thoughts I have been sitting on for MONTHS LOL TLDR: As a survivor, my stance is, stop marketing fetish content as "dark romance", and true dark romance is meant for a mature audience with good comprehension and a developed brain. Having it, and straight up fetish content marketed mainstream WITHOUT ANY TRIGGER WARNINGS OR WARNINGS IN GENERAL is insensitive, gross, and dangerous to young people. I'm not saying it shouldn't be a thing, I'm just saying it needs to be properly marked and kept to it's own corner out of the marketing spotlight. -- Most of the "Dark romance" that is well known at their base are just dark fantasies. When dark fantasies and *true dark romance* is done WELL in a 100% fictional vacuum, it can spark feelings of catharsis and enjoyment. It can also show layers of complexity with characters that bring a story blending conflicting emotions like lust, fear, comfort, regret, and love to life. They can be fantastic dives into the human mind and truly make a character and world feel alive. However, with the complex emotions and ideas brought up through and by a dark fantasy, **they are not meant for a general younger audience**. A lot of the "dark fantasy" you see on tiktok and online are poorly written, uncomfortable, super out of touch to a degree of disgust, and worst of all, marketed towards young adult AFABs/women, and a lot of people at that age don't have the reading comprehension and life experience to understand, comprehend, and separate stories that are meant to be dark dives into traumatic things. And to just address the books you read on this channel, oh my god. Can people stop marketing straight up dead dove fetish smut as "dark romance". The genre can be used to digest past traumas and issues, but if you want to write a dark fucked up fetishey book, SELL IT AS THAT. NOT AS A YA ADVENTURE DARK ROMANCE HOLY SHIT STOP MARKETING UNTAGGED SMUT TO A GENERAL AUDIENCE IM TWEAKING OUT DEAR GODDD-- -- I once more apologize for yapping up a storm in your comments, but if anyone read this much, thanks for taking the time to read my bad essay/rant :'3 I am willing to try and communicate more in replies to clarify my stance etc, but uh for everyone's sake I am transmasc and go by he/they :3 once more ty for reading my yapfest :3
i’d love to see some compelling evidence that dark romance books are having real world consequences on girls and women with regard to abusive relationships, because right now this sounds very much like the “video games make kids violent” moral panic of the 80s and 90s. that was and is still found untrue when given actual study. people, even young ones, *can* reliably differentiate between fiction and reality. although it’s absolutely true that media influences us as much as we influence its creation, it’s not as simple as this.
basically, i’m not sure girls read dark romance and then decide getting into abusive relationships is okay. but i do know for a fact that society at large tells men it’s okay to hurt women. it seems like backwards feminism to say we need to warn potential victims against having a hobby instead of going after the perpetrators.
Not sure if you read the text on screen around 51:21 but it's sadly something that doesn't seem to have been researched much at the moment however there is some stuff out there about the problems with romanticising abuse in novels to a lesser extent like in Twilight and stuff. As I keep saying though, it's not really just about differentiating reality from fiction, it's about what values these instil subconsciously and how it perpetuates rape culture and normalises violence against women as a whole. And again, I want to bring up the point: If these were romance books about raping kids would people be as quick to defend them? Would people be saying 'but is portraying child rape as romance REALLY having real world consequences on children?' to that? I draw the line at not being ok with romanticising any acts of non-consent and that's whether the victim is an adult or a child, man or woman, boy or girl, human or animal.
I mean, I don't think we have to look further than Coleen Hoover, for example. It's not dark romance, but even in It Ends With Us, which is supposed to be a message about domestic abuse, there were plenty of people, specially young girls, who sided with Ryle even after all the horrible things he did. That was mainly due to Collen's writing, that managed to underplay his actions even when he was supposed to be the villain. And it wasn't that people didn't recognise his behaviour as abuse, but that they thought he deserved forgiveness, and that "it wasn't that bad". Such opinions may reflect on these people personal choices when it comes to relationships. Since they're so ready to forgive a character they have no emotional connection to, imagine what may happen with someone they truly have feelings for.
@@moonstone___ It seems like backwards feminism to tell people what they should read or write. These books make tons of money because a lot of women like them. Some women have dark fantasies that they don't want to happen in real life. It doesn't mean they're going to actively look for that in real life. If they do, it's likely going to be through role playing. And even if some women did fall into to that based on what they read in a book, it doesn't mean you should take those books away from other women who want them, because that person has bigger problems that book burning won't fix.
I agree, I’d also love to see some compelling evidence, and, as Rachel pointed out, some people have begun this research, though it’s not as well studied as it should be. In the absence of such evidence though, this is still an important issue to talk about because an absence of evidence doesn’t mean it’s NOT harmful. I STILL have a skewed view of what a relationship should be like from reading books that were even so much less problematic than these as a young teen. If these books were promoting BDSM, that would be a different story but, as Rachel pointed out, these interactions are not consensual, there’s no communication, and there are no positive qualities in these men. And shooting people is not the same as r**ing someone so unless the video games you are talking about are playing out sexual assault I think it’s a faulty comparison. I commend Rachel for making these videos bc I wish someone had talked about the problematic dynamics in these books when I was young. It doesn’t mean you have to stop reading the books even - though I don’t see how someone could want to read a series like this - it just gives a different perspective on making these out to be good relationship dynamics.
I just binged all three of your videos pertaining to these books. All I can say is: I’m so glad I never touched any of these books and I am so sorry you have subjected yourself to them for our sake.
I get the idea of specifically not calling Zodiac Academy as Dark Romance and instead a romanticization of abuse. It's a very fetishistic depiction of abuse, and would much more easily be labeled as fetishistic erotica with enemies to lovers. I still think there's a place in fiction for things that would be absolutely despicable in reality. Even if someone wrote Lolita 2 but with a favorable view towards the adult in the situation, no one is harmed. People aren't convinced that problematic things are good because of these books, they're only idealized because people don't have access to resources that explain why they're wrong past societal stigma. I'm deeply offended by the concept of child predation and student abuse, but they aren't harmful ideas to explore for everyone. I think the idea that people that can enjoy these media and come from a place of trauma gain some power by being safe while exploring those topics. They are the ones writing and reading the ideas, when it becomes too much, they can put the book down or turn on another show. They are aware of what they're getting into, and can stop at any point. It's pretty similar to ideas in BDSM, where traumatic fetishes can be reenacted under a situation where the survivor is ultimately able to control the situation. It can be healing for someone to undergo a similar situation but be cared for throughout the process. Some survivors find their sexuality gains fetishes that resemble the scenario that caused it, and I don't think its necessarily harmful to engage with those kinks. For Zodiac Academy specifically, it would definitely be more in place in a bdsm noncon erotica than as a dark romance for sure, and I wish it would properly label itself. For how widely it marketed itself on booktok, it has some very big issues with not properly warning about depictions of abuse. I definitely think it could be offensive and trigger trauma from those unwary, and it really ought to put itself in more relevant categories rather than riding the algorithm.
Only posted this a hour in, on the mention of the "he made me do it so it's okay" being reduced to "you're shaming women for having sexual feelings", that is absolutely not what fans of dark romance do. In these scenarios where a fictional woman is forced to be a submissive object for pleasure, it's a way for real women to avoid the guilt that society raises them. Yes, it would be good if people could claim their sexuality actively and be unashamed, doing what they want not because some dominant person forced them to do what they wanted to do anyways, but a good amount of people genuinely cannot conjure desire otherwise. To say that they should repress these desires because its somehow unfeminist of them is very much shaming women for having sexual feelings. There are ways of exploring traumatic kink without harming yourself or others. Zodiac Academy is more of an erotic daydream than any expression of what most people want to have happen to them in reality. Wanting to be nearly murdered or tortured by strangers who don't care about your well being is not what the majority of dark romance enjoyers want. It's just what some people enjoy reading about when it's safe and no one is actually hurt, not a manifesto of self harm.
Aw Rachel, uve helped me much. N others I'm certain. Remember the positive when these weirdos give u shit 4 spreading awareness. Ure concerns r warranted, n I agree
If I took this series and wrote a less fluff-filled, less abusive, more consensual rendition on AO3, would it be considered ruining the original masterpiece? Hmmmm.
Thank you so much for talking about the fact that adults can be groomed. As a survivor who is often not believed because I was 21 at the time (though he was 53 and in a position of significant power) it means a lot to have someone with a large platform bring attention to this
thank you for your speech at 11:00. this is something i've been really grappling with recently. when i was 14 i dated a 21 year old and after i had gone through the grief of realizing i was groomed, i thought it was done. i thought i would never be groomed again, that it happened to me once and i was never to be "fooled" like last time. now i'm 19, and recently, i had a pretty disruptive falling out with a friend i met when i was 18, who was 28. looking back at our relationship now in a different context i realized how a lot of things were borderline inappropriate. i'm not going to say i *was* groomed again, but it made me grapple with the fact that i am very much susceptible to being groomed again. i'm not as smart and infallible as i thought i was.
holy shit Rachel you look gorgeous here! Absolute ethereal beauty with the short hair and glowy makeup thank you for covering important issues like this and the cody ko situation too. im a long time viewer and i appreciate you
God, to me it just sounds like the authors had something like SA happen to them but ended up excusing it with "maybe I liked it" and now to compensate and cope they needed to write a whole pointless book series to confuse other young women and girls about SA and making it somehow seem like it is forgivable, because men are just these silly immature creatures who cannot be expected to control themselves or know what they are doing, so the women need to just gloss over the hurt they have caused. And yes, as a teenager I was absolutely influenced by books like fifty shades or twilight and it absolutely made me miss a lot of red flags in later relationships. And it definitely was very hard to separate the treatment of the characters in these books from real life once someone started to treat me similarly. So I hate this book series so much. But still, I love that there are resources like your videos out there, Rachel, which I didn't have when I was a teenager. So listening to this feels healing; hearing the harmful content but then also having your voice of reason to explain why this isn't okay. So thank you for going through the torture of reading these for us! ❣
Not sure how many people commented on this, but the GTA comment is kinda funny to me because YOU have the option to just start killing people on the street. While it is an option and there is a reward for it technically, regardless of how little it is, that's the player's option to start killing dogs and sex workers and you can argue that the actual characters likely wouldn't do that. Like in certain games there are kids and there could be options to harm children, the games in mind seldmon endorse it, and some games like COD actively punish you for doing such a thing, but it reflects on the players like finding someone like Ryle attractive does to a reader. Theres something to put in mind however and you bring this up, its one thing for the player/reader to find this sort of things attractive/funny/rewarding, and thats their issue. Its another thing for the developers to add a reward for gratuitous murder while acknowledging how bad that is and how bad of a person the character/player is for doing it. With stuff like this, the narrative of a game or a book actively pushing you into this direction while not tackling the issues has to be the worst of the three things here. Imagine if we had doom - On the surface level, you get sent to mars, kill demons, and go back home. On a deeper level, its about protecting humanity from the demons and itself. Now take that concept and turn it into something like Postal. You get the seriousness and violence of Doom, with the misanthropy and sadism of Postal, and you get something to actually complain about because you're rewarded for senseless violence and the narrative doesn't go any further into what you've done. That is genuinely something to complain about and find unappealing, yet people will play it simply because they see violence and a fun combat, but they will likely never question why the narrative is actually like this. These books are similar. You get magic, you get Fae, you get hot men, and people will probably never look twice because thats all they want. Both cases are something to complain about and be concerned about, regardless of whether or not they're fictional, and people HAVE talked about both cases because a game like the one in my example actually exists, and it sucks for those exact reasons. The comment saying "no one questions what men read" is honestly disingenuous because its not limited to what men read, the gaming space can harbor the same types of toxic and harmful media, but you actually need to look because they're usually quite old or low quality. Games like this are either forgotten about, or just so bad that they become infamous, in some cases its both.
32:56 the problem with that is Claire is a modern woman, and as such, she shouldn’t have accepted it as quickly as she did. She could have easily been replaced with any woman of that time. From memory, she forgave him way too quickly afterwards.
Are people hating you for saying this? Because I enjoy this type of fanfics (I wouldn't read this book or other dark romance books because they're badly written, not because of the abuse) and I can see your point. I don't necessarily agree, but people need to not react so strongly to a point that is well argued. I think dark romance books like this are somehow cartoonish enough that they're not going to influence people. They're frankly too silly. I find the more realistic Colleen Hoover books to be worse
I remember that in your second video, they explained what nebulous allies are. It was paired with the soulmate and enemy relationship. I don't remember much about it though.
"There's a difference between dark romance and romanticized abuse." No, there is not. Not anymore. That's literally the entire genre with a few *exceptions* worth reading sprinkled in.
out of a sense of morbid curiosity, i looked at the goodreads reviews for this series... i want to throw up. why are there so many people FAWNING over these books???? what the actual fuck?????????
Rest of my Zodiac Academy review series: ua-cam.com/video/XOw54P01lEI/v-deo.htmlsi=Ks_wSolVYIz0_JGD
0:00 Intro and Plot Recap
9:49 The Problems With This Genre
54:14 Book 3: The Battle Aftermath
1:13:36 Vampires and Consent
1:26:17 Creepy Teacher Gets Viol-ent... Again
1:44:09 Worst Blackm-ail Ever
1:51:50 Please Learn What Consent Is
1:59:51 Worst Teachers Ever
2:25:48 FINALLY, SOMETHING HAPPENS!!
2:44:09 If A Man Does This To You, RUN.
3:04:48 Why Is There So Little Plot In These Books??
3:16:05 Girls Love Being Kidnap/ped, Right?
3:29:31 I Waited 3 Whole Books For THIS Nonsense, STOP IT.
3:38:40 Worst Rushed Ending Ever
Thank you Rachel for giving me the inspiration to come out with my first poetry book. I’ve learned a lot from your videos and I’m excited to say that my July release went smoothly 😁
I would like to see a vampire written as an analogy for disablity. They need blood to survive, need to rely on others to keep them alive. Give me a vampire sobbing as they feed from donor bags, thinking they're taking ressources from people who 'need it more than them' even though they need it to survive. Like...vampires can be more than just sEXy hOt maN PreDatOr
I want this so badly now aaaaa
In France, we recently got a movie where vampirism is used as a metaphor for disabilities. I didn't saw it sadly.
Hope it would be released on streaming soon.
I'm currently working on an indie project where vampires work like this. Their hearts don't pump enough blood to sustain them, so they need to feed on others to stay alive. This causes other species to view them as either predators or disgusting. There are also laws that forbid them to take blood from people without consent since it will be seen as assault. So, most vampires drink animal blood from bags or drink from loved ones who are okay with it. Your take reminded me of that and made me realize there's so much potential in how vampires view themselves as predators because of how society views them. Now I really wanna incorporate this into my story. Thank you!
There was a YA book that I read when I was a young teen called Sweetblood. It was set in real life, but the main character was a girl with diabetes who was obsessed with vampires who viewed them through a diabetic lens (she did a history report on it in-universe?? mayb???) I remember it being really good, but it's been over a decade now since I've read it.... but I thought it was a really cool idea at the time.
Ironically considering this video's subject, I believe the main plot of Sweetblood is that the main character is groomed by a predator in an online vampire chatroom, but at least he's clearly portrayed as the villain of the piece (and I think she does get away from him before anything too awful happens, which was nice.)
i see your point and i like the idea, but given how vampires are a critique of the rich and powerful, it might give the wrong message in relation to disabled people
I get so frustrated when people defend the dark romance genre because it "doesn't actually romanticize abuse". Makes me wonder what these people would deem as "actually DOES romanticize abuse".
dark romance could be so good but...so often it just isn't
edit: with that I mean that you could write a proper dark romance, with morally gray characters or whatever, which doesn't romantacise or condone violence towards your romantic partner (which like 90% is women)
I've read a "dark romance" series that was like that, where the protagonists were powerful and hurt people sometimes, but were devoted to their romantic partners and primarily gentle with those they loved. The point seemed to be the contrast between defending what they loved (scary) and showing that love (sweet.) I enjoyed them.
@@RoseThePhoenix I think my favourite dark romance is one where a guy falls in love with another guy who targets people who get away with bad things and then they become a murder couple. Probably bc the first scene is the murderer flirting with the protag and protag is suddenly like "I'm not gay" and the murderer is just like "aight have a nice day." Nothing happens until the protag is like "I might be working through some things..."
@@crypticcryptid4702what’s the name of the series?
@@RoseThePhoenixwhat’s the name of this series?
@@ToweringPsychic The Black Jewels trilogy. (Cw there is SA in it, by villains) There are also some spinoff books of varying quality. The same author also wrote a series called Ephemera that I enjoyed.
I think Savvy Writes Books put it best in her Ugly Love video. Stuff like this is incorrectly categorized as romance when it more closely resembles fetish material. If your book exists within the context of a universe where two characters are both excited by a taboo or even morally questionable sexual scenario, market it correctly and do what you can to make sure it stays out of the hands of children. Should be simple enough, in my opinion.
I’ve also been called misogynistic for saying young girls deserve better that Colleen Hoover. Like someone tried to argue that I only care because it’s targeted at girls, but I also think young boys deserve better representations of gender dynamics. Patriarchy impacts everyone regardless of gender, and young boys being taught that girls are disposable is one of the ways that patriarchy is perpetuated. Our brains aren’t as good at differentiating between fiction and reality as people want to believe, it’s why you see people joke about having a kink only to later develop that kink
Young people are especially likely to be impacted by harmful messages because kids learn by mirroring behaviours, it’s the crux of social learning theory. Romanticised abuse, if it’s not written or consumed critically, can absolutely influence how you perceive dynamics. There are so many people who watched PLL as kids then started idealising the idea of being groomed by teachers. I’m in my 20s and I still have friends that tell me they love Ezria
Criticising media targeted at women for romanticising abuse is absolutely not the same as mocking twilight for ‘haha sparkly vampire you dumb’
Ugh, yes. Wilbur Smith, all the James Bond authors, so very many movies, the very existence of "Page 3" and so on all established patriarchal crap as society's standard.
Boys would probably turn out better if they were raised by _My Little Pony._
@@Sableagle literally, patriarchy is a systemic issue that depends on men and women alike (because patriarchy is an inherently binary system) having internalised the idea that women are inferior. SA and abuse aren’t just borne from individuals with bad morals, it’s from a system that perpetuates the idea that women are sex objects whose consent doesn’t matter and that men are these horny aggressive monsters with a ‘might makes right’ mentality
People like Colleen Hoover and the zodiac academy authors peddle this bullshit to young girls in a similar way to how alpha male dudebros teach it to young boys, they just portray it as hot dark romance
Girls and women absolutely deserve better than CoHo.
The PLL books are a bit better. Like a tiny bit. The books still have bad themes that did NOT age well. But at least Ezra got arrested in the books and it wasn't a daydream.
Everyone deserves better than CoHo, even the Gnomes
The fact that the fae are so blatantly cruel and violent is such a missed opportunity imo. Fae in mythology have different standards for morals that make them seem confusing and cruel to humans, but they just have a different set of rules and standards. If the Zodiac Academy fae were a complicated society with their own concept of morality than humans that ultimately valued loyalty to one another, it could have made the tension with the heirs more interesting
The fae at large could have their rules, but the boys are so entitled and angry that they’re willing to break them to hurt the Vega twins. They could hate the twins and want to kill them, but they couldn’t do anything in public because it would hurt their reputation and make it less likely for them to actually get their thrones. They have to act civil and super polite to them (by fae standards) both in public and on FaeBook, but the second they’re in private they flip and become cruel and violent. Nobody would believe that they break the rules because they’re so well known for being Good Princes, so the twins have to outsmart them to expose them to the rest of the fae world. Them all being total arseholes who love hurting women is really lazy, sexist, patriarchal worldbuilding that seems to be played for a humiliation kink
And of course in the best timeline none of the boys would be romantic interests, they’d be villains.
I like this interpretation! I'm really tired of fae being "humans but hot and magical" to the point where I included them in my own original stuff as people who can't lie and use tricks and deals to get what they want.
The funny thing is in fey lore across cultures, even if their morality isn't the same as humans, they still have rules they have to follow--it is explicitly stated in all folklore how that works.
These authors are just lazy
Wait, is Faebook an actual thing in these stories? 😮
@@seanboggs215 unfortunately yes
@@the_goddess_1859 exactly, the series’ idea of fae is literally so lazy. Like the mythos is loosely Hellenic, but the Hellenic being that is closest to our concept of fae are the nymphs, which are the villains of the series. Some of the orders can be considered fae depending on your definition, but the others are definitively not
Fae are their own class of being with complicated societies, they aren’t just humans with (worse) avatar powers and shape shifting. There’s literally no reason to call them fae other than to cash in on the TikTok fae craze and it really bugs me
i really appreciate you talking about the difference between cnc and bdsm vs actual assault, as someone who is into intense kinks but has experienced a lot of SA these conversations are very important to me, much love ❤️
I work for a publisher of one of the top books youve reviewed and everytime we get an internal email about said book i hear you say "Stop it!" In my head and get a laugh. May or may not be a "hit movie" soon. 😂 Its delightful. Cant wait to watch the rest of this one, this series has been a delightful romp through absolute muscled nonsense.😂
When people try to redirect by saying: You're only hating on women's media... what they fail to miss is that abuse isn't often romanticized in horror books like Stephen King or etc... but in dark romance books we are meant to see the ABUSER as ROMANTIC... that isn't the case in any other media (generally). And if it WAS we'd be calling that out too!
It's so weird to me that we are saying: This is dangerous for women AND men... and we're being told to shut up and sit down...
Uh... who is being misogynistic here? Because I don't think it's us who are concerned! I really wish people could understand the profound impact media has on culture and society...
"You're only hating on women's media!"
Duh! It's made only for women! I've never seen books like these being sold to men...
@@nikitatavernitilitvynovaAnd correct me if I'm wrong, but they're not even written by men.
If a man wrote something like this, I'm pretty sure it would garner a drastically different response
@@anothercub6958men definitely have. A guy author wrote and dedicated a dark romance book to someone who criticized his book. He wrote, and dedicated a book about a woman who criticized him and then had her violently abused.
I can very much relate to what you said about being influenced by books like that. As a teenager, I thought the relationship I was in with an older, toxic man was normal. It was not, it was very abusive and looking back with what I know now, full of SA, drugging and rape. We need to be educated more at a young age for the warning signs, about consent, and see less of it romanticized/'just the way relationships are'. Edit: I'm a bit further in the video and the arguments people make about how rape is okay in certain circumstances sicken me as a survivor of multiple assaults.
@@floreya67 oh gosh rape is never ok!!! I’m from the older gen as well and definitely dated a few toxic older men. The sad and or funny thing is married a man ten years younger than myself he was 39 and I was 49, he coerced me into things I didn’t want to do due to his narcissism and abuse and I’m still recovering!! But before him? I loved my erotica books and dominant men! But they ALWAYS asked consent to the point it was contractual ha
I just CAN NOT get over the fact that sisters wrote these books together. Like, as someone with a sister I simply could not.
I feel like so much of the "dark romance" that gets over hyped on tiktok, similarly to this book series, is just glorified abuse and its concerning considering the average age of tiktok users. Almost none of these books are acutally dark romance as it should be, they're mostly just horrible. Take haunting adeline, awful, awful book duo but so many love it and take it as the height of romance.
Hot Take: 'Book Tok' is fucked and _most_ of the books recommended there are trash, even outside of dark romance. Remember Lightlark? Yeah.
YOU'RE SO RIGHT SOBSS Not just do the books and stories suck, they're not even real dark romances and are just gross fetish books marketed as romance :
What are you talking about? Literary fiction and genre are not just about defining the genre. Just because you find a genre "troubling" or out of place doesn't mean it's out of place. People like it, because it's exactly fiction, and people know the difference between fiction and reality. The reasoning in this video makes no sense. We shouldn't romanticize "sexual violence" because it's wrong? Okay, you know what else is wrong? War? Murder? Fighting? Violence? Why only judge sexual violence?
Let's go a step further: most YA today features kids, children in war situations, child soldiers. Why doesn't anyone denounce this? Are child soldiers suddenly tolerable? Can you see that your logic doesn't make sense?
You really need to criticize fiction, so criticize ALL illegal fiction, not just what you find you don't like.
Let's go even further, in the Naruto manga, they literally teach children to become ninja and by extension soldiers. Are we going to denounce this? Is Naruto denouncing the fact that kids literally fight and die on purpose? As if it were the best thing in their lives?
I loved haunting Adeline and don’t condone the behavior at all. It’s freaking fiction. I don’t condone Edward in twilight marrying an 18 yr old Bella either. It’s stupid fiction that I enjoy, sue me. I can read dumb smut and literary genius in the same week and still be a respectable woman. I hate all the policing on women’s simple pleasures. I’m not a sicko because I see fiction as fiction and not a societal problem. Read your book, move on, and don’t give smut to minors
@@SarahL9568 Amen 🙏
@@SarahL9568
I need to know what you lived about that book. Because I am struggling to understand any of you who do.
I feel like books like this should come with a disclaimer. Something like, "we call this 'romance.' You might call it, 'assault' or 'abuse.' We can't tell the difference."
That way it'd be clear that this shit would likely get you arrested and thrown in prison in the real world.
I'm sorry, but as someone who has read a Song of Ice and Fire, and some of Stephen King's stuff (Rose Madder in particular), they don't glorify abuse against women (even if King has issues writing and describing women). Pretty much every r*pist and abuser in GoT gets iced, and Rose Madder is literally about a woman escaping an abusive husband and making a new life for herself with help from an SA support group, a genuinely nice guy and by becoming a badass who eventually kills her ex.
Rose Madder is fantastic. It’s an excellent story of escaping domestic abuse and finding power in yourself.
Was my Grandmother's favorite book.
Whenever I hear “dark romance” I just think abusive relationship.
When I hear Dark Romance, I would perfer to think about Being with vampires.
When I first heard the genre name I just thought, "Are they renaming Gothic Romance?"
i think one of the things that a lot of dark romance misses (atleast these days) is that the genre IS filled with a lot of horrible tropes and abuse but all these tropes are SUPPOSED TO MAKE YOU FEEL A SENSE OF HORROR. like it's not sexy that the guy is abusive bc he's hot. it's terrifying that the partner in the relationship is so thoroughly manipulated that they cannot see past their dependence on the abusive character. i also think this is why dark romance where there's an enabling ensemble cast doesn't work bc whenever you pull back from the close dynamic between partners, it should become clear that this is a terrible situation. good dark romance is a fucking ride bc it takes a lot of skill to be able to evoke that sense of wrongness and horror while still being fully in the head of the character who thinks they're in a normal fluffy romance. like to me it's not fun unless it's a proper character study that explores a lot of complex emotions and scenarios! and unfortunately a lot of modern dark romance is. just. about shock value. and not actually thematically accomplishing what the genre is best set up to.
Bro, you good ? Dark Romance isn't a "horror book". It doesn't have to make you feel some sort of "horror."
Definition: "Dark romance typically focuses on intense, often troubled romantic relationships, exploring themes of love, obsession, and sometimes danger or tragedy. It may include dark or disturbing elements, but its primary focus is on the romantic relationship."
So yeah ur kinda wrong about what you think dark romance is. This is "dark romance" a romance about some dark and troubling "romanromance". Reason why you have "romance" in that "dark romance" Horror and dark romance aren't the same. If you have a dark romance, but without romance, that's not that romance lol.
@@dejavudeux When I say horror i don't mean like. horror genre-wise. and i did say!! that the story's focus is primarily through the lens of someone who is perceiving the romance as a romance. any "dark" genre is about exploring themes in a way that subverts genre expectations atleast a little bit imo. my taste in dark romance tends to lean towards horror, but generally what I refer to what I say horror is that discomfort that comes with reading these elements! Even if it's erotic, i think the genre has the ability to elicit both eroticism and a vague sense of disgust/horror/fear/etc etc., and I do think these stories can still exist without romanticizing abuse. personally atleast. and like i said. if there's a good character study going on, i think there would be a lot less criticism overall, because when the story & characters are compelling, most readers will forgive most things. like Rachel says in the video.
@@nycpizzarat all story can exist without romanticizing something. Naruto can exist without romanticizing child soldiers, GTA can exist without romanticizing violence, Hunger Game can exist without romanticizing child fighting and killing each other's.
Just find what story and genre you look. You don't have to try to change what other's like just because you don't like it. I don't read dark romance, but I won't be coming here and telling what need to change.
Then there's a problem of making a measured argument about what kind of content actually has an impact. Does the Saw movie franchise actually create serial killers, or do serial killers just enjoy the Saw movies? Or do Serial Killers think it's hokey? I don't know. You have to make a causal relationship, right? Do people already committing violence or embracing racism enjoy [x] content or does it "cause" that behavior, which are two separate things.
Again with all due respect, ur points of view doesn't make any sense. Because ALL fiction is actually problematic. The only fiction that's isn't problematic, is children books.
@@dejavudeux i think there's some kind of misunderstanding here ??? i never said that fiction shouldn't be problematic????? also personally I don't see a causal relationship between enjoying a certain kind of fiction & being a certain kind of person. I'm almost entirely talking about what dark romance is capable of doing, thematically, and why it falls short when the romance exists on a very shallow premise of "he's hot" and nothing else. while attraction IS a good thing to play with, dark romance is not good when that's like. the only thing that matters. especially when the genre is about trying to explore the darker aspects of a romantic relationship. Why would you even understand the LI's motivations if they never seen to venture beyond how physically attractive the guy is and nothing else? anyway, romanticizing abuse is just bad dark romance writing, imo. if you're not a dark romance reader, then, like, respectfully, you don't get it? also where is hunger games romanticizing kids killing each other lmao??? not the point. anyway. what I'm asking for is better writing, better character work. most of everything else will take care of itself. also. a character romanticizing abuse ≠ story romanticizing abuse. that is also something i was talking about. there are so many things you can do while having a clueless unreliable character be the protagonist and THAT'S FUN TO READ BC IT'S INTENSE AND WEIRD. and it's just a good experience when you get to explore a character like that. but you don't have to make that piece of fiction say rape is fun and okay. like you if you do that, that's just bad writing period. it's not about moral policing bc no one is saying you can't have those things in books, it's about how to handle the topics
What I don't understand is the way dark romance tries to justify its character's actions-- not explain, justify. I understand having some sort of abuse fetish and looking for a safe space to explore that, and it makes sense that dark romance would be the perfect genre. I'm SO okay with that. You can put some truly awful stuff in there, with the express purpose of getting off to it, without ever narratively justifying it. It's like how you can watch the joker commit murder, enjoy the bombast and the fantasy of it all, and never for a second think he was in the right. That's because the genre is built to throw these behaviors into a character-study fantasy-space wherein actions aren't meant to be evaluated for their morality. The character is evil. Watch them do evil. It's interesting.
But the dark romance genre seems to WANT to shove morality onto characters that are behaving immorally. You wrote an abuse romance. That's okay. In fact, it can be cathartic and beneficial to some readers. Just DONT JUSTIFY IT. You don't have to soften that blow. In fact, you should make it crystal clear that what you wrote can be dangerous to engage with if you're in the wrong headspace. Art can exist that depicts awful things without causing harm, but you have to be CAREFUL. You can't glorify these things, especially because the culture at large tries to justify them too.
It worries me because a healthy mind would write a dark romance, know that it's dark, and accept that. But no, the abusive male love interest MUST be framed as in the right, not just in the POV of his victims, but by the author. And that belies a failure to separate fantasy from reality that is incredibly unhealthy.
I find it frustrating because I enjoy engaging with toxic, vile relationships in media. I want a dark romance genre where these dynamics are allowed to breathe. Instead, authors try to sugarcoat the cruelty. I worry that it's an unhealthy coping mechanism. Whenever I see an author begin to narratively justify things, it ruins my own experience because I start worrying about them and other readers.
It's complicated, but I really believe that dark romance can be a positive force for many people. Just not in its current state. Right now, dark romance is overrun by problematic, unedited pieces, that espouse misogyny and justify abuse. It's not safe to engage with if you haven't deconstructed your own internalized misogyny or abuse-apologia.
Also, like, can the dark romance be dark in more ways than abusive man and victim woman? Are we not going to have mutual toxicity? Codependency? Or pull from any manner of more interesting power dynamic fetishes? Ever gonna flip the dynamic? Also there are so many more ways a romance can be dark than just assault. But oh well
Sigh
Anyways great video. I disagree slightly with your stance on depicting abuse in media, mostly because I have my own experiences that contradict it, but I agree completely with the core of your argument. People are too comfortable with justifying abuse, and as a society, media literacy is too rare for me to just shrug it off. I've seen people romanticize these books without any self awareness, and it's frightening. I know I'm safe to read these books-- I know because they concern me-- but the demographic that reads them is demonstrably unaware of their own internalized misogyny, and that's frightening.
Sry about the essay. It's just a very complicated subject w a lot of nuance. I know people who engage with dark media beneficially, and I know people who are far too impressionable to so much as open the Zodiac Academy. Also, these authors should probably examine their own beliefs before writing dark romance bc damn the lack of self awareness is worrying. I just think: are you okay?
Heyy fiction also glorified killing ppl and going to war. Are we also going to do something about that ? Are we just going to focus on romance ?
@@dejavudeux I feel like the principal holds: you can make your fun murder spree revenge movie, just dont start justifying murder narratively. That's a blurry line, yes, but it's achievable through a variety of tactics: clever use of tone and genre, narrative punishment, hurting a character's credibility before they attempt to justify it, and etc. for instance: in gone girl, many bad things are done, but no one thinks 'wow these bad things are okay'. Of course, nothing is foolproof, and you're always going to have some incel who's like : the joker is me fr. that is someone bringing their own baggage into a film who would have the same response if they watched any other deplorable person.
Besides, I don't think midsommar is problematic because it made people come out of the movie feeling like the cult was good. It literally indoctrinated a portion of the audience into thinking murder was acceptable, but it's still a powerful piece of art that should continue to be shown. It was a learning experience, and it depicted the actual internal process of indoctrination. No murder happened as a result, even though the movie justified it with actual cult tactics.
I lied we're not just focusing on romance. I can't help myself.
My special interest has been Arcane for like 3yrs, so I'm doing an EXAMPLE. Jinx is a murderer who kills people for her dad's approval. These murders are often bombastic and exciting and colorful, but it's always underscored by a sadness and a horror. She's a very nuanced and sympathetic character, but the narrative never frames her actions as good. Her act of terrorism in ep9 is framed as a satisfying for her arc, beautiful and stunning and cathartic, even as something Piltover has coming, but not as GOOD. All her victims are highlighted as much as her moment of taking power is. Now, there's always going to be weirdos who justify this action because there are genuinely people who don't have the skills or the desire to understand nuance. Trust me, people have awful takes about Jinx. But no one comes out of Arcane thinking 'wow all that murder is 100% justified.' The narrative doesn't have to spell out thigns like 'murder is bad' or 'running drugs for your dad is bad' or even though the murder, kidnapping, stalking etc. is honestly sick as hell and we understand fully why the character did so. The narrative lets her actions breathe without insisting on explaining to the audience that murder is bad, because we're not pre-pubescent children. Simply not justifying this is enough.
With abuse, because it's much more difficult to understand and more complicated, less risks can be taken. The author has to be very clear and provide a lot of warnings or else harm can be caused via normalization. Often nuanced depictions of toxicity can be poorly interpreted even despite the dynamic being crystal clear. But also, sometimes media illiteracy is a problem for the school system, not for writers. If you watch All Quiet on the Western Front and come out with the take 'war is cool as hell', no matter how impressionable you are, that is a problem with you. If there is a story about abuse where nothing is narratively justified, even if by the end no one gets their comeuppance, and the characters stay together, you should have the skills to understand that what you are reading is abuse. The author has the responsibility not to market to vulnerable demographics, and the reader should read something they are capable of understanding. Adults should be able to read about toxic relations that are sympathetic and never get resolved, in the same way they should be able to read about war and murder without feeling any need to justify any of those things. Childhood is when you should have learned what things are bad, and there's no shame in needing to catch up, but you should be trying to catch up.
Tldr ig
So uh, basically what causes harm is really complicated, and you just really shouldn't make Dahmer or Birth of a Nation. That's my take. Sorry that I ramble. I'm not good at being concise.
100% agree with you
18:20 I edited a book that doesn’t have rape, but the man doesn’t get consent for other physical activities. I flagged this so hard. Her response was that he’s just trying to express his love for her and she’ll feel that when she comes to her senses and that every beta swooned at it. I told her I was an editor with PTSD and this wasn’t something to swoon over for everyone.
The characters constantly trying to embarrass that one heir by joking that he’s into Pegasi really is just a. very bad understanding of anti-bigotry. Like as a trans person, if a person was being transphobic and someone tried to make fun of him by spreading rumours about him being into trans people really wouldn’t make me feel defended. It just enforces the idea that those people are laughable and that it’s embarrassing for someone to be attracted to them
You can just really tell the authors have a surface level white liberal cishet understanding of oppression and bigotry, and it’s embarrassing
I can sort of understand the perspective of 'its fiction i dont actually want to be abused' but i feel like the danger comes less from people romanticising individual acts of abuse and more from romanticising the types of people who are inclined towards abusive behaviours. The issue with abusive dark romance characters arent just that they commit acts of abuse but their general toxic personality traits become associated with being desirable, and perpetuates the whole 'i can fix them' thing. If you have to 'fix' your partner, they shouldnt be in a relationship. Its a lot harder to argue that people dont base their relationship standards on media they consume, that to me is a very common thing that people are actively conscious of.
As you're juxtaposing good dark romance with bad dark romance, all I can think about is how they fumbled Cole in Charmed. The entire plotline of 'redeemed demon who truly fell for the witch he was meant to kill... He hurts her, but he then learns to be a good person for her' worked. It really did. And then it didn't when they made him a deranged stalker who at every point of his life until final extinguish, violated Phoebe's boundaries. By the end of the show she fully well hated him for everything he put her through and found perfect love with a Cupid, which is a good way to wrap up a toxic relationship. Recognition, moving on, finding healthy & stable, right? Ask the young Charmed fandom and see how many ship Cole/Phoebe even despite all the areas those two are a blueprint for toxicity.
14:20 not to throw him under the bus, but my partner (millennial cis male) LOVES romance - it's his favorite genre, and he constantly complains about not being able to get into stuff because the romance is off-putting for one reason or another. I'm hoping it'll inspire me to actually write the things I have planned so he's got something actually wholesome/healthier to look at 😅 cuz it's hard to find at the moment
There can be an argument made for written fiction being a safe place to explore dangerous sexual desires. But in my experience most of these stories I've read have been on Ao3, and the authors usually explicitly come out and say "Yeah this is fucked up, don't ever try to emulate this in real life. I 100% wrote this for my own fetish". When mainstream novels come out with this kind of material without the disclaimer it normalizes this shit, it sends the message "These behaviors are romantic and very sexy, if your gut has an issue with them you're wrong" which is so dangerous.
Tbh and I say this as someone who both wrote and read fanfiction as a teenager:
The worst thing people did was realised you could self-publish on Amazon, and proceed to do that with things that should be left as free-to-read fanfiction. This is absolutely in that zone of 'things that should've been left on Wattpad'
yeah, I grew up on ao3 and while I get the concern that it provides access to teens (like my former self) who may be less likely to have access to actual published books, I'm also not entirely upset that I was exposed to vaguely comparable content (essentially kink-based sexual content without explicit negotiation between characters, many times in high fantasy/scifi settings with different social norms and baseline for educational/communal resources, etc) in a context where it was tagged with the specific graphic content I would find in it, themes/specifics could be literally filtered out, and there wasn't (at least directly) a billion dollar industry pushing products into as many revenue lines as possible (including younger demographics). I think there needs to be some space for acknowledging that not only is "kinkshaming" not a legitimate description for every ethical/epistemic issue someone takes with a piece of erotic media (imo this take actually borders on gatekeeping which could harm people who are curious and looking for information), but that this phrase, the idea of kink as exclusive, and its actual connections to marginalization, are inevitably complicated by a subset of the publishing industry which seems to have identified that a lot of these "kinks" are actually extremely common and marketable. This doesn't eliminate its connections to marginality historically or now, nor make this content inherently "bad" or already mainstream, but I think some people seem to set up a "it's normal and common and therefore not harmful" and "its a kink and shouldn't be questioned" argument without really thinking abt the tension between those concepts. It isn't an oxymoron, but it isn't totally far off.
Without wading into defending any specific examples (because yikes). I do wonder if some of the more defensive reactions to criticism of portrayals of romance and abuse representations is due to the contrasting approaches to the texts that various readers can bring, combined with the general stigma that kink communities and discussion can already face (leading to a degree of defensive around their enjoyment).
Leading with the latter point (because I am excellent at structuring). I think you're right that mainstream media is also criticised, but one of the core differences is volume. In the case of societally approved interests these spread pretty widely. If you're someone who likes the bickering dynamic from Stranger Things Season 3, or James Bond style fanservice, there's a lot of that about and it's very easily accessible. Thus, you can recognise the problems with both of those representations and move to better, less abusive or misogynistic examples. However, if you're a reader discovering an idea through, for example 50 Shades of Gray, that book may very well be the only publicly licenced example of those tropes you know about, which can make it difficult to move away from, as rejecting means going back to having nothing. I'm put in mind of the era in which Disney villains were the primary representation of LGBT identities for many people. I shouldn't like to push the equivalence too far, but these could also be criticised as negative images, but nonetheless were important for people, because they gave them a foot-in-the-door to discover themselves. On top of that the general stigmatisation of kinks can make it hard to distinguish 'it's disgusting and dangerous'(legitimate) from 'it's disgusting and dangerous'(stigmatisation of desires). Pulling all of this together I can see a lot of reasons fans might respond badly to criticism, especially if it comes from outside their community (and especially since these sort of stigmatisations tend to isolate readers to having limited space to talking about their enjoyment). This is true even when (especially when) the criticism is correct, and doesn't necessarily relate to lack a of media literacy, or even a belief in the counter-arguments used.
The first point I find a bit more interesting, because I think it reflects the flexible way people read in ways they often aren't aware of. In popular discourse we have a tendency of adopting the textworld interpretation (in which we imagine reading a text as constructing a continuous storyworld which then develops and is navigated as we read) but I wonder if the people who interact with these sort of scenes as positives are stepping away from that. Basically, the textworld obviously doesn't really exist, nothing connects the events of a story other than the readers interpretation. So I wonder if they are running a 'Text as game' or 'text as fantasy resource' approach, abstracting out descriptions, elements and ideas from the text and using them to construct unrelated or contextless fantasies. Thus the abusive elements don't register, because the protagonist isn't being read as a person and the plot isn't being read as a set of connected events, individual scenes are rather being read as writing prompts to be used to aid in unrelated fantasy (this is quite similar to how reference texts or rereading a book to write from it works, but obviously for different ends).
I'm not very sure about this analysis, since I'm obviously not in the heads of either fans of these works or critics. It just struck me that the level of disconnect between the critics (quite justifiably worried about the internalisation of toxic messaging from abuse in fiction) and the fans (responding as if defending their right to find individual moments or tropes hot) possibly suggests audiences talking at cross purposes. I don't know, hopefully it doesn't sound like I'm defending content I haven't read. I'd agree that romanticising abuse is a much more pernicious and easy to do thing than most people realise (I'd go so far as to pull up the 'there is no ethical gender organisation under patriarchy' honestly), but I'm also incredibly wary of talking over other people's relationships with texts. I don't think we necessarily need to prove the fans of these works wrong to highlight the abusive natures of these relationships. We just need to recognise that their engagement with it pulls on extremely risky desires and narratives. That's generally their prerogative if they're doing it safely, and not necessarily related to the wider social issue of the gendered inequities of patriarchy and violence. At the same time other readers are going to find these narratives triggering and undesireable. The lack of media literacy isn't so much the reading of it any one way (though obviously, the former does appear to come from a place of a lack of engagement with real world abuse) as the inability to realise that a text written for one purpose is always redeployable by an audience for different purposes.
Anyway, I just wanted to work through those thoughts. I'd strongly agree with you on the dangers of romanticising abuse, but I guess I'm just wary of also writing over the difficulty of finding well-written content that serves audiences into more problematic fantasies, and the general stigma those audiences face. I think the Text-world equation has some problems in the way it limits our engagement with the flexible nature of reading, and the fluid-reality of characters (which are really conceptual tools drafted in by intertext to approach both other texts and reality) and I think we could all do with approaching books with less deterministic expectations and more of an awareness of our own agency and motivations as readers. This was just a topic that kept turning over in my head as you evaluated.
Keep up the good work and hopefully this comes off as more 'elaborate attempt to investigate a miscommunication' than 'stumping for ignoring the parts of texts readers find distressing and the texts refusal to own that distress and mitigate it'.
Sorry to add even more text. Just coming back to this to highlight two places I think this interfaces with your arguments specifically. In the accessibility point drawing on the comparison between Outlander, and in the textworld point drawing on the argument about the described events being 'not a fantasy'. I think I should highlight before I do that I also find beating and mind control plots deeply upsetting (and in general find power dynamics quite gross and frightening in a lot of forms) so this isn't me defending something on the 'it's hot' position:
1) I think the comparison to Outlander fails because these are doing different things. While Outlander does include a dark scene, that scene is written the assumption (by the sound of things) that a relatively liberal, co-equal gender relation is morally superior and hitting a person is always wrong. This is correct, but if you're someone who picked up a romance because you like power dynamics or light hitting, this is going to fail totally as fantasy fuel. Because it's consistently informing you that this scene is a wrong thing to happen and is unpleasant. Thus, it doesn't leave space for the unconventional desires of the reader. The Zodiac Academy section is worse, but it does leave that space for the reader to enjoy the tropes without being directly stigmatised for them.
2) This is part of what I was saying about the text-world theory. This argument is acting as if the characters in the text are real people. They are not. By definition, a fictional story is already a fantasy. Assuming the scene is well telegraphed, and doesn't catch the reader by surprise, the reader is already in the process of engaging with the text, by the act of continuing to read and can stop at any time. Further, the parallel between reading the scene and watching a sexual assault is part of the above stigmatisation. This isn't to say it isn't problematic. Insofar as the reader carries ideas with them into the real world, of course this can affect their treatment of survivors and their own relationships. However, the scene itself is a choreographed textual event. It's mostly generating interest/pleasure through its aesthetic and imaginative elements. Further the reader can skim read, rewrite or reposition elements as they choose. It's likely that this enjoyment is what is seen as being attacked when one is accused of kink shaming (as an aside I do think this unfair. Saying that you can't imagine someone enjoying something, is not the same attacking the person's enjoyment in many contexts). I doubt the readers who enjoy reading scenes like this would enjoy watching a real world assault. Which just underlines again that fictional events are already fantasies. I think this argument is thus critically misaimed. Essentially, this it converts 'enjoying a book, with severe problematic elements' into 'being complicit in sexual assault'. In reality the actual debate is around how problematic those book-internal elements are and whether they contribute to spreading talking points that stigmatise abuse survivors, or trivialise real world trauma. Acting as if the audience is enjoying an assault muddies these matters.
I could go on. I think there's some interesting comparisons to be mined in your alternative of characters engaging in roleplay within the story, for example. From my own experience deconstructing a conservative upbringing, it took a long time to be able to read about characters explicitly wanting to engage in romance/sex, because of how much that had been stigmatised. It had to be presented in accidental or deniable ways, because that let me dissociate my engagement with it from reality. I suspect something like that is happening here. The readers want to read about domineering, forceful romance, but they aren't comfortable with admitting the possibility that there exist normal people who want to do that (because of the stigma attached with non-conventional sexualities) and so the experience has to be exaggerated into a villain and a heroine who performs not really wanting it while not having a choice. That said, this is getting soooo long and I worry I'm coming off as downplayingthe upsetting nature of these scenes. So I guess I'll end this with. A fictional representation of assault is already a fantasy, rather than a real world assault. That doesn't mean that someone can't find a fantasy deeply disturbing. Just because no one was actually hurt doesn't mean that someone didn't spend ages writing and imagining all the specifics and that still communicates beliefs about romance, sexuality, women and desire that are pretty gross. Authors do need to be mindful of both the message they want readers to take, and alternative readings or else accept the criticism they get from those they haven't considered.
@@packman2321 You just put a lot of my thoughts into very well put words (and added some more). I agree with a lot of what you wrote, but I just want to add: Books like these would be so easily saved, if they just were explicitly marked as fe*ish material. Because that's ultimately what they are, and there's nothing wrong with that. The danger comes from people going into this unknowlingly and thinking it's supposed to depict safe, healthy and desirable relationships. It's not (at least it should not be! although with some of these books I'm really not sure), it's supposed to depict a fantasy as you say. And, without having read these books specifically, I think as such it has it's place, just not somewhere where it can be found by people just looking for a romance story.
People need to understand to calm TF down about their kinks.
Cause let's not lie to ourselves. Characters being brutally abused and then seen as "sexy studs" is definitely kink stuff and, as such, should be treated with the necessary amount of nuance.
Like. These stories are thrown around as if all of the things done in there are actually "correct", instead of admitting it is fucked up and should be carefully dealt with.
Look. Making a big-ass disclaimer at the start of the book saying stuff like:
"This novel includes kinks of abuse, toxic relationships and such.
Treat is at what it is: a work of fiction and not a thing to be actually romanticized or emulated in real life"
It ain't that hard.
The „animated version“ looks so cool! I love the details like the haircolour similar to yours and the little mouse in the pocket of your shirt.
Also, i really love your series about these books, you‘ve changed my mind a lot about „dark romance“, especially because i used to like the genre when i was a teen and apparently i supressed a lot about how it really was.
Honestly,i was surprised by how right the AI sounded, the only difference i could hear with the real you was the lack of emotion in the voice.
Great vid as usual. the publishers need to stop enabling "autors" like Hoover and the twins
As one book critic said 'An author can't write a character smarter than he is'. Yes, it sounds harsh and blunt, but, I think, we should not be afraid to say such things directly. Some authors write dumb characters and plots because they are not much smarter. Not all people have high intelligence and critical thinking skills, and that's okay.
To be fair, I don't think that ASOIAF books romanticize violence against women. On the contrary, the books do a great job at de-romanticizing many fantasy tropes, including "destined lovers..."
The TV adaptation, on the other hand, is a whole another story ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
I agree! I see this comment a lot, about the ASOIAF books romanticizing sexual violence, and while I don't begrudge people who come to that conclusion and can see while they do, I've always found the same thing that you did! It happens in the books, but it isn't glorified, and I'm pretty sure almost everyone who commits it VERY much suffers their just desserts. Meanwhile, I had to quit the series at like season 5 because it was making me sick and they wouldn't STOP having SA scenes over and over again for literally no reason! I already know Ramsay Bolton is a piece of shit - don't need to see him do something like this again for you to extra confirm it to me!!
I wrote my master's thesis about women's agency and the female body in ASOIAF. These books do portray abuse of women but they frame it as what it is: A horrific, traumatizing experience. The female POV characters are expressing their struggles in a starkly patriarchal world and how they cope with it - it is a very sympathetic and nuanced portrayal.
The show on the other hand... Since we don't have access to the thoughts of the characters like we do in the books, there's of course more focus on the visuals. The audience becomes more of a voyeur of the nudity and sexual violence but that comes with the territory of the medium (and the choices of adaptation of the show runners). I'd still argue that the ASOIAF franchise has a feminist viewpoint on misogyny/sexism (the books more so, the show less).
Writers conflating Latin and Romance languages can be so funny sometimes, I still remember when a fic I read unironically said that a quote in Latin was actually French. Like I get it if it’s in casual conversation since most people probably don’t know how Latin reads, but when you put it in a story you can at least google it
Din't Lani Sarem do something similar in her 'Handbook For Mortals'? Not a comparison you want to make.
Always love your videos, rachel. You are always interesting. Romantizing abuse is never right. How could anyone glorify abuse? You are an intelligent, strong woman. Love your videos, rachel. You are always interesting
The boys constantly talking about how they’re these big bad alphas and stuff like that is so hilarious coz there’s literally nothing less ‘alpha’ than saying you’re alpha. An actually powerful character doesn’t have to say they’re powerful, their abilities speak for themselves. Someone who goes around telling people how awesome and strong they are doesn’t come off as powerful, they come off as insecure and desperate for approval. And I can only speak for myself, but that’s the least attractive or cool thing a character can do
As Tywin said, ‘any man who must say “I am the king” is no true king’
Oh my gods we have never been this early to an upload. Hell yeah! As the only way we will ever experience these books, this is much better than having to read them lol
How are these women "controlling the narrative" by reading a book? I also experienced abuse as a child and molestation, and while I do engage in consensual non-con with my husband, I do have power when we do those things, but I've read so many books where these characters are horribly abused by their love interests and it bothers me cuz I CAN'T control these characters to get them away from their abusers. In my consensual non-con with my husband, I'm the one with the most control and power in those scenarios cuz I know the moment I use the safe word he'll stop immediately and begin after care to reassure me if it got too intense for me. The authors aren't providing any aftercare to their readers. No control over the story's events and no aftercare for when the plot becomes too much means that this is in no way shape or form cathartic or therapeutic.
Edited to add: "'What if I don't want to stop?' Then you should go to prison." Made my husband and me laugh so hard. 🤣👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
24:21 hearing you speaking up about these things does help people like me to heal their trauma.
There's TONS of romance novels, some quite dark, where there main characters treat each other with respect and care. Criticizing these books isn't hating women's fiction.
Hearing your thoughts on these books is so therapeutic. Thank you. And your hair looks great like that
So, I like to play stuff like DnD and other TTRPGs.
In these games, i am roleplaying a lot of violence and death. Granted, I'm on the side of good, but I'm still solving my problems through the kilking of my enemies.
In real life, I would fond this horrific. I'm a pacifist by nature, and I abhore violence.
But I know that the violence in my game isnt real.
Now, if i wanted to read a piece of fiction about fantasy heroes, very likely we're going to see more violence and more death.
I know that this is a REALLY poor analogy, but why shouldn't people who enjoy CNC have fiction to enjoy where nonconcent is actually happening?
They'd be horrified by real rape, but fake rape happening to fake people in a fiction book is different.
I feel like the argument should be a proper disclaimer for these kinds of books so that readers can properly concent to reading these types of things.
As a survivor with C-PTSD, my therapists have always referred to dark romance as a safe way to cope. Instead of going out and getting into a dangerous relationships to chase that high of the fear that feels like love (which I used to do), I get to explore it in fiction without putting my life in danger.
I love these rant reviews and I think Zodiac Acadamy is comically bad, but I’m happy dark romance exists and I’m sure there’s a survivor out there who actually got something positive out of this series. I know there’s a lot of bad people out there who write and read dark romance for the wrong reasons-but sadly, the alternative is censorship that will harm survivors who need it to cope and/or heal.
If you don’t need it, that’s great! I just want to inspire you to not advocate for taking away a tool from other people just because you don’t need it. This is not aimed at Rachel specifically, either, it’s just general discourse that I’ve seen go out of hand, where people ask for government censorship on media they don’t agree with. It’s very dangerous to do that and will impact marginalized communities first, rather than actual bad people you want to target. Stay safe!
Note: Please do not respond to this comment with medical advice! I consult with actual medical professionals about my healthcare. You are not my healthcare provider (and you likely aren’t a healthcare provider at all). I’m just sharing my perspective and how dark romance has helped me personally.
what supposedly "heals" you is actually traumatizing me and hundreds of other women. so find normal doctors (lol) and stop whining and oversharing, it's pathetic.
Ig my own stance is & I believe Rachel ‘s also just pls consumes this stuff critically & hold these authors to a better standard it seems like a lot of ppl don’t. Like at d end of the day we still live in a patriarchal society & tbh dark romance just seems to most of d time just contribute 2 d ra*e culture dat rampant in it. I don’t see a merit to it most of d time but dat doesn’t change d fact dat some ppl do so don’t w/ d censorship crowd either.
@@cold_ukr_b Rachel overshares in this video, too. This might not be the right content for you to watch. Also, I was very clear that I don't need medical advice from random uneducated people online :)
@@robinronin i know :)))))))
I would love to see an essay on Lolita! Wonderful idea
Also, please mention Lana Del Rey. She has quite a few references to Lolita in her work. She has received criticism for romanticizing abuse in relationships. Her view on feminism has also been called into question.
I talked about this on the romance writers subreddit and got absolutely steamrolled
Im so over these teenage to fae royalty 🙄
44:18 I was just comparing lolita to dark romance, glad I'm not the only one who noticed. Also, I'm pretty sure most of the people who romanticize lolita never read it, they just saw the poster to the movie. Like, that book is extremely unsexy
Oh gods yes. It's supposed to be a gross and scary book, and people romanticize the hell out of it.
I really hate how much dark romance books push against the entire idea of consent. I imagine a world where men read these and actually try and act like the men in it….. that sounds terrifying
The only things keeping that from being a reality are
1. Not all of these books are being turned into blockbuster movies
2.The overlap between the kinds of guys who would act this way and the kinds of guys who would read these books are thankfully low
I don't think writing scenes with non-consent or dubious consent is inherently bad or means anyone who writes or reads it and enjoys it needs therapy, but I think there are a couple of caveats.
I think that if a book is going to have a character who is abusive, then the book needs to acknowledge that that is what's happening and not excuse the behavior. For example, you mentioned in your Harrow Faire reviews that you were hoping until the very end that Cora was going to finally see Simon for the abusive dick he was and hopefully kill him but at a bare minimum end things with him. If that had happened, and Cora had acknowledged that his behavior wasn't ok, I think it would just be a totally different case. I also think part of acknowledging abusive behavior is having appropriate trigger warnings, which indicates that the author understands what they're writing and isn't just romanticizing abuse.
I just don't think it's fair to say that only portrayals that overtly have characters having discussions about how they are intentionally practicing bdsm and have safe words are ok and people need help if they want to read anything beyond that. Like in a bdsm scene that is simulating dubious consent, obviously the people involved are engaging in a fantasy where they're pretending that someone hasn't consented. So I don't think it's unreasonable to have a book that is basically a fantasy like that written down, as long as it has trigger warnings and it's clear in the text that what is happening would just be abuse/assault/r@pe if it actually happened as written.
And to me the reason that reading a story about something like that is ok but reading a story like that about a child is revolting and not okay under any circumstances is because my sexual fantasies do not under any circumstances ever include children. Most of the protagonists in romance novels that I identify with while reading are women in their 30s. And I'm imagining that fantasy from my perspective, an adult woman who understands the difference between being into bdsm and actual abuse.
I also want to be clear that I'm also not saying "I'd know better than to let that happen to me" or anything like that. I'm just saying that I understand that fantasizing about non-consent and being into bdsm doesn't mean I actually want anything like that to genuinely happen to me in real life. It just means I'm into bdsm lol
Thank you for going into the details about dark romance as a subgenre because there is something to be said to distinguish it from trash like this.... shame so few writers understand that.
Monster "lovers" deserve better fiction, better romance and better ero in general.... and less toxic materials in general.
Also, thing that just hit me that I didn't think of with the first two. 90% of these books can be summed up with the MST3K clips "wow, you held the tension for a whole 30 seconds" and "that was a great scene /s)
Being written 'carelessly' is not an excuse. People shouldn't get a pass just because they're lazy or untalented. They're just validating the media that panders to them without any critical analysis while simultaneously shutting down any actual criticism.
Love how the foundation for your arguments are literally evidence-based and research-backed. Very thoughtful and well-written work.
Idea: Get Google Drive so we can send stuff. Like with Hannah Alonzo, Isabella Lanter and CC Suarez.
I agree that fiction is in this incredibly odd area of our culture where, especially with teens and young twenty-somethings, it can open up a gateway towards normalising all manner of abusiveness. Even when the reader or viewer can manage to keep the distinction between the fantasy of fiction and reality as perfectly compartmentalized as possible, it does say something when one is habitually enjoying entertainment media that remains "morally neutral," much less favourably portrays stories with abusive relationships.
Honestly, this is one of the reasons that I like to include an "Author's Note" at the very beginning of my novels, because many of my stories take place during the 1970s & '80s, when certain things weren't exactly "acceptable," so much as they were "less unacceptable," and that readers should keep in mind that the words and actions of my characters, even the protagonists, even the protagonists who I identify with more than the others, don't perfectly represent my own opinions on what is and isn't acceptable, much less "correct" behaviours, but a reflection of the characters and a window into certain aspects of even _counter-culture_ of that period of the 20th Century.
I loved how you broke this down I’m a feminist a school librarian and I love strong dominant men in my erotica !! But they ask consent, there is after care there is ROLEplaying no to rape! Fantasies yes !! where consent is given! Love where you broke the difference down! I was worried you wouldn’t but phew 😅you did! Many feminists love things a bit different when they get home at the end of the day ! But I agree the books shouldn’t be hurting the woman then claiming she got use to it and fell for him…I have read erotic books like what you describe, in the past ( I’m gen x so there was a lot more in the 9os etc ) I would not want them banned or gone as I don’t believe in that…and sometimes my imagination does want a bit naughtier even if it’s because my head is messed up sadly…but you really broke this down well and why it was important!
23:32 Every single kid in middle school believed that! And I was in middle school 10 years ago. I and a few others who were victims themselves didn't believe that. Just to clarify, I myself wasn't a victim, but some of the people I knew were victims.
0:06 I’ve been playing catch-up on your channel and am so happy when I get to see new videos so early on now. :)
It sounds like folks who like this genre may have a non-consent kink. Which is fine... kinks are not wrong. But it needs to be understood and looked at from that perspective because then there are safeguards often put into place due to the kink aspect. I think what is missing from the discussion is the non-con fantasy is for the reader, not the characters. Framing it as "romance" is where it becomes harmful. I've seen this done well but it's more in the context of specific erotic fiction, with content warnings and whatnot. This does not sound like that.
This is the perfect video for my study day! Also, can I just say, your hair color in this looks so lovely on you, absolutely stunning contrast with your eyes✨
heard this quote somewhere that really encapsulates my feelings about how these analogues for rape are treated-"For some reason if you rape someone with science fiction/fantasy concepts it's just a metaphor for rape, in much the same way that killing them with a phaser is just a metaphor for them being shot."
In the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of $, proud, abusive… heartless… lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, (2 Timothy 3:1-5)…
Books like this,
Authors like this,
Social media pushing these things is how we will inevitably get there.
I’m scared for young girls (maybe men too) who will read this and believe this is love. I hope a person steeped in these books will come across your video that they won’t fall into the lies of what love looks like.
I didn’t make it through the whole video only because I have no intention of reading these books, but I made it over an hour, because I love to learn and you do a great job explaining. I love your unapologetic opinions.
I hope you will find healing and people who deserve your trust💛
I feel two ways about this. On the one hand, young people are impressionable, and they absolutely can be led into some very harmful and dangerous situations/mindsets because they either don't understand the difference between fantasy and reality, or even right from wrong. These are absolutely critical components necessary to enjoy any kind of fiction on a healthy level.
But, at the same time, there have been many cases throughout the years where governments have taken the reigns and said "You know what? We don't think you have the knowledge, authority, autonomy, or intelligence to decide what's appropriate for you and your house. So, we're going to make those decisions for you. It's for your own good, after all."
That's essentially what happened with the video nasties scandal in Britain in the early 1980s. Where owning certain horror/exploitation movies became a crime, a crime that some people paid for with years of their lives in prison! And it's all because of a few people who deemed themselves superior moral authorities. (It's a little more complicated than just that, but that's basically it)
The short of it is this. We have an educational tight rope we need to walk as a society. One where we educate thoroughly, but do not restrict people's ability to consume. Sure sounds simple, doesn't it?
But, alas, things are only simple in a perfect world.
Great video, by the way! 😊
Rachel sweetie, thank you so much for your sacrifice cause I never read past the second book. I could never make myself kill that internal part of my brain that tries to understand logic so thank you. I have been very curious about how shitty this gets.😂
There needs to start being a distinction between 'dark romance' & romanticized abuse. If there's meaningful consent, it's dark romance. If there's never any meaningful consent, it's romanticized abuse and should be labeled as such. People can write what they want, but it should be labeled appropriately & i firmly beleive both author's & publishing companies have a responsibility to recognize this. Especially when we have actual science proving scenarios like the ones in these books are extremely harmful to people, & the terms to express them.
I think my actual thoughts on the it's just fiction arguments vs the content of the book is genuinely harmful is too long for a comment but I'll try to sum it up. Basically, yes, it is just fiction, and it may be a kink, but that doesn't put it above criticism. It's not a free pass to just write about whatever and have it be above any negative opinions. What you bring up is extremely important to the conversation because the abusive behavior is glamorized and seen as romantic in these books. It may bring some comfort to survivors, but that doesn't diminish the fact it can be harmful and triggering to others. Perhaps if there was any literary merit to this series, there would be more room for discussion, but the books are shallow and the love interests being abusive doesn't have some message or greater meaning. With Nabokov and Lolita, the book explicitly states in the beginning that Humbert is the villain, and Nabokov doesn't want the reader to see it as a love story. Zodiac Academy does nothing to point out that these love interests are displaying abusive behaviors. They're just supposed to be seen as hot.
For me, dark romance could be just as acceptable as other, healthier romance types if only the author made it clear that the book depicts an abusive relationship, that it's wrong, and advising people to only see the relationship as an 'if you see this irl, run and don't look back'. I sometimes like reading some dynamics with possessiveness, violent behaviors (though never aimed at the MC), etc. for various personal reasons. However, I also know that these behaviors are only acceptable in fantasy/fiction, and never in real life - especially as an abuse survivor myself.
I dunno, I've been spoiled a little by fanfics on AO3 where there are warnings and tags that tell you exactly what's in a story and never justify it. So, for me, as long as an author of a published story makes it very, very clear that they are not condoning abuse, and that their story is completely unacceptable outside of fantasy, I see no real issues.
Might be an unpopular opinion, but that's how I feel and you are more than free to disagree with me and feel differently. We're all entitled to our own opinions, and that's okay :]
Edits for clarity.
Im gonna be honest. Don’t agree with the take that outlanders is less problematic because jamie is “a product of his time.”
1)even in time periods where it was normal to do absolutely terrible things, there were people who refused to do it, consequences be damned. Beating your wife because you’re afraid of the consequences isn’t somehow more okay than beating your wife because you cant control your anger.
2) this is fantasy. The author could have chose to write that maybe he had the expectation to, and maybe he considered it. But they come up with another plan or solution. To me this reads as if the author was like “uhhhhhh how can i make it justifiable or forgivable that he beat his wife. Uhhh he was afraid of being exiled from the clan.” You can write a character that is morally dubious without having them beat their fucking wife like come on.
3) I’m not saying the scene where he beats her shouldn’t have happened. What i’m saying is it still makes him a shit person and is still just as bad as the abuse that goes on in zodiac academy. because to me, theres the pain from the beating as well as the emotional anguish that comes with knowing that someone you loved and trusted would do something like that to you. Thats nuts! If i was his wife, i don’t care if he “redeems himself”. Nothing he does would ever be able to make up for that, historical context or accuracy be damned. Id be pissed too if that character eventually went on to be a hero.
Tbh i feel like people writing fantasty that is “historically accurate” a lot of times use it to write out their fantasy’s about violence against women. You said that basically every women gets raped in the book. But no, the author also had to write that the one person who is supposed to be on the main characters side beats her.
I also feel like outlanders is worse because its way more realistic than anything that happens in zodiac academy. It’s not magically better because she didn’t think getting beaten was sexy. You’ll never get peed on by a pack of werewolves but you sure as hell could marry someone who never lays a hand on you, and then one day they literally almost kill you because you need to be “punished”
Oh but its okay because he said “I’m sorry ill never do it again.” And he may never do it again but that doesn’t take away the fact that he did it! Its disgusting that got resolved basically immediately with a talk.
I think its also really dangerous to say “well he only beat me within an inch of my life once.” To me the message here is that “well it was justified because x y and z” or “look. He said sorry he’ll never do it again so i shouldn’t leave him.”
agreed on all points plus saying that he learned it was wrong to beat his wife has strange implications, as if he was a baby and he just didn't know better. men don't hit their wives because they don't know it's wrong, they don't care that it's wrong
oh my god i'm so excited to see that this video is so long
I was looking forward to the next video! Thank you, Rachel!
The "romance" label should not be used with media where the whole point is s*x and kink. If it's marked as romance, I will not be expecting such graphic or violent s*x scenes. Publishers should actually use the "erotica" genre and help unsuspecting readers avoid an unpleasant surprise and stop trying to make extra cash by calling "romance" when there's not a romantic development in sight
Honestly I feel so conflicted about dark romance, which to be clear: IS a separate genre that is essentially about 'romances' where something is wrong. That is the whole 'appeal' of the genre. So like a Dark Fantasy Romance (A romance with darker fantasy elements like morally grey characters, murder and mayhem) is not the same as a Fantasy Dark Romance ( A dysfunctional/dark romance, within a fantasy setting).
I agree this is complicating and confusing, but genre rules are genre rules. Personally I do have beef with calling it romance in the first place, because a lot of these stories are not actually romance to me. There's no real love there when someone gives in to their abuser or hooks up with their close relatives.
Again though, I don't make genre rules.
Having said all this, what I find so difficult is being caught somewhere between not wanting to yuck someone's yum and my own abhorrence for glorifying unhealthy, abusive or downright criminal relationships and peddle them as romantic.
In the end I do agree that I see a danger in this as well, not just through books but all media, where particularly violence against women (mainly) is glorified, normalized and even praised as desirable. It's gross and we really just need more stories where this doesn't happen or is represented as every bit as horrible as it is.
Simultaneously I also feel strongly that you can't mandate what mature adults choose to read. Emphasis on MATURE ADULT. This should 100% be kept away from people who are still developing and impressionable, especially teenagers. They've got enough shit to deal with, they really don't need a story about someone beating up or bullying their partner and think 'wow, that's romantic! I want a partner just like that! This is what love is!'
Lastly, clearly for now I'm completely ignoring how utterly poorly written and constructed this particularly series is on itself, like that's just a whooole other mess.
There is so many charecter too keep up with , i had to search them up to understand who has “relationships “with who. Everyone sound the same and say same thing over and over. Love interests switch up their mood every page from wanting them to trying to kill them ,it’s very confusing ! Usually it’s something like enemies to friends with benefits and then lovers there is no linear progression that would make sense it’s so weird.
And the abuse in these books is so vial I would prefer if this was horror book instead.
Good video tho as always ❤️
A lot of people really struggle with understand consent it's kinda bizarre
But for aspiring authors of... spicy romance, it should be pretty simple. The dom of the relationship just has to always leave an out available for their partner should they want to dip. It's that simple.
Plus, isnt it more hot when a romantic interest is let go and yet cannot help coming right back?
People’s whataboutism with what men like is soooo disingenuous because yeah, there’s a lot of really gross stuff marketed to men, but people critique that too! I would understand if we were talking about, for example, mainstream attitudes, but a feminist UA-camr who absolutely does critique what men do and what men like when it’s a problem like this?? That’s not what the issue is here and the people who do this know it.
What I think is really telling about the problems with books like this is that they frequently have Actually Bad Men who do the SAME THINGS the male love interests do but it’s bad when those men do it ONLY BECAUSE they aren’t “hot.” Like, talk about saying the quiet part loud. I don’t think fiction needs to be morally pure but I do think this feeds into reeeeally pernicious myths about women “secretly wanting it.” We’re not exploring deeper themes here, we’re just writing a story with a man who can do whatever he wants as long as he’s hot. All else aside, is that not incredibly shallow? (I’d recommend Weirdo Book Club’s videos on Haunting/Hunting Adeline for a really stark example of this.)
Also, people will say “it’s only fiction” which yes, true, except then the same people who read this genre will turn around and literally romanticize real life murderers! Like this is literally a thing that happened, with people in the comments saying how sexy this guy was and comparing him by name to dark romance love interests. Murders aside, this man also had a swastika tattooed on his face, and how is THAT not a problem for these people? Dark romance has a serious problem with racism as well, but when people critique that, it’s the same wall of “it’s just fiction.” It’s giving “it’s just a joke” energy.
I think this genre could be really cool and interesting and psychologically complex but time and time again it just gets reduced to “man does horrific things but it’s okay because he’s hot.”
I Love you reading these horrible books so I don't have to LMAO, but one thing I wanted to bring up to you is a sorta defense of transformative dark romance because contrary to a lot of what you've read, there are good ones out there, but this series is DEFINATELY NOT IT BEGGING THIS TO GO BACK TO WATTPAD IT'S SO EURGHFHGHG WRITING... SO INSENSITIVE AND ICKY AND OUT OF TOUCH.....
I apologize for the upcoming blabber of thoughts I have been sitting on for MONTHS LOL
TLDR: As a survivor, my stance is, stop marketing fetish content as "dark romance", and true dark romance is meant for a mature audience with good comprehension and a developed brain. Having it, and straight up fetish content marketed mainstream WITHOUT ANY TRIGGER WARNINGS OR WARNINGS IN GENERAL is insensitive, gross, and dangerous to young people. I'm not saying it shouldn't be a thing, I'm just saying it needs to be properly marked and kept to it's own corner out of the marketing spotlight.
--
Most of the "Dark romance" that is well known at their base are just dark fantasies. When dark fantasies and *true dark romance* is done WELL in a 100% fictional vacuum, it can spark feelings of catharsis and enjoyment. It can also show layers of complexity with characters that bring a story blending conflicting emotions like lust, fear, comfort, regret, and love to life. They can be fantastic dives into the human mind and truly make a character and world feel alive. However, with the complex emotions and ideas brought up through and by a dark fantasy, **they are not meant for a general younger audience**.
A lot of the "dark fantasy" you see on tiktok and online are poorly written, uncomfortable, super out of touch to a degree of disgust, and worst of all, marketed towards young adult AFABs/women, and a lot of people at that age don't have the reading comprehension and life experience to understand, comprehend, and separate stories that are meant to be dark dives into traumatic things.
And to just address the books you read on this channel, oh my god. Can people stop marketing straight up dead dove fetish smut as "dark romance". The genre can be used to digest past traumas and issues, but if you want to write a dark fucked up fetishey book, SELL IT AS THAT. NOT AS A YA ADVENTURE DARK ROMANCE HOLY SHIT STOP MARKETING UNTAGGED SMUT TO A GENERAL AUDIENCE IM TWEAKING OUT DEAR GODDD--
--
I once more apologize for yapping up a storm in your comments, but if anyone read this much, thanks for taking the time to read my bad essay/rant :'3 I am willing to try and communicate more in replies to clarify my stance etc, but uh for everyone's sake I am transmasc and go by he/they :3 once more ty for reading my yapfest :3
I could be wrong, but think that these Amazon published books are paid by the page. Which can partly explain why they are just so long.
i’d love to see some compelling evidence that dark romance books are having real world consequences on girls and women with regard to abusive relationships, because right now this sounds very much like the “video games make kids violent” moral panic of the 80s and 90s. that was and is still found untrue when given actual study. people, even young ones, *can* reliably differentiate between fiction and reality. although it’s absolutely true that media influences us as much as we influence its creation, it’s not as simple as this.
basically, i’m not sure girls read dark romance and then decide getting into abusive relationships is okay. but i do know for a fact that society at large tells men it’s okay to hurt women. it seems like backwards feminism to say we need to warn potential victims against having a hobby instead of going after the perpetrators.
Not sure if you read the text on screen around 51:21 but it's sadly something that doesn't seem to have been researched much at the moment however there is some stuff out there about the problems with romanticising abuse in novels to a lesser extent like in Twilight and stuff.
As I keep saying though, it's not really just about differentiating reality from fiction, it's about what values these instil subconsciously and how it perpetuates rape culture and normalises violence against women as a whole. And again, I want to bring up the point: If these were romance books about raping kids would people be as quick to defend them? Would people be saying 'but is portraying child rape as romance REALLY having real world consequences on children?' to that? I draw the line at not being ok with romanticising any acts of non-consent and that's whether the victim is an adult or a child, man or woman, boy or girl, human or animal.
I mean, I don't think we have to look further than Coleen Hoover, for example. It's not dark romance, but even in It Ends With Us, which is supposed to be a message about domestic abuse, there were plenty of people, specially young girls, who sided with Ryle even after all the horrible things he did.
That was mainly due to Collen's writing, that managed to underplay his actions even when he was supposed to be the villain. And it wasn't that people didn't recognise his behaviour as abuse, but that they thought he deserved forgiveness, and that "it wasn't that bad".
Such opinions may reflect on these people personal choices when it comes to relationships. Since they're so ready to forgive a character they have no emotional connection to, imagine what may happen with someone they truly have feelings for.
@@moonstone___ It seems like backwards feminism to tell people what they should read or write. These books make tons of money because a lot of women like them. Some women have dark fantasies that they don't want to happen in real life. It doesn't mean they're going to actively look for that in real life. If they do, it's likely going to be through role playing. And even if some women did fall into to that based on what they read in a book, it doesn't mean you should take those books away from other women who want them, because that person has bigger problems that book burning won't fix.
I agree, I’d also love to see some compelling evidence, and, as Rachel pointed out, some people have begun this research, though it’s not as well studied as it should be. In the absence of such evidence though, this is still an important issue to talk about because an absence of evidence doesn’t mean it’s NOT harmful. I STILL have a skewed view of what a relationship should be like from reading books that were even so much less problematic than these as a young teen. If these books were promoting BDSM, that would be a different story but, as Rachel pointed out, these interactions are not consensual, there’s no communication, and there are no positive qualities in these men. And shooting people is not the same as r**ing someone so unless the video games you are talking about are playing out sexual assault I think it’s a faulty comparison. I commend Rachel for making these videos bc I wish someone had talked about the problematic dynamics in these books when I was young. It doesn’t mean you have to stop reading the books even - though I don’t see how someone could want to read a series like this - it just gives a different perspective on making these out to be good relationship dynamics.
I just binged all three of your videos pertaining to these books. All I can say is: I’m so glad I never touched any of these books and I am so sorry you have subjected yourself to them for our sake.
1:44:43 he also sells insurance?! That's a new low 😂
I get the idea of specifically not calling Zodiac Academy as Dark Romance and instead a romanticization of abuse. It's a very fetishistic depiction of abuse, and would much more easily be labeled as fetishistic erotica with enemies to lovers. I still think there's a place in fiction for things that would be absolutely despicable in reality. Even if someone wrote Lolita 2 but with a favorable view towards the adult in the situation, no one is harmed. People aren't convinced that problematic things are good because of these books, they're only idealized because people don't have access to resources that explain why they're wrong past societal stigma. I'm deeply offended by the concept of child predation and student abuse, but they aren't harmful ideas to explore for everyone.
I think the idea that people that can enjoy these media and come from a place of trauma gain some power by being safe while exploring those topics. They are the ones writing and reading the ideas, when it becomes too much, they can put the book down or turn on another show. They are aware of what they're getting into, and can stop at any point. It's pretty similar to ideas in BDSM, where traumatic fetishes can be reenacted under a situation where the survivor is ultimately able to control the situation. It can be healing for someone to undergo a similar situation but be cared for throughout the process. Some survivors find their sexuality gains fetishes that resemble the scenario that caused it, and I don't think its necessarily harmful to engage with those kinks.
For Zodiac Academy specifically, it would definitely be more in place in a bdsm noncon erotica than as a dark romance for sure, and I wish it would properly label itself. For how widely it marketed itself on booktok, it has some very big issues with not properly warning about depictions of abuse. I definitely think it could be offensive and trigger trauma from those unwary, and it really ought to put itself in more relevant categories rather than riding the algorithm.
Only posted this a hour in, on the mention of the "he made me do it so it's okay" being reduced to "you're shaming women for having sexual feelings", that is absolutely not what fans of dark romance do. In these scenarios where a fictional woman is forced to be a submissive object for pleasure, it's a way for real women to avoid the guilt that society raises them. Yes, it would be good if people could claim their sexuality actively and be unashamed, doing what they want not because some dominant person forced them to do what they wanted to do anyways, but a good amount of people genuinely cannot conjure desire otherwise. To say that they should repress these desires because its somehow unfeminist of them is very much shaming women for having sexual feelings. There are ways of exploring traumatic kink without harming yourself or others. Zodiac Academy is more of an erotic daydream than any expression of what most people want to have happen to them in reality. Wanting to be nearly murdered or tortured by strangers who don't care about your well being is not what the majority of dark romance enjoyers want. It's just what some people enjoy reading about when it's safe and no one is actually hurt, not a manifesto of self harm.
Aw Rachel, uve helped me much. N others I'm certain. Remember the positive when these weirdos give u shit 4 spreading awareness. Ure concerns r warranted, n I agree
If I took this series and wrote a less fluff-filled, less abusive, more consensual rendition on AO3, would it be considered ruining the original masterpiece? Hmmmm.
Thank you so much for talking about the fact that adults can be groomed. As a survivor who is often not believed because I was 21 at the time (though he was 53 and in a position of significant power) it means a lot to have someone with a large platform bring attention to this
3:24:36 virtual Rachel stretching 😂😂😂😂😂 I'm dead
thank you for your speech at 11:00. this is something i've been really grappling with recently. when i was 14 i dated a 21 year old and after i had gone through the grief of realizing i was groomed, i thought it was done. i thought i would never be groomed again, that it happened to me once and i was never to be "fooled" like last time. now i'm 19, and recently, i had a pretty disruptive falling out with a friend i met when i was 18, who was 28. looking back at our relationship now in a different context i realized how a lot of things were borderline inappropriate. i'm not going to say i *was* groomed again, but it made me grapple with the fact that i am very much susceptible to being groomed again. i'm not as smart and infallible as i thought i was.
I would be interested in a video about Stephen King's work and the signs of mysoginy mentioned because I failed to notice any.
This is totally off topic, but your hair looks really nice in this video! I love the color 😊
JUSTICE FOR DIEGO
Rachel dropping another 3.5 hour video when I’m on summer break?? Best thing
holy shit Rachel you look gorgeous here! Absolute ethereal beauty with the short hair and glowy makeup
thank you for covering important issues like this and the cody ko situation too. im a long time viewer and i appreciate you
God, to me it just sounds like the authors had something like SA happen to them but ended up excusing it with "maybe I liked it" and now to compensate and cope they needed to write a whole pointless book series to confuse other young women and girls about SA and making it somehow seem like it is forgivable, because men are just these silly immature creatures who cannot be expected to control themselves or know what they are doing, so the women need to just gloss over the hurt they have caused.
And yes, as a teenager I was absolutely influenced by books like fifty shades or twilight and it absolutely made me miss a lot of red flags in later relationships. And it definitely was very hard to separate the treatment of the characters in these books from real life once someone started to treat me similarly.
So I hate this book series so much. But still, I love that there are resources like your videos out there, Rachel, which I didn't have when I was a teenager. So listening to this feels healing; hearing the harmful content but then also having your voice of reason to explain why this isn't okay. So thank you for going through the torture of reading these for us! ❣
I really want to see Rachel review Game of Thrones.
Your wonderful, well researched, thoughtful video brightened my day ✨️
Not sure how many people commented on this, but the GTA comment is kinda funny to me because YOU have the option to just start killing people on the street. While it is an option and there is a reward for it technically, regardless of how little it is, that's the player's option to start killing dogs and sex workers and you can argue that the actual characters likely wouldn't do that.
Like in certain games there are kids and there could be options to harm children, the games in mind seldmon endorse it, and some games like COD actively punish you for doing such a thing, but it reflects on the players like finding someone like Ryle attractive does to a reader.
Theres something to put in mind however and you bring this up, its one thing for the player/reader to find this sort of things attractive/funny/rewarding, and thats their issue. Its another thing for the developers to add a reward for gratuitous murder while acknowledging how bad that is and how bad of a person the character/player is for doing it. With stuff like this, the narrative of a game or a book actively pushing you into this direction while not tackling the issues has to be the worst of the three things here.
Imagine if we had doom - On the surface level, you get sent to mars, kill demons, and go back home. On a deeper level, its about protecting humanity from the demons and itself.
Now take that concept and turn it into something like Postal. You get the seriousness and violence of Doom, with the misanthropy and sadism of Postal, and you get something to actually complain about because you're rewarded for senseless violence and the narrative doesn't go any further into what you've done. That is genuinely something to complain about and find unappealing, yet people will play it simply because they see violence and a fun combat, but they will likely never question why the narrative is actually like this.
These books are similar. You get magic, you get Fae, you get hot men, and people will probably never look twice because thats all they want. Both cases are something to complain about and be concerned about, regardless of whether or not they're fictional, and people HAVE talked about both cases because a game like the one in my example actually exists, and it sucks for those exact reasons. The comment saying "no one questions what men read" is honestly disingenuous because its not limited to what men read, the gaming space can harbor the same types of toxic and harmful media, but you actually need to look because they're usually quite old or low quality. Games like this are either forgotten about, or just so bad that they become infamous, in some cases its both.
YES THE THIRD IM EXITED FOR THE NEXT
32:56 the problem with that is Claire is a modern woman, and as such, she shouldn’t have accepted it as quickly as she did. She could have easily been replaced with any woman of that time. From memory, she forgave him way too quickly afterwards.
Alright, Imma need to drop out in the first hour. Too triggering, I feel sick. I 100% agree with you tho.
Are people hating you for saying this? Because I enjoy this type of fanfics (I wouldn't read this book or other dark romance books because they're badly written, not because of the abuse) and I can see your point. I don't necessarily agree, but people need to not react so strongly to a point that is well argued. I think dark romance books like this are somehow cartoonish enough that they're not going to influence people. They're frankly too silly. I find the more realistic Colleen Hoover books to be worse
The only one getting hot and bothered by this romance is Rachel’s laptop 😔
IJBOL
I remember that in your second video, they explained what nebulous allies are. It was paired with the soulmate and enemy relationship. I don't remember much about it though.
Part 3 is up, and I couldn't be happier!
"There's a difference between dark romance and romanticized abuse." No, there is not. Not anymore. That's literally the entire genre with a few *exceptions* worth reading sprinkled in.
out of a sense of morbid curiosity, i looked at the goodreads reviews for this series... i want to throw up. why are there so many people FAWNING over these books???? what the actual fuck?????????