/lit/ - Literature

Go read romance the beat, you neet.

>>16470431
Simple. Get a bf.

only incels read nowadays so they won’t be able to tell anyway

>>16470431
Once you get your first gf you won't feel the need to write or read romance

Easy: lots of fun up front, then a downward spiral leaving no-one happy.

>>16470431
People don't read romance because it's realistic. You are probably in a very good position to right out your fantasy of human intimacy.

>>16470431
The best romances are written by neet incels because they have an idealized view of a relationship. Just write about how you think a gf will change your life and make you love the world.

>>16470457
lol you have a point

>>16471799
I completely agree, I find "realistic" romance (e.g. Toradora) to be cringy and boring.
But then again, I'm a NEET incel, so that may just be my bias, and normal people go crazy for that shit because they can relate to it or something.

Yeah, just write a romance novel for other handholdless virgins like me. It's not like we'll be able to tell the difference.

>>16470431
Think of the great romance books, pride and prejudice, twilight, Lolita, none of them are realistic at all, just virginal fantasies where the protagonist gets everything they want out of a relationship. Hell, the more frustrated you are, as long as you can paint it in pretty aesthetics, the better for the art form

>>16470431
Get a gf, I know you're a fag but if Mishima can go to gay bars for his gay novel then you can get a gf for yours. Literally IT'S NOT HARD. And living a life without a gf is not worth it.

>>16472082
I don't disagree with your point but Toradora is still nowhere close to realistic.

>>16470431
I was ashamed to be aroused by this the last time I watched Heroes.

>>16472758
There only people who struggle to have sex are looking for things they can't get from sex. Usually it's power and control. Either don't seek power and control, or do seek it, but wholeheartedly, not with sex as some kind of replacement

>>16470431
You read other and base it on those. It's why so many are fucking generic and predictable.

>>16472846
Niggah what are you trying to say?

>>16470431
use your imagination

>>16470457
based

>>16472787
>Toradora is still nowhere close to realistic
To be fair I watched it long ago, and I don't really remember the plot, I just remember developing a visceral hate for the characters as the series went on, and finishing it out of spite instead of dropping it. I think I remember some people praising it as being realistic because it showed relationship issues, abrasive characters, or something like that? Maybe they fell for the "lighthearted is idealistic, edgy is realistic" meme.

Regardless, isn't a "realistic romance" an exercise in futility, if you think about it? If the point of the novel is exclusively *romance in itself*, and not anything else -- e.g. you're writing a psychological novel, and romance is part of the plot and causes further action; you're writing satire and exposing a social issue; you're writing a historical novel, and showing social customs from a different culture/era; ... -- then why bother with realism?

"Realistic romance" is something you experience every day. If you don't have a gf, or you do have one, but you're past the honeymoon phase, you need idealized romance as an escape from real life. On the other hand, if you're satisfied with your relationship, then you won't need to read idealized romance, because you already have what you want in real life.

Ultimately, I agree with >>16472720. Romance, as a genre in itself, is just bound to be a "virginal fantasy", and nothing more, and its value should be defined in how aesthetically pleasing it is. Ironically, this also makes it the most patrician genre, since it doesn't concern itself with anything, but beauty-in-itself, and it makes the virgin incels who write smut into poets in the making. The best poetry comes from a place of childlike wonder and innocence.

>>16470431
Same way they make up everything else.

>>16470431
HNNNNNNG

>>16473501
This.