# Why the Billionaire Trope Needs to Die



## A.C. Scott (Mar 25, 2014)

I realize I am not the first person to complain about this, but the billionaire trope has gotten out of hand. Let me just say up front that I am not attacking people for writing these stories, or enjoying them for that matter (even though I don't--on both counts), but I think we can do better. The biggest problem with this trope is that it's lazy--in a couple different ways, and I think we all deserve better than lazy writing.

Instead of writing a character who _is_ dominant and powerful, we settle for a character who has dominant and powerful things _about_ them. Whether we are talking about romance, erotic romance, or erotica: interpersonal relationships are a big part of the equation, so substituting personality for a set piece sloppy work in my (humble) opinion.

The second problem is that it isn't relatable. The world isn't littered with billionaires. I know this isn't a problem for some people, and they actually prefer a more imaginative fantasy, but it allows for a powerful deus ex machina. The setting doesn't have to make any sense because you can just throw money at it until it goes away. Batman can have as many unrealistic toys and flying machines as he likes because of his wealth; this only further reduces the personality of the characters to stereotypes because they aren't forced to conform to a world that we can relate to. Don't people read these stories, on some level, because they want to imagine these things could happen to them? No billionaire is going to sweep you off your feet ladies: I'm 99.99% positive.

I know some people are going to think I'm taking this too seriously, and maybe I am, but this fad is getting out of hand and doesn't seem to be dying. I just worry that this kind of writing is going to become a new acceptable standard, and that the next fad will be similar. Maybe this is really just what people want? Maybe I haven't been in this business long enough to realize that things have always been this bad?


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

I'm afraid your objection can (which is not to say "should") be reduced to, "Readers are buying material I don't like." And that is never going to convince writers to stop writing that material.


----------



## A.C. Scott (Mar 25, 2014)

LeeBee said:


> I'm afraid your objection can (which is not to say "should") be reduced to, "Readers are buying material I don't like." And that is never going to convince writers to stop writing that material.


Trust me LeeBee: I was never under the misapprehension that anything I saw will persuade anybody.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

Yeah, lazy, but people want to read about what they don't or can't have. That's why it's fantasy and that's why it's popular.

The same goes for boyfriends with massive chests or equally massive wings. Vampires with or without sparkles. Bizarre attractions to distantly-related but not quite cousins. Gorgeous young women hanging out with ancient basketball team owners. 
Give the people what they want, for as long as it sells. You don't need to be part of it if it bothers you. (Personally, I can't even begin to fathom why people would find "cuckholding" even remotely attractive   ) 

Come up with the Next Big Thing!


----------



## ♨ (Jan 9, 2012)

A.C. Scott said:


> The second problem is that it isn't relatable. The world isn't littered with billionaires.


There are 1,645 of them worldwide, according to Wikipedia. So the world is peppered with billionaires.



A.C. Scott said:


> No billionaire is going to sweep you off your feet ladies: I'm 99.99% positive.


I'd be about 99% positive *no* man is going to actually sweep a woman off her feet, at least not like is depicted in most romance stories, billionaires or no billionaires. So what's wrong with adding another .99% to her fantasy?


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

Quiss said:


> Yeah, lazy, but people want to read about what they don't or can't have. That's why it's fantasy and that's why it's popular.
> 
> The same goes for boyfriends with massive chests or equally massive wings. Vampires with or without sparkles. Bizarre attractions to distantly-related but not quite cousins. Gorgeous young women hanging out with ancient basketball team owners.
> Give the people what they want, for as long as it sells. You don't need to be part of it if it bothers you. (Personally, I can't even begin to fathom why people would find "cuckholding" even remotely attractive  )
> ...


What Quiss said. All of it!


----------



## AgnesWebb (Jan 13, 2013)

Quiss said:


> Give the people what they want, for as long as it sells.


This. It's fun to write AND read, in my opinion.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

It also promotes an unattainable stereotype.

As a billionaire, I feel pressured to date unnaturally submissive women and/or non-gold diggers who aren't interested in me until I do something that would have me arrested in real life if I did it (if I wasn't a billionaire that is. Justice doesn't apply to us).


----------



## MegSilver (Feb 26, 2012)

I also call for everyone to stop being lazy about dragons. Elves. Dwarves. Sorcerers. Demons. Angels. And basically anything fictional.


----------



## A.C. Scott (Mar 25, 2014)

> Give the people what they want, for as long as it sells.


I guess that's really my problem here. Were all these authors really anxious to write a billionaire story before 50SOG, or are they just following a fad to make some money? I understand that it sells, and I certainly don't want anybody to buy or read my stuff if they don't like it, but it just seems to be the easy way out. I guess this just shines a giant spotlight on the fact that a lot of people write for financial reasons more than anything else, and they will give the people what they want regardless of any other factors--personal or otherwise. I can't do that, and I hate to see the market flooded with it.

And just ot respond to LeeBee again, it wouldn't' matter to me if this were my kind of material or not, it's a more abstract problem I have than simply not liking it as content.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Why should it die?  We all know it is unlikely that a billionaire will sweep us off our feet.  The idea of erotica is FANTASY.  So why shouldn't we read and enjoy it.  
You know I read a book one day that in your ideas should be banned.  It was also in the BDSM trope.  The reason  it should be banned was one of the scenes in the book violated the SSC rule (safe, sane, consentual).  It was neither safe nor sane.  I also think it violated a law or two.  The scene you ask.  A wife ties up her new husband and leaves him alone for 5 hours.
But I figured since it was in erotica, that was just a fantasy so no harm done.  
Yes, that scene left me shaking my head.  It would have left me shaking my head if it had been M/f too or M/m or F/f.

So now the difference in billionaire trope and unsafe BDSM would be?  

Just a little food for thought.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

The answer is simple - all fiction should confine itself strictly to things that are both possible and likely. Which means I will have to cut that scene in my current WIP that depicts my MC using a five-year-old inkjet printer that produces clear copies.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

There were millionaire/billionaire stories long before 50 shades.


----------



## Vivi_Anna (Feb 12, 2011)

A.C. Scott said:


> I guess that's really my problem here. Were all these authors really anxious to write a billionaire story before 50SOG, or are they just following a fad to make some money? I understand that it sells, and I certainly don't want anybody to buy or read my stuff if they don't like it, but it just seems to be the easy way out. I guess this just shines a giant spotlight on the fact that a lot of people write for financial reasons more than anything else, and they will give the people what they want regardless of any other factors--personal or otherwise. I can't do that, and I hate to see the market flooded with it.
> 
> And just ot respond to LeeBee again, it wouldn't' matter to me if this were my kind of material or not, it's a more abstract problem I have than simply not liking it as content.


Billionaire fiction has been around a lot longer than Fifty Shades. Harlequin's Presents line has been around for 50 years. And it is all about rich dudes.

It's a trope that's popular right now, probably for a number of reasons. The biggest one it is FANTASY. Like all fiction.


----------



## Daniel Dennis (Mar 3, 2014)

A.C. Scott said:


> The biggest problem with this trope is that it's lazy--in a couple different ways, and I think we all deserve better than lazy writing.


Seems like a pretty broad brush to paint with...



A.C. Scott said:


> The second problem is that it isn't relatable. The world isn't littered with billionaires. I know this isn't a problem for some people, and they actually prefer a more imaginative fantasy, but it allows for a powerful deus ex machina.


I've never written about an eccentric billionaire, but I think your point about the imaginative fantasy is the reason there's a market for it.



A.C. Scott said:


> Batman can have as many unrealistic toys and flying machines as he likes because of his wealth; this only further reduces the personality of the characters to stereotypes because they aren't forced to conform to a world that we can relate to.


Keep in mind Batman is a comic super hero. Characters like him were never meant to be related to. Just to entertain. There's obviously a huge market for the entertainment. Just look at the piles of cash raked in by Nolan's trilogy. Sure they're not realistic, but they were done in such a way that they were as believable as possible (kind of).



A.C. Scott said:


> Don't people read these stories, on some level, because they want to imagine these things could happen to them? No billionaire is going to sweep you off your feet ladies: I'm 99.99% positive.


I don't think many women are reading those types of stories because they want it to happen. I think it's just an entertaining escape. I don't day-dream about my simple life. I live it every day. If I was going to escape into some realistic fantasy world, I wouldn't mind having a full bank account.



A.C. Scott said:


> I just worry that this kind of writing is going to become a new acceptable standard, and that the next fad will be similar. Maybe this is really just what people want? Maybe I haven't been in this business long enough to realize that things have always been this bad?


Give readers a little more credit. If the writing is crap, the book won't sell. It may be a fad, but it's a fad driven by sales. Some of it may be crap. But I think the readers will be able to sift through and find the good ones.


----------



## I&#039;m a Little Teapot (Apr 10, 2014)

I can't believe writers want to make money writing stories readers want to read. It's appalling.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

SevenDays said:


> I can't believe writers want to make money writing stories readers want to read. It's appalling.


We should really be educating the readers about what they _should_ want!


----------



## ricola (Mar 3, 2014)

People should stop being so lazy about SF.  FTL space travel is impossible as physics is understood.  There are no wormholes.  No warping.  No hyper or subspace.  Artificial gravity and anti-gravity are especially ridiculous, yet few people use something that might actually work, like centripetal force.  So why do people keep writing about such ridiculous, lazy things?

(In case you can't tell, I have a huge bookshelf full of space opera.)


----------



## A.C. Scott (Mar 25, 2014)

LeeBee said:


> We should really be educating the readers about what they _should_ want!


My son would be perfectly happy if I gave him cut up pieces of bread for every meal. I don't. People can't want what they don't know exists. Clearly this thread as shown that most of you are content with the bare minimum of what will sell. Can't we try to offer them what they want, and then some? I thought writers were supposed to be creative, but I guess that was my misguided opinion before I became one.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

I can understand your feelings because I think, secretly, many of us can relate deep down. We would love for everyone to read/write what we prefer. Unfortunately, people all think differently and have different muses. (Which is a great thing!) I have never read a billionaire romance, but I used to read a lot of romance that had a rich hero. As a woman, it's fun to imagine a rich powerful man falling in love with me, and in reading those kinds of books, good writers put me in the heroine's shoes. It's something I'm never going to experience in real life, so that's what makes it fun. Especially when sitting at home staring at a pile of bills and dirty laundry, and knowing that I'll never catch up on the bills and I'll never be able to afford a maid to clean my home. That's the appeal. Kind of like guys looking at Penthouse and imagining themselves with those airbrushed, Photoshopped women.


----------



## KL_Phelps (Nov 7, 2013)

It's escapism for most. If people are buying it, then it's going to continue. When the money dries up, so will the stories. It's like vampires, zombies, etc. When the market has had enough, they will go into their crypts or graves and wait until sufficient time has passed and then they will rise again. I have, what I consider to be, a really good vampire story I wrote quite a while back, but I'm not going to go back and edit and publish it now. Even though the Twilight craze has passed, I still think the sparkly vampires are in peoples minds. Of course my next book also has a vampire in it, but it's a humor book and he isn't the main character


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

A.C. Scott said:


> My son would be perfectly happy if I gave him cut up pieces of bread for every meal. I don't. People can't want what they don't know exists. Clearly this thread as shown that most of you are content with the bare minimum of what will sell. Can't we try to offer them what they want, and then some? I thought writers were supposed to be creative, but I guess that was my misguided opinion before I became one.


That's some heavy-duty assuming you're doing there, my friend. I see no one arguing for being content with the bare minimum of what will sell. I see them sighing at your get-off-my-lawn fist-shaking at writers for producing content that readers want to buy.


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

I like the point that if it's about dominance and power, there are other ways to achieve that. Frankly the characters I find most interesting are the ones who seem to always have just enough money, because they know how to get what they want when they choose to and they plan ahead just enough to be prepared for things. A character with that level of intelligence is much more fascinating to me than someone who simply acquired gobs and gobs of money.

Then again, for readers of the billionaire trope, I suspect opulence is part of the point. As interesting as a master of Xanatos Speed Chess is, I have little doubt that the luxury setting is the bigger draw. It may well be less about the character's dominance than their place within the setting.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

A.C. Scott said:


> I realize I am not the first person to complain about this, but the billionaire trope has gotten out of hand. Let me just say up front that I am not attacking people for writing these stories, or enjoying them for that matter (even though I don't--on both counts), but I think we can do better. The biggest problem with this trope is that it's lazy--in a couple different ways, and I think we all deserve better than lazy writing.
> 
> Instead of writing a character who _is_ dominant and powerful, we settle for a character who has dominant and powerful things _about_ them. Whether we are talking about romance, erotic romance, or erotica: interpersonal relationships are a big part of the equation, so substituting personality for a set piece sloppy work in my (humble) opinion.
> 
> ...


You're free to write whatever you like and focus on the "art" if that's your thing. Me? I focus on the money, and Billionaire sells. I'm running a business and am not at all interested in adding to any artistic fabric. Basically, it can be summed up like this: None of these complaints matter to me because people enjoy reading and buying billionaire romance/erotica. It is not by place to analyze their tastes because frankly I don't care. They want it, and I give it to them. It's a win for all involved.


----------



## Fictionista (Sep 14, 2012)

Reading is an escape. The end.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

A.C. Scott said:


> I guess that's really my problem here. Were all these authors really anxious to write a billionaire story before 50SOG, or are they just following a fad to make some money? I understand that it sells, and I certainly don't want anybody to buy or read my stuff if they don't like it, but it just seems to be the easy way out. I guess this just shines a giant spotlight on the fact that a lot of people write for financial reasons more than anything else, and they will give the people what they want regardless of any other factors--personal or otherwise. I can't do that, and I hate to see the market flooded with it.
> 
> And just ot respond to LeeBee again, it wouldn't' matter to me if this were my kind of material or not, it's a more abstract problem I have than simply not liking it as content.


I don't think there's any way to know why the authors write what they write unless they say so, and even if they do say they did it for money, if they write it well and readers enjoy it, what difference does it make? Kind of like if I'm sick and I go to the doctor--I don't care if he's in it for the money and prestige or the deep desire to heal people--as long as he makes me better, I don't care.


----------



## J.A. Sutherland (Apr 1, 2014)

I think all billionaire stories should come with pictures of real billionaires ... pretty sure that'll kill it ...


----------



## A.C. Scott (Mar 25, 2014)

LeeBee said:


> That's some heavy-duty assuming you're doing there, my friend. I see no one arguing for being content with the bare minimum of what will sell. I see them sighing at your get-off-my-lawn fist-shaking at writers for producing content that readers want to buy.


That is exactly the kind of thinking that leads to terrible Hollywood sequels, and the reason the film industry is plagued with reboots, remakes, sequels, etc. They take everything they _think_ audiences liked about the first one and amp it up for the sequel, even when a sequel doest make sense; more guns, boobs, fart jokes, etc. Of course, some of the magic of the original is always lost because they started caring about "giving the people what they want" instead of telling a compelling story.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

A.C. Scott said:


> I guess that's really my problem here. Were all these authors really anxious to write a billionaire story before 50SOG, or are they just following a fad to make some money?


I can't speak for the entire industry but I know for a fact that billionaire and sheikh stories have been Harlequins bestsellers since the dawn of time. Yes, that many women read them and love them. I can only assume that a portion of the women who read and love them also write them.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

A.C. Scott said:


> I guess that's really my problem here. Were all these authors really anxious to write a billionaire story before 50SOG, or are they just following a fad to make some money? I understand that it sells, and I certainly don't want anybody to buy or read my stuff if they don't like it, but it just seems to be the easy way out. I guess this just shines a giant spotlight on the fact that a lot of people write for financial reasons more than anything else, and they will give the people what they want regardless of any other factors--personal or otherwise. I can't do that, and I hate to see the market flooded with it.
> 
> And just ot respond to LeeBee again, it wouldn't' matter to me if this were my kind of material or not, it's a more abstract problem I have than simply not liking it as content.


I certainly wasn't anxious to write a billionaire story. I've been releasing nearly two erotica/romance shorts a week for two years now. At this point I'm not anxious to write any of it. I enjoyed writing erotica when I first started, but at this point, I've described every erotic thing people can think of a hundred times, and it's boring. But it pays that bills, and I'm content doing it.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

A.C. Scott said:


> That is exactly the kind of thinking that leads to terrible Hollywood sequels, and the reason the film industry is plagued with reboots, remakes, sequels, etc. They take everything they _think_ audiences liked about the first one and amp it up for the sequel, even when a sequel doest make sense; more guns, boobs, fart jokes, etc. Of course, some of the magic of the original is always lost because they started caring about "giving the people what they want" instead of telling a compelling story.


I'm just going to ignore the bulk of this comment, because it doesn't seem germane. However, I will point out that writers are not responding to what they THINK readers want. They are writing what readers ARE ACTUALLY BUYING. That's not guesswork; it's based on easily verifiable market evidence.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

I don't mind the zillionaire trope--although I haven't read any lately. I get what you're saying OP, but I'd rather read about a hero who's got the money issued solved, than a guy who's just lost is job and can't pay his half of the rent. 

(I have to say that I'm not a fan of the _overly_ dominant male though, I'm more of a beta hero kind of reader/writer...)


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

So it sounds like you're opposed to money and power. Your recommendation, then, is not just limited to billionaires, but romance writers should get rid of the dukes and earls and sheiks and princes and kings and CEOs and all the other rich dudes that have been a staple since the late 70s when romance took off and became the biggest-selling genre of fiction. 

Um, no.

You're disparaging readers AND writers both in one fell swoop. This never ends well. Ever.

A lot of tropes are tropes for a reason. They're easy shortcuts so the writer CAN get on with the rest of the story without having to do a lot of explaining of how/why. Plus, not every billionaire is created equal. 50 Shades' hero is nothing like the billionaire heroes one of our authors (who is a true "legend" of romance who helped establish the genre in the first place and who helped create the trope of the rich dude nearly 45 years ago) writes about, to both good reviews and 50,000+ ebook sales of her trilogy with Billionaires in the title. Win-win.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

A.C. Scott said:


> That is exactly the kind of thinking that leads to terrible Hollywood sequels, and the reason the film industry is plagued with reboots, remakes, sequels, etc. They take everything they _think_ audiences liked about the first one and amp it up for the sequel, even when a sequel doest make sense; more guns, boobs, fart jokes, etc. Of course, some of the magic of the original is always lost because they started caring about "giving the people what they want" instead of telling a compelling story.


...And the film industry is right.... Movie sequels and reboots are some of the best bets in Hollywood. Summer blockbusters are almost always filled with installments from franchises.


----------



## Al Dente (Sep 3, 2012)

I have a very simple solution to this problem. How about writers write what they want to write, and readers read what they want to read? Who cares about stereotypes, tropes, or anything else? If you don't like something, just don't have anything to do with it. What is or isn't mainstream really doesn't matter. All that matters is that you are happy with your own entertainment choices.

I absolutely despise Justin Bieber's music, but what do I care if thousands of teenagers like it? I really don't. I love dragons, wizards and warriors who set out on quests to rid the world of evil. That's a way "overdone" genre of entertainment, but I really, really, really don't care because that's what I like. Someday if it falls out of the mainstream, I still wouldn't care because I'm sure someone out there will still be reading and writing those stories. One more example: Manowar. They're one of my favorite bands of all time, if not my favorite. Very few people listen to them now compared to when they were popular in the 1980s. That doesn't change my opinion of them in the slightest. I still buy all their releases and support them whenever possible.

In short, I think we need to spend less time worrying about what's popular, and spend more time worrying about what WE enjoy. Passion is what brings about the next big thing to the general public. Be passionate about your work, and write what you would buy. Set the new standard, and be happy when you're raking in the dough, and someone else starts a thread on KB saying they're tired of the genre you helped create. 



MegSilver said:


> I also call for everyone to stop being lazy about dragons. Elves. Dwarves. Sorcerers. Demons. Angels. And basically anything fictional.


I know, right?


----------



## D.L. Shutter (Jul 9, 2011)

Not the first discussion I've seen where someone decries the popularity of Billionaires in Rom or E-Rom. The last time I heard them defended was that they're little more than contemporary iterations of Dukes, Princes, Earls or Pirate/Viking/Nomad Kings...or fill in the blank with any wealthy, powerful figure capable of ushering another character into a fantasy world of rare opulence and privilege. Essentially, as entrenched an archetypal character to the romance genre as wizards, ex-spy's, brilliant killers or evil rulers are to other genre's. 

Personally, I'm kinda tired of seeing the "B" word in so many titles as well but since I don't buy those books I'm not holding my breath for their writer's to care.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

Well, since it's mostly women writing and reading them, maybe we should take away their ability to work, eliminating their income flow, and stick them back in a kitchen without shoes where they can't write or buy these books.

That would show them. sigh


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

Meh, the more people write in the crowded tropes, the fewer are cluttered up the Top 100 in my genre.
So I think everyone (but me) should write about nekkid billionaires.


----------



## ElaStein (Feb 8, 2014)

Although I'm not really a fan of the "billionaire" thing, and I don't read or write those books, I did read 50 Shades of Grey trilogy. And I think she did a good job with demonstrating that his wealth wasn't something "about" him. It was something he earned by being who he was. So he was inherently an intelligent alpha male who made the wealth happen. 

I think it's only something "about" the person if they inherited the wealth and didn't earn it by being who they "are".

Well, that's just my take on your assertion that it's a "lazy" trope


----------



## A.C. Scott (Mar 25, 2014)

LeeBee said:


> I'm just going to ignore the bulk of this comment, because it doesn't seem germane. However, I will point out that writers are not responding to what they THINK readers want. They are writing what readers ARE ACTUALLY BUYING. That's not guesswork; it's based on easily verifiable market evidence.


You cannot infer what a reader wants just based on what they buy. You have no way of knowing what they were thinking when they turned that last page; it could have been a new personal favorite, or 'meh'. Reviews help, but they aren't the end of the story either. Checking all the boxes to get a sale is *exactly* what I was talking about and I promise you it was "germane". By your logic, people love everything they buy. We all know that isn't true just from personal experience.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

A.C. Scott said:


> You cannot infer what a reader wants just based on what they buy. You have no way of knowing what they were thinking when they turned that last page; it could have been a new personal favorite, or 'meh'. Reviews help, but they aren't the end of the story either. Checking all the boxes to get a sale is *exactly* what I was talking about and I promise you it was "germane". By your logic, people love everything they buy. We all know that isn't true just from personal experience.


People don't "love everything they buy," but they sure as hell don't keep buying [crap] they don't enjoy. Readers vote with their dollars, and lately, they are electing the billionaire trope to consecutive terms in office.


----------



## A.C. Scott (Mar 25, 2014)

Jana DeLeon said:


> Well, since it's mostly women writing and reading them, maybe we should take away their ability to work, eliminating their income flow, and stick them back in a kitchen without shoes where they can't write or buy these books.
> 
> That would show them. sigh


Did I miss something? Where is this coming from?


----------



## ricola (Mar 3, 2014)

A.C. Scott said:


> My son would be perfectly happy if I gave him cut up pieces of bread for every meal. I don't. People can't want what they don't know exists. Clearly this thread as shown that most of you are content with the bare minimum of what will sell. Can't we try to offer them what they want, and then some? I thought writers were supposed to be creative, but I guess that was my misguided opinion before I became one.


People like chocolate cake more than they like lots of things. That doesn't mean that if you bake chocolate cakes you're lazy or bad at your craft. Sure, a bad chocolate cake will sell better than a good tongue sandwich. But a good chocolate cake can blow more things out of the water--in quality as well as appeal.

And I bake a DAMN good chocolate cake.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

A.C. Scott said:


> You cannot infer what a reader wants just based on what they buy. You have no way of knowing what they were thinking when they turned that last page; it could have been a new personal favorite, or 'meh'. Reviews help, but they aren't the end of the story either. Checking all the boxes to get a sale is *exactly* what I was talking about and I promise you it was "germane". By your logic, people love everything they buy. We all know that isn't true just from personal experience.


If you buy things in a certain niche/genre, I would assume you like things in that niche or genre. Sure you may not like a particular book.

It's quite easy to figure out what people are buying. In fact, anyone that is serious about making money should be analyzing buying trends constantly and releasing work the takes advantage of those trends. While I guess it's not 100 percent that what's popular is what people "want", it's a good bet. And honestly, if it turns out that all of these people are buying things that they don't actually "want", then I'm not sure what they "want" should matter to writers at all.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

vmblack said:


> People like chocolate cake more than they like lots of things. That doesn't mean that if you bake chocolate cakes you're lazy or bad at your craft. Sure, a bad chocolate cake will sell better than a good tongue sandwich. But a good chocolate cake can blow more things out of the water--in quality as well as appeal.
> 
> And I bake a d*mn good chocolate cake.


Are you saying you have... actually experienced a tongue sandwich?


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

A.C. Scott said:


> Did I miss something? Where is this coming from?


It's a direct complaint about what women write and read. There's not a huge market for men reading billionaire stories.

The whole argument is pointless. People buy what they want. When they stop buying it, they no longer want it. And no one wants to read about things that they can do or things that will happen to them. Fiction is all about the fantasy. Apparently a ton of women still like to dream about being kept in luxury by a sexy alpha male. I don't get it, but I don't care how many books sell in that niche.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

Just thinking about this, and I can't imagine the billionaire/duke/whatever ever disappearing from romance. If it did, I would be sad... 

In the end, really, every writer needs to write whatever the he** they want to write. In so doing, if they bring themselves joy and their readers satisfaction, it's a win-win.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

A.C. Scott said:


> You cannot infer what a reader wants just based on what they buy. You have no way of knowing what they were thinking when they turned that last page; it could have been a new personal favorite, or 'meh'. Reviews help, but they aren't the end of the story either. Checking all the boxes to get a sale is *exactly* what I was talking about and I promise you it was "germane". By your logic, people love everything they buy. We all know that isn't true just from personal experience.


I might have to disagree with you on this. Yes, I want what I buy. Now on books, sometimes I do run across a bad one. That means I did not like PARTICULAR book but I still like the genre. So your logic makes no sense. We do buy what we want to read and sometimes we do get burned because the PARTICULAR book did not live up to our expectations.
I also like cross stitching but that does not mean I like every pattern or even want to do every pattern.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

LeeBee said:


> People don't "love everything they buy," but they sure as hell don't keep buying [crap] they don't enjoy. Readers vote with their dollars, and lately, they are electing the billionaire trope to consecutive terms in office.


Yeah, and the hero's journey trope is still going strong in epic fantasy. You play to people's fantasies. Who the hell has fantasies of marrying some loser who sits in front of the TV, unemployed, and doesn't even bother doing the dishes while she's out working to support him? Nope, people want to latch onto the perfect mate in their dreams, and in most cases, that involves someone who can take them away from that job that's crushing their soul every day, and carry them off to some sundrenched beach where little mustachioed men are at her back and call.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Damn it! I thought a billionaire, werewolf, vampire was going to sweep me off my feet and turn me into a werewolf, vampire, billionaire without a prenup. There goes my future goal planning. Thanks a lot!


----------



## ricola (Mar 3, 2014)

LeeBee said:


> Are you saying you have... actually experienced a tongue sandwich?


Oh, NO. I won't try food that tastes me back.  But that's my point. Certain kinds of fiction is so repellent to most readers that it doesn't matter how well it's done--they're just not going to be interested. Other tropes that are fundamentally appealing will get at least a few people trying a story even if it's terrible because they WANT to like it.


----------



## ricola (Mar 3, 2014)

I'm actually getting suspicious now.  Is A.C. getting punished by his wife again?  Dude, if so, please keep it off the KBoards.


----------



## SawyerPentecost (Jul 11, 2013)

Hi. I think all books but mine should be disregarded.


----------



## A.C. Scott (Mar 25, 2014)

vmblack said:


> People like chocolate cake more than they like lots of things. That doesn't mean that if you bake chocolate cakes you're lazy or bad at your craft. Sure, a bad chocolate cake will sell better than a good tongue sandwich. But a good chocolate cake can blow more things out of the water--in quality as well as appeal.
> 
> And I bake a d*mn good chocolate cake.


Yes, but that doesn't mean you have to bake the same chocolate cake everybody else is baking, otherwise you may as well be replaced by a machine. Somebody else brought up the tropes in other genres, like fantasy. Look at G.R.R. Martin: he plays with many of the tropes, but put a fairly unique spin on it. Look at film makers like Tim Burton or Wes Anderson. What is the point of writing if you are doing it to specification? We aren't building widgets here that just have to be up to standard. If you are writing a story just because it sells, and you don't have anything to add of your own, then that is lazy. There is a demand, and that's fine, but I just wish so many people weren't so content with it.

I have actively told a few people not to read my published stories because I knew them personally and didn't think they would enjoy it. Writing is a business, yes, but it isn't only a business. I say, write what you know and let time vindicate you one way or the other. Following fads for the sole reason of following fads, and not because that fad is where you would have been otherwise is something I can't endorse.

I don't agree with the assertion that because rich/powerful guy stories were around in the past that explains it away. There has been a pretty clear explosion of billionaire sex stories since the popularity of 50SOG, and most of them are chasing dollar signs.


----------



## ricola (Mar 3, 2014)

jtbullet said:


> Hi. I think all books but mine should be disregarded.


I'd buy your book for that comment, LOL.


----------



## I Give Up (Jan 27, 2014)

AC, I just purchased _Cuckolding Dave_. I'm gonna put it on my kindle carousel with a bunch of billionaire books._ Fifty Shades of Grey_, _The Submissive_,_ This Man_, throw in a little Sylvia Day. Then I'm gonna read those billionaire books, one by one. I may brush my finger over your cuckolding book, but I'll _never _open it. I'll just keep reading billionaire after billionaire book, _all night long_, until you fall to the back of my carousel.

Is this doing anything for you?


----------



## A.C. Scott (Mar 25, 2014)

vmblack said:


> I'm actually getting suspicious now. Is A.C. getting punished by his wife again? Dude, if so, please keep it off the KBoards.


Assuming you weren't joking, a punishment would be to tell me to get of the internet, so maybe some of you should hope that happens.


----------



## ricola (Mar 3, 2014)

A.C. Scott said:


> Yes, but that doesn't mean you have to bake the same chocolate cake everybody else is baking, otherwise you may as well be replaced by a machine. Somebody else brought up the tropes in other genres, like fantasy. Look at G.R.R. Martin: he plays with many of the tropes, but put a fairly unique spin on it. Look at film makers like Tim Burton or Wes Anderson. What is the point of writing if you are doing it to specification? We aren't building widgets here that just have to be up to standard. If you are writing a story just because it sells, and you don't have anything to add of your own, then that is lazy. There is a demand, and that's fine, but I just wish so many people weren't so content with it.


If all stories with billionaires are the same, then all epic fantasy is the same.

There sure has been an explosion of epic fantasy ever since JRR Tolkien. Therefore, it's all the same. A machine could have written Sword of Shanara!

(The prototype for the modern billionaire BDSM book is actually The Sheikh, though--a book that I find repugnant, but it was all the rage a century ago.)


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

vmblack said:


> I'm actually getting suspicious now. Is A.C. getting punished by his wife again? Dude, if so, please keep it off the KBoards.


I think the problem is that she isn't punishing him.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Writing to the market makes you a sell out. Haven't you heard? If you want to make money from your work in an creative field, there is something fundamentally wrong with you. Duh! Time to go back to working at Starbucks.


----------



## A.C. Scott (Mar 25, 2014)

Viola Rivard said:


> AC, I just purchased _Cuckolding Dave_. I'm gonna put it on my kindle carousel with a bunch of billionaire books._ Fifty Shades of Grey_, _The Submissive_,_ This Man_, throw in a little Sylvia Day. Then I'm gonna read those billionaire books, one by one. I may brush my finger over your cuckolding book, but I'll _never _open it. I'll just keep reading billionaire after billionaire book, _all night long_, until you fall to the back of my carousel.
> 
> Is this doing anything for you?


No, but thanks for the 33 cents. I don't want people buying my stories for any other reason than because they wanted to. I don't write what I think people will want; I write what I want and hope those people who feel the same way will see it.

Your post was clever though, so thumbs up for that.


----------



## A.C. Scott (Mar 25, 2014)

> Writing to the market makes you a sell out. Haven't you heard?


The irony is startling. Yes, writing to the market does make you sell-out, by definition. I never said it was bad, just lazy.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

How is work lazy? Writing to the market isn't that easy either.


----------



## SawyerPentecost (Jul 11, 2013)

I'm fine with selling out.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Everyone wants to make money, except maybe those people who are comfortable not making money. I'm a SAHM and I personally am not comfortable living off my spouse. If writing to the market were that easy, everyone would be doing it, and we'd all be rich. 

Personally, I have some limits to what I will write.  Super tough guy, controlling, alpha male types are a turn off to me, so I don't write them. I've experienced too much sexism in my life to find that a turn on.  I don't put anyone down for writing them or liking them. I also can't write smut. I don't have it in me to write it. But I don't put people down for writing it. 

I can write what I like, but I have to understand the tropes the market wants enough to work with them. I just had to spend the last eight months marathon reading romance so I had any idea how to write it. I'm a sff reader. But my ssf didn't sell. I want to make money, so I learned what I like in the romance market, and now I write that. I want to make a living as a writer. I like writing about billionaires more than I like writing web copy. 

Does writing web copy make me a sell out? Seriously? Does it? I'm curious.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

AC, even if all the billionaires went away tomorrow, it would do nothing to help your particular genre.  Now why do you say it is lazy to want to make money?  Writing whether it is in a popular genre or the most obscure genre is WORK.  I admire the authors that can and do write good books.  Also any erotica is hard to write.
Now I want to address something you said in your first post.  You said erotica must have interpersonal relationships.  I would disagree with you in some categories of erotica.  Even in the Fem dom genre, there are not always relationships.
Erotica needs sex not necessarily relationships.


----------



## Oscar Arias (Dec 17, 2013)

Did someone say Sell Out?  Is there some place I can go and do that?  Sign me up on the sellout train!  

Speaking of trains...

I think we should go the other way around and someone should write fantasy erotica about Hobos and Hobo sex.    That would be awesome!

"Boxcar Willie, what have you got in your bindle?"

"Why don't you come over here, and I'll show you."


----------



## ♨ (Jan 9, 2012)

A.C. Scott said:


> Yes, but that doesn't mean you have to bake the same chocolate cake everybody else is baking, otherwise you may as well be replaced by a machine. Somebody else brought up the tropes in other genres, like fantasy. Look at G.R.R. Martin: he plays with many of the tropes, but put a fairly unique spin on it. Look at film makers like Tim Burton or Wes Anderson. What is the point of writing if you are doing it to specification? We aren't building widgets here that just have to be up to standard.


And for every G.R.R. Martin and Tim Burton and Wes Anderson, there are probably hundreds or thousands of others putting their own spins on tropes... and not selling more than a handful of books or DVDs.



A.C. Scott said:


> If you are writing a story just because it sells, and you don't have anything to add of your own, then that is lazy. There is a demand, and that's fine, but I just wish so many people weren't so content with it.


Is it lazy to want to actually be able to pay bills?

I don't like tropes and genre requirements and all that stuff because, at the core, I think that what readers want is a GOOD STORY, even if those stories don't fix in neat little boxes and categories. So, I write the kinds of things I would want to read but, guess what, that stuff DOES NOT SELL.

So, I don't think I want to fault other authors for writing stuff that sells because, you know, getting a check from Amazon and being able to use it for something more than dinner at a budget chain restaurant would be nice.

On top of that, writing to the market and writing something you don't particular enjoy is hard work and can hardly be called being "lazy."


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

A.C. Scott said:


> Writing is a business, yes, but it isn't only a business. I say, write what you know and let time vindicate you one way or the other. Following fads for the sole reason of following fads, and not because that fad is where you would have been otherwise is something I can't endorse.


45 years, 85 books and 35 million copies in print (is that time enough?). Trends come and go. Forced seduction was big 20 years ago. Jennifer built much of her reputation riding that trend. When it went by the wayside, she stopped writing it and went on to the Next Big Thing. Would she have written her Billionaire books otherwise? She probably would have, but maybe the heroes would have been CEOs or nobility and not specifically "billionaires." Being market savvy is not an evil thing.



> I don't agree with the assertion that because rich/powerful guy stories were around in the past that explains it away. There has been a pretty clear explosion of billionaire sex stories since the popularity of 50SOG, and most of them are chasing dollar signs.


Why so many with the word "Billionaire" in the title? Because it's a shortcut. Why so many historicals with the word "rake" or "prince" or "sheik" or "duke" in them? Or erotic with "babysitter"? Because they are meant to appeal to that audience, and the audience can more readily find them. Sure a lot of folk are writing less-than-par billionaire stories hoping to hit big. But there are folk writing subpar stories in every genre. As with anything, it doesn't mean all the stories, or even the majority, are subpar. You seem to equate chasing dollar signs exclusively with subpar work. What evidence do you have to support this?

An opinion is fine to have. An opinion backed by facts is a whole lot better.


----------



## Oscar Arias (Dec 17, 2013)

Dan C. Rinnert said:


> I don't like tropes and genre requirements and all that stuff because, at the core, I think that what readers want is a GOOD STORY, even if those stories don't fix in neat little boxes and categories. So, I write the kinds of things I would want to read but, guess what, that stuff DOES NOT SELL.


Hey, I hope you got something I want to read. I just picked up your "Lame Novel".


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2014)

Annabelle said:


> d*mn it! I thought a billionaire, werewolf, vampire was going to sweep me off my feet and turn me into a werewolf, vampire, billionaire without a prenup. There goes my future goal planning. Thanks a lot!


No! Make that a billionaire zombie!!

Mr. Cuckolding Dave, please add your two cents about how you hate zombie books! I need a good laugh while I finish my coffee, and all the threads bitching about zombie books are old. I need a fresh one.

Thanks!


----------



## SawyerPentecost (Jul 11, 2013)

Annabelle said:


> Does writing web copy make me a sell out? Seriously? Does it? I'm curious.


No. It makes you committed to doing what you need to do to survive. Screw this "lazy writing" concept. People have bills to pay, and mouths to feed. My book will be out soon. Will it sell a lot? Probably not. Will I [email protected] about it and blame it on those "lazy billionaire writers"? Those "lazy YA writers"? "Lazy Zombie writers" ? "Lazy Romance writers" ?

You know what needs to die as a trope? The idea that someone's lack of success is anyone's fault but their own. If you put a bad cover on a book, its your fault. If you put out an unedited book, its your fault. If you pick an unpopular genre to write in, its your fault. If your book doesn't sell like you want it to, its your fault. Because that's the end goal here -- selling books. If selling books is not the goal, then what is? Self-improvement? Vanity? In the words of Tyler Durden "Self improvement is [email protected]"

PS I know there are some people here who wrote books as a cathartic response to situations in their lives.


----------



## Daniel Dennis (Mar 3, 2014)

I don't think it's selling out. I think it's going where the market is. When my company closed two years ago and I couldn't find work in Oil & Gas in my city, I not only moved but changed to the financial services industry. I went where there was demand for what I had to offer. I don't see people writing about billionaires as doing anything less.

Sent from the back of a white CIA van using Tapatalk. Please help!


----------



## I Give Up (Jan 27, 2014)

A.C. Scott said:


> Your post was clever though, so thumbs up for that.


We aim to please.


----------



## SawyerPentecost (Jul 11, 2013)

cinisajoy said:


> Now I want to address something you said in your first post. You said erotica must have interpersonal relationships. I would disagree with you in some categories of erotica. Even in the Fem dom genre, there are not always relationships.
> Erotica needs sex not necessarily relationships.


Come on Cin...we all know that real life [email protected] requires interpersonal relationships. Who on Earth would think otherwise? Besides colleges. And bars. And red light districts. And congress.


----------



## SawyerPentecost (Jul 11, 2013)

Viola Rivard said:


> We aim to please.


Tamed by the Betas II: We Tame to Please. I call SHOTGUN ON THIS SUBTITLE!!


----------



## A.C. Scott (Mar 25, 2014)

cinisajoy said:


> AC, even if all the billionaires went away tomorrow, it would do nothing to help your particular genre.


This has never been about me. If you had actually read what I have been writing in this thread you realize that I don't care about about how well "my genre" is doing. People will read it if they want to, and not if they don't. You seem to think I have some kind of petty jealousy and I don't.



> If writing to the market were that easy, everyone would be doing it


Everybody is doing it; that's why I started complaining in the first place. Making money is more important to you than anything else when it comes to writing, or you wouldn't have changed genres. Yes, that makes you sell-out. Taking any job you don't enjoy makes you sell-out. However, that isn't a bad thing in itself, and you seem to think it is.



> Is there some place I can go and do that? Sign me up on the sellout train!


Yes, there is--it's called the 50SOG knock-off. That's what people are buying, so go write it! Well, what are you waiting for?



> And for every G.R.R. Martin and Tim Burton and Wes Anderson, there are probably hundreds or thousands of others putting their own spins on tropes... and not selling more than a handful of books or DVDs.


And? The market came to them. Would we all be better off if they hadn't?



> Is it lazy to want to actually be able to pay bills?


No.



> On top of that, writing to the market and writing something you don't particular enjoy is hard work and can hardly be called being "lazy."


It requires effort yes, but it's intellectually lazy. Again, I never said this was negative, only that I don't want it to become inevitable like it has in movies and music (mainstream anyway). Everybody who writes a billionaire story because they are chasing a fad could have spent their time doing something else, even if it isn't creative. As a society we waste a lot of our time chasing our own tails.

Nobody here has to defend themselves, but I bet none of you are going to put a label on your books that says: I don't care about this genre or story, and I only wrote it so you would buy it; enjoy it or don't because I don't care--I've already got your 5 bucks


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

I see the opinion of the OP a lot, especially in hipster circles, and I think it all comes down to the basic need of validation. The truth of American culture (and it's probably the same in other countries, but I'm not able to speak on that) is that things that "artists" think of as "great art" just aren't popular among the masses. This leads to the opinion that popular culture is crap because how could they possibly not enjoy the awesome things that us "artists" like because obviously us "artists" have superior tastes. In reality these people just want validation, and they don't get it often so they often lash out. I don't waste my time on why I think Paul Thomas Anderson makes boring movies or how Cormac McCarthy needs to put down the thesaurus and focus on storytelling. Why? Because I don't need the validation. I probably would need that validation though if I wasn't perfectly happy "selling out" and reading/writing/watching things that are culturally popular.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

Daniel Dennis said:


> I don't think it's selling out. I think it's going where the market is. When my company closed two years ago and I couldn't find work in Oil & Gas in my city, I not only moved but changed to the financial services industry. I went where there was demand for what I had to offer. I don't see people writing about billionaires as doing anything less.
> 
> Sent from the back of a white CIA van using Tapatalk. Please help!


Exactly. I think we need to take a moment to properly define selling out, because the term is being seriously abused in this conversation.

Here's the relevant definition of "sellout" from Dictionary.com: "_Informal_. a person who compromises his or her personal values, integrity, talent, or the like, for money or personal advancement." Please take note of the reference to values and integrity.

So someone who writes to the market is NOT automatically a sellout. If that person writes to the market despite having moral or ethical objections to what he or she is writing, or would really rather be writing other things and ONLY is writing to that market because it will sell, that would make the person, by definition, a sellout.

But a lot of writers who write to market are also writing what they enjoy, as writers or readers, or both. So if you are writing to the market and are lucky enough to also be writing something that you like, you're not a sellout, no matter how much money you're making.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

A.C. Scott said:


> Yes, but that doesn't mean you have to bake the same chocolate cake everybody else is baking, otherwise you may as well be replaced by a machine. Somebody else brought up the tropes in other genres, like fantasy. Look at G.R.R. Martin: he plays with many of the tropes, but put a fairly unique spin on it. Look at film makers like Tim Burton or Wes Anderson. What is the point of writing if you are doing it to specification? We aren't building widgets here that just have to be up to standard. If you are writing a story just because it sells, and you don't have anything to add of your own, then that is lazy. There is a demand, and that's fine, but I just wish so many people weren't so content with it.
> 
> I have actively told a few people not to read my published stories because I knew them personally and didn't think they would enjoy it. Writing is a business, yes, but it isn't only a business. I say, write what you know and let time vindicate you one way or the other. Following fads for the sole reason of following fads, and not because that fad is where you would have been otherwise is something I can't endorse.
> 
> I don't agree with the assertion that because rich/powerful guy stories were around in the past that explains it away. There has been a pretty clear explosion of billionaire sex stories since the popularity of 50SOG, and most of them are chasing dollar signs.


How do you know each author isn't trying to put a unique spin on the genre? Surely each author that's in it for the money is hoping their book has that unique something that will make it the next 50 shades.

Betsy


----------



## zoe tate (Dec 18, 2013)

A.C. Scott said:


> I realize I am not the first person to complain about this, but the billionaire trope has gotten out of hand.


I agree unreservedly. With that, and with the rest of your OP.

I think it's seriously limiting. I think it limits writers and readers, and I instinctively regret all of that.

I completely understand that there's a big market for it, and I'm not criticising any of that market's participants: not the consumers and not the providers, either. But I still secretly (not so secretly, now) wish it would all just go away and be replaced by something else. I don't write for the money, myself, but I'm certainly not going criticise those who do. What usually disappoints and/or frustrates me in "discussions like this" (and this is also the reason I don't start off threads like this one, however much I agree with you), is that it's *very* difficult indeed to put across one's perspective without those with different perspectives reacting as if one _were_ criticising the market participants.



A.C. Scott said:


> I think we can do better.


Of course we can.



A.C. Scott said:


> Maybe I haven't been in this business long enough to realize that things have always been this bad?


No; they _haven't_ always been this bad (I think you know this, really?). Increased choice - which we're all told and almost all believe is a good thing - also leads inevitably to a reduction in quality control and an overall reduction in quality. ("Discuss this statement critically").


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

This entire thread has confirmed my belief that people with a live-and-let-live attitude stand a better chance of living happy lives.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

zoe tate said:


> I agree unreservedly. With that, and with the rest of your OP.
> 
> I think it's seriously limiting. I think it limits writers and readers, and I instinctively regret all of that.
> 
> ...


Things have ALWAYS been this way in media. At its heart, this is the same genre vs. literature debate. It's the same blockbuster movie vs. arthouse film debate. This debate has been raging forever. The reason people don't "try and do better" is because the people that complain about this have a vision of "better" that isn't at all popular. An astounding majority of people view this vision of "better" as "worse", and it can be seen in the constant sales across all media.


----------



## anniejocoby (Aug 11, 2013)

Oy vey! The billionaire trope has always been around in some form or another. Cinderella was a "billionaire trope." As was Snow White. Sleeping Beauty less so, because she was a princess to begin with, but I digress. There has always been the fantasy that the average woman will meet the handsome rich guy, and they will fall madly in love. The very concept of being swept off of one's feet by a handsome wealthy guy has been the story that has been told to us females since we were two years old. 

As for the dominance issue - I don't necessarily like that aspect, but, hey, if that's what sells, then that's what sells. My first series centered on a wealthy guy, but he was nice. My second series focuses on a rich guy who is less nice. But I think that the fantasy there is that there will be a guy that only the woman can tame, nobody else. He changes for love. 

Writers have to write to market. If the market is dominant billionaires, then that's what will be written. No sense in complaining about it. It is what it is.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

AC you make me laugh. I think you must live in some kind of entitled upper class Lala Land where everyone works at something they love. Next time you see a minimum wage worker at a fast food restaurant, why don't you tell them they are sell outs. Every time you see a struggling single parent who has to take a crappy job during whatever hours they can manage to get childcare, tell them they are sell outs. Newsflash, the majority of people on the planet do work that is not their "passion." Having the privilege to write for a living, doing ANY kind of writing, is my passion. 

Now, I have to get back to writing my first billionaire novel about one of the most interesting, nuanced heroes I've ever written, while I have one of the very rare breaks from my kid for a few hours. I'm going to go tell the workers in this cafe they are sell outs when I go up to the counter to get a coffee. Wish me luck! I hope I don't get punched.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I'm not entirely sure how the Billionaire genre has gotten out of hand...  I buy and read lots of books; and I've only read two trilogies that I consider in the genre--50 shades, out of curiosity, and the Driven series.  I found out about Driven here after there was a brouhaha about it.  But what made me read it was NOT the Billionaire aspect but because the billionaire is a race car driver, which I really love (and those parts were pretty real).  Otherwise, I only see those books if I go looking for them, so I'm guessing most people who buy them are actually looking for them.  Or maybe the way I look for books, by going to genres I like, is weird.   

One might as easily say that mysteries have gotten out of hand.  

Betsy


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I'm not entirely sure how the Billionaire genre has gotten out of hand...


It's gotten out of hand, and it needs to be subdued.


----------



## A.C. Scott (Mar 25, 2014)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> How do you know each author isn't trying to put a unique spin on the genre? Surely each author that's in it for the money is hoping their book has that unique something that will make it the next 50 shades.
> 
> Betsy


A fair question, but why are they writing that genre to begin with? Most speeders will lie to the police officer because they don't a ticket. Are millions of drivers really unaware, or did they think they could get away with it? We will never know. I was just reading Stephen King's book, _On Writing_, and he was bemoaning the fact that the movie horror genre changed forever after George Romero. Is that a bad thing? Maybe, or maybe not. What we do know is that whatever tangent we were on before is lost.

I understand that the economy is bad, and that people want to make money; honestly I do, but the idea that a person can be a professional writer and just churn out genre fiction for a living is relatively new. I come from a practical background of Math and Computer Science, not anything to do with the arts. Contrary to what some others may think, I'm not a hipster, and I'm not trying to get my work validated. I really don't care if you read it or not, and would prefer you don't if it doesn't appeal to you.

Not everybody can do practical things for a living any more, so people are turning to the creative industries to make money. I don't begrudge people for that, but let's not pretend that it isn't being destroyed in the process. There is nothing creative about following fads, and I happen to agree with the sentiment that some people (like the path I was set-up to go down) build bridges and cure diseases to make room for the finer things in life. I don't want to see all that get destroyed.


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2014)

Annabelle said:


> AC you make me laugh. I think you must live in some kind of entitled upper class Lala Land where everyone works at something they love. Next time you see a minimum wage worker at a fast food restaurant, why don't you tell them they are sell outs. Every time you see a struggling single parent who has to take a crappy job during whatever hours they can manage to get childcare, tell them they are sell outs. Newsflash, the majority of people on the planet do work that is not their "passion." Having the privilege to write for a living, doing ANY kind of writing, is my passion.
> 
> Now, I have to get back to writing my first billionaire novel about one of the most interesting, nuanced heroes I've ever written, while I have one of the very rare breaks from my kid for a few hours. I'm going to go tell the workers in this cafe they are sell outs when I go up to the counter to get a coffee. Wish me luck! I hope I don't get punched.


Don't do it, Annabelle. Don't write it. If there are authors here at WC who don't like billionaire novels, you SHOULD NOT write a billionaire novel.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I'm not entirely sure how the Billionaire genre has gotten out of hand... I buy and read lots of books; and I've only read two trilogies that I consider in the genre--50 shades, out of curiosity, and the Driven series. I found out about Driven here after there was a brouhaha about it. But what made me read it was NOT the Billionaire aspect but because the billionaire is a race car driver, which I really love (and those parts were pretty real). Otherwise, I only see those books if I go looking for them, so I'm guessing most people who buy them are actually looking for them. Or maybe the way I look for books, by going to genres I like, is weird.
> 
> One might as easily say that mysteries have gotten out of hand.
> 
> Betsy


"Out of hand" is an impossibility in books. The market takes care of the numbers. As long as readers are still looking to recapture the 50 Shades vibe, billionaires will be popular with writers, just like vamps were popular after Twilight, just like wizards were popular after Harry. And I'm not even sure it's all "writers trying to tap into a hot market", I think may be a case that writers enjoy the book that everybody else did, and are inspired to write one with their own twist on it.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

A.C. Scott said:


> A fair question, but why are they writing that genre to begin with?


We don't have to ask this question, because you have been telling us definitively that they are doing it for money, and ONLY for money.


----------



## joyceharmon (May 21, 2012)

Well, 'heroine falls in love with and marries a rich man' has been a romantic staple for generations - heck, centuries. (Pride and Prejudice, anyone?) The only difference with the current trend is the specification that the rich man is a billionaire.  I do think the insistence that the hero is a 'billionaire' is probably unnecessary. Mitt Romney is not a billionaire, but he still managed to own a lot of homes and install the elevator for the car and all that what-not. How about some rich heroes with a mere $250 million or so?

When I wrote my first Regency, I made my hero a Duke. I think Arthur will be my last Duke, though ('that's my last Duke, there on the shelf...') - I look at the Regency listings and every other hero is a Duke. There were a lot fewer Dukes then than there are billionaires today; it's starting to get kind of silly. I'm working on my second Regency now, and this time my hero is a plain Mister.

Maybe all the news stories about Clippers owner Donald Sterling will cool off the billionaire trend, reminding people what most billionaires actually look like...


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

Joliedupre said:


> Don't do it, Annabelle. Don't write it. If there are authors here at WC who don't like billionaire novels, you SHOULD NOT write a billionaire novel.


It's even simpler than that. We need a list of approved tropes and genres from A.C. That should take care of all objections for a while.


----------



## A.C. Scott (Mar 25, 2014)

> AC you make me laugh. I think you must live in some kind of entitled upper class Lala Land where everyone works at something they love. Next time you see a minimum wage worker at a fast food restaurant, why don't you tell them they are sell outs. Every time you see a struggling single parent who has to take a crappy job during whatever hours they can manage to get childcare, tell them they are sell outs. Newsflash, the majority of people on the planet do work that is not their "passion." Having the privilege to write for a living, doing ANY kind of writing, is my passion.


You couldn't be more wrong about that. I grew up in a lower middle-class family in the Midwest and have worked hard for everything I have, including at minimum wage jobs and going to war. I was originally going to spend my life doing practical STEM related things for a living, which I actually happen to love, but because my life didn't turn out that way--I'm a SAHD myself--I've found something else to do, not because I wanted to cash in, but because the time to reflect on my life made me realize that I have something to say that isn't well represented right now.

People do need an escape from their crappy shifts at Taco Bell, Walmart, et al., which is why we should fight to preserve the creativity and quality of said works instead of just turning books, movies, music, etc., into the equivalent of a fast food burger.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

A.C. Scott said:


> A fair question, but why are they writing that genre to begin with? Most speeders will lie to the police officer because they don't a ticket. Are millions of drivers really unaware, or did they think they could get away with it? We will never know. I was just reading Stephen King's book, _On Writing_, and he was bemoaning the fact that the movie horror genre changed forever after George Romero. Is that a bad thing? Maybe, or maybe not. What we do know is that whatever tangent we were on before is lost.
> 
> I understand that the economy is bad, and that people want to make money; honestly I do, but the idea that a person can be a professional writer and just churn out genre fiction for a living is relatively new. I come from a practical background of Math and Computer Science, not anything to do with the arts. Contrary to what some others may think, I'm not a hipster, and I'm not trying to get my work validated. I really don't care if you read it or not, and would prefer you don't if it doesn't appeal to you.
> 
> Not everybody can do practical things for a living any more, so people are turning to the creative industries to make money. I don't begrudge people for that, but let's not pretend that it isn't being destroyed in the process. There is nothing creative about following fads, and I happen to agree with the sentiment that some people (like the path I was set-up to go down) build bridges and cure diseases to make room for the finer things in life. I don't want to see all that get destroyed.


How the heck is it gonna be "destroyed" because a few authors decide they really want to write a billionaire novel? It's not like KB suddenly is full of NOTHING BUT authors writing their billionaire novel.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Joliedupre said:


> Don't do it, Annabelle. Don't write it. If there are authors here at WC who don't like billionaire novels, you SHOULD NOT write a billionaire novel.


NO! I absolutely LOVE this hero. He's so freaking interesting. You get to see him go from rags to riches, and the couple loved each other before he made his billions in technology. He's so quirky and cute. He has a cat named Spock and forgets to do his laundry. I'm so sad now. Dang it, I really loved this couple.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

Annabelle said:


> NO! I absolutely LOVE this hero. He's so freaking interesting. You get to see him go from rags to riches, and the couple loved each other before he made his billions in technology. He's so quirky and cute. He has a cat named Spock and forgets to do his laundry. I'm so sad now. Dang it, I really loved this couple.


Sorry, Annabelle, but we don't make the rules.

A.C. does.


----------



## mariehallwrites (Mar 14, 2013)

There are many tropes I don't like, but that doesn't mean that I want them to go away. There are plenty of writers and readers who love it and it hurts nothing to let them have their fantasy just like we have ours. NY has tried for years to be the gatekeeper telling the masses what is and isn't hot. Killing off the acquisition of UFs and chick-lit because "they're dead" and you see how well it's going for them now. Thanks to all the Indies writing UFs and chick-lits and making good money doing it, the fan base is still there for those kinds of books and they're not going away, just because NY said it was dead didn't actually mean it was. I'm a huge fan of UF, and the fact that I couldn't find it on bookstore shelves ticked me off something fierce, I'm so happy to see them thriving on virtual bookshelves. I'm all for billionaires and readers who love them. Though I don't write it, I love that as an Indie we have the freedom to write what we want. And to say that billionaires aren't artistic is an opinion only. For some it's the highest form of art and more power to them.


----------



## ♨ (Jan 9, 2012)

A.C. Scott said:


> Not everybody can do practical things for a living any more, so people are turning to the creative industries to make money. I don't begrudge people for that, but let's not pretend that it isn't being destroyed in the process.


How is it being destroyed when readers are able to buy more books of the type they like to read than before?

For example, I think of television shows I've watched and enjoyed, yet they were cancelled because not enough people were watching for the networks. So, even though those shows may have been original and even though they may have had a big audience, they didn't have a large enough audience and the networks dropped them. There were still plenty of us who wanted to watch, but we were out of luck. The networks didn't care about us. We weren't significant enough to matter to them.

It's the same with books and publishers. Publishers want stuff that will be read by a huge audience. When publishers were the only real option for publishing a book, what else could writers do but write for the market? And that market wasn't necessarily what readers wanted, but what publishers wanted because they thought it would sell. You made this point earlier in the thread with Hollywood sequels. Whether it's movie companies or publishers, these are big gatekeepers that pushed for what they wanted.

And that's not necessarily what readers wanted.

Right now, lots of readers want billionaire romance/erotica. Maybe some big publishers are in on the trend too. If so, they will stop publishing the stuff when the audience drops. But, the audience can drop to the point where the genre is no longer of interest to publishers, but that doesn't mean there aren't still thousands or more readers out there still looking for stuff to read in the genre. If they had to rely on big publishers, they'd be out of luck. As it is, they can buy stuff to read from self-publishers.

And the writers are happy.

And the readers are happy.

Even the big publishers are happy because they're publishing whatever the then-current fad is.

I'm not sure how that is destroying the creative industry.


----------



## A.C. Scott (Mar 25, 2014)

Most of you have missed the point so completely that I don't think it's fixable, but that may be my failure as a communicator. I never expected this thread to get so out of hand.


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2014)

LeeBee said:


> It's even simpler than that. We need a list of approved tropes and genres from A.C. That should take care of all objections for a while.


Yep, then we pin it to the top of the board for easy access. Sounds good.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Hmmm.  Maybe I misunderstood you.  Are you saying that people that follow fads are just copying what has come before them?
If so, then you may have a half a point.  But let me ask you this, How does what I read affect you?  
Let's say I like billionaires, that does not stop me from liking pseudo-incest, m/m, BDSM in other flavors, etc.
I also like Mysteries, horrors and a good sci fi.
The only way that I what I read would affect you is if I bought your book, and then you would benefit financially. And maybe if you asked my opinion on your book then that could affect you personally.


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2014)

Annabelle said:


> NO! I absolutely LOVE this hero. He's so freaking interesting. You get to see him go from rags to riches, and the couple loved each other before he made his billions in technology. He's so quirky and cute. He has a cat named Spock and forgets to do his laundry. I'm so sad now. Dang it, I really loved this couple.


Yeah, I'm sorry. You can't write it.  Sounded good, however. So . . . go work on something else.


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2014)

A.C. Scott said:


> Most of you have missed the point so completely that I don't think it's fixable, but that may be my failure as a communicator. I never expected this thread to get so out of hand.


1. You dislike the current crop of billionaire books because you believe they lack originality and belong on a factory line.

2. You would like to see authors stop writing billionaire books.

Got it.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

Joliedupre said:


> 1. You dislike the current crop of billionaire books because you believe they lack originality and belong on a factory line.
> 
> 2. You would like to see authors stop writing billionaire books.
> 
> Got it.


A.C., this seems like an accurate summary of your OP's point to me. If it is not accurate, please try to explain what we have missed.


----------



## A.C. Scott (Mar 25, 2014)

cinisajoy said:


> Hmmm. Maybe I misunderstood you. Are you saying that people that follow fads are just copying what has come before them?
> If so, then you may have a half a point. But let me ask you this, How does what I read affect you?
> Let's say I like billionaires, that does not stop me from liking pseudo-incest, m/m, BDSM in other flavors, etc.
> I also like Mysteries, horrors and a good sci fi.
> The only way that I what I read would affect you is if I bought your book, and then you would benefit financially. And maybe if you asked my opinion on your book then that could affect you personally.


It's not about what affects me personally; I'm looking at a bigger picture than that. Somebody else brought up the point that big publishers will go with what sells, for reasons that make perfect sense for a publisher. However, that kind of homogenizing stifles creativity. Somebody who could have written somethng really great is going to put it aside and write what people will buy. Nobody will ever know if their work would have been successful because they were never able to get that far.

Self-publishing has the chance to correct that, and give everybody a voice, just like the internet did, but the trend I've been seeing (and the billionaire trope is just the latest), is that we are doing the same thing to ourselves. I hate to see so much time and effort spent on copying success because people feel like they have few other options. That may be what people want _right now_, but it's surely not a productive way for society to function in the long run, no?

I don't feel entitled to anything. People will buy what they buy. If they buy my stuff--great--and if they don't, that's ok too. I don't lose sleep on marketing strategies or how other people are hurting me. I'll just continue to make the only contribution that I can, and feel good about, and let the market sort it out.


----------



## CristinaRayne (Apr 17, 2014)

jtbullet said:


> Tamed by the Betas II: We Tame to Please. I call SHOTGUN ON THIS SUBTITLE!!


----------



## A.C. Scott (Mar 25, 2014)

> What does it matter? If people are buying it, they want to read it. Do you think when McDonalds came out that they should have been the only burger joint in town? Nope. People are hungry and want more, so you have to meet public demand.


Have you heard of a food desert? Places where fresh produce isn't available? They exist. Do you think those people are happy about their choices? They aren't, Surrey's have shown, but that is all anybody will sell to them. Like I said before, you can't miss what you never knew existed. People buy what is available, which causes people to make more of it, which causes more people to buy it. Instead of people writing what they want, and providing actual choice, more and more authors are following the herd--until the next fad.

They used to call it a novel for a reason. There are more books available than ever before, but how many of them are imitating each other? Is the customer actually better served?


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

There are some books, tv shows and movies that are fast food.  There are others that are a nice steak dinner.
Just because I love me a good patty melt does not in any way mean that I can't also enjoy a nice rare sirloin with a baked potato and side salad.  
Life does not need to be one or the other.  We can enjoy all kinds of things.

Rather like music too just because I used to love me some Conway Twitty (he makes me cry now) does not mean that I can't also like Metallica.  I happen to like both.  
Merle Haggard might work better since I thoroughly enjoyed that concert with a guy wearing a Scorpions t-shirt.
Do not put readers or writers in boxes.  Some of us will just destroy the box.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

A.C. Scott said:


> Have you heard of a food desert? Places where fresh produce isn't available? They exist. Do you think those people are happy about their choices? They aren't, Surrey's have shown, but that is all anybody will sell to them. Like I said before, you can't miss what you never knew existed. People buy what is available, which causes people to make more of it, which causes more people to buy it. Instead of people writing what they want, and providing actual choice, more and more authors are following the herd--until the next fad.
> 
> They used to call it a novel for a reason. There are more books available than ever before, but how many of them are imitating each other? Is the customer actually better served?


Are you really trying to insinuate that there isn't enough of a choice of books available right now? I think the variety is PRETTY extensive.


----------



## ♨ (Jan 9, 2012)

A.C. Scott said:


> Have you heard of a food desert? Places where fresh produce isn't available? They exist. Do you think those people are happy about their choices? They aren't, Surrey's have shown, but that is all anybody will sell to them. Like I said before, you can't miss what you never knew existed. People buy what is available, which causes people to make more of it, which causes more people to buy it. Instead of people writing what they want, and providing actual choice, more and more authors are following the herd--until the next fad.
> 
> They used to call it a novel for a reason. There are more books available than ever before, but how many of them are imitating each other? Is the customer actually better served?


They are better served because they can buy fresh produce or prepackaged foods, depending on what they want. There's no "food desert" in terms of books. It's not like non-billionaires books aren't available. I confess I have not read a single billionaire romance/erotica book. Not a single one. Yet, I had no difficulty finding the books I do want to read. And my Kindle app is full of books I have yet to read. Not one of them is a billionaire romance/erotica book either.

I also don't plan on writing a billionaire romance/erotica book, so the fad does not affect me as a reader or a writer.


----------



## A.C. Scott (Mar 25, 2014)

vrabinec said:


> Are you really trying to insinuate that there isn't enough of a choice of books available right now? I think the variety is PRETTY extensive.


I've managed to get two serious posts out of you in one day.  I should probably quit while I'm ahead. 

I'm not saying things are that bad now, but they could be. Seriously, look at the movie industry. Thank god places like Blip.tv are giving a somewhat legitimate outlet for people doing their own thing. Older books will go out of fashion, and if writers keep putting themselves in boxes and chasing fads, then yes, things could get that bad.

I know the sky isn't falling, but it feels like it some days.


----------



## mariehallwrites (Mar 14, 2013)

I really try to stay out of these types of circular debates because I know by now you'll rarely change anyone's mind, but I just gotta say one more thing...

How I'm understanding you is that the market is full of nothing but 'trendy' books. That's so untrue. All you have to do is look at Kboards members siggy lines and see thousands of different genres and books being published. The books are out there, the billionaire market is relatively narrow when compared to everything else available. I know I don't have a single billionaire in the almost 20 books I've published, as I'm sure there are many others on here with the same thing, there are niche books being published every day. I've published several of them myself. But they don't catch fire, which is no knock on the talent in the books themselves, it simply means the market isn't there for them. The books are out there, the readers aren't. The readers want what they want, they are the ones who dictate trends, not us. I could understand your argument if every writer in all the world all wrote the same things, but we don't. We're all totally different. There are horror writers, romance writers, historical fiction writers, erotic writers, then you have your non-fic crowd and a plethora of others, everything under the sun has been published, so it is the reader and not the writer who's determining what's popular. You talk about people not having options, and yes, that can be true in life, but not in publishing. Publishing is the great cornucopia right now, there are sooooooo many options available, it just so happens readers still want vampires, billionaires, navy seals, ranch hands... and great for them. Publishing is cyclical, what is hot today, probably won't be next year. Give it time and the billionaire market will probably cool and you'll be dealing with gun toting trolls who fight intergalactic battles three star systems over... I say game on.


----------



## Nic Saint (Mar 31, 2014)

I write billionaire stories. I like the genre (if that’s what it is). I’ve always been a big fan of PG Wodehouse, who wrote practically exclusively about millionaires falling in love with chorus girls and vice versa. Of course, with inflation, the millionaire of old has turned into a billionaire. As pointed out by others in the thread, I don’t think there’s anything particularly new about the fantasy of the working class girl falling for the rich guy and hoping he’ll love her back. Pretty Woman, Working Girl, Bridget Jones, Sabrina… It’s just one of those archetypical fantasies that thrives in a situation of economic inequality. So I guess as long as society doesn’t change, the fantasy will keep cropping up in one form or another.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Let's see if I have this straight.  There is a book dessert.(oops desert).  Does this mean that I can only find billionaire books and nothing else?
Last time I looked there were books of all kinds available for my reading pleasure. I am not just limited to one type of book to read.

Heck on recipes there are like a million ways to do a chicken but only about 1000 ways to do a pig.

"There's a million ways to make love but there is only way to rock."

So now AC why all the hate on the billionaire trope when it honestly provides nothing but enjoyment for some people.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

A.C. Scott said:


> I'm not saying things are that bad now, but they could be. Seriously, look at the movie industry. Thank god places like Blip.tv are giving a somewhat legitimate outlet for people doing their own thing. Older books will go out of fashion, and if writers keep putting themselves in boxes and chasing fads, then yes, things could get that bad.


This is why your point is getting lost - it's because it makes little sense when viewed from the standpoint of actual current realities of the ebook industry. In point of fact, book publishing was a hell of a lot more similar to what is happening in the movie industry when all there was to choose from, basically, was the big publishers. Like the major movie studios, they only backed the projects that they judged to be of blockbuster caliber, tossing out a few midlist crumbs in case one of them struck gold, but expecting them to take off all on their own. Now, it's harder than hell for a midlister to even get a contract, much less a decent advance.

But the proliferation of self-publishers means that there is a TON of stuff out there available to readers that doesn't conform to what the big publishers deem salable. There are people - like YOU - writing for teeny, tiny markets, servicing a readership that would otherwise go largely ignored. There is something for pretty much everyone now, and there really wasn't before. Readers used to have to take whatever the big publishers doled out. Now they have a bountiful feast of options from which to choose.


----------



## A.C. Scott (Mar 25, 2014)

cinisajoy said:


> Let's see if I have this straight. There is a book dessert.(oops desert). Does this mean that I can only find billionaire books and nothing else?
> Last time I looked there were books of all kinds available for my reading pleasure. I am not just limited to one type of book to read.
> 
> Heck on recipes there are like a million ways to do a chicken but only about 1000 ways to do a pig.
> ...


That's not what I've said and frankly I'm being tired of having my words twisted and misrepresented so I'm going to stop posting here now.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

A.C. Scott said:


> I've managed to get two serious posts out of you in one day.  I should probably quit while I'm ahead.
> 
> I'm not saying things are that bad now, but they could be. Seriously, look at the movie industry. Thank god places like Blip.tv are giving a somewhat legitimate outlet for people doing their own thing. Older books will go out of fashion, and if writers keep putting themselves in boxes and chasing fads, then yes, things could get that bad.
> 
> I know the sky isn't falling, but it feels like it some days.


 Even if HALF of the erotica and romance books that are coming out are billionaire books (and I seriously doubt the number's that high), let's look at the numbers. In the "released in the last 30 days" search, I come up with this:
Sci-fi: 3,948
fantasy: 6,014
Thriller: 3,795
Mystery: 4,765
Literary: 5,688
Romance: 10,564
Erotica: 8,126

That would mean that 9,345 out of 42,900 books released in the last 30 days, and that's just in those genres, are billionaire books. that leaves the readers 33,555 other types of books to choose from every 30 days. That's not even including the older books. (And a bunch of the erotica, romance, and literary probably overlap, so the percentage is probably even smaller)

By the way, the thriller market seems underserved IMO. If you like writing thrillers, but haven't been, you might wanna go there.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Does this mean I can't tell LeeBee my smiley loves his coffee cup


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

cinisajoy said:


> Does this mean I can't tell LeeBee my smiley loves his coffee cup


LeeBee is all woman.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Go for it, Cin, I was so far behind the curve I removed my post.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

OOPS.  Looks like cin needs her eyes checked.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

cinisajoy said:


> OOPS. Looks like cin needs her eyes checked.


I did the same thing a couple months ago. That coffee cup just looks masculine.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

vrabinec said:


> I did the same thing a couple months ago. That coffee cup just looks masculine.


My coffee puts hair on your chest. If you're into that kind of thing.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

LeeBee said:


> My coffee puts hair on your chest. If you're into that kind of thing.


I love having a woman's hair on my chest. It's one of the great pleasures of life.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

vrabinec said:


> I love having a woman's hair on my chest. It's one of the great pleasures of life.


I think in this thread that is way too much information.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

A.C. Scott said:


> My son would be perfectly happy if I gave him cut up pieces of bread for every meal. I don't. People can't want what they don't know exists. Clearly this thread as shown that most of you are content with the bare minimum of what will sell. Can't we try to offer them what they want, and then some? I thought writers were supposed to be creative, but I guess that was my misguided opinion before I became one.


Okay, I was understanding you until you said this. I think we all try to offer readers something different. Authors can write whatever they want, and that's the point. Readers can read whatever they want. Nobody is advocating for "bare minimum".


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

*Looks sternly at cousin V.*


----------



## ♨ (Jan 9, 2012)

vrabinec said:


> I love having a woman's hair on my chest. It's one of the great pleasures of life.


I wouldn't know. Wigs made of genuine human hair are so expensive.


----------



## SawyerPentecost (Jul 11, 2013)

I'm adding new chapters and retitling my book tonight: Billionaire Superheroes Club. I KNEW it was missing something!


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

Dan C. Rinnert said:


> I wouldn't know. Wigs made of genuine human hair are so expensive.


Heh. Just try finding a jacket made of... well, just never mind.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

My next book is going to be about a billionaire, werewolf biker who is an MMA fighter and ex marine. Or I could write a hero who's overweight, unemployed, and lives in his mom's basement on KFC and beer while he plays Call of Duty all day. Romance readers would LOVE that fantasy. I'm getting all tingly just thinking about it.


----------



## ♨ (Jan 9, 2012)

LeeBee said:


> Heh. Just try finding a jacket made of... well, just never mind.


Those are relatively easy to obtain. First, you start with a love triangle...


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2014)

I used to write literary erotica and my stories have been published in a number of books, including some "Best Erotica" books. Back in the day, I read more erotica stories than I care to admit. Therefore, I know that it's difficult to find cuckolding stories.

However, just because a theme is hard to find, that doesn't make an author John freakin' Steinbeck.

I wish more authors would simply focus on their own work and their own creativity rather than pass judgement on others.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Joliedupre said:


> I used to write literary erotica and my stories have been published in a number of books, including some "Best Erotica" books. Back in the day, I read more erotica stories than I care to admit. Therefore, I know that it's difficult to find cuckolding stories.
> 
> However, just because a theme is hard to find, that doesn't make an author John freakin' Steinbeck.
> 
> I wish more authors would simply focus on their own work and their own creativity rather than pass judgement on others.


This.


----------



## ♨ (Jan 9, 2012)

Annabelle said:


> My next book is going to be about a billionaire, werewolf biker who is an MMA fighter and ex marine. Or I could write a hero who's overweight, unemployed, and lives in his mom's basement on KFC and beer while he plays Call of Duty all day. Romance readers would LOVE that fantasy. I'm getting all tingly just thinking about it.


Wait... Is the basement on top of a KFC? Because that would be awesome to be able to walk down the steps to the secondary basement to get freshly cooked chicken and biscuits from KFC. Also, can it be Peggle instead of Call of Duty?


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Dan C. Rinnert said:


> Wait... Is the basement on top of a KFC? Because that would be awesome to be able to walk down the steps to the secondary basement to get freshly cooked chicken and biscuits from KFC. Also, can it be Peggle instead of Call of Duty?


Maybe that run on sentence was awkward. KFC can't be his mom's house.  The unattractive, broke, video game addict is the next romance hero trend. Hmm. I should add porn addict to that. Oh. MY. God. Sexy! Then all men's magazine's will have to show unairbrused photos of new mothers. Seems fair. Men should stay out of women's fantasies unless they want to give up their own. I want all Victoria's Secret ads, no, all photos of perfect, semi-nude women taken out of the media, now please. Over sexualization of women must die! If I complain about it on WC it will happen right?


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

It just occurred to me that billionaires are just vampires with the necrophilia and supernatural aspects excised.

Semi-fictional entity removed from reality that plays by the Law of neither God nor man that gains its power by draining a vital resource from the innocent while never contributing to society beyond conspicuous consumption that motivates others to attempt to become like itself.

Both have historically been portrayed as unambiguously evil until they manipulated people into wanting to have sex with them.


----------



## SawyerPentecost (Jul 11, 2013)

vrabinec said:


> I love having a woman's hair on my chest. It's one of the great pleasures of life.


You chest has a WOMAN's HAIR ON IT? There HAS to be some medical assistance for that. At the least, get it checked out!


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Vaalingrade said:


> while never contributing to society beyond conspicuous consumption


Yes, all the great achievements of man have been accomplished by people who never made a dime.  Begs to ask the question, how did they get rich in the first place?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks,

Just a reminder to not make personal comments about the OP or your fellow members.  Except for vrabinec's women's hair chest.  Keep it civil.

Betsy


----------



## ♨ (Jan 9, 2012)

Annabelle said:


> Maybe that run on sentence was awkward. KFC can't be his mom's house.


Of course not. That would be silly. His mom's house is above the KFC.



Annabelle said:


> The unattractive, broke, video game addict is the next romance hero trend. Hmm.


Finally! I can be a male model!


----------



## Chrisbwritin (Jan 28, 2014)

Oscar Arias said:


> I think we should go the other way around and someone should write fantasy erotica about Hobos and Hobo sex. That would be awesome!
> 
> "Boxcar Willie, what have you got in your bindle?"
> 
> "Why don't you come over here, and I'll show you."


*dies* 
Now I need to read this.


----------



## ♨ (Jan 9, 2012)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Just a reminder to not make personal comments about the OP or your fellow members. Except for vrabinec's women's hair chest. Keep it civil.


Sure. Create an exemption for the one thing none of us wants to touch!


----------



## S. Elliot Brandis (Dec 9, 2013)

I just find it funny because most billionaires are crusty old men.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Chrisbwritin said:


> *dies*
> Now I need to read this.


I actually just critiqued a couple chapters of a story like this over on critiquecircle.com. It got pretty disturbing. There's a whole hygiene thing, and hobos didn't turn out to be as cute and cuddly as I thought they would. I actually had to stop giving crits.


----------



## Huldra (Nov 7, 2013)

Well, it sure is annoying when every third sexy dude in stock photos is wearing a goddamn suit instead of  being suitably nekkid, but I think that's the extent of the billionaire trope's influence on my life.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

S. Elliot Brandis said:


> I just find it funny because most billionaires are crusty old men.


Here, I'm not sure any of them has quite the sex appeal of Christian Gray:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2012/03/30/the-worlds-12-most-eligible-billionaire-bachelors/


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

NAsh said:


> Well, it sure is annoying when every third sexy dude in stock photos is wearing a godd*mn suit instead of being suitably nekkid, but I think that's the extent of the billionaire trope's influence on my life.


Looks like you found a suitable image for your cover. Just sayin'.

Betsy


----------



## Isis O&#039;hara (Apr 26, 2014)

Okay, after I'm done laughing hysterically at these last few posts....I'll get to my point...

-five minutes later.-

I'm actually currently writing an erotic romance centering on a C.E.O and his new secretary. I'm not rushing to the defense of my story or this genre in particular, but I'd like to point out that while I agree there is a lot of emphasis on the fact that he has his own private jet and not quite as much emphasis on his personality in these stories, not all of them are like that. Unless someone has read every single book of every single genre, they can't lay judgement on the genre as a whole. And, I might point out, that it is perfectly possible for a billionaire to possess all the human traits as any other male hero in any novel can, as has been proven time and time again by one of my favorite authors. Sometimes their wealth is a help or a hinderance; at times it is the saving grace or perhaps even part of the main conflict. I refuse to say anything about the genre as a whole because I have not read all of the books that it offers, but I can say there are some gems among the masses and that even billionaires, of any temperament, have their place among the shelves.

I also write BDSM - I'm familiar with cuckolding, and realize that there is a market for it, along with many of the other major fetishes; I personally find cuckolding distasteful, but I'm not rallying authors and readers trying to banish any such works from the shelves. I believe as long as it is not illegal, people can write and read whatever they want. If I don't find it attractive, I don't write or read it.

Quite simple, really.

To each their own,  as it were.

-finite.-

(As a hardcore Batman fan - is it obvious? - I proclaim Bruce Wayne can do whatever, because....HE'S BATMAN.)


----------



## Huldra (Nov 7, 2013)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Looks like you found a suitable image for your cover. Just sayin'.
> 
> Betsy


Yes, but I had to look at *so many* gorgeous men to find it! It's hard, I'm telling ya. Hard!


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Can someone please give me a modern day definition of cuckolding as my dictionary only says unfaithful?  Please and thank you in advance.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

cinisajoy said:


> Can someone please give me a modern day definition of cuckolding as my dictionary only says unfaithful? Please and thank you in advance.


I have a hard time believing this genre is a female fantasy.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

cinisajoy said:


> Can someone please give me a modern day definition of cuckolding as my dictionary only says unfaithful? Please and thank you in advance.


It's a fetish whereby men get off on watching their wives have sex with other men.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

tl;dr 

LITERATURE IS DYING AND IT'S ALL THE BILLIONAIRE BOOKS WRITERS'S FAULT


(oops, this isn't the CAPS LOCK WEDNESDAY thread...)


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

vrabinec said:


> Yes, all the great achievements of man have been accomplished by people who never made a dime.  Begs to ask the question, how did they get rich in the first place?


Nikola Tesla, Charles Goodyear, The Wright Brothers, Charles Babbage, Gutenberg, William Shakespeare, Albert Einstein, Steven Hawking, Marie Curre, the DARPA scientists, Billionaires all.

Thomas Edison, Steve Jobs, Donald Sterling, Donald Trump, The Sultan of Dubai, all those other guys who stole other folks' ideas and had a marketing department: INNOVATORS!

Wait, no, the other thing.

Bill Gates being an exception, but only fairly recently.

Edit: Twitter has reminded me that Warren Buffet still exists. So there's two, but Buffet hasn't really innovated anything, he's just tried really, really hard to.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

vrabinec said:


> It's a fetish whereby men get off on watching their wives have sex with other men.


Does anyone else find it very humorous that vrabinec is the first one with the answer?
And thanks a million dear v.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

He called me a sell out! Like specifically called me a sell out. Not exactly nice...  I didn't cry about it. I'm happy about what I do. I actually love my billionaire hero. He's not a cardboard cut out at all, and he's probably one of my favorite characters I've written ever. The thing is, I made him a billionaire, which is believable because he's in technology. He also has a tech dude personality and mild asperger's syndrome. Not exactly cliche. But whatevs. I write what I want, trendy or not. No one is holding a gun to my head.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Annabelle said:


> I know. He called me a sell out! Like specifically called me a sell out. Not exactly nice... I didn't cry about it. I'm happy about what I do. I actually love my billionaire hero. He's not a cardboard cut out at all, and he's probably one of my favorite characters I've written ever. The thing is, I made him a billionaire, which is believable because he's in technology. He also has a tech dude personality and mild asperger's syndrome. Not exactly cliche. But whatevs. I write what I want, trendy or not. No one is holding a gun to my head.


Wants to read your book NOW.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

cinisajoy said:


> Wants to read your book NOW.


I'm about half finished with the first draft. I was considering making it two books, but decided to keep to one. I'll pm you when it's ready to beta.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

cinisajoy said:


> Does anyone else find it very humorous that vrabinec is the first one with the answer?
> And thanks a million dear v.


_Edit:_ And thanks a billion dear v.


----------



## FH (Jul 30, 2012)

So let's try and at least satisfy the OP's demand for some decent upping of literature standards in the wealthy romance category.

The Catcher in the Hedge (Fund)

The Sequel to J . D. Salinger's world-famous novel of disaffected youth, featuring a not-disaffected billionaire wall street financier.

Holden Caulfield is now a twenty seven year-old Harvard MBA who has just been kicked out of his job at Goldman Suchs. Navigating his way through the challenges of gambling with other peoples life savings, Holden dissects the 'phony' aspects of the financial system, and the 'phones' financiers: the banker CEO whose affability depends on the wealth of the private clients, his roommate who scores with girls using an AMEX black card and italian supercar. Holden meets some random blonde sex and the city sort and has it off with her whilst being tied to his trading desk, during their wild orgies he places a fantastical futures bet on the collapse of the euro and buys Greece.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks,

I've removed AC's final post and posts that replied or referred to it. Also, let's move on from including his genre niche in this discussion. If you want to continue discussing the premise in the OP, for the moment I'm going to leave this thread open. Otherwise, move on. Lots of threads.

Didja know To Kill a Mockingbird is coming out as an ebook? We have a thread in Book Corner and it's available for preorder.

Betsy


----------



## Huldra (Nov 7, 2013)

BookJoker said:


> So let's try and at least satisfy the OP's demand for some decent upping of literature standards in the wealthy romance category.
> 
> The Catcher in the Hedge (Fund)
> 
> ...


Okay, so I know that us womenfolk don't need to supply blood to two ends while reading erotica, but come one . . . This sounds like something I have to read for econ.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

StevenCampbell said:


> I don't mind the trope at all. I don't read romance, but whatever works.
> 
> I'm jumping in at the end because I realized something kind of funny while thinking about this: you're all writing about the same people.
> 
> ...


Hot, sexy, available billionaires are like werewolves or unicorns. They're equivalent to what women look like on the covers of fashion magazines.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

I guess the bottom line from the OP's post is that anyone selling a lot of books is only writing those books because they've sold out. The thing is, the OP doesn't personally know every writer. I write mysteries and I do very well. I started reading mysteries at age 3 starting with Tizz a Pony, moving to Trixie Beldon, Nancy Drew, Agatha Christie, etc. I specifically wrote my current bestselling series because it's exactly what I always wanted to write and was told by NY wouldn't sell. 

How exactly does that make me or anyone else like me a sell-out? I AM writing exactly what I want to. I AM writing it exactly the way I want to. The fact that other people also have a similar sense of humor hardly makes me a sell-out. It makes me darn lucky to make a great living doing exactly what I want. I know a LOT of other writers doing exactly the same.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Cracked had a hilarious article about cloning Presidents, except it went all Jurassic Park on them and they ended up with Lady Presidents rampaging and trying to mate with their creators.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Vaalingrade said:


> Nikola Tesla, Charles Goodyear, The Wright Brothers, Charles Babbage, Gutenberg, William Shakespeare, Albert Einstein, Steven Hawking, Marie Curre, the DARPA scientists, Billionaires all.
> 
> Thomas Edison, Steve Jobs, Donald Sterling, Donald Trump, The Sultan of Dubai, all those other guys who stole other folks' ideas and had a marketing department: INNOVATORS!
> 
> ...


Andrew Carnegie, born in a cottage.
Robert L. Johnson, the ninth out of ten children
Oprah, born to an unwed mother
Ray Kroc, born to poor parents
Henry Ford, born on a farm
Cornelius Vanderbilt, born to a man who owned a ferry

Edison didn't contribute anything? Know how many patents he has to his name? Jobs didn't come up with any innovations? Was Gates there al alone in that garage?

Even guys like Andrew Mellon who are born into money, it's EASY to lose money. Does a man give more to society by losing his money, or by generating more? It's a very barrow view that says they don't contribute anything to society except conspicuous consumption.


----------



## Capella (Jan 16, 2014)

Viola Rivard said:


> AC, I just purchased _Cuckolding Dave_. I'm gonna put it on my kindle carousel with a bunch of billionaire books._ Fifty Shades of Grey_, _The Submissive_,_ This Man_, throw in a little Sylvia Day. Then I'm gonna read those billionaire books, one by one. I may brush my finger over your cuckolding book, but I'll _never _open it. I'll just keep reading billionaire after billionaire book, _all night long_, until you fall to the back of my carousel.
> 
> Is this doing anything for you?


*Falls on the ground laughing.* Favorite post in thread.

In all honesty I'm helping a new writer get ready to publish her first book right now and she expressed frustration at the very same thing, why are the most shameless fantasies the best sellers?

I've come to see the value in even the most shamelessly idealized billionaire/BDSM/shifter/menage/BBW/vampire romance. With the awful news everywhere, everyday, I think more powerful escapes are needed. You never know which readers are single moms, living check to check, have lost a spouse, have lost a child, suffered neglect and abuse, etc. 
Sometimes I feel like, gee, I'm writing fluff. But then I try to log into my mail and see that news article about someone murdering all of their kids, or that one ship that sank, or the starving people being abused somewhere, and I swear sometimes there is no escape from this world strong enough to undo some of the things I see blasted across the internet or restore my faith in humanity.
So sure, with a lot of women having zero security, why not add billionaire to the list of ideal traits in a mate. If they want to hang out with non-bilionaires, they can come home after work and call up that dude that isn't paying his child support, or deal with that ex boyfriend trying to borrow money all the time.
And you know, as other people have pointed out, there are some pretty shameless tropes in other genres. Men are just as willing to buy ludicrous, unrealistic tropes in their escapist fiction.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

vrabinec said:


> Andrew Carnegie, born in a cottage.
> Robert L. Johnson, the ninth out of ten children
> Oprah, born to an unwed mother
> Ray Kroc, born to poor parents
> ...


*B*illionaires.



> Edison didn't contribute anything? Know how many patents he has to his name?


Know how many weren't actually his?



> Jobs didn't come up with any innovations?


What innovations?

The PC he invented ten years late?

The Cell Phone he invented fifteen years late?

The Tablet PC he actually reduced in power and capability ten years late?

The proprietary marketing scheme that actively stifled innovation?

It's that one isn't it? Also stealing pancreases (holy crap, that's the actual spelling?) by leapfrogging on donors lists. At least we got a cool episode of Leverage out of that one.



> Was Gates there al alone in that garage?


Gate's PC wasn't an innovation. There were hundreds of hobbyists building them, same with the OS.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

StevenCampbell said:


> I live at the beach in Los Angeles. I can tell you there are at least a thousand women who look like the covers of fashion magazines in my 1 mile city alone (it's the beach volleyball capital of the world). Again, 19 billionaires.
> 
> It's almost like if there was a popular genre about dating US presidents, of which there are 5 still alive.
> 
> Again, if it works, rock on. But it's nothing like the covers of magazines, whose members are probably in the millions--admittedly with some photoshop help and teeth bleaching.


The way women are presented in the media is an illusion. Those images are not real. No woman actually looks like that. There is a quote from Cindy Crawford who said, "I wish I looked like Cindy Crawford." So no, those women do not exist. Real people have bags under their eyes, stretch marks, and cellulite. Real human beings don't have disproportionately small waists to bust size. It's fake. An illusion. Just like billionaire romance novels. I'm not saying this because I'm a bitter old hag. I was very beautiful when I was a bit younger, like five years ago. I could have been a model if I'd been taller. But I never looked like a woman in a magazine. I looked like a REAL human being.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Annabelle said:


> The way women are presented in the media is an illusion. Those images are not real. No woman actually looks like that. There is a quote from Cindy Crawford who said, "I wish I looked like Cindy Crawford." So no, those women do not exist. Real people have bags under their eyes, stretch marks, and cellulite. Real human beings don't have disproportionately small waists to bust size. It's fake. An illusion. Just like billionaire romance novels. I'm not saying this because I'm a bitter old hag. I was very beautiful when I was a bit younger, like five years ago. I could have been a model if I'd been taller. But I never looked like a woman in a magazine. I looked like a REAL human being.


In high school I did have big bust small waist it was a hitch.


----------



## Gennita Low (Dec 13, 2012)

zoe tate said:


> What usually disappoints and/or frustrates me in "discussions like this" (and this is also the reason I don't start off threads like this one, however much I agree with you), is that it's *very* difficult indeed to put across one's perspective without those with different perspectives reacting as if one _were_ criticising the market participants.


How can one not interpret his post isn't criticizing market participants? It's very passive-aggressive. He keeps saying those who are writing to the market are sell-outs but it's okay, stop being so defensive. To him, those who write to make money are lazy intellectuals. But it's okay, stop being so defensive. He's saying what he writes is better because he doesn't do these things but it's okay, everyone else can be sell-outs and lazy intellectuals. It doesn't bother him. At. All. He just wants us all to know this.

It shouldn't bother anyone because he isn't really accusing anyone of anything bad, just being sell-outs and lazy intellectuals. Lord knows what he thinks of the millions of readers who buy these lazy books with their hard-earned money. Don't they should be reading something else other than billionaire books!?


----------



## ericaroswell (Apr 17, 2014)

A.C. Scott said:


> I guess that's really my problem here. Were all these authors really anxious to write a billionaire story before 50SOG, or are they just following a fad to make some money? I understand that it sells, and I certainly don't want anybody to buy or read my stuff if they don't like it, but it just seems to be the easy way out. I guess this just shines a giant spotlight on the fact that a lot of people write for financial reasons more than anything else, and they will give the people what they want regardless of any other factors--personal or otherwise. I can't do that, and I hate to see the market flooded with it.
> 
> And just ot respond to LeeBee again, it wouldn't' matter to me if this were my kind of material or not, it's a more abstract problem I have than simply not liking it as content.


Some of us have bills to pay.  I would love to make money off my literary short stories and memoir writing. People aren't nearly as interested in reading those as they are reading about dominant sexual billionaires. So I write the former as a hobby and the latter as a money-maker. I'm okay with that and I find it fun to write.

For the record many of my stories are based in part on my own experiences and IMHO are much more realistic than dragons or fairies. My character doesn't get swept off her feet by the rich guy but she meets a rich powerful guy who seduces her and she explores her sexuality with him. What's so unrealistic about that? Okay IRL he was a millionaire and in my books he's a billionaire. No biggie.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

O.K.  Betsy asked that you discuss the topic and not the OP . . . move along, please.


----------

