>ruins writing forever
>>25123564This just dug the grave. Writing died as soon as people stopped using typewriters
>>25123564Why do you think so? Did the people writing there gave up on publishing novels of their own? It's strange to me you're blaming this website and not self-publishing online on your perceive diminishing of the quality of books.
>>25124923AO3 dramatically popularized the idea of writing for tropes as opposed to story or themes. The end result are books that are by-the-numbers and appeal to the lowest common denominator.If you've ever wondered where advertising like picrel comes from, or why the same authors and genres have dominated top selling lists for the past decade and more, it all comes back to AO3 or fanfiction.net
>>25124945Its the literary version of the tagging system Japanese image sites use to categorize porn.It was always going to happenIts basically a precursor to AI where you just tell the llm what tropes you want amd then you let it read it to you
>>25124945This always existed, you just don't know about it because it was forgotten with time and only the good quality works survive.
>>25124976Huh? I have no idea what you're even trying to imply here. Can you be more specific?Using tropes in your writing has always existed, that's the definition of what tropes are, but writing *to* the tropes, checking the boxes and then showing your work in your advertising - that's very new.In fact, for awhile it seemed we were going in the other direction, that even genre was on its way out and people would get uppity if you tried to label a work because you were limiting it or perhaps implying something by it. Now those labels have never been more important, and god help you if you don't meet your reader's expectations.
>>25124945>3/5 spiciness>11 spicy chaptersWhy are women becoming so pruddish?Bitches be counting touching hands as spicy these days, ffs.
>>25124945I'm with this anon >>25124976 shitty works have always existed but they don't survive the times and we end up biased thinking writing was always a high-brow activity.
>>25124984But what are tropes if not atomized genres? What's the difference of a noble women picking up Romeo and Juliet for the romance and drama from Ashley from Seattle picking up Deep End for the college romance?
>>25123564That's not LLMs
>>25124984>then showing your work in your advertising - that's very newIf you read the reddit post you've taken that pic from, the OP was talking about random bookstagram accounts making these pics. She was just wondering if the publisher was the one to market the book this way.My guess is that those were just AI accounts hallucinating.>Now those labels have never been more important, and god help you if you don't meet your reader's expectations.Nah, visual novels have this shit (example https://vndb.org/v2002) and every public library has this shit (example https://ls2pac.lapl.org/responsive?section=titleDetails&id=5957336118).Do you actually only read romance novels?Because in that case, yeah, before COVID western romance novels weren't this focused on tropes. But outside that, there isn't this much of a drastic change in how literary tropes (or "subjects", or "tags") are used and perceived.You can calm your tits and grab a random novel by Danielle Steel if you really need a romance novel without tropes.
>>25123564That's not Discord
>>25123564This is essentially the Hilary Layne argument and I disagree with her the same as I disagree with you: yes, fanfiction is paint-by-numbers slop with terrible prose (and YA lit is effectively the same but with a serious and adult air about it) but why read it if you don't like it?
