(Most UK or Brit-influenced). Bibliography:
The Other Couple; Sarah J. Naughton (read: Pippa Bennett-Warner)
Her Last Christmas; Claire McGowan (read: Hayley Atwell)
Billionaire for Sale; Sarah Page (audio drama: Cush Jumbo, Johnny Flynn, Matthew Rhys)
The Invitation (movie: Nathalie Emmanuel)
6/6

would we be expected to sympathize if the genders were reversed?). But it's keeping its cake and eating it; the class politics are obvious from the start. It's not like the plot twists or that the reader/audience is surprised by which side of the class barrier we are supposed to be on. 5/6

..is both alluring but ultimately negative. So are they deliberate subversions/satires of Romance novel clichés? But it's still based on the idea that it is an attractive fantasy, we understand the heroine getting drawn into the world even as we are assured she's not a "gold-digger" (and again: 4/6

The politics aren't subtle: the reader identifies with heroine who is an outsider in this world. The other rich folks are mostly problematic and even PC is usually revealed to be a cad with the story ending with the heroine leaving or at least isolating herself from that world. So...the world...3/6

And so part of me thought: after decades of feminism is that still the female fantasy? Prince Charming? And if you reversed it? Male hero falls for rich gal? Would the audience like it or would he seem un-manly? BUT...it's also more complex. Because in a way the stories all subvert that fantasy. 2/6

..airtight so the reader can suspend their knowledge it's fake. So which is it? Or is it that there are 2 phrases: "suspension of disbelief" (meaning the story is flawless) and "willing suspension of disbelief" (meaning the writer/reader has a pact the reader will suspend their disbelief)?
3/3

That ALL stories have contrivances; the reader will forgive some if the rest of the story is good; but the more contrivances, the more you test the reader's tolerance). HOWEVER in the movie Basic Instinct, they describe "suspension of disbelief" as meaning the opposite: that the story must be...

I remember Profit :)

true
What was the book?

ie: "when the legend becomes fact; print the legend." Thinking of times I've seen movies/books/etc make a social-political "point" but if you point out it's not based on reality people roll their eyes, say "of course" it's fiction...while insisting the underlying point "must" be true lol
2/2

Tangential to this: Art/Entertainment oft presents a kind of accepted, propagandized "reality." As he says: this scenario has never happened but we nod & chuckle thinking it's kinda/sorta true. It "feels" true so it's used in fiction, then the fiction is used to confirm it "must" be true.
1/2

Really interesting (the article) breakdown.
Reminds me how a rewrite can be a fresh eye. The rewriter laying muscle on the skeleton of a first draft. Or to use another analogy: a rewriter is playing the chess game but only after the first draft set up the pieces on the board.

Funny comic book connection: as a kid, first time I ever heard of Efrem Zimbalist Jr was in a @tonyisabella.bsky.social written Ghost Rider comic (#13 I think) where there's brief non sequitur rant about Zimbalist & 77 Sunset Strip vs FBI
(I loved how comics of that era would be quirky like that :)

Profanity is an emphatic. And sometimes can be like too many exclamation marks (!!!!)
It can slyly denote character. But if every character swears equally it can fail to distinguish voices/mood.
Swearing/No swearing; up to the writer.
Tho ask: does your character like to swear...or do you?
2/2