Do you read villainess novels for the FL or the ML? (genuinely curious)

[DinnaQuinn]

I keep noticing the villainess subgenre splits readers very cleanly. Some are entirely there for a sharp, clever, cynical FL with a redemption-coded arc — they don't care who she ends up with as long as she gets to outwit the room.

Others are unapologetically there for a particular kind of ML (cold, possessive, broken-and-rebuilt), and the FL is the lens.

Trying to figure out which one weighs more for the average reader on here, because I'm writing a slow-burn villainess romance and I keep going back and forth on where to put the gravity. Curious which side pulls you in first when you start a new villainess novel — and if anyone has a rec that does both well, I'm all ears. (My own attempt at the lane is in my profile, if you're curious — slow burn, psychologist FL, court intrigue.)

 

[Amrasil207]

The only Villainess novel I read is the one about the FL trying to reverse Japan economy so it won't collapse too badly. The plot is smorgasbord of tells regarding economic, legal gray zones, terrorism, class struggle, and all that.
Oh yeah the MLs aren't annoying, they're just trying to play catch up with an Elementary Girl who happens to play with trillions of yens.

 

[Alski]

This would of been so much better as a poll.

 

[DinnaQuinn]

The only Villainess novel I read is the one about the FL trying to reverse Japan economy so it won't collapse too badly. The plot is smorgasbord of tells regarding economic, legal gray zones, terrorism, class struggle, and all that.
Oh yeah the MLs aren't annoying, they're just trying to play catch up with an Elementary Girl who happens to play with trillions of yens.

Oh that's a wild outlier. I don't think I've come across that one. What's the title? Also, MLs who aren't annoying because they're just busy trying to keep up sounds like such a hard balance to strike, most villainess MLs default to either sulky or possessive. It's interesting that this one solves that by making the FL straightforwardly more competent than them.

This would of been so much better as a poll.

Thanks for the nudge, Alski. I've added a poll to this thread now.

 

[Ytiamy]

I keep noticing the villainess subgenre splits readers very cleanly. Some are entirely there for a sharp, clever, cynical FL with a redemption-coded arc — they don't care who she ends up with as long as she gets to outwit the room.

Others are unapologetically there for a particular kind of ML (cold, possessive, broken-and-rebuilt), and the FL is the lens.

Trying to figure out which one weighs more for the average reader on here, because I'm writing a slow-burn villainess romance and I keep going back and forth on where to put the gravity. Curious which side pulls you in first when you start a new villainess novel — and if anyone has a rec that does both well, I'm all ears. (My own attempt at the lane is in my profile, if you're curious — slow burn, psychologist FL, court intrigue.)

I'm all for a villainess arc if the plot has actual weight behind it. But the moment the FL is a villain only because she didn't get the man? I'm out.

Take 'The Defects' (a movie, only example I can think of right now). The villainess runs an illegal adoption agency. Parents who don't like the children they adopted just dump them back, and the agency hires goons to kill them. But one goon takes pity on the kids and rescues them faking their deaths. The children grow up and take revenge on the villainess who also happens to be their biological "mother" since they were all born from her eggs. That twist at the end got me. I genuinely liked it.

That's a villain with substance.

But if a story makes a woman a villain just because she didn't get the man? That's a low blow. Worse, it reduces the whole story to shameless woman-bashing as if a woman is nothing without a man. Hard pass.

 

[AstreiaNyx]

Ngl, I’m not a fan of the “I can fix him/her” trope. I’ve read quite a few villainess stories, and the ones that stand out to me and are popular in general have intricate plots, a strong central mystery, great political intrigue. Most often having nothing to do with the ML.

 

[DinnaQuinn]

I'm all for a villainess arc if the plot has actual weight behind it. But the moment the FL is a villain only because she didn't get the man? I'm out.

Take 'The Defects' (a movie, only example I can think of right now). The villainess runs an illegal adoption agency. Parents who don't like the children they adopted just dump them back, and the agency hires goons to kill them. But one goon takes pity on the kids and rescues them faking their deaths. The children grow up and take revenge on the villainess who also happens to be their biological "mother" since they were all born from her eggs. That twist at the end got me. I genuinely liked it.

That's a villain with substance.

But if a story makes a woman a villain just because she didn't get the man? That's a low blow. Worse, it reduces the whole story to shameless woman-bashing as if a woman is nothing without a man. Hard pass.

You named the exact line. "Villain because she didn't get the man" collapses every interesting question about power into a romance grievance, and once you see it there's nothing left to read for. The Defects sounds wild. I haven't heard of it. Adding it to my list. For data: my own attempt at this lane sits outside the scorned-woman trope entirely. The "villainess" is the woman a different protagonist got transmigrated into, so the actual question of the book is closer to "what does she become when she stops being written that way." Your hard-pass instinct is correct, and I think the genre is better the more authors share it.

Ngl, I’m not a fan of the “I can fix him/her” trope. I’ve read quite a few villainess stories, and the ones that stand out to me and are popular in general have intricate plots, a strong central mystery, great political intrigue. Most often having nothing to do with the ML.

Good point you've made that the standout villainess novels are the ones where romance is downstream of political stakes, not propping them up.

For honesty: my own attempt sits at an awkward angle to that pet peeve. It does start with the FL trying to "fix" the future tyrant via kindness.
But the book's actual argument is that she can't, and the kindness itself is what makes him into what he becomes. So I'd like to think it lands on the same side of your fence, even if it looks adjacent at first glance.

 

[Ytiamy]

You named the exact line. "Villain because she didn't get the man" collapses every interesting question about power into a romance grievance, and once you see it there's nothing left to read for. The Defects sounds wild. I haven't heard of it. Adding it to my list. For data: my own attempt at this lane sits outside the scorned-woman trope entirely. The "villainess" is the woman a different protagonist got transmigrated into, so the actual question of the book is closer to "what does she become when she stops being written that way." Your hard-pass instinct is correct, and I think the genre is better the more authors share it.

Good point you've made that the standout villainess novels are the ones where romance is downstream of political stakes, not propping them up.

For honesty: my own attempt sits at an awkward angle to that pet peeve. It does start with the FL trying to "fix" the future tyrant via kindness.
But the book's actual argument is that she can't, and the kindness itself is what makes him into what he becomes. So I'd like to think it lands on the same side of your fence, even if it looks adjacent at first glance.

Interesting. A good trope and a very good angle.

 

[greyblob]

I can fix her