It's a little more than that. It's a whole effing genre that sucks.
Okay. So there's a whole genre that doesn't interest you.
I'm not a fan of the romance genre either. If the main conflict in a story is "how will these two characters get together romantically?" (which it
must be, or the story is, by definition,
not a romance) I just don't care enough to be bothered reading it.
HUGE numbers of people disagree with you and I on this. Romance is the most popular book genre, I think by a pretty wide margin. But this okay. Chacun à son goût.
A question though: If you dislike the entire genre so much, why do you read (and even write) it?
The
most popular genre thing is a draw for some writers, for sure. If you're trying to sell your fiction, romance is hands down the easiest genre in which to make a livable income. This is in part due to its huge readership. But it's also due to the fact that romance readers haven't fallen prey to the snobbish belief that "fast writing is bad writing". Neither have romance publishers. Romance readers will happily gobble up multiple books a year by their favourite authors. And romance publishing lines actually
want their authors to produce multiple books a year. This is not the case with other genres. (Although, if you're self-publishing, you can of course publish as much content as you're able to create.) I think though that if you try to write in a genre that you hate, this will come through in the writing. And even if you somehow manage to disguise your contempt, writing in a genre you don't like is going to eat at your soul after a while.
Classical romances are still fine in my opinion. They are, as the name implies, classy. And I can accept that a class divide keeps two people apart. That's part of history and makes sense.
Okay. So you do not dislike the entire genre.
The conflict in a romance story does not need to be the enemies-to-lovers one. You can write a modern romance in which a class divide is what keeps the characters apart. You can write a modern romance in which ethnicity, nationality, religion, age, profession, culture, and/or politics is what creates the conflict. There could be legal and/or health reasons keeping the characters apart. There could be a physical barrier between the characters (long distances, or an actual wall). Conflict can arise for all sorts of reasons. And it does! I am certain there are modern romance writers who use these types of conflicts (and more I've not even though of) to throw complications into the path of their characters trying to get together. I cannot list specific examples for you because I am not personally well-read in this genre at all. But the genre is huge. And it is definitely not all about the the specific conflict trope you despise.
If you are finding that every modern romance you read uses this one trope, I suspect you have fallen into an algorithm sinkhole. Get away from your usual sources of book recommendations and seek out new ones. Seek out people who enjoy reading modern romances (different people from any you've already been taking suggestions from) and ask them what they like and why. Ask a public library librarian or library tech. These people tend to be well-read, and if they're working in a public library in a public-facing role, it is actually their job to help you find books that interest you. That is their area of expertise! If you have access to an independent bricks & mortar bookstore, the staff there can be a great source of book recommendations too. (Chain bookstores are more likely to hire working stiffs who just need to make rent and figured selling books would be preferable to cleaning latrines. But you may find employees there too who love books enough to have knowledge beyond simply recommending the latest bestseller.)
When did you last check in with DAREBEE's
What are you currently reading? thread? We have a lot of book-lovers on DAREBEE, including folks who are well-read in quite a diverse range of genres. (I've received some wonderful Space Opera recommendations from other Bees over the years.)
Definitely get away from Inkitt! Everything you have told me about that platform suggests it is a bad fit for you. And I 100% guarantee you you are not seeing the full range of what is being written in modern romances if you're only looking there.
As I've said, ironically, they get it right when it's a subplot in another genre.
Because any genre other than Romance must have, by definition, a main conflict other than "how will these two characters get together romantically?" Other genres can (and often do) have romantic subplots. But the subplot usually arises out of whatever the main conflict is. So you necessarily have an obstacle other than interpersonal friction for the characters in the romantic subplot to deal with.
Regarding, what did you call it, tragic heroes? I'm a fan of heroes who find themselves in a precarious situation, a dreadful situation even, but ultimately grow enough to rise to the top. Or basically just decides I'm not taking this crap anymore.
That's not a tragic hero.
Also, I do not read stories that don't have happy endings. Ever.
Ever.
Clearly you do not like tragic heroes either.
A tragic hero, at its most basic definition, is the protagonist of a tragedy. (They don't need to do anything at all that would fit our modern definition of "heroic".)
A tragedy, by definition, does not have a happy ending.
Things can get a little bit murky in modern fiction, because our modern sensibilities allow for stories with endings that are tragic but also hopeful. (e.g.: Pay It Forward)
But the concept of a
tragic hero is an old one handed down to us from classical Greece.
In classical storytelling, a story is either a tragedy or a comedy.
Comedies end with marriages.
Tragedies end with death.
A tragic hero, by definition
must fail. They can briefly--but never ultimately--rise to the top. Any gains the character manages to make in the middle of the story necessarily must be lost again, and the character must end up in a worse position by the end of the story than where they were at the start. (Usually they end up dead.) If this does not happen, the story is not a tragedy, and its protagonist therefore is not a tragic hero.
The classic example of a tragic hero is Oedipus Rex.
Oedipus is the son of the King and Queen of Thebes. But a terrible prophecy states that he will grow up to murder his father and marry his mother. His parents, understandably not wanting this to happen, dump baby Oedipus out in the wilderness to die. Then a herdsman finds the baby and takes him to Corinth, where he is adopted by a couple who raise Oedipus as their own son.
When Oedipus grows up, he learns of the prophecy that he is to murder his father and marry his mother. Not wanting this to happen (and not knowing that the people who he thinks are his parents are not, in fact, biologically his parents) he leaves Corinth.
While out on the road, Oedipus meets up with an older man, with whom he gets into a dispute over who should go through a crossroad first. So he kills the guy.
He then travels on to Thebes, where he discovers that the queen, Jocasta, an older woman, has recently been widowed. So he marries her.
Everything is hunky-dory for a bit. Ol' Oedipus knocks up his mother-wife four times, producing the lovely Eteocles, Polynices, Antigone, and Ismene. And the new royal family of Thebes rules in peace and harmony for a bunch of years.
But then a terrible plague befalls the city. Crops, livestock, and people begin to die. So Oedipus sends a messenger off to Delphi to ask the all-seeing Oracle there what to do. The Oracle at Delphi says Thebes' problems stem from the fact that the city's former King, Laius' murder has not yet been avenged. So Oedipus vows to hunt down Laius' murderer and bring him to justice.
This, of course, leads to Jocasta and Oedipus figuring out what has really happened. Jocasta kills herself. And then Oedipus blinds himself and then goes to live in exile in the wilderness.
The end.