James Sexton: Divorce Attorney and Master Marketer
character gold and conflict fuel for romance authors
I’m infatuated with this clip from a two-hour Diary of a CEO interview with James Sexton. The delivery is amazing – if you’ve spent any time in New York, you’ve met a guy who talks like this about a topic he may or may not understand. I’m not going to be a child and giggle about his surname.
Sexton’s credentials aren’t in doubt, obviously, but the gregarious bullshitter vibe takes me back – to the businessmen I used to wait on, to countless wasted conversations, to my dad coming home from the 19th hole, holding court with a Southern Comfort in one hand and a cigarette in the other, telling salesman stories and grilling corn for two hours.
I absolutely love the tonal quotes around “from GOD.”
Almost as much as I love the phrase Jen Prokop coined during our interview: “Gods of fucking.” I can’t tell you how disappointed I am that Amazon would prevent me using that as a series name, but I will find a worthy use for it that eludes the censors.
Sexton’s insights on monogamy should please the anti-patriarchal trope crowd, even though Hell will freeze over before cheating is allowed in romance. (understandably)But you don’t need cheating, you could get a wealth of material for reluctant heroes or sadistic villains just from what he says, and how he says it. I’m not knocking cheat meals; they sounds like a great idea. The philosophy is arguably closer to the core teachings of several spiritual traditions than the patriarchal versions imposed on us. The potential for exciting, textured storytelling – hell, for romance novels coherent to people with fully formed cortices – is infinitely higher when writers aren’t limited to a tiny menu of politically approved, homogenized, “safe” plots. Formulaic doesn’t have to equal flatlined.
I know you’ll point out that writers respond to reader demand, but I’m begging you not to feed the brain rot. This is not the kind of paternalism we like in romance, and it’s an area where old school has an edge over most of what’s being published today. As Remittance Girl—who, to be clear, is not a romance fan—once said: “I guess I’m still waiting for one of these very popular erotic romance novels to feature fully grown adults as main characters…it seems strange to me…there are 40-year-old straight up romance novels that are written with more believable characters, more solid plot points, and more concrete conflicts…for all the bodice busting, the characters did at least react to plot developments like adults instead of toddlers.”
Which brings me to another point Jen made: it takes about five years to truly understand your romance preferences, because the genre is so vast. That’s assuming diverse reading—and it applies to authors even more. If you’re a writer only consuming what’s popular now or from the last five years, you’re working with half a toolbox. You’re skipping the rich styles and knowledge base carved out by authors who invented the modern genre from scratch, and the result is often homogenized, repetitive, and painfully unimaginative.
So read the old-school historicals. Read across subgenres. Mix in some Barbara Cartland and vintage Harlequins. But definitely—always—read bodice rippers.
