So this is what they're afraid of

When we discussed why female authors were resisted by many prominent male editors, publishers and columnists in Austen and Radcliffe’s time, we focused mainly on the believability issue. Men (and some women) thought it was dangerous to give women unattainable or extremely unlikely romance and marriage scenarios, that their expectations would change in a dangerous way and they would find themselves unsatisfied with life and unable to complete the duties that they should because of these expectations. It’s easier to see where this “dangerous” idea comes from when reading Radcliffe’s novel. It seems more closely linked with video games of our time and the question of “how is it going to affect the youth culture?” Brain rot? Is its useless entertainment? Does it function like an action for the purpose of action novel? It almost seems that Radcliffe was using a safer approach than Austen because her scenarios were so much less believable, or seem unique to the characters that many people would read it and say “Definitely not going to happen to me or any one I know, so I can just take it as entertainment.” Really though the emotions are real, the connections between people and the allies made are valuable and were probably common in situations concerning money and law at the time. Trust, and who to trust, was an issue that Austen frequently introduced and Radcliffe is working with again, but it’s disguised under the louder scenes of action. It’s a smart way to get the social/political commentary in there without anyone thinking twice about it (but hopefully someone was thinking twice about it because then it would defeat the purpose).