Welcome to the Future
Musical influences: Brad Paisley, Welcome to the Future
No, this isn’t Sin. It’s your Captain speaking. (Besides I don’t think Sin knows who Brad Paisley is.) My Dad is always going on about how much has changed in just his lifetime (he’s 87), but when he talks about it, it’s always about technology, travel, medicine, and the state of people’s souls.
When I think of things that have changed, I think of, well, romance novels.
The modern romance novel was born in 1972 with The Flame and the Flower, and we’ve been writing historical romance novels similar to this vein ever since. I’m guessing Woodiwiss’ book is selected because it was the first bodice-ripper, and bodice-rippers are what classify as modern romance novels. After all, it must not be a romance novel, if someone is not having sex with someone else. (Sounds like an episode of Sex in the City, doesn’t it?)
So what has changed in almost forty years? The plot itself is still the same: two people (most typically a man and a woman) fall in love. And because the road to true love never did run smooth, there are lots of misunderstandings, heavy petting, and the occasional near-death-experience. Especially if it’s a romance novel with thriller elements. Yes, those elements haven’t changed. I think it’s the delivery that’s different.
Instead of 400+ page sweeping, epic novels that can cover years of the hero’s and heroine’s lives, we typically have novels that are 300+ pages that focus on a more manageable length of time. A couple months, maybe a couple years. It appears the mood of the people has changed in 40 years about how long you should give your one and only love a chance to get his act together to tell you he loves you. Putting up with a hero who calls you names and forcibly seduces you for 400 pages before going, “You’re right, I’m sorry, I love you” is no longer acceptable.
And speaking of forcible seductions, in the 1970s, they were de rigeur, complete with a heroine who clearly didn’t know her own mind as she kept shouting “no, no, no” even while she was pressing him to her breast and whispering “yes, yes, yes.” Nowadays, with a few notable exceptions, pretty much the opposite is the accepted practice. And I could even name a couple heroines who’ve stood out that were of the “forcible seducer” type, crawling in bed with the hero to force a marriage or tying a guy to the bed so she can have a baby. But notable exceptions aside, this is one change I’ve truly enjoyed. Sex has evolved to lovemaking, and lovemaking has become a mutually desired expression of characters’ feelings for each other, even if they’re not willing to say the words yet.
Another standard modern romance novel staple is the alpha male. The drill sergeant. Do as I say and when I say jump, you ask how high. The alpha male is always the perfect foil for that saucy little heroine we love and admire, the one who speaks before she thinks and isn’t cowed by the hero. The 1970s version of the alpha male included the guy who would call the heroine a bitch and a whore (or worse) for 400+ pages, constantly questioning her morality and belittling her at every turn, while reminding her how she wouldn’t be able to survive without his tender loving care. And usually at the end of the book, the hero hasn’t really changed this belittling, demeaning quality but sugarcoats his character flaw by saying he loves her, because that changes everything.
Fortunately the modern romance hero is more than a one-man show. We have the alpha, the beta, or the much preferred gamma, the guy who is a sensitive drill sergeant. Though I don’t think the variety is the biggest change in the modern romance hero. It’s Respect. The heroine might drive the hero batshit, but on the whole, the hero still respects her. Internally if nowhere else.
Personally I’m really happy to be in the future and reading romance novels—even though some of the more sensitive heroes do come off as too sensitive for me—because the other option, namecalling and forcible seductions on every page just doesn’t appeal to me anymore.
What changes have you noticed in all your years/experience of reading romance novels? Which ones are for the better? Which ones are for the worse? And what do you see for the future of romance?
Books by the Crew
87 comments:
Ah, well...what 'as Chance noticed. OK, I've never been a huge romance reader...but...with the little I 'ave read... Sex. Sex has changed. It's straight forward and often it is just sex afore it evolves inta more.
Sex be there. Everywhere. In the science fiction, in the fantasy, in the mystery...in all the books.
And this be a good thing.
Ooooooohmmmmmm.
I started so late that I haven't noticed anything :)
I like romances as they are now... hot and steamy. Forced seductions don't bother me... beginning to think I'm the person that doesn't mind them?
The focus is much more intense on the h/h, I think. Secondary characters get short shrift, so it can be all hot, all the time, which is fine with me.:)
Back to getting up with the birds to get the kiddies off to school and being one of the first to comment! LOL
I really, really don't like the old alpha/mean male. I absolutely love a strong take charge type of hero but not one who feels it is necessary to humiliate and degrade the heroine. I just can't stomach that anymore. Especially when the heroine is ready and willing and the hero is professing his undying love yet treating her like dirt. That just screams dysfunctional to me. I want to get them into therapy not read about their (totally unbelievable) HEA. LOL
I think another change I've seen is that the heroine can be naive, sweet and kind and still be strong and brave. Before if she was sweet and kind she was also cowering and terrified or a bit of a ditz.
I think the sex has changed too. Less on the heaving bosoms and more on the internal feelings of the H/H.
I started reading romance a lot in the early nineties, so I guess that I saw the butt end of the alpha/mean male.
I remember just being irritated with the annoying man back then. I've never been one to mince words so when the heroines didn't mouth off like I would have or say the things I wished they would, I'd get irritated with them. Nowadays, I think the heroines say the things we wish they would, the things we want to say when people don't treat us the right way. They stand up for themselves.
I like that a lot better.
One thing I've noticed in the past few years is a trend for naming the characters in paranormals and urban fantasies these crazy warped versions of what the real name would be.
I really hope that trend dies, but I don't think it will. For instance, I just read a book taht had a character named Vhyper (and yes, he does shapeshift into a...yep a viper!)
Hate that trend. Bugs me to no end to read those silly names in books that are otherwise very good.
2nd: I suppose limiting my scope to romances was, well, limiting. (I admittedly don't read sci-fi/fantasy and therefore couldn't hold a discussion about it.) What changes have you seen in fantasy/sci-fi? Are they for the better or worse?
BESIDES THE SEX. *LOL* Surely more than the sex is different.
This is a great topic. I need to process this big stack of checks, but then I'll be back! (And are we the only one who have been reading these things since the 80s? We need Janga in here.)
I agree that the love scenes are totally different - thank goodness! I'm surprised no one has mentioned the dreaded "purple prose" which originated in the 70s. lol On this web site from Deb Stover she says,
In the seventies, when authors first threw open the bedroom doors on love scenes in romance novels, writers had to devise creative ways to describe human anatomy. Apparently, the powers-that-be felt the reading public could only handle one shock at a time, so we formulated all sorts of interesting words and phrases to substitute for more clinical terms.
The link:
http://www.debstover.com/purple.html
Terri says, "And are we the only one who have been reading these things since the 80s?"
I'm in that group. Sigh. lol Oh, and I can remember my mom hiding the steamier romances in her closet from me in my early teens - - but I found them.
Tiff: I'm not surprised, since you're like 15. *LOL* To see what I'm talking about, I think you should read a 70s romance--a real bodice ripper--but not one of the "iconic" ones like The Flame and the Flower.
This blog came out of a 70s book I read recently--and I was just horrified at all the rape (literal rape), forced seduction that felt more like rape than forced seduction, and verbal abuse that went on. It made me truly appreciate at how sensitive the modern romance hero really is.
Maggie, I think the POV of the hero and heroine is deeper in modern fiction. I really think it makes for richer, more believable characters. Another definite turn for the better!
Irish, this couple in the book I read was completely dysfunctional. Awful, awful book. But I think that kind of story was more the norm then--the sort of soap-opera, ROOTS or THORN BIRDS type of drama bodice-ripper. I don't know how it can be construed as escapist...because I can't imagine wanting to escape to a world where the hero abuses the heroine. *LOL*
Marn: I agree (and I disagree). I agree because I too would get frustrated with the heroine who wouldn't snap back a comeback to a hero who thinks he could say whatever and totally disrespect the heroine. I can think of some books where the heroine didn't talk back and was very mousy--and I didn't like or respect the heroine because of it. BUT I did believe it to be true to the historical perspective.
Now I did like some heroines--who came off as mousy or doormattish--and then you saw that underneath they were actually getting their own back without saying the snappy comeback. (Julie Garwood's heroines did this a lot; and some of Jill Barnett's heroines stand out for me as being disrespected--but then they come out on top. *LOL* And you don't mind they didn't have the snappy retort.) And in doing so, it also honored the historical perspective of "how women were supposed to behave."
I have to say, considering how they started out, it's no wonder romance novels got a bad name that, as writers, we're still trying to live down. And it's why some people think there was a "formula" to writing a romance more so than any other genre.
But at least today's romances are really tearing down the boundaries. Deeper POV's I agree, and combining one genre with another (my historical regency time travel paranormal fantasy romance! lol). That wasn't done back then.
Terri: Work? What's that?
Sabrina--*ROTFLMAO* I can see how that trend would be annoying as all get out. (That Vypher is cracking me up!) It's why I refuse to read the majority of fantasy/paranormal/sci-fi--THE NAMES. That should be the first rule: never alienate your potential readers by making them feel stupid that they can't pronounce the most basic of things, like NAMES. And for God's sake, if they're riding a horse, it's called a horse--stop making up crazy words and saying its something else.
(Clearly I'm not the Fantasy/Sci-Fi demographic.)
This is why I like the Harry Potter series so much. MOST of the characters had names you could pronounce from the get go. Hermione I would have had trouble with--but since I saw the movie first, it was okay.
Melissa: *LOL* the purple prose is the height of hysterical. Purple crowned manhood...and all the other euphenisms. Stalk, shaft...blah, blah, blah...
I'm really glad a lot of the sex scenes have gotten away from the majorly purple prose...or naming body parts with poetic names better suited for the Kama Sutra or Song of Solomon. If you want poetic names, read those books...
Yeah, work. I know it's a foreign concept around here, but sometimes you've got to do it. People get cranky when you hold up their money.
I think the books are more formulaic today than they were back in the day. There was more variety in setting and time period. Then in the mid 90s the Regency books took off and they are still dominating.
I also think authors could write edgier books 15 or more years ago. Today everything is sexier (or supposed to be) but you couldn't have a character on the edge doing truly decadent things and get away with it.
I also remember books in which the hero slept with other women besides the heroine. You SO could not get away with that these days. And though it didn't bother me when I read it at the time, I think I've been trained to dislike it now because it makes me cringe thinking about it.
I also remember books in which the hero slept with other women besides the heroine. You SO could not get away with that these days. And though it didn’t bother me when I read it at the time, I think I’ve been trained to dislike it now because it makes me cringe thinking about it.
So do you think our expectations of what constitutes an acceptable hero has changed as the books have evolved?
I know having the hero sleep with "other" women is deemed unheroic, but is it fair to have a hero suddenly stop sleeping around--if that is indeed what he was doing before--just because he saw the heroine from across a crowded room? I mean, what exactly can you tell from across a crowded room? Not every Cute Meet is a re-enactment of Some Enchanted Evening, folks.
I've read The Flame and the Flower. My mama owns all of Woodwiss. I read a lot of Johanna Lindsay and Diana Palmer.
Hm, I'm thinking about having my heroine sleep with someone else. I feel that Terri is going to flame me :(
Well, the book I'm thinking of, and you allude to this in your blog, covered a much longer period of time. The H/H are apart for years, something else that wouldn't fly today, and he was with other women during that time. But the author writes about these encounters, they are just mentioned or implied. There are sex scenes with him and other women.
The author I'm talking about is Nan Ryan, though not to imply she was the only one who did this. But she's still writing today (I think) and I wonder how different her modern stuff is from the older stuff. Sadly, I haven't read any of her newer stuff.
Sin - When I say you couldn't get away with that today, I mean editors and agents would tell you you're crazy. :)
That was "are NOT just mentioned or implied."
And I didn't answer your question. LOL! Yeah, I totally think our idea of a hero has changed. But I'm still skeptical of the guy who sees a woman, tries to go back to his rakehell ways, and can't manage to get it up for other women. So unrealistic. Nice idea, but unrealistic.
I agree that more explicit sex presented in franker language is a major change in romance fiction since the early days of the modern romance novel. I can remember all the excitement when the Harlequin Presents books were introduced because they were steamier than the regular Harlequins. I read the Anne Mather novel in 1980 that was the first category to have premarital sex. I’m not sure whether the sexier novels led to stronger heroines or whether stronger heroines led to sexier novels, but I know the heroines of romance have come a long way, baby. The virginal 18-year-old who surrenders her very self to the alpha hero is an exceedingly rare creature in the 21st century. Praise be!
Equally transformative, albeit in a different way, is the variety of subgenres now available under the umbrella of romance and the blending of genres. Paranormals existed but compared to the plethora of them today, they were a very small presence. Romantic suspense as we know it today did not exist. If science fiction romances did, I was unaware of them. Inspirationals were pretty much limited to reprints of Grace Livingston Hill. And if erotic romances were being written, they were being sold in the backrooms of some bookstores.
I read Woodiwiss, but I was never a fan of the historicals that literally were "heaving bosom books." That meant I read traditional Regencies, categories (many fewer lines then), Gothics (diminishing in popularity after the 70s), and women’s fiction. Many of my current autobuys—Jo Beverley, Mary Jo Putney, Mary Balogh, Loretta Chase, Nora Roberts, Debbie Macomber, etc.—I began reading in the 80s. And they were writing either traditional Regencies or category romance then. I miss traditional Regencies and Mary Stewart, but I much prefer the variety of today’s offerings.
See, I never read Trads. But I do remember some Gothics and what I remember most is how depressing they were. LOL! I think it was Brenda Joyce (could be way off) but there was an author I liked but I had to stop reading because by the end, I felt awful.
I've only read two older romance novels - Fredericka, which was published before Woodiwiss and had no sex at all, and Whitney, My Love. Clearly, the entirely opposite ends of the spectrum. And I couldn't handle Whitney, My Love. I was definitely wanting to get them into therapy instead of reading the end. Talk about dysfunctional!
I'm thrilled we have stronger heroines, and even more thrilled that now and then you can have a heroine stronger than the hero. And the respect. There's just something melting about a hero who truly respects the heroine, even if he can be an idiotic jerk at times *g*
The Victoria Holt books! Those were great!
And I miss the traditional Regencies too. I think of them as a more fair representation of what went on at the time than many of the regencies we have today. (Yes, yes, Terri, I know it's fantasy, but still...I want a REAL fantasy. Not a Rise of the Cobra one.)
See, I read Whitney, My Love at the time it was released and ADORED it. I bawled my eyes out when she got out of that tub (admittedly, the only part of the book my swiss cheese mind remembers) and I remember staying up all night long to read many books like that one.
But I figure, if I tried to read it again today, I likely wouldn't have the same response. So, have the books changed, or did they have to change because we did?
See, Whitney, My Love is a perfect example. I loved this book and Wonderful when they came out--and I remember them as BRILLIANT, but I know if I read them again, I would pick them apart for the very things I listed above.
I read a book recently that I adored when I first read it, but on the re-read, I was like, "Good God, are they having sex AGAIN? I don't remember them having this much sex." And it wasn't like EVERY scene propelled the plot or emotional development of the chracters.
No idea, yoda, which was the change?
Terri says, "So, have the books changed, or did they have to change because we did?"
Great question. I think the heroines changed to reflect the different roles of women. We're not just secretaries or nurses anymore (nothing wrong with being either of course!), but be anything we want. We still identify with the secretary - - that hasn't disappeared, but she isn't just bringing the hero coffee! lol And of course, she may be his personal assistant or executive assistant. I agree with Hal that it's all about respect.
Even in historicals, we maybe change history too much by giving women more proactive roles, but I, for one, like that.
I think the times changed, Luke. Maybe the editors got younger, women took over the publishing game, or some brilliant authors came along with a new style and the readers loved it.
Who knows for sure, but I think it was inevitable. Makes you wonder what they'll be like in another 10 to 15 years.
Melissa said:
We still identify with the secretary...
Considering Hellie and I are both secretaries, I'd say this is a true statement. LOL!
I meant the politically correct term would be personal assistant rather than secretary for the heroine. But could she be the hero's boss in a romance today? In certain roles I think, sure, but do we want the hero to be a PA? Not our alpha hero! lol
Oh, and yes, I was a secretary too. :)
I think Georgette Heyer's heroines are strong women. Fredrica, Sophy, Venetia, Judith Tavener (Regency Buck), Leonie (These Old Shades), Mary Challoner (Devil's Cub), Serena Spenborough (Bath Tangle)--all of these and others exhibit strength in varying ways.
I think the passive heroine was a product of the post-WW II backlash against women, and it took the women's movement entering the mainstream culture to dethrone her in romance fiction. I think the changes in genre fiction generally lag behind cultural changes. Certainly the changes wrought by the social revolution of the 60s and 70s didn't really show up in romance fiction until the 80s.
Technically, I'm an administrative assistant and Hellie has a much cooler title, but it boils down to something similar.
My VP's assistant is a guy. But a total PITA and I could never see him as a hero. I think the heroine can be the boss, but it's more likely the hero is lower in the firm yet not her personal assistant. :)
Though the Billionaire Executives Boy Toy Secretary has a fun ring to it.
Hellie has a hellaciously cool job title. I'm jealous.
I hate when people call me a secretary. Makes me want to put a hit out on them. LOL
Now I'm going to shut up. Some topics just push a button, and I go into lecture mode. Sorry!
Janga - You aren't lecturing! This blog was made for you. Keep going, please!
Sin - I did not count you in the secretary pool. LOL! I know you run that place. I guess it might happen somewhere, but in my experience, the days of taking dictation and getting coffee have passed.
Janga - You're likely right. The heroines written about in the 70s more closely reflected the women of the 50s in that they didn't have a whole lot of power. But it might also have been a reflection of the women who wanted stronger, more passionate men. I don't think passion as we think of it was as common as it is today. At least not in the realm of "passion is a good thing and nothing to hide" idea of today.
Which makes me think of the movie Pleasantville when Joan Allen's character took care of herself for the first time and it took her from black & white into color. LOL! Then she had to use make up to appear black & white again.
Janga you are right, and not a hint of lecture heard. :) But when I think about it, my writing will lag behind cultural changes simply because I'm SLOW. I always have to remember not to put something in the story that will date when I wrote it. LOL
My cool title is "Work Wife." *LOL*
Janga, don't you dare leave...I wrote this blog for discussion and analytical thought!
I agree that I think the heroines represent the lag in cultural changes--well, I'm not sure how to phrase. How you phrased it is how I meant it. *LOL* Our fiction is tied with the cultural and political currents at the time--so I'm curious what current cultural and political currents are going to be making it into our fiction now and in the future.
LOL, Hellie, that's mine too.
The DR once told me: "You nag me. You spend all the money and you control everything around here. You get what you want when you want it. You are a work wife." LOL
Janga! I'm really loving reading what you have to say today! Carry on!
I could never be a work wife. I still tell my boss to do things for himself. LOL! Clearly, wife of any form is NOT for me.
Very cool thoughts flying around!
I think another thing that may have changed is the target audience. Don't you think those bodice rippers were aimed at bored housewives with the assumption that they weren't that intelligent!
Sometimes it's not a matter of doing something for them. It's a matter of telling them exactly what they need to do to do the job. There are several male faculty who are BETA in that they need someone telling them exactly what they need to do.
Actually I'm not sure what that is. I don't think that's BETA. What's the Greek word for "HELPLESS"? Betas aren't helpless, they're just nice.
I don't know but the English word for it is "clueless". And yes, my boss qualifies as that from time to time. He's the kind that wonders around looking for his glasses because he can't remember where he put them down.
Janga, now I'm all curious. Lecture away :)
Irish - I think you're on to something there. Maybe that's even why the books got shorter. When women stayed home more, they had more time to read. (NOT implying stay-at-home-moms sit around doing nothing all day!) Now our lives are so busy, we have less time to read and prefer something shorter?
"Work Wife" LOL! I'd be careful about reading the fine print on that job description if I were you, Hellie!
I've been a receptionist, secretary, administrative assistant, clerk, wife and mother. As far as I'm concerned it's all pretty much the same - I'm someone else's brain most of the time. Or as my dear husband likes to say his own personal Blackberry!
I’m someone else’s brain most of the time.
*snorts* That's completely it. *LOL*
Now our lives are so busy, we have less time to read and prefer something shorter?
No, now our lives are so busy, we don't have time for such marlarkey where women allow a jackass to run the show for 400 pages and then goes ahead and stays with him at the end. Where's the satisfaction in that?
We prefer better quality stories, regardless of length.
Are you implying size doesn't matter? ;)
I'm just thinking that categories have gotten better too, in some aspects.
But as with everything, there are aspects that have gotten better--and then there are things that have gotten worse.
We've gotten more sensitive heroes; stronger heroines; more convincing story lines--but they're all about vampires or werewolves...
(NOT implying stay-at-home-moms sit around doing nothing all day!) No but we try!!! You cannot believe how inconvenient kids, husbands, dogs and housework is to attaining that goal!
It's either read a good romance all day, blog or get on Facebook and make Mafia Wars moves (which I KNOW the DH is doing while he's at work!!!!)
Irish, Janet Radway, who, until Pam Regis published The Natural History of the Romance Novel in 2003, was the most widely recognized analyst of romance fiction certainly presented the romance readers as limited in experience and knowledge.
The following is straight from an essay I wrote for St. James Encyclopedia in 1999:
The romance audience was changing as well. By the 1990s romance readers were largely college-educated women who worked full-time outside the home. These readers saw themselves as mature women who could support themselves, think independently, and contribute to their communities. Though some critics continued to sneer at romance novels, others, including some feminist scholars, had broadened their ideas about women's experience. Those who had predicted the demise of romance novels had been proved wrong. Dangerous Men and Adventurous Women, a collection of essays written by romance writers about their craft, became the fastest-selling title in the history of the University of Pennsylvania Press. The idea these essays challenged most firmly was the stereotype of the passive heroine.
I *heart* Janga.
Irish - And you have no idea how bosses, coworkers, and delivery people hinder my doing nothing all day at work.
In my opinion the bodice rippers didn't really give women a choice or a chance for anything other than benevolent abuse. As the romance reader changed so did the romance.
I'm picturing a woman sitting in her easy chair waiting for "Mr. Is Dinner On the Table Bring Me A Beer" to come waltzing through the door and the last thing she wants to be reading about is another woman stuck with "Viscount You'll Love Me After I Force You To Have Sex With Me, Ruin You and Then Rescue You By Marrying You."
I heart Janga and Irish! :)
Viscount You'll Love Me After I Force You To Have Sex With Me, Ruin You and Then Rescue You By Marrying You, indeed.
Who's using that one in their next WIP?!
If that story is written now, the heroine would jump his bones then refuse to marry him. LOL! Really, I've read that story.
Now, I be goin' back ta read all the comments!
Hellie - According ta Last Chance, who been readin' sci/fi/fantasy more steadily than I, tis very similiar ta romance. She says the big thing in the past be the introduction a' rape and violence 'gainst women becomin' almost required on the part a' the villain. She say this be in a lot in Terry Goodkind's massive series.
I think that be changin'. I know wit' de Lint (Rum! Everyone gets rum when I brings up de Lint!) the female characters have grown ta be central. His urban fantasy introduced the wounded but recovered and strong female artist as central. Art plays a massive role in his books. Art and music also. "Memory and Dream" be incredible. I had an artist friend read it and she was struck by his ability ta meld the creative process into the fantasy...
With sci/fi...there is a more willingness ta wander into fantasy where once the two shall never, ever, ever meet. It still isn't considered 'correct' ta meld the two too much, but I remember one series, Sharon Shin's Archangel, that started wit' me convinced this be pure fantasy...then suddenly she introduced a legit scientific rational for the winged men, the singing, all of it. In the third book. Totally shocked me.
Janga says, The idea these essays challenged most firmly was the stereotype of the passive heroine.
I read those essays in Dangerous Men Adventurous Women years ago and loved them! I think things were changing when those essays were written from the passive (placeholder) heroine to the heroic heroine. Excuse the length of this comment, but and wrote an article for a newsletter, which I'm loosely quoting from. Perhaps one type hasn't totally overtaken the other, but I found it interesting to compare the two types.
In Laura Kinsale's essay in this book she said:
When the writer does fail with the heroine, it is quite easy for the reader to disassociate herself from the character and continue to derive pleasure from the story by using the heroine as placeholder.
- Laura Kinsale
This view sides with the hero as being the foremost character readers prefer to identify with and when the reader accepts a story with a heroine that has characteristics that she doesn’t necessarily admire, she automatically puts herself in the heroine’s place. The reader is free to judge the heroine, and she might say, “In her place, I wouldn’t have done that.” Thus, the term “Placeholder Heroine.”
The reader does not identify with or wish to be like the placeholder heroine, but she continues to enjoy the novel. How is this possible? Because the reader simply wants to be in the heroine’s place – next to the hero of course! Thus, it suggests that there is a natural tendency on the part of the reader to distance herself from the heroine, perhaps even caused by some kind of female competition between the reader and the heroine.
The heroic heroine, however, is not a placeholder, and she intends to be an active participant in the adventure. She embodies the importance of reader identification with the heroine. We admire her, we root for her, and, unlike the placeholder heroine, we would like to be just like her.
The heroine’s heroic qualities might inspire the hero to uncover his own innate nobility. She may help restore the hero’s faith in himself and the world around him.
She might influence the hero to abandon a quest for vengeance. Because she has become important to him, ultimately he will have to rethink his priorities if he wants to keep her in his life.
When the hero begins to acknowledge, at least to himself, the heroine’s heroic qualities, he has a respect and admiration for the heroine that will ultimately change everything between them. Simply put, the heroine becomes valuable to the man.
Ya know, one a' the big changes in romance be that a black man and a white woman isn't erotica any more. Anyone remember "Mandingo"? Man, that be scandalous!
What be considered 'forbidden' fruit 'as changed. It ain't just the rescue-ee to rescue-er stuff. But the who loves/lusts/wants who. Mixed races has stepped up and growin' in acceptance. I 'ope ta see the future make the same sex isn't always erotica step.
In that, romance reflects social change.
Janga, yer comments always give food fer thought! Stay please! Some Janga Juice fer Janga! Extra Janga!
How about a Mango Janga? Janga Juice makes her sound more like a fruit. LOL!
These may be some of the best comments ever.
Melissa - Great input. And I love how you explained that the hero has to come to recognize and respect the heroic qualities of the heroine. That's what I try to do and it's a struggle because we have to keep that sexual push/pull thing going. I never want to reach the end and have it seem like the hero loved the heroine because she's hot or because they have great sex.
He should love her because of her inner qualities that are as gorgeous as her outside. And the more beautiful she is on the inside, the better she looks to him no matter how she looks to everyone else.
Sort of how Mr. Darcy fell in love with Lizzie because of who she was, not what she looked like. She was known for not being the prettiest of the Bennett girls. But she had spunk and intelligence and clear strength. That's what Mr. Darcy fell in love with. And likely why we as readers still love her today.
Again, sorry for the long comment. I'll try to contain myself (looking sheepish). lol
If'n yer lucky, ya find some aspect of yerself in every heroine ya write 'bout. And yer reader be evolved 'nuff ta see somethin' she can identify as part a' 'er. Or someone she knows.
We be complex creations. The heart and the mind holds so many personalities, copin' mechanisms and the emotional pantry of a mansion, or five.
I like ta think I can find somethin' in common wit' most characters I read. And all a' the ones I write.
Mango Janga? Hmmmm, I be stumblin' on that and come out with Mango Jango... Extra Jango!
Back ta Momma Chance...check in later!
2nd Chance says, We be complex creations. The heart and the mind holds so many personalities, copin’ mechanisms and the emotional pantry of a mansion, or five.
Love that!
Terri - spunk, intelligence and strength (of character) will win out. I think that a heroic heroine is someone the hero can't dismiss - - no matter how hard he tries. :)
I am totally loving the concept of the Placeholder Heroine. This explains my chagrin when I said something to the effect of imagining myself as the heroine--and Terri was like, "Do you ALWAYS do that?"--and I do. Apparently I was doing a placeholder heroine--and those heroines I just flat out admired, I was just along for the ride of the story.
I am cracking up that there is some idea that REAL women are unconsiously competing against FICTIONAL placeholder heroines who we feel don't deserve the hero, but we enjoy the story anyway because of the hero--so we'll just imagine ourselves instead, with the hero. That's just funny to me. It sounds so 7th grade.
I am loving the discussion today. Thanks you guys! This is so much fun!!
Good point, Melissa. But then that makes me wonder why the two of us...errr...three of us (Hellie too!) are still single.
Then again, I haven't seen any Mr. Darcy's around. How about you?
But then that makes me wonder why the two of us…errr…three of us (Hellie too!) are still single.
Because it's like what Jane says in Becoming Jane. Life is not like fiction. I think fiction can imitate life, but life does not imitate fiction.
I want to live in fiction. *pouts*
I can only think of one book where I did not like the heroine but kept reading. I mean, I REALLY did not like her. Still don't like her now. But that hero was AWESOME. Usually, I can't have those "Which hero would you want to do?" convos because to me, they are all taken. But that hero, I don't think of him as taken. Now, him taking me, I can get on board with that fantasy.
Terri - I haven't seen any Mr. Darcy's around either. LOL I do have a "friendly stalker" (is that an oxymoron?) though. On "poor me" days he looks good, so that's scary. LOL At least he's reliable.
Helli - I have read plenty of books where I thought the heroine didn't deserve the hero, so I think sometimes I do fall into that placeholder mentality. Yes, it does sound kinda 7th grade. LOL
I can see why that's a problem for you and not for me. You like everyone; and I like nobody. *LOL*
I think I would want to pick and choose whose fiction I lived in. I wouldn't mind being in Eloisa's fiction. I would LOVE being a part of Harry Potter's fiction. *LOL*
I do not want to be in any of the following fiction: Hemmingway, Nicholas Sparks, Charles Dickens, any fiction where the character's main growth comes from him coming to terms with his imminent death.
At least he’s reliable.
Seriously about to snort soda out of my nose.
We have to count stalkers? I have a couple, but even they aren't reliable. Predictable, yes. Reliable, no.
That soda is going to hurt like the dickens. :)
Melissa, it's interesting how relevant many of the essays in Dangerous Men and Adventurous Women remain.
Another paragraph from my St. James essay references Judith Arnold's essay in that collection:
Judith Arnold, one of the contributors, described the romance heroines of the 1990s: they "do"; they "take steps, hold opinions, and move forward into the world." Any random sampling of romance novels published after 1990 will support Arnold's contention. "Murphy Brown meets June Cleaver" proclaims the cover of a Harlequin Love & Laughter title. Heroines include teachers, lawyers, doctors, corporate executives, small business owners, architects, computer geniuses, builders, psychologists, artists, and country music singers who are also mothers, friends, lovers, soccer coaches, mentors, foster parents, church organists, and volunteers. The romance heroine has not surrendered her place in the domestic world; she has merely added triumph in the public world. She can rescue herself and sometimes the hero as well. It is not a question of the heroine usurping the hero's role, but of her proving the interdependence of their relationship.
Predictable would be if I went somewhere routinely at the same time and knew he would show up. Reliable is when I break the routine, but he will still show up. So yes, reliable. [Need some spooky music.] But he's a FRIENDLY stalker so that's okay. Sorry about the soda up your nose Hellie. lol
Janga, I adore books that accomplish what you said:
She can rescue herself and sometimes the hero as well. It is not a question of the heroine usurping the hero’s role, but of her proving the interdependence of their relationship.
Not independence, but interdependence. Perfect. :)
Interdependence--that is a GOOD word. I like how much stronger heroines are now; and I much prefer a hero who respects a heroine. And how can he respect her if she's not able to do the most basic of things for herself?
I think our romances reflect our values now, what we respect in women as well as the sorts of things we respect and value in men. I think modern romances are less of a backlash of the culture/counterculture--and more of a celebration of the traits and values we like in men and women and their relationships.
Hellie said: "I think modern romances are less of a backlash of the culture/counterculture–and more of a celebration of the traits and values we like in men and women and their relationships."
Very well said. That is exactly what I would love to write - a story that celebrates really good nurturing relationships. And believing that they are possible no matter how screwy we are individually.
Irish, that fits in so well wit' me blog a' last Friday, ya 'ave priorities in what you be writin'...and they sound grand.
Huzzah!
Post a Comment