Meg Benjamin's post this week, Ugly Guys Need Not Apply, has gotten me thinking about our requirements for a heroine. There is much greater latitude in what is acceptable not only in appearance, but in personality. Heroines can be older, younger, curvier, skinnier... as well as being needy, whiny, and TSTL (too stupid to live). But I've rarely seen a romance novel leading lady who was a bitch for part of the story. In urban fantasy, sure, but romance? I can't think of one.In "classic" romance, the man can be a total jackass, taking advantage of the heroine, treating her like garbage, and somehow redeeming himself. Even the super-Alpha-males of modern romance can get away with some pretty awful behavior, but as long as he makes up for it, all seems to be forgiven. In general, the horrible relationship mistakes made by the heroines are mild. But why?
One possibility is gender profiling. In our society, women may have power, yes, but as soon as they develop a no-crap-taken mindset, they are denigrated and often labeled as being too masculine for their own good. The way our media portrays powerful women usually perpetuates this stereotype by characterizing them as man-haters or too independent to need or want a man--which is considered a negative trait.
Another possibility is that romance readers prefer the weaker, needier heroine because part of the genre's allure is seeing the big, strong hero save her. Whether it is from evil super-soldiers or an abusive step-father, this trope is appealing. We read fiction to escape, to vicariously live our fantasies. But just because a woman is strong, just because she was a bitch for part of the story, does not mean she's any less deserving of a happy ending.
Have you read any books with atypically bold heroines? And what is your least favorite heroine characteristic?
Posts
4 comments:
Off of the top of my head I can't think of a female character like that. You're so right...it's usualy the hero who gets redeemed in the end.
Interesting.
I think it depends on what you mean by "bitch". If you mean "strong, kick-ass, take-no-prisoners" heroine, then just about every mystery thriller around has one of those. Just check the last few books by Linda Howard and Elizabeth Lowell, for example (Lowell's latest, "Ice Cold" features a former CIA heroine who can speak several languages, hold her own in a fight, and pilot a boat through a gale). But if you mean a woman who's unlikeable and nasty for part of the book, I agree they're more unusual. But they're still around. Susan Elizabeth Phillips has a bitch heroine in Fancy Pants, and the heroine in her "Ain't She Sweet" is a former bitch who has to confront just how awful she was in the past.
I'm with Meg, it depends on what you mean by the word. I'm not a fan of nasty jerks regardless of gender.
As for why the double standard, it's like you said earlier this week. If most women reading romance want to identify with the heroine, then said heroine has to be a sympathetic character.
Meg, I'm thinking more of the latter. Looks like I'll be picking up "Ain't She Sweet" and taking a look at some bitchy humble pie
PG, I don't like them either, but seeing a story of redemption? Sure, I could get behind that.
Post a Comment