In response to my post on Taming The Cyborg, author Katherine Allred (CLOSE CONTACT) asked, “Is it okay to have badass/flawed heroes but not badass/flawed heroines, and why?...Why can't the heroines have the flawed badass roles for a change?”
Ms. Allred’s question arose because I had expressed the suspicion that regardless of genre many romance editors seem to only want stories wherein the hero possesses the flaws/badass nature/paranormal or scientific ability. In other words, the hero gets all the fun, all the good roles, all the cool clothes, and all the good dialogue. To echo Ms. Allred’s question, why is that okay?
Well, it’s not, and that goes double (heh!) for science fiction romance.
I’ve been pondering the double standard issue for some time. The issue was first brought into sharp focus for me in March 2009 upon reading a comment by blogger Lisa Paitz Spindler in response to the Dear Author post My Paranormal Malaise:
“Why is it the paranormal character is so often the hero and not the heroine?”
Ms. Spindler’s comment encapsulates the double standard issue with the eye-catching glow of a bright yellow neon sign. I subsequently wrote about this topic for my LoveLetter column in which I noted, "Because the focus of these [science fiction romance] stories is partly on the scientific elements, there is no inherent reason for the hero to be the predominant 'exotic' character." Science fiction romance offers the creative possibilities to consistently avoid the double standard noted above, but has not yet reached its potential in that regard.
Therefore, I feel a discussion is warranted, and sorely past due.
While I’ve encountered a few truly badass/flawed SFR heroines, they are rare. Often, authors just flirt with the idea, which renders the heroines with a second-class citizen badass role. I’ve no doubt some of them would use them more often if it weren’t for the Powers That Dictate A Fantasy Hero Lover For Heterosexual Female Readers Only.
I’ve always wondered if one aspect of this particular double standard has roots in the fantasy lover aspect of romance. Many books offer a badass hero because it taps into the fantasies of those who like to imagine themselves in the arms of a badass, tortured, and handsome hero who is also a great lover. One the
Badass/flawed heroes are given a wide latitude in terms of being able to fight, incur injuries, display arrogance, act ferociously, and even take lives if necessary (especially if it involves saving the heroine). They get to brood and have that safe-yet-dangerous personality that readers seem to find so attractive. Personally, I find these traits entertaining no matter who has them, as long as the character arc is compelling. But it seems that relative to badass/flawed heroes, the badass/flawed heroine is perceived as inherently bad, as though her very soul is flawed rather than just her behavior. Heroes are allowed to cross a line forbidden to heroines—why is that?
Recently, another blogger examined some of the craft-related flaws in heroines over the years in Why Strong Female Characters Are Bad For Women (via SFSignal). Mlawski weighed in on how some filmmakers missed the boat when it came to portraying strong heroines in movies:
Yeah, the trouble is, although these characters were marginally better than the original Damsels in Distress, they still ended up having to be saved in the final act by the male hero. There would usually be a scene (or three) where the “Strong Female Character” would be trapped by the villain and put into sexy clothing, I guess as a punishment of some sort. And even when she was being strong, she was always doing it in the sexiest way possible. She’d never, say, get a black eye or a broken nose in a fight. Her ability to fix cars (a powerful, masculine trait) would basically allow her to get sexy grease all over her slippery body. Her ability to shoot a gun was so the film’s advertisers could put her on a poster wearing a skimpy outfit with a big gun between her legs. All in all, the “strength” of her character was just to make her a better prize for the hero at the end – and for the horny male audience throughout.
Mlawski also points out that the bottomline is that all we’re asking for is good, strong, flawed characters, ones who also happen to be female.
Frankly, I expect more progressive characters in science fiction romance and flawed and/or badass heroines are one way to accomplish this goal. They don’t have to always be of the kick-ass variety, either (e.g., a heroine scientist who is morally compromised at the story’s beginning would make for an interesting character). Point is, the romance is about a relationship and the heroines deserve a chance at being flawed/badass just as much as the heroes. If readers aren’t demanding that kind of equality, I have to wonder why.
I’m not going to take double standards in science fiction romance anymore. Are you?
Joyfully yours,
Heather
36 comments:
lilith saint crow's "heroines" are always flawed....and they save themselves.
No! I'm not gonna take it anymore! Oh, wait. Does that mean I have to quit reading the books that actually get published? *laugh*
Great blog, Heather! Thanks for taking the time to do it. As someone who grew up fighting for women's rights, it really bothers me to see readers who melt over flawed heroes calling heroines with the same flaws slutty and unlikeable. Can you imagine men denigrating John Grisham's heroes just because they're flawed? I think its something unique to women, and its something we all need to think about. Why do we do this to our own gender when we should be embracing strong women who overcome unthinkable odds to win out in the end.
Anon, good to know, thank you!
@Writer and Cat Rock and a hard place, indeed. But my hope is that by at least starting a conversation about it we can create awareness and hey, let's see what happens. Increasingly more these days, the reader is the customer, baby!
@Katherine Definitely the "unlikeable" label bugs me (I think "bitchy" is another code word for badass/flawed heroines). There is, of course, a difference between an unlikeable/bitchy heroine without a character arc (which few want to read about) and one with a solid character arc, the latter of which I would like to encounter more.
What bothers me is when I encounter readers criticizing badass heroines (no matter the subgenre) with a good character arc--how are they missing that part of the story? The author's job is to manipulate readers' emotions (*waves to Linnea Sinclair in acknowledgment*). What does it matter if this is done through a badass/flawed heroine?
I ran into this when querying my last novel. My beta readers loved my heroine, but the editors/agents didn't believe me. (((sigh))) Unfortunatly, that's the way it goes for any subgenre of the Romance genre. What I don't understand is why they won't believe it's possible in SFR, as a whole, after kick-butt SFR authors like Susan Grant pull it off (ahem, MOONSTRUCK, ahem) time and again, and readers love 'em for it.
MY suspicion is they're still lumping SFR in with the rest of Paranormal Romance. They don't think SFR can manage on its own. Sadly, I'm afraid it's true.
At the same time, SFR will never be able to go it alone until they widen their audience.
At the same SAME time, they're not being allowed to widen their audience because they must toe the PR line because it's feared they can't rake in the dough unless they do.
Readers are not listened to unless they put their money behind their voice. So, champion your favorite authors by buying their books NEW. It's the only way they get paid and if they don't get paid then they don't get to publish the kinds of stories you love.
Great post as always, Heather. I'm hoping the trend turns toward more of the flawed/kick-ass heroines. In my current WIP, I've been mulling the big scene where the bad guy gets taken out. My hero wants to keep the heroine--a flawed but not a kick-ass kind of girl--as safe as he can, but I think she'll need to take care of things herself. And she will have zero regrets doing so : ) Wonder what an agent/editor might say about that?
"If readers aren’t demanding that kind of equality, I have to wonder why."
I recently came across a discussion where some readers were complaining about kickass/flawed heroines. They wanted their heroines to be nice and speculated that perhaps other readers liked the heroines with qualities that were traditionally thought of as masculine because young women are exposed today's media and mores.
So I wonder if it isn't partially an age issue. Maybe SFR needs to recruit younger readers. After all, sci-fi generally isn't progressive, per se. It mostly reflects contemporary society rather than what we think will really happen in the future.
Another thing to think about and this ties into the wider audience issue, is that there has been an over-abundance of Kick-Butt Heroines for the past decade in Paranormal Romance and Urban Fantasy.
I, for one, do not think Kick-Butt and Flawed have to be the same critter. Are Kick-Butt girls automatically assumed to be flawed?
Anyway, my point is I, too, am absolutely sick of Kick-Butt Heroines and they're about all you get these days in SFR. Now, I love 'em, but it's like the Harlequin section at the store where all you can find are brown-haired heroes.
Love Twinkies, but they make me throw up after a couple.
So, I think it would be helpful if authors and publishers alike thought about the 'too much of a good thing' factor.
While I'm at it, I'm also sick of raunchy, cynical romances, all about knock-down, drag-out sex against every bulkhead.
Is there room in SFR for romantic tension, longing for one another across the navigation console, and pining for lost love?
Admittedly, I've been a little out of it with revisions and tendonitis lately.
But, a little a variety would be nice.
Kimber An said: "But, a little a variety would be nice."
I think it would be more than nice. I think it would be WONDERFUL!
I want a variety of heroines who display all the complexity of the women I actually know. Flawed, sweet, not too bright, middle-aged, with an evil streak, with children to worry about, ambitious, thoughtful, angry, mysterious, intellectual, etc, etc, etc.
Give me complexity of character, PLEASE.
One other thing. The last few SFRs I've read have heroines that range from "sweet, but feisty" to "feisty, but sweet."
My reader's palate wants more - much more!
I wonder. Science fiction is perceived from the outside as the domain of the intellectual and the geeky. I gather that readers who steer clear of scifi assume it's inaccessible. Strong heroines have had to overcome the same 'inaccessible' accusation. Throughout the romance genre, all of us with rejection letters under our belts have heard 'no one will identify with this heroine' at one point or another when the heroine written as a smart, savvy woman who knew which end of a weapon did what. Gradually, in UF especially, that's changed a little - but UF isn't necessarily romance. I hear tidbits of advice (don't use names in a sex scene so the reader can sub herself into the heroine's place) designed to allow a reader to shoehorn herself into the story. Now, granted, my imagination is good enough that I can, for the length of a book, put myself into a scifi heroine's ass-kicking space boots - even though I'm not much of a physical activity kind of gal, myself (unless riding my bike counts). I wonder, though, if publishers assume readers outside of scifi find their willing suspension of disbelief stretched past the breaking point by the combination of scifi with heroines whose experience and physical ability is so far outside of the reader's. For scifi fans - bring on the smart, kick-ass women and the men who adore them. But for readers new to the genre where's the point of accessibility? How do we take their hands and say 'come on, it's not scary'? I think publishers have long felt that's the heroine's job. *Should* it matter whether a heroine is strong or weak? No. It should matter whether or not she's believable or 'real'. But so long as publishers feel it's the heroine's job to serve as ambassador to coax new readers into the scifi market, the risks they'll be willing to take with heroines may be limited. I'll be really interested to hear how everyone here feels about Ari - the heroine in Enemy Within. I really wanted a smart, tough heroine with some mighty big issues...I trust you'll tell me whether I got it anywhere near right. ;)
I've got two heroines now, though they come from the same culture, they come from different ends of it. Are they kick-booty, yes. One is survival tough, the other is a born commander and has the air of authority to go with it.
I'm hoping my third will be completely different, an average woman in a really sticky situation.
I do believe women are harder on women. I think it stems from how women have socialized from the beginning of time. Women have depended on one another for support in survival and raising children since the dawn of man. Isolate a woman and her situation becomes much more precarious.
I believe since we have been programmed with this social tendency, an instinct to judge has come with it. If a group of women perceive a member of the group as a threat to the group's resources due to whatever reason, the consequence was isolation from the group in the form of social shunning.
From witches, to ruined reputations, it seems our first feminine instinct is to cast off those we deem inappropriate to the group.
Maybe that has something to do with it. If a woman is too flawed, women in general don't feel comfortable thinking of her as one of "their group."
I know I judge my characters, but I'm always open to redemption.
That said, I don't put up with much from my heroes either.
Terrific discussion, as always, group! I tend to think readers (and the publishing powers that be, reflecting them) see flawed heroines as a sort of role reversal. They just aren't as interested in seeing whether the hero can redeem them as they are in seeing the traditional heroine redeem the flawed hero, for all the reasons we've noted. They identify with the heroine. They stand in judgment of her. They want to "tame" the beast in the flawed hero, etc., etc. It just doesn't work as well the other way around. Yet, if the writing and the story are compelling enough, perhaps we can convince them to come along for the ride and learn to love our bad girls, too.
{pause} I haven't noticed this problem in the Romantic Science Fiction end of things. I can think of several flawed heroines, and not all by established authors. Ann Aguire started with a pretty flawed heroine, as did Catherine Asaro. You mentioned Asaro's Alpha... well, long before Alpha, the heroine of her very first novel, Primary Inversion, was pretty flawed, too. She's half of not one but two romantic sub-plots in that novel, along with all the non-romantic stuff she has to deal with. {Smile}
If there's a problem, I'd say it's when you get more romance into the mix. In that, I'm not so sure how much of the problem is reader prejudice, and how much is publisher prejudice. If it's reader prejudice, I don't know what to do. If it's publisher prejudice, tho... give them the kind of heroine they want until you've proven that you can write books that sell. (I'd suggest at least three, but that's just a guess.) One you've proved that you can indeed write books that sell, publishers are willing to give you more leeway when it comes to breaking their conventions. {Smile}
Anne Elizabeth Baldwin
Readers are not listened to unless they put their money behind their voice. So, champion your favorite authors by buying their books NEW.
Exactly. SFR is still at a crossroads right now so it’s important to support the authors by purchasing books, both in digital and print. Another way to help if money is tight is to talk about the books we like and why we like them to as many people who will listen.
Cathy, you know what my vote is—she should step in, especially if the story calls for it. What’s good enough for AVATAR should be good enough for books, lol! I tell you, while watching AVATAR [Slight spoiler alert], I was on pins and needles during a particular scene when it wasn’t yet clear if the heroine was going to save the hero. I cannot express my relief and joy upon seeing her actually do so. [End spoiler alert]
If you stay true to the story, however, that might be a gamble as far as submissions. Yet these days there is also the digital publisher option so that increases the chances SFR can stake a claim in badass heroine territory *and* make some profit while doing so. Baby steps, right?
So I wonder if it isn't partially an age issue.
Syaffolee, good point. Age and also the extent to which a reader is media savvy (which could be independent of age). I agree it makes sense to recruit younger (adult) readers.
@Kimber An I think heroines can definitely be flawed and even badass without necessarily being kick-butt, although usually there’s a strong association between badass and kick-butt. But hey, it’s all good!
@Agent Z. I actually recently finished reading a heroine who was “sweet” and “not too bright” and believe it or not I really liked her! So there you go—variety, like you said. (I’ll be blogging about her soon, btw).
all of us with rejection letters under our belts have heard 'no one will identify with this heroine' at one point or another when the heroine written as a smart, savvy woman…I hear tidbits of advice (don't use names in a sex scene so the reader can sub herself into the heroine's place) designed to allow a reader to shoehorn herself into the story.
Ugh, ugh, ugh! That makes me ill to hear that (thanks for the insights). Explains a lot, though, about the way romance is marketed. I think it’s fine to have some stories feed into our fantasy lover needs, but it’s dismaying when it seems as though there’s a deliberate attempt to perpetuate it across the board. Sinister, almost.
Again, it’s a reader issue as well—why do we have such low standards for heroines? Or rather, why such an aggressive need for one type of heroine (the pure, innocent kind)? Gosh, it would be fascinating to know what types of romances will be published a hundred years from now….
I'll be really interested to hear how everyone here feels about Ari - the heroine in Enemy Within. I really wanted a smart, tough heroine with some mighty big issues...
Marcella, I like her already!
And now for the rest (dang the word count limit for comments!):
Jess, good points all. I do have hope that the romance genre can continue to reflect the real world changes as far as socialization of women is concerned. After all, it’s already accomplished that if we look at the simple fact that there are probably thousands of romances featuring heroines who support themselves through jobs—jobs! Imagine that.
At one time, I’m betting romance heroines with jobs were a totally new concept at one time—perhaps even viewed as a threat to the genre? I’m guessing here, actually—maybe BevBB or other longtime romance readers could weigh in on that aspect.
@Donna Agreed: story and writing are definitely key.
Anne, I agree, there’s probably a strategy or three or four needed before these types of heroines become generally accepted, regardless of subgenre. I’m wondering now if some of the paranormal romance and urban fantasy stories have already laid some of the groundwork.
One thing this discussion reminded me of was my interest in the CAPTAIN HARLOCK anime series and films. The show featured a male space pirate, Harlock, but also a female one, Emeraldas. While both were cool, I always thought Emeraldas was a little cooler because she was a woman—a rarity and hence exotic. As a female, I identified more strongly with her. I felt empowered by her character and always yearned to see her in more adventures.
The other aspect of Emeraldas that struck me is that her lover, Tochiro, is just as interesting a character as she is. Not less, not more, just equal. So when I think of SFR pairings that would excite me the most, I think of couples like Emeraldas and Tochiro (not necessarily Harlock and his lover, who fell into the pure/innocent/courageous heroine mold. Nice lady, but boring).
"...designed to allow a reader to shoehorn herself into the story."
I haaaate heroines like that. Boooooring! And isn't it kinda insulting to female intelligence?
Placeholder Heroines do not compute.
The flawed heroine is generally problematic across all genres. I got into trouble with my western because of it.
She's a hard sell. The reader doesn't identify with her. She's unlikeable. I got all of those and more.
I want my SF women to be strong, (butch doesn't hurt) and badass. I identify with the unlikeable geek and the badass commander.
I've only been keeping one eye on this thread because I'm currenly limiting my computer time due to a bad back. But I can't resist... I just hope it makes sense. ;-)
At one time, I’m betting romance heroines with jobs were a totally new concept at one time—perhaps even viewed as a threat to the genre? I’m guessing here, actually—maybe BevBB or other longtime romance readers could weigh in on that aspect.
I only have two observations.
First, remember all those governesses and nurses and secretaries who populated so many of the early romances or rather the first books actively labeled as romances. So, you might want to be a little bit more clear on what's meant by jobs. ;-)
Second, I find the combination of "badass/flawed" a little curious and possibly even a tad confusing because I'm not sure what it means when put together. I'm not sure we even link them together when talking about heroes unless the character truly is both. So, are we championing both traits as a goal for heroines or just one or the other?
There've been flawed heroines in romances for years and they've sold quite well. Christina Dodd's comes immediately to mind because of all the discussions I've seen about her heriones over the years. I know there are more romance authors that work with heriones who have serious, distinctive and definite character flaws but my medication is keeping me from remembering who they are at the moment.
Badass, though? What exactly are we talking about here that's distinct from flaws yet needing to be combined with it at the same time?
Agreed. Confusing. I also wonder if a 'badass' is automatically assumed to be flawed and the other way around. You know, some of us are just born 'bitchy,' that is outgoing, fierce, and not afraid to speak one's mind, able to command, etc... Those are all wonderful traits, but they're still too often spoken of negatively in regards to females.
Anyone want to clarify?
I don't see "badass" as a flaw. If my first heroine has a flaw, it's that she is almost a bit of a martyr. She has that, "If I don't do it, it's just not going to happen," attitude. She had to learn to let others take control of situations she felt responsible for. She wasn't flawed in any way for her toughness.
My second heroine's "flaw" is tunnel vision. She has a very narrow scope of experience, and she needs to open her eyes to the bigger picture of her world and her life. Her toughness isn't a flaw either but a strength that allows her to be what she needs to be.
A "flawed" character in my understanding of things is a character with a moral deficit. Flawed heroines for me would come in the form of unrepentant thieves, gamblers, pirates, assassins, prostitutes, liars, and scoundrels.
Badass isn't a deficiency in moral character.
That's why it is a little easier for a male to play those roles. In the history of women, those people have hardly ever made the "I want you in my circle of friends" cut. (Though in SFR, I'm pretty sure a pirate or two could sneak in there.) Women will traditionally accept a man with those flaws, so long as he reforms. I think it is harder with a woman to get past the initial judgment hump, but I believe a great character could do it.
Ethel the Space Pirate in my free read on my blog is a scoundrel. I don't consider her a badass, though. We have yet to see her duke it out with someone. But she has lied, manipulated, stolen, cheated, lied again, and done whatever she's had to do to survive. Yet as a character I think people like Ethel, but then the readers are in the driver's seat with her and they get to decide what Ethel should do next so maybe they bear some responsibility in her moral character. That said, I think Ethel, the somehow charming female cad, is the type of character we don't see often enough, but SFR has the freedom to develop with out the scorn of historic perspective.
What exactly are we talking about here that's distinct from flaws yet needing to be combined with it at the same time?
I'll be back later to comment further, but for now I'm going to point folks to a post at Dear Author that went up today, Loving The Unlikeable Heroine. Great timing on Jane's part, eh?!
I've had a little bit more time to think about this, plus I'm drinking my coffee and haven't had my muscle relaxer yet this morning. ;-)
I took the time to read through the post and comments over on Dear Author. I don't see what Janet (Robin?) is talking about there as being flawed characters so much as imperfect ones. Or put another way, perfectly normal human beings with perfectly normal personality traits that society doesn't always permit them to show and yet they do -- at least to their friends and family -- which is what makes them stand out from the characters who are always so "picture perfect" in other stories.
And don't we all have those personality imperfections to some extent?
See, that's where this whole thing gets muddy. When I think flawed, truly flawed, I think more along the lines of damaged without crossing the line into being psychopathic or sociopathic. Take dark, brooding, tortured and moody but give them a reason for existing that way. Possibly even a reason that they brought on themselves, at least by committing some act or transgression.
Someone can be a perfectly normal human being without anything dark secrets in their closet and yet have a truly obnoxious personality, particularly around family and friends that they feel comfortable with. Or they can show that personality to the entire rest of the world. That does not, however, make them flawed. It simply makes them a pain to be around. Maybe. Because again, don't we all have our own quirks?
But flawed? Flawed is someone who has things, quite possibly very bad things, in their past that they've done or been exposed to that they are ashamed of doing. Things that made them who they are. Things that had to be done, either to survive or protect, but still things that both society and their own conscience frowns upon. They did them anyway and make no apologies for doing them because they're survivors. Damaged, but surviving. Sometimes barely but that's not really the point. (Worst Trek movie but possibly best Kirk quote is the one where Kirk says "I like my pain. It made me who I am." )
Now, I'd like to point out that up to this point, I haven't used a single gender pronoun or reference in this comment and that was intentional. I've found it tends to clarify things when we stop talking about the "hims" and "hers" and only talk about characters period. So, again I ask, define badass but at the same time I challenge you all to do it in a gender neutral fashion because I suspect that's where real problem here is as well as the strength that SF can bring to the romance table.
Simple equality.
Just remember that with equality, the relationship still has to find some type of balance of opposites to be interesting and intriguing to the romance minded reader. Variety after all is the spice of life. ;-)
I loved my bad ass heroine in BYTE ME, but have to say, the other two books in the series sold better (both had softer edged heroines). That doesn't stop me writing badass, because GIRL GONE NOVA has a very bad ass character. I was concerned that she wasn't likable, but my beta readers have loved her. Now, didn't try to get her past a NY publishing gateway. My small press publisher didn't blink at her.
In Smiley's PLAYWRITING: THE STRUCTURE OF ACTION, he talks about things like stature, clarity, likability, volition, credibility, and attractiveness (this is about "wholeness" not beauty).
I know when a read a book with fully formed characters and great writing, I don't think about who does what. I'm just in there loving the ride. I don't want a story where either heroine or hero does all the heavy lifting, but a sense that yes, these two people really are better together, stronger together, two halves of a better whole.
I like it when each main character gets to do what they are best at. I will admit I come to the discussion not widely read in Urban Fantasy. I did love Alpha and I'm a huge fan of Linnea's heroine/hero mix. I liked DARKSHIP THIEVES, too.
And I'm WAY behind in my other reading. (insert a wry grin here)
Bev,
Are you saying you don't think there's a double standard, or that there shouldn't be? If the second, I agree with you. If its the first, I certainly don't. Leaving the gender off your response doesn't really prove a single thing, because this post isn't about what SHOULD be, its about what is.
For example, suppose I wrote a character that smoked, drank to excess, loved nothing more than a good bar fight, slept their way through anyone who caught their attention, and had no aspirations for marriage or children. I can assure you, if that character were male, readers would love him to death. If that character were female, they would hate her. Assuming editors ever gave them the chance to read a book with her as the heroine. I know, because I've always wanted to write that character and I've been shut down time and time again. Kiera Smith, my heroine from Close Encounters, was as close as I've ever been able to get, and I had to practically make her an alien to get it done. And I'm still rolling my eyes at some of the things female readers have called her.
And my heroine isn't the only one. I've seen the same kind of comments aimed at Ann Aguirre's Samantha Jax.
So, while simple equality, as you put it, would be wonderful, its not happening. And just think of what we might be missing because it isn't.
PS. Here's the best definition of badass I've found. Note its given in the masculine.
He radiates confidence in everything he does, whether it's ordering a drink, buying a set of wheels, or dealing with women. He's slow to anger, brutally efficient when fighting back.
The badass carves his own path. He wears, drives, drinks, watches, and listens to what he chooses, when he chooses, where he chooses, uninfluenced by fads or advertising campaigns. Badass style is understated but instantly recognizable. Like a chopped Harley or a good pair of sunglasses: simple, direct, and functional.
Now that's a flawed character. I like her. :)
Science Fiction Romance reflects (as sci fi often does) the society in which its created.
So, how many "badass" women do you know? Frankly, the women I know are both badass and vulnerable. It's the HUMAN aspect of women that make them good characters IMHO.
And strong women rarely seek out beta males. Sometimes they do, but most of the time, they don't. So, often when I write SFR, I like to have a strong heroine who can hold her own, but she usually falls in love with a stronger male.
Human relationships are based on power and the most POPULAR combination is Male Dominant/female submissive. (With the stipulation that the female isn't stupid and totally weak).
Is that a reflection of our society? Is it the wishful fantasy of our society?
I don't know.
I watch the numbers.
Erotic Science Fiction romance with dominant male and submissive female sells better than Erotic Science Fiction romance with Dominant female and submissive male.
What does that say about our society?
Are you saying you don't think there's a double standard, or that there shouldn't be? If the second, I agree with you. If its the first, I certainly don't. Leaving the gender off your response doesn't really prove a single thing, because this post isn't about what SHOULD be, its about what is.
Yes, and "what is" is that if we step back and actually define what they're doing without the gender labels attached, many times it's the same thing. So, the problem with leaving the gender in is that then we're always thinking in terms of his and hers - whatever. As long as we do that, then we easily fall into the trap of seeing his traits as positives and hers as negatives ------ when they're the same traits.
Not male or female, but the same.
For example, suppose I wrote a character that smoked, drank to excess, loved nothing more than a good bar fight, slept their way through anyone who caught their attention, and had no aspirations for marriage or children. I can assure you, if that character were male, readers would love him to death.
Except for possibly the smoking, this sounds like a Shelly Laurenston/G.A. Aiken heroine. Plenty of romance readers love her heroines. Not all of them, mind you, but plenty. Her name even comes up in the comments to that Dear Author post. In a post on Laurenston (http://bevsbooks.com/notes/?p=1075), I call her heroines "mean" intentionally. Here's the thing, though, when I use that term, I'm not using it to define only female characters because I've also read plenty of "mean" romance heroes in the past. Not dominant, not alpha, but just simply mean. Think Beast if you want. If anything, I was celebrating the fact that finally we're starting to see some heroines who could totally match them.
Side note: one of her couples, the alphas of their wolf pack, actually get themselves "neutered" because they don't want children of their own.
With respect to "flaws", if our characters didn't have any, they wouldn't be real. I think what we're really talking about is the kind of flaws BevBB mentions, the ones "even their own conscience(s) frown on." Because then the character arc becomes about redemption, a fundamental theme of literature, and not just about bad temper and amusing one-liners.
Secondly, the best matches in romance, it seems to me, are always those between two strong characters. The "alpha" male needs an "alpha" female to stand up to him, to meet him where he is, to be strong where he is weak, and vice versa. That makes for a true partnership, in fiction , as in life.
Secondly, the best matches in romance, it seems to me, are always those between two strong characters. The "alpha" male needs an "alpha" female to stand up to him, to meet him where he is, to be strong where he is weak, and vice versa. That makes for a true partnership, in fiction , as in life.
Oh, absolutely. :D
My biggest pet peeve with "alpha" as used in romanceland is that it's used primarily for the hero(es) and I refuse to apply it only to them. Why? Because it has never made sense to me that a true alpha would seek out a lesser mate that's not their equal in all things.
But this is also a battle that's been going on for years in the romance community. So, Katherine, don't think I'm not aware of the double standard you're talking about. It is very much there. The trick is how we choose to respond to it. ;-)
I couldn't agree more, Heather. I think science fiction should be an equal place for male and female heroes--and as much as it is a venue for the stretching of accepted boundaries and the discussion of social mores, it should be more progressive!
What about unconventional heroes? I don't mean sweet innocent heroes, but heroes who are flawed in different ways from the usual 'rough diamond' ones? Why are all the pictures of men's bodies on the front of romance books of the steroidised lumpy-muscly sort? Most of the ladies I know seem to prefer slinky elegant men, not these great masculine tanks. I personally like 'bigger' guys -- and I mean 'chubby' rather than 'muscly', and although I understand that's not common, I know it's neither very rare.
I agree with the original sentiment about heroines being less of a sort, but I think I'd like more varied characters of all types. I recently had published a SFR, Dark Tempest, where the heroine a member of a genetic elite, brought up to believe she's better than other people, who is initially arrogant and unpleasant. The hero comes from a genetic underclass, and is something of an aimless rogue when they first meet. Of course, they both change their ideas (I hope for the better) throughout the course of the plot. The book is currently #3 bestseller in science fiction on Fictionwise, although reviews seem to be divided over it!
I'm moving even further from this in the books I'm currently writing. I'm hoping to have finished soon a new SFR with a military heroine (hot-tempered, bad interpersonal skills, living in the shadow of something she'd rather others didn't know about) and a nerdy scientist hero who's a bit of a sarcastic wimp. The book I next plan to work on is a romance about two criminals. The heroine is angry and wants revenge on the world. The hero is a charismatic fat guy with a sense of humour. It'll be interesting to see if I can sell either of these, and I'd be interested to hear anyone's thoughts on these deviations on the norm on here.
Any chance of an article on heroes with different body types, Heather? ;-)
Any chance of an article on heroes with different body types, Heather?
Oh, I'm all over that one! Check out my post MY WIFE IS A GANGSTER & The Nurturing Hero.
The hero is a charismatic fat guy with a sense of humour.
I am so there.
Unfortunately, I may be your one and only customer. However, I would love to be proven wrong. Please prove me wrong! (Maybe test the audience for that with a short story or novella?)
That said, body type is one of many ingredients for a compelling hero or heroine. And there would be different places you could take this type of hero...is he comfortable with his weight? How much of a role would his weight really play? Is his humor self-deprecating or unrelated to his weight? Rhetorical questions, really, but to make him as appealing to readers as he is to the heroine I imagine it would involve a fair amount of work since this type of hero is a deviation from the norm.
And depending on who runs your art department, you may still end up with a chiseled hunk on the cover, lol!
Unfortunately, I may be your one and only customer. However, I would love to be proven wrong. Please prove me wrong! (Maybe test the audience for that with a short story or novella?)
Hey, I did! A few years back I had a SF-romance-crime short story published in the anthology 'The Fat Man at the End of the World'. http://www.lulu.com/content/5287986
I was the one who did the detective investigating an impossible crime.
Anyway, one thing I really like about the modern small presses, is that they do seem to be prepared to take a bit of a gamble on something off the beaten track. I write books for kids and YA that I hope are more marketable, but it's nice to have an outlet for what I want to write with no regard to marketing. Maybe I was just fortunate to find an editor who happened to 'get' what I was trying to do on my first book; time will tell I guess. Even if only one person reads it and enjoys it, that's better than it languishing on my hard drive forever more.
As for my fat hero in the crime-romance I'm writing, he is comfortable with his body at the point of his life the book's set, but that wasn't always the case. He has made a very terrible mistake, and he's running away from it. I'm trying to play up the sensual positives of a physical relationship with a bigger lover. He's smart and courageous, and not afraid to defend himself and his girlfriend should he need to. His sense of humour is meant to be flirty and bantery, not usually self-deprecatory, unless someone embarrasses him with a compliment. ;-)
The Fat Man at the End of the World
Cool! I'll have to check that out. Thanks for the tip.
Post a Comment