What Are Your Favourite Kind of Chocolates… erm, mean Characters?
A writing colleague recently said to me, “You tend to write hard women characters and soft men. Why don’t you try it the other way around?” Well, at first I was a little shocked, then realized maybe it’s a little bit true. I would say, not completely true, but a little. Then I thought, well if I turned it around in this case, two things would happen. Firstly, my story would be a different story, perhaps not the one that wants to be told… at least by me.
And secondly, in romance and women’s fiction, there are plenty of other people telling stories about soft women and hard men. The tropes are familiar and often entertaining, but it can get a little old. A lot of Romance readers gravitate to the fantasy fulfillment of millionaire-CEO-pirate-duke-cowboy-Navy Seals-biker-delinquent-step-brother. And that’s okay for some, at least some of the time. But romantic women’s fiction can be so many things, why should everyone, readers and writers both, be shoehorned into just one kind of story? I certainly don’t, as a reader.
Drawing on the inspiration of Forrest Gump, and his famous quote that life is like a box of chocolates, what if we looked at characters like chocolates? There are so many kinds, and we all have our favourites. The ones we grab first when the box is opened because we know what to expect and we know it’s going to be good.
It struck me that the characters in fiction are kind of like this. We all have our favourite kinds of heroines and heroes too, for whatever reasons (probably complex psycho-social ones.) Maybe we relate to them. Maybe we enjoy the particular kind of transformation those character types take in terms of story. The plots or the emotional journeys they take. What kind of heroines are you drawn to in fiction?
Soft Creams?
The one’s that are smart, sexy and well-put-together, but fall apart under a little pressure? That can be fun. Off the top of my head I’m thinking of Sophie Kinsella’s The Undomestic Goddess in which a successful, ambitious lawyer makes a stupid careless mistake that snowballs out of proportion and she panics, runs away and tries to hide out while adapting to a radically different kind of life baking bread.
I would classify my character Kate O’Day in Reconcilable Differences this way. She’s got her life figured out. She’s smart and competent and everything’s fine, thank you, but under pressure, we learn she has unresolved issues that threaten to make her fall apart. (Proving that not all my women are hard.)
Chewy Caramels?
The ones that are firm on the outside but have a soft, gooey centre, like a caramel? Maybe a little resistant and stubborn, one that needs to be chewed on a little or gradually warmed up in order to soften, but then get really fun as they get going? Another example of this would be the heroine Ellen in Emily Giffin’s Love the One You’re With.
In my book The Art of Enchantment, Sophie’s had some bad experiences, and a lot of pressure from her family, to behave in a particular way, and to avoid the heat. They’ve shaped her into a little square box. Only under the continuous and persistent pressure of Guillermo’s charismatic attention does she soften up and recognize that she’s been avoiding the good stuff, and denying an important aspect of her own character, and life!
Or Hard Nuts?
Or maybe the ones that are smooth on the outside, but need to be cracked and broken in order to be digested? I see this type of character as ones that have been hardened by some extreme trauma in life, perhaps the loss of a loved one, a failed relationship, betrayal or an abusive childhood. It’s not a matter of warming them, but forcing them into a tough make-or-break spot, like a nutcracker, and breaking them down so they can become something else altogether.
The book I’m working on now, (A Forged Affair) has a heroine who’s lively and strong on the outside, but rigid in her world view, and pretty cut off from her own emotions, because of something heart-breaking that happened to her when she was young (you’ll have to wait for the book to find out!) She’s engaging, but might seem cool to the touch, and for the hero looking for love, out of reach. But when she gets into a tight spot, and he recognizes that she needs to face her past, he lets her break and waits patiently to pick up the pieces so they can start over.
Personally, I think I’m mostly a caramel girl myself. But when a character, situation or story comes to me and wants to be told, I have to be honest and open to who the characters are and how they need to transform in order to grow into their essence.
For me, if I start reading a novel, romance or otherwise, and the main character is weak and TSTL (too stupid to live) that’s a huge turnoff. Now that’s not the same thing as a character that’s tortured by their emotions, insecurities or indecision – provided their backstory and goals adequately justify this character flaw. To me that just means they need to go through some transformative experiences in order to be happy and fulfilled, not rescued by some big strong guy who will solve their problems for them.
After all, a character without flaws is boring and has nowhere to go in terms of growth. And we all want to see characters we can relate to be challenged and learn important life lessons. Right?
Well… back to my hard nut of a heroine. What do you think about this idea? Comment below and tell me what kind of chocolate “heroine” you like best.
And don’t forget to sign up for my list to keep up to date about A Forged Affair and its progress toward publication.
Finally Reconcilable Differences is ready for publication. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, this is a book that was originally written over ten years ago. For all the revisions, it will always carry the scars of having been my first, and because of that, the vehicle for my learning curve as a writer.
In some ways, this seems appropriate for a book that’s about exactly that. A woman, Kate O’Day, who carries the emotional and psychic scars of a long-ago sexual assault, and the emotional trauma of dealing with and healing from that over many years. Kate, like her story, has been in a long iterative process of revision, learning and rebirth.
I’m so happy to be able to share Kate’s story with you at last. It’s an important story, and as one reviewer said, “we get to ride along on this harrowing journey without getting too beat up along the way.” Reconcilable Differences explores how sexual assault can lead to repressed memories, PTSD, and compromised self-esteem that has deep and lasting impact on a woman and her ability to form lasting and intimate relationships.
I felt it was important to explore these subtler psychological dimensions, since they are rarely discussed, in the context of growing awareness of rape culture, and how it supports, prolongs and institutionalizes the oppression of women for the duration of their lives.
A HOPEFUL STORY OF HEALING & SELF LOVE
But this is not meant to be a dark or a radical book. My goal had always been to tell a love story. A sensitive and intimate exploration of one woman’s journey toward self-knowledge, self-acceptance and love. Although Reconcilable Differences isn’t a classic romance, it is a love story, as Kate navigates the reawakening of a love she lost long ago, along with her own sense of self.
It’s ultimately an optimistic story that hopefully resonates with readers, allowing insight into the inner life of a woman searching for identity, fulfillment, balance and love. In that regard, it speaks to us all.
HAVING IT ALL
Regardless of your personal experience, everywoman’s life shares certain common threads. Despite changes over generations, and from place to place, women have always had to struggle to find their place in society. No matter what choices you are given, or what decisions you make, there are always options, always consequences, always disappointments. I don’t think this feeling is particular to my generation, but I do feel that my own life is a reflection of this truth, and so I write with insight and authority on subjects that have touched me personally.
The Having It All series of novels is my way of exploring modern women’s lives as they try to integrate the particular circumstances of their families of origin and personal experiences with perpetually conflicting goals. How do we balance freedom with security, self-expression, identity and autonomy with love, family and belonging? As we variously lean in and try to participate fully in the world, we also need to keep a finger on the pulse of our inner lives to ensure that we don’t sell ourselves short. True empowerment means living fully in our own essence, and having the freedom to make and live with our choices without regret.
WHY YOU SHOULD READ THIS BOOK?
This is a good moment to reflect on why I wrote this story, and why I believe you should read it. Women’s Fiction encompasses the woman’s journey no matter where or when or how she lives, and by donning the mantle, and walking in the shoes, of characters that are like, but different from ourselves, we learn. We become sensitized to the particular challenges women face, and we can apply those lessons to our own lives, hopefully for the better. We learn about the world, we learn about ourselves, and we learn about each other.
We are all on a journey, and honest compelling storytelling has always been an important way for us to broaden, deepen and strengthen ourselves for the road. I hope you join me on this journey and both read and enjoy Reconcilable Differences. There are more stories where this one came from!
FOLLOW ME, SUBSCRIBE, SIGN UP, SHARE, BUY THE BOOK & WRITE A REVIEW
These are all the ways you can help me with the business side of being an author. The more help I get with this stuff, the more time I can spend writing new stories to share with you.
Recently I occasioned to re-examine a blog post that I’d bookmarked some time ago, two actually. The first, by Kat Latham, and a second, in a guest blog post by Sara Megibow. Both make enlightened and persuasive arguments against detractors of romance fiction, in response to the typical negative feedback fans universally face, making the point that there is nothing inherently “anti-feminist” about romance fiction. Especially the modern variety. Both are worth a read, or a re-read if you’re familiar with them.
Kat makes the valid point that: “Throughout a novel, a heroine’s character arc often involves her struggling with the expectations society has for her as a woman, and it can be heartening to see how others (authors, not characters) confront the issues I face.”
Sara raised these points in rebuttal to those who compare romance to pornography for women:
“I maintain that healthy sex is an important women’s issue. Raising our daughters to have a thorough, healthy, self confident, realistic and safe understanding of their sexuality is important (incidentally, raising ourselves to be healthy sexual adult women is also important and…difficult).
Addressing the way-too-prevalent scars caused by rape, incest and other molestation is an important women’s issue. And having a mouth-watering sexual relationship with one’s husband or partner should be an important women’s issue too. Sexual fulfillment is a part of sexual health, yes? There’s nothing about sex that isn’t political and our brave and luminous authors are tackling these very issues right under the noses of potential readers who would snub them for it?”
BEYOND FITZWILLIAM D’ARCY
I agreed with both Sara’s and Kat’s posts and with most of the commenters, but it was a particular comment by “A. Lady” that prompted me to type a reply. “A Lady” says:
“I agree that the genre has improved in its gender politics, but a couple of things still grate on me. One is that even though the hero doesn’t have to have a personality disorder or be a rapist to be well-matched with the heroine, I do think there is still a preponderance (in historical fiction) [MACS NOTE: not exclusively] of members of the aristocracy or bringands/priates [sic]/warriors of some desccription [sic], which tends to re-inforce the stereotype that the hero needs to be socio-economically well-off or physically active and “tough” in order to be attractive. This is obviously not without exception, but when did you last read a historical romance where the hero was a clergyman with a fairly middle-of-the-road income who likes reading? Emphasising income or physical attractiveness is okay (hey, Jane Austen did it), but it does seem to indicate that there are no other models of masculinity or male attractiveness.”
MODELS OF MASCULINITY
While I’m as guilty of the next girl of swooning over the stoic and socially awkward Mr. Darcy, I have to say that all the feminine stereotypes aside, I think this is one thing romance fiction needs to seriously examine. Fantasies are well and good and serve their purpose, but where contemporary (I mean modern, as opposed to the sub-genre) romance fiction has come a long way toward addressing modern women, their shifting place in society, and issues of real relevance to women today, it pretty much ignores the impact these changes have had on our everyday heroes.
Here’s my comment to Kat Latham’s post:
“This is a great post and I’ve enjoyed the comments/discussion and agreed with all of it. I do want to pipe up here to say that A.Lady’s point about stereotypical heroes is extremely valid and the most important one so far. While heroines have changed a great deal and for the most part kept up with changes in society and mores, heroes definitely have not. I do think they have become more psychologically complex, and in that sense have improved. On the other hand, why can’t we read romance fiction with heroes who are not alpha-types? Is this really all romance readers want or will tolerate? Or are publishers for the most part afraid to deviate from this standard?
TRAPPED IN SOCIAL STEREOTYPES
I try in my own novels to make sure that while the heroes have some traditionally attractive qualities, they are either “fringe” alpha or not alpha at all – exploring characters that are introverted, intellectual, spiritual, insecure or even socially awkward geeks, for example. (Could this be why I’m not published yet, I wonder?) These are more relevant to today’s society, both for women readers and for potential male readers who perhaps can’t relate to romance novels because they CAN’T SEE THEMSELVES ON THE PAGE. Perhaps some of the vocal critics of the genre secretly resent the fact that so many women’s fantasies focus on rare or unrealistic stereotypes for men – ones they themselves don’t meet.
I would also point out that in some ways the world has changed more for women than for men. They are still trapped in their own social stereotypes, with all the attendant expectations to BE alpha, be providers and protectors, keep their weaknesses and feelings closed up, and dealing with that. Unfortunately for men, they don’t have the same dialogue and peer support that women do as they work these things out and renegotiate or even DEMAND that society accept these other, less stereo-typical attributes. Some of their worst detractors are other men, and it’s extremely difficult for men to go against the expectations and limitations of their own “group.” (As an aside I’ll take this opportunity to plug one of my favourite TED Talks.) It take courage to deviate from these expectations, and stereotypes in romance fiction do none of us any favours. We need to give men permission to NOT be alpha, and send that message out to society that they are still valuable and attractive. ALL characters are more attractive if they are strong and self-sufficient and have spunk. They are also more attractive if they are sensitive, caring, expressive of their true feelings and well-groomed. DUH. But we don’t have to distort reality or exclude real human beings in order to satisfy our craving for love stories with happy endings.
REAL MEN VERSUS ROMANCE HEROES
And, in that way I have of unintentionally casting a net and catching all manner of flotsam in it, and afterwards remarking that there appears to be a pattern, I also dog-eared an article from the July 2012 issue of RWR (Romance Writers Report, issued to the organization’s members) by Betsey Prioleau entitled, “Talking the Lady into Love” Tips from Nonfiction.”
“To listen seductively isn’t as simple as it sounds. A man must be all in, mentally and emotionally engaged, and attuned to subtexts and unvoiced feelings.”
This article was meant to provide romance writers with information to help them “amp up a hero’s allure” by providing some hints about the types of language and behavior that succeed in making a heroine think about love (and lust); it also points to some interesting contrasts between real men and romantic heroes.
Without repeating the entire article, for those who are unable to access it for themselves, I’ll summarize the key points. Prioleau argues that a man’s attributes or skills that are most able to seduce a woman include the following:
Men who are engaged and active LISTENERS
Soothing SWEET TALK
Amusing: DROLL, SILLY, ZANY, WITTY banter to make her laugh and relax
ENTERTAIN & INFORM, intelligence, engaging STORYTELLING, witty banter, big ideas
LYRIC: poetry, rhyme, rhythm, music of the soul, mesh of sound and sense (the romance of the singer/songwriter/poet)
Nothing about social status, titles, income, sports cars or biceps.
This list could be looked upon as yet another list of stereotypical attributes which most modern men would fail to measure up to. Certainly many of the men I know would not score so well on these parameters. That was my first reaction to it. But upon further thought, perhaps, if men MUST change to adapt to a new, feminized society, and to establish and strengthen their relationships with women, these are the characteristics that they should augment. We cannot ask modern men to be dukes, Scottish lairds or bucaneers, but maybe we could ask them to cultivate more of these attributes. At least the playing field would be relatively level, and who can complain about that?
“The brain can be the sexiest part of the male anatomy – if the man knows how to spin his smarts and stories with conversational charm.”
And, because why make something simple and short if you can make it convoluted and complex, I have one more piece to this post. Today, a fellow named Jeff has been working on a new patio here at the house, and, like many residents of this island, he is multi-talented. During a brief respite from his heavy excavation work, as he often does, he pulled out his acoustic guitar and sang a few old Dylan and Beatles tunes, belting out the lyrics across the landscape. The number that struck a chord with me today was, “Girl” by John Lennon. Curious, I searched up the lyrics of the song:
Girl, by John Lennon
Is there anybody going to listen to my story
All about the girl who came to stay?
She’s the kind of girl you want so much
It makes you sorry
Still you don’t regret a single day.
Ah girl
Girl
When I think of all the times I’ve tried so hard to leave her
She will turn to me and start to cry;
And she promises the earth to me
And I believe her
After all this time I don’t know why
Ah girl
Girl
She’s the kind of girl who puts you down
When friends are there, you feel a fool.
When you say she’s looking good
She acts as if it’s understood.
She’s cool, ooh, ooh, ooh,
Girl
Girl
Was she told when she was young that pain
Would lead to pleasure?
Did she understand it when they said
That a man must break his back to earn
His day of leisure?
Will she still believe it when he’s dead?
Ah girl
Girl
Curiously, I found the following comment from “Soma” attached to the post, only the most eloquent of the bunch, but telling, I felt. Are there voices we are not hearing because it is “political incorrect” to express these, perfectly valid, feelings?
“Was she told when she was young that pain would lead to pleasure? Did she understand it when they said that a man must break his back to earn his day of leisure? Will she still believe it when he’s dead?
To me this is the most profound line John ever wrote. I hear people saying all the time that “it’s a guy’s job” to do this or that, especially to earn all the money, and subtly or not so subtly people are telling girls that if a guy isn’t constantly breaking his back for her temporal well being then he’s not worth being kind to. Then some girls grow up thinking they just have to act sweet when things get rocky and they’ll prolong a relationship where the guy gives her his all. %45 of suicides are by unemployed men between 35-50 (about %2 of the population) because people don’t put any worth on them and then proceed to blame them for it. And there are many more deaths from men having stress related health issues because they’re too scared to take the “easy way” out. To me, this isn’t just John’s story, this is a story of gender bias that’s politically incorrect to address.”
Well. Food for thought. What do you think? Do you agree that stereotypes of attractive masculinity as portrayed in romance fiction are harmful, outdated and discriminatory? Do you think they work against the ideals of feminism? Do you think these images of manhood contribute to the discrimination that romance fiction faces in broader society?
In closing, here’s John Lennon and the Beatles, singing Girl.
