


by Candy • Friday, April 22, 2005 at 01:30 PM
Today’s Romancing the Blog entry by Charlene Teglia is a love-letter of sorts to alpha heroes. I don’t mind alpha heroes, as long as they don’t segue into “jerk” territory. But I’m seeing a lot of false conflation in the ensuing discussion--and I’m by no means innocent of it, either.
People who don’t like alpha heroes immediately equate them with jerkholes who consistently mistreat the heroine, sometimes (in the older romances, anyway) raping her unrepentantly.
People who don’t like beta heroes immediately equate them with wussy girly-men who are wishy-washy and weak.
I’ll admit that the first type of conflation makes a lot more sense to me, because most alpha heroes in old-school romances WERE pretty much royal asswads of the first degree. These heroes made wrong assumptions about the heroine’s sexual experience, raped her, then became furious with the heroine for not telling them she was a virgin, then later they might apologize that they assumed she wasn’t a virgin (note: implying that raping a sexually-experienced woman is fine and dandy).
Not all alpha heroes are like that, of course. There are asshole tendencies in many alpha heroes, but the extent to which these latent tendencies emerge varies greatly from author to author and book to book. I like alpha heroes who, by the end of the book, realize they’ve been arrogant shitheads, apologize accordingly and reform enough so that although they’re still confident, they’re not going to go back to acting like a bull with a hornet up his ass. Sebastian of Lord of Scoundrels, Devon of The Windflower, Whatsisface of Lily (yeah, I liked the book mostly because of the heroine) and Ransom of Midsummer Moon had reformed enough and seen where they’d gone wrong that I was confident they weren’t going to keep on mistreating the heroine badly--not that they had crossed too many lines in the sand in the first place, though Devon and Whatsisface came very, very close.
Derek Craven of Dreaming of You is a good example of an alpha hero with few to no asshole tendencies--or would he be considered more of a gamma hero? Ugh, so confusing. Come to think of it, Kleypas consistently writes alpha heroes with few to no jerk tendencies.
But beta heroes = wishy-washy wimps? What the hell? Like I said in the comments: I have yet to encounter a pussywhipped romance novel hero, and I’m a person who actively seeks out books featuring beta heroes. Even nerds get to save the day and make the heroine come until she sees stars in romance novels.
And does anyone else find it disturbing that a lot of people seem to be equating “nice guy” with being a wimp? Because I don’t. I equate a nice guy with, uh, niceness. He won’t cheat on me, he won’t assume horrible things about me, if something’s bugging him he’ll talk to me about it instead of thinking the worst and smacking me around, and best of all, he has a sense of humor and can laugh at himself when he needs to. When I try to boss him around, he usually gives me a Look, then walks away instead of trying to escalate it into a pointless fight. He doesn’t want to change me, nor does he want to “just tame” me, he likes me as I am, flaws and all. In short, nice guys are functional. Dysfunction may be more interesting and exciting because it generates so much turmoil, but that doesn’t mean nice guys are boring. Not always, anyway.
And THAT, really, is the biggest problem with beta heroes, because some romance authors cannot resist the temptation to impart every species of perfection onto their heroes, which ends up with them being kind of bland. A great example of this is the hero from The Naked Duke. He wasn’t a wimp by any stretch of the imagination, but man, he made me snore and then snore some more.
And I’m going to bring up Christy of To Love and To Cherish yet fucking again because man, talk about a beta hero done right. He’s perfect too--as the heroine notes, he even argues without rancor. Yet he’s adorable. He’s the sexy kind of nice that makes you want to tie him up and dirty him up a little. And Anne, the heroine, certainly doesn’t run roughshod over him; they both compromise during the course of their love story--you know, like rational adults often do.
Anyway, to summarize:
I don’t necessarily mind if my heroes are assholes, but if they are, they must be thoroughly repentant assholes by the end of the book.
I really, really like nice guys, both in real life and in my fiction. I have NO IDEA why people immediately equate nice guys with wimps, because all the nice guys I’ve known are plenty assertive--they’re just not dickheads about having their way all the time, every time.





21 comments •
Trackback •
Categories: Ranty McRant
Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.




by Candy • Friday, April 22, 2005 at 09:09 AM
Oh boy. Check out the new contest Kate Rothwell has set up.
The “cover art” she’s chosen is… Damn. Just go look.
I love that I can spend another day putting off trying to illustrate the new clutch shaft Engineering has decided to inflict on us so I can think up delicious blurbs for this contest.
Leave a comment •
Trackback •
Categories: Go Ahead, Win Some Shit •
The Link-O-Lator
Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.


by Candy • Friday, April 22, 2005 at 06:37 AM
Another Friday, another personal ad! Guess the character name, title, and author correctly, and find yourself the proud owner of a lovingly-crafted, 100% dairy-free and heart-healthy Smart Bitches title.
SWF, 35 y.o., all alone and hopelessly on the shelf looking for a sexy, hypothermic stranger to pass out on my door. Good-looking illegitimate gunslinger/private investigator with overdeveloped sense of chivalry preferred. I have small farm, cozy house, some livestock; you have requisite equipment to take care of my virginity because damn, I’m sick of this hymen and nobody in the Dakota Territories wants it. Commitment would be nice, but one-night stand also acceptable.
p.s. Am willing to assist in any sort of investigation you’re involved in. I won’t get in the way, I swear.
Addendum: OK, since nobody’s gotten it yet thus far, I offer these hints:
- It’s a book written by a fairly popular author who’s written only historicals with American settings; the worst grade she’s ever gotten at AAR was a C.
- This particular book was published by HarperCollins in 1997.
Ringing any more bells?
9 comments •
Trackback •
Categories: Guess That Lonely Heart!
Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.



by SB Sarah • Thursday, April 21, 2005 at 07:16 AM
MelJean’s musings on homosocial and homosexual under-and-overtones (heh heh) in romance made me ponder the friendships between men, which usually center around common painful childhoods (see: Putney), family connections (see: Quinn) and opportunity for somewhat goofy nicknames for circle of friends (see: Putney, Laurens), and common social habits, i.e. clubs, hunting groups, hooker-hunting groups, gambling, and/or bonding while suffering through endless balls, dances, and social events.
What about friendships among women? I know there are more than a few series wherein older matrons bond together and interfere - sorry, lovingly involve themselves - in young hero and heroine von romanticshire’s lives. But it seems to me that friendships among men, which according to some feminist theorists serve to reinforce heterosexuality and patriarchy, are much more common than true, multi-novel lasting friendships among women. There are a few exceptions that moved beyond “elder character from previous novel giving sage advice to young virgin heroine,” such as The Wallflowers in Kleypas’ Secrets of a Summer Night, the friendships that follow through Julia Quinn’s two early works, Splendid and Dancing at Midnight though there is some of that in each novel. Perhaps there’s an imaginary line that heroines cross when they have sex and settle down into married bliss, because I have much clearer recollections of heroines from previous novels appearing decades older and somehow unable to connect with the younger, virginal crowd anymore, than I do of heroines retaining their personalities and remaining merry friends with heroines of other books in a related series.
What does that mean, from a critical perspective? Is the underlying emphasis of romance novels the reaffirmation of the heterosexual patriarchy, and thus the friendships and homosocial collectives of men are of more importance than the friendships of women, which do little to support that patriarchy, and, in fact, undermine it?
However, as has been established, my memory for these things is quite poo. Do y’all challenge my recollection of female friendships? Shall I stop flexing these flabby fem-crit brain muscles?
28 comments •
Trackback •
Categories: Random Musings
Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.







by Candy • Wednesday, April 20, 2005 at 08:35 PM
And Meljean has constructed rock-solid arguments on why this is so.
Please. Read her article. It will open your eyes--and heal your gout, too, should you be gouty, that is.
10 comments •
Trackback •
Categories: The Link-O-Lator
Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.