You Like Me! You Really, Really Like Me!

I used to go to school with this one girl who was so nice. You know someone like this. When you bring her name up, she is so nice. Her name cannot be mentioned without someone saying, “Oh, she is so nice.”

I never mastered that art. I am a little too opinionated, a little too stubborn, and a little too predisposed to telling fools to go jump in the nearest body of water to ever be referred to as so nice. I’m not a mean person, but I’m not so malleable and able to bend to the whims of those around me to ever be called so nice.

As a matter of fact, I tend to seethe in a low-grade snarl at those who are so nice. They don’t have actual personalities, many of them. They mold themselves into the group of people in which they find themselves. They charm everyone within three feet of them, so everyone sings their praises, when really, deep down, you suspect that the so nice person is up to no damn good and secretly looks down on everyone around them. They’re nefarious suckups, those so nice people.

So why are so many heroines in romance novels so nice?

You know the kind I mean. No one ever says a word about them that is remotely negative. They charm the hero, his best friend, the dog, the cook (of course the hero has a cook), the butler, the household staff-  soon the heroine gets better treatment than the hero and everyone’s looking at the hero like he’s Satan’s left asscheek for being out of sorts with that so nice young lady.

Why is this a common device? From historicals to medievals to contemporary romance – even contemporary suspense, when someone might be trying to kill the heroine, which is a shame because she is so nice, the perfectly amiable heroine is everywhere. Why the hesitation to paint a chick with some flaws? And I don’t mean the size-12-oh-God-I’m-fat kind of flaws either.

I have a theory that it’s easier for women, who make up the majority of the romance readership, to forgive massive flaws in a hero (like, oh, say, raping the heroine, Mr. Historical Manstud) but it’s harder to forgive massive flaws in the heroine, because essentially, as a fellow woman, that’s her imaginary competition. The reader wants to like the heroine, wants to root for her and be her friend, and having her crafted with major personality flaws or the penchant for making boneheaded decisions creates a scenario where the reader knows better, and that there heroine might be so nice but she is also so stupid- and therefore, she doesn’t deserve that fine man.

The book I’m reading right now features a criminal heroine – she’s a no-mistaking-it felony-committing criminal – and yet she’s so charming and so nice that everyone adores her, and whenever the accusation surfaces among the charmed masses that her motivations might be less-than-pure, there’s no way they’ll believe it. Is this a plot device to arrange reader sympathy? Is her unmitigated niceness a way to circumvent dislike on the part of those readers who have been victims of her brand of criminal activity? She might be a criminal but, oh, she’s so nice. She’s a good person. Bless her heart. 

Hi, I’ll have the unbalanced dichotomy with a side order of bullshit, please.

My problem with the heroine who is so nice is the lack of redeeming that goes on. Most often, she redeems the hero from his snarly, cranky ways with the soothing balm of her eternal niceness. Or maybe she speaks up for herself and tells the mean antagonist to go fuck herself, but no one thinks otherwise of her for doing so.

More importantly, I don’t like people who are eternally so nice in real life, and as heroines, they’re vanilla. They’re boring. I continue reading the book and think, ‘Are you really that nice?’ At the end of the story, not much will be done to alter the heroine’s overall niceness because the heroine, and here’s what makes me really mad, is happily reinforcing the idea that women are always nice. We’re never mean. We are supposed to be so nice.

Fuck that.

*note: RWA-forbidden word count: 3

Categorized:

Ranty McRant

Comments are Closed

  1. Jorie says:

    I think there’s quite a bit of pressure to write sympathetic heroines that lots of readers can identify with.  Unfortunately, that can lead to blandness.  Flawed heroes are interesting, but flawed heroines are unacceptable.  Yes, that’s a generalization.  But heroines get dinged for being unsympathetic while heroes get accused of being assholes.  My feeling is the hero’s flaws can be much bigger before readers are put off.  No doubt because if the writer has managed to write a sexy hero, much will be forgiven before the reader gets fed up.

  2. Candy says:

    Yup. Heroes are allowed to be alcholics, drug addicts, killers, sluts, verbally abusive, emotionally manipulative, physically abusive and a whole lot more and still be considered heroic.

    Like I said one time, it would be really, REALLY interesting if an author wrote about a heroine who tied the hero up and violated him with a strap-on and then have her be redeemed by the hero’s everlovin’ niceness. My feeling is it won’t happen in a mainstream romance any time soon because romances tend to be really hung up on traditional definitions of masculinity and femininity. The interesting thing is, while heroines are denied stereotypically masculine vices (sexual promiscuity, physical abusiveness), they’re also denied many of the stereotypically feminine vices except stupidity, probably because it enhances the hero’s masculinity when he comes charging in to rescue her from her dumbass self.

  3. Beth says:

    It’s a generally accepted rule of romance-writing, you know: readers are VERY much inclined to hate the heroine. Why? Because women love to judge each other. (We ARE a catty crew.) So writers get hemmed in, bashing heads against keyboards trying to make her likeable, gahhh she has to be likeable or she’ll be ripped to shreds! Make her good but not too good. Make her spunky but not too spunky, smart but not too smart, forgiving but not too forgiving, talented but not too talented – and on and on and on and no matter what you do, at least 50% of your readers will find her unbearable.

    The only rule for hero-building: make him HOT. And there’s no such thing as TOO hot.

  4. Candy says:

    You know who’s really good at creating sympathetic heroines who won’t make you want to hurt somebody because they’re so nice? (Besides La Kinsale, of course.) Patricia Gaffney.

  5. Candy says:

    OK, this has inspired me to list my all-time favorite heroines, some of them nice, some of them (OK, just one of them) ball-busting bitches:

    Folie from My Sweet Folly by Laura Kinsale (nicest heroine EVER, but she displays a sense of humor that most romance novel heroines are completely lacking)

    Melanthe from For My Lady’s Heart by Laura Kinsale

    Leda from The Shadow and The Star by Laura Kinsale

    Merlin from Midsummer Moon by Laura Kinsale (all ye authors who attempt to create convincingly kooky, absent-minded heroines: observe Merlin and weep at your inadequacy)

    Anne from To Love and To Cherish by Patricia Gaffney (She’s agnostic! and snarky! Must! love! her!)

    Lily from Lily by Patricia Gaffney

    Rachel from To Have and To Hold by Patricia Gaffney

    Carrie from Sweet Everlasing by Patricia Gaffney

    Min from Bet Me by Jennifer Crusie

    Kate from Manhunting by Jennifer Crusie

    Merry from The Windflower by Laura London

    Jessica from Lord of Scoundrels by Loretta Chase (not a bitch, but no pushover, either)

    Esme from The Lion’s Daughter by Loretta Chase

    These are just off the top of my head. There are quite a few more.

  6. Stef says:

    ‘Like I said one time, it would be really, REALLY interesting if an author wrote about a heroine who tied the hero up and violated him with a strap-on and then have her be redeemed by the hero’s everlovin’ niceness’

    Don’t tempt me. I have authors who would do it.

  7. Wendy says:

    The reason heroes are allowed to be raving assholes is that romances love to perpetuate the myth that “a good woman can change a man.”

    Horse hooey.  Nobody changes for another person.  Period.  They change because they want to!  And if they are trying to change to please another person it usually ends in disaster.

    There’s also the great myth that readers MUST identify with the characters in order to enjoy the book.  As in “relate to.”

    I cannot be the only reader alive who never relates to the characters in fictional stories.  That’s why I read fiction – to get away from my real life!  So I want to read books about characters who “aren’t like me.” 

    Now I do think the reader must be able to understand the character.  Not necessarily agree with their choices – but understand why the character made certain decisions.  I think Maggie Osborne is especially good at this.  Her characters (including heroines!) often make horrible decisions that I cannot “relate to” – but dang if I don’t understand why they made that choice.

  8. Darlene says:

    Mary Balogh has taken some villainesses and made them the heroines of subsequent novels, which I think is a really neat trick.  The one that comes to mind first is the evil seducing bitch from A PRECIOUS JEWEL who became the heroine of A CHRISTMAS BRIDE.  Oh, and Priss, the heroine of PRECIOUS JEWEL, chooses to be a prostitute with her eyes wide open and isn’t coy about it.  Writing that one took _chutzpah_.

    And one of my favorite not-nice girls is Anne Wilder from Connie Brockway’s ALL THROUGH THE NIGHT. She steals because she likes stealing, and she’s a little crazy to boot.

  9. L.N. Hammer says:

    Nice (and bland) heroines do agree with the placeholder theory of Romance readers.  Unfortunately.

    —-L.

  10. Stef2 says:

    Nice is such a bleh word anyway.  Since I’m new here, I will go ahead and overshare so everyone will feel awkward and wonder, why do some people wanna show their granny panties in public?

    Years ago, when I was young and crazy, I had a therapist who likened me to Cinderella, always wanting to be ‘nice’ so everyone would like me – which translated to, “Please, screw me upside down and sideways.  Steal the shoe, get the guy, and I’ll just hang back here and clean the freakin’ fireplace.  Really.  And just maybe, if I’m nice enough, you’ll like me and I’ll be worthy.”  Why the hell didn’t Cinderella tell the wicked stepmother to f off?  Hell if I know – but it’s probably a Daddy issue, or something.

    Stories like Cinderella are one of the problems with modern women – instead of teaching women to stand up for themself, they teach them to lay down and take it, to be ‘nice’, because in the end, we’ll get the shoe back – and the guy, and the kingdom.  Uh-huh.  To me, it adds insult to injury that so many of today’s romances continue to reinforce the idea that ‘nice’ equals the only way to true happiness.

    As for me, it took a few years of therapy, and turning 40, to finally get it.  The whole world doesn’t need to like me.  I’ll even venture that there are some people I’d rather didn’t like me.  Because I’m not real fond of them.

    The thing is, I see this in so many women, and I never see it in guys.  Men are so blessedly simple, really.  Open and forthright and unwilling to be ‘nice’ so others will like them.  If heroes aren’t nice, that’s okay because men will be men.  When women aren’t nice, it makes some readers squeamish.

    But why does a heroine have to be a criminal to be not nice?  Why can’t she just be REAL?  Jealous, vindictive, catty, greedy, ambitious, horny, and maybe sometimes, even a little mean?  Don’t know about you guys, but I am all of those, at various times.  I’m also warm and funny and freakin’ brilliant, and a good lay.  Bottom line: Nobody is all bad.  And nobody is all good – which is why the ‘nice’ heroines are so annoying.  Or boring. Or too stupid to live.

    I was compelled to respond to today’s entry, because this is a ginormous sore spot of mine.  Many a wallbanger I’ve picked up with a heroine that makes Cinderella look nasty.

    The Other Stef

  11. Sarah says:

    I cannot be the only reader alive who never relates to the characters in fictional stories.  That’s why I read fiction – to get away from my real life!  So I want to read books about characters who “aren’t like me.”

    I can totally relate to that. I hated shows like “Seinfeld” because I didn’t LIKE any of the people on the show, and why should I spend my leisure time with people I don’t like, when I have to spend a majority of my working hours with people just like them?

    Hence, nice heroines often become wallbangers for me. I don’t trust and don’t find any depth to people like that; for me, they make boring ass heroines.

  12. Candy says:

    See, I’m REALLY weird in that I don’t even have to like or understand the people I’m reading about, as long as the story and the author’s writing style grab me. Perfume by Patrick Suskind is an example. Grenouille is quite thoroughly repulsive, but I love that book and think it’s brilliant. Ditto Humbert Humbert of Lolita, and the characters from A Clockwork Orange. A Sacred Hunger, another one of my all-time favorites, also doesn’t really have a clear protagonist, something that bothered the Very Tall Husband quite a bit when he read it—he found all the characters annoying and couldn’t root for anyone. Generally, though, genre expectations play a lot into this. I want to at least like both the hero and heroine of romance novels, probably because romances engage my emotions more than the average novel do.

    And Stef2 makes a very interesting point: “But why does a heroine have to be a criminal to be not nice?  Why can’t she just be REAL?”

    Because real is boring. Heroes rarely have petty, realistic flaws, either. You won’t read about a hero who’s a nice guy but secretly eats his boogers any time soon—not in a romance novel, anyway.

  13. FerfeLaBat says:

    WTF?  No one TOLD me I was supposed to make the heroine “nice”.  I am SO screwed.  No further comment for this thread. 

    ::Muttering to self::

    Always, ALWAYS … ya have to write whatever-the-hell-you-want and you never, ever DO the damn homework … research the trends, the market.  No.  Oh, HELL no.  You just sit down and write it.  Well, SEE?  See where that gets you?  You have to make them NICE, or no one will READ it.

  14. Sarah says:

    Nah, see I enjoy a heroine who is snarky and isn’t afraid of sticking up for herself, and sees no reason to change herself to fit the wallpaper. Min from Bet Me for example. No reason to apologize and no reason not to speak frankly at any time.

    And as for doing the homework. Ha. By the time you come up with something to fit the homework, the fad has changed. Just ask all those food manufacturers who JUST came out with a low carb option.

  15. Jorie says:

    Hmmm, I just realized that I had recently come to the conclusion that in romanceland, heroes were allowed less leeway than heroines, because heroes had to complete the hero checklist (tall, muscular, hair in the right place—on head, not back, great in bed, etc., etc.) whereas the heroine’s checklist was a lot less rigorous.

    But here and now I’m totally convinced that heroes have more leeway because they’re allowed to be flawed.

    So, not sure what to conclude.  Heroes and heroines have different romanceland scripts?  Heroes being a little more physically bound, heroines a little more personality bound.  Not sure about that either, though.

  16. Candy says:

    Heroes being a little more physically bound, heroines a little more personality bound.

    Seriously, Jorie, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head for the majority of romance novels. Heroes are allowed a much wider range of flaws—and big, pathological flaws, too. As it is most authors can hardly create competent kickass romantic suspense heroines, because competence and kicking ass while being a spy/secret agent/other romantic suspense-y occupation often requires ruthlessness, which heroines are rarely allowed to be.

    But while many heroines are bound by Niceness, heroes are bound by hotness. They don’t have to be classically good-looking, by any means; a lot of Jennifer Crusie’s best heroes sound kind of craggy and shaggy and beat-up looking. But they’re still hot.

    Beth’s right. We’ll forgive a lot for the Hotness.

  17. Sarah says:

    As it is most authors can hardly create competent kickass romantic suspense heroines, because competence and kicking ass while being a spy/secret agent/other romantic suspense-y occupation often requires ruthlessness, which heroines are rarely allowed to be.

    And when they ARE allowed to be ruthless, kick-ass, and competent, that ruthlessness is painted with a wide-width brush to affect ALL areas of the heroine’s personality (e.g. Eve Dallas, In Death series). She’s ruthless at work…and she cannot love! Oh, poor dear, cut off from her entire emotional self by her cold ruthless attitude. You never see a suspense heroine who fights crime or robs banks or defuses bombs all day with nerves of steel, then goes home and has a healthy happy roll-in-the-grass relationship with her golden retriever out in the suburbs.

    Jorie totally delivered the smackdown right there. Heros are bound to physical limits, while heroines are bound to personality limits. Heroines can’t be nice and ruthless as the need requires. She’s either one or the other, and something has to change if she’s the latter.

  18. white raven says:

    I think Jorie hit it dead-on.  The hero is bound by one set of criteria, the heroine by another.

    I often see commentary on blogs, write-ups about characterization, and reasons why editors reject.  One thing that continually makes an appearance is the statement “the heroine needs to be likeable”. 

    Granted, that can be a very subjective statement.  I like some folks that others positively loathe.  But I think where writing is concerned, an author may feel bound to over-compensate and play cautious.  Judith McNaught often wrote heroines who seemed like human doormats to their heroes. 

    Personally, I have far more tolerance for the bland heroine than for the screaming bitch heroine.  When the characterization has me mentally telling the hero “Dude, that bitch so deserves a boot to the head.  What do you see in her?” I know the author’s characterization has completely alienated me.  I like smart, self-assured, flawed and human.  I don’t like asshat.  Unfortunately, there seems to be fine line where the writer may tip the scales on characterization from sympathetic to psycho-bland nice or, on the flip side, from intelligent and humorous to annoying and twit. 

    Just my .02.  Your mileage may vary.

  19. Lutra says:

    In fanfiction these sorts of characters are called Mary Sue’s. (It’s a long story…)
    They’re generally gorgeous and smart, and so highly skilled in something they outdo the main characters. (Imagine, Gandalf had an apprentice – whose ‘dark secret’ is that she’s actually the daughter of Sauron and Galadriel! Not only that but she’s wiser and more powerful than her mentor, and it’s only through her efforts the Quest is completed. *gack*)
    Naturally, they’re so special that everybody loves them and the canon characters go into out-of-character murderous rages when the Sue is hurt. (Oh, the angst, the angst! Suethor’s thrive on it…)

  20. Robyn says:

    When the characterization has me mentally telling the hero “Dude, that bitch so deserves a boot to the head.  What do you see in her?” I know the author’s characterization has completely alienated me.

    Honestly, that’s about 75% of heroines for me. I read for the men, not the women.

  21. Sara says:

    “Melanthe from For My Lady’s Heart by Laura Kinsale”

    Ooooh, I adore Melanthe. Just adore her. But I know many readers hate her, but my take on that is this:

    lazy readers. a lazy reader skims, and skimming, you won’t see how carefully Melanthe’s backstory was put together. If you’ve read closely you’ll understand how she got her veneer, and then you’ll appreciate all the more how hard it is for her to change. And what a great Bitch she is.

  22. Becca says:

    I can totally relate to that. I hated shows like “Seinfeld” because I didn’t LIKE any of the people on the show, and why should I spend my leisure time with people I don’t like, when I have to spend a majority of my working hours with people just like them?

    I don’t mind not-nice heroines – I prefer them, but there have to be redeeming values to a character – I have to like them in spite of (or better yet because of) their flaws. Strong women aren’t necessarily nice women. One of the reasons I like the J. D. Robbs (yeah, a low taste) is becaue Eve Dallas is definitely NOT nice.

  23. Beth says:

    See the thing is – most readers ARE lazy. I think the majority of readers (especially of romance) are just looking for a little light reading. Fluff reading. There’s nothing wrong with that at all, even if some of us DO want more than just skimmable prose. But I really think most romance readers don’t want to work at liking the heroine. They’re too busy working at loving that hero. That’s what I think, anyway.

  24. Stef says:

    I should try some of the recommended ones. It was the urge to boot the heroine that caused me to stop reading romance and switch to horror, because then at least, the dumb ones get horribly killed.

    I may have to try again.

  25. Arethusa says:

    Oooo those Balogh book sounds interesting, I might try those. Everyone’s pretty much said it all but I wanted to write that this is why I could never understand why one of Kleypas’ books was soooo popular. I can’t remember the title now but the heroine was soooo nice and sweet and from a charming little family and very adorable while the hero was a gruff reprobate whose mother was a prostitute or some such. And it’s everyone’s favourite because she’s sooo nice and her niiice love changes the gruff bastard.

    Argh. That. Was. Such. Crap.

  26. Ammie says:

    About the perfect heroine—There are two parts to it, I think.

    The difference between men and women: Boys and men correct each other. There’s a standard of behavior in any group and if one male falls outside of it, the other males in the group let him know he’s crossed the line. But he’s still part of the group. He doesn’t get tossed out of the group because he’s behaved like an ass. He’s forgiven.

    With girls and women, it’s totally different. Sure, we notice the aberhent behavior, but we don’t confront it, we delight in it behind her back. Because it’s a competition. Someone has to win. Someone has to be the most popular, the prettiest, the nicest, the one everyone loves. For some reason, in those high-school years (and probably beyond) we believe there’s only room for one perfect woman at the top. Men don’t. They believe there’s room enough for all men, no matter how flawed.

    The heroine that embodies this perfect woman has won the competition. Everyone loves her. And of course, she has earned the prize – the hero. She doesn’t need a personality, because she’s inoffensive. She has to be or everyone wouldn’t love her. 

    A lot of writing is just working out issues—or perpetuating them. Authors who write about the perfect heroine can’t get past this high school competition. They can’t concieve of a woman winning the ultimate prize (the hero) without her being the winner of the competiion—perfect in every way.

    So actually, I believe the writing in a book with the perfect heroine will reflect other childish notions. A simplier world view, moralistic rants, cozy and unrealistic friendships, quick and shallow problem resolutions. So it’s not just the perfect heroine that will affect the book, it will have an entire lack of depth, a lack of adult growth.

    I don’t think writing like this is wrong, or shouldn’t have an audience. Or that only women without adult depth themselves read it. It can be sort of a relief to get to go back and look the world through Disney colored glasses every once in a while. I guess.

    I’m more interested in Beauty as a substitute for personality. For me, that’s a deal-breaker. If the first look at the heroine is a catalog of her many perfect physical attributes, I’m done. Who cares if beautiful people fall in love with other beautiful people just because they’re beautiful? I’m sure it happens all the time. There’s no mystery to why that happens. Who wouldn’t lust after a gorgeous person? I do all the time. But it’s not romance to me, it’s just lust.

  27. Rosina says:

    Ammie, I love this post of yours. It will give me a lot to think about for a good long while.

Comments are closed.

By posting a comment, you consent to have your personally identifiable information collected and used in accordance with our privacy policy.

↑ Back to Top