Hello All About Romance! Thanks so much for having me. This is a discussion post from the Motorcycle Club Heroes class I taught at RWA University in February.
Trigger warning for disturbing subjects, including rape and abuse.
Motorcycle club heroes are known for being extreme alphas. They might be the most aggressive heroes in the romance genre. “Dark romance” heroes seem to be increasing in popularity also. Dark romance is a subgenre that features dark themes like rape, captivity and abuse. The “heroes” in dark romance are twisted individuals who do terrible things. I use quotation marks because in my world, romance heroes don’t rape, kill or abuse women. They can kill men, but not women or children. That’s my rule, anyway. The romance genre is defined by happy endings, and I just can’t buy into a happy ending for an abusive relationship. My mother always said, “If he hits you once, he’ll do it again.” I took that to heart.
Despite my personal philosophy about abusive men and abusive heroes in romance, I can think of several books I’ve enjoyed in this vein. I was a huge fan of historical romance when I was younger. I loved Catherine Coulter and Kat Martin. Coulter’s Rosehaven is one of my favorite medieval romances. It features a hero who needs to consummate his marriage before he goes back into battle. Marauders are right outside the gates, threatening to take the property by force. The heroine is reluctant and afraid. She just met him that day. He doesn’t have time for gentle wooing, so he rapes her. It’s not presented as sexy or pleasurable for either of them. It’s a mistake. He sees this as his duty, and she hates him for a good portion of the book. After he becomes gentler, the romance flourishes.
Another historical romance by Kat Martin features a double secret agent hero. At one point he has to prove his loyalty to the bad guys and pretend he has no feelings for the heroine. He catches her spying on them and strikes her across the face. I found this very titillating, and I don’t know why. I’ve always been a fan of the heroine slapping the hero, too.
In both of these examples, I understood the hero’s motivations and believed that he wouldn’t abuse the heroine again. I bought into the romance and the happy ending because I felt the heroine was safe.
There’s a difference between a satisfying romantic fantasy and a down-and-dirty sex fantasy, however. Safety isn’t required in erotica, and a sexy fantasy doesn’t always make for a touching romance. It’s normal for women to fantasize about things that aren’t safe, or nice, or good for us. Fantasy isn’t about eating your vegetables and making healthy choices. Sometimes it’s about having no choice at all.
In real life, smart women are expected to make smart choices. We’re supposed to avoid dangerous men and risky situations. We’re blamed for dressing too sexy, drinking too much or walking home alone. In fiction we can be free of those rules. The sky’s the limit as far as fantasy and imagination.
As a young woman I read plenty of books with overbearing or abusive heroes. I don’t think they did me any harm. I wasn’t confused about how men should treat women in real life. But as an adult, I have felt harmed by my reading. The last time I tried to read a romance with a rapist hero, I felt mentally violated. Maybe I’m able to process the trauma of sexual assault on a deeper level now, or maybe it’s just that the content was in this particular book was more extreme. Either way, I don’t want to repeat that experience. I sympathize very strongly with those who’ve had this reaction, but I’m also more understanding about the wide range of female fantasies. I don’t want to shame any women who enjoy dark romance.
The bottom line is that different readers like different things. We can have wildly opposing, equally valid reactions. Women have dark fantasies, including rape fantasies and captivity fantasies. It’s normal. If you find darker themes exciting, there’s nothing wrong with you, and you’re certainly not alone. BDSM romance is mainstream now also. Plenty of erotic romance features bondage, spanking, D/s (domination/submission) and more. With BDSM the heroine can consent to being dominated by the hero. She can choose to submit and find pleasure in a rougher touch.
Riding Dirty, the first in my Dirty Eleven MC series, features some light bondage and spanking. Shooting Dirty, the next release, goes a step further. The hero takes the heroine captive in a previous book (Badlands, from the Aftershock series). He ties her up but he doesn’t hurt her, and they connect on a personal level. When they meet again, both have been fantasizing about bondage play. She’s attracted to his dark side, and eventually they give in to their desires.
Shooting Dirty isn’t a dark romance because there is clear consent before any sexual activity. I wanted to explore bondage and submission without taking away the heroine’s right to choose. Some readers prefer stories without consent, or dubious consent. Forced seduction is a common romance trope from the “bodice ripper” days. It means that the hero overpowers the heroine physically until she submits. Like it or not, this element is part of the romance genre’s history and it’s coming back into vogue. I don’t think the fantasy of being dominated, either by choice or through force, will ever go completely away.
Book Recommendations
I tend to avoid dark romance, so I can’t make any personal recs. I’ve heard great things about Skye Warren and Annika Martin’s Prisoner. I loved Black Ice, a well-known romantic suspense novel in the fantastic Ice series by Anne Stuart. It features a dubious consent scene and a ruthless assassin hero.
For MC books without abusive heroes or dubious consent, I highly recommend Hot Ride by Kelly Jamieson and Wanting It All by Kati Wilde.
What do you think about dark romance, MC romance or abusive heroes?
Jill Sorenson is the RITA-nominated author of more than a dozen romantic suspense novels, including the Aftershock series by HQN. She lives in the San Diego area with her family. She’s a soccer mom who loves nature, coffee, reading, twitter and reality TV.
Shooting Dirty is her second erotic suspense novel.
Impenitent social media enthusiast. Relational trend spotter. Enjoys both carpe diem and the fish of the day.
We are certainly here to critique books. My goal was to encourage commenters to stick to critiquing books and not other readers. Clearly I did a poor job of articulating that.
This conversation has been interesting.
I’m thinking about all the view points. My goal is here–and elsewhere–to create community. That’s a challenge but, I have to say, this comment thread has heartened me.
Me, I would consider it a sexist *idea,* certainly. I really do try hard not to make assumptions about a person, (or aloud at any rate). I try to stay away from arguing with someone about their personal opinion too, but if an author furthered a comment about not enjoying women’s writing because it is substandard, or any other sexist claim, that would be grounds for a debate if such remarks are made publicly to an audience. Privately people can feel anything they want! So yes, ideas are valid for debate, personal attacks shouldn’t be – unless you’re a prosecutor. Legal rhetoric has its own rules of writing and this is where ad hominem arguments are permitted.
I agree, it was odd and confusing and I think Dabney was introducing an issue that didn’t really belong here. I feel badly that the discussion got so diverted from Jill Sorenson’s blog to a netiquette discussion since presumably AAR invited her here as a writer. Also, since her blog is doing the type of critical interpretative work of fictional content that I find especially interesting, it does concern me when a moderator claims as Maggie did that “”critiquing something read for enjoyment rather than edification on the very thing that makes it enjoyable is a slippery slope.”” We all critique books read for enjoyment, even the AAR reviewers. I’m hoping that is just one person’s opinion rather than management’s stance. I think more clarity is needed from all of the AAR staff here. But, in my opinion, this conversation should have taken place on a different blog/forum out of respect for the invited author.
I think the problem came up because of this: “”because that’s the author putting her own misogynistic thoughts into the voice of her character.”” Dabney’s response was:
Perhaps the confusion cropped up because Dabney didn’t reply directly to the initial poster but instead put her message in the general thread or maybe because readers focused on what she was saying in the first paragraph and not the second (which directly addressed the issue). I still found her message clear but it seems to have caused a conundrum for others. :-)
I think the point, though, is that there is a difference between saying, “”I dislike Diana Palmer because she writes misogynistic heroes whom I find offensive”” (my view point) and saying “”Diana Palmer uses her heroes as mouth pieces for her own misogynistic thoughts.”” In the first one I am just stating why I don’t like the author. In the second I am accusing the author (whom I don’t even know) of a certain world view and implying that people that like her books share that worldview. The first one is personal only in that it refers to how I personally feel. The second one is more a personal attack in that it makes sweeping statements about someone else.
I understand what you’re saying and agree for the most part that it’s better to criticize the words (text, comment, post) vs. the person. But not all criticism of the author is a personal attack. I’m thinking about an author/lit professor (David Gilmour) who said he wasn’t interested in books by women. I could say “”that comment is sexist.”” I could also say “”that person is sexist.”” Is that a personal attack? Because I’m quite sure I’ve done it!
Anyway it’s been an interesting discussion and I’m glad for those who chimed in. Also–thanks for reading, Maggie, and posting a review on GR. I always appreciate it.
Hmm… I can sort of see the issue you are pointing out, but I guess I would not classify it as a problem. Maybe because it’s feminism 101 – we all have sexists/misogynistic thoughts, it’s part of how the society is set up. And fiction and popular culture will reflect the underlying author’s worldview. And there will also be other unexamined prejudices all over the books – whether about race, class, sexual orientation, etc.
There is an issue that attempts to discuss such thing can set off some pretty horrible trolls (everyone heard about gamergate, I am sure). So I can even sympathize with the desire to never had such discussions, because they can be a real pain to manage and moderate. In fact, that’s exactly how Dabney came across to me when she said variations of “”we are here not to critique books, but for entertainment””. But I would be disappointed if AAR pursued this policy, because then too many important issues are closed off for discussion. It’s not that I would want to have “”literary”” or “”feminist”” or whatever discourse the whole time, there are more appropriate venues for that. But I did find it worrying that a statement that was, at worst, somewhat problematic caused such swift reply. Even if it is just a coincidence of Dabney deciding to start somewhere, I hope she writes that blog post and clarifies what the AAR tries to achieve – and indeed on a separate blog, rather than hijacking this thread.
I’m not a daily visitor of AAR and I haven’t read the other threads referenced here. I feel like I triggered something unintentionally so I just wanted to clear the air. Was there a “”skank or sweetheart”” feature on the blog or the suggestion of one? Maybe my post has created the impression that I’m calling the group of ladies at AAR misogynists. I wasn’t, and I wouldn’t.
Here’s an example from Heather’s review (linked above).
“”Which brings me to the troubling aspects of misogyny sprinkled throughout the text. Em has a strong personality and none of the female characters are meek, but the men regularly refer to women as “”bitches”” or “”cunts.”” The portrayal may be genuine, but so was my feeling of nausea.””
The book made her sick! That is harsh–and 100% valid. She points out that the *language* is misogynist. Not the author for writing it, or the readers for enjoying it. IIRC Maggie B. said my heroine of Wild was a bitch. Totally fine. That word doesn’t bother me the same way “”skank”” or “”slut”” does. We all have our hot button words/issues. My point is that I don’t want reviewers or readers to pull their punches and use only nice language. Books should inspire passionate responses, good and bad.
Looking back, I think it was Sonya’s first comment about the author inserting her own misogynist thoughts. I agreed with her dislike of name-calling and clarified later than sexist language doesn’t always = sexist author (or sexist reader for that matter). I’m not sure that authors need to be protected from readers’ assertions that they are x for using x language in the text. Sometimes it’s a leap and sometimes it’s a valid interpretation. Dabney mentioned violence, which is a large part of my MC series. Am I endorsing and glorifying violence, especially gun violence, in the text? You could certainly make that argument.
I do agree that “”readers who like x are bad/inferior/ignorant”” is a step too far, but I don’t see that step taken here.
My reply got put into the general thread again. I swear I don’t know what I’m doing wrong but just to let you know, there is a response to your post on the general thread.
Just to clarify, I didn’t do an AAR review of Wild. I did post about it on goodreads but I didn’t do an official review for the site :-)
From my point of view, the recent discussion made me feel less safe on this blog. I agree with the general sentiments – ad hominem attacks are bad, bashing other readers is bad, critiquing author’s ideas and the underlying issues should be accepted. But I still don’t anything in the posts prior to Dabney’s that would warrant an intervention. And that makes me feel like I am unable to recognize a problem and therefore don’t know what is acceptable or reasonable to contribute. A written policy would be good – but also transparency in pointing out specific issues that trigger reminders, so that it is clear what is not acceptable.
I don’t think that “”there’s no accounting for taste”” is an ugly sentiment. It might imply that it’s surprising someone enjoys something but it doesn’t judge the person on their entire belief system based on them liking that one book.
Many critiques recently have devolved into that. The Breslin/Nazi thread essentially did just that. Not being deeply offended by the book meant you were a Nazi sympathizer or Holocaust denier.
But it might be interesting to have a blog about just what AAR considers responding to other readers on a personal level and what our stance on moderating is. I think for the most part our stance is to be as liberal as possible but maybe we should define what we consider crossing lines.
Oh, I think stating that readers have bad taste shifts the topic from the ideas in fiction to the reader herself. One, for instance, could state that a book is tasteless because of x, y and z, and the argument focuses on the writing and ideas represented in a piece of writing. Stating that obviously readers have bad taste for liking/not liking a particular book falls into Ad Hominem territory because the focus is on a reader rather than the text. Some of the arguments opposed to _50 Shades of Grey_ verged on contempt for the readers rather than contempt for ideas and representation in James’s writing. Keeping comments on the ideas in writing rather than insinuations about people can help avoid some of the feelings of being under attack. I think some of the comments on the Nazi romance book were personal though many were on the ideas about what it means to elevate a Nazi to the status of Romantic Hero and how that notion is troubling.
I don’t honestly know what AAR’s stance on respectful discourse is since AAR itself has come under considerable anger with blogs in the past, especially around its use of pejorative terms to describe women. It would be an interesting conversation. I don’t know if AAR has a policy on respectful discourse either if a troll is present, but I’m definitely curious now.
“”There’s no accounting for taste”” doesn’t immediately apply the adjectives bad or good. A definition of this phrase describes it this way:it is impossible to explain why different people like different things, especially those things that the speaker considers unappealing.
“”I don’t get what you see in that”” is a very different sentiment from “”You shouldn’t like that”” to me. One simply implies disagreement, the other implies two things. One is that the speaker has some sort of authority or insight that entitles them to make judgement calls for others. The other is that there is something wrong with liking whatever “”that”” is.
I think as far as moderating discourse on the boards, the policy tends to be like the definition of pornography where we know problems when we see them. I consider everyone here to be an adult and try to let the threads correct themselves but there have been issues with that lately that didn’t exist even two years ago. But Dabney mentioned above that that’s a topic for a new blog and she would definitely be the one in the best position to write that.
Just want to add that as someone who has been posting to AAR for 15 years and been part of the reviewing team for five, I have noticed a change in how discourse is handled by posters. It seemed that at one point in time, IMO, it was very typical to have a lively debate about books with both sides able to walk away from the conversation without feeling they had been shouted down. In recent years, it seems to me, that homogeny is the name of the game. One side shouts about how right they are, including questioning the other sides education and character, until there is finally just silence. A discussion which is self-congratulatory and closes out the opinions of the other side is in my mind no conversation at all.
Maggie…””One side shouts about how right they are, including questioning the other sides education and character, until there is finally just silence.””
You’ve just stated what I’ve been stating. If anyone questions someone’s education, credentials or character, that is the definition of ad hominem arguments. It’s a particular pet peeve of mine, which is why I was stating earlier that when netiquette truly works from what I’ve seen over the years, there needs to be adherence to staying focused on the issue or on fictional content and not on personal attacks. As I said too it’s challenging for people to do this given our current cultural moment. If presidential candidates can’t, why I guess, would we expect an average person to do so. The only thing I’ve found that works is a clear understanding of personal vs content debates and someone able and willing to enforce that.
To me there is a line between “”I don’t like x”” and “”no one should find x okay”” that simply shouldn’t be crossed. There are a lot of ideas that I come across in books that I find repugnant or disturbing but I don’t judge those who read them. I just don’t read them myself. I think this is especially true for romance fiction. A lot of our books speak to deep-seated sexual fantasies that women have and when they have to hear other readers tearing into them about liking those books it can be more than a bit disheartening. I know I hate Diana Palmer and find her books a tad horrifying. I would take out a restraining order against any man who treated me like her heroes often treat their heroines. But she clearly has fans and that’s fine. I have plenty of other books out there to read.
I think what Dabney was speaking to, and she can correct me if I am wrong, is that there is a big difference between saying “”Diana Palmer books give me the willies. Her heroes often heap verbal and emotional abuse on their “”love”” interest for the lamest possible excuse and then prove their manhood by forgiving the poor girl for a crime she never committed. Palmer doesn’t work for me and I avoid her like the plague.”” rather than “”Diana Palmer books carry disturbing amounts of misogyny in their texts. I question why anyone would find such things entertaining.”” One critique says it doesn’t work for me, the other says it shouldn’t work for you.
I might have a little different take on this, which is that personal pronouns and references to readers should be avoided. Those fall into personal attacks, otherwise known as ad hominem arguments. It can be hard to resist them because they are everywhere in our culture. One just has to turn on the news today to listen to how presidential candidates reference each other!
However, when critiquing literature it is considered quite different to reference what does and does not work with respect to content without having to continue to insert “”me”” or “”I.”” If you were to say that a Nazi hero is repugnant and offer clear reasons why for instance, since that was a recent heated debate, it seems perfectly fair to me to make your case and let others that do not find it repugnant to make their case. People can disagree with content arguments without feeling under personal attack, as in, “”If you like a Nazi hero there must be something wrong with you.”” In any case, this is the backbone of literary analysis and the rules of conduct in lit classes where we most certainly debate contentious and controversial issues. No one is allowed to target people but critiquing content is fair game.
I tend to feel that discussions on the internet are different than those that take place in a classroom. A classroom has a clear delineation of authority, whereas the internet doesn’t. Also, the very classroom environment draws a distinct line between the teacher and students. While the debate may include everyone, it is clear who most likely has more knowledge and authority. It is also clear who went there to be taught. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, we have tone and facial expressions to guide us in a class room discussion and that is completely gone from an internet discussion. We insert smiley faces and other emoticons but they don’t convey what a voice or facial expression can.
Book discussions on the internet OTH are devoid of the body language cues. We also have to deal with trolls, something that most classrooms are devoid of. Finally, while we can critique a book for hard facts (such as ignoring the ethical/legal issues that abound in a student/teacher relationship) I think critiquing something read for enjoyment rather than edification on the very thing that makes it enjoyable is a slippery slope. What I call an alphahole is someone else’s dreamy alpha male. I don’t think either of us can ever be “”right”” on that subject and we are essentially debating what’s equivocal to the merits of chocolate versus vanilla ice cream. I don’t think it’s harmful or wrong for a woman to be into books that feature alphaholes. I don’t get the appeal but each to their own. And I guess I feel that a lot of unneeded conflict could be avoided and more open discussion arrived at if we reflected such an attitude in our posts.
You’re right that classrooms are somewhat different. However, the act of reading and interpreting fiction remains essentially the same despite different venues. I actually do not distinguish much between reading for “edification” and reading for “enjoyment” because those lines are blurred. I teach, read and critique literature for a living, for instance, but I also read and critique literature for pleasure, often all at the same time. I think the difference here on a leisure fictional site is that there is just degrees of interpretive work readers are doing here depending on their interest and/or skills. And many readers here just want to lurk, which is fine too.
As far as the issue of body language, it is an issue now in education given the explosive role of distance learning. Some of my classes are hybrids (half in class/half online) and some now are entirely online and so the burden is on all responders to convey ideas without personal attacks. A clear netiquette policy is very helpful in this respect. But AAR has a netiquette policy. I know because out of curiosity after viewing some pretty ugly personal comments that were posted and allowed to sit there, I went and read it. It is a thoughtful and helpful document, though written a number of years ago. I’m not sure that readers read it or that it is enforced. So, I suppose the issue for me is the distinction between literary critiques that focus on content versus reader comments that attack other readers. There is a fundamental difference between the two. I was surprised, for instance, just recently in a thread concerning books that readers could not finish (“DNFs”) that a number of readers were writing, “well, there’s no accounting for taste,” because that is a pretty ugly sentiment to put out there. I don’t know if readers always know the difference or what role AAR might envision in responding to statements that attack other readers on a personal level. Maybe a good blog post for the future?
I don’t think that “there’s no accounting for taste” is an ugly sentiment. It might imply that it’s surprising someone enjoys something but it doesn’t judge the person on their entire belief system based on them liking that one book.
Many critiques recently have devolved into that. The Breslin/Nazi thread essentially did just that. Not being deeply offended by the book meant you were a Nazi sympathizer or Holocaust denier.
But it might be interesting to have a blog about just what AAR considers responding to other readers on a personal level and what our stance on moderating is. I think for the most part our stance is to be as liberal as possible but maybe we should define what we consider crossing lines.
Duplicate post since it didn’t initially post as “”reply””
Great article, Jill. I know that for me there is a line in the sand as far as what I find forgivable in a hero.
I reviewed an MC book here and discussed the aspects I found troubling, including the madonna/whore dichotomy: http://likesbooks.com/cgi-bin/bookReview.pl?BookReviewId=10241
Those aspects bothered me a lot, to the point that they affected my overall enjoyment of the story.
Such scenes as the one you describe above are subtle forms of sexism and can be even more difficult to combat that flat-out overt sexism. I still remember reading Courtney Milan’s _The Heiress Effect_ and getting goosebumps at a small little scene wedged into the middle of the novel. The “”mean girls”” of the book, the ones that had been mocking the heroine for her body type, her clothing, her manners, and her general inability to meet the norm of what is expected of women, realize that the heroine has been put into a treacherous situation with a man that is physically threatening her. Their realization of the heroine’s vulnerability, partly due to their own shunning, leads them all to evaluate how women can be women’s worst enemies. Now I forget the romance at the heart of this book because of the dynamics between the women in the book. In any case, it struck me as so skillful that an author can take a common trope and turn it upside down just that fast and effectively.
I think if someone is not doing a “”feminist reading”” where one is deserved, that could well be grounds for criticism. I do not take off my “”feminist hat for entertainment”” for a number of reasons, including the fact that so-called “”entertainment”” is often where gender issues are highly explored and debated. So, I would be very troubled by the notion that we should avoid feminist critiques to spare those who are not feminists. Feminists, anti-feminists, sexists, and everything in the middle can interpret literature and present their ideas.
Agreed. I have only selfish reasons for taking off my feminist hat–sometimes I just want to enjoy something and not think about it. I never think about sparing anyone other than myself.
I’ve really enjoyed the discussion here and have some general thoughts. First, I don’t think that every author who includes misogynist language is inserting her own beliefs into the text. But context matters, as Blackjack1 mentions. If the behavior goes unchallenged or is portrayed as sexy, it’s more of an endorsement than a critique. I just read a book with a perfect heroine, loved by all, pitted against a slutty rival who gets insulted/manhandled by the hero and his tribe. The message I got was that this woman deserved to be mistreated because she was a “”dirty skank.”” Sometimes in MC books (and other subgenres), the hero sleeps around with loose women and disrespects them, and the text supports the idea that it’s okay because these women are worthless. While the heroine is put up on an innocent pedestal. It’s an easy, effective way to elicit a reader response–we love to hate skanky rivals! We (the readers) mostly consider ourselves the “”good girls.”” Coulter’s Rosehaven is an excellent example. I even remember the rival’s name–Blanche? She was an evil lying beyotch. When I was younger I enjoyed this dynamic, which now strikes me as problematic. I process my reading on a different level because I see the world in a different way. Neither reader reaction is wrong or bad. One is just more of a critical feminist reading.
I wasn’t sure why Dabney stepped in to moderate the discussion either. It seemed fine to me. I appreciate her caring and attention, but I think we can go too far in the “”let’s not offend anyone”” direction and that also inhibits conversation. It IS a touchy topic though, so I appreciate the thoughtful comments so far.
OK, I’ll try again. I’m sorry I’ve been confusing.
None of your post is offensive.
I am just trying to get the message across to ALL our readers that this is a space where we want them to feel comfortable.
I did not mean to single out you.
This is the danger of using “”reply”” rather than a new post.
Okay, Dabney, but your posts here seem to be about politics behind the scenes and not about Jill Sorenson’s really interesting writing this week. I’m having trouble following you here or what you’re trying to convey but that might be a better place for a different blog? I try to stay focused on the subject of each individual blog rather than carrying on with on-going grudges across other forums, for which frankly I’m not very interested in either :(
I think this is a topic for a new blog. I am taking a journalism school class at UNC (it’s all online) and this week I am moderating a discussion about how comment sections do and don’t encourage participation. It’s, ah, possible that has played into my responses too.
And how was my comment about reading sexism doing that?
My comments were meant to be taken about the blog in general and not necessarily about your post. I am working to make sure that our comments are a place where everyone feels comfortable.
You are not “”necessarily”” responding to me, which means you are “”sort of”” responding to me? What part of my post is offensive? You singled out my response as if something I posted was preventing others from feeling free to write on this blog. I don’t see anything I’ve written that would prevent responses and so all of your posts here have been a little confusing to understand.
I feel as if this is one of those conversations where I want to introduce a concept I learned years ago in couples counseling. Use I words whenever possible. Say “”This makes me feel…”” rather than “”You are….””
I don’t think an author is necessarily mysogynistic simply because she writes using the language of a group. It’s my suspicion that many MC clubs are sexists places and thus an author who uses that language might may be guilty of nothing more than writing a culture as she imagines it.
Well, that is why I wrote above that critical thinking should help readers be able to determine if a piece of writing is “”condoning”” sexism or critiquing it. So I would agree with you that an author is not automatically sexist simply for including sexist characters in a book. But how an author uses sexist characters though says a great deal about the overall politics of a book. In the example I gave from Anne Stuart’s most recent romance suspense novel, Consumed by Fire, for instance, I found it troubling that the hero kicks the heroine in a moment of anger, and the heroine blames herself mostly for the event. The hero does feel badly that he bruises her and causes her to limp but at the same time he rationalizes his actions as necessary to keep her safe because he needs to be in charge to protect her. The story supports his perspective because he does keep her safe in a subsequent scene. In the end it’s a dangerous kind of logic that ultimately justifies his violence of her. She’s a troubling author for me at times, though one I still enjoy. It helps to be able to reflect on sexism in her books though, because otherwise there could be a temptation to romanticize male violence in them.
It helps… you.
Me, I’m not a fan of violence against the hero or the heroine in books–and I see lots of the former in many contemporary romances. But I don’t feel that all violence is sexist or that all insults reflect the author’s views.
No, I don’t feel all violence is sexist either and that is not at all what I was stating. What I was stating is that the context matters, as does the message that is being conveyed in the writing overall, which is why it is important, I think, to be able to assess whether sexism is *condoned* or whether it is being *critiqued* in the story overall. I would definitely say the same for violence in entertainment.
In the example I gave above, I thought Stuart is ultimately sexualizing and romanticizing the hero’s violence. The hero protects the heroine from male violence in the novel while at the same time being the one man that is able to physically hurt her without penalty (i.e., heroine’s forgiveness, the presentation of him as a charming and attractive Hero, the happy-ever-after that sanctions them as a couple).
I see your point. I remain, however, sure that I want to make sure that, on this blog, we don’t create an environment that dissuades others from commenting. Making I statements gives room for others to do the same without feeling as though they’ve stepped into an argument.
I find perfect heroes bore me in romances so I’m really glad to see authors breaking out of the box when it comes to writing flawed heroes. EL James introduced me to ebooks which featured these hero types. I’ve been a much happier reader knowing that boddice ripper romances are not dead.
It is a particularly insidious form of sexism partly because it’s quite subtle. The hero may idolize the heroine but does so by contrasting her negatively to all other women. It’s the “”special snowflake”” trope. I have to agree it’s one of my triggers as a reader, and yes, it is an author inserting misogyny into the writing.
Rosehaven was one of the first romance novels I ever read. It’s been a long time since I thought about that book.
I also have a harder time now with the abusive hero than I used to. I think it is largely a product of being older and more aware of the world. I don’t think I was harmed or damaged by reading darker romance when I was younger, largely because I had real life examples of what a healthy relationship looks like and also because that was not the only thing I read. Now, I tend to shy away from that trend for the most part, unless something else about the story really intrigues me or catches my attention.
I’m not really a fan of abusive heroes, but I know they’re very popular.
However where I absolutely draw the line is when these men refer to every woman other than the heroine as a slut or a whore or a skank. THAT is the part of this current trend that makes me furious, because that’s the author putting her own misogynistic thoughts into the voice of her character.
I totally agree! I can’t stand it when the hero mistreats the heroine or any other woman. The MC recs I made here are free of slut-shaming and name-calling, which is a problem in this subgenre but also in the romance genre at large. The “”evil ex”” or skanky rival trope is one of my top pet peeves.
I love this topic and your thoughts on it. Now I want to read one of your books since I have not to-date.
I agree completely that fantasy needs to be separated from reality and that shaming women for their personal fantasy is unfair. I think it’s far better for readers to develop critical thinking skills and be about to scrutinize and critique all writing as part and parcel of being an intellectual reader, and that definitely includes leisure reading. If readers are able to differentiate “”unhealthy”” premises in a book from making healthy personal choices in their lives, then entertainment can fulfill fantasies without causing harm. Not all readers have those skills and that is where problems occur. If my 12-year old niece that I am raising stumbled upon a “”rape-as-romance”” plot in a book or TV show or movie, I would hope that we could discuss it so that she has the ability to reflect on what she’s consuming in her entertainment.
Another important aspect of critiquing what one reads/views is that there can be a very important assessment from the consumer whether a piece of entertainment is *condoning* issues like rape or offering a critique of them. HBO’s _Game of Thrones_, for instance, has come under lots of fire very recently for their representations of gratuitous rape. Finally, I’ll just say that I love Anne Stuart’s romances and have read most of them, but I’m often uneasy about the representation of the hero as both violent person/romantic hero. In her most recent novel, _Consumed by Fire_, the hero kicks the heroine in anger as they’re eating dinner at a roadside diner. He kicks her hard enough to leave a huge bruise that causes her to limp for days. She forgives him and partially blames herself. I liked the book but that scene lingers still.
Thanks for this thoughtful comment! I read some pretty disturbing stuff at a young age and I don’t think I had the tools to discuss or even process it, but I’m glad I had reading material of all kinds growing up. I feel like books, even “”dangerous”” ones, are a safer place to explore sexuality than real life.
The Anne Stuart book sounds like it crosses my personal line, but she’s such a great writer. She makes a lot of edgy things work.