Years ago, her hero–and he is her hero–date-raped the heroine. Riggs writes:
The hero I love is imperfect in some terrible way. He’s an all too-human soul who’s driven by inner demons far more deadly and cruel than any serial killer or evil empire or double-agent. A man, who, because of a mistake in judgment or action, had done a terrible wrong to an innocent victim, and if that victim is our heroine, so much the better.
She knows her choice is controversial. To her critics, she replies:
Why was it written? Why choose to frame a love story in such a way? What kind of message does a rapist hero and an irresponsible heroine send to the reader? In my opinion and intention, one of hope. If the people in my fictional world can face their own mistakes, learn to forgive themselves, and rise above the harm they’ve caused themselves and others, so can each and every one of us. Our mistakes are most likely far more benign, and yet, perhaps, just as painful to admit. Most of us have a strong sense of personal integrity, no matter what our religious preference. To violate our rules of decent behavior shames us. It’s often easier to accept our failings when we compare them to the far more serious failings of fictional folks. Living through their pain, seeing them make restitution, and thus find redemption and happiness is often enough to encourage us to do the same.
What do you think? I wonder if we are less tolerant of heroes and heroines who, in the past, have done reprehensible acts than we used to be? And, is that a good or bad thing?
Let us know your thoughts.
I hope this isn’t too off-topic, but getting back to the original question of “Could you forgive this hero?,” are we as romance readers becoming more intolerant of non-verbal forms of consent in romance? I ask because lately, my romance reading has been filled with enthusiastic consent- which is fantastic!- but its manner of presentation is often overkill in its execution.
For example, it is becoming almost standard to read seemingly endless repetitions of “Can I touch you here?” Sure, for a first time sex scene with a nervous virgin or a character who has suffered trauma, that can make a lot of sense. But when it keeps happening in every single scene with the same two characters, it feels like the author is trying to cover her butt to avoid accusations of having a rapist hero.
Has anyone else noticed this? Do you think it’s killing subtler, sexier forms of seduction and nuance? Is there any room for misunderstandings or sexual mishaps? What about instances where a character performs a non-favorite sexual act in order to please a partner? I certainly don’t mean rape or any kind of force, but compromise. What about adult conversations during pillow talk about how things went “wrong” and how to fix them in the future? What about regret and hurt feelings?
I’d love to hear some thoughts on these messy questions if you don’t consider them too off-topic. I realize that romance is often idealized (some of that is inherent in the genre), but it seems like heroes are never allowed to “mess up” in the bedroom anymore at all- just like a heroine can’t seem to be touched with one finger without having an explosive orgasm. After all, there are more ways to demonstrate healthy sexual interaction than a constant call and response of “Can I touch you here?” “Yes.”
As ever, Nan, you have asked some interesting questions that deserve an answer so here goes with my responses to your can of worms!!
“are we as romance readers becoming more intolerant of non-verbal forms of consent in romance?” I think this may be the case, sadly, which I interpret as a deficit in emotional maturity and intuitiveness. I believe that non-verbal communication is supremely important in relationships of all kinds and I also think that most adults are pretty proficient in using and interpreting it.
“it is becoming almost standard to read seemingly endless repetitions of “Can I touch you here?” Yes, and for me, it’s a bore. A huge bore. A sexual groundhog day..
“it feels like the author is trying to cover her butt to avoid accusations of having a rapist hero” I agree, Nan. It’s probably as a result of our litigious society combined with the Harvey Weinsteins of the world and social media egging everyone on. Everyone is running scared, most of the time it seems probably without cause or need. Sad.
“Do you think it’s killing subtler, sexier forms of seduction and nuance? Is there any room for misunderstandings or sexual mishaps?” In a good relationship, surely misunderstandings or sexual mishaps are part and parcel of its growth and development. None of us are born with all of the answers about everything; nuance is a tool for use in learning and understanding.
“What about instances where a character performs a non-favorite sexual act in order to please a partner?” Amongst my cohort of girlfriends I don’t know anyone who hasn’t, as an act of love at least once or twice, agreed to something they weren’t that fond of. And in a loving relationship, I am sure we all got something in return. (And I don’t mean submitting to rape or something that causes harm though some will feel that emotional harm is equal to or trumps physical harm.)
“What about regret and hurt feelings?” I can hear Frank warbling away. It’s called LIFE.
“but it seems like heroes are never allowed to “mess up” in the bedroom anymore at all- just like a heroine can’t seem to be touched with one finger without having an explosive orgasm” Precisely. It’s so irritating. I like character-driven romance and without someone(s) messing up at least a bit, no one matures or deepens a relationship to a satisfactory level. One finger, eh, Nan? Hmmmm!!!!
“After all, there are more ways to demonstrate healthy sexual interaction than a constant call and response of “Can I touch you here? Yes.” Absolutely. After 40 years of a very happy marriage, I would die of shock if asked that question. So would the DH. We finish each other’s sentences, know each other’s thoughts, tastes, preferences, dislikes, joys, sorrows, regrets and expectations. Of course, like any other couple, we have a few deep secrets but not many after all this time!
Aw, thanks Elaine, for answering my questions so thoroughly. It’s good to know I’m not the only romance reader who has noticed a definite shift in how sex scenes are portrayed- and I haven’t been a reader of the genre that long. While I don’t want to tell authors how to write their sex scenes, I would recommend a little more “showing” and less “telling.” I think a good writer can just as easily describe a series of come hither looks and suggestive banter as having a character constantly say “Can I touch you here?” outright.
As for non-verbal consent, I was pleasantly surprised the other day when I watched the 1970 B-film The Losers for the first time. Granted, it is a war picture about a bunch of ragtag bikers dropped in to Vietnam to rescue a CIA operative via guerilla warfare tactics (stick with me here), but there’s a rather touching subplot between one of the gentler bikers and a local woman. Okay, okay, I can hear the cries of “OMG! A foreigner and a possible prostitute? Sexist, racist, blah blah blah!” But hear me out.
Basically, Limpy (such a politically incorrect nickname for a biker with a limp, but this is 1970) goes to this club where he sees a young woman, Kim Su, (yeah, yeah, bear with me) sitting on the sidelines like a wallflower. They exchange glances, quick “hello’s,” and then Limpy offers her his hand. She takes it. They end up on the dance floor doing this sort of disco thing where they never touch each other but flirt entirely with small talk and come hither looks. As things get more heated- again without any touching or direct sexual offers- Kim offers Limpy her hand. No words, but the next thing you know, she’s leading him up the stairs. As the viewer, you feel their connection as strongly as they do, no unnecessary chitchat or contract signing required. Cut to the next frame and we get a nice, natural pillow talk scene. Actually quite sweetly funny too when Limpy gives her a kiss and says, “Well, now that we’ve got that out of the way, what’s your name?” And the whole thing really is all sweetness and smiles in sharp contrast to the war raging outside. Problematic by today’s standards? Maybe, but I thought it was one of the better examples of enthusiastic consent sans practically needing a written contract prior to a sexual encounter. Despite not showing actual sex- unless you consider exposed female breasts an automatic depiction of sex- I thought it was quite steamy.
As an unrelated fun fact, The Losers is the movie that is playing in the background in Pulp Fiction. Apparently, it is a favorite of Tarantino’s and he auditioned Paul Koslo (the guy who played Limpy) to be in Pulp Fiction. That didn’t work out, but he put one of the scenes from The Losers in his film to give him a cameo appearance and pay him residuals.
An even steamier movie that I think shows the rougher aspects of consensual sex is the erotic thriller Sea of Love with Al Pacino and Ellen Barken. Pacino plays a detective on the case of a possibly female serial killer targeting her ex-lovers, and ends up falling for the prime suspect. Given the setup, this is borderline dubious consent at times, but its portrayal of sex feels very adult in comparison to the scaredy-cat type sex scenes in books and movies nowadays that do everything but shout to the audience, “Look at us, we’re consenting- with a capital C.”
After reading comments from the people who have read the book and Marian Perera’s comment where they point out how the author described the events of the book in her article, I find that I’m a bit confused / don’t have a clear enough understanding of this particular case to have a proper opinion of it. How things went down all in all matter to me when I’m trying to understand the hero and figure out whether I could forgive him. Which doesn’t mean that the heroine’s experience wasn’t horrible from the moment on she didn’t want to go further no matter which way it went down. Or that I’d expect her to be able to forgive the hero.
In this type of situation I feel like whether or not I could forgive the hero and whether I could buy into a romance between two people with this kind of past are two different things. I have read several romance novels with characters who have done reprehensible acts of different degrees in the past, but I can’t remember reading a book where a victim was paired with their offender. I’m failing to see how that could work for me especially in case of violent crimes.
In a more general sense, how everything happened matters and intentions matter when I consider if I’m able to forgive someone’s actions. In my understanding, learning about the variety of intentions won’t change the victim’s experience. It might, but I would imagine most often might not, change how the victim ends up feeling about it all in the long run.
Like, you can drive over a person accidentally or on purpose. The victim will be just as dead or paralyzed or perhaps just badly bruised (if they are really lucky) regardless of the intent, but it would certainly be harder for me to forgive an act like this if it was intentional instead of accidental. I think that if the victim lives it might end up meaning something to them as well to know that the collision was accidental. Or, as I said, it might not.
Or perhaps a group of people are waiting in a line at a grill kiosk after a night out in a bar. They are drunk, a few of them quarrel and someone shoves another person. Instead of taking a few steps back like they would if they were sober, they stumble, fall, and crack their skull on the edge of the road. Here the shove, the intention to do harm was there, and I don’t think it’s something anyone should do in such situations, but in my understanding people don’t generally shove other people like that and expect them to die. I find that it would affect the way I feel that the intention was not to do serious harm even though it changes absolutely nothing for the victim and the consequences of the act were horrendous.
I’ve read the story of a heroine who had killed her abusive husband. I didn’t feel like I even had to forgive this heroine. She did the only thing she could – she saved herself in a situation where, while he had not attacked her (yet) heaven knows what would have happened if she had not acted. She had no choice.
I do believe that people can change, learn from mistakes, do better in the future. I don’t think that every person who behaves in a certain way will automatically keep repeating the behavior until the day they die. I also know that change won’t happen by itself. A person has to genuinely want to change and be ready to work hard and then work even harder.
Annik, lovely post!
a few excellent points to think about,
I particularly think about the point of “can the victim forgive / have a HEA with her offender” – a lot of romances, especially older ones, say yes. Especially for sexual abuses. And this is really such an essential point: what does it mean for a woman who felt raped, no matter all our long debates about whether it was rape, she felt that. So how can she be happy and feel fully safe with him? Are women so used to not being safe from men, even in our closest intimate relationships, that we mix up objective forgiveability with subjective love story with the offender? I did, until you pointed it out, which means I have to look carefully at my thoughts on all this.
thank you, I like thinking new paths!
Thank you for your kind words and an altogether insightful comment, Lieselotte!
You ask good questions – I’m going to have to give them some serious thought.
Having read articles and discussions of the romance genre, I’ve been aware that abuse between love interests is not such a rare thing especially in older books, as you say. I can obviously only speculate why I have not read such stories yet, but I would imagine that the fact that I’m still quite new to this genre and the books I’ve read so far have mostly been on the newer side of the spectrum does figure into it. Also, since I have to buy almost all the romance novels I read I do try to research them to the best of my ability beforehand, because I know that there are certain subjects that I don’t deal very well will because of things in my past. Perhaps avoiding certain subgenres and/or tropes might have contributed a little too, I don’t know.
“Perhaps avoiding certain subgenres and/or tropes might have contributed a little too, I don’t know.”
That’s certainly possible, annik. These days, rapist heroes in romance novels generally don’t fly outside of really niche markets that are difficult to bump into by accident. I would say that’s a good thing. Although, unfortunately, there is a growing extreme on the other end of the spectrum where characters can hardly make one move without constant verbal checking-in with the partner- as I discussed with Elaine S. below.
If you avoid things labeled “dark romance” or “mafia romance,” you generally won’t find the extremely forceful heroes that used to be commonplace. I’ve never run into that sort of unpleasantness in a Harlequin Historical, Harlequin Intrigue, or Carina Press title, for example. I’m not a paranormal reader, so I can’t really speak to that. Although I have heard that there’s a lot more leeway for brutish behavior in heroes in more fanciful genres than historical or contemporary romance right now.
Those are all good points and I agree about intent. If a person intends harm or is just the victim of very bad luck – those are two different very things.
Here in the U.S. there are various degrees of crime for many offenses with intent being a key differentiator. There are even differences made between crimes of passion and crimes of intent even if the end result is the same thing. If someone just lashes out in response in the heat of the moment it’s still wrong, but so very different than someone who meditated and then plotted to do harm.
I had wanted to read this book now just to see the language used and be able to relay what specifically happens but haven’t decided if I want to invest in owning it.
Thank you for your kind words and sharing your thoughts, Chrisreader! I’m happy to have learned something new again. :)
I must confess that my knowledge and understanding of even my own country’s criminal laws is embarrassingly limited, and having spent the last hour reading about the classification of crimes here in Finland so that I wouldn’t end up talking nonsense about such a serious matter, I was once again reminded about how damn hard legal text is for me to read.
There are so many kinds of crimes of course, so this couldn’t be further from comprehensive, but what I do know is that we don’t have the kind of degrees of crime here as you do. We classify crimes according to their severity such as petty assault, assault and aggravated assault, rape and aggravated rape etc. (It depends on the type of crime if there are petty and/or aggravated cases of it.) and between these the seriousness of criminal conduct and the harm done or danger caused seem to be more often the key differentiators than intent. However, one of the differentiating elements between murder and manslaughter is premeditation. There are three other elements that define murder, and to be considered a murder a homicide has to have at least one of the four elements and be considered aggravated overall. The second most severe homicide charge after murder is manslaugther (which requires that the act of violence that caused the death was deliberate) then surma (there’s no English equivalent for this law term as far as I know, it’s basically petty manslaughter) and then negligent homicide. Also, for an act to be considered a crime to begin with, there has to be something objectionable about it – at least some degree of intent or neglect. If something is purely accidental, it is not a crime. But that’s just my uneducated interpretation, and honestly, the more I read the more complicated it all became especially in terms of intent and neglegt.
It did certainly start to seem that to ascertain what precisely happens, what are the actual words used in Her Secret, His Child, one would have to read the book oneself. It kind of bugs me, not knowing, but at least for now I’m just going to have to live with it.