Last week, I was thoroughly enjoying an upcoming historical romance when, in a fit of understandable anger, the heroine slapped the hero across the face hard enough to leave a mark. As I continued reading, I couldn’t stop thinking about how uncomfortable that made me. If he’d hit her, that would be unacceptable. Why then, in a book with a wonderfully realized strong feminist hero, did the author believe it was viable for for her heroine to be violent?
There are a host of behaviors we (now) say are unacceptable in heroes. It’s deeply uncool for romance heroes to pressure a woman to have sex, to have sex with a lover who’s drunk or drugged, to raise a hand against or to belittle a woman.
And yet we reviewers at AAR are seeing stories where women do these same things and don’t receive the sort of censure male leads do. Sometimes these behaviors are explicitly justified by smashing the patriarchy. I understand that argument–women have been at the mercy of men for millenia–and yet, I still find myself discomfitted.
What do you think? Is it reasonable to have different standards for heroes and heroines? If so, why? If not, why not?
Impenitent social media enthusiast. Relational trend spotter. Enjoys both carpe diem and the fish of the day.
In strict answer to Dabney’s question, yes it’s reasonable to have different standards for heroes and heroines BUT that does not mean I have to like it or agree with it. A writer is telling a story so they may need to show differing standards as part of it to drive the narrative and character development forward. It would be more acceptable in HR, not so in the main for CR. As for the violence discussed here such as face-slapping, I cannot compute violence and romance together – this seems to me to be completely contradictory. Violence in war time MAY be an exception as writing about war is writing about violence.
Excellent clarification. Thank you!
About a half hour after I finished reading these comments, I resumed reading Sweet Fortune, by Jayne Ann Krentz, because I have been doing some rereading. And there’s this scene, where little sister Elizabeth talks to heroine Jessie right after Jessie has dissolved in tears over her relationship with Sam Hatchard, the hero:
“I bet you’re crying on account of Hatch, aren’t you?” [Elizabeth said.]
“Afraid so,” Jessie said.
“Why don’t you just punch him out instead?”
“That would probably be a much more satisfying approach to the problem,” Jessie said. “But he happens to be a lot bigger than I am.”
“I don’t think he’d hit you back,” Elizabeth said, thoughtful. “At least, not very hard.”
“Of course he wouldn’t hit me back. Which is exactly why I can’t start pounding on him,” Jessie explained patiently. “It wouldn’t be fair, you see. He couldn’t retaliate in the same way.”
“So what does that leave?” Elizabeth asked.
“I don’t know,” Jessie said. “I’m still trying to figure it out.”
Personally, I am not in favor of anyone slapping anyone unless the heroine is trying to disconcert a killer she wants to escape from, as Stephanie Laurens has Alicia do in in one of her Bastion Club books, A Gentleman’s Honor. I am pretty sure there were also a couple of medievals I read where parents slapped their daughters. There might have also been a Krentz novel where the hero did slap back (not full force) after being slapped by the heroine — I may have the author wrong, but I know I have read that scene.
While it is perfectly true that historically slapping and other punitive violence was more accepted socially, there were still plenty of families and relationships without violence. Refraining from physical fighting, particularly between the hero and heroine, is not a historical anomaly in the same way that attributing feminist ideals to a heroine is. It is not poor writing or editing practice to rein in slapping in romance novels.
All the posts have been about physical violence, but the example I have in mind was mental violence. Years back I read a paranormal supposed-romance in which the heroine did a partial mind-wipe of the hero. The ethical/moral issues/attitudes and the power imbalance totally spoiled the romance for me. I think the book was Over Hexed by Vicki Lewis Thompson, but it’s been enough years that I’m not positive.
On power imbalances, one of the core features of the Argeneau vampire series by Lynsay Sands is that mates can NOT use mind control on each other.
That reminds me of Buffy where Willow used something similar on Tara not once but twice. It was particularly horrific because it was just regular Willow doing it. It wasn’t soulless Angel torturing Buffy because he went full evil.
Any kind of messing with someone’s brain is true nightmare stuff to me regardless of gender. I think it’s even worse than violence.
That example is interesting because Wheedon framed it as a drug problem on Willow’s part. Thus, when Willow kicked her drug problem, she was forgiven. And yet, Wheedon still punishes Willow in the end.
Yes I used to adore Whedon and I am still a big fan of a lot of his work. Over the years however I’ve become more critical on how he deals with women both in his written work and how he dealt with them as actresses etc.
I think he punished everyone though across the board. By the end of Buffy the only relationship intact is Willow’s very new one right? By the end of Angel there aren’t any. (I’m counting romances not friendships).
Mental violence is to me definitely as problematic as physical violence, though I have to say that I don’t see the issue trending in romances. The only book that comes to mind at the moment is Beth O’Leary’s The Flatshare. Tiffy, the heroine, is gaslighted and stalked by her ex. He’s not the center focal point of the story but he’s present enough in the background that there is unease about that particular plot and where it’s heading in the book.
Here’s an example of double standards in a recent self-published book: A guest reviewer at AAR just posted a review of A Duke will Never Do with the concern that the heroine pressures and manipulates the hero for sex and how if the roles were reversed, would this ever be permissible? And although this book fails to make a passing grade at AAR, its sales are quite good on Amazon with quite a few positive reviews (for what it’s worth). So, quite a few people don’t have a problem with it. What do you think?
I appreciate real reviews that call out bad writing/behavior; and expect reviewers to read critically for just such issues. Reviews at Amazon are largely bogus and/or from readers who are getting free or cheap copies. These are not people who read and review critically. Personally, I never look at reviews at Amazon, and stopped paying attention to Goodreads reviews when Amazon purchased them (unless I know the reviewer).
Sound advice, nblibgirl.
I think, as I posted elsewhere, that this is the result of the societal idea that’s still quite prevalent that most women would object to a guy doing this to them but “most guys” would be happy if a woman did it to them so it’s somehow OK.
Yeah, this reminds me of an episode of Futurama where three of the male characters get captured by Amazon women on a female-only planet, offend their leader, and get sentenced to “death by snu snu.” It’s played for laughs with the men vacillating between ecstasy and terror at the prospect (“I never thought I’d die like this! But I always kind of hoped!”) But when you stop and think about the implications, the characters essentially get sentenced to be raped to death. But because the condemned characters were horny heterosexual males and their would-be executioners were females, this was somehow considered okay for laughs? I guarantee you the other way around would never pass muster. (And for the record, the men are rescued before they die but not before part of the sentence is carried out- so they’re kind of happy about it? Ugh…)
As I started reading romance novels in the 1980s, I recognize I had different standards then. But today I don’t find them reasonable because violence does not usually lead to anything good. Many books I enjoyed then would horrify me if I read them today.
Perhaps people see violence aganst men as something less terrible because, in real life, more men kill women than the other way around. Therefore, there’s more danger in a male agression towards a female. A heroine kicking a hero looks humiliating for the man, but not the beginning of a nightmare that could easily end up in a killing. I guess that’s the reason why people have no problem, or even find it cute, when a heroine slaps a hero.
Nevertheless, I usually find this kind of behaviour unacceptable even if the man’s life is not in direct danger. I could probably enjoy the book if the rest of it is great, but those scenes make me uncomfortable and I normally wish they have not been there.
I’m pretty much with you.
I also started reading romances back in the 80’s and with the exception of a handful of category romances, I found I read mostly historical romances.
I think that put another layer of distance over the violence in them as well. I certainly hated it even then, but I guess my thought was “That happened more way back then” so it didn’t seem like something contemporary or related to life in the 80’s. I certainly didn’t expect men to act that way in my life any more than guys I knew were acting like Rhett Butler or Captain Blood or Ivanhoe.
I also think some authors like Diana Gabaldon use that “bad things happened more often back then” argument in their writing. We all know sexual violence happens frequently even today, but I gave up on the Outlander books when every single person in one family was sexually assaulted. For me it was just too much.
It’s so hard to go back to books from the 80s as so many of the books feature violence against women as a routine aspect of seduction and romance. I don’t know if I actually think readers believe that violence against men is acceptable though. Unless I’ve missed someone’s post here, I haven’t read anyone supporting authors including this in their books. Instead there seems to be consensus that it’s not appropriate or welcome in a story. I don’t have any Goodreads friends endorsing violence against either men or women or clamoring for more of it in books, and I honestly cannot remember anyone on other romance sites doing that either. I think maybe there is a sense that readers are okay with it, but I haven’t seen evidence of that. That’s a good thing though and probably why violence against either partner in a romance is something that rarely occurs today.
I agree that readers aren’t fans which is why it has surprised me to encounter it in several recent books. It seems like an odd choice in 2020.
I’m certainly not condoning violence between romance heroes and heroines either, but there must be a market for these 1980s style forced seduction (i.e. rape) and smacking each other about if new books of that type are still being published in 2020. But I think a lot of that niche market wouldn’t be apt to post reviews as that would be akin to admitting, “Hey, I like this stuff.” Because when I read these examples of MCs hitting each other hard enough to leave a mark or using shock collars on each other, my mind immediately goes in the direction of, “These stories aren’t targeted toward or read by mainstream romance readers. These are fetish/niche readers with certain kinks.” (Which I’m not knocking, by the way! But it certainly wouldn’t be my cup of tea, especially in a work specifically marketed as a romance. Some of the scenarios described in this comment section would be far more appropriate in dark romance or erotica than a more mainstream romance designation.)
On that note, I remember hearing on a PowerPoint presentation about KDP erotica that if rape stories were permitted, they would probably be the hottest selling genre. Make of that hypothesis what you will. But I think it ties into a lot of what we’ve been discussing. Maybe some “romance” writers and readers are getting off on the violence?
Dark romance is HUGE now. It definitely taps into something for lots of readers.
I think there’s a reason why Willing Victim catapulted Cara McKenna on the romance/erotica radar all those years back. Apart from really talented writing it hit a nerve and straddled a line between acceptable role play and much darker stuff. It was all consensual but it dipped its toe into the dark side that still made it palatable for a lot of readers.
I’m not a fan of violence, whomever is doing it. Very occasionally it makes sense in the context of the story, but the author better do a darned good job convincing me a) it was necessary, and b) they equitably resolve their differences.
To me, a lot of times the violence is a symbol of a larger power imbalance, which I really have an issue with. Many of the “meet cute” setups or other tropes in romance have totally lopsided power dynamics, and I have a hard time believing in the relationship when it’s clear one party can’t make a free choice. It’s one of the reasons I started reading more M/M over the past few years, because there’s a lot less of the power dynamics that make me quite uncomfortable. It shows up some in M/M (I avoid D/s and daddy books for this exact reason), but it seems to be less prevalent.
99.9% of the time violence has no place in an intimate relationship. It’s why I’ve always loathed the movie Mr. and Mrs. Smith — there’s no romantic relationship when they’re beating the crap out of each other all the time.
Completely agree! I intensely dislike power imbalances in relationships, though in contemporary “meet cute” setups, I haven’t encountered physical violence, especially in the sense of an author endorsing it as a sign of feminism. I too really disliked Mr. and Mrs. Smith and did not find the violence exciting or powerful.
Agreed…I don’t see physical violence much in contemporary romances. I’m thinking more of the boss/employee relationships or the “I need to marry someone” relationships, where there’s a fair amount of leverage one party has over the other. I get why they’re in the structure of the story (they need a reason to be around each other until feelings), but many of them aren’t done well, and it feels like the free choice is somehow less.
I think the basic issue is if they don’t treat each other as equals and/or they aren’t fully realized characters — where one party gives up too much or doesn’t value what the other partner wants and needs. It’s hard to articulate, but I’m trying :).
Like you, I’m not a fan of employer/employee relationships. I’ve liked some but in general I’m always wondering why they couldn’t just be coworkers in a different department or rivals or in the same industry but work at different companies. The employer/employee relationship feels like a relic from another era and so much as change in public perception and in HR rules that it’s hard to stop thinking about all the real life problems this sort of relationship faces now.
“I’m not a fan of employer/employee relationships.” I like your idea of coworkers and/or business rivals though. :)
At the risk of getting too off-topic, what are your thoughts on forced proximity romances in general? I ask because I think there is some overlap between the two tropes. I.e. if you work somewhere, you can’t exactly *avoid* the boss, kind of like what Jessica was talking about.
I don’t mind forced proximity if there aren’t power issues — two people stranded in a cabin is fine. Two people stranded in a cabin where one is the owner and has the power to kick out the other is much more fraught. It depends on the setup and the dynamics between the two, but the setup is much harder to make work if one has the power to force the other to do something.
I definitely like the idea of coworkers in different departments or business rivals. Agreed — in today’s day and age, there is so much HR stuff and other issues with it, it’s really hard to suspend my disbelief and buy the relationship.
“It depends on the setup…” My thoughts also. Context, situations, characters- all these elements of great storytelling can make nearly any premise work depending on how they are presented.
“Two people stranded in a cabin where one is the owner and has the power to kick out the other is much more fraught.” Oh, definitely! Although this could be a fascinating story as well…
It all could be a fascinating story!! Totally agree on your comment about context, situations, etc. It all depends on how it’s written and how it’s handled. I’ve read some boss/employee books where I have no problem and I’ve read others that have a high squick factor for me.
I’m not much for books or movies that are full of violence either; and I’m really hoping the recent spate of action movies with female leads dropped into what would have otherwise been a male lead will quickly die away: Atomic Blond with Charlize Theron and Red Sparrow with Jennifer Lawrence are two that come mind. I’ve never watched Mr. And Mrs. Smith, nor the two I just mentioned. Absolutely no interest.
I haven’t watched either of those, and based on your description, I probably won’t. And totally agreed — movies where the female lead has to “out-male” the male can be really annoying. In that sense, I really like Black Widow in the various Avengers movies — she’s badass, but she owns being female and doesn’t feel like she has to be stronger and tougher than the males. Plus, she’s got awesome one-liners :).
I think a woman reacting to something inappropriate by a man by slapping him must be an old theatrical trope to increase dramatic tension. It’s outdated and should be ruthlessly avoided.
In real life, violence begets violence. If you hit someone–male or female–you are more than likely to be hit or punched back. You want to ignite uncontrollable anger? Just hit someone.
I can’t believe such behavior was encouraged, even in the past. The slapper would depend on the protection of her husband or father, applicable only if his status, power, or rank were equal to or greater than the that of the slapped man. Even then, she depended on him adhering to the polite code. You can be guaranteed that if a “gentleman” made an insulting comment to a common woman, she would have had to be crazy to slap him– far too dangerous to her and to her family.
However, if the heroine is physically attacked, clearly, she may have no recourse, except violence. In the last few years, Hollywood has liked to stage fights between a man and a woman. That is what some idiots think of feminism. This change in our society’s mores encourages violence against women and by women. Not a good idea.
I definitely agree with you that violence perpetrated by women is not a symbol of progressive changes for women, and I agree too that violence begets violence. It’s never been a part of my own personal life and so I find myself appalled and shrinking from it whenever I encounter it in entertainment. I’m probably therefore the opposite of the desensitized consumer that gets characterized by critics of pop culture. I have to say though that I have not actually encountered much of the Hollywood staged fights in recent movies. Do you have specific titles in mind? Maybe in Game of Thrones when Arya became an assassin to avenge her family? Quintin Tarantino created the female assassin gang in Kill Bill years ago, but those examples are from years ago or take place in fantasy-type settings. Perhaps the Marvel world and recent spate of female superheroes?
This question feels a little dated because I have not found too many recent books, or any current ones, that depict women hitting men or women violating men sexually. There was though a period back in the late 1990s/early 2000s when this happened in a handful of romances and it felt that women writers were really struggling to find ways to represent women as strong and as equals and able to function in a man’s world on men’s terms. If men hit women, women could hit men just as hard.
Today, my sense is that romance authors are more comfortable creating strong women who know what they want and are able to articulate those needs to their partners. Feminism is sitting a bit easier with many women writers today, it seems to me, or at least there is more acceptance that feminists do not need to define female agency in masculine terms. I occasionally see women portrayed as prickly, shall we say, and this is where I find a double standard still exists because grumpy men are revered in romances but grumpy women are still considered bitches if they display close to the same types of behavior. I see many more men today represented as caring and supportive and even welcoming of strong women with open arms, maybe what some readers would call beta heroes. It could just be that I read in a bubble though and have weeded out the representations that I don’t enjoy.
What current romance titles are depicting women slapping men or sexually assaulting them? Any recent titles come to mind because I can’t think of any off the top of my head.
That’s me, dated.
Dated, or aged like a fine wine? :)
I think of myself like first editions–not for everyone but appreciated by some. ;)
Definitely appreciated here, lol.
There were just a couple reviewed here, but since I am dated as well I can’t remember the name of the one where the woman drank the crazy concoction her sister made for her period cramps then jumped the brother in law in the library.
There was also one that just got reviewed here and knocked down some grades because the old aunt was sexually harassing young footmen or something.
There was one recently reviewed and I think it was Minerva Spencer’s book, or her alias, since she writes under a different name. If that’s the author, she’s definitely a problematic author for me on all sorts of issues – racial ones as well as gender. The vast majority of romances I’ve read have headed in an entirely different direction though on female agency in recent years. There seems to me a sea change in romance writing on far more positive depictions of “female strength.”
The first was The Virgin and the Rogue by Sophie Jordan I think.
Thank you! I actually read that one right after the review and still couldn’t think of the title. It’s been a long work week.
I agree. More current female characters are rightfully defending themselves, physically and/or otherwise. But I don’t see much one-sided bad behavior by MCs in today’s books. I assume because good reviewers are either choosing not to review the books at all (in which case I’ll never know about the title) or reviewers’ are calling it out at a site like AAR before the titles can gain much traction.
Yep, it’s not just females who are constructed as having complex coping strategies and plots that are more sensitive to gender equity but MCs are more aware of gender imbalances. I looked at all of the current authors I follow and all of them to one degree or another are adhering to a new set of principles and dynamics. I’m really pleased with the direction romances have taken in recent years.
I love Susan Elizabeth Phillips books but have always had a major problem with This Heart of Mine, the heroine had non consensual sex with the hero but I’m not sure she ever realised- it was rape.
I guess I tend to judge Molly in the same way that Kevin does–he forgives her very explicitly. Molly makes a terrible choice but it really is just one and over the course of the book she redeems herself. Molly know she did a terrible thing–which is why the scene where Kevin tells her she has to forgive herself is so necessary to the reader believing that Molly can be forgiven.
I think Molly gets a pass by a lot of readers because she is woman, not because she is sorry. I just don’t think a guy doing the same thing in a story would ever be sorry enough for 99% of readers to forgive him.
I remember back in the heyday of Brockmann’s books Sam Starett gets roped into marriage because the girl he was hooking up with intentionally damages his condoms to get pregnant and land a SEAL husband. Most women readers were very sympathetic to her and I was In the minority because I thought she was awful. Can you imagine if a guy in a story tampered with a woman’s birth control to get her? Now I understand the woman physically carries the child but that’s just unforgivable in my eyes. How do you ever trust someone? Someone willing to use a child to trap someone else. I know if happens plenty in real life but to me it’s despicable.
I don’t know if I agree about that (the Molly being a woman part.) Part of it is that I am unlikely to judge a character by a single act. In this book, I think Molly’s one bad choice is just that. If Kevin had done a similarly stupid thing and had the same ratio of good to bad choices, I think I’d have forgiven him too.
If I am being honest it did matter for me. I still don’t like Molly, but if it were a guy I probably would have wanted him arrested.
That’s fair. And I think if Kevin had seen Molly with more fury, I might have too.
Caz kindly supplied the name of a book I couldn’t think of which was The Virgin and The Rogue by Sophie Jordan. I read it right after the reviewer here (who viewed the heroine’s actions as sexual assault) and I didn’t find it as bad as that at all. But again, it was (like in This Heart If Mine) treated very differently because it was the woman doing it. The guy in The VATR is out looking for the heroine again that same night she surprised him in the library -and while he’s surprised at the initial encounter he sure doesn’t push her away, and he easily could have and he’s helping her by the end of their encounter. Its been years since I read THOM but while Kevin was certainly angry he’s not calling the police. So I think the women also get more of a pass from the reader because it’s presented as either OK or not as bad.
The assumption is that if some Regency Miss got grabbed the same way and accosted in the library she would scream the house down. If Kevin were a female celebrity or sports star who had a guy take advantage of her in her own bed the same way there’s no question it would not be the same story. And didn’t the family blame him in some way?
No–they blamed him for getting her pregnant and bailing which he hadn’t done since she’d lied to him about the pregnancy.
I’d have to reread it but I remember thinking he wasn’t treated very well and it was assumed because he was the guy things were all his fault.
I think that’s true–Dan, who is a very manly man, is furious at Kevin when the family learns Molly is pregnant. But, once they understand what happened, they get over it. Except for a dumb thing at the end where Phoebe says Kevin has to pick between Molly and the team. But that’s just for plot shenanigans.
As mentioned above, Molly didn’t get a pass from me. (Her losing the baby was what made her sympathetic.) I give Brockmann a lot of credit for 1) realistically turning the pregnancy = marriage trope into a really bad marriage; and 2) finding a way to make Mary Lou (eventually) into a sympathetic character.
I “love” two of SEPs books but have major issues with how each opens: This Heart of Mine and Nobody’s Baby But Mine. At least the sex at the beginning of NBBM is consensual but the pregnancy is not. Both of these openings are incredibly problematic for me and I don’t believe either would be well-received today, which is a shame because what follows is quite fun to read. I’d like to think the author would find another way to get the MCs into each others’ lives if starting either book today.
Interesting topic!
Overall, I have moments in books where I just feel „no, this is horrible from a woman to a man, too“, more and more often. It seems that authors are experimenting with role reversal in many ways. I am glad that they do, but it often ruins the romance for me. Disrespect, humiliation, talking down, body shaming, trophy dating, objectification, it all makes for bad romance no matter the gender. Often, I make an effort to read on, to make sure I am not just a victim of old gender Stereotypes, and try to be open to different behavior. Sometimes, it works out.
Physical violence and intent to hurt: no.
Unless we are in a Animal/fantasy/battlefield/ comrade in arms setting where fighting is part of the normal behavior.
The one way I can imagine forgiving a slap in a book is when it is a reaction to a personal insult, or inappropriate touching, as a more or less automatic trained defense mechanism- when I grew up, a long while back, in my last two years at school (about 16-18) I had a few classmates who automatically slapped in the face whoever slapped them on the ass or groped them. Cubs growing up in a very rough and rude touchy-feely way. I could relate to such scenes in a book, because I knew such people. My limit: Intention to hurt, physically. The emotional impact is bad enough. This would work better in older books, I suppose. Not sure.
Huh, this is an interesting discussion. I couldn’t help but chime in since this is such a hot button issue for me. In certain contexts and in historicals, violence between the hero and heroine can sometimes make sense. It’s rare and not preferable but times being what they were…
On the other hand, in contemporaries the double standards are a hard no for me. Several years ago, I read two books almost back to back that horrified me to no end. In one of them, a man goes to a matchmaking agency to get help. A complete makeover is the end result (which could be bad enough, I suppose) but to complete the whole thing, she puts a shock collar on him to “correct his behavior” and during the first outing admits that she shocked him more than necessary because she could. My first reaction to this was horror and my second was and if the roles were reversed, this would never get published.
In the second book, a woman is convinced that a man is a horrible bigot, so she agrees to drug him (Rohypnol) and then take racy photos with him to destroy his reputation, and she does. But, when she realizes she messed up, does she go to the police? Nope. She and his family convince him to take her on as his girlfriend to rehabilitate his image. That one was more horrific to me. His own family pushed him to let the person who sexually assaulted him be his girlfriend?! Before that book, I loved the author. I can’t bring myself to read her now, even though I have books of hers I have not read.
I don’t like the double standard though I can see real reasons for some of it. Sometimes it’s just too much, and it is always too much in contemporaries.
A shock collar? Was this is a romance or an erotica? Because I’m not sure how an author could justify something that perversely kinky in a romance. It would also be questionable in an erotica unless there was clear consent.
As for the second book, holy moly! That is sexual assault, no question. And this was in a romance? I’d be hard pressed to defend something like that in an erotica.
Neither of these were erotica. And technically, he gave consent when he agreed to her makeover. But that she considered it acceptable at all is a problem and that she admitted to shocking him more than necessary was highly problematic.
Yes, the second was definitely romance, the last in a series. And frankly, the others were tame. This author doesn’t typically go for anything particularly dark or problematic. I ended up writing a review about the book because I simply could not keep silent over it.
Thanks for replying to my post. I agree that the scenarios you described are troubling for a romance.
I’m sure a lot of people have different views on this, but I am far more tolerant of problematic content in erotica or clearly labeled dark romance because they present a different kind of fantasy than other types of romance. That was a big reason why I asked. Romance, after all, should be… well, romantic. And I have no idea on what planet shock collars and drugging the hero is considered romantic…
Agree.
I stopped reading Bertrice Small quite a few years ago because she had a series of contemporaries where an agency that was billed as helping unfulfilled women find erotic satisfaction evolved into a revenge club where it was ok to destroy men‘s lives – violence, financial ruin, I even think accidental death – because they had cheated. I do not condone infidelity, but the glee with which these revenge scenarios were realized, and the backslapping encouragement of other women – it horrified me.
All those things do sound pretty horrific- and not romantic at all!
As for revenge scenarios, I am highly tolerant of them in cases of true villainy as in rapists and murderers getting what’s coming to them. But over cheating? Sure, I can see a fight breaking out if someone catches someone in the act (not necessarily in romance, but in other genres), but a revenge club for getting cheaters? That’s taking things a bit too far for me, certainly in something billed as a romance.
Yes, at first those contemporary novels by Small seemed quite empowering because the women were controlling their own fantasies about things Small used to have to write as the women being “forced” to do. Then the books took a weird dark turn where the guys had really awful things happen to them as revenge for being crappy husbands or cheaters. (not because they were physical abusers, rapists or murderers). They also turned me off.
This is a huge pet peeve of mine. In general my rule is: if the hero shouldn’t do it, then the heroine shouldn’t either.
Now I understand in the past a cheek slap was understood as an “appropriate” response by a woman to man who had offended her -usually by a sexual or derogatory remark. (Similar in my mind to a guy challenging another guy to duel with a slap across the face with a pair of gloves, it was symbolic). It wasn’t meant to be a challenge to a fist fight, and it was understood to be a rebuke, so if I were reading a Historical Romance and the villain was inappropriate with the heroine and she slapped him, I wouldn’t quibble with that. (Although I don’t think it’s the best strategy with an unstable person).
Nora Roberts is big on the heroine feeling very free to punch the hero at will. For some reason the people in the book think it’s cute when she breaks his nose or something and it really bothers me. I don’t care who you are or how mad, unless it’s someone threatening or hurting you keep your hands to yourself. I especially don’t like it between the hero and heroine who supposedly love one another.
Now in the case of supernatural, superheroes, paranormal or even spies etc where two agents or antagonists are fighting it out (think Buffy and Spike or Wonder Woman helping to subdue a crazed Superman) then it’s fair game. If the sides are equal and in some physical contest or fight then it’s every person for themselves. As long as it’s fair and evenly matched.
In other behavior I think it should carry over as well. One recent review mentioned they were upset with the guy In the novel who had been in an arranged marriage for not reciprocating the wife’s feelings and thinking she was a psycho for pursuing it. Now I haven’t read that book in years so I would have to do a reread to be sure, but if it were the heroine would we think she was obligated in any way to return affection she didn’t feel? I don’t think so. We’d call him a stalker husband or no.
I like things to be in a place of balance and sometimes it seems authors go too far one way trying to compensate for sins of the past. I want to like the hero and the heroine.
The setting is really important to me as well. I recently finished one of Megan Crane’s dystopian Viking Edge books where the heroine cuts the hero across the stomach to make a point during an argument – something I would be horrified by in a contemp but which, in this violent setting and with a huge power imbalance (the hero warrior king hero could have disarmed her or evaded her) worked fine.
Agreed. I was actually thinking about a scene in another one of those books where the leads beat the hell out of one another. I was fine with that–I think Crane does a great job of power balances in those books.
Yes I was thinking of Kresley Cole or Bec McMaster where there is a supernatural/paranormal element and often the hero and heroine physically battle. Or Buffy and Spike. If a woman is a warrior and lives by her sword it has to work both ways. She can’t be slashing at people and then be outraged if the men swipe back.
Well, one reason the man sitting the woman seems worse than the other way round is that he is generally a lot stronger. It’s the big bully picking on the skinny little guy. (I know there are some women who are stronger than some men, but that’s not usual.)
Whether this kind of violence bothers me depends a lot on the situation. I’ll condemn it if it’s for punishment or to establish dominance, but if it’s an instinctive reaction to betrayal, I will probably consider it understandable. There’s a scene in Jo Beverley’s An Unwilling Bride like that. There have been lies and misunderstandings leading up to it, and it’s completely in character for the hero—a flaw that he has to learn to overcome in the book to redeem himself.
Also, people seem to be talking only about violence between the hero and heroine. Does anyone mind if the heroine clobbers the villain?
No–and I don’t mind when the heroine/hero clobber each other consensually.
“Does anyone mind if the heroine clobbers the villain?”
Heck, no! The hero can have a few good whacks at him too, as far as I’m concerned. :)
As an addendum to that, I think it heavily depends upon what kind of villain you mean. Someone who’s just a snot, not really. But an actual villain, as in murderer or rapist? Have at ’em. I like seeing the bad guys get their comeuppance.
Yes and yes!
This came up a week or so ago in a review here. Sorry—I don’t remember the title book of the book right off the top of my head, but one of the characters in the book was the “feisty grandma”—who is feisty apparently because she’s an old lady who talks (inappropriately) about sex all the time. I have no problem with sex-positive and/or sexually-active older characters, but the way the “feisty grandma” is presented (ogling younger men, quizzing her granddaughters about their sex lives, making very loud public comments about sex) is not cute or funny—it’s downright creepy. Someone commented, “What would we think about a male character who acted this way?” So true. There’s a reason there’s no “feisty grandpa” character in romance—and I think “feisty grandma” should go too.
An example of how things evolve: Back in the late 1980s, when I’d been totally burnt out on bodice rippers and was making my way back to HR via Regency romances, I read Edith Layton’s THE ABANDONED BRIDE, which was very good, but includes a scene where the hero slaps the heroine. The consequences of that slap continue throughout the book. At the time, I was surprised by the physical violence, but kept on reading the book. I know if I were reading THE ABANDONED BRIDE for the first time today, that scene would be a DNF for me. Heroes do not slap heroines…or vice-versa.
One of the first romance authors I used to read back in the 80’s was Laurie McBain and in one of her books the heroine slaps the hero across the face and he slaps her right back. Nowadays I don’t think I could get through the book even though technically “she hit first”. Particularly because she is described as a tiny little thing and he is the big strong hero so you know those slaps don’t compare.
, I read Edith Layton’s THE ABANDONED BRIDE, which was very good, but includes a scene where the hero slaps the heroine. The consequences of that slap continue throughout the book. At the time, I was surprised by the physical violence, but kept on reading the book. I know if I were reading THE ABANDONED BRIDE for the first time today, that scene would be a DNF for me.
Interesting! I find this – the consequences of the action reverberating through the rest of the story – to be far more acceptable than if it had been a petulant reaction or if everyone had thought it “cute” or something and its immediately forgotten/glossed over.
I’m not here for violence just for violence’s sake (that’s not cute or cool), and unless its a situation like this where consequences are explored, I’m not a fan of violence between the hero/heroine. It’s important to find out if your paramour has a violent temper, but there are other ways of discovering that than being the victim of it yourself.
BUT I have no problems with protagonists defending themselves against villains. The first Beverly Jenkins novel that I fell in love with was Destiny’s Surrender, in which the heroine kills the (male) villain with her bare hands for entirely justifiable reasons. I was cheering her on, because its nice to read about heroines who can save themselves, instead of having to wait for their heroes to rescue them!
Agreed.
Oh I am all about the heroine getting justifiable revenge. One of my pet peeves with some Carla Kelly books is how the heroine forgives the villain at the end. It’s not even just about revenge, some of these guys shouldn’t even be walking around. What about the next woman he victimizes?
I am torn on that issue. I am not a fan of revenge plots–so much wasted negative energy. But it is frustrating when evil is allowed to go unchecked.
I know I’ve read this scene a short while ago. I wasn ‘t happy with it. But now I have another problem: I just can’t remember which book it was. It makes me crazy.
The scene I mentioned is in a book coming out this fall. But I’ve read very similar scenes several times over the past few years.
Agreed – the m/m example I mentioned was just the most recent I could recall, but I’ve definitely had a few “what if the situation were reversed?” moments when reading over the past few years.
More so than in previous times? That’s my sense.
Nora Roberts is infamous for this IMHO. And it really bothers me.
I think so. I have a pretty hot temper but I shout and yell and it (my temper) has NEVER manifested in violence – I’m not wired that way I suppose. (I’m not talking about issues of personal (,or my kids) safety here.) I just can’t ever envision a situation where I would strike someone in this way, so when it happens in fiction (other than PNR, fantasy etc.) the “slapper” immediately goes down in my estimation. And in a romance where, as others have said, I want to like both protagonists, that’s not good.
No, I don’t like the sorts of double standards you’ve mentioned and feel uncomfortable reading them in het or queer stories.
I recently listened to an m/m story in which one of the guys spoke almost entirely in sexual innuendo. In my review of it I described him as “a sexual harassment suit waiting to happen”. If he’d said the things he said to a female character, we’d all be spitting feathers. So what makes it okay for him to say them to another man?
I just read the book you’re talking about and I agree with you. Violence is never the answer no matter how upset/angry/frustrated one is. And as for justifying it as “smashing the patriarchy”, well that is no excuse. Two wrongs don’t make a right, as the saying goes, and we – women – are better than that.