An open letter to romance novelists

[dangermousie]

After reading a bunch of romance novels and emerging with my sanity sort of intact, here are the four things I want all the romance novelists to note:

1. If I never see the word "rake" in the book title, it will be too soon. Unless said book is about gardening.

2. There were no turkeys in Medieval England. Just trust me on that one.

3. "Her core was molten lava" is never a good thing unless you are describing a mad scientist's doomsday devise.

4. Well-behaved, reserved, socially conscious and conventionally gentlemanly men can be attractive. More so then the undoubtedly syphilis-ridden bad boys with caveman manners you seem to prefer.

I did find two books I really like, which deserve their own post (Suzanne Enoch's England's Perfect Hero and Lisa Kleypas' Because You Are Mine) so not all was wasted.

Comments

Sorry for the long comment D: or you can just look at my icon and infer my point from there lol

[sisterjune.livejournal.com]

Actually tbh I kind of hate the whole alpha/beta labeling. Like men come in two flavors, pushy and jerky or friendly/nice and passive. I hate that dichotomy. It doesnt work that way! When I said I hate alpha guys, I dont mean I dislike guys with a strong personality or character cause IMO you can absolutely have a strong personality or be a leader/take charge person and not be A) a bossy boots or B)a pushy jerk/bully. To me strong means he can handle his business and you can rely on him when you are in need (for whatever thing) and also someone who has strong principles and beliefs that they stick by. But it also means a guy who wont necessarily need to feel like he is running the show all the dang time. He can step out of his comfort zone, he can defer to his lady at times or you know take her advice cause he trusts her judgement and feels he can rely on her too, for more than just "womanly" things. and Not because he has to, or needs to cause he cant make decisions or act on his own but because he wants to, he likes to. Alot of times I see strength getting conflated with how loud or aggressive the guy is, how many properties he owns or money he has, how many women he's slept with, how much he can drink, how many fights he fought, how snarky he is, he much of an asshole he is etc. Not all of them are that bad but...like with Kleypas her heroes strike me very much as fantasy men, there to take care of everything and be ~strong~ but also just broken enough that the heroine has something to heal/fix without altering the guy completely. I rarely feel like her heroes and heroines are connecting to each other as people but rather as archetypes. The good bookish heroine, the rough and tumble bad boy. I dont mean any of that as a slight on her writing either, its just what I want is different from what she usually offers. I guess what I was saying was vague and alpha is a broad term and in general I dislike it but its a good shorthand when talking about romance novel archetypes. I guess what I am saying is I dont want to look at a hero in a story and think "this guy is a beta or an alpha" i dont want to see an archetype I want to see a human being. I know its just a fictional story and romance thrives on these archetypes but still. I mean I've found heroes I liked so it's possible! lol. I remember what I appreciated about the hero of Loretta Chase's Mr Impossible was he was clearly a handy physically strong guy to have around and he had a sense of responsibility to those round him but he was also pretty funny/goofy, light hearted and willing to look past his own ego to let his lady shine and didnt mind her thinking she was smarter or letting her run things/tell him what to do without actually losing his sense of autonomy and he does eventually show his more serious side, get to be dashing and heroic and also prove himself to the heroine as a capable smart guy in his own right cause at first she does look down on him a bit. Whereas he was impressed with her from the beginning. He seemed very secure in himself to me as a result. He doesnt need to dominate the heroine in any fashion in order to prove his masculinity to her or the readers. I think macho antics have their place, for instance a guy who wins in a sword fight, that's cool. A guy who feels the need to use his physical power or size or money/status as leverage against his love interest either in seriousness or jest, is less endearing. and I see it ALOT. I remember a Judith Ivory novel where the hero tied up the heroine to a chair and they had sex, I say sex and not rape because despite the heroine never asking him to do so, or hinting at it even, she seemed pretty satisfied and comfortable with it after. Its obvious the author thought it was hot and expected us readers to find it hot too. I guess some women might find it sexy and thats totally fine in fact but I do feel annoyed that this fantasy is catered to so much in romance and mine rarely ever almost never is. But yeah that's what I meant by I dont like "alpha" guys. Also as for uber serious, I dont mind serious guys as a rule it just depends how the seriousness manifests itself. I love Stefan from TVD afterall ;)