I read a review of a new romance novel yesterday in which the reviewer made the comment that women never fare well in this particular best-selling author's books. Coincidentally, the same day I started reading my first book ever from another best-selling author and found the same thing.
The hero is very wealthy, as heroes who don't think highly of women often are, and he's very accustomed to getting his own way. Back in August, I blogged briefly about my dislike of alpha heroes, and this guy is really alpha. He determines to have sex with the heroine almost immediately after meeting her, threatens her job if she doesn't comply, orders her about like the lowliest of employees, harasses her, hires people to snoop into every aspect of her life, then lies to gain her sympathy so she'll spend time with him.
That's where I turned off the Kindle.
Set aside my dislike of domineering heroes. My complaint here is the heroine. At first the hero's persistence -- after she'd very clearly told him no a dozen times -- annoyed her, but before long, she was flattered. He was looking into her finances because he was a wealthy man and wanted to be sure that she had no designs on his money. He commanded her where to go and sent drivers to make sure she got there because he was so very interested in her and concerned that she arrive on time, safe and sound. He was interrogating her employer and friends because he was a wealthy man and wanted to know the character of the woman he was pursuing. (She called it pursuit; the law calls it stalking. Hey, it depends on your viewpoint, doesn't it?)
Flattered. By a stalker. Where was this woman's spine? Why did her brain malfunction every time he came around? What kind of heroine is she?
The worst kind. She was no more a heroine than he was a hero.
How many years have we been repeating to our sons and daughters and anyone else who will listen that No means no? Is it supposed to make a difference when the man refusing to accept no is handsome, has a great body and is richer than sin?
The facts that this particular book is a New York Times best-seller and that many other romance novels contain similar characters in similar situations suggest that for a good number of readers today, the answer is a resounding yes.
I know: it's fiction. Make-believe. Not real. But I find it disheartening that some writers and readers still, in some part of themselves, embrace the idea that domineering, controlling, stalking behavior is in any way romantic. Don't we need to relate to the characters to enjoy a book? Don't we live vicariously through our heroines, root for them, fall in love along with them? These two sent such huge shudders of revulsion down my spine that I couldn't make it through more than a few chapters.
No surprise, I would have done a few things differently if I'd been writing the book. First, the heroine would have threatened the man's dangly bits the second time she had to tell him no. If a third negative was required, she would have called 911, she likely would have fallen in love with the cop who answered the call, and the rich psycho jerk probably would have wound up dead or, at the least, unable to threaten other unwilling women.
That's what I call a happy ending.
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
ReplyDeleteI, too, HATE those books. I will not read them!
I'm not wild about Alpha heros either.
And I hate it when the heroine always has to be rescued. I get irritated when there a fight on TV and the bad guy is winning and the heroine is standing with her hands over her heart squeaking, "Oh! Oh! Oh!"
When the heroine is watching the hero get beat up, I yell at the TV, "Find a log and bean the jerk, stupid!" or "Kick him in the ba**s!"
My favorite stories are where they hero and heroine work together to out-wit/out-fight/out-maneuver the bad guy.
Strong bad guy. Stronger union between the H/H.
Yet another thing I learned from The Master. ;P
Susan
I'm like you, always screaming at the TV. On occasion, when I get especially vocal, Bob will look at me and say, "You do realize she can't hear you?"
DeleteFirst time I wrote a book (many, many years ago) where the heroine rescued herself AND the hero, my editor asked, "Are you sure you want to go that route?" Hey, my daddy taught me to shoot when I was seven and gave me pointers on fighting dirty if I ever should have to. Heck, yeah, I wanted to go that route.
Agree with Susan here.
ReplyDeleteIn a former life, I've lived that exact scenario. There were no stalking laws. (I did find the company of two big Dobermans who went with me almost everywhere. ;-))
And you grew strong not only physically but mentally and wouldn't take that crap off anyone now. I'm proud of you!
DeleteThanks!
DeleteYou're a big part of my growth.
Thank you!
DeleteGive me someone to root for, not a poor-pittiful me heroine or a know-it-all hero.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reminder, Marilyn!
You're welcome! Sarah in GRAVE SECRETS was certainly someone to root for!
DeleteI think some readers consider this kind of guy a "bad boy" rather than a stalker. Of course, it doesn't matter to me. I don't like bad boys either.
ReplyDeleteI think you're right, Jackie. Bad boys don't work for me unless the author gives really good insight into his character. And the bad boys I love never deliberately hurt people. They have a very definite code of honor.
DeleteI love bad boys and I love alpha....I don't like stalkers. There IS a difference. I wouldn't have been able to finish that book, either, Marilyn. I hate wimpy women and psychotic men.
ReplyDeleteH and H would not apply in this case.
You write a good alpha, too, Ash. Yours never cross the line into jerkdom.
DeleteWimpy women and psychotic men -- I like that phrase! Wish I'd thought of it as a title for this blog!!
Exactly. Loved Bailey (of Luke and Bailey) cause she had not one but two guns and kicked some butt.
ReplyDeleteThose are the kind of women I know and love. Not necessarily with guns -- though some of my besties have them/carry them -- but who would never cower in a corner as long as there is breath in their bodies.
DeleteStrong. Women. Rule.