While the romance genre tends to circunscribe a bit what a heroine is allowed to do and still be considered heroine material, I’ve read heroes doing things that run the gamut from saintly to villainous.
Of course, each reader has their own lines separating redeemable from unredeemable when it comes to heroes. So share, what are yours?
Up until not too long ago, I thought my lines were all about what the hero did. Something like: if he rapes the heroine / cheats on her / is mean to cute bunnies, this is a hero I don’t want to read about.
And then I read books which crossed each and every one of these lines and yet, they worked for me. By the last page, I was perfectly satisfied to read the happily ever after (HEA) ending and just knew that the hero and heroine were going to be wonderfully happy together. I totally bought the way those heroes were redeemed by their authors. I must admit, that bothered me. I didn’t understand why I didn’t absolutely hate those books. After all, they had walked all over my lines.
After having a good think about it, I think I’ve hit on a possible reason. I realized that for a HEA ending to work for me, I need to believe that, whatever the hero did that I thought was wrong before it, he won’t do it from then on.
Well, duh!, you say. Yes, but what is it that separates the cheating hero I’m positive won’t ever stray again, from the one I wouldn’t be surprised to see checking into a seedy motel not a month after the end of the book?
I think the key issue here is the distinction between the way someone acts and the values system that is behind these actions.
I can buy a change in behaviour, when it means that the hero will stop doing what he knows is wrong and start behaving the way his values and morals tell him he should.
Maybe he coerced the heroine into entering into a sexual relationship with him, à la Gaffney’s To Have and To Hold? If all along, he knew that what he was doing was wrong and that the heroine had good reason to hate him for his actions, I can very definitely be convinced that he won’t do something like this ever again.
I find it more difficult to buy a total turnaround of someone’s moral compass. An author would have to work overtime to convince me that a man who believed that raping his wife as a punishment for cheating on him is a justified response, now suddenly realizes how mistaken those beliefs were.
In the case I describe above, I just might find the hero redeemable, if the author has succeeded in convincing me of his change of heart. But too many times, the author doesn’t even try.
In this particular book I’m thinking of, the hero and heroine reconcile after he apologizes to her, not because what he did was wrong, but because he was mistaken in thinking she had been cheating on him. The obvious conclusion is that this prince of a guy still believes what he did was justified. So what happens the next time he sees her smiling at another man?
The long and short of it seems to be that I can read about a hero doing pretty much anything, as long as he’s behaving against his moral standards… moral standards that are in line with mine. I find it terribly difficult to enjoy a book with a hero who’s doing what he thinks is the right thing, when I don’t share his values, even if they are historically accurate.
Confession time: some of these conclusions surprised me…. especially this last one. I fear I just might be one of those often derided readers who prefer to have 21st century people dressed in costume in their historical romances! 
No related posts.
There IS a difference between a rakehell (how I LOVE that term) and an unrepentant bastard.
It’s not so often the man is hopeless as he is lost. There’s a world of difference between ignorant and mean. If a man has had no basis in his life for knowing what love is or could be…he’s ignorant. If he’s been abused in some way, shape, or form he’s ignorant.
Mean is going out of his way to torture the cute bunnies because he has five minutes…and what the hell? He’s bored.
I would find it unpalatable to read about a villainous hero who raped, murdered, and tortured before finding the gal of his dreams. I would most likely choke on it.
If, however, he acted in retribution on behalf of the injured party, I could excuse it. If it was a former life where it was kill or be killed, I could excuse it. Circumstances will make or break my belief in the hero and his actions.
Grins*
If he started out the ‘perfect’ man, there wouldn’t be any place for him to go. He needs to have a flaw, whether in thought, word, or deed, that sets him at odds with the object of his affection. I like to read (and write) about the growth process. If he starts out doing everything good and just, where does he have room to grow? Note I said ‘grow’–not just apologize for his bad behavior
I don’t want to read about a perfect male. In the first place, if he were perfect, I don’t think it would be much fun to write him.
That said, he doesn’t have to be a “rakehell,” as Crystal put it.
IMO, the important thing is whether the author manages to make me believe that he has redeemed himself. But it would take a lot to convince me that he’s redeemed if he raped the heroine or any other woman etc.
If a hero’s bad behavior has a deep motivating reason that makes his character flaws understandable, then I am more willing to believe in his growth and ability to change — to redeem himself. If he’s just a jackass type of guy, then it’s going to take an epic development for me to believe he’s changed in the course of a book. At least in romance.
That said, I’m currently reading the latest in the Spenser series by Robert B. Parker. One of the main characters in the series, Hawk, is an enforcer, a protector and a man who kills without remorse when necessary, to protect or for vengeance, for pride, etc. Knowing all this about him, I still love the character, root for him and believe him heroic in a dark way. That’s because over the 20-year course of the series, I’ve learned that Hawk may live by his own code, but he is inherently a man of honor — not a petty, two-bit killer who murders for the pleasure of snuffing a life. I’m not sure whether that’s all Parker’s skill, my own desire to believe the best in people, even book characters, or a combination of both. I only know it works.
I’m pretty forgiving to my heroes unless abuse is invloved. But if the book opens and he’s a total jerk to women, I have a hard time reading on. Even then, it can work sometimes. Bobby Tom Denton is no Mr. Nice Guy, but because SEP motivates his behavior it works. Same with Jane Grave’s Alex Demarko. I love both of those heroes.
Personally, I’m amazed and slightly shocked at the amount of slave traders populating the sensual romance. You know, the kidnapping fantasy, but instead of selling her, he falls in love with her, and voila, he receives absolution because he is so caring (after he has wrecked her life in an absolutely, utterly unforgivable way, he puts a soothing balm on her wound, wow, so caring, I’m gonna cry). Is that the kind of hero the USA applauds after having gotten rid of slavery just a little more than a century ago?
What I mean is that, first, I don’t really believe people change (much), the same applies to romance heroes. Once a liar, always a liar. Second, there are still lines no kind of redeemability and puppy-eyed enamoured looks can erase. True love might mean forgiveness, but to see what kind of crimes against their persons some heroines are ready forgive is simply annoying.
I like them all. I think rape scenes are a no-no at this point, so I don’t see any need to beat a dead horse.
For me the worse off the Hero is, the more I like the story if the author gives me excellent motivation for me to sympathize with. No one is perfect, and I like reading about a characters growth. The more they have to grow the better. It gives everyone hope that they are no beyond love, or completely unredeemable.
As far as the kidnapping scenes, I think they have to do more with a symbolic loss of control-which is a fantasy for some-rather than the actual fantasy of being kidnapped.
I love them all. To me the worse off they are the better I like them.
As far as rape scenes go I think that’s pretty much a no-no at this point so it’s like beating a dead horse. And there’s no point in glorifing a brutal act.
If a character has no room for growth they seem pretty flat and unbelievable. I can like just about any flaw–if–the writer has provided enough motivation to beleive in the Hero’s redemption. They farther they have to come gives a reader hope that they too are not beyond love.
As far as the kidnapping scenes, I think that they are symbolic of a loss of control-which feed some readers fantasies, not about kidnapping itself.
Hmmm. Well, since I tend to prefer well-adjusted, family men heroes and heroines who need work, I’m not sure I have much to say on this one. Either that or too much to say.
So, I’ll just say this – sometimes I do feel like I’m the lonely romance reader who doesn’t believe that romance is ONLY about redeeming the hero. Which doesn’t automatically mean I have a low tolerance for jerk heroes. It all depends on how the author sets up the battle of opposites and whether I honestly believe they can and do reach a happy ever after. I don’t think there is a hard and fast line I can define because it’s defined by each book and author individually.
I agree with Briana that motivation is KEY. A hero OR heroine can get away with ALMOST anything if they have strong enough, believable, and just motivation.
I, personally, love alpha males primarily when they are up against strong women. I don’t really like the strong, bad boy, too tough hero matched with the sweet little girl-next-door. That’s me.
I prefer strong, tortured heroines. My heroes have their problems, but they’re minor compared to the heroine. And it’s often my heroine’s strength and overcoming adversity that makes my hero scratch his head and feel guilty and think, boy, I’ve been fretting about this stupid thing or 10 years and look what she’s been going through!
I abhor any stories where the heroine thinks she can change the hero. I don’t know why, but they bug me — especially when they work and the hero is this “new person” by the end of the book. Right. I love fantasy, but really. One of the rare times this worked for me was in the movie ROMANCING THE STONE, but Joan Wilder finally realized he WOULDN’T change and started taking responsibility for herself, but then Jack did change (enough) to help save her. But it wasn’t so much that he changed per se, but that he realized he loved her.
I really enjoy dark heroes who have quite a few flaws. Sometimes it takes a chapter or two for me to determine if the hero is too much of a bastard for me to continue. But if I make it past those chapters, I’m usually right on board when he’s redeemed later. It’s all in how the author leads me in the story. Anne Stuart does a wonderful job of making me believe in her men. They aren’t always nice and they don’t always end up being prince charming, but I like those heroes, because they seem a bit more real.
The majority of the heroes I’ve ever fallen for, the ones that leave me losing the book wistfully wishing I were the heroine, are good people. I’ll fall for an emotionally mature nuturing type over an arrogant alpha almost every time.
As for unredeemable, I can think of two heroes who came across to me as most unpleasant in the attitude to women that underlay their sexual behviour, to the degree that I hated the (in both cases extremely popular) books.
I don’t think you want 21st century people at all. Millions, indeed billions, of decent people lived throughout history. People certainly behaved in ways that were shaped by their social circumstances, but these social circumstances shaped people very differently…historical accuracy is not just about how patriarchal men can be, nor how viciously arrogant people of the ruling class can be. Romance novel protagonists are called “heroes” and “heroines” because we want them to have a certain amount of heroism to them, whether in the 21st century or the 17th, which includes rising above circumstances rather than being the worst product of the most negative influences possible.
Great and interesting post, Rosario. I’ll joing Beverley in saying that I don’t believe romance is ONLY abour redeeming the hero. There are romances I’ve left unfinished because the hero was too much of a bastard for me to accept – or to accept as being right for the particular heroine. I think a good writer can create a whole lot of emotional tension without having to resort to making the hero that bad. And, if he is, I need reasons as to why, and reasons to believe that he’s capable of loving someone – and I don’t just mean physical attraction
But then, I do tend to like my romances more on the realism side than fantasy…
Join. I’ll *join* Beverley in saying…
Not sure what joinging, is, but I’m sure she doesn’t want me doing it to her
At this point earn texas hold’em represent.
Before that belly support pocket texas hold’em?
You have a great website. Keep up the good work.