I like to think that I have incredible patience for romance clichés. I am sure they’re on the wane or today’s authors are clever enough to turn clichés on their pointy little heads. But this is probably because I cannot imagine any publisher out there who is willing to risk the ridicule that accompanies publishing a book that includes an unironic use of the word “manroot.†Of course, then I saw the evil word in print in a book published in this century (last year, but still). The manroot appeared twice, and not in a good way.
I am sometimes surprised at my continued optimism, especially since it’s crushed so often and so cruelly.
I have been making special note of clichés lately – you know, the sexually unsatisfied widow, the always ready-to-go hero, the miracle pregnancy, hate (accompanied by unfathomable lust) at first sight. I often think about these things during Golden Heart judging season. If there’s one piece of advice I can give all romance authors out there, it’s this: stops!
I started down this path long before I discovered that the manroot was alive and well (though I cannot help but think of the thing as pale from lack of light, shriveled, and covered in dirt). My fits of screaming and agony began the moment I encountered a character named “Wilde.†This character was part of an extended family, related to every Wilde, Wild, Wyld, and Wylde in the romance novel genre. Also every Wijlde, Whilde, and Wylld, among others.
The problem with characters named Wilde, of course, is the same problem as characters named Blaze or Flame (inevitably red-headed, hot-blooded chicks). You don’t need to meet the character on the page to know exactly what the author wants you to think about this person. Call them Wilde, and you think free, unconventional, crazy, not bound by the rules.
It is inevitable that these Wilde characters don’t fulfill expectations. My Wilde was supposedly sexually free; she certainly dressed the part. Let’s just say that she was all look and no action. I was geared up for a heroine who said, “Yeah, I’m hot, I like sex, and I’m not ashamed of it.†Instead, she turned into an asexual preppy.
This seems to be a common problem. My Flame (it’s been that kind of year: a manroot, a Wilde, and a Flame) was sex-on-wheels. And a virgin. I don’t know if the author was going for clever or just testing my patience, but that book very nearly hit the wall. A virgin. In light of the story, it made no sense at all. But yeah, the guy fit – there were worries there. Just my luck to get a virgin who doesn’t know the basics of biology.
I’ve been bouncing around the idea, that in its own strange way, the romance genre is a bit shy about women who claim their sexual natures with both hands, no shame, no excuses. I will exclude erotica for the sake of this argument. It’s the little things: the heroine doesn’t have good sex before the hero, the wild woman is really a virgin, the town slut really only slept with one guy. Where are the women who have had more than two partners – and are willing to look the hero in the eye and admit it proudly?
I know that I cannot single-handedly eliminate the romance cliché, but I can make a heartfelt plea: no more characters named Wilde (or any variation thereof) or Flame. Unless said Wilde or Flame lives up to his or her name. And I mean lives up.
And no more manroots. Especially no more manroots.
No related posts.
I hear you on the manroots. It contributed to my current No-Historicals reading list–’cept for 2-3 authors, mostly because I read their contemps too.
Wilde…Well, didja know there’s an author Lori Wilde?
I’m guilty of Flame though.
Manroot! *sprays coffee* OMG, what a way to start a Monday. I agree with flying in th face of conventionalism… probably why only novel has sold so far! And *gasp* that one is about a virgin.
[...] Lori Foster needs to know that Wilde as a surname doesn’t mean Wild in bed. Yes, I know I mentioned Lori Wilde when I commented on the RTB column, but I’ve not read her. [...]
Dear me.
My heroine’s surname is Tempest.It’s quite legitimate historically and was not pulled out of my behind.
She happens to be level-headed and pragmatic in the face of unusual events.
Irony is not allowed? Only a superficial context?
Besides erotica, chick lit is the best bet for heroines who claim their sensuality. You don’t see manroot used in chick lit, LOL.
Bernita, I’ve often thought Nephele Tempest is a great name for a heroine.:grin:
It’s the little things: the heroine doesn’t have good sex before the hero, the wild woman is really a virgin, the town slut really only slept with one guy.
OMG, give me a romance without those cliches, and I’ll forgive the author any number of other sins. Even a manroot.
I do get that it’s like the white hat in the old Western–the fact that the heroine’s first orgasm ever is with the hero is shorthand for “he’s the one.” Still, just because I understand what it means doesn’t mean it doesn’t make my eyes roll.
I have read some heroines who’ve had more than 2 sex partners in the past—but they’ve always got to repent their evil ways, and realize what a slut they’ve been before they get their HEAs.
*sigh* Not gonna say how many sex partners I had before finding my own HEA, but it was more than two, and I got a pretty darn good HEA anyway. Plllbbtttthhh. So there.
I agree, Edie.Lucious name.
Must admit I was a little shaken to see her name. Didn’t want to appear as a “suck”. However the name was chosen and the book written before I ever heard of her.
I’ve discovered a great sanity checker for names and plots. If I can tell my husband and our (mostly male) Dungeons and Dragons gamer friends about them and nobody’s eyes roll and there’s no Dr. Pepper coming out of anyone’s nose, I’m probably okay. Anything containing Blaze, Flame, Blade, Nightshade, Shadow, Dark, Lucifer, Satan, Demon, or any variations thereof won’t survive the test. An author might be able to get away with extremely limited use of a name like that, but using it for a main character would be a really bad idea, IMO.
I used to work in the prison system and one of the most dangerous men I ever met was a serial rapist with the surname of Wild. Has very bad assoications for me.:evil:
Sorta on/off topic:
) before they have tea and crumpets (I love that phrase!)
I don’t think I could take any book seriously that used that word.
Y’all are debating the heroine’s previous sexual experience. What about the other side of things…what if the hero is a virgin? Does that sort of thing fly nowadays, or must all manly-men prove their studhood upon numerous women pre-heroine? Or would a man who decides he just hasn’t met the right girl yet be considered less-than-heroic?
I know Jamie Fraser ( Outlander) was a virgin, but afterwards Gabaldon seemed to go overboard trying to make up for that fact(I’m sorry, but even in fantasy no one is really capable of that level of sex all the time. Rather ruins the believability of the story, IMHO)
I guess I’ve probably written a non-publishable book here, because not only is Travis a virgin (not because he was a saint, but because he was secure enough in himself to not feel the need to roll around with some probably-diseased loose woman just to prove his manhood), not only that, but also the hero and heroine are married (I can hear the shrieks of horror from here
Sigh.
Neither fish nor fowl. The “clean” romances don’t want any sex or cussing. The mainline romances seem to think that virginity and sex within marriage are passe.
Sorry, got somewhat off topic with my little rant.
But one final thing…I must agree–Manroot?! Whatever.
“no one is really capable of that level of sex all the time”
They’re not?
I’ll just throw this out there.
I once wrote a book where my hero was not a virgin but refrained from sex. He refrained because he’d met the heroine, was in love with her but they became separated. I had entered this into several different contests, and the one comment that came back was that a man who didn’t have sex wasn’t realistic.
BTW, I’m going to try and work in manroot into my next manuscript.
LOL, Jill!
Manroot has a medical flavor for me; In the vein of extensions and such.
I’ve just read a book about the hero abstaining since meeting his ‘lady’.
It drove him nuts ..went so far as to go to a brothel (after much prodding by his buddies), but at the last minute ..um…in the middle of being …ah, serviced, he realized that this wasn’t what he wanted. If he was going to find appeasement, it would be with his choice of lady. Then he set about plotting her courtship.
That was fun.
And I think it’s realistic enough.
A man, a real man, will wait. He has a goal, matrimony. Matrimony requires commitment. What stronger statement of commitment than abstaining once he has discovered that she is “the one”.
He had his chance to sow his oats.
He can’t stay a wild bronco for ever, IF he is serious.
If I ever found out that my beau was getting some up until the engagement,thinking he HAS to have some action until the bride can provide it day and night and in between, then he’s actually a poor prospect for marraige.
Good for a gigilo, but not for husband.
I can take “manroot” in a book. Sure,.. if it was a comedy.
Kinda feeling a bit outnumbered and outcast here. Oh well.
As for men who refrain from sex, who’s to decide unrealistic? Is it any more unrealistic than a guy who tosses every woman he meets in the hay? Or who’s able to go for hours and days without a rest? That seems to be norm for many of the heroes of romance novels.
And here I was under the illusion that romance was, well, a form of fiction. Aren’t time-travellers, vampires, spunky young widows who pretend to be housemaids in order to spy on rich lords who end up marrying them, etc. aren’t these all fairly unrealistic? If I want realism, I’ll read a biography.
Tho’ I’m fast finding out I’m in the minority in a lot of my thoughts on this subject. For example, I don’t like reading full-blown sex scenes–they make me laugh, even the well-written ones (i.e. those that avoid the use of “manroot”). Give me a hero and heroine about to snap from the sexual tension, close the door, and let my imagination fill in the rest.
Bernita–I can never tell when you’re serious or not. I have just one thought on Claire and Jamie–Ouch.
I’m enjoying all of the comments — it’s an interesting discussion (much too fun for me to interrupt), but wanted to say to nessili that it’s all about execution when it comes to sex, no sex, doing this, not doing that. Cliches become eye-rollers when too many authors take the same approach. If I can predict what’s going to happen next, not good.
I think it *is* realistic for men to abstain. I think it’s realistic for women to abstain. Heck, I’ll even buy into the sex-on-wheels heroine being a virgin if there’s an unique twist on the idea. I don’t need true-to-life as much as I need true-to-character. Generally, when an author falls back on cliche, it substitutes for real character development.
Bernita — irony is wonderful stuff. I can’t get enough of it…truly, a day without irony is like a day without sunshine for me. Which may be sharing too much on a personal level
And Jill will not have a single manroot in her next book. I promise this with my dying breath.
[...] I was over at Romancing the Blog, reading today’s article Not So Wild Thing, and frankly, I got torqued. So I ranted a bit there, and since I was off-topic, decided to continue my rant here on my own blog. The main issue was cliches in romance. Fine. But this quote got my attention: “I’ve been bouncing around the idea, that in its own strange way, the romance genre is a bit shy about women who claim their sexual natures with both hands, no shame, no excuses. I will exclude erotica for the sake of this argument. It’s the little things: the heroine doesn’t have good sex before the hero, the wild woman is really a virgin, the town slut really only slept with one guy. Where are the women who have had more than two partners – and are willing to look the hero in the eye and admit it proudly?” [...]
I want to read a book where the heroine’s dip-shit best friend is actually given the name “Dip-shit best friend.”
Nessili wrote: What about the other side of things…what if the hero is a virgin? Does that sort of thing fly nowadays, or must all manly-men prove their studhood upon numerous women pre-heroine?
If you can write a virginal hero well (see Laura Kinsale) readers will accept his lack of experience.
If you’re using a hero’s lack of sexual experience as a virtue yardstick for all men, or as a podium for an abstinence lecture, you’ll likely receive a cool reception.
PBW–That’s a very good point, and one well-taken. No, I’m not trying to lecture. That’s just the way he turned out. I didn’t start out writing him that way. In fact, I figured he was an experienced guy. But he told the heroine otherwise, and left me to figure out how the heck he pulled that off.
I am SO loving this convo. Manroot made me shriek.
What I really hate are personalities that are completely inconsistent. It’s partly related to names–if you have a certain name, I’d think it would somehow affect your personality. Either you embrace it or you go the other direction, right?
The sex-on-wheels virgin made me roll my eyes. If she doesn’t strike me as consistent, how can I possibly take a heroine like that seriously?
Thanks for a great post, Kassia.
Camy
Thought this one was fascinating. I don’t have a problem w/ virgin heroines/heroes…but I do have a problem w/ them being written unrealistically.
Point in Fact…one of the last historicals I read (about 8 years ago) had a heroine who was a virgin, but she was such a dithering idiot I couldn’t imagine the hero would want her anyway. Each time they got THIS close to doing it, she’d freak out and act all skittish. Lasted the ENTIRE book!!! Got to the point where I had to put the book down. I was yelling “Do it already!!!”
I wrote the beginning of a story with both h & H as virgins. It all made sense in the end & my friends thought it was cool. Each character had their own reasons for it and it worked out really well.
As for the heroine who likes sex…I say go for it! I like strong-willed women who know what they like and aren’t afraid to ask for it. It makes for more drama in the end anyway.
Camy, you’re right. It’s all about being true to the character. I’ll accept a guy who turns into a housecat if it makes sense on a character level. If it’s a gimmick, well, let’s just say I don’t do well with gimmicky stuff.
I just had a good laugh over this blog post. My last name is Wilde. We pronounce it Willdee.
Gee,I may have been missing out(as far as being sexually free).
The only person I have ever had sex with is hubby. 30 years!!HHMMMM
I’m just a big clunky redneck girl from Texas. Makes me kinda wonder what people are thinking about me what with have that naughty sounding last name.LOL
I loved your post.
Donna Wilde