So when presented with the term, “old-school heroine” maybe
my perception of what that means might differ slightly from someone who’s
looking at the 1980s, or even the 1970s. I know the term is generally meant to
mean the too silly to live heroine who needs the man to save her, usually over
and over again, as he molds her gently (or not so gently) into the woman of his
dreams. Yet, is that really what an old-school heroine is? How old is old
school? And in any timeframe have all the heroines in romance been created in
any one mold?
Barbara Cartland was well known for writing heroines who
often would fit into the TSTL mold (let me add a caveat that not all of them
would). Yet one of her contemporaries, Georgette Heyer, often wrote incredibly
strong-minded, strong-willed, smart as a whip heroines, one of my favorites
being Sophia Stanton-Lacey in The Grand
Sophy, which was first published in 1950.
Too far back, perhaps? Okay, let’s look at the 1970s when,
despite being the era of sex, drugs and disco, romances still had heroines who
hadn’t a clue about the real world, right? Well, despite the simpering
girl/women in some romances, there were also women like Aislinn of Darkenwald,
from The Wolf and the Dove. She’s never
broken. Instead the hero has to learn to live with a woman as strong willed as
he is!
Yet, if we take the saying ‘old school heroine’ at face
value, using it to mean the young, virginal heroine who apparently doesn’t know
her ass from her elbow, I’d say she’s been around forever…and she apparently
isn’t going anywhere. There are variations on the theme. The Unknowingly
Powerful heroine, who has no clue about the magic residing within until some
forceful older man, often portrayed as the mentor, saves her from obscurity and
shows her the truth. The Sweet Doormat, who isn’t moved to stand up for herself
until her love for the hero makes it imperative. The Hopelessly Clumsy and
Clueless heroine, who doesn’t know how beautiful and desirable she is until the
hero can’t resist her allure. Within the last year I’ve read newly released
books with those themes, with those heroines.
It can, actually, be done now and even sometimes done well.
I think the difference between many of the older books with those heroines and
the newer incarnations is the endings. Instead of being no smarter, savvier
or able than she was at the beginning, the new breed of old-school heroine is expected to get her act together, and GROW. Not just grow into the
relationship, but grow into herself, become a woman in control of her own life,
not just a cipher for her man. Realistically though? I can think of at least
one book I’ve read recently where at the end I still wanted to strangle the
woman and shoot the man, because she was a twit and he a bully and neither had learned anything at the conclusion of the story.
So I guess the answer, at least for some publishers and
readers, is yes…there is a place for that old-school heroine. She’s a part of
romance history, and doesn’t seem inclined to go quietly into the good night. And
as long as there’s a demand for them, they’ll continue to people the pages of
romance novels.
2 comments:
Good points, Anya. Makes me grumpy that's the case, because it's like I don't understand a large segment of the book-buying public. I remember perusing the shelves of our local used bookstore, and the romance paperback went for shelves and shelves and shelves, all 10 cents each. Many, many, many of them were formulaic and boring. I didn't understand then and don't really today, either.
On the other hand, I now am acquainted with a number of currently-writing romance authors and have actually met Georgette Heyer (got to sit next to her at a conference a couple years ago - squee), and I realize these ladies aren't simpering twits in need of brains. I suffered from a serious intellectual chip on my shoulder that stereotyped women's fiction and romance as vapid, insipid nonsense that was at best anti-feminist and at worst downright exploitative and dangerous.
What I have found, instead, is that it is multi-varied (which anyone without such an intellectual chip probably figured out a long time ago, but it's hard to see past one's own shoulder sometimes). I think your point that sometimes readers just want a simple, uncomplicated story is well-timed, and I'm intrigued by your point that the TSTL heroine has changed and is now required to evolve within her story to self-actualize.
Thank you for another thought-provoking post. :)
Too funny that we were thinking along the same lines, Anya, and fascinating how a similar thought could lead us onto such diverse paths.
And I love THE GRAND SOPHY, too. :-)
Post a Comment