Alpha males, part 2

[oyceter]

Original post

I'm a little behind on comments, though I am thoroughly enjoying the discussion. I also wanted to clarify some points that I realized in comments and throw out further thoughts. I note that much of what I reference in terms of social constructs of femininity is a white, middle-to-upper-class social construct, and that I'm using that particular construct because the majority of romance authors and heroines tend to fall into that category (slooowly changing.... also, I do not have stats on reader demographics, argh!) and because I haven't read enough romances by and about POC to note how things are the same and different with women of color.

1. My definition of "alpha male" is as follows:
   
   • High status. This status can be in terms of wealth, occupation (particularly for contemporaries; see the popularity of Navy SEALs and billionaires), or physical prowess. If it's a paranormal romance, the status is often conveyed by some genetic handwavy thing, frequently modeled on canine pack dynamics. The alpha male is almost always of higher status than the heroine in at least one aspect, and the higher status will be focused on, even if the heroine is more powerful in another way (if she has more money, is of a higher class, etc.).
   
   
   • Physically domineering. This usually is marked by broad shoulders, height, lots of muscles, and stubble. The alpha male will frequently tower over the heroine.
   
   
   • Violent. In contemporaries, the violence may be held in check or sublimated into corporate takeovers, or it may be channeled into more socially acceptable forms via occupation (Navy SEALs, FBI, police, etc.). In historicals, the violence may be held in check by social status (if he's a duke or whatnot). In paranormals, the violence is often given free range and justified via genetic handwavy things and animal comparisons (literal and figurative).
   
   
   • Aggressive. The aggressiveness usually shows itself in his pursuit of the heroine; the alpha male is frequently undeterred by obstacles, and there's usually prose about how he must have her.
   
   
   • Possessive. In paranormals, this is often conveyed by animal comparisons (literal or figurative). In almost all romances, there will be prose about how his instinct is to yank her away from any other man, to mark her as his own (figuratively or literally, though thankfully usually not in terms of possessive urinating!).
   
   
   I feel like I am defining the alpha male in terms of "things that I don't like," but these are the traits that I keep seeing in romances and in writing about romances.
   
   For further context, here's some stuff I googled (I think the links are mostly by romance authors for romance authors/readers):
   - Alpha Males Versus Beta Males in Romance Novels
   - Alpha Amours
   - The Care and Writing of Alpha Males
   - Eight Hero Archetypes (note "The Chief")
   - Stephanie Laurens on The Hero as Pursuer
   - Suzanne Brockmann on Alpha Heroes
   
   For kdramas and shoujo manga, I have fewer examples and definitions. For kdramas, I think it is because I self-select what I watch, though the heroes are almost always of higher status, especially in terms of class. For shoujo, I handwavily generalize and note that stereotypically feminine behavior in the men is more often rewarded than it is in romances, but I think much of this is because of shoujo's frequent emphasis on rewarding stereotypically feminine behavior overall (I have problems with this, but that is another post). The men usually aren't quite as physically domineering, thanks to willowy shoujo art, but they tend to be of higher class, be more physically attractive, and if it's high school shoujo, be the most popular/best student/etc.


2. coffeeandink notes problems with the term "alpha" (and "gamma" and etc.) and the equation of (fantasy) canine pack dynamics with socially constructed human behavior. Or, er, worldbuilding, if it's a paranormal. I have the same problems with coding social animal behavior with social human behavior, for the obvious reasons (I am NOT A DOG!), and I have similar problems with paranormals that genetically encode socially gendered behavior as a means of justifying the hero's alpha male characteristics. I would have fewer problems with the genetic encoding if it were balanced in terms of gender, but there are either very few female werewolves/shapeshifters/whatever OR their capacity for violence and domination is toned down.
   
   To whit: Faith vs. Judd in Nalini Singh's Psy series. Both are Psy and supposed to be emotionally cold, both their romantic interests are shapeshifters who are more sexually aggressive. However, Vaughn (Faith's shapeshifter) is domineering, rips people to pieces on screen, and Faith basically faints when she has sex. Brenna (Judd's shapeshifter) is a survivor of sexual violence, is supposedly violent but we never see evidence of it on screen, and Judd doesn't black out and lose control with physical contact; he just gets deadly nosebleeds. Also, he's a super-secret agent killer guy, whereas Faith is not.
   
   Despite my problems with the terminology, I'm still using it without scarequotes because a) I am lazy, b) it is standard in the romance industry, and c) I note here that every time I write "alpha male," it's with all these caveats.


3. Alpha females: despite seeing mentions of them in some of the above links, I disagree with the term and with the application. Much of this is because "alpha female" doesn't have the same connotations as "alpha male." There's less of the possessiveness, the violence, the aggressiveness, and the status, or if there is, it tends to be underplayed or the hero will still be stronger. See: Shana Abe's drakon books, Anne Stuart's Ice Storm, Joanna Bourne's The Spymaster's Lady. I think they can exist and the entire dynamic of alpha male-heroine can be turned around, but I have only a handful of examples (Lily in Fall From Grace, possibly Melisande in For My Lady's Heart, and I'm not even including Shadowheart in this, because of Allegretto's assassin-ness).


4. I also forgot to note my problems with violence in romances and violence and alpha males in the original post. So: I have a problem with how often physical violence dealt out by the hero is portrayed as a turn on, particularly when it is done on the heroine's behalf, when the heroine does not have the power to do so herself, and when there's the "beast held in check" undertone. I get the fantasy, I really do. It's just that the texts themselves frequently don't seem to find this a problem when it is done in the name of protection, particularly when it is set in a fairly realistic time/place.


5. ... which leads me to intent, or why I don't think it matters. In Gleason's original piece, there's a paragraph on how we know the hero is on the Side of Good, because he's the hero and we're reading a romance. And because he is on the Side of Good, morally shady actions performed in the name of Good are therefore less morally shady. I have problems with this, the most notable being that morally shady actions performed for whatever reasons are still morally shady. Also, everyone thinks they are on the Side of Good. As a corollary to this, as nojojojo notes, getting into the hero's POV and generating sympathy and understanding for his actions does not equate validating those actions in terms of morality or approving those actions. Yes, I sympathize with and understand why abused children frequently grow up to be abusive adults, but that still doesn't excuse their abuse, mitigate the harm they cause, or somehow make everything fine for the victim. As noted in my original post, I have a particular problem with this because of how frequently these very arguments about intent are used to justify domestic violence, abuse, stalking, and sexual assault and how they put the onus of control onto the woman.


6. All this probably gives the impression that I disapprove of "politically incorrect" fantasies and wish fulfillment, or that I think romance readers are brainwashed by romances into accepting abusive situations. So I wanted to say that I don't, that I think fantasies, particularly female sexual fantasies, can be empowering, and that fiction != real life. But again, as Mely notes, Gleason is drawing parallels between fictional and real life sitautions without looking at the power dynamics involved. There's some discussion here on personal fantasy vs. social atmosphere and how romances fit in that space. There's also the reader as hero and heroine and Laura Kinsale's essay on the androgynous reader and how the hero's POV worked its way into romance. And I think these are important issues, that there needs to be a safe space where the (usually female) reader can identify with the powerful person in the couple and feel desired at the same time, where the reader does not have to assume responsibility for sexual desire, where the reader can be the Special Person who tames the beast and keeps all that power on a leash.
   
   But. My issues with the alpha male and with the romance genre as feminist lie in the prevalence of the alpha male and the lack of other types of fantasy. So while the fantasy of the alpha male can be empowering, when it vastly dominates other types of fantasies, when romances that break out of the mold are frequently condemned by the community of romance readers (ex. the reactions to Shadowheart and My Surrender), when the dominant fantasy just so happens to correlate with current gender imbalances (and look! I am not even touching how the fantasies reinforce classism, racism, ageism, sizeism, heterosexism, and ablism), I have a problem.
   
   My other problem is how the text signals the fantasy. In discussion in the original post, I noticed that I don't have as much of a problem with alpha males if they aren't taken seriously by the text (ex. Loretta Chase's Lord of the Scoundrels) or if the text is deliberately going for "dark and disturbing and wrong but really hot" (All of Yuki Kaori!). I also have different levels of tolerance according to the level of fantasy in the society depicted -- historical romances can get away with slightly more bullying than contemporaries, but on the same level, I want more nuanced looks at power in historical romances and at the limitations on women's lives.


7. All this makes it sound like I hate the genre, which is partially true. I have a love-hate relationship with romances. I love that they are primarily created and consumed by women; I will roll my eyes at the denigration of romance as a genre when non-female coded genres get away with better reputations; and I love the focus on female sexuality and the female gaze. On the other hand, I hate that a female-oriented genre so frequently is not giving me feminist works; I hate how the heroines still don't have power in almost all the books; and I hate how the industry frequently limits female fantasy to what is socially acceptable.
   
   On the other hand, it's been interesting watching the genre change. I haven't read many romances in the past two years or so (aside from keeping up with releases from my favorite authors), and I've only now started to dip a toe into the field again, largely thanks to the explosion in paranormal romances. It's not changing fast enough for me, but at least it is changing. There's much less focus on the heroine's virginity, the age gap between the hero and the heroine is getting smaller, and there are more older heroines (as in, over 30, ha!) and heroes who are younger than the heroine. There's also less of a requirement for the heroine to be sexually devoted to a single man; part of this is because the older heroine usually means a heroine with past romantic and sexual experiences, part of this seems to be the influence of Laurel K. Hamilton on paranormal series (? a guess on my part). The heroines are getting more powerful, though the hero still tends to dominate. There's also the entire field of African-American romances and growth there (albeit still limited by how often the mainstream white reader will walk right past that entire section), which I have yet to talk about because I need to read more. And I am also ignoring category romances and erotic romances, which I also need to read more of.
   
   Sooo... I have no set conclusions, except that someone needs to write me a romance with an actual alpha female and a hero in distress, in which all the codings of a traditional alpha male romance are followed, only gender-reversed.

Comments

[msagara.livejournal.com]

I have absolutely nothing useful to say except thank you for this.

[oyceter]

Thanks for reading!

[magicnoire.livejournal.com]

Speaking of Loretta Chase, a little birdie told me that her book that's coming out in July(?)...

1) is pretty good

and

2) features an exchange in which the heroine (a courtesan) says to the hero (a thief, I think) who is upset with her: "You are beautiful when you are angry."

[oyceter]

Whoo! I love Loretta Chase, especially how she sneakily takes on romance tropes!

[magicnoire.livejournal.com]

Hee. I dug out the email my little birdie sent me. Here are the details:

The heroine is divorced and was humiliated by her ex-husband who threw her out into the streets, thinking that she'd die disease-ridden in the gutter. Instead, she becomes the most expensive, sought after courtesan ever.

The hero is a spy for England who, frankly, is nothing more than a glorified manwhore. He's sent after the heroine because she has some incriminating letters written by her husband, who's on the verge of becoming Prime Minister.

And here's the exchange that little quote comes from:

"I'm a thief! A jewel thief! Have you any idea what it does to me, to see you give away a fortune in gems?"

She looked at him. "I have an idea now," she said. "It's as good as an opera."

The look he flashed her must have been the kind his Italian ancestors had bestowed on inconvenient spouses, moments before issuing the orders for poisoning or strangling.

'You're beautiful when you're angry," she said.

He closed his eyes.

The book's title is Your Scandalous Ways. And now I will stop derailing your lovely and thoughtful post.

[oyceter]

And now I will stop derailing your lovely and thoughtful post

Ha, it's not like there are multiple comment threads going on! ;) I think I accidentally wrung everything dry in the comments of the first post...

Also, WANT. I shoot jealous glances your way and creep off to Amazon to pre-order.

[magicnoire.livejournal.com]

I... I am finding it kind of funny that I inadvertantly got several people interested in this book and Loretta Chase now. XD

(But I guess that's a good thing!)

[oyceter]

It is a good thing! I am all for more Loretta Chase fans, and I suck at knowing book release dates.

[keilexandra]

Including me!

[lady-ganesh.livejournal.com]

This book sounds like ten kinds of awesome.

[smillaraaq.livejournal.com]

Oh my. I keep hearing good things about Loretta Chase, and that sounds so gloriously subversive that I may have to finally check her out...

[oracne.livejournal.com]

She is most fun. Especially her recent ones.

[kate_nepveu]

I want this so much RIGHT NOW.

(Amazon says May 27. Which is better than July, but still.)

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

"In Gleason's original piece, there's a paragraph on how we know the hero is on the Side of Good, because he's the hero and we're reading a romance. And because he is on the Side of Good, morally shady actions performed in the name of Good are therefore less morally shady"

This...is my problem with ever so many things, really. So much fiction approaches itself with the "the protagonist is always right/morally right even if he does it a wrong way" mentality that I want to hurl things, esp. when so often...there's no way it's right, unless you 100% buy into the message. (But then, so many people do...)

I have to think about the post, though. As I realized yesterday, when I think of "alpha male as a romantic interest" in things I like...it's usually something that ISN'T a romance, but that has a romantic plotline, and a lot of the alpha isn't in the "agressive romantic pursuer" context, but in the warrior/protector(against a threat right in front of your face)/leader context.

Except for a couple paranormal romance series(that I actually read for the crack, cheese and nythology, not the romance) most of the romantic things I encounter with what you listed above, I end up hurling.

[lady-ganesh.livejournal.com]

This...is my problem with ever so many things, really. So much fiction approaches itself with the "the protagonist is always right/morally right even if he does it a wrong way" mentality that I want to hurl things, esp. when so often...there's no way it's right, unless you 100% buy into the message.

Not to drag this off into the political, but this is awfully like our last eight years of foreign policy as well.

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

I had not thought of this. It would, however, go a long way to explaining my aversion to politics. (Though, honestly, much history is recounted to us the same way, and I suspect it's not just our foreign policy.)

[lady-ganesh.livejournal.com]

....someone needs to write me a romance with an actual alpha female and a hero in distress, in which all the codings of a traditional alpha male romance are followed, only gender-reversed.

I'm not sure about this, either. It could be very enjoyable, but it could also be My Super Ex-Girlfriend. Creepy and unacceptable is still creepy and unacceptable even when it's a reversal, IMO. I suppose it depends on the nature of the work, and how 'far' it goes.

[oyceter]

I'm not sure if I'd like it, but I'd be really curious, particularly if the responses of the hero were eroticized in the same way the heroine's responses usually are.

[lady-ganesh.livejournal.com]

Mmm, that's true.

[jinian.livejournal.com]

deadly nosebleeds? honest?

[oyceter]

Yes! Well, deadly nosebleeds as a symptom of his brain essentially coming apart. Or something about his cells destroying themselves?

[jinian.livejournal.com]

OBVSLY

[oyceter]

Mokona baozi!

Also, yeah. So you have Faith being all, "I cannot be touched or I will lose consciousness" while Judd manfully touches Brenna despite the pain and grits his teeth through the brain-destroying nosebleeds.

I do not make this stuff up!

[issen4.livejournal.com]

Enjoyed the one on Hero Archetypes. Aha, have figured out why I like Jayne Anne Krentz.

By the way, have you ever read Die for Love by Elizabeth Peters? It's a mystery set in a Romance Writers Association con, and there are bits of discussions on romance as a genre. It's astonishing (frightening?) how a lot of the concerns you mentioned--older heroines, etc--are still around in that book, seeing as it was published more than 10 years ago.

[issen4.livejournal.com]

Just googled. Oops, I meant Historical Romance Writers.

[utsusemia.livejournal.com]

Uh, first, REALLY loving this discussion, since I read a lot of these myself, get annoyed at a lot of the same things, and have actually just finished a paranormaly-historicaly-romancy-novely-thingy. (Heh).

Anyway, what's crazy is that the first post got me discussing these issues with my good friend who is, like me, completely obsessed with all things Elizabeth Peters, and she had never heard of the "lay back and take it" school of romance-rape that was so popular a decade or so ago. And that got me mentioning Jacqueline Kirby and Die for Love and how that book seemed to be practically written to shine light on all this romance gender stupidity and lo! it's mentioned in the comments. Weird, I tell you.

I enjoyed that book, though John in the Vicky Bliss series is one of my favorite anti-Alpha heroes of all time. I agree with Oyce...I can enjoy the typical fantasy, if done while avoiding major barrier-breaking squick, but there's a whole field out there of interesting hero/heroine relationships very few are willing to mine. I always wondered how on EARTH Diana Gabaldon got a publisher to look at her 800 page novel with the first 100 pages dedicated to the heroine's relationship with a man OTHER than the hero. Plus what happens to Jamie later (I'd be more specific, but I don't know how to use spoiler tags) I mean...it gives me hope, let me tell you. I'll just ignore what happened to that series in later doorstops installments.

And in conclusion, before I ramble all over your lj, one of the best romances I've ever read in my life is Mating by Norman Rush. An incredible, incredible book. The heroine's POV is among the best first-person narrations I've ever encountered and the hero has a lot of the trappings of Alpha male discussed here (most notably: greater status, age and professional success) while being as unconventional and subversive as possible. Sooo good.

[issen4.livejournal.com]

Yup. And at the end, when Jacqueline starts writing her own romance, with a heroine who has "breasts like globes...", I laughed my head off.

John in the Vicky Bliss series is one of my favourite characters too. A new Vicky Bliss mystery (Laughter of Dead Kings) is coming out, by the way--I hope it has John in it! And Schumidt!

I'm another one who's obsessed with Elizabeth Peters aka Barbara Michaels--her romantic couples are usually very good. Her heroines, themselves quite awesome in their own ways, tend to fall for the rational, intelligent male. It's a pleasure to read them.

Re: Mating. *checks Amazon* It looks interesting. Thanks for the rec!

Also, I was wondering if you've read Merchants of Venus by Paul Gresco? It starts off with a history of the Harlequin company and goes into trends in paperback romances, which you might find interesting. It's a bit dry, but otherwise fascinating.

[oyceter]

No, I've never read that one, thanks for the rec !

[friendshipper.livejournal.com]

I've been periodically lurking on your LJ ever since the last ibarw (er ... sorry) but it was Metafandom that nudged me to this particular discussion, which I'm finding very fascinating; thank you!

For a very long time, I believed that I hated romance in general. Eventually, after encountering romances that I actually did like and starting to analyze the similarities between them, I figured out that what I really hated was power imbalance in romance. Not so much the mere presence of a social power imbalance, but the way the characters behave -- you can have a sweetly affectionate romance between two people of very different social stations (I know it's silly, but I love hurt/comfort in romance, and that sort of scenario often lends itself to it) and, on the flip side, you can have a creepy stalkerish relationship between two people of equivalent social status who work together in an office.

I love reading a romance between equals or friends, and I also enjoy watching someone sweetly wooing an oblivious object of their affections. But the aggressive pursuit of someone who doesn't want it, which in my (maybe biased) experience is the default in most mainstream romance ... no. I wish I could say it was some kind of high-minded feminist ideal or something, but it's not; it's more of a knee-jerk "ewwwwww" reaction. I especially loathe books where the heroine believes she doesn't want it, but deep down she really does, and she just needs to have her defenses overpowered by his persistence and/or physical force. I understand and accept that some people get the same warm-fuzzy-squooshies from that kind of scenario that I get from the friends-falling-in-love scenario. I think they're perfectly entitled to that, because I have some weird fictional kinks that I can't defend. But that particular one, I have a rather violent knee-jerk reaction against.

(I also think it's interesting that the Alpha vs. Beta male link above lists Rochester from Jane Eyre as an example of an alpha male, because while he's certainly a forceful personality, that book was one of the few romances that I really enjoyed as a teenager, because it struck me as very much an intellectual meeting-of-minds between the two of them -- allowing for more than just a little melodrama and dated-ness of the gender roles, it was actually an impressively equal relationship for its time! Heathcliff, on the other hand, I wanted to push off the nearest wind-swept crag.)

[smillaraaq.livejournal.com]

Heee, hello, do we share a brain? This is so much in line with my tastes and experiences it's almost scary. XD

[friendshipper.livejournal.com]

*g* Thanks! It's always nice to not be the only one ...

[nextian.livejournal.com]

*here from metafandom* I completely agree about Rochester! Remember that amazing conversation where -- god, I don't have my copy on me, but as I recall it goes something like:

ROCHESTER: I am going to shower you with flowers and love and you will never leave my house and you will be my favorite porcelain doll!
JANE: Bitch, please.
ROCHESTER: *growly face*
JANE: See, this is the face I fell in love with. Now we can have sensible conversations!

I don't think a romance in which the woman has to coerce the man into being a pissy bastard is really quite the exemplar of the type discussed in this post.

Just to complicate things, though, what about the way he behaved towards his first wife? He's so domineering he locks her up creepily in her castle...

[friendshipper.livejournal.com]

*cracks up laughing* XD That's a pretty good summary of their relationship right there!

In fact, I don't think it's too outrageous to suggest that Jane's actually the dominant one in that relationship -- though she does it in a quiet and polite way, she certainly has no qualms about dictating her own terms where she deems it necessary, and Rochester's willing to play by her rules. And the relationship doesn't really work out between them until the social and economic playing field is leveled almost entirely.

He's so domineering he locks her up creepily in her castle...

BWAH. Yeah. And then there's that.

In my head I tend to stick the crazy wife off in the "plot device" box. Which is, yeah, a cop-out and a rationalization. The one thing I will say in Bronte's defense is that there wouldn't really have been a whole lot else to do with a crazy relative in 1830; keeping her in the attic is certainly more humane than most of the other options. And Rochester is just emotionally constipated enough to think it's a good idea...

[daegaer.livejournal.com]

This is a really interesting post! I wouldn't classify myself as a romance reader, though I sometimes wonder if I'm missing out on essential reading, as they're so very popular. (I've read only a handful since the summer when I was fifteen and dog-sitting for one of my teachers. She had a large collection of romances featuring exactly the Alpha males you describe - usually pirates or Ottoman noblemen - and I read my way through the lot, like this all the way: 0.0). Have you read Janice Radway's Reading the Romance (http://www.amazon.com/Reading-Romance-Patriarchy-Popular-Literature/dp/0807843490/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207211160&sr=8-1)? I found it very interesting, though it might be seen as dated now, perhaps?

And a romance I have read that might fill your final conclusion is A Brother's Price (http://www.amazon.com/Brothers-Price-Wen-Spencer/dp/0451460383/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207211396&sr=1-1), by Wen Spencer!

[smillaraaq.livejournal.com]

Very interesting stuff...I think that for me, I'm more neutral on alpha-males because a lot of those individual traits are on the neutral-to-attractive side for me, so a lot of how I'll react to an alpha character comes down to how those traits are expressed -- high status can be OK if he's not an snooty entitled jerk about it, physically imposing can be fine if it's not constantly used to manhandle a partner or make them look weaker, and so forth. I like a character who's quietly self-confident, is a good leader or has some other area of competence; it's the arrogant, possessive, domineering sorts that turn my stomach, and all the more so if they're paired up with spineless doormat sorts. Mild negative traits I can forgive a little more easily if the character is partnered up with someone who's got enough strengths and competences of their own to call the character out on their nonsense.

[alias_sqbr]

I came across this post via metafandom and it is awesome. I've been vaguely and aimlessly pondering this sort of thing regards to fanfic recently, and you've put it all very clearly and..good..ly. Because that sort of thing always bugs the heck out of me, I even have trouble with Mr Knightly being all older and smarter.

The particular fanfic trope that seriously bugs me is when one of the few stories where woman rejects a would be alpha male for being a creepy domineering stalker is turned into fanfic where the woman is made to suffer and apologise for her Evil Rejection of the Woobie Alpha Male (I've seen it with both Buffy/Spike and Sarah/Goblin King)

Anyway, you is smart and you write good. Carry on :)

Thoughts, mostly on the linked articles...

[sarahtales.livejournal.com]

It drives me absolutely crazy to see (once again!) Heathcliff (murderous necrophiliac wifebeater!), Rochester (bigamous compulsive liar!) and Darcy (aloof at parties) put in the same bracket by people. Why do they do it, Oyce? I go across hill and dale like a woman wailing for her non-abusive lover.

Also, oh dear. The heroine should stamp her pretty foot? Loaded language right there. I'll bet the hero likes a girl with spirit, too.

Added to which, how I hated Han Solo! 'I know' struck me as a good line but an appalling thing to say as last words to someone you cared for. Perhaps I came to Star Wars too late, but it makes me grind my teeth every time. (I did appreciate that it got reversed later, of course.)

What can I say? I want to love romance, but romance tropes like - well, not like the alpha hero, but the justifications for the alpha hero, make it hard. And I would like to thank the person upthread who pointed out the Loretta Chase I clearly need to own. Oh amazon, you are my non-abusive lover.

Re: Thoughts, mostly on the linked articles...

[oyceter]

It drives me absolutely crazy to see (once again!) Heathcliff (murderous necrophiliac wifebeater!), Rochester (bigamous compulsive liar!) and Darcy (aloof at parties) put in the same bracket by people.

Bwahaha so true! And while I do not hate Rochester as much as I had expected to, I still don't feel very sorry for him.

I... sigh. I keep wanting romances to be much more envelope-pushing than they are, and I get so frustrated! Also, you've read Chase's other books, right? She's so amazingly good at taking tropes and slyly subverting them without making a big deal of it. I am so excited she will have a new book out soon!

Re: Thoughts, mostly on the linked articles...

[sarahtales.livejournal.com]

I loooove Lord of Scoundrels and Mr Impossible, and liked Miss Wonderful okay, and then heard some weird exotic fetish things and shied away, but I am so onboard for the new book - sounds awesome! - and if there are other awesome Chases I need, tell me!

Re: Thoughts, mostly on the linked articles...

[oyceter]

Yeah, I threw Captives of the Night against a wall and have heard similar things about Sandalwood Princess. I do like all her other stuff, save Lord Perfect, which I thought was really boring. Her latest, Not Quite a Lady, was fun too!

[sister-ananke.livejournal.com]

For me the presentation of coercive sex as a good thing was my main issue. I dislike the 'so overwhelmed by lust I'll have sex with you even though I don't want to' trope - it can be done in an entirely humourous way, or friendly, but that 'I don't want to but you're making me want to' trope is way too creepy.