Hope this link works …

Now almost all of the examples I’ve used about are books that are problematic in some fashion. So clearly I am drawn to these problematic books. And I don’t think it’s because I have no morals — if anything, it’s because my conscience is so active that I enjoy vicariously escaping into the consciousness of characters who ignore their own consciences at times.

Having said that, I’m not at all sure that I would enjoy Dark Dominion. I haven’t read it but some of the older HP books that I have read and many of the historical romances from that late 1970s era were too problematic even for me, and did not convince me of the happy ending.

I’m a switch-hitter as a reader. Sometimes I identify; usually I don’t. Sometimes I’m interested in the hero, sometimes the heroine, sometimes neither. What matters more to me is that I’m a fan of that specific hero and heroine together, whether or not I “approve” of them. This is me. A good book has a great hero, a great heroine, a great setting… a GREAT book has a standout hero, heroine, AND fabulous chemistry between them. They don’t have to be people I love, (tho it helps) but if they’re interesting, have a character arc, and sizzle between them– that’s the perfect romance.

Another book that struck me as practically a step-by-step recipe for spouse abuse, should you ever for some bizzare reason want to investigate another one, was Margaret Pargeter’s Captive of Fate.

My comment about heroines was offhand. I did not realize, RfP, that there is a contingent of which I am now a member.

I took it as offhand, and was not picturing you as one of The Contingent. (Nor The Contingent as anything so definite as A Contingent.) But I’m enjoying the image of A Contingent of Romance Readers–armed with firm spears of love, naturally.

As for hero v. heroine. I think there are readers who are more heroine-centric (including me) and those who are more hero-centric. Being heroine-centric does not mean I must or do personally identify with the heroine, but I do tend to appreciate Romances that also have a good dose of the heroine’s journey (i.e. those elements that are often more prevalent in chick lit/women’s fic or fantasy — i.e. the coming of age story). And I’m more frustrated when a heroine is underdeveloped than when the hero is, I think.

Just to clarify, I didn’t say there was anything wrong with this book, or that it should not have been published. I did say that I could not read it as a romance, or rather if I had to, I would call it a failed one. I could not personally root for this couple as things stood.

Robin — the stats are from the Justice Dept. Many feminists have a broader definition of assault which would include many more incidents and many more people.

My comment about heroines was offhand. I did not realize, RfP, that there is a contingent of which I am now a member.

It’s fine with me if readers identify with the heroine, or hero or both or nobody at all. But in romances, as in film, I want to see female characters who are well developed and interesting. they do not have to get “equal time” with the hero — that often doesn’t make sense for the story — but I want them to be believable and interesting, not mere placeholders in which to insert myself so that I can drool over the band of brothers who takes up every page.

And when people tell me — no, you identify with the hero, silly! — that is not a comfort, to be honest. Are we all men now?

Sorry I can’t say more. Time is of the essence at the moment!

As for the heroines, what Sherry said. My problem, too, comes from not being able to figure out what the attraction is. I mean, this is also my problem in life. I’ve mentioned A Wedding Story before and I’ll mention it again, but that TLC show was great for seeing the WTF couple in action. As puzzling as that is in life, it is really frustrating for me in books because on some level I have to be with both characters no matter how heinous they are. It’s not a question of behavior, it’s a question of . . . depth? I don’t know. But, for example, Newland Archer a character I loathe and yet every time The Age of Innocence comes on TV I watch it because even though I hate Newland Archer, his story is fascinating. I think a successful romance is very much predicated on character, not action and character fail equals romance fail.

I don’t they they are altogether, but they certain HAVE BEEN, and will continue to be, as long as there are readers whose primary pleasure come from getting close to the hero.

I, on the other hand, get off on emotional turmoil. So I don’t really give a rat’s ass about getting close to the hero, as long as I can see why the heroine fancies him–and why he fancies her. [A lot of the times my problem with a book comes from that I can see why she fancies him, but I have no frigging idea why he fancies her--which is but the flip side of the Dispensable Heroine Syndrome.]

In fact, lately I am starting to think heroines are completely dispensable in romance.

There’s a contingent of readers who say this, or something close to it, loudly and frequently. I strongly disagree, and judging by the bestseller lists, I think many other readers do too.

I’m a switch-hitter as a reader. Sometimes I identify; usually I don’t. Sometimes I’m interested in the hero, sometimes the heroine, sometimes neither. What matters more to me is that I’m a fan of that specific hero and heroine together, whether or not I “approve” of them. But regardless of the pairing, I really enjoy romances in which a character (any character imbued with personhood, not necessarily always the one with/out a Y chromosome) undergoes a real journey; I like romance in part as a subgenre of character-driven fiction.

On the level of approval, one important thing I like about the genre is that I see much of it (obviously not all, as it’s an enormous genre, but enough that I consider it a signature of the genre) as being about a woman’s journey. I most definitely approve that the genre portrays that, whether it’s an entirely internal journey or whether it treats external reality to a larger extent.

And then again, back in the literary (versus approval) perspective, if the genre portrays *two* characters with full personhood and evolution, plus a relationship’s evolution or increasing immanence, that’s character-driven heaven.