Because romances tell what’s essentially a coming-of-age story in which the heroine discovers herself. I see strong parallels with YA fiction, in which there’s often a kid surrounded by hostile peers, often alone and isolated–orphaned, even.

But I’m not seeing the heroines as the protags in the stories I’m reading so there’s no coming of age arc. I know allies can still have a character/plot arc but that requires that the character take proactive steps to resolve their arc. Too often it’s been the hero’s in love now so arc resolved.

I’m not sure what that means, but it sounds like something interesting. Can you clarify?

Not without getting into a long discussion with examples and plenty of back and forth.

My shortcut example would be heroine sexuality in a Lora Leigh breed book. The heroine is highly, overly sexual but all of the components surrounding that sexuality are quite confined. Usually the heroine is a virgin or if not a virgin then not particularly sexual but then this hero comes along and everything changes. But Leigh takes it a step further and makes sure that the “breeding” heat can’t be triggered by any other males and that even a touch from another male causes the female pain. No cuckholding here. Also the almost nyphomanic qualities of the females sexuality can’t be judged because it’s only with the hero and its expected within the context of the story. We have no sluts here regardless of how hot and dirty or kinky the sex may be. Okay not as short as I’d liked and really just a limited example but it’s an awareness I have in the stories I’ve been reading lately of the lead female even outside of the sexual arena.

…But over the years I’ve become pretty good at selecting for the opposite type of story.

Yeah, right now I’m purposefully not choosing anything. I’m picking up books recommended on different sites just to see what I can see and compare it to what the blogger had to say. So I’ve had an up and down reading seasons but it’s been interesting. I’ve had to test some of my preconceptions and I’m not always liking what I’m seeing. Call me Random girl.

Speaking in very broad brush strokes, I do see more of all of this addressed in romance than in other genres. I agree with Jessica that “(romance novels) take the experiences of women seriously”. Do romances turn those experiences into a type of emotional justice that suits me and my beliefs about women in society? Often not. But the experiences are there, not ignored, and not part of the backdrop.

Sorry, I wasn’t clear. And yes, in very broad stroke, I do agree that romance takes the female experiences seriously. Just…

Lord of Scoundrels would be an example of this for me. It’s a very well crafted novel but it’s a novel about Dain not Jessica. Dain has the main character and plot arc. And although I love Jessica’s character in the first half, it’s like she’s a different person in the second. Subtly. Not this great big leap but it’s there. Even so the person the narrator tells us Jessica is, isn’t really who Jessica is. And what Jessica claims she wants isn’t what she really wants and considering what a powerful woman Jessica is in the beginning her character arc is shortchanged. Perhaps even non-existent if I’m talking about a fully-realized female character.

She doesn’t really have a true character or plot arc except to be the ally character for Dain. I know others will see that differently but that’s what I’m seeing lately with my experimental / let’s see what happens reads.

And I did enjoy the story as well as Jessica’s character. Actually I had a lot of fun with Jessica so please don’t think I’m trying to bash the story. But I don’t feel we really “know” Jessica. Certainly not like we “know” Dain.

have you noticed that in general female characters in supporting roles within the romance genre either tend to be judged negatively within the story framework, non-existent or expendable? And why is the heroine surrounded by men more often than not? Why is she so often alone and isolated from any type of support network?

Because romances tell what’s essentially a coming-of-age story in which the heroine discovers herself. I see strong parallels with YA fiction, in which there’s often a kid surrounded by hostile peers, often alone and isolated–orphaned, even.

And why do we go to such great lengths to ensure that heroines aren’t/can’t be judged negatively by society within the stories?

I’m not sure what that means, but it sounds like something interesting. Can you clarify?

The romance genre may explore female sexuality** but I’m not so sure we get real motivation or hopes/fears because on average I don’t think that the female leads have real agency within the story’s framework.

We appear to read different romances What you describe is certainly true of some, perhaps even many; I don’t have a large enough view of the most recent wave of romances to say what the proportion is. But over the years I’ve become pretty good at selecting for the opposite type of story.

Who were these women outside of the love story? What were their hopes & dreams? Their goals? Have those things been changed by the love connection? Do we know? Do we care?

Speaking in very broad brush strokes, I do see more of all of this addressed in romance than in other genres. I agree with Jessica that “(romance novels) take the experiences of women seriously”. Do romances turn those experiences into a type of emotional justice that suits me and my beliefs about women in society? Often not. But the experiences are there, not ignored, and not part of the backdrop.

Thirty-some comments to RDJ’s joking comment that he and Watson share a bed in the movie. And all of them completely disgusted. I was a bit surprised by the uniformity of the comments–do you ever see on a romance blog 30+ comments expressing the same opinion?–until one commenter scolded the other commenters for caring about the Holmes movie when we have a Communist/Marxist in the White House.

Sigh. When I was in second grade, on a visit to my mother’s work unit, I impressed the heck out of her colleagues by reading aloud a whole chapter of Deng Xiaoping’s oeuvre on his political philosophy, which she and her colleagues were required to set aside an afternoon per week to study at work.

That’s Communist for you. Wish people would have a %^#ing idea of what they speak before they talk.

That said, I could seriously enjoy the Holmes-Watson thing, particularly with those two actors!

Many romances cast someone else as the “hero” of the woman’s story (in the sense of who has agency and action scenes). Some romances also portray female characters as interesting primarily for their vulnerability or helplessnes (rather like the Holmes stories).

RFP: Absolutely agree. It seems like more and more romances I’m reading have the male lead in the protagonist role and the female lead as the ally character. Also, have you noticed that in general female characters in supporting roles within the romance genre either tend to be judged negatively within the story framework, non-existent or expendable? And why is the heroine surrounded by men more often than not? Why is she so often alone and isolated from any type of support network? And why do we go to such great lengths to ensure that heroines aren’t/can’t be judged negatively by society within the stories?

In some ways the typical female lead role within the romance genre isn’t that much different than the female role that Jessica’s described. It’s just dressed up prettier with the girl getting the guy and a HEA. The female lead role certainly doesn’t have the grays that we’d expect in other genres when the female is the protagonist. And I hate to admit it but there are stories written by male writers in other genres which have given me much more fully-realized female characters than anything I’ve ever experienced within the romance genre.

The romance genre may explore female sexuality** but I’m not so sure we get real motivation or hopes/fears because on average I don’t think that the female leads have real agency within the story’s framework. Their story role as allies is to turn the plot in such a way that allows the protagonist to confront and defeat the villain, and their individual stories are primarily told through the lens of their relationship with the male lead and the story’s requirement for a HEA. Who were these women outside of the love story? What were their hopes & dreams? Their goals? Have those things been changed by the love connection? Do we know? Do we care?

So, Jessica, what exactly do you mean by they (romance novels) take the experiences of women seriously? Are you looking at it from a different viewpoint or have I become much too cynical?

—-
**I find female sexuality exploration to be rather narrow within the romance genre because the pre-hero acceptable experience/knowledge parameters tend to be so narrowly defined. We don’t typically see romances where the female characters are fully-realized sexual beings pre-hero who are unabashedly sexually aggressive and full partners sexually with the male leads.

in addition to the HEA, there is something I can count on when I read romances: they take the experiences of women seriously.

This is a large part of my dispute with the idea that romance is hero-centric. I read lit fic, sf, fantasy, and mystery before I discovered romance. To me, the focus on the female experience is the single attribute that most reliably sets romance apart from the other genres.

Perhaps comparing romance to other genres doesn’t set the bar high enough. In absolute terms, romance still has quite a distance to go in its treatment of female characters. Many romances cast someone else as the “hero” of the woman’s story (in the sense of who has agency and action scenes). Some romances also portray female characters as interesting primarily for their vulnerability or helplessnes (rather like the Holmes stories).

Come to think of it, I did have a favorite female character in the Holmes stories: Irene Adler, who outsmarted him. However, I believe she only appeared in one story, whereas in romance I can generally expect the female characters to receive more consistent attention than that.

Maili: Sherlock Holmes as a lover? He’s asexual, through and through.

That’s always been my take too, and the Mary Russell books don’t convince me otherwise.

I read this book in middle school, and I can remember not liking it very much. Both Watson and Sherlock kind of annoyed me. Also I kind of wanted the Hound to be a real demon.

SIr Arthur wrote each of his Sherlock Holmes stories as a magazine serial, didn’t he? I’m reasonably certain the magazines he wrote for were for men. I know one of them – The Strand magazine – was, which published mysteries and that sort. That’s probably why you noticed some genre conventions in his stories and why it’s so male-centric?

Sherlock Holmes as a lover? He’s asexual, through and through. That said, if there’s anyone he’d get in bed with, it’s his older brother Mycroft because IMO, Sherlock has a serious brother complex.

A former New York Post film critic warns director Guy Ritchie against the prospect of a gay Sherlock Holmes character, telling the Page Six gossip column that audiences feel no “hunger” to see stars Robert Downey Jr. (pictured) and Jude Law “impersonating homosexuals” in the upcoming film based on the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle character.

No hunger? I’m *starving* for this!