I want to begin this post with a question to you: Do you, as romance readers in today’s society, only want to read about plucky, spirited heroines? Women whose attributes of courage and positive self-worth are established from page 1 and do not waver throughout the novel? Or does this not get old after a while? I have noticed this trend in the books I read and it has given me some concerns.
I am planning to revise a WIP this summer, set in medieval England and France, where the heroine is young (another drawback I’ve been told) and begins as a very traditional woman for the time period. Not exactly meek, but certainly not a sword-wielding Amazon either. But by the end of the novel her character arc has taken her from young and passive to mature, strong, and fearless.
I’ve been told women do not want to read about this type of heroine. I wonder, however, how true that statement is. My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that it is just as interesting to see the journey from weakness to strength as to see the journey from strength to…well, strength. More interesting, in fact, to see the heroine truly grow into the character she is meant to be. Of course the seeds of the end product must be sown in the first chapters—the potential for change must be there. But having set that up, I would hope that readers would be excited to see how the heroine makes that transition.
One book that uses this trope is Kathleen E. Woodiwiss’s The Flame and the Flower.
When the book opens Heather, the heroine, is a veritable dishrag of a 17 year old girl, but by the end she is the competent and adored mistress of a huge plantation, with her volatile but devastatingly gorgeous husband wrapped around her finger. How did she do that? Read the book to find out.
Two movie examples also come readily to mind: The Terminator and Romancing the Stone.
In the first Terminator movie, Sarah Connor starts out as a soft-spoken sort of party-girl type—rather milque-toast in my opinion.
Yet by the end of the movie she is tough as nails and ready to take on the world. In Terminator 2 she’s become capable of doing just that—a force to be reckoned with.
In Romancing the Stone, Joan Wilder, romance novelist (!), starts out as a woman scared of her own shadow. Through the trials of her adventure in the South American jungle, she gains the confidence to believe in herself and becomes the feisty heroine she’s always written about. Her transformation is visually stunning: after Joan’s identity as a romance novelist saves the day for her and her hero, she blossoms from the repressed-looking spinster into the vibrant adventuress.
These three examples, all from the 1970s and 80s, make me wonder if this scenario was popular then because the second wave of feminism was sweeping the country at that time and women were fascinated by the prospect of becoming more than they ever dreamed possible. Today’s romance readers have grown up in the post-second wave era with the idea that women are strong, are the equal of men, and can do anything they set their minds to. Does that sensibility, then, preclude them from identifying with a woman who is not any of those things, but who has the potential to be? Would you not want to cheer her on to her ultimate destiny?
What is your preference? The strong, plucky heroine who is a steadfast character throughout with minimal change, or the shy, meek mouse who turns into the lion? Would you read both?