Sophy from Georgette Heyer’s The Grand Sophy.

That reading slump is deep, isn’t it? Cuz it would be some reading slump that would have me read The Indiscretion again. Beast, on the other hand, is on loan to a friend. And I miss it all the time.

Anon,

Is that you again, Heather M? Use other, that would let you type in a name without having a blogger id, I think.

How do I post anything to RTB?

As for the prep, before a book is contracted, there has to be a proposal. And it becomes quite clear, even in a 3-page proposal, what kind of characters I’m writing. Editors and agents are free to reject or request serious changes to proposals.

Kathleen,

Thanks.

Sherry, you should see if you can re-post this blog entry over at RTB. That would be cool!

Also, a question for you. Do you prep your agent and editor regarding your desire to write a “good woman” i.e., anti-heroine character? Or is it more the story premise that either one is concerned about? Because what if you conceived of a wonderfully against-the-grain heroine, but neither agent nor editor connected to her?

I admit that I don’t understand the phenomenon of falling in love with the heroes of romance novels. I’m more of a heroine-centric reader and a book only really works for me if I find both the hero and heroine well-developed.

I’ve just re-read The Indiscretion, a book many people claim is Ivory’s most mainstream as well as being a bit pointless(I guess cuz 3/4th of the book have Sam and Lydia roaming Dartmoor), but I now can better appreciate Lydia as a character than my first read a few years ago. I saw her as a bit of a shrew: shrill and combative and creating conflict where there was no need to be. Now I see her as a woman who was grasping for her own identity and purpose in a social station she’d never before questioned. Which was awesome to me because I’m a sucker for characters struggling with “society vs the individual”.

What I do find amusing is that while Judith Ivory states that she’s all about the hero, I find her heroines’ journeys a lot more provocative than her heroes’–Marie and Hannah in Dance and Bliss, respectively, had a greater character arc than Sebastien and Nardi–both of whom decided they wanted the heroine unconditionally a lot quicker than they reciprocated the feeling.

I guess I’m rehashing my initial thought: I read primarily for the heroine’s journey, not the hero–obviously a rarity in this genre.

I think you have something there about bland heroines. I don’t think editors and publishers are necessarily excited about them. But as you said, perhaps the plot is great, the hero to die for, and the sexual tension enough to hold up the Golden Gate Bridge. And a bland heroine was let slide.

But only think, how much the book could be improved if the heroine was on a par with the rest of the elements. Sigh.

I started a discussion at AW based on this post:

http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79001

I agree, to do this type of heroine, it has to be pulled off in just the right way. Layering in enough sympathy and allowing the character to achieve redemption, if applicable, seem to be key. I’m sure there are other keys, such as motivation.

I wonder if some readers think that a strong female heroine risks emasculating the hero, and that’s why this type of character isn’t cultivated more often. Certainly she can, if the hero isn’t as strongly developed. I guess the “bottomline” issue says it all, which is a shame.

But I can’t for the life of me understand how someone (well, editors and agents) can get excited enough about a bland heroine to publish a book with one. Unless, of course, it has to do with different people’s definition of “bland.” What’s bland to someone may be fireworks to someone else. Or maybe the hero is so exciting that it takes all the attention away. I’m sure there are many reasons, ranging from social to cultural and financial.

Heather M.

The very, very best to you. I love me an anti-heroine.

As for why do writers and readers shy away from this type of character? I don’t know that readers shy away from them–I know I don’t. And unless we have an equal offer of heroines and anti-heroines and receive statistically sound data that the readers are staying away in droves from the anti-heroines, no one would know.

As for writers, I suspect writers might shy away either out of personal preference–they can’t conceive of such a character being the heroine–or out of expediency–a bland heroine is more acceptable than a flamboyant/harsh/devious/etc heroine. Also, an anti-heroine is more tricky to successfully bring off.

And publishers, who have to watch their bottom line, cannot be overly faulted for going with what’s already working.

As for my SF romance, I’m working on it as we speak. Here’s a glimpse of the heroine.

Thirty-seven Adven-True employees had turned out for his arrival: thirty-three female attendants, three male drivers, and her. Not a single one of those thirty-six people, for all that they thought her an odd duck, had the least idea just how incongruous her presence among them was: the deadliest captain of the Most Loyal Guard, a killing machine if there ever was one.

The most sex-crazed too, from what he’d heard–quite a distinction to be had among legions of nymphomaniacs.

Let’s hope I can do her justice.

Good luck with the full request. May it lead to offer of representation.

CM,

I have a knee-jerk reaction against alpha-neanderthals. Give me a thinking man any day.

And that steak post is somewhere down the road. I’m a fairly placid person, so it takes a bit to get me to rant. But I will rant about cookie-cutter, dumbass heroes one of those days.

Can’t wait to see how you bring off the wicked witch.

Robin,

Although I’m quite intrigued by the concept of a woman using sex as a ladder up, that wasn’t quite what I meant.

I want a woman who’s comfortable with her sexuality, her attractiveness. We have tons of gorgeous heroines who have no idea of their effect on men and wouldn’t know how to use it if the life of a fluffy bunny depended upon it. This is a particularly romancelandia thing, I’ve rarely come across gorgeous women, or even just reasonably pretty women in real life who don’t have some basic grasp of how they affect the opposite sex. Or how they can use it, whether loudly or subtly.

For an example of harnessing sexuality, the thing that particularly comes to mind is Laura Kinsale’s Shadowheart. That’s not a book for everyone (mild S&M involved). But the way the heroine commands and vanquishes the hero in bed is quite unique and utterly powerful.

Angela,

Chin up. I believe things run in cycles. For a while, there was nothing good on TV. Now I hear there are many intriguing programs.

I don’t read as many romances as I probably should. But my friend Janine of Dear Author does–she and you probably have some similar tastes. And she tells me that while a few years ago reading in the genre, for her, was really bad, now things are looking up.

And books are a commodity, at least in physical form they are. I have to accept that. But as in any market, there will be those who care more and who put more effort into putting out a good product.

I believe the demographics of romance is changing, both in terms of readers and writers. I think the performance of PRIVATE ARRANGEMENTS would be closely watched, because it was a relatively big deal for a debut romance, and because it is different in many ways. And if it does well, I sincerely hope that means more unusual, well-crafted romances would be in the pipelines.

This in particular intrigued me. Can you give an example of a heroine who has harnessed the power of her sexuality? I’m curious to get a sense of what exactly you mean; using her sexuality to get what she wants, as her one means of achieving balance between herself and more socially powerful men. What does that harnessing look like and to what purpose?

Great blog, btw. And I’ve been looking forward to your book coming out ever since I first read about it on your agent’s blog!