When you write Regency historicals for the modern market, there is a balancing act that goes on. How do we make our heroines appealing to the modern reader, yet avoid the trap of writing about modern women in period costume?
I don't think many bestselling authors in the genre write about the average Regency female. In fact, the extraordinary has become the ordinary in fiction. We always meet the girl who rebels against the feminine ideal, the lady who defies society's rules or at least the accepted norm of the time.
The extraordinary woman has almost become a cliche in historical romance. In fact, it takes a very skilful author to write about a heroine who behaves exactly as women really did in those days and still make her interesting to the modern reader. After all, we modern women almost pride ourselves on our lack of interest in traditional feminine pursuits that were so highly prized at that time. We don't admire a heroine who is only concerned with her needlework.
However, some authors go too far the other way and confuse decorum with dullness, restraint with a lack of passion. I don't think a heroine needs to be wishy-washy or clingy or subservient to be true to her period. Regency heroines can strong and admirable in all sorts of ways that don't involve the physical or indiscriminately flouting society's rules. They can have wit, honour, a strong sense of duty and sacrifice, courage in the face of great adversity.
Having said all that, I can forgive a lot if the heroine has a sense of humour, or at least a sense of irony, coupled with intelligence. Not intelligence that the author and other characters tell me about, but intelligence that is shown in the heroine's speech and actions. My favourite heroine is probably Sophy from Georgette Heyer's The Grand Sophy, though Loretta Chase's Jessica in Lord of Scoundrels comes very close.
Who is your favourite historical romance heroine, and why?
5 comments:
That's a lovely painting, Christine? What is it?
Really interesting post. I write about strong heroines who have to make really hard decisions in impossible situations. Obviously, while you like intelligence, I like courage in adversity. And I think in the Regency, there were lots of women who even in a modern context would be considered strong. There were the women who followed the drum so they could be with their husbands through the hardships of war. There were women who did charity work or took a major role as political hostesses. There were the women who ran society - not many of those were too wimpy! And this isn't even taking the women without economic resources into account. So I think in writing about women with strength, historical romance writers actually aren't straying too far from what was real.
Your post made me think of Jane Austen's heroines. Fanny Price, who is strong in her smug, self-righteous way, doesn't appeal to the modern reader because she probably is closer to the Regency ideal. Lizzie Bennett is strong and takes risks to get what she wants. Emma is strong but spoilt and needs a few knocks to come into her own. Anne Elliott (sp?) has a wonderful quiet strength that she's learnt through adversity (hey, more courage through adversity!) and is one of my favourite heroines of all time. Catherine Morland is a bit young to have real strength, but she's no cypher.
Interesting blog! Thank you!
Hi Anna, thanks for your comment!
Yes, I think you're right about heroines who have courage through adversity. I enjoy them in a different way from those lively, witty heroines, I think. Perhaps it shows your preference for dark historicals and my preference for light? There are some wonderful, quiet heroines, like Maddy in Flowers from the Storm and Mary Balogh's heroine in A Summer to Remember.
I like to see the heroine's conflict and growth as well as the hero's. I don't like it when all the heroine does is tag along on the hero's journey and love him unconditionally. I find that a rather one-sided relationship! I like to see a heroine who has her own issues to sort out, too.
And I knew someone would quote Austen heroines! A perfect example of women of their time who are certainly neither dull nor shrinking (even though Fanny P is quiet and rather smug!)but they didn't need to go around shooting people or dress in men's clothes to prove it!
Hm, now I've remembered the heroine in my latest WIP will probably shoot someone, but she has a very good reason! :-) Actually, I've enjoyed a number of romps with heroines cross-dressing and shooting people, but I think it has been done so much it ceases to be an extraordinary thing in fiction, though it would have been extraordinary in life.
I often wondered why Caro Lamb was still accepted in society even after she started running around London dressed as a page boy. It was only after she wrote Glenarvon, lampooning her peers, that she was shunned.
The painting is Portrait of a Lady (Unknown) by Henri François Mulard, circa 1810. I like this woman because her face has a lot of character. And the detail in the shawl is exquisite!
I agree about the sense of humour. A heroine with an ironic take on the world, I really do enjoy. That said, I love the craft of Elizabeth Peters in creating Amelia Peabody, forthright and formidable and a bit insensitive, and making her so much fun and so likeable.
And I love Sophy too! I can't bear ingenue heroines and as for virgins - ack! I realize everyone was a virgin once (through no fault of their own), but goodness me, I have trouble writing them! *grin*
And that, my friends, is one of the reasons I write what I do. *even wider grin*
It's more challenging to find lovable heroines than lovable heroes, isn't it? Why is that? Are we women are harder on our own sex than we are on the opposite? Not being the huge reader of romance that you all are :), I don't have much to add (Amelia Peabody! Yes! Women who are strong in the face of adversity! Yes! Women who are lively and have a sense of humor! Yes!), but I have to agree with you, Christine, there's nothing more annoying than the wimpy, sniveling, weak heroine. Give me strength or don't waste my time. :) I do love Claire from the Outlander series, though. She's smart, she's tough and she can laugh at herself, but she also has some deep emotional vulnerabilities and is very much a woman.
I will admit to having a cross-dressing heroine in one of my novels, and if there were guns in that time period, she certainly would have toted one. Sigh. There was no way around it. It was integral to the plot. Believe me, I tried to avoid it at all costs, but it was meant to be, I suppose. :-P
Denise and Jennifer, thanks for commenting. I love Amelia Peabody too! And Claire from The Outlander series is a good example of the kind of woman who doesn't make jokes all the time but can see the humour in situations and is therefore likeable. Vulnerability is fine--that's part of what makes a character live--as long as the heroine tries to be brave, I think. And Claire certainly is brave!
And don't get me wrong, I think cross-dressing and shooting people all have their place, but in Regency historicals of the last 5 to 10 years it seems that every second heroine does it, almost as a matter of course. Which makes it seem less extraordinary to readers than it really is.
Interesting discussion. Thanks for joining in!
Post a Comment