Elizabeth Drakes's Site

Fantasy Romance

Princess Leia

No Suitcases, Please

by

After reading Mariah Avix’s post on Strong Women, I did some thinking.

I am a romance writer, and that’s what a read. Though some men enjoy reading it as well, Romance is geared towards a mainly female market. First time my husband read one of my books, he dubbed it “porn for women”.

Not entirely inaccurate. It’s the portrayal of a fantasy, a female fantasy, and there’s usually sex in it.

Beyond that, though, Romance does something else. It often depicts the issues women have faced and continue to face. Things such as: rape, feeling powerless, being stalked, not being good enough, smart enough, beautiful enough. The heroine then overcomes these things and finds her happily-ever-after.

I’ve heard many complain that finding strong female characters in romance is hard. First thing I ask them is when the book they’re reading was written. While Romance has been around since before Jane Austin penned her first novel, what it has meant to be a strong woman has changed significantly.

Think about it. Back in the 1800s, a strong woman is not the same as one from the 1950s or from 2017. Society changes, culture changes, and to some extent, we’re all subject to the culture we live in.

So what does it mean to be a strong woman today?

unnamed

Whenever I ask this question, I ask: does the heroine have agency?

What does this mean?  She cannot be a suitcase the hero brings along for the ride. She has to be actively engaged in her own story.

For me, it means meeting the Princess Leia criteria. It means she’s doing stuff. She’s making things happen rather than things just happening to her. Yes, bad stuff still happens, but she’s Princess Leia doing something about it rather than Princess Peach waiting for Mario.

For example, Leia takes the stolen plans and is trying to get them to the right people. When bad things happen (Darth Vadar catching her and boarding her ship), she still gets the plans to Obi Wan.

Sure, Luke and Han go to rescue her, but she doesn’t hide behind them and wait for them to get her back to the ship. I love it when she snatches up the blaster and shows them how to use it.

She saves Han Solo.

She blows up an Imperial moon base.

She leads a rebellion.

She does stuff.

Does she get captured? Yes. But she resists their interrogation procedures.

Does she lose Han to carbonite? Yes, and she rescues him.

unnamed-1

I think of her a lot when I think of a strong female character. She’s mostly smart, actively engaged, but she’s not invincible. Not perfect. She can’t be, or she won’t be likable.

For the longest time, all we had was her and Buffy, but that’s changing. Our culture is changing. There have been more strong female characters lately, and even Disney has gotten on board with Merida and Elsa.

But we still have a ways to go.

unnamed-3

 

How about you?  What do you think of when you think of a strong female character? Any examples in modern literature that you use to guide you?

"Saving" the Bad Boy

by

So, while we know that in the real world that women actually prefer nice guys, lots of fiction has the heroine living happily-ever-after with a bad boy.

While I appreciate Star Wars portraying how that worked out for Princess Leia, in romance writing, we expect the ever-after to stay happy.

bad3

Biggest problem I’ve seen is how does the writer get there.

Most of us can believe that Han has reformed after being frozen in carbonite and putting his life on the line for the Rebellion even after Jabba has been “paid”.

In romance novels, I see heroes as colorful as Han, but rarely do I see the crucible of the story they’re put through strong enough to elicit the change in them required to give the audience their happily-ever-after ending.

And in Romance, if there isn’t a happily-ever-after ending, it isn’t Romance. That’s a key component of the genre.

I won’t name the book, but in a novel I put down recently, the hero was a classist jerk. He was born an earl and had nothing but contempt for the lower classes. Until along comes the heroine who is a girl from the streets. She might be a viscount’s long-lost daughter, which of course she is because this is fiction, but the hero doesn’t know that.

Somehow he overcomes his classist jerkiness because he’s in lust with the heroine.

Ad yes, lust, because they’ve known each other all of three days and he’s been unpleasant most of it because he’s “put out” having to host her.

Um, yeah, not buying it. When I opened the book, I was willing to suspend disbelief. I’m willing to believe this girl is the missing viscount’s daughter. I’m even willing to believe that the earl can be shown the error of his ways.

But I need a lot more than he wants to bed the heroine for that change to be believable.

I see this same issue over and over again in Regency fiction. The number of reformed rakes is amazing. Yet, few authors give me a really good reason why that rake reformed. The love of a good woman just isn’t enough.

According to my grandmother, a tiger doesn’t change his stripes, and if someone shows you their true colors, don’t try to repaint them. Must run in the family.

But she’s onto something here.

rake

Can people change? Yes!

Do they change often or easily? No!

So, if you want me to believe that your rake has reformed, he needs to go through something that causes the reformation. Perhaps he has a brush with his own mortality, or something significant happens that shows him what a hollow life he’s leading. Maybe falling in love does this to him, but there has to be some depth there.

If he’s in love with the heroine because she’s attractive? Sounds to me like he’s still a rake.
How about you? What do you need to believe a real or fictional person has changed?