The Smart Bitches were e-mailing each other about women of leisure as they’re depicted in historical romances, and somehow we got sidetracked into talking about romance novel villains instead. Go figure.
Candy: I read The Lady’s Tutor a few years ago, and I didn’t like it too much. The thing that bothered me the most was the villain. Oh, so not only is he bisexual and emotionally abusive, but he’s a CHILD-MOLESTER as well? Feh. Just once I’d like to encounter a hetero child-molester in a book, ANY book, since in the real world the vast majority of pedophiles are straight. Using homos and bisexuals as villains—and EVIL EVIL EVIL ROASTING BABIES ALIVE AFTER MOLESTING THEM villains at that—is one of my biggest pet peeves in fiction of any sort.
Sarah: Speaking of cliché villains, you know what else I hate? I hate when an author can’t come up with a good bit of characterization to define how bad the villain is using multi-dimensional scenes or actions. No, the author just says, Hey! I know! This man is BAD. He is E.VIL. So I will make him… cruel to animals! What a cop out. Not only do I find it horribly upsetting but it’s such a weak ass wussy way to make someone evil. I mean, dang. What happens if someone is gay, an incestuous pedophile, AND cruel to the horses? Why, he’s satan! ARGH! God that makes me nuts.
The villain for Duke of Sin is also half Jewish. His ancestors are Bohemian Jews who emigrated two generations before. I am still not sure why it is relevant. Perhaps he is also gay, an incestuous pedophile, and mean to the horses, on top of being Jewish. Then he’d be more than Satan. He’d be über-Satan. Satanalicious! The Duke of Satan! GAH!
Candy: No, if a villain was all of the above he wouldn’t be the Duke of Satan, he’d be part of the secret cabal in charge of the World Bank, the stock markets and the mass media! Those goddamn faggot Jews are ruining our shit yet again! The only way he could be worse was if he somehow managed to be both Jewish AND atheist.
Sarah: Don’t forget Hollywood. We control that, too. Last I heard, anyway. Tom Cruise still won’t return my calls so I don’t know for sure.
Candy: Hahaha. And man, don’t get me started on Tom. You know, he’d make an excellent villain. Too good looking, member of a weird cult, generally beloved, yet something about him gives me the jibblies…. Bleck. Anyway, romance novels tend to have really sloppy villains. Popular fiction in general isn’t all that great when it comes to creating convincing villains with realistic motivations, but most romance novel villains are just downright ridiculous. They’re often psychotic, when most of the bad people in the world aren’t psycho per se, they’re simply greedy, callous and/or selfish in certain ways, and to a certain extent they’re blind to how much harm is caused by their actions. I believe in the banality of evil, which is a term Hannah Arendt came up with to explain how so many people accepted—even embraced—the atrocities committed during the Holocaust. People who commit evil acts often sincerely believe they’re acting on the best interests of their families and their community. But romance novel villains? More often than not they’re just batshit insane, boy. Think of all the pointless romance novel tragedy that could’ve been averted if only the villains had access to Haldol or Thorazine!
Have you noticed Robin Schone has had other gay villains? Why? Kinda creepy. You are right on about romance novel villains. Their motivations are so flimsy and the characters themselves are 2 dimensional. Of course, so many of the heroines are altruistic twits, I guess the counterpoint is necessary.
Have you noticed Robin Schone has had other gay villains? Why? Kinda creepy. You are right on about romance novel villains. Their motivations are so flimsy and the characters themselves are 2 dimensional. Of course, so many of the heroines are altruistic twits, I guess the counterpoint is necessary.
Yeah, you know, I did notice that Schone created other gay villains. At about that point I stopped reading her entirely. I’d feel the same way about somebody who consistently made, say, black people the villains. And it’s not just that they’re bad guys, they’re presented as really, really evil men. I’m not sure if she was conscious of what she was doing. Many authors have particular “types†they like villainize. I’ve noticed that Patricia Gaffney, for instance, likes her bad guys kind of thick-necked and beefy. Not all, but many of her villains kind of look like bulls on two legs. But then her bad guys also tend to have a bit more depth than the average romance novel villain, so I find the repetition easier to overlook.
Why do all romance novel villains have to be ugly, by the way? Are only ugly people bad? If the villain is good-looking, you can bet that somewhere down the line he’s going to get his own love story. Hmmm. Maybe this deserves an entry about lookism in romance novels….
Yeah, you know, I did notice that Schone created other gay villains. At about that point I stopped reading her entirely. I’d feel the same way about somebody who consistently made, say, black people the villains. And it’s not just that they’re bad guys, they’re presented as really, really evil men. I’m not sure if she was conscious of what she was doing. Many authors have particular “types†they like villainize. I’ve noticed that Patricia Gaffney, for instance, likes her bad guys kind of thick-necked and beefy. Not all, but many of her villains kind of look like bulls on two legs. But then her bad guys also tend to have a bit more depth than the average romance novel villain, so I find the repetition easier to overlook.
Why do all romance novel villains have to be ugly, by the way? Are only ugly people bad? If the villain is good-looking, you can bet that somewhere down the line he’s going to get his own love story. Hmmm. Maybe this deserves an entry about lookism in romance novels….
Your comment on the physically ugly heros is interesting, because the first thing that popped into my head is Iago, who was beauty personified. He used his physical appeal to turn people against the less-attractive and therefore scary Othello. That kind of dichotomy (beauty is evil; ugliness is genuine and therefore pure)is rarely used in a romance novel, probably because if the reader is identifying with both the hero and the heroine, as some suggest, then both have to be attractive. Are there novels out there that have a rather unattractive hero, and a handsome male villain?
There are a few notable exceptions of heroes who are phsycially maimed, disfigured, or afflicted in some way that I can think of. But usually their injury is paired with a emotional wound of some sort that the heroine heals (of course) thus setting up a parallel that implies, in my opinion, that the heroine heals the hero completely, allowing the reader to envision the hero without imperfection.
As far as an erotic romance novelist creating gay heroes, it might be subconscious on her part (which is not an excuse) since her underlying rhetoric revolves around the idea of a healthy, satisfying, erotic sexual relationship between the hero and heroine. This in no way excuses her use of homosexuality as a signifier of evil, but in a twisted way it makes sense that she would parallel homosexual intercourse as the opposite and therefore the antagonist to heterosexual intercourse.
Your comment on the physically ugly heros is interesting, because the first thing that popped into my head is Iago, who was beauty personified. He used his physical appeal to turn people against the less-attractive and therefore scary Othello. That kind of dichotomy (beauty is evil; ugliness is genuine and therefore pure)is rarely used in a romance novel, probably because if the reader is identifying with both the hero and the heroine, as some suggest, then both have to be attractive. Are there novels out there that have a rather unattractive hero, and a handsome male villain?
There are a few notable exceptions of heroes who are phsycially maimed, disfigured, or afflicted in some way that I can think of. But usually their injury is paired with a emotional wound of some sort that the heroine heals (of course) thus setting up a parallel that implies, in my opinion, that the heroine heals the hero completely, allowing the reader to envision the hero without imperfection.
As far as an erotic romance novelist creating gay heroes, it might be subconscious on her part (which is not an excuse) since her underlying rhetoric revolves around the idea of a healthy, satisfying, erotic sexual relationship between the hero and heroine. This in no way excuses her use of homosexuality as a signifier of evil, but in a twisted way it makes sense that she would parallel homosexual intercourse as the opposite and therefore the antagonist to heterosexual intercourse.
Interesting idea, Sarah. So is there a significance in Schone’s anal sex scenes between the hero and the heroine?
Shirlee Busbee used handsome villains back in the ‘80’s, basically taking from the “Iago” concept. I do think when it comes to good v. evil, romance novels tend to stick to clearcut visuals. Does that make sense? I think it is probably a disservice to most readers.
Interesting idea, Sarah. So is there a significance in Schone’s anal sex scenes between the hero and the heroine?
Shirlee Busbee used handsome villains back in the ‘80’s, basically taking from the “Iago” concept. I do think when it comes to good v. evil, romance novels tend to stick to clearcut visuals. Does that make sense? I think it is probably a disservice to most readers.
One book immediate comes to mind that has a plain-looking, commoner hero and a good-looking, aristocratic villain: The Miller Takes A Wife by Sheri Cobb South. But then the villain, Lord Waverly, is given his own love story in the third book in the series, French Leave. And if I recall correctly, he’s not OMG EVIL either.
Other authors, like Loretta Chase, created villains who were beautiful and really, really charming. The heroes were still handsome, of course, but the villains were REALLY good-looking. And they got their own books too.
If a villain is ugly, I know he’s going to die at the end of the book. If a villain is good-looking and young enough to still get his thang on, I know there’s a good chance he’ll get his own book down the line.
One book immediate comes to mind that has a plain-looking, commoner hero and a good-looking, aristocratic villain: The Miller Takes A Wife by Sheri Cobb South. But then the villain, Lord Waverly, is given his own love story in the third book in the series, French Leave. And if I recall correctly, he’s not OMG EVIL either.
Other authors, like Loretta Chase, created villains who were beautiful and really, really charming. The heroes were still handsome, of course, but the villains were REALLY good-looking. And they got their own books too.
If a villain is ugly, I know he’s going to die at the end of the book. If a villain is good-looking and young enough to still get his thang on, I know there’s a good chance he’ll get his own book down the line.
Whoops, hit that Submit button a bit too fast. Anyway, I just have one more bit to add: Romance novels parallel fairy tales when it comes to the HEA ending, and also in the concept that no matter what, good is rewarded and evil is punished. But fairy tales also use the same visual cues we’re talking about: the wicked stepmother and the mean stepsisters are always ugly, while the beleaguered, virtuous heroine is always beautiful. The greater the virtue, the greater the beauty. Most romances conform quite closely with this particular fairy-tale tradition as well. It’s kind of a “no such thing as too much” mentality. If a person is good, well hell, make ‘em a raving beauty as well. If a person is wicked, why not give him a hunchback, bad teeth and a flaming case of herpes?
Whoops, hit that Submit button a bit too fast. Anyway, I just have one more bit to add: Romance novels parallel fairy tales when it comes to the HEA ending, and also in the concept that no matter what, good is rewarded and evil is punished. But fairy tales also use the same visual cues we’re talking about: the wicked stepmother and the mean stepsisters are always ugly, while the beleaguered, virtuous heroine is always beautiful. The greater the virtue, the greater the beauty. Most romances conform quite closely with this particular fairy-tale tradition as well. It’s kind of a “no such thing as too much” mentality. If a person is good, well hell, make ‘em a raving beauty as well. If a person is wicked, why not give him a hunchback, bad teeth and a flaming case of herpes?
You want a hetero child-molesting villain? Try Mary Jo Putney’s SILK AND SHADOWS. He even own his own underaged girl brothel ( among other sins).