Heavy D and the Hero

Bitchin' Blog Posts

by SB Sarah | by SB Sarah | November 14, 2011 | Monday at 7:00 pm | 111 Comments

I started this post on 25 October, and put it aside because I wasn’t sure what I wanted to say. In mid-October, I put Heavy D’s “Now That We’ve Found Love” on my running mix and was thinking about the song and how much I liked it (and Heavy D) while I was out one day. Heavy D died unexpectedly on 8 November at age 44, and the news headline made me remember this post and that I’d never finished it. While I’m still not sure that I made every point I wanted to make (my train of thought while out running moves long the lines of Huh. Heavy D. Romance heroes. Why not heavy D heroes? …. Squirrel! Treebranch… manhole cover. Hi doggy! …. Romance heroes. Huh? ) I am still thinking about this topic, and wanted to ask your opinion.

While listening to Heavy D tell me about how he’s found love, I got to wondering whether we’ll ever see heroes who don’t fit a physical ideal - a super hard muscular one. There are built heroes and slender heroes, but even the slender heroes, once they take their shirts off, are described in such a way that almost always mentions muscles. I’ve read runner heroes and swimmer heroes and the absolutely physically astonishing Navy SEAL heroes, whose muscles have muscles of their own. The image of romance heroes is pretty darn sculpted much of the time.

Many hero descriptions include specific mentions of broad chests, narrow hips, defined arms or abs, or all of the above. In some romances, it seems like the heroine was undressing the Incredible Hulk, what with some of the descriptions that made the hero seem larger than life.

For fun, I searched Google:Books for romance author names, like “Catherine Coulter” or “Kathleen Woodiwiss” alongside the word “muscles” and looked at the sample text that appeared.

“His muscles were well honed to a vibrant hardness.” - A Season Beyond a Kiss, Kathleen Woodiwiss, 2001.

“The full length of her thigh was pressed to the granite-hard muscles of his.” - The Flame and the Flower, Kathleen Woodiwiss, 1972.

“The shirt lay open to the middle of his muscular chest, revealing sun-bronzed skin…” - The Elusive Flame, Kathleen Woodiwiss, 1999.

“He was well made, looked to be as strong as Prince, her grandfather’s most vicious wolfhound, his muscles stark and hard.” The Penwyth Curse, Catherine Coulter, 2003.

And it’s not just the romance authors whose careers have spanned decades who I searched for. I was curious about some of the more recent popular authors, too, in my highly and completely un-scientific searching.

“His chest was pure muscle, the kind that came from fighting thoroughbred horses for mastery, day after day. Even in the waning light, she could see that his shoulders were enormous, his arms rippled with muscles as he loosely held the reins. He was turned to the side, slightly away from her, so she could see how the muscles marched down his broad back.” The Lady Most Likely, Julia Quinn, Eloisa James, Connie Brockway, 2010.

“He undid the buttons on his shirt and peeled it off, revealing a tight white T-shirt that showed off his firm chest muscles.” Something About You, Julie James, 2010.

“His chest was tanned, sculpted muscle, sprinkled with golden hairs. Not big, bulging muscles, but the muscles of someone who did physical work every day, hefting tanks around and lowering boats into the water…” - Crazy for Love, Victoria Dahl, 2010.

And of course:

“His abdomen was ribbed as if he were smuggling paint rollers under his skin. His legs were thick and corded.” Dark Lover, JR Ward, 2005.

I could keep going, but you get the point. The heroes, they are muscular. And not just Down There.

I don’t meant to call out these authors as if they’ve done something wrong in their descriptions - they haven’t. Not at all. One of the odd things is that the cover model might not match the hero’s appearance - his hair or eye color, for example - but the muscles will probably match up in strength and definition.

The funny thing about that super, possibly superhuman, physique: it takes a lot to maintain it. Yet these super-muscular heroes aren’t going to the gym in every chapter, despite the fact that keeping those hardened and sculpted leg muscles and all those washboard/paint roller/eight pairs of parked Volkswagen Beetle abs requires regular maintenance. All that gym time would cut into the wooing time. And the business time, too. (Question: Was there a Regency GNC, selling protein powders and weight gain shakes for all these heroes back then?)

Anyway, these authors are successfully writing the heroes we read about, and continue to read about, ostensibly giving us, the readers, what we want: really finely sculpted specimens of manly manhood with extra muscles of manfulness on the side (and back, and legs, etc).

There seems to be a very wide chasm between the depictions of heroes in romances, and men like Heavy D, and other men of size. Or just men of different sizes. I mean, come on, Heavy D found love, right? He sang about it (over and over and over. Seriously that song has, like, 14 repeats of the chorus). Heavy D was a stumbling, bumbling overweight lover (though I have NO idea why he’s dancing in a raincoat in that video).

And most men don’t match that described muscled ideal. Men gain weight in different places than women - often in the stomach area (though for some reason as they age, many men lose their asses. Where the hell do they go, anyway?). Most of the fathers and husbands I know are not super muscly. They aren’t physical ideals as defined by the romance genre, but they are, some of them, pretty hot. And their wives and partners and girlfriends love them.

If part of the underlying message of romance is that the hero and heroine aren’t idealized images of perfection, and are instead two people with human flaws who are perfect for each other, why are the heroes continually ripped and cut into muscled ideals? I know the muscular descriptions are ways to reinforce the virility of the hero, but are there other models of heroic proportion we could embrace as readers?

We’re seeing more heroines of different sizes, slowly but surely. Would we accept a hero who isn’t muscled and physically ideal?

I would like to think so. Have a look at this Tumblr blog of romance authors posting pictures of their real-life husbands and partners: Romance Authors Present: The Sexiest Men Alive. Some of them are truly adorable and gorgeous and funny (I love the expression on Daisy Harris’ husband’s face). But these are real men with real bodies, many without the stark hard muscles of rippling, granite-hard hardness.

So do we want to cross that chasm between the romance depiction and the shaped varieties of they actual human male body? What descriptions would we as readers welcome, and conversely, what would repel us?

Filed: General Bitching, Random Musings

Tagged: weight, paranormal, muscles, historical, heroes, heavy d, contemporary

| |

Madd said on 11.14.11 at 07:23 PM • [link]

I could swear I read a romance, or was it erotica?, where the hero was describes as being “stout” and he was described as being softer than the heroine was used to. Damn my vague memory.
Kristen A. said on 11.14.11 at 07:32 PM • [link]

I think I remember that although many of Vicki Lewis Thompson’s nerd series heroes like to work out to clear their heads when wrestling with a difficult programming problem or something (for some of them its believable, or at least obviously necessary for the story, for others not so much), the hero of The Nerd Who Loved Me is described as being kind of soft around the middle. Also hung like a horse. But at least there wasn’t any attempt to shoe-in a way for an accountant to be pumping iron on a daily basis.
Juanita Olson said on 11.14.11 at 07:34 PM • [link]

Maybe as authors we need to describe our heros more like the men in our lives. Men have problems with their self image too. I’ve seen men of all sizes with a woman clinging to their arms and eyes filled with love. Which means make our heros more human and believable. Your right for these men to have the bodies that are described, the men would not have time for anything else. I would not be happy if my guy didn’t have time for me. LOL. As women we are constantly telling the world to accept us as we really are and maybe it is time for men to demand that also.
Antje said on 11.14.11 at 07:35 PM • [link]

I actually can’t stand overly-muscled men. All those “cords” and bulging muscles take me out of the book. I wish the authors would stop beefing their heroes up.
Lauren Willig said on 11.14.11 at 07:36 PM • [link]

I’ve been fascinated by the response to the hero of my last book, “The Orchid Affair”—he’s medium height, wears glasses, has two kids, and he’s a lawyer (so, let’s face it, there isn’t much musculature happening). I’ve gotten a lot of mail telling me how nice it is to have an ordinary hero, with particular enthusiasm for the fact that he wears glasses. Who knew?

So I’d say that we are ready to embrace heroes that we could actually embrace, the ones with extraordinary hearts and ordinary physiques.
corina said on 11.14.11 at 07:46 PM • [link]

In one of Eloisa James’ Duchess books (too lazy to get up and look for it) the hero starts out an alcoholic who has a pronounced belly and I believe is described as overall being soft. Of course, by the time the HEA rolls around he’s off the sauce and has gained the traditional romance hero musculature.

The only other hero I can remember with an acknowledged imperfect physique is in a Heidi Cullinan book (Double Blind, she writes m/m and sometimes m/m/m/m) where one of the heroes had a little bit of a belly because he was in his thirties and didn’t have time to spend hours in the gym every day keeping it away. I thought that was a really sweet detail, especially seen through the adoring eyes of his boyfriend.

I admit that in my romantic fiction I like my heroes on the fantastical side, but I would like to read some more realistic bodies as well. If nothing else, I’d think it would be a fun challenge for an author to make a love scene HOT with two imperfect bodies.
Kim in Hawaii said on 11.14.11 at 07:48 PM • [link]

I estimate 75 percent of military men are “ordinary.” While they do have to meet a physical standard, not all have bulging muscles.

I’m all for “ordinary” heroes and heroines!
Isabel C. said on 11.14.11 at 07:56 PM • [link]

Different body types? Sure—I’m more inclined toward Bowie than Ahnold, myself. “Realistic” bodies…depends on what you mean by realistic. Decent-shape-but-no-rippling-muscles? Sure.

But…well, first of all, romantic relationships require sexual attraction, at least for me, and that requires a partner who makes *some* effort to take care of his appearance. Larry the Cable Guy, George from Seinfeld, Steve from Sex in the City…no. Furthermore, hell no.

I guess my middle ground is that the guy has to look something the guys I’d date RL—and I’m cheerfully shallow about that. After all, my *mom* has a great personality and a keen intellect. ;)
snarkhunter said on 11.14.11 at 07:57 PM • [link]

I love that tumblr. It’s brought a bit old smile to my face.

Now back to the “I can’t believe you just said that” paper-grading grimace.
Isabel C. said on 11.14.11 at 07:58 PM • [link]

Also? I’m so not worried about guys being overly concerned about their appearances. In my experience as a fairly-recently-single girl, most of ‘em could stand to worry a little *more*.
darlynne said on 11.14.11 at 08:07 PM • [link]

I loved the paint roller description the first time I read it, but the only way someone can look like Dolvett Quince on The Biggest Loser is to work out all day, every day. Which is not to say he can’t have a life, but his life would have to be hard physical work all the time. Come to think of it, why aren’t there more construction worker heroes?

Do we need the microscopic level of description that permeates romantic fiction? How about a less-is-more philosophy and let the reader imagine the rest? I am tired of continual and over-the-top references to bulging muscles, piercing eyes, thick hair and ginormous mighty wangs. While physical attraction may be what starts the fire, it is the person underneath that keeps it banked and glowing.
becca said on 11.14.11 at 08:10 PM • [link]

at least in the In Death books, we’re shown Eve and Roarke working out, sometimes for multiple hours. Of course, Roarke doesn’t seem to sleep much either…

I agree - I prefer the “ordinary” heroes to the overly-muscled, which to me can look/sound more freakish than sexy.
Anna the Piper said on 11.14.11 at 08:13 PM • [link]

A lot of readers talk about how romance novel covers embarrass them. Me, I’m in a somewhat different boat: i.e., the constant parade of shirtless, over-muscled heroes on the covers is not so much embarrassing to me as it is just uninteresting. And by “uninteresting”, I mean “this is not sexy to me”.

How muscled—or how well-endowed—the hero is does not define his sexiness for me. I’m way more of a sucker for gorgeous eyes, or tousled hair, or a nice deep voice, or especially good hands—this last, especially, if the hero is a musician. :D Above and beyond the physical, though, what’ll REALLY make him sexy to me is if he’s smart, or funny, or brave, or all of the above. Bonus points if he is, indeed, wearing glasses. Because glasses on a handsome man? Yum.

This is absolutely why I loved the covers on Zoe Archer’s novels so much. The guys were all fully clothed, which let me exercise my imagination! I keep hearing that the reason we see so many headless females on covers is so that female readers can envision the heroine looking however they like, up to and including “like themselves”. But I really appreciate a cover that’ll let me exercise my imagination about what a hero looks like with his shirt off and doesn’t feel the need to spell it out for me. What is NOT shown to me is often way, way more sexy to me than what is.
Faellie said on 11.14.11 at 08:29 PM • [link]

His chest was pure muscle, the kind that came from fighting thoroughbred horses for mastery, day after day. Even in the waning light, she could see that his shoulders were enormous, his arms rippled with muscles as he loosely held the reins. He was turned to the side, slightly away from her, so she could see how the muscles marched down his broad back.â€ The Lady Most Likely, Julia Quinn, Eloisa James, Connie Brockway, 2010.

I just want to say that any man who has the chest, shoulders, arms and back so described from “fighting thoroughbred horses for mastery, day after day” is misunderstanding horses so badly, and treating them so badly, that I would have nothing to do with him, and would advise any other woman to have nothing to do with him.
Rachel said on 11.14.11 at 08:30 PM • [link]

@Anna

It’s funny you should mention Zoe Archer, because she is definitely the person I thought of first when I read this post. About halfway through all of her books I started skimming, because we were constantly being told about the hero’s perfect abs/arms/thighs/ass/etc. The heroine(s) couldn’t even look at the men without making a mental comment on their physique. It got very old, very fast.

Though, I do agree with you about the covers. I was happy that they actually featured clothed men!
Lisa J said on 11.14.11 at 08:34 PM • [link]

I agree with Anna the Piper, in that I don’t need a hero with cords and bulges and ripples, when I cam have great eyes and hair and hands (and possibly some sort of accent). I do prefer a little bit of musculature, because like Isabel C said, it’s all about the fantasy and the sexual attraction, but too much weirds me out. But I guess if I wanted to fantasize about guys in not-so-great shape, I could just look around the company I work in. Romance, for me, is all about the escapism, so I do prefer a-little-more-perfect-than-real heroes (hence why I do love Roarke so much). It does seem like some authors are trying to outdo each other, though. “Your hero has eight-pack abs? Well, mine has a *twelve* pack!”
EC Spurlock said on 11.14.11 at 08:34 PM • [link]

Personally I’ve always had issues with bodybuilder types; they remind me too much of all the ecorches (flayed bodies) I had to study for anatomy in art school. Plus, most of them only get that way if they take steroids, which shrink the wang like nobody’s business. What good are all those muscles when the most important one doesn’t work?

I’m with Darlynne, just give us a suggestion and let our imaginations fill in the rest. Jaquie D’Allessandro does this really well; I remember a hero of hers who was an architect; the heroine was initially attracted to him because she had a thing about men with glasses, and when he undressed she just indicated that the heroine liked what she saw and left it at that.

Capcha: ideas85 - There are at least 85 ideas of what the ideal man should look like!
Anna the Piper said on 11.14.11 at 08:39 PM • [link]

@Rachel: Yeah well, the glowing descriptions of physiques are why I do a lot of skimming in many romances, too. ;)

@Lisa J: ACCENTS! Also yum! And accent + musician = I will TOTALLY swoon. And if you have a romance or a fantasy novel with a hero who’s a Newfoundlander musician OR a French Canadian musician, so I can have accents AND music? I will break down the door of the nearest bookstore to get your novel as fast as possible. :D
Cynara said on 11.14.11 at 08:46 PM • [link]

Now, I haven’t been reading romance for decades, but I feel like I’ve just met my fortieth Regency rake who does nothing but whore, drink, and gamble - and somehow has a tan and those mighty, muscled thighs, etc. I would welcome some more variation, for sure. Somehow, all those body-builder descriptions don’t turn me on, and it’s actually starting to affect my enjoyment of the genre - thews, check, multi-gazillionaire, check, emotional fuckwit (I mean, haughty and brooding…), check. I mean, think of Dag from the Sharing Knife series - he wasn’t any of the above, but he was utterly awesome.
Quill said on 11.14.11 at 08:51 PM • [link]

Nora Roberts’ Vision in White has a geeky bespectacled hero, who is lanky and slightly clumsy. He’s my favorite in the series for just that reason.
Vicki said on 11.14.11 at 08:53 PM • [link]

I, too, have problems with really muscular men. Especially if they have tattoos. That just screams ex-con to me. When I worked with incarcerated minors, many of the nice, clean-cut, buff-bodied ones were murder ones. Away from juvenile hall, the really buff ones were generally doing steroids and their wives were in my office complaining of DV.

OTOH, I do like a runner’s body, long and lean with good (but not bulky) muscles, especially in the legs. Or even just an average joe body in shape from lawn mowing, hiking, rafting, and painting the bedroom.

BTW, Faellie, I enjoyed most of The Lady Most Likely. The earl seemed otherwise OK so I read past that though he was not my favorite of all the heroes. Too muscular and horsey.
Heather Massey said on 11.14.11 at 08:54 PM • [link]

I can enjoy the fantasy of ripped abs and broad chests, but increasingly I find myself drawn to heroes whose bodies deviate from the Beautiful People standard.

In fact, I have a story related to this topic. In November 2009, I wrote a blog post calling for more pudgy heroes in science fiction romance (http://www.thegalaxyexpress.net/2009/11/my-wife-is-gangster-nurturing-hero.html) as I had recently watched and enjoyed MY WIFE IS A GANGSTER, which features a cool pudgy hero. SFR has the potential for a lot of diversity and hero body types could be one of them.

Fast forward to May, 2011. Author Manda Benson contacts me and says that her latest erotic sci-fi romance, MOONSTEED, features a pudgy hero. Feeling giddy with anticipation, I read the book. Lo and behold, the hero, Vladimir, was *exactly* what I’d hoped for. And in the climactic battle scene he kicks butt in a totally awesome (and subversive) way. I can’t recommend Vladimir enough.

Here’s a link if you’re interested in reading my non-spoiler lowdown of MOONSTEED: http://www.thegalaxyexpress.net/2011/05/secret-ingredient-in-manda-bensons.html

Also, I got a huge kick out of Boggle, an overweight secondary character in PJ Schnyder’s HUNTING KAT. I blogged about how I would love to see him get his own sci-fi romance, and the author publicly stated in the comments that she would think about it! Fingers crossed, at any rate.

What’s great about ebooks is that readers who want more variety in body types can have them more often than in the past, provided authors are interested in writing about them.
Shelisa said on 11.14.11 at 09:05 PM • [link]

I’ve never been a fan of bodybuilder-esque muscles on a man, but I love a long, lean build with some definition rather than size. Every man I’ve known with that build, including my two sons, doesn’t do much to maintain it: an hour or so in the gym a couple of times a week, if that. The rest seems to be just staying reasonably active. Oh how I wish that worked for me!

I get really tired of the really built hero. I tend to gloss over the description and just picture him the way I want anyway.
Cyranetta said on 11.14.11 at 09:09 PM • [link]

Because I’m not really attracted to the Conan-the-Barbarian style of heroic body, I find that I almost have to ignore the hero being described in that way if I’m otherwise engaged by his other qualities.

If I were to think of a body type that I DO find engaging, the first one that comes to mind is Pierce Brosnan—love the long and lean and either lethally graceful (Bond) or charmingly awkward (Remington Steele in many instances).

As for the non-physical attractions, wit really engages my attention, BUT it cannot be malicious with, but the kind of wit that is almost a translation for “isn’t the world a wonderful place, and wouldn’t we enjoy it better together?”.

Someone upthread mentioned hands—oh, yes, especially considering how they can be used…
snarkhunter said on 11.14.11 at 09:20 PM • [link]

Nora Robertsâ€™ Vision in White has a geeky bespectacled hero, who is lanky and slightly clumsy

Oh, God, do I love Carter. I love Carter a LOT. I wish he were real. And in my bed. :D

Of course, it wouldn’t really work. I probably only love Carter b/c he’s me in male form. Clumsy, geeky, and an English professor. Except I’m short.
Alpha Lyra said on 11.14.11 at 09:37 PM • [link]

I’m one of those readers who doesn’t find a super muscled body to be a turn-on. I’m more attracted to lithe, wiry men.

I’m all for reading about more realistic (and more varied) bodies in romance. It’s not the muscles that makes a hero.
Bella said on 11.14.11 at 09:45 PM • [link]

I once read a romance where the hero was tall and thin and looked like a grasshopper when he climbed out of a car—and yet he was so stinkin’ sexy (and British—that may have tipped the scales). No muscles in sight, yet very swoonworthy…
Delphine Dryden said on 11.14.11 at 09:55 PM • [link]

Meep! Thanks for the shout-out y’all! That was a fun Tumblr to put together, sparked of course by a Twitter conversation. Any romance authors who have a real-life hero to add, feel free to submit a photo! There’s a “submit” button up at the top.
Lila B. said on 11.14.11 at 10:01 PM • [link]

Romance novels are all about escapism for me. I want everything to be just a little “better” than real life. The heroines sexier, the action actionier, the angst angstier, and the heroes bigger and badder. While I don’t really go for the steroid cases, I do like heroes that are tall with lean muscle. Love me some manly alpha heroes (who also have the wit and brains, of course).

That said, I do think there should be books featuring heroes of varying physical description so there’s something for everyone.
Becca P said on 11.14.11 at 10:10 PM • [link]

Not a direct reply to your question, but… my hubby is a BIG guy. I met him that way, married him that way and love him that way. While I love reading JR Ward, IRL I wouldn’t want to be in a relationship with a person that self-involved.
Anna the Piper said on 11.14.11 at 10:12 PM • [link]

I told my partner about this thread, and her immediate response was (and imagine this in Janet Weiss voice): “I don’t like men with… too many muscles!”

Say it with me, Rocky Horror fans: “JUST ONE BIG ONE!” :D
Delphine Dryden said on 11.14.11 at 10:15 PM • [link]

Also, as a side note…you ever hugged/whatever’d with one of those guys built like a romance book hero? It is like hugging a rock. Seriously. The husbo was about like that when we first got married…and I much prefer him cuddly, like he is now.
Charlotte said on 11.14.11 at 10:20 PM • [link]

My personal ideal romance hero: big, bulky with muscels, but not necessarily definition. Doesn’t have to look like Michelangelo’s David aka Romance Novel Hero Template #1. Just have big, broad shoulders. There should be fat over those muscels -the contrast between soft and hard, buried strength -yum!
And he should be taller than my own almost six feet.

That’s my personal ideal man, but when it comes to reading…
Mostly, I’d like variety. For instance, why does the hero always have to be tall? Can’t he just be taller than the heroine? Isn’t that the important bit?
And his physique should match his character -if he has David-physique, then he has to spend his time in a way that justifies that. If he is a dissolute rake: gut or gaunt. And let’s not forget that our physical appearance shape our personality and world view to some extent and that should be reflected as well. Character consistency is much more important than muscles. And if authors want us to fall in love with their heroes… well, adding ‘Dude has totally nice pecs’ is never gonna be the deciding factor.

I believe women tend to be less focused on appearance in our attraction than men. Looks have importance (of course), but I think competence is what really matters. That’s why hands can be so sexy. And that’s why Heroes almost always have it together - esp. financially. I personally tend to gracitate toward big men who are taller than me -but even I dated a guy who was significantly (almost a foot!) shorter than me because he was wicked smart and well-read and snarky and great fun.

In short: more variety, please.
Nadia said on 11.14.11 at 10:24 PM • [link]

Brings to mind “Blow Me Down” by Katie MacAlister: the hero and heroine meet as avatars in a virtual reality game, and she’s turned off by his perfect romance novel hero perfection. When she sees him for reals, she likes his average level of attractiveness. And in “A Hard Day’s Knight”, she mentions that the hero has a slight belly - he says he’s working on it, LOL.

Anne Stuart writes many heroes who are long and lean, not as musclebound. More than one mention of bony shoulders. Nora’s men are usually more lean than

Personally, I don’t mind less description when it comes to the musculature, my imagination works just fine. Sure, there is a place for the hard-bodied warrior, if that’s what the hero is. Or the guy who is very physical in a career or a hobby. But if there’s no real reason for the six-pack, you don’t have to go out of your way to mention that he has one.
Zoe Archer said on 11.14.11 at 10:34 PM • [link]

I’d also like to point out another factor in romance novels heroes: height. Even when we aren’t talking about massive paranormal heroes over six feet six tall, almost all romance heroes are described as being taller than other men—usually over six feet. For me, however, it isn’t he lionization of tall heroes that I find troubling, but the vilification and mockery of short men. I’ve seen it in books as well as films and television, and I find it infuriating. My husband, my father, my brother, my father in law, my brother in lawâ€”they are all short men. Does that make them less viable as men? Are they comical because they have dreams and desires and dare to consider themselves as worthwhile as tall men? It isn’t a choice for men to be short, but I refuse to mock and/or penalize them for our culture’s preference.
Isabel C. said on 11.14.11 at 10:48 PM • [link]

I’m also gonna be a little cynical here, and point out that Heavy D. was a fairly famous and probably wealthy musician. Yeah, he could “find love”; Billy Joel could marry Christie Brinkley and date Elle MacPherson; and so forth. Our culture does kind of encourage the Ugly Guy Hot Wife deal, especially when the UG in question has a huge, throbbing bank account.

Thinking about dudes in novels, I’m also in the “lean and lithe” camp. Height’s no big deal as long as he’s taller than the heroine. And I’m a lot better with what doesn’t get shown than what does. I don’t need a description of a flat stomach or thick hair—although I won’t say no—but I will put the book down if it actually mentions a spare tire or a comb-over.

@Lisa J: But I guess if I wanted to fantasize about guys in not-so-great shape, I could just look around the company I work in.

Hee! Exactly. OKCupid accounts are free these days, so…
Donna said on 11.14.11 at 10:51 PM • [link]

I’m with @Madd; damn my short memory! There was a book with an over 40 hero with an “H” name - Hugh or Harry - and the heroine makes note of his love handles with affection while engaging in an act of… affection. She loved that he was less than perfect, & I loved that. Cause you know the men my age, not so much with the six packs. Of course, 30 years ago I took one look at Brian Dennehy tending bar in “Ten” & went head over heels, so we know washboard abs aren’t high on my list.
harthad said on 11.14.11 at 10:53 PM • [link]

I’m so glad to see this topic, because since I’ve been reading romance, I’ve been floored by how uniformly the heroes have rippling muscles and ginormous wangs. Count me in the group that finds that weird and off-putting rather than attractive and exciting. We try so hard to be conscious about unrealistic body ideals for women and the negative consequences that entails, why don’t we do this for men? They have body image issues too.

I really prefer it when an author can describe the physical attractiveness of a hero without resorting to comparisons like paint rollers and salamis. What makes him attractive to his love interest? Maybe it’s the way he carries himself, or his confidence, or the sound of his voice. It doesn’t have to be all about appearance.
Asia M said on 11.14.11 at 11:02 PM • [link]

I agree with Isabel C., LOL.

I would welcome more realism and variety in heroes’ body types, but I really don’t have a problem with the fact that they’re all expected to be attractive, one way or another. I’m not a fan of cover models, especially as such looks are achieved through artificial means that do not even represent what these guys look like in everyday life (like, they have to be dehydrated before the photoshoot for the muscles to show better). I also distinctly remember thinking “yuck!” when I read the hero’s physical description in J. R. Ward’s Dark Lover. The fact that he is hairless was also very disturbing for me. I love my men hairy, and not too tall. I’m tired of the 6’3” romance standard. I’m 5’8”, hubby is 5’10”, and I consider that to the perfect height in regard with mine.

I wouldn’t change the base concept of romance that says, the hero must be attractive/sexy. But I would encourage writers to explore new and original ways to be so. I will never apologize for being shallow or a lookist, but when I can’t find my own definition of “masculine hot” in so many romance novels, I guess there’s food for thought.
Jane Lovering said on 11.14.11 at 11:04 PM • [link]

I loathe muscley men, IRL as well as in fiction. It makes me wonder, he’s so busy building himself, when does he find time for the heroine? And what happens a couple of years down the line, when she’s at home with the kids that they will inevitably have, being perfect and all - is he going to spend that time working out instead of helping at home? Or is he going to let it all go to flab and fat? Which is why the heroes I write are skinny and spare and have gorgeous eyes, voices, hands etc, all things that they are born with and don’t have to work on every spare second.
Plus, I don’t want a man who is twice my size to look after me and protect me, I can do that for myself thank you. Give me an equal and I shall be a very happy girl.
Jrant said on 11.14.11 at 11:13 PM • [link]

I would like to read more heroes with less than perfect bodies, or a little body-image anxiety. It’s not that soft bellies turn me on, but I’d like to see a hero go through the “Am I attractive - Why, yes I am” journey. (And not in a Lord of Scoundrels “You don’t find my broad shoulders and chiseled buttocks monstrous? Egad!” kind of way.) I’d like wider recognition that “sexy” is a complicated, multidimensional thing: washboard abs are nice, but they aren’t required.
quizzabella said on 11.14.11 at 11:15 PM • [link]

Mac from Nora Roberts’s “Heaven and Earth” is portrayed as more geeky than a muscley alpha hero. A bit of a beta to his heroine’s alpha.
In Jilly Cooper’s “Rivals” there is an adorable, clever character called Freddie who is unashamadly quite fat and gets his woman in the end.
I don’t have too many problems with overly muscular heros - it’s expected really, but I do sometimes quirk an eyebrow at the romance hero who has been half starved for ages and yet is still described as a hawt tower of rippling musculature.
Zsadist from the BDB series practically starves himself until he gets together with Bella, but he’s still described as being muscular and hot. Given how it’s made a big point of describing how much weight and muscle he put on after he gets his act together I was picturing Christian Bale ala “The Machinist” in his pre Bella days.
Zee said on 11.14.11 at 11:48 PM • [link]

I just read Dancing in the Moonlight from the previous thread (Free! Reasonably good read!) and one of the things that yanked me right out was a workaholic doctor with no hobbies—and a perfect body. Like, could lift a grown woman without visible effort perfect. There is only one way for that to happen, and I suppose being a doctor would improve access. I would have bought that he was strong enough to lift her, because, sure, testosterone does help muscle growth and a strong-but-ordinary man can lift me—but not without effort.

The icing on the cake was that the heroine was an Afghanistan vet who’d been doing her PT, so, legitimately working out several hours a day—but SHE was “soft” with “curves” and weak enough to have trouble changing a flat tire. (That might have been the prosthetic leg, but still.) I liked the rest of the story just fine, but I have a lot of trouble finding such blatant sexism sexy.

“Taking care of his appearance” that’s been mentioned up there is important, but doesn’t involve tons of time at the gym unless the heroine is into that. Sure, I work out (it’s fun!), but I’m pretty unsystematic about it and would never demand more of a partner than I’m willing to put in myself. I care about the clothes. A fat man in clothes that fit is a hundred times sexier than a built slob.
Ben_P said on 11.14.11 at 11:53 PM • [link]

When it comes to Real Men (tm) vs. Romance Heroes I definitely swing both ways. If we’re talking, say, romantic suspence with lots of action then there’s plenty of room for Mr. Ripped Guy with that improbable six-pack. (The discipline required to maintain that six-pack at mid-30+ is pretty demanding, btw)

Nevertheless, I think that anything that increases the diversity of romance novels is good. There are plenty of Real Women in romance novels. Yet we need more of everything: More single dads (Secret Dad plot WOOT!, more m/m, f/f, more less-sex, more non-vanilla… more Real Men.

Shout out at this point to Emma Holly for including Hairy Men and other Real Man Bodies in her books. We get to read about them naked too.

All in all: I am all for authors having the courage to take the road less travelled when it comes to all things romance.
Kris Bock said on 11.14.11 at 11:55 PM • [link]

I’m glad I’m not the only one who doesn’t like big muscles!

I’ve also noticed the seeming requirement that all heroes be at least six feet tall. I’ve always enjoyed men closer to my own height (5’ 6). Much easier to kiss while standing up. The hero in my forthcoming romantic suspense novel, Whispers in the Dark, is only 5’8”. Of course the heroine is only 5’2”, so he’s still taller, but not overwhelmingly so. And he’s muscular, but like a runner (which he is), not like a bodybuilder. (Hey, it’s my book, he can fit my ideal!)

I was somewhat disappointed in the Nerd book I read (though it was enjoyable) because the hero wasn’t a real nerd—he was just disguised as one. I know lots of adorable nerds and was looking forward to seeing one celebrated. I do like a man who is in decent shape, because it shows he’s active and has some discipline when it comes to eating and drinking. But bulging action hero types—no thanks.

Maybe these over-the-top bulging descriptions are a holdover from the days when Fabio was on so many romance novel covers, so you had to describe your hero as looking like Fabio, so they could use him on the cover?
PamG said on 11.14.11 at 11:58 PM • [link]

Sometimes, when it comes to physical description, less is more. An over-reliance on conventions of beauty can easily slide into clichÃ©. Doesn’t matter if it’s flaming tresses or abs like a steam radiator, first it becomes boring, then it becomes a joke on SBTB. I personally like it best when the hero or heroine focus on one or two things that make their beloved unique in their eyes. I am currently reading a mystery series by Ruth Downie set in the time of the Roman empire. The main character, Ruso, describes his heroine as having eyes whose color he can’t describe, only that it’s the color of the sea. Of him, the heroine only says, “He’s a good man,” and the author tells you very little more. He’s dark, he’s not too young, and he’s a soldier functioning slightly below peak condition. With minimal physical description, she creates an utterly delightful relationship and one of my current favorite heroes.

Aside from stylistic considerations, I tend to be turned off by descriptions of hard muscle. Hard as a rock sounds… hard as a rock. Who wants to cuddle up with granite? Do I favor chunky or chubby? Not especially. Firm is nice. Mostly though, seeing the hero through the heroine’s eyes, maybe described with a couple of Homeric epithets, works for me. In Kim Harrison’s Hollows series, Trent is not particularly attractive to me (almost colorless hair that moves on its own? Yum? I don’t think so.), yet because of Rachel’s response to him, I’ve always been convinced that he is the designated hero.

As in other aspects of fiction, I ask the author to put me in a fresh landscape (manscape?), trigger my imagination, and I’ll do the rest.
Brycanthe said on 11.15.11 at 12:03 AM • [link]

I would recommend Suzanne Brockmann’s Troubleshooter series. It’s not straight romance, there’s a lot of action as well. Most, but not all of the heroes of this series are former Navy SEALs, but they vary greatly in height, physicality and many aren’t traditionally attractive. I’m pretty sure one of them is carrying a bit of extra weight (I want to say Dave Malkoff, but my memory is fuzzy) and Mark Jenkins is definitely on the short side (less than 5’6). Dan Gillman falls in love with a taller, physically less-than-perfect woman. There’s a lot of variety for some very physically capable heroes.

Personally, I don’t like overly muscular guys and I don’t reject anyone simply based on looks, but I will admit to being a little more shallow in my reading. A physical description of a hero that included “as he took off his shirt, the sweat glistened on his pasty-white fat rolls” probably would make me want to put the book down and find some brain bleach.

Captcha: days16 - how long it’s going to take me to get that mental image out of my head.
joykenn said on 11.15.11 at 12:12 AM • [link]

Would they PLEASE give up the hairless, oiled, overly developed heroes on romance covers! I like a little bit of hair & a lot less definition on the bodies of romance heroes. And can they wear some shirts please. They’re too smooth and obviously spend all their spare time working out—not reading or thinking. The sight of slightly sweaty forearms of a guy who’s been building something turns me on more that the current covers. And, how about a heroine with Marilyn Monroe’s body—nowadays she’d be called FAT. Soft skin, smooth curves, a little cushy and she still makes men drool. Why I imagine she even is a size 14 instead of size 0 that’s required now. Horrors, she’d be sent home in shame to lose about 50 lbs.
Stephanie S said on 11.15.11 at 12:45 AM • [link]

I would be SO happy if romance covers showed guys who looked more like the husbands in that wonderful romance-author-husband tumblr! I’m the mother of a son, and even though I prefer reading paper books rather than ebooks, I’ve actually started feeling really uncomfortable buying the paper versions because they are SO objectifying about “perfect” male bodies.

I don’t want my son to ever look at my collection of (wonderful) romance and think he has to look like the guys on the covers - rippling muscles, etc - in order to be hot to women. And I know that as a teenage girl I sure would have felt weird if my dad had kept his bookshelves filled with books that all showed stereotypically hot, half-undressed women on the covers…
Sophie said on 11.15.11 at 01:01 AM • [link]

I find carrot-shaped super muscly men far less attractive than those with lightly muscled, slightly softened body types. I have to block out the physical descriptions in most romance novels (and the covers! Ack!) or I get put off.

I seem to be in the minority in also liking the idea of more romance heroes who aren’t taller than the heroine: I personally prefer tall men, but am a bit sick of the ubiquity of the HUGE man and TINY woman, him holding her delicate itty bitty waist in his giant hands etc.
Katherine said on 11.15.11 at 01:07 AM • [link]

I don’t pay that much attention to the physical description of the hero in a novel - unless the description is so florid that I roll my eyes. When I’m reading a romance, I build a picture in my mind of what he looks like, and part of the fantasy, part of the escape, is that he is hunky and wonderful and perfect. So yeah, doesn’t bother me.

(Now back to your value-added comments.)
robinjn said on 11.15.11 at 01:31 AM • [link]

@Pam G says:

Sometimes, when it comes to physical description, less is more. An over-reliance on conventions of beauty can easily slide into clichÃ©.

Yes. Exactly. Oh and alsoplustoo, love the Medicus series, whole bunches.

What I see happening a lot in romance these days is an over reliance on physical descriptions of perfection and an under reliance on using character and interaction in order to build sex appeal and romantic tension. Is Russ in Julia Spencer Fleming’s series described to a T? No, not really. We know he pinches his nose when he thinks. We know he’s quite a bit older and yeah, she thinks he’s well built. But there aren’t pages of description. Yet he’s still sexy as hell. I think too many authors have gotten way to clinical.

And mark me as one who is very skeptical about all these rippling abs, especially in historicals. When we see photos of renown “muscle men” in the early 20th century, they look flabby to us; hardly an ab in sight. Not only does it take a HUGE amount of a specific type of workout to get and maintain that kind of physique, it also requires a body fat of less than 10%, because you need extremely low body fat to draw the skin to the muscle. So you have to be working out obsessively, and also be very obsessive about diet and intake.

I go to the gym 5 days a week. I see lots of guys working out and working hard, but most, especially those over 30, have at least a bit of belly. One of the fittest guys I know (marathoner, works out at least 2 hours a day every day, varies up his routine constantly) doesn’t have any belly fat at all and *still* doesn’t have abs because he doesn’t get all overkill on weight training.

Since I see it as mostly unrealistic, all those “rock hard ripply abs” descriptions tend to throw me out of a story. If you want me to think a guy is really sexy, don’t tell me every last detail of his LOOKS. Tell me what he does, how he acts, how he treats her. That’s sexy.
Julie Brannagh said on 11.15.11 at 01:36 AM • [link]

Let’s face it: I like muscles. A lot. I had a conversation with our cousin Matt awhile back, though, that made me think.

Matt is a former Marine. He’s probably 5’10” or so, slender, with a great smile and glasses. Even more, he loves our cousin Paula and her daughter like whoa, and takes good care of them. He is patient and kind with his mother-in-law, who is probably one of the more annoying people I’ve ever met.

Matt: I’m not sure I like those romance novels.

Me: Why not?

Matt: I’m not one of those guys. You know - a romance hero.

Me: Oh, yes, you are. Let me tell you why.

It has nothing to do with what he looks like. It’s all about who he is. It would be a great thing if there were a few more real-life romance heroes like him, too.
Laura said on 11.15.11 at 01:37 AM • [link]

It’s funny that this topic is being brought up today, since I’ve been thinking about it myself this past week. My husband, Boyfriend as he’s affectionately known, and I are in our mid-twenties and we are real people. Even though Boyfriend hits the gym 3 times a week with personal training and could bench press me, he still isn’t as ripped as romance heroes are described. Am I disappointed? Of course not! Love and lasting relationships are never based on purely physical attributes.

One of the quotes also brought to mind the other half of my thoughts on physical descriptions of romance heroes, they’re always “sun-bronzed”. Boyfriend doesn’t sun-bronze. He freckles. . . after he has healed from an excruciating burn. I can’t think of a romance hero that doesn’t tan. We can forgive heroes in historical romances for not knowing about the dangers of wrinkles and skin cancer, but even contemporary heroes are tan. Oh well. My hero is pale, freckly, and a little soft and I couldn’t love him more than I already do.
Beth said on 11.15.11 at 01:41 AM • [link]

I donâ€™t want my son to ever look at my collection of (wonderful) romance and think he has to look like the guys on the covers - rippling muscles, etc - in order to be hot to women. And I know that as a teenage girl I sure would have felt weird if my dad had kept his bookshelves filled with books that all showed stereotypically hot, half-undressed women on the coversâ€¦

So true!
eggs said on 11.15.11 at 01:51 AM • [link]

I guess I come from the shallow end of the gene pool, cause I love the Hottie McHottersons that populate Romancelandia! As can be seen from this comments thread, everyone has something slightly different that floats or sinks their boat (count me in as being grossed out by hairless bodies!).

I think that one of the wonderful things about romance is that it taps into those passionate out-of-control feelings that characterize Young Love. Even when the heroines and heros are mature, they stare still portrayed as experiencing passionate love on that scale. Generally speaking, younger people are shallower people when it comes to what attracts them, so for many of us those memories of the super-lustful feelings of our youth are all caught up in the physicality of it all. The super-fit muscular hero description is an easy button for the author to push in order to trigger those emotions in the reader. It certainly works for me, even though I would not in reality prioritize muscles if I were seeking a new man.

On a final note, my husband works out on his boxing bag for 15 minutes before breakfast and 15 minutes before dinner every day. This is enough FOR HIM to maintain a heavily muscled physique as he is otherwise an utterly sedentary middleaged xbox-jockey. Being muscular doesn’t really take a huge time investment IF you are genetically pre-disposed to lay down muscle as he is. If you are genetically predisposed to lay down fat (as I am!) then it takes a massive effort just to stop youself getting fatter. So, I have no trouble believing these heros who have heavily muscled bodies with minimal effort - it’s 90% genetics and 10% effort. Sometimes I hate the unfairness of it, but you can’t trump genetics.
BrooklynShoeBabe said on 11.15.11 at 02:03 AM • [link]

Call me a hypocrite, because I want my romance heroes to be described in all their manly muscleness (like the Diana Ross song, I want muscles) and the heroines to be less perfectly sculpted.When I was dating, I was attracted more to men who fell in the Heavy D spectrum—big, sturdy, tall.
Maria Knops said on 11.15.11 at 02:08 AM • [link]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again (every time this topic comes up and I have the time to chime in), I’m not interested in reading about heroes who aren’t sexy. What constitutes sexy is certainly subjective (both physically and emotionally). I would encourage authors to play within the range they find sexy. So, if you truly think short fat bald men are sexy (and I’m not talking about one you’re already in love with, he doesn’t count—since this is FICTION), then by all means, write about them. Just don’t expect me to buy your book (and I buy a LOT), no matter how many awards and pats on the back you get for writing it. While I may get sick of kick-ass heroines, I never get sick of hot heroes.

On a related note, I’m one of those readers who doesn’t need precise descriptions of either the hero or the heroine. I actually prefer to let my imagination do it.
Tam said on 11.15.11 at 02:33 AM • [link]

This is part of why I love Eloisa James’ ‘Your Wicked Ways’ so much (even though I’m not overly enamoured of the chilly heroine). The hero is permanently rumpled and shambling with messy hair and a hairy, burly chest, and he’s running happily to seed because he’s a composer, not a Regency buck spending all his time boxing, fencing and riding manically across countryside (all of which are activities likely to keep Regency heroes in fairly good shape, mind you.) I don’t think he’s overly tall, either. And in the first sex scene in the book, he says ‘I’ll make this as fast as I possibly can’, consolingly to his heroine-wife. It’s a nice disruption of the usual romance tropes.
JamiSings said on 11.15.11 at 02:51 AM • [link]

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, I don’t find romance novel heroes sexy. I can’t stand overly muscled men. I enjoy good plots and writing, but honestly, if these men showed me interest IRL I’d treat them like a brother but would never sleep with them.

Sexy to me is a guy, who, like I’ve said before, is built more like Barry Manilow. Tall, more on the scrawny side, and - I’ll admit it - I like big noses and I cannot lie.

And yeah, just like I’m tired of tall women in romance novels - not to mention skinny women (I’ve read a few romance novels with fat women and with the exception of Bet Me, not many of the fat heroines are short, and I’m sorry but if you’re over 6 feet tall and a size 16, you’re not fat! I’m 5’ 3” and a size 22, I’m fat! I want some real fatties when it comes to my heroines just for once!) - I’m tired of these muscle men in novels too. Variety is the spice of life.

So bring on realistic heroines AND heroes!
Aurora said on 11.15.11 at 03:07 AM • [link]

I remember earlier there was discussion about interracial pairings, that some people, (me,) are for it, but there’s belief that if authors go against the norm so to speak they might fail. Perhaps it’s the same reason why authors stick to muscled heroes? I don’t find overly muscled guys attractive either. They scare me actually. I like guys that are either skinny or somewhat muscled. I also want to see more darker haired and dark eyed heroines, or heroines that are Jewish and not in name only.

Word: believe75. I believe that perhaps soon I might find love, but I hope not after I’m 75.
Cammy said on 11.15.11 at 03:12 AM • [link]

This is part of why I love Eloisa Jamesâ€™ â€˜Your Wicked Waysâ€™ so much (even though Iâ€™m not overly enamoured of the chilly heroine). The hero is permanently rumpled and shambling with messy hair and a hairy, burly chest, and heâ€™s running happily to seed because heâ€™s a composer, not a Regency buck spending all his time boxing, fencing and riding manically across countryside (all of which are activities likely to keep Regency heroes in fairly good shape, mind you.) I donâ€™t think heâ€™s overly tall, either. And in the first sex scene in the book, he says â€˜Iâ€™ll make this as fast as I possibly canâ€™, consolingly to his heroine-wife. Itâ€™s a nice disruption of the usual romance tropes.

This description brought to Jasper Renshaw from To Seduce a Sinner by Elizabeth Hoyt. I think that’s one of the things I adore about her books. Several of her heroes are of average height and average looks. Renshaw from the above book is described as having a very long face and puppy dog eyes. I always imagined him having a horsey face.

Simon from The Serpent Prince is described as very lean and elegant. I imagined him as a David Bowie type.

Harry Pye (ha!) from The Leopard Prince is not only a commoner hero for our lady heroine, but also medium height. He’s fit, but not bulging with muscles. I do adore her heroes.
Susan said on 11.15.11 at 03:20 AM • [link]

I read romance novels for escape. I know the heroes are unrealistic (as are the heroines), but that’s OK. I do realize it’s not real life.

All those ripped English noblemen? Regency gentlemen might ride, fence, or box, but most considered excessive physical exertion to be dÃ©classÃ©. Big muscles meant you were a common laborerâ€”they werenâ€™t something a gentleman aspired to.* Just as women wanted pale complexions to reflect their status in the privileged classes. And this was even more true to later periods, like the Victorian era. The portraits of these folks bears out that they weren’t all prime specimens of our current standards of physical attractiveness.

So, Iâ€™m OK with the narrow, overly glamorous hero mold. That said, who doesnâ€™t find Sense & Sensibilityâ€™s Colonel Brandon more appealing than that milquetoast Edward Ferrars? There are always the exceptions!

*Of course, those medieval heroes had to be strong enough to wield those ginormous swords!
Sandy D. said on 11.15.11 at 03:21 AM • [link]

No one here has mentioned Lois McMaster Bujold!

Miles Vorkosigan is short, his head is too big for his body, and he’s badly scarred and manic - and absolutely enthralling. :-)

Caz (in “The Curse of Chalion”) is described in less than flattering terms, too - as a middle-aged sort of guy. So is Dag (from “The Sharing Knife”). He’s in better shape, but not typically attractive, and he’s got that hook for a hand.
Leigh P. said on 11.15.11 at 03:29 AM • [link]

The male lead, Dreadnaught Stanton, in M.K. Hobson’s series (starting with The Native Star) has a very skinny, undernourished body and isn’t a hottie. Granted, he has a supernatural condition that causes this-though he is quite heroic. I remember wondering how it would all turn out when I first started reading it. It turned out to be very romantic, but he stood out from all the muscl clad alphas in most books.
Anna the Piper said on 11.15.11 at 03:31 AM • [link]

@Leigh P: DREADNOUGHT STANTON! I totally liked him—in no small part because his description totally let me envision him as played by David Tennant in my head, and this is never, EVER a bad thing. ;D

I very, very much need to read the second book in that series now.
Susan said on 11.15.11 at 03:39 AM • [link]

Oh, and to clarify the above, Conan types arenâ€™t my ideal IRL or in reading, but Iâ€™m not automatically put off by the descriptions of muscles in fantasyland. My personal type is the more debonair, sophisticate who may or may not be tall and have musclesâ€”Cyn Malloren, Peter Wimsey, or even Fred Astaire. I like grace, intellect, and humor. And IRL, the voice is killerâ€”James Earl Jones, John Hurt, Alan Rickman? Swoon.
Kit said on 11.15.11 at 03:56 AM • [link]

Bennett in Connie Willis’ awesome Bellwether is a geeky hero (although she focuses more on his lack of fashion sense than on his physique). And she has another awesome hero who’s absolutely perfect for this topic, but I can’t say who it is because it’s kind of spoilery. So everyone should basically go read the short story collection Miracle right now. I don’t think you’ll mind reading the other ones to get to the one I’m talking about. :)
JamiSings said on 11.15.11 at 04:16 AM • [link]

Susan
Alan Rickman? Swoon.

Ah - Alan Rickman, sexy voice, long sexy fingers - and another man with a deliciously sexy big nose.

Yep, if I was Roxanne I’d go for Cyrano over Christian any day. Thank you, Steve Martin, for correcting that story.
ev said on 11.15.11 at 04:45 AM • [link]

Alan Rickman. Nuff said.

Same for Miles V. I love Bujold’s books because he is so imperfect.

I tend to find a brain far more sexy than a body. Hopefully, the brain stays as they get older. The looks? Not so much.

As for men losing their asses as they get old? We did a study (informal of course) and decided it’s because they scratch them so much, and what they don’t scratch off, moves the the front in the belly. (And we did use my husband as the specimen)

It’s also the reason the suspender industry is still thriving.
Karen H said on 11.15.11 at 04:47 AM • [link]

I’ll chime in FOR muscles! I do like them and I like them on my novel covers. In real life, my ex was lean but worked out and my current is a true mesomorph and has the best thigh muscles even though he doesn’t work out much (my favorite scene from the original Conan the Barbarian was when they first showed Arnold by showing his grown-up thighs—still makes me melt). I also very much dislike overly hairy and neither my ex nor my current have a lot of chest hair, though they have enough). But on the cover I’m totally a fan of hairless and muscular and uncovered. I’m visually shallow apparently.

But like some other posters, if the description doesn’t suit me, I just forget it and imagine my ideal instead (see above). So we can all be happy here and that’s what’s so great about romance novels.
NCKat said on 11.15.11 at 05:08 AM • [link]

My favorite Regency hero is Freddy in Georgette Heyer’s “Cotillion” precisely because he’s not the rake, gambler, or whatever superhero types Regency heroes are - he’s a man with an average intellect who manages brilliantly. I can’t remember offhand his body build but I seem to remember he’s of slight build and medium height with mild features.
cleo said on 11.15.11 at 05:40 AM • [link]

Like a lot of posters, I tend to ignore the descriptions - I’m not sure that I even make up my own visuals, I just don’t care that much about what the characters look like - I care about how they treat each other and the chemistry and emotional connection.

On Jennifer Crusie’s blog a while ago there was a discussion of the hero in Manhunting and his mustache and how some readers just mentally edit it out. And I was like, huh, he has a mustache? I’ve read Manhunting many times, and I really don’t remember even noticing that to edit it out (and I kind of like mustaches).

@Kit - I was totally thinking of that Connie Willis short story too.
cleo said on 11.15.11 at 05:48 AM • [link]

I’m not sure about this, but I wonder if some of the dichotomy between normal bodied women and unrealistically hunky men in romance comes from the assumption that readers identify with the heroine and want to imagine themselves in her place.
Ducky said on 11.15.11 at 06:23 AM • [link]

Men with perfect gym bodies are usually very self-centered - it takes a lot of time to maintain that kind of physique.

I like a man to take care of himself, keep somewhat in shape, good grooming etc. but spend more time with me instead of in the gym.
Susan/DC said on 11.15.11 at 06:23 AM • [link]

When Sophie Dempsey meets Phineas Tucker in Jennifer Crusie’s Welcome to Temptation she describes him as looking “like every glossy frat boy in every nerd movie ever made, like every popular town boy who’d ever looked right through her in high school, like every rotten rich kid who’d ever belonged where she hadn’t.” Other than the fact that I understand from that description that he’s good looking, I haven’t a clue about hair or eye color or exactly how tall or muscular he is. Yet I think this is one of the Bestest Ever descriptions of a romance hero because, despite the lack of specifics, I know exactly how Phin looks.

I wish more authors did this, with both heroes and heroines. Can’t tell you the number of times I’ve read about the heroine’s “small but perfect breasts”. I’m a heterosexual woman, and unless a plot point revolves around the heroine’s bra size, small, medium, or large doesn’t matter to me—all I need to know is that to the hero her breasts are perfect.

I like muscles, but if a guy is so overdeveloped that his veins look ropey, that is not sexy to me. What makes me swoon? The back on the male model on the cover of Carolyn Jewel’s Indiscreet. How a man moves—Sean Bean in the Sharpe series or a young Frank Langella (never thought he was handsome but he could have been the role model for all those romance heroes who move “like panthers”). Intelligence. Thick (but not long) hair. Humor. And Percy Rodriguez’ voice.
JamiSings said on 11.15.11 at 06:34 AM • [link]

@cleo - But again, I don’t find men with muscles attractive. So that sort of theory doesn’t apply to me, or to all women in general. I, personally, find them ugly. Maybe it’s because when I was younger guys built like that were either very mean to me because I’m fat, or because the few who were nice were usually also gay. (And many were both mean and gay.)

Or maybe it’s because I’m just not wired that way.

I don’t know. I just know I imagine myself with a man who’s tall and scrawny more often than a man who looks like Mr. Universe.

Oh, and one more edit, working in the library I’ve met many men, granted, older men who can no longer handle the stairs down into adult fiction, who check out and read romance novels. I bet they’d enjoy seeing some men who are not society’s standard of hunky the same way a lot of us women would like to see heroines who aren’t society’s standard of sexy.
trefoil said on 11.15.11 at 06:37 AM • [link]

There’s a scene in Dog Handling by Claire Naylor (more chicklit than romance) where the heroine goes to bed with a rebound guy and thinks something to the effect of “Liz could totally see the point of chubby boys.” And yes! Exactly! The hero in that ended up being far more perfect, but I absolutely see the point of chubby boys. Medium tall, stocky, bearded—yesplease, and they almost never show up in traditional romances.

@Anna the Piper - you said Newfoundland musician and i went dizzy for a moment. (I think I remember you from the GBS msg board in the late 90sish!)

@quizzabella - I loved the storyline with Freddie and Lizzie in Rivals, because they were both so unhappy with their perfect partners.
Anna the Piper said on 11.15.11 at 06:41 AM • [link]

@trefoil: I am absolutely the same Anna the Piper who’s been frequently spotted on the OKP, though I didn’t show up there until 2000! Still though—yeah, there’s my epitome of swoon right there. Bouzouki players from Atlantic Canada FTW!

To date, I am the ONLY novelist I know of who’s written a novel with a bouzouki player in it. I’m tellin’ ya, anybody else writes one, I am so very, very there. <3 <3
Batwater said on 11.15.11 at 07:30 AM • [link]

While this is less on the topic of imperfect heroes and more about Heavy D, I have to say that I’ve been listening to a lot of his music since his untimely passing. When I put his catalog together (including the Reggae album he did in 2009) there was one ongoing theme. He wrote love songs throughout his career and that’s a rarity for a rapper. Kudos to Heavy D, “the overweight lover MC.”
CarrieS said on 11.15.11 at 07:52 AM • [link]

Maybe SciFi/Fantasy is the testing ground for non-muscled heroes. Of course there’s tons who are built, but in addition to Miles V and my beloved Connie Willis guys, there’s Antryg Windrose from the Barbara Hambly books - he’s skinny but hot, and his books are way full of romance. Ged from the Earthsea books may not be a romance hero but I sure had a big old crush on him, and David Tennant is skinny (pardon me while I swoon over David for a while…OK, I’m back.)
trefoil said on 11.15.11 at 07:55 AM • [link]

@Anna the Piper—Small internets! I was a total lurker, and haven’t been on since about 2002.

I am now trying to track down your book. Bouzouki love! My Nanowrimo novel has a (very) minor character who’s a fiddler, almost entirely because of a recent encounter with a PEI fiddle player. I may expand this to a full east coast band…
Anna the Piper said on 11.15.11 at 07:59 AM • [link]

@trefoil: Contact me off-thread if you want to ask about my book—my publisher has folded, unfortunately, so the only way to get it is currently directly from me. You can reach me at my gmail address, annathepiper.

@CarrieS: Yeah, I tend to see a wider variety of body types represented amongst SF/F heroes, that’s for sure. And Doctor Who is a particularly sterling example of male lead characters who are not necessarily outright handsome, but who are nonetheless swoonable for their brains and thermonuclear charisma. :)
CarrieS said on 11.15.11 at 09:07 AM • [link]

I realize that I have drifted far off topic and am now referencing heroes who are not only romance-specific but are not in novels - but we’re watching Deep Space 9 right now and Julian Bashir is fit but rail-thin and turns out to be quite the hottie, and don’t even get me started on Odo. Both characters have a lot of romance-related arcs. OK, I’ll stop now!
Mitzi Flyte/Macie Carter said on 11.15.11 at 02:18 PM • [link]

Real men are funny, intelligent, love children and animals. Real men kiss like there is nothing else on his mind but you. Real men laugh at themselves and with you. Real men hold your hand and put their arm around you in the movies. Real men are not afraid to say “I love you”—- often.

My “real man” is all of the above, plus he loves books, all music including opera (WFH?), Disney movies and Jon Stewart. He’s also a bit overweight, bald, walks with a cane at times and is 70.

Which is OK because I’m a real woman - all of the above including chubby, opinionated, cranky at times and 64. But we love each other and that’s what “real” men and women do.
ashley said on 11.15.11 at 04:46 PM • [link]

well I’m sure many women will agree that we don’t want to read about a hero with a massive beer gut, and I personally don’t care for short men, but I don’t need the abs to light my fire. I don’t need super muscly, but I definitely prefer it to scrawny, ie absolutely no arm musculature or definition. also, I wouldn’t mind if my hero was pale. and I’d actually prefer a man with chest hair, yet for years that was absent.
LeslieB said on 11.15.11 at 06:04 PM • [link]

@CarrieS Thanks so much for mentioning Antryg Windrose. That was my first exposure to a non-standard romance hero and it opened my eyes. Would anyone else confess to a love for Abishag Shaw in the Ben January series of Hambly’s, lank hair, tobacco spitting and all?
P. J. Dean said on 11.15.11 at 07:25 PM • [link]

Again this looks like a face-off between what readers want and what they say they want. Like a previous commenter, I prefer my heroes NOT have beer guts, etc. This is fantasy we are buying and writing. Readers say they want variety and reality but once it’s offered, few, if any, buy it. This goes for ANY deviation from the norm in romance novels. I recall readers wanted older heroines. A publisher put out a line with older women heroines a few years back and poof! it died. Same for interracial romance. People say they want to read it, but few really do. It’s seen as a novelty. I should know. I write it and have been told in the past by traditional publishers to be more mainstream and I may get somewhere. NO THANKS! The tiny audience I have, I like. They like me. I craft my work for me and for them. Readers make their tastes known by what they will pay for. Publishers follow those dictates. So, if you are not seeing what you want, stop buying what you don’t want just because it’s on the shelf this month.
Kristen A. said on 11.15.11 at 08:40 PM • [link]

Ok, since this seems to be in the trifecta of unattractive things along with fat and short (all my short male cousins are very cool and have really cool wives, btw, one of whom is taller than her husband), am I seriously the only woman who thinks bald is kind of hot? I’m not saying that a bald head will automatically make any guy hot, or even that all kinds of baldness are created equal. For example: receding hairlines and horseshoe-bald do it for me, bald spots in the middle of a head of hair do not, although it’s not so bad if the hairline’s almost back there to meet it. Completely bald depends on if the guy can pull it off. But really- Jose Ferrer in Cyrano de Bergerac. His son Miguel, for that matter. I wouldn’t go for Dan Aykroyd now, but in the late 70s and early 80s when he was about the age I am now, he was cute as hell and his hairline was already starting to get kind of interesting.

My best example of my type is Richard Marcus back when he was on the first season of St. Elsewhere in 1982, but the only pictures I can find of him are from the past few years since he was on 24, and almost thirty years on he doesn’t really have the same effect. But he was playing a mental patient who thought he was an eagle, and he looked like one. Not just the mental association with baldness, but the sharp features and the really piercing gaze. I’ll substitute a slightly less perfect example along the same lines, Sean Gullette in Pi:

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm387553280/tt0138704
CarrieS said on 11.15.11 at 08:46 PM • [link]

@PJ Dean - well, I have to admit I’m as shallow as the next person, and I noticed I could think of more skinny attractive male characters than overweight, possibly because I’m more attracted to overly thin men than to overly heavy. I agree with several posters who said that when it comes to description, the less specific the physical description the better, because you can project your own fantasy onto the character. Also, it depends on what I’m reading the romance for - a romance between, say, two overweight people might be very emotionally satisfying for me but not as erotic as one between two conventionally gorgeous people.

Re older heroines, aren’t there a lot in romance now? When you say older, do you mean 30s, 40s, or 50 and up? I noticed a lot of threads on this site have sung the praises of heroines who in are in their midlife or older - Jennifer Crusie has several.
PamG said on 11.15.11 at 09:24 PM • [link]

@LeslieB

I’ll see your Abishag Shaw and raise you one Hannibal Sefton. Bring on the TB, opium, and violin, baby! Love that series!
JamiSings said on 11.15.11 at 09:42 PM • [link]

@Kristen A. Hey, you’re not the only one. Patrick Stewart was voted one of the sexiest men alive and he started losing his hair when he was 17!
Kristen A. said on 11.15.11 at 10:18 PM • [link]

I didn’t think I was supposed to be alone in thinking Patrick Stewart was hot, but the way “bald” gets tossed around as something unthinkable in a sexy guy made me wonder if I was in a smaller minority than I knew.

My boyfriend says he started losing his hair around the same age, and I wouldn’t want him to do anything to fight it. And this isn’t a Pavlov’s dog thing where I find these actors attractive because they remind me of my boyfriend, because my fondness for most of them predates when I met him.
CarrieS said on 11.15.11 at 10:20 PM • [link]

As proof of Patrick Stewart’s ability to seduce everyone in the galaxy, I present three generations of women in my family - me, my aunt, and my grandma all had crushes on him at the same time. I think baldness is in these days, esp with African American men - Taye Diggs, Seal, etc. I think when baldness is unattractive is when men try to hide it. The comb-over is nobody’s friend.
kkw said on 11.15.11 at 10:21 PM • [link]

It took me a while to adjust to the romance sexy hero, because I have never gone for traditionally handsome guys, or muscles, or height, or…anyway. More importantly, when I first starting reading romance, the heroes were almost invariably assholes, which is also not what I personally look for in a guy. But that was the pattern, and I like patterns, so (this is so counter-intuitive) I quickly found it comforting to read about muscle bound, emotionally stunted, generally loathsome rapists living happily ever after.
I’m just saying. If I could accept old-school heroes, I’m pretty sure I could be OK with short, pudgy heroes too.
Jrant said on 11.15.11 at 11:02 PM • [link]

@Kristen A: Jason Statham. I may be unoriginal, but holy I nominate Jason Statham to the “balding and hot” category.

@PJ Dean, you have a legit point. Audiences tend to buy what they’re used to, even if they’re asking for something else. But what if the hero’s body-type wasn’t the focus of the book? I mean, when condoms began making frequent appearances in romances, I can’t imagine people started identifying particular authors as writers of “condom books.” And now condom use is pretty standard in most contemporary romances. As long as physical imperfection isn’t the point upon which the plot turns, would readers really say, “she writes great historical romances, but I won’t buy her because her heroes are too short.”
Jrant said on 11.15.11 at 11:04 PM • [link]

(That should be “holy cow”. I get so excited about the Statham, I sometimes forget myself.)
Kristen A. said on 11.16.11 at 12:03 AM • [link]

@PJ

Now that I consider it, my thoughts are along the same lines as Jrant’s from the opposite direction. The reason why I say I would like to see more nerdy-cute heroes but buy and read books with muscle-bound heroes is because those heroes are in books with good dialogue and good plots by authors who really nailed the historical setting (where applicable). If those authors gave me some heroes that looked like Stephen Maturin, I’d love them even more, but I don’t base my reading decisions that much on the heroes physique. It’s an annoyance that I can live with because I can always pretend that they’re in fencer-shape and not Hulk Hogan shape and somewhat less ludicrously tall, so ultimately I’m not going to base my reading decisions on it. Likewise, although a nerdy-cute hero might be a clue that I’ll really like at least one of the protagonists, I’m not going to read a book that otherwise holds no interest for me because of one. I’m seriously considering at least reading Vision in White from the library based on the description of the hero in a previous post, but holding back because of my total lack of interest in the wedding planning angle of the series.

In short: if I’m going to buy books about heroes that look the way I’d like them to look, there are going to have to be enough of them for them to show up in some books I’d like first.
Lilian Darcy said on 11.16.11 at 01:16 AM • [link]

Zoe Archer wrote: For me, however, it isnâ€™t he lionization of tall heroes that I find troubling, but the vilification and mockery of short men.

So agree with this, Zoe!

And agree with Jrant about Jason Statham. He only seems to have one facial expression, have you noticed, but heck, when it’s such a good one, why diversify?
CarrieS said on 11.16.11 at 03:24 AM • [link]

@Lillian Darcy - LOL! Daniel Craig (*sigh*) is the same way with having only one expression that just happens to work really well. Have you noticed that all he does is have this little pouty face? And when he’s REALLY mad, his eyes narrow, and if he’s happy(ish - because he doesn’t really get to experience much happiness in his roles) his eyes get bigger. I love his expression when he shoots down a spaceship in C&A - he looks exactly like I do when someone steals my parking space.
Lilian Darcy said on 11.16.11 at 03:38 AM • [link]

@CarrieS LOL back. Will have to watch Daniel Craig closely in future. For research, of course.
shilohwalker@gmail.com said on 11.16.11 at 07:19 AM • [link]

Oh, I loved this post…I’ve told my husband, and more than once, he doesn’t have to fit some romance cover model of perfection to be perfect for me. He’s my height-5’6, and I don’t care if he doesn’t tower over me and I don’t care if he’s not roped with muscles. I know he’s got great hands, and he’s got a wonderful smile and when he laughs, it makes my heart skip. I know he’s a wonderful dad, and I know he’s perfect for me…that’s all I need in my hero.

In books? Honestly, there are some books that I just either skim or just skip the descriptions of the hero. I’m sorry-I don’t want to think about the Incredible Hulk as a dude in the book I’m reading and some of the heroes are depicted that way. That just doesn’t do it for me, personally.
CarrieS said on 11.16.11 at 07:25 AM • [link]

@LillianDarcy - the things we do for science!
Lilian Darcy said on 11.16.11 at 07:43 AM • [link]

Wanted to add, to Zoe, I know a woman who is always sneering about certain men having “Short Man Syndrome.” It’s so nasty. I want to say to her, “Yeah, well you have B**ch Mouth Syndrome. The difference is, you could choose not to.” Really can’t stand it.
Lu said on 11.16.11 at 08:27 AM • [link]

Ah, the unrealistic descriptions for Romance novel men (as opposed to the unrealistic looking women).

In no particular order… there does seem to be a lot of the sameness for the Romance Heroes (as discernible from ordinary men). Tall, muscles, probably rich, optional trauma in the background, likely arrogant with an option for distrustful, muscles, irritating hotness, muscles, mighty wang, irresistible sex appeal… and of course, he will be with his Heroine, with her long, luxurious tresses (color variable) that never tangle, jewel-bright eyes, tiny waist… yeah, yeah - we get it already - they look Too Perfect, and that’s how we know they are the Hero and Heroine.

The cover art (which may or may not match the text descriptions) does NOT help this idea.

.... and those generic Romance Cover Appearances just a) don’t fit most real people and b) don’t do it for everybody. Maybe she doesn’t like him to be a towering giant with the muscles of Conan, and maybe Conan over there doesn’t want a twig woman with more hair than brains?

First, I want the books to have good plot, pacing, and dialog. I want the characters attitudes and personalities to be such that I can want them to be happy instead of rooting for them to get killed or stuck in years of therapy, or asking why all their money can’t buy a personality. I believe that it should be possible to do this without cookie-cutter main characters.

Second, not everybody has the same general look that they find really attractive. Some like the guys to be tall, broad shouldered muscular manly-men. Some may prefer lean, like a runner or swimmer. Some may prefer lean and not at all brawny, like Tm Curry (during the 1990’s or 200_’s) or David Bowie. Some may prefer less hair (clean shaven, no chest or back hair), others may like them with more hair - and not just on the face. Some like their ladies taller, some shorter, some want them ‘close to my height’. Some prefer longer hair, some shorter. Some people focus more on certain parts. Some want dainty, fragile ladies, some want curvy sex-kittens, some may want their strong warrior women.

I’d prefer to feel that the character is really attracted, rather than feeling like the author is trying to make me attracted, or sharing just a bit too much about what the author wants. Don’t talk about his stone-hard muscles bulging, talk about the heroine feeling all fluttery at the water running over his arms/shoulders. Rather than gushing over his gorgeous face, describe that she wants to run her fingers over his cheekbones and nip along that infuriatingly delectable jaw. I don’t have to be the one who finds The Guy to be Hotty McHott, SHE does. Make me believe that his appearance (however much or little it’s described) does it for her.

......... Or maybe instead, he ISN’T what she normally looks for - maybe she tends to prefer taller, brawnier men, but there’s something about him that she can’t get out of her head, and that voice should be illegal, and… and… and she doesn’t want to throw him against the wall and kiss him until he stops talking….

Maybe it isn’t his looks, but the way he acts, the way he carries himself and handles things? Just for an example - Patrick Stewart (and yes, he looks quite good without hair!) his portrayal of Charles Xavier was - he was great for the role, but I couldn’t quite picture him in a romance (more the ‘I think we would suit well, it wold be a good, sensible match.. yes, quite sensible, let us be content together.’). But Captain Picard - very nice… very, very nice. I could see him being VERY popular with the assorted females around his quadrant of the galaxy… Hugh Jackman - in X-Men, Wolverine was the sort of person to avoid - too abrasive, too… no. His role in ‘the Prestige’ - everything that you should avoid and might not have the sense/willpower to keep away from. Trouble, but the sort that would be interesting. Van Helsing… let me watch, but he had so many issues that you might be safer far, far away. Probably safer far away.

And my oh my yes can I understand about him having a voice that just works. Alan Rickman has a great voice. So does Ron Perlman, though he isn’t ever going to be considered classically handsome - that voice, oh wow that voice…

It isn’t always how he’s built, how big his muscles are, or how spiffy his clothing is. Sometimes you can’t even find the right words to explain it, but… you know that you like something about the way they look. Like Sam Elliot - I don’t know why, but whatever ‘it’ is, he seems to have it.

Make me believe that when he looks at her, she’s got IT that makes him sit up and take notice. Make me believe that she’s got IT - and that IT is more than a perky, heaving bosom, full lips and glossy hair. Convince us that IT is more than Authorial Fiat for this one is the hero, not that one.

verification word: myself82 yes, I myself could point out 82 different people or roles that are ‘attractive’, and they wouldn’t all have the same build. Some actors are attractive in one role, nice to look at but just shut up and stand there in other roles, and completely uninteresting in another role.
henofthewoods said on 11.16.11 at 10:13 PM • [link]

Suzanne Brockmann’s facebook page - she has a reissue of her first romance coming out and she notes the hero is a writer “who evidently likes doing crunches”.

I don’t think she wrote him that way.
jane f said on 11.17.11 at 01:33 AM • [link]

This post seemed related to this thread

http://jezebel.com/5854281/can-men-handle-being-ogled
rudi_bee said on 11.17.11 at 09:20 AM • [link]

ev said:
As for men losing their asses as they get old? We did a study (informal of course) and decided itâ€™s because they scratch them so much, and what they donâ€™t scratch off, moves the the front in the belly. (And we did use my husband as the specimen)

It all makes sense!

As for the actual question, I think I fall into the category of preferring less specific descriptions. Someone already mentioned Crusie’s description of Phin in Welcome to Temptation and I agree. It’s amazing and I knew immediately what he looked like but my idea was different to my friend’s idea and that’s fine. It’s called imagination and it’s what makes it reading and not watching a movie.
SNFK said on 11.22.11 at 07:12 AM • [link]

I read romantic suspense a lot, and if I find pudgy, unfit Navy SEAL, Green Beret or Force Recon guys, then I will not be happy. I also come from a family of military men with muscles, so yeah, they exist and they don’t only think about their appearance day in and day out (was it those “Real Women” who started the myth people who go to the gym have no personality?!).

Because we tend to put ourselves in the role of the heroine (which is why, I suppose, overweight heroines are on the rise), we have to find a romance hero attractive. I love nerdy guys, but don’t only want to read about nerdy guys. I have to find a man physically attractive, because a good personality alone is only a basis for a good friendship!

But when it comes to something like historical romance, well, Englishmen today are pretty small and pasty and nothing like the American romance stereotype, and they were complete dandies in Regency days. I’ve never found them appealing, and find it hilarious that every HR hero is some gigantic God with muscles in every direction – try tubby, short, balding and wearing some pretty funny stuff!
Jami JoAnne Russell said on 11.22.11 at 04:19 PM • [link]

@SNFK I take it then you’re not that into Sam Axe on Burn Notice? He’s a pudgy ex-Navy Seal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
Mary Morstan said on 11.28.11 at 03:52 PM • [link]

One of Lisa Marie Rice’s books (Dangerous Passion) has a hero who is specifically mentioned as being barely taller than her. Still broad shoulders, of course, but I actually liked that he wasn’t 7 ft tall, unlike her usual protagonists.