Smart Bitches, Trashy Books

I’m 10 days older than dirt, a mean ole’ broad and I read romance for things I don’t have or haven’t had in RL.  So fidelity is way up there on my list of “makes a book good.”  Even if the couple haven’t met yet, I want the book to be about them.  Another woman just makes me think “yeah, and as soon as I close the book, he’ll be wandering back to her.”  I’m cranky that way.

I know it’s not realistic, but if I wanted ‘real’ I’d read my diary.  These books are to make me happy.  And a man who’s Happy HumperPants doesn’t make ME happy.

I think this rule is breakable depending on focus.

Did you write it so he looked like he was having too much fun?

In other words a rule of degrees might be appropriate here.

This mightd conflict with having a hero who was sexually experienced which is another rule out there. Am I right?

I think either party being sexually experienced is OK with me, as long as the book is about the two characters we’re supposed to care about.

It sorta gets old school Rosemary Rogerish-Ginny-Steve-Everyoneintheworld if we know about previous and current humperinks.

Hoo-hahs are many things, but rarely are they magical. So, no, I don’t believe that the hero must somehow only want to sleep with the heroine as soon as he meets her. I’ve read just about as many books where the Magic Hoo-Hah idea worked as those where it seemed contrived and forced. “

March brings “Claiming the Courtesan” and its “out-and-out rape scene” into the equation though. I’m pleading with writers not to bring back the “rape in romance.” I just cannot believe in an “emotionally satisfying ending” after the hero has raped the heroine. It’s not edgy characterization, it’s not creating something new. It’s a woman deluded. We’ve been there, done that.

Couple things, just to clarify:

In my friend’s story (she’ll be along presently to out herself, I’m sure), the stand-in for Lord Humpinghershire actually HAS met the heroine before giving his mistress one final tupping and sending her on her way. But only once, with the meeting. Very casual. Found her attractive but somewhat irritating. Certainly didn’t recognize her as his TWUE WUV.

And in fact, the contrast between the heroine and the mistress in question seems to be one of the things that piques his interest. He’s a complicated dude, is Lord Humpy. Difficult. Conflicted. Which is what makes it a STORY and not a VIGNETTE about nice people doing nice things while they nicely fall in love. Zzzzzzzzz….

Wha? Huh? Sorry.

ANYWAY - the other thing? I in no way have endorsed CLAIMING THE COURTESAN. Haven’t read the book, have only read the buzz. In fact, this is what I say about THAT subject, right there on the blog post in question:

“Note: this is not an endorsement of returning to the bad old days of “rape in romance,” wherein the only way a nice girl could enjoy a good poke was if the hero took her by force. It’s merely an example of how things shift with the times within the genre.”

I have no idea whether I’ll think CTC is a good book, a bad book, or not worth my time to finish. My point was only that the pendulum swings, baby, just like the bell tolls. And these days? It sounds like it’s tolling for a shift in the “rules.”

As to realism in romance? Some folks like it. Some folks don’t. What say we make sure there’s enough to ready for everybody?

sometimes I wonder if it’s not just the judgey judgey folks who have issues with real life cheating/bed-hopping that they can’t stop themselves from being judgey judgey even if it’s a fictional story.

My thing is, people scream for realism in their fiction, but then when they finally get a realistic story, they scream “but I wanted escapism!” Well why can’t you have realism and escapism.

People sleep around. Even people who fall in love. And sometimes, those people (being human and all) make mistakes and have sex with someone other than the one they love because (being human and all) it’s human nature to fuck up. And sometimes judgey people can’t get past that. (and I’m being judgey too, I know. but I’m okay with that.)

If the heroine can forgive the hero for sleeping around after they met or got together, then that’s a testament to their love and the the power of open communication and moving forward(even in fiction). And that can be the most romantic part of the story, IMO, because the heroine knows the hero is human and she accepts him for that. And they live happily ever after. And there you go, realism + escapism = HEA. The best math on earth.

I’ve seen books where the guy sleeps with girls after knowing the heroine.  This is true for alsmost every May/December book where he’s known her since she’s 12.  But it’s true for other sets as well.  Doesn’t bother me at all.  Cheating bothers me.  Getting laid does not.

I sometimes think that romance authors have different views about what’s publishable than the “romance public.”

I’ve seen Elizabeth Hoyt say that for her first book, The Raven Prince, romance authors said that her hero was too ugly and had a temper so he’d never fly.  But readers obviously said otherwise.

I just finished Emma Holly’s Beyond Innocence, in which the hero has sex with another woman shortly after meeting the heroine.  Personally, I thought it worked well.  The author could stick in some hot sex early in the novel without disrupting the romantic tension between the hero and the heroine.

But then, the idea of infidelity just doesn’t bother me as much as some of the other faults that heros routinely get to have, like being an arrogant, condescending jerk towards the heroine, or being a generally violent person, or that whole awful, vile, revenge plotline.  But I recognize that some of that is personal preference.

No one likes a jerk for a hero, and like I said, fidelity is a deal-maker for me, personally.  Getting laid pre-heroine relationship, sure, maybe, but it doesn’t do anything to the story for me.

Again, I know it’s fantasy, and I also know that it gives me comfort to a degree.  So I like alpha males who are honorable, protective, heros etc…. Hell, a guy who gets up on the roof to fix broken shingles (so I don’t have to for the umpteenth time) does it for me!

Romance book men are like giant squids——- I’ll never see one, but I’ve heard they exist ;)

Depends.  How’s that for a cop-out?  If the sex happens before hero and heroine make any sort of emotional connection I’m cool with it.  In fact, it’s practically a cliche in western romance circles for the hero to have at least one encounter with a prostitute. 

(Off the top of my head Rosanne Bittner, Nay Ryan and Ana Leigh have written such scenes.  There’s probably a lot more but dang I’ve just had lunch and I’m sleepy)

Hey, maybe that’s why westerns are “dead”?  The prostitute thing is upsetting the fantasy?

CM and Mel have hit on the two important points for me:

1. People are human and fuck up
2. Fidelity is important

Caveat to #2: Fidelity is important to me once the H/H have made a commitment to each other, be it a legal contract or a mutual understanding. Prior to that, well all bets are off. If the hero sleeps with someone else ‘cause she’s hot, realizes that he’s an idiot and might have to grovel to get the heroine back, or the heroine must (and actually does) forgive the hero his stupidity, well so much the better.

As much as I like the escapist element of romance, a touch of reality never hurts. (Most) men are idiots and make mistakes - and so do women! I’ve yet to see a heroine that’s slept with someone other than the hero after meeting him in mainstream romance. But I’m sure that’s just flying off in some other direction.

My submit word is passed35. NOT QUITE YET, BUDDY!

I don’t see why it’s an issue if there’s no relationship yet.

In romance if it has an emotionally satisfying ending and is well written I say anything goes.

ANYWAY - the other thing? I in no way have endorsed CLAIMING THE COURTESAN. Haven’t read the book, have only read the buzz. In fact, this is what I say about THAT subject, right there on the blog post in question:

I have no idea whether I’ll think CTC is a good book, a bad book, or not worth my time to finish. My point was only that the pendulum swings, baby, just like the bell tolls. And these days? It sounds like it’s tolling for a shift in the “rules.”

As someone who has read Claiming the Courtesan (and I reviewed it on Dear Author if anyone’s interested), I think it is a bold and thoughtful book.  That it’s being called an endorsement of rape or an old time bodice ripper in various places makes the top of my head feel like it’s separating from my brain!  IMO it is a book *about* those old bodice rippers (a meditation on them, really), and one I found to be very impressive.  Oh yes, I understand that people hate it.  And yes there are parts of it that are oh so twisted (and self-consciously so, IMO).  But objectively speaking, I truly cannot comprehend some of the comments and reviews this book has gotten.  Hate the book and the characters by all means, but IMO it’s virtually impossible to read this book accurately as an endorsement of Romance rape OR a standard bodice ripper. 

More generally, I think there is a conflation of subjective and objective reader response with certain Romance novel scenarios and themes and characters that creates this knee-jerk recall of “the rules” y’all refer to them.  So the nuances of any *particular* book become eclipsed by a general fear or sense of discomfort that may or may not be directly connected to specific books or even the genre as a whole.

>>I’ve yet to see a heroine that’s slept with someone other than the hero after meeting him in mainstream romance.

Jennifer Crusie—‘Fast Women’.  Totally believable, and doesn’t affect the HEA, or the amazing sex she does eventually have with the hero, one bit.

Personally, I have extreme monogamy fantasies for romantic fiction, so I’d rather no one had sex with anyone until the H/h have sex, but I’ve read and enjoyed plenty of romances which went by lots of different rules, so this particular plot wouldn’t stop me reading the book.

Let me add that “what bothers me” is not synonymous for “the Plot that Must Not be Named.”  Infidelity is not Lord Voldemort.

Why shy away from conflict, if it can believably be resolved?  People change.  They grow up.  It works.

Heh. Barb, darlin’, c’mere?

That insane person who doth have her Hero humpintydumpin’ his mistress whilst fantasizing about the TO BE heroine-would be moi. There is no infidelity, there is yet to be a relationship.

And the mistress is a long time one-showing his fidelity to one person-but she happens to be a shallow bitch. Of course. Because I want you to luurve the heroine.

Behold, the Rules of the Magic Hoohoo.

http://undefinablequalities.blogspot.com/2007/03/magic-hoohoo.html

I know there’s some question as to whether the heroine can have a happy sexual past without regrets, even in a contemporary novel

Really? You mean I’ve broken a rule and I didn’t even know it? Damn.

And I’m not a fan of infidelity in romance either. I can’t imagine anything more painful. So, although the Penis of Potency is a true thing in Romancelandia, once there is bargaining/vows/intent I’m in the fidelity camp. Till then it’s all fair though.

Hmm. If my above post came off a tad jagged it was because I ws flying out the door and little people were screeching. It halts my thought process.

Imogen beat me to it on Fast Women.  I know I’ve read others where the hero sleep with another/others before meeting or before relationship establishment.  While in a romance I am typically expecting the pages to be about their relationship, I don’t have an automatic problem with heroes or heroines having sex with other people.  I agree I’m am not usually a fan of infidelity, but that’s not what we’re discussing here.

O dear!  I guess this discussion puts the kabash on my dreams of writing the great polyamorous romance of our times.

Eva, baby!  How you doin’?  Who knew, right?  The powers of the Magic HooHoo and a few Ranty McRantypants blogs.  ;-)

You know, ultimately, what this whole debate boils down to, for me, is that I feel every reader has every flippin’ right in the world to read the style(s) of romance that most makes their little hearts go pitta-pat.  And to shout out to the world, “This is how I like my romance and heroes, by golly!”  God knows there are plenty of styles out there to suit every taste, no matter how varied. 

However, someone tries to tell me that as a writer, I have to craft my stories and plots and characters in a way prescribed by some tightly defined set of “rules”— that only by following these rules will I have written a True Romance that is accepted wide and far, uh… nope.

I’m not in the personal wish fulfillment business.  I’m in the business of crafting stories that are well thought out (to the best of my ability) with characters we can identify with and hopefully like, even if they do some unlikable things, and ultimately, be happy with their ending, regardless of what form it takes.

When it comes down to it—I’m a storyteller and frankly, I’d get bored telling the same story over and over again.  And I’m also a reader and while I have certain styles I prefer over others, I’d get bored, reading the same story, over and over again.

Just my take on it.

but have you encountered this cautionary scolding?

Sarah, to answer this specific question, yes I have.  (And my women’s fic is of the contemporary variety.)  I never set out to deliberately break rules—I don’t know of any “rules” to break, until someone says, “Uh, you can’t do that.”

Why?  Yes, I have my people making choices—sometimes painful, damaging choices, with consequences.  I think this makes the ultimate resolution of any given story resonate that much more powerfully—if I feel that the characters have really had to fight to get to where they are at the climax (no pun intended).  If I feel that they’re going to cherish their resolution and treasure it and ultimately take better care of it for having gone through whatever trials and tribulations my twisted Girls in the Basement have cooked up for them.  But I only ever follow those impulses if it serves the story—never for sensationalistic purposes.

Naturally, I can’t think of any titles off the top of my head—wait, let me have some wine.

Still nothing.

However, I distinctly recall being an impetuous youth and reading many a historical romance wherein the Hero, after discovering the utter and complete fabulousness that is the Heroine, fucks all that walk in order to get over his illogical fascination with the chit.

The rule, The Pee Pee doth wiltith (or some such) around girl parts not belonging to the heroine was generally enacted around the time some viscous and slutty widow’s (really, is there any other kind?) boobs were bobbing around His face sending Him trotting off to emotionally brutalize the Heroine for loving a rake such as he followed by the obligatory Vagina Healing.  Imagine the kind of health care I’d have if my cootch could but heal like the Heroine in a romance novel.  Still, I say the attempt at meaningless sex should count for…uh, something.

Does any of this apply to the topic at hand?  Have I had too much wine?  Is that even possible?

I remember in a horrrid Beatrice Small book the hero was off sexing many women quite happily in between finding his heroine. I think he even had kids! But the heroine was raped instead by multiple men, and “enjoyed” it after relaxing! she ended up having her own little brood, also being kidnapped by sultans and pirates, etc….It was horrific. Made me spewish feeling. But then again Mrs. Small does that to me.

I doubt I’d have trouble with the scenario as presented. That said, with Fast Women I never did get over Riley and wanted him to be the hero! So while I totally enjoyed the book, I imprinted on the wrong guy. (I also thought heroine and non-hero’s sex scene was the most interesting sex scene in the book. I also thought it read more women’s fiction than romance in many ways.)

Anyway, there are costs to making different story choices, but sometimes the price paid is more than worth it, and sometimes it’s not. I kinda agree with whoever said, it depends :)

I see now I didn’t finish my thought process (A bit tired). So: I don’t really care if heroes and heroines are doing it with anyone else before they are together as long as it is not a rape on either end like in Mrs. Small’s books. Once the two are together, I most def. want it to be full on fidelity. I hate cheaters. On anything: tests, boys, taxes.

I’d almost forgotten Beatrice Small, read her once…too much rape & random fuckfest unto the heroine, never again.  When crusing bookstore shelves, my eye doesn’t slow down or acknowledge her books, yuck.

I read for entertainment, and since rape isn’t entertaining I’ll pass on CTC along with Ms. Small.

Consentual sex is fabulous when it moves the story line along.  But, at some point I expect a committment followed by some type of exclusive relationship resulting in HEA.

I guess this discussion puts the kabash on my dreams of writing the great polyamorous romance of our times.

I thought I already did that… Well, except they’re as much fantasy as romance.

Anyway, I am of the firm belief that there are rules that can’t be broken, but there are only two of them.

The Two Unbreakable Rules of all fiction writing are thus:

1. DO NOT BORE THE READER.

2. DO NOT CONFUSE THE READER.

That’s it. Anything else goes. Cowboys, hockey players, sculptors, magic hoo-hahs, or slutty ones. Hooker heroes. As long as you’re not boring us, or leaving us in utter confusion, you’re not breaking any rules.

Yes Gail, you already wrote it…and I’m impatiently anticipating the next installment!!

I feel realllllly dumb, but I swear I don’t remember anyone having non-HEA couple sex in Fast Women, except for Suzy and Evil Ex.  Who am I missing here?

On topic- I kind of hate non monogamy from the start in romance novels, because I read romance novels entirely for escapism.  If I want to read about real life, I will go read a memoir or something.  In my opinion, the optimal hero has not had sex for a while prior to meeting the heroine (the heroine, of course, is not a virginal ninny). 

That said, I would enjoy reading a poly romance novel, if someone would write it, and I would rather a hero that fucks others after meeting the heroine to all these heros I keep reading about who kill someone for whatever reason.  It creeps me out, especially since the soon-to-be dead guy is always 100% evil.  I don’t believe in 100% evil, so it doesn’t work for me. 

I don’t know if I could ever read a romance novel with a hero who cheats after making some sort of commitment though.  It would bother me far too much.  Again, there is a story there, but its not one I can read and still believe in the HEA, and my romance novels need a HEA.

I don’t like the idea of the hero sexing up another gal after he’s met the heroine.  I don’t know why - it’s just always bothered me.  It’s like his foot is in infidelity’s doorway…although he’s TECHNICALLY not doing anything wrong.

Well, screw technicalities.  I read these books for fun and fantasy and having him do some other girl after he’s met the heroine would just make me a little uncomfortable and take some of the fun away from the story.  It won’t utterly ruin the book for me, but it definitely does hurt how I view the book.

I may rant about this on Monday, but I hate the lightning bolts of lust in romance novels. Like the hero takes one look at the heroine and develops a throbbing boner, will do anything to boink her, yadda yadda. Likewise the heroine dissolves into a pile of wet panties and feels a strange desire building in her loins.

I’d rather read a book where it’s less…cosmic, more organic. They think something along the lines of, “hey, she’s cute” or “hey, I’d do him if he showered and shaved first.” That’s one of the reasons I love Jenny Crusie. I love the way she develops relationships.

What’s the point.  What does sex with a mistress show us?  That the guy’s an asshole?  That he has a really strong libido and therefore is worthy of the alpha male designation? 

The romance is about two people getting together and unless there is a pretty good reason to include a sex scene between the hero and his mistress, I don’t see what the point is.

Then I also wonder what the point of villian sex is - as if kinky sex shows just how very depraved the villian is. Ohh, look, the villian does it doggy style.  NO WONDER he’s into killing and maiming.

Not usually a fan of non-monogamy, but my fave BDB novel is Lover Eternal and the hero sleeps with another woman. It still worked for me in the context of the story. Mind you, I had to get a friend to read it first then tell me whether I could live with it before I picked up the book.

I feel realllllly dumb, but I swear I don’t remember anyone having non-HEA couple sex in Fast Women, except for Suzy and Evil Ex.  Who am I missing here?

Relatively early in the novel, Riley has sex with Tess to “get her back in the game,” to to speak.  It’s not about a relationship for either of them, but later, when Tess and Gabe finally give in to their burning lust, Gabe is monstrously jealous, because he knows about the previous thing with Riley.  In a way, that initial encounter catalyzes Tess and Gabe’s relationship, making Tess care once more about herself and her body (remember how she won’t eat for the longest time) and making Gabe consciously aware of his attraction to Tess. 

Then I also wonder what the point of villian sex is - as if kinky sex shows just how very depraved the villian is. Ohh, look, the villian does it doggy style.  NO WONDER he’s into killing and maiming.

I HATE the use of sex to demonstrate the villain’s badness, ESPECIALLY when it’s a villainness and she is portrayed as sexually promiscuous or predatory.  Just one more thing that seems to promote the artificial association of virtue with virginity, IMO.

Jane, the sex with the mistress gives the reader several clues about the character, including his outlook on women in general and a peek into his backstory and and level of self-regard.

Could the author have done it differently? Perhaps. SHOULD she have done it differently because a certain percentage of the reading population doesn’t care for heroes who sleep with others? I don’t think so. Just as many seem to be fine with it, just like many are fine with non-virginal heroines or trash-talking vampires or even “forced seduction,” if written well.

And many are not. So they don’t read those books.

Personally, I’m not a huge fan of shapeshifters, but I don’t suggest that authors find another way to express their desire to write animalistic warrior heroes with primal bonding instincts. I just avoid books with shapeshifters.

True, the average book with a “slutty” hero doesn’t necessarily have that plot point advertised on its back cover copy, so it can be a little tricky. But I think readers are smart. I give them credit for finding what they like, what they don’t like, and making choices based on experience.

Putting limits on creativity and characterization with artificial “rules” helps no one, least of all the readership.

And my spam-catcher word is “good11,” which I’ll take as a sign that I’m on the right track. :)

I don’t understand who is doing the stifling?  Write what you want and if it sells, great and if it doesn’t, maybe you have to rethink some issues.

I accuse no one of stifling. I was participating in the discussion. Making a point about how romance authors can be a little too worried about “rules.”

Although I did have someone tell me yesterday that the rules were the rules, and I break them at my peril, because romance is romance, dammit. And if I break the rules, then it’s not romance. Or something.

And I suspect sales have a lot more to do with voice and market than particular plot points regarding the hero’s sex life.

Robin- Oh my god, I should remember that.  I just read it four months ago. 

In Fast Women, the story felt organic and I totally didn’t have a problem with it.  That might be because Crusie is the awesome, and can pull it off.  I think the problem is that the best and most established writers don’t always try to fight formula, and the new writers are willing to take a chance, and they make all sorts of newbie mistakes, and then eveyone thinks, I hate this plot point, when really they just hate the author’s newness.  And I run on and on and on.

Jane- I hear you on kinky villian sex.  A book I read recently had the two male villians in a sexual relationship, which of course meant they were EVILLLLL.  Then there was another gay couple to be, but suprise!  One was a woman in disguise.  I was disappointed there couldn’t be healthy gay men to counteract these EVILLLLLL gays.  Then, to prove how EVILLLLL the eviler villian was, he was also bisexual, and wanted to watch his boyfriend rape the boyfriend’s sister.  Incest?  In a romance novel?  Jesus Christ on a bicycle.

OOOO a poly romance…I’m going to find it, yes I am.

Obviously, those things which we like to read reflect our own values and hopes and dreams about our relationships.  As my own relationships have grown and changed, I find myself less tolerant of some of the more predictable ways that “falling in lurve” effects the sexual apetites and habits of the characters.

And, dear gods, never tell anyone I sleep with that doggy-style is “evil.”  Lawsy!  I’d pitch a fit.

I rather dislike infidelity- including infidelity of one of the protagonists, with the other protagonist, because a previous relationship hasn’t been broken off yet.  Disloyalty’s probably one of the least justifiable bits of wrongdoing in my mind, and it makes me like the character less.  But I’m not going to toss an otherwise good book against the wall because of it, either.

The hero and heroine are both allowed to have had previous sexual relationships these days; I don’t see that it makes any difference to their relationship whether it takes place in the timeline of the book.  So long as it doesn’t pull a Romeo & Juliet and go straight from “Oh, I’m so in love with Other Woman, I will die without her” to “Oh, I’m so in love with Heroine, I’ll die without her.”  That’s what makes me think that two people will be bored with each other in two weeks.  (Have I mentioned I think any romantic qualities in Romeo & Juliet are entirely overrated?)

I rather dislike infidelity- including infidelity of one of the protagonists, with the other protagonist, because a previous relationship hasn’t been broken off yet.  Disloyalty’s probably one of the least justifiable bits of wrongdoing in my mind, and it makes me like the character less.  But I’m not going to toss an otherwise good book against the wall because of it, either.

The hero and heroine are both allowed to have had previous sexual relationships these days; I don’t see that it makes any difference to their relationship whether it takes place in the timeline of the book.  So long as it doesn’t pull a Romeo & Juliet and go straight from “Oh, I’m so in love with Other Woman, I will die without her” to “Oh, I’m so in love with Heroine, I’ll die without her.”  That’s what makes me think that two people will be bored with each other in two weeks.  (Have I mentioned I think any romantic qualities in Romeo & Juliet are entirely overrated?)

I have no idea how that double-posted.  Must have clicked the “submit” button one too many times, and I didn’t even know it could do that.  Sorry.

Judith Ivory broke this rule in Black Silk. To me this is the strongest and most interesting of her books. When my favourite authors break an “unwritten rule which shall not be broken”, I always wonder whether it was done deliberately. Certainly, Crusie must have known that she was breaking an unwritten rule. I also wonder about the conversations between author and editor (unless the publisher is Avon in which case I don’t want to know).

Jane- it’s not a full blown hands, breasts, throbbing members sex scene. I open the door as he’s having an orgasm, it was a hard won one for him. He had his palm read by the heroine, it turned him on kinda, and he used that imagery to push himself over the edge. 

The mistress is not the villian. And you silly girl, all Villians like anal sex. Duh!

I show the sex scene because it’s a character sketch, it’s who he is, how he interacts, what makes him tick. Because he grows that much during the relationship.

People will like it or they won’t. If I take the scene out, he won’t be who he is. All the rest I’ll leave up to my editor.

And please-I have a forced seduction coming out too-I seem to be stomping all over those rules.

Heh. tax13. Did mine already, whew.

Lin, I bet they didn’t plan on it. I could be wrong, but I was in my own little corner of the sandbox playing nice and it got brought to my attention. And I’m an e-pub. So they tend to push the envelope. But, I didn’t plan it, that’s for sure.

Eva:

Didn’t plan it? I agree with you - OK, I hope, hope, hope that authors write without consideration of the unwritten rules.

But once the scene was written, I speculate (totally without any evidence except the state of their careers) that Ivory was a babe in the woods and Crusie looked at the scene and included it anyway.

In any case, I despair when an author pushes against some unwritten boundary and the knee-jerk reaction is negative before the book is even in print. I hope that your conversations with your editor are positive.

I’m trying to remember whether Jervaulx, from Kinsale’s Flowers From The Storm, had met Maddie before the book opens on him right after he’s been in bed with his mistress.  And yes, Derek, in Dreaming of You, does do the deed with a prostitute that looks like Sarah. 

I think the problem is that the best and most established writers don’t always try to fight formula, and the new writers are willing to take a chance, and they make all sorts of newbie mistakes, and then eveyone thinks, I hate this plot point, when really they just hate the author’s newness.  And I run on and on and on.

Good point, Jen.  I also wonder whether an established author has built up a certain trust with her readership that newer authors may not have.  So when a new author pushes the boundaries, perhaps some readers aren’t as willing to *let her* bend those illusory rules as easily.  Certainly, I think when a plot point hits a personal hot button, it probably doesn’t matter how well the author handles it, but I do notice a certain merging or confusion of subjective and objective responses to books with certain button-pushing, envelope-pushing elements.

I don’t mind sex, on either party’s part, pre-relationship. I’m talking pre-emotional or physical intimacy, not after they’ve just met or something. Once they seem to be headed somewhere though, it gets kind of uncomfortable for me. I read one recently, can’t remember the name just now, but the hero sets out to seduce the heroine. He’s taking the slow approach, we’re talking weeks here, but initiates physical contact pretty early on. He makes it clear to her that there is no real relationship between them and that it’s strictly physical thing. He’s so turned on by her from the go, but determined to take it slow, that he’s having sex several times a week with some other woman to “take the edge off”. Sure, he’s fantasizing about the heroine the entire time, but that doesn’t really make me feel good about it, you know? I believe that he may have even been sexing up the other woman after having had sex with the heroine, but it’s not really clear.

What really bothers me is when the hero and the heroine have a conflict, split for a time, and the hero is out there doing anything that moves in his quest to either get over the heroine or keep the old equipment from getting rusty while the heroine either can’t even think about sex with another man or tries to move on, but ends up calling the new guy by the hero’s name.

Honestly, if the writer can convince me their relationship is stronger for it and that it wasn’t a mistake to stick together, I’ll give it a shot.

There are books that do it, and others that leave me wondering who would stay with the hero. I just need to be convinced that once I turn the last page, it is HEA, and they’re not going to deal with that bullshit again.

I happen to be reading Brenda Joyce’s Francesca Cahill series and in one of them not only does the hero—or IS he the hero?!—have sex with another woman, Francesca SPYS on them and totally gets off on it. Way to break the rules, Brenda!
I am one of those who doesn’t much care for depictions of sex outside of the main romantic relationship, but I actually do appreciate the fact that her heroines have very strong libidos which are not magically attuned to only one man.

Well, if it’s a rule then it’s often broken. How many books have I read that opened with the hero having sex with his mistress/random lover?

For me there’s nothing worse than a book that starts like this, even if the hero hasn’t met the heroine yet. I *know* the guy is not a virgin but I don’t want to see him having wild sex with a random woman (often a married woman too). Huge Turn Off.

For some reason the opening of a Suzanne Ennoch historical is still fresh in my mind. The hero is getting a blow job from his mistress at a ball. They’re kind of hidden behind a curtain IIRC. He surveys the room and the dancers and makes mundane comments while the woman is on her knees with his cock in her mouth. I knew from the start that this wasn’t a hero I wanted to read about.

Same for Liz Carlyle’s One Little Sin, where, in the prologue, we see our glorious hero having sex with a woman in the barn only to be caught by the irrate husband and having to run away.

As for the hero having sex with another woman after meeting the heroine…That’s a dealbreaker for me. The kind of deal-breaker that will make me close the book right then and there. Fidelity is high up there on my priority list when it comes to relationships. I know that in real life cheating and mental lusting happen rather often but I do not read romance to have a repeat of Real Life.

I forgot…

About Derek sleeping with the prostitue that looked like Sara in Dreaming of You…That actually worked for me. I mean the guy was desperate and tought he’d never see her again.

It’s different when the guy goes off to have an overdose of sex like in Lucia Grahame’s The Painted Lady. IIRC, he went off on a sex spree barely a few weeks after his marriage to the heroine. Granted the heroine had issues with sex. But her behavior and comment didn’t justify the hero’s actions, especially so soon after the wedding. It’s one thing to go relieve his hum… ache, it’s quite another to humiliate your wife with public orgies and the like.

That’s just me of course.

To each their own.

I got slammed for this in KARA’S CAPTAIN. In that book, the Captain of the title appears as a ghost…and while Kara fantasizes about him, she never sees any future with him. In the meantime, she has a friend-with-benefits that just might become her husband.

I got slammed because she doesn’t choose her friend for her lifetime partner. I got slammed because she doesn’t choose the ghost from the moment she laid eyes on him (even though she spends much of the book not really believing in his existance). I got slammed, mostly, because it reflects real life too much in that sometimes heroines have to make choices.

So I guess, from the reviews I got with this book, Yes…readers want fidelity…even if it’s fidelity to something the heroine doesn’t think is real. (grin)

For me, it’s all about the quality of the writing. Can you tell a good story that’s going to have the reader wanting to turn pages, staying with you until the end, and not flinging the book against the wall?  If so, you haven’t broken any rules.

This comment kind of belongs with the original rape post, but I read both posts amazed by the possibility of applying this idea to Richardson’s Clarissa (one of the works I’m writing my Master’s thesis on).

Can anyone out there tell me if there’s any scholarly work done on this topic?

I was a little freaked out by a scene in “Lady of the West” by Linda Howard. The heroine actually comes into the barn and sees the hero having sex with the tinkers “daughter.” He knows she is there and she actually watches for a while. She was married to someone else at the time, but it was pretty freaky for me. I’m not a real fan of that book and I haven’t really read any of her other stuff.

I do have a problem with a heroine who has never had ANY kind of sexual feelings, but as soon as she meets the hero she turns into a quivering pile of wet panties. *that sure is funny!* It just doesn’t seem real to me!

Nevertheless, its not a deal breaker for me if there is a previous relationship touched on. In some cases it can be important for character development. BUT, after physical contact is established I’m not really comfortable with outside humpty. This is just my own preference tho’ and I’d hate for everything to always be the same. That would just be boring!

We should break “the rules,” because once we stop the genre becomes stagnant. If there’s no commitment, the H/H can boink anyone they want IMO so long as it’s sufficiently motivated.

That being said, there is a line in the sand where if crossed the HEA becomes unbelievable. When the hero rapes the heroine or emotionally browbeats her, then that’s abusive behavior. If the heroine were your girlfriend, you would advise her to leave him. I don’t want my escapist fantasy to be about cruel men being rewarded for treating women poorly.

I’m willing to chalk the conventions of bodice rippers up to the time in which they were written, but in newer novels I think the hero who physically or emotionally abuses the heroine is taking the easy way out to building conflict.

Someone mentioned Kinsale, and I’ve loved her books. Her characters are truly effed up, damaged people, but the H&H don’t do things to each other that would destroy that person. Rather, that conflict is turned inward, making them even more damaged, so that the HEA is an even bigger payoff when they learn to forgive themselves. MaryJo Putney does this too with what she’s called her “M&M Heroes,” guys who had good experiences early on so they know what happiness is and mourn the loss of it. This means they browbeat themselves instead of the heroine. I think this is harder to write than characters projecting their problems onto other people, but makes for a better story.

In line with where Sarah was just going, I thought of Gabaldon’s Jamie, who was a virgin and Claire was the sexually experienced one of the couple—and in fact technically committed adultery.

The reason the adultery worked is that Claire believed she would never be able to return to her time, so her husband was in some way “dead.”

In one of the later novels when Claire and Jamie were separated by time (and space) they both have sex with others—Claire with her husband and Jamie with a virgin (he then gets her pregnant).

When reunited Claire chases Jamie with a farming implement upon learning about the child. So, I’m not really sure what the message is there except that the Magic of the Hoo-ha/Dong can’t transcend time-travel.

I also remember nearly tossing Outlander after the spanking scene. The whole “husband-as-disciplinarian” thing really bugs me.

Anyone-

If you were at a cocktail party-alone and you met a man, had a conversation, and you both walked away-1. not even imagining that you would see eachother again 2. not even liking the person-

If he went and slept with his long time girlfriend that night-you’d call it infedelity?

If there are men reading this? They are laughing their collective asses off.

The real life argument?  Come on.  Romances are fantasies.  I.e., you are much more likely to be divorced than have an HEA with a Navy SEAL.  All those law enforcement romances?  Ditto.

Alpha males?  Cretins in real life. 

Farting? belching? morning after breath?  No condoms?  The list could go on.

The Real Life Argument doesn’t really hold water with me.

The real life argument does hold water, if you’re writing comtemporary romances/women’s fiction that doesn’t have paranormal elements.  If it’s too unrealistic, you lose your reader that way—for my taste, you have to have a dash of reality to make your characters human and relatable.

If for an author, that dash of reality takes the form of his sleeping with a longtime mistress before realizing that he’s met someone who intrigues him more and it fits with the charaterization and the story as the author has set it up—then I’m good with that.

If there are men reading this? They are laughing their collective asses off.

Eva, I told my trainer the whole thing this morning and yep—laughed his ass off.

I think it depends largely on why one reads romance. If you are in a less-than-desirable relationship, or not in one at all, and read romance to fulfill fantasies of your ideal mate, and your idea of the ideal mates includes monogamy/loyalty/faithfulness, then no, you’re not going to want to see the lead male boink outside of his established relationship.

However, if you have more lenient ideas and ascribe to open relationships, polyamory, group sex, and/or if you read erotica/romance to fulfill kink fantasies, then you may very well enjoy seeing the lead male demonstrate his virility and skill in wooing multiple partners.

In two of my own novels, I feature a few menage scenes where the lead male or lead female enjoys relations with another partner—at the behest of their primary partner. I’ve been told these are the hottest love scenes in the books! In another novel of mine, the lead female messes around with another gentleman behind her boyfriends back. Yet she and her boyfriend have not agreed specifically on monogamy, and she does not actually have intercourse or hold any feelings for this other partner. In fact, her few moments of spontaneous indiscretion lead her to realize she truly cares for her boyfriend, and well I won’t give the plot away but let’s just say maybe he knew what she was doing all along anyway and manipulated events in his own favor.

With that being said, I’ve chosen to keep one lead male’s pre-relationship exploits off-camera, as I felt readers would not particularly care to see this particular gentleman with any other woman than his lead girly. Although he encourages her to get with other lovers while he watches, but well, that’s different. ;)

~ Katrina S.

The Real Life Argument doesn’t really hold water with me.

Then I respectfully suggest you stick to authors who write romance as fantasy and escapism. Not all of us do. And, according to what I’m reading here and elsewhere, there’s an audience for both kinds: the romantic fantasy and the more reality-based romantic fiction.

Which is the entire point of this discussion, from my perspective. There’s room for everything within the genre, and a readership for all flavors, so why must anyone tell an author “you can’t do that, it’s not romance”?

You, Jane, keep asking, here and on my blog, why I even bother to address this issue. This would be why.

But who is saying you can’t do that?  I guess that is what I don’t get.  If you want to write a certain way, then why don’t you?  That makes the most sense to me.

I think the romance genre IS changing, as are its readers, but slowly. Way back when it was unthinkable for a heroine to be anything other than a virgin when she meets her hero. Nowadays, depending upon the sub-genre, most readers find virgin heros and heroines unrealistic and unbelievable. I write primarily historical romance myself, so for the most part my heroines are virgins at the start of the story, but I have written a handful of contemporary pieces and not one of my heroines in those has been a virgin at the start of the story.

Of course for some, that’s part of the fantasy - that instantaneous spark, love at first sight thing.  Perhaps you only see each other, from across a crowded room, and though you haven’t spoken you refrain from contact with anyone else, knowing you’ve found “the one.” 

Let’s face it, infidelity and polyamory have been around since the dawn of time, and quite frankly unless you want your hero to be a bumbling clueless idiot in the sack, he needs to have had some experience, either off camera or on. I like to write about rakes and playboys who finally find “the one” who can settle them down. Sometimes their previous exploits are before the start of the book, sometimes they are during. Hell, one of my current WIPs, Chasing Heaven, the sequel to Leading Her to Heaven, begins with our hero in a deserted hallway trying to get it on with one of the local ladies, who is NOT his ultimate heroine. Another WIP, Shaded Destiny, begins with our hero banging everything with breasts because a fortune telling gypsy once told him a woman would save his soul, and he thinks the only way to know this special woman when he finds her is…well, up close and personal inspection.

I like to write my characters realistically, and some times that means showing them with partners OTHER than their ultimate intended. Have I been criticized for it? Of course. I’ve also been told my heroines are too fiesty, my characters too flawed (they shouldn’t have made that really stupid decision that forms the basis for the entire plot, you see), etc. You can’t please everyone.

Different readers have different tastes and different preferences.  I’ll never write a book that pleases every single person who reads it, and quite frankly, I’m not sure I want to.

-Kayleigh J.

Jane-I’m married to a real life Alpha, and he’s not a cretin. He would give you the shirt off his back, but hat doesn’t make him a non-alpha.

Matter of fact-he gets along so well with our corporate attny’s I tell him often he should cash in the chips and go to law school.

And the Non Reality arguement doesn’t wash with me. Characters/story’s HAVE to have basis in reality-especially emotions-or you wouldn’t invest in the conflict/characters what so ever.

I guess you didn’t read all the responses over at Selah’s blog because over there, someone actually said there were “RULES” that MUST be followed and to not follow them… well, then, you’re not writing a real romance and down that way lies madness or something to that effect.

Whatever.

I think there are plenty of authors who write stories that push envelopes, that break these so-called rules, that are every bit as worthy of the title of romance as the Magic HooHoo ones.  To say that they’re not, to me, is an insult to the author.

And Jane-there is a hotly debated rumor amongst authors that there is NO WAY you will be published (if you’re a newbie author) UNLESS you adhere to the rules. So that would be Rules=Publication.

I heartily agree with the concept of the fact that there is a reader for every different theme/character type/etc but only some are going to have mass appeal. 

So write what you want.  No one says you can’t write what you want. You may not be able to sell what you want to write or it might not be as commercially successful but an author can certainly write whatever she wants.

And Jane-there is a hotly debated rumor amongst authors that there is NO WAY you will be published (if you’re a newbie author) UNLESS you adhere to the rules. So that would be Rules=Publication

But isn’t that an entirely different argument? I.e., what to write to be commercially successful and what to write because you feel it is integral to your story? 

Because if you are writing for commercial success then yes, I think, by and large there are unwritten rules because of certain number of people prefer the magic hoo ha and what not.  I don’t know that I am one of them.  I’ll take anything that an author wants to give so long as the story is good.

But if you are talking what an author chooses to write for artistic integrity because you believe that having the onscreen sex scene between the hero and his mistress displays important shit, then, yeah, write whatever you want.  No person is preventing you from writing it. 

But to rail at the mass readership or the editors or the publishers or whatnot seems to be an entirely different argument between what a writer CAN do and what a writer SHOULD do because it depends on differing motivations and expectations and so forth.

I’m not trying to be offensive or antagonistic, I’m just trying to understand the argument.

Jane, you’re correct. Maybe our more “realistic” romances, in which men speak and act like men, won’t sell.

There’s a whole list of books right here in this comment thread - books people have named from bestselling authors, books they’ve enjoyed from authors who’ve gone on to sell again and again - that contradict the idea that grittier, more realistic romance won’t sell. But you could be right. Maybe that market will dry up tomorrow morning, and that list of authors will be out of a job.

Time will tell, no?

Selah - I have obviously offended you in some way and I sincerely apologize for whatever comment I made that was insulting to you.  I’ve always, always maintained that an author should write the best book she’s got in her and readers respond to that. 

My original point was what I stated earlier:  “Write what you want and if it sells, great and if it doesn’t, maybe you have to rethink some issues.”

I don’t know that we are arguing on the opposite side of the fence but I’ll bow out because I can see that I’m just being offensive and antagonistic which wasn’t my intent.

But to rail at the mass readership or the editors or the publishers or whatnot seems to be an entirely different argument between what a writer CAN do and what a writer SHOULD do because it depends on differing motivations and expectations and so forth.

I must’ve missed the railing. Can you point me to the railing? I do love a good, stiff rail.

Ahem.

An author wrote something. She sent it out for proofreading and critique. She got some negative feedback because some folks - other authors, a couple individual readers - didn’t like a particular plot point. They felt it went against the “rules” of romance.

I blogged about this, because I had an opinion about how the “rules” of romance change and shift with the times, and how we shouldn’t stifle ourselves according to what is likely to be out of fashion tomorrow.

No one is railing against readers. No one is railing against editors. A couple bloggers have an opinion about the “rules” and how they apply to romance and the process of writing it. They posted those opinions on blogs, and got some interest, and it’s generated what I think is valuable discussion.

Please don’t try to make this into another “those damned authors who don’t appreciate their readership” things. It’s not, and never has been, about that. And it’s old, already.

I’m done. Galley proofs to correct, Easter dinner to plan.

Have a happy, y’all.

The Real Life Argument doesn’t really hold water with me.

Then I respectfully suggest you stick to authors who write romance as fantasy and escapism. Not all of us do. And, according to what I’m reading here and elsewhere, there’s an audience for both kinds: the romantic fantasy and the more reality-based romantic fiction.

Maybe the problem is that while we often invoke the “real life argument” or its inverse (which is still the RLA just pitched in the opposite direction), we never really parse out what the actual relationshipS between Romancelandia and the Real World are.  Obviously there’s a relationship between the two, since we invoke it all the time, sometimes in the both directions for same issue (i.e. infidelity and forced seduction).  I know, for example, that when people argue that rape is “historically accurate” and therefore acceptable in Romance, I can barely contain my frustration.  But at the same time, would the device have such emotional impact in the genre if it didn’t have some connection to the real world realities for women? 

I wonder if we would do better to take apart some of the elements of the relationship. For example, emotional authenticity seems to play an important role in how readers respond to Romance.  So do subjective and objective reading orientations.  And then there’s the whole issue of genre expectations v. reader expectations.  And of course the dynamics change, depending on where a particular reader stands relative to a particular book. 

Perhaps the RLA will always be one that works both ways at once.  In a scenario like that in Eva’s book, it seems reasonable to argue that in a real world scenario, the guy’s actions would not be viewed as cheating.  But it seems equally valid to me to argue that this isn’t just any guy, he’s the “hero” of a Romance novel, and therefore has certain expectations attached to his character that come from the fact that we have to trust that he’s an appropriate partner for the heroine.  BOTH are true, IMO. 

And maybe that tension point, the fact that Romance fiction is both “of the world” and “separate from it,” is a big part of why it can reach such tremendous emotional pitch.  Even if its direction can be vastly different from one book to the next, from one reader to the next.  The intellectual in me would lovelovelove to unlock the complex dynamic between Romance and “the real world,” but the pure reader in me fears that solving the mystery might diminish my enjoyment of certain books.

Oh Jane, bless your heart, you haven’t offended me in the least. What we have here is a failure to communicate, that’s all.

We’re good. Enjoy your weekend. :)

I think there are plenty of authors who write stories that push envelopes, that break these so-called rules, that are every bit as worthy of the title of romance as the Magic HooHoo ones.  To say that they’re not, to me, is an insult to the author.

I’m still trying to figure out who said that Romances that break the illusory rules aren’t writing real Romance (cause if it’s supposed to be Jane, I just don’t see it.  At all.).

But in any case, as someone who loves to see “the rules” slashed, burned, broken, and left for dead by the side of the road (okay, maybe not all that—how about politely decapitated), I don’t think that readers who believe there are “rules” for the genre should be considered or treated as the enemy.  After all, isn’t the call merely for diversity?  Otherwise, the field becomes narrowed again, but this time through an equally illusory conception of diversity.

I’m still trying to figure out who said that Romances that break the illusory rules aren’t writing real Romance (cause if it’s supposed to be Jane, I just don’t see it.  At all.).

Wasn’t Jane—can’t remember who it was, precisely, but I know Jane came in after that particular argument was stated.  And it was over at Selah’s blog, not here.

I understand that when the responses begin flying fast and thick and between multiple blogs at that, that it’s easy to lose who said what, but personally, I’ve never said that anyone says that romance should follow rules is the enemy—all I’m saying is don’t tell me that what I’m writing isn’t a romance because it doesn’t follow those rules, because I might just have different standards.  In fact, I’ve said over and over, that there are all kinds of books for all kinds of readers and isn’t that a grand and glorious thing?

But isn’t that an entirely different argument? I.e., what to write to be commercially successful and what to write because you feel it is integral to your story?

It is, and it isn’t. It depends on what I consider success.

Some of the people think I am halfway to career suicide. The thing is-I’m apparently a masochist. :) It’s been proven to me through these discussions. I don’t do things the easy way, I’ve always been a rule breaker, I always go against the flow. And the universe has seen fit to bless me despite that slight character flaw. I try to be polite when I say no, that must be the ticket.

Robin, that was brilliant. And I think you will find more of an answer with forced seduction if you read some BDSM. You’ll see how it translates to ‘vanilla’ romance. My friend Eden Bradley’s book The Dark Garden is about to come out with Bantam. She not only was a lifestlyer, but a psych major and that plays a huge aspect in her story. I would almost call it a primer in it’s concept. But anyway, there are alot of similarities, and sometimes I think that writers ignorantly (I don’t mean ignorant in any way other than uninformed) tap into the power play of BDSM. (some other good BDSM titles are written by Joey Hill-again, she broaches the psychological aspect)

And Jane-there is a hotly debated rumor amongst authors that there is NO WAY you will be published (if you’re a newbie author) UNLESS you adhere to the rules. So that would be Rules=Publication.

If that is truly the case, then I don’t know how is Claiming the Courtesan was published by AVON.  Let’s see:  the heroine is not a virgin; she is a REAL courtesan who not only sells herself for money but gets these nifty contracts to protect her legal interests and the hero is the one who tells her that she should not be ashamed of being a woman who is ambitious and sexually passionate and goes after what she wants. 

Obviously, there are editors for whom “the rules” do apply, but there are others who are interested in pushing the boundaries.  I would hate to see authors censoring themselves before submission, because then it won’t matter WHAT the publishers will take, because what’s available from the self-censoring authors will be compromised right from the start.  OTOH, it may be the case that it’s more difficult to get an envelope pushing book published, which to me, at least, doesn’t warrant self-censorship, but a truly engaging book.  Because when you look at some of the books that have hit over the last few years—Passion by Lisa Valdez, Campbell’s CtC, Ward’s BDB series with all the homoerotic elements—the books have engaged a ton of interest, both positive and negative.  That’s what publishers want, yes?  Books with impact.  So my hope as a reader is that authors really go for it instead of holding back, and go for it with the best book you can write.

My take is different from yours, though, Robin. In a nutshell, I was discomfited by the scene in question because all I could think about was the discussion of rape here wherein someone pointed out that rape victims have orgasmed during the event and suffered much feelings of guilt and conflict as a result. Much like an abrasive comment or email in which the contest is lost behind the belligerent tone, I had a hard time moving past the decisions the author made, because they were somewhat traumatic to me as reader, to the point where I could decipher what she was trying to accomplish with the story.

I also found the trio of initial sex scenes traumatic, Sarah—but I thought they were supposed to be so, that we were supposed to see how whacked Justin was and how wrong he was and how complicated the whole dynamic between them was.  That Justin was trying to literally *force seduction* on Verity and we were supposed to understand—even if they were both too screwed up to get it fully—that you just can’t force seduction on anyone, nor can you force love, either.  And you can’t force them to accept the two sides of themselves, either (i.e. he wants her to be her true self: Verity + Soraya but is totally INSANE in how he wants to make that happen).  Because dominating Verity actually makes him feel worse, not better.  And Justin comes around to the place where he understands and articulates (numerous times) that there was absolutely no good excuse for what he did to Verity and that he was wrongwrongwrong (grovelgrovelgrovel).

OK, I bought CtC. Damn you, Amazon.

So, Sarah, what would you need to happen to enable the hero to have his happy ending?

If you were the author, and you had to make it happen, how would you do it?

Let’s cut to the marrow here.  Writers write to get published…and, consequently, to make money.  If you’re something of a heavy hitter with an established history of generating revenue, you can muscle against a whole lot of envelopes and get away with it.  The rest of us?  Fuck, we’re going to avoid those subjects our publishers have proscribed. 

I learned the hard (i.e., no income) way that swimming against the current—in terms of a publisher’s image and its readers’ expectations—shrivels your balls, and your puffed-up sense of artistic integrity, real fast.  When you have no well-heeled and supportive S.O. or professional position of your own to provide a financial safety net, you fucking play by the rules or sink.  That’s the long and the short of it.

Perhaps more to the point, if we’re to be brutally honest (and I am), nobody’s going to remember most of our scribblings a decade from now, anyway.  Hell, less than a decade in most cases.  I relinquished that “I’ll write what I want, by gum, and damn the torpedoes!” prima donna stance as soon as my ass was soundly kicked by reality.  So slap me and call me a whore, but I gotta live!

I think that no amount of groveling was going to restore him to any possibility of a believable happy ending, simply because he did too much damage. Regardless of the reasons behind his actions, he arrives at that place you describe, and for me as a reader it was too little, too late.

One of the reasons that the redemption of the hero is so tough to talk about, I think, is that there are a number of converging factors that all have to be taken into account simultaneously.  There’s the reader’s personal rubric for redemption points earned.  Then there’s the actual execution of said redemption in the book.  Then there’s the was the “victim” is written and her own character development, which, of course impinges on the first two.  Essentially, I can believe in Justin’s redemption but wish Campbell had forced him to reform more slowly (instead of the 100+ pages she gives him in the book) because IMO the second half of the book would have been much stronger.  But if that had happened, I can only imagine how the book would have been received (at this moment, there are like 3200 views of the CtC thread on AAR).  For you he may never have been redeemable.  I can completely understand that. 

Thinking about this, and about the rant and comments on Selah’s blog, I guess if comes down to whether I think a book is *thoughtful* or not.  I’m not a reader who trusts that all authors make all authorial decisions in a way that makes good sense such that I should just trust in their superior wisdom.  The mimetic character of Romance bodes against this, IMO.  In fact, one of the reasons I *generally* dislike the forced seduction scenario in Romance is because I think it’s often treated too cavalierly for my taste—either as mere titillation for the reader or as inconsequential for the characters involved.  My favorite book to pick on here is that Christina Dodd one, where the virgin heroine is FSed and within pages is acting the sexy dom to the hero.  Blech.  No, I think the temptation to push the envelope merely for the shock value is too high in some cases, as are the instances of motifs and character traits that lack thoughtful consideration.  What makes Campbell’s book different for me is that it feels very thoughtful.  And ironically, that—in connection to what I think are pretty strong writing skills—is what also may make the book so disturbing.

When you have no well-heeled and supportive S.O. or professional position of your own to provide a financial safety net, you fucking play by the rules or sink.

I agree and don’t. I don’t have to put food on my table with my writing. But I think that this is exactly why many authors will tell you not to quit your day job. Many authors work AND write.

And I may be a Pollyanna, but writing a great story-one that maybe bends the rules IS the book that will be around in 10 years.

I’ll give Whitney My Love as an example. Love it or hate it-it’s still around. And it’s not a story people talk about dispassionately.

If I knew going in a book was about cheating or infidelity, I’d probably pass on it and not give it a chance.  As many here have already said, fidelity is important to me.

If I picked up a book and my “hero” was having sex with someone else from the beginning, I’d probably not care for it.  But it’s likely I’d just skip ahead a few pages and keep reading.

And despite my feelings about cheating and infidelity, I’ve picked up romances that included them and still enjoyed those books and loved and forgiven those heroes.

In many ways, to me it’ll depend on the story, often the hero’s backstory, as to whether I can “forgive” and value the hero or just toss the book (and remember not to buy more by that author without some guarantee that she doesn’t trod all over my tender heart all over again *g*).

I’ve also read - and loved - polyamory, although it’s generally fallen under the heading of erotic romance, which I’ve come to *expect* to push boundaries.

So how’s that for a wishy-washy answer?!

~What’s the point.  What does sex with a mistress show us?  That the guy’s an asshole?  That he has a really strong libido and therefore is worthy of the alpha male designation? 

The romance is about two people getting together and unless there is a pretty good reason to include a sex scene between the hero and his mistress, I don’t see what the point is.~

In reading through some of the comments—and boy, lots of them—I stopped here because this comment exactly mirrored my thoughts when reading the column.

I don’t care if the hero plugs his magic hoo-haw into another socket—BEFORE he’s in relationship with the heroine. That’s my personal taste. But if we’re going to see him having sex with someone else before, is there a point to it—other than WHEE!! Does it move the story along, add to character, say something important about the hero, fold into the plot?

And how well did the writer make it work?

If the answer’s no, it didn’t really do any of those things, then imo the writer didn’t make it work. And there’s no point in it whatsoever.

We—writers and readers—often tend to be too black and white. You CAN’T do that, you MUST do this. When really, it all just depends on the execution—and then the individual reader’s response to it.

What Nora and the others said. Does seeing the hero boinking other women have *anything* to do with the plot, other than to show how “manly” he is?

Actually, the main reason this bugs me is because most authors go *way* out of their way to tell us that the heroine hasn’t had sex in years. Seriously. It seems that every other contemporary out there *has* to tell the reader (either in the first chapter, or in the blurb on the back) how *long* it’s been since the heroine got any.

What is this? “She hasn’t had sex in THREE YEARS! The next best thing to being a virgin!” Like she’s a “gently used” car for sale?

I don’t want to know how long it’s been since the heroine got laid, so don’t tell me. It’s not that important. I prefer books where I can imagine the hero/heroine as being as experienced as I want.

(If it sounds as if I hate virginal heroines, I do. Mainly because I feel as if I have been force fed them for too many years.+

JMM - I love it.  Gently used!  I’ve noticed that trend too, and to bring it a bit back to the current discussion, if it pertains to something or other in particular, fine.  But often it does seem tacked on to prove the heroine’s still 30% virtuous or some such.

“Let’s cut to the marrow here.  Writers write to get published…and, consequently, to make money.”

Uh, no.

If I’d been writing for the money, I’d have written entirely different books.  I LIKE the money, don’t get me wrong, but anybody who writes for money, Samuel Johnson notwithstanding, isn’t going to put story first and that’s a huge mistake.  If you write with one eye on the market, you’ll never take chances, you’ll start second-guessing your story instincts, and you’ll write dull fiction. 

Thank you.  Had to get that out of my system.

I caught a lot of grief for Nell sleeping with Riley (although not as much as Nell kissing Suze), but what really brought the pitchforks out was J.T. sleeping with Althea in Don’t Look Down.  He’d just met Lucy, for heaven’s sake, I didn’t seem him forsaking all others on the basis of one meeting, even if she did have a glittering hooha. 

I’ve got a book I’m working on now where the hero sleeps with about twelve different women before he commits to the heroine. It’s because I love the hate mail.  Makes me feel all special.  Oh, and that’s the kind of guy he is so anything else would be a character violation. 

Really, not writing for the money here.

Thank you, Ms. Crusie. I feel all validated and stuff. :)

Ditto Selah.

Personally, I get bored with books that slap on the magic chastity belts as soon as the protagonists meet the One Twoo Loves. Mind you, being one of those kinky poly people, I don’t believe in *one* twoo love necessarily, anyway.

I’m also interested in the number of people here who characterise sex with anyone other than the heroine as “infidelity” - if they’ve just met, who he he supposed to be faithful to? Since most sexually-active people these days have “pasts” (whether or not you’re monogamous), it seems to be artificial for someone to suddenly become all virginal (unless, of course, it’s a period novel).

Anyway, I too am waiting for that new genre of romance book, where people can have more than one romance, and there isn’t any “cheating” going on. *sigh*

Oh, and Mary-Janice Davison’s books have the hero shagging (in an orgy!) before they get together. I can’t remember whether or not the heroine does, but if not, it’s an interesting double-standard. And, of course, vampires are sluts. :-)